Social comparison on Facebook: Motivation, affective consequences, self-esteem, and Facebook fatigue

Highlights

• Investigates multiple social comparison motives collectively in real-life context.

• Low self-esteem (LSE) related to more social comparison for all motivation types.

• LSE individuals perceived increased levels of social comparison on Facebook.

• Self-esteem served as a moderator between motivation and affect.

• New phenomenon, Facebook fatigue, distilled in empirical social comparison work.

Abstract

A growing body of research examines social comparison on Facebook, a social media environment where users can present optimized versions of themselves. To grasp the complexity of social comparison on Facebook, the researchers followed Helgeson and Mickelson’s (1995) functional approach, focusing on motives (i.e., self-enhancement, self-improvement, self-evaluation, and self-destruction) rather than fixed targets (i.e., downward, upward, and unilateral comparison) of social comparison. Social comparison motivations were explored in relation to self-esteem and affective consequences of comparison. A college-student sample (N = 267) reported engaging in social comparison frequently on Facebook and low-self-esteem (LSE) individuals were more likely than those with higher self-esteem (HSE) to compare themselves to others on Facebook for self-evaluation, self-enhancement, self-improvement, and self-destruction motives. Moreover, LSEs perceived increased levels of social comparison on Facebook, although the relationship between self-esteem and actual social comparison behavior proved non-significant. Significant moderating effects of self-esteem were observed in the relationship between motivation and affect. A self-improvement motive produced greater positive affect among HSEs compared to LSEs, while self-enhancement motives engendered positive affect more prominently among LSEs compared to HSEs. The paper also begins to distill a popular phenomenon, Facebook fatigue, in social comparison empirical work.

Introduction

According to the Pew Research Center, Facebook continues to be the most prevalent social networking space for Americans, with 72% of online adults using the platform in 2015 (Duggan, 2015). As of March 31, 2016, Facebook reported 1.65 billion monthly active users and an average of 1.09 million daily active users (Facebook, 2016). On average, 989 million mobile users access Facebook daily from a mobile device, while 1.65 billion users check Facebook actively on a monthly basis. Every minute, 684,478 pieces of content—including photos, status updates, and comments—are shared on Facebook (Bennett, 2012). Of online younger adults, ages 18–29, 82% use Facebook (Duggan, 2015) and 50% of 18–24 year olds log onto Facebook when they wake up, with 28% checking Facebook before they get out of bed (Pring, 2012).

Facebook provides both an interesting and unique venue to study social comparison, the process of developing subjective assessments of one's opinion and ability by making comparisons to other persons (Festinger, 1954). As a computer-mediated communication (CMC) environment, Facebook diverges from traditional face-to-face contexts examined in past social comparison research; the affordances of the social media site may thereby impact social comparison activity and consequences. Considering the breadth of self-relevant multimedia content that can be both displayed and accessed on Facebook, the site may afford abundant opportunities for social comparison (Haferkamp and Krämer, 2011, Vogel et al., 2014).

Social comparison on Facebook may emerge from a tendency of individuals, particularly those highly capricious and neurotic, to present idealized versions of themselves (Seidman, 2013), leading several researchers to characterize communication on the social media platform as hyperpersonal (Gonzales and Hancock, 2011, Underwood et al., 2011, Wang et al., 2010). According to the hyperpersonal model (Walther, 1996), textual and asynchronous features of CMC afford the user advantages over face-to-face interactions, thereby facilitating rich interpersonal communication surpassing traditional face-to-face exchanges. The model argues CMC interaction becomes more desirable because the sender can communicate social information in a controlled environment, thereby constructing an optimized presentation of self in the absence of physical interaction (Walther, 1996).

On Facebook, users can craft messages in the form of status updates or comments considered optimal for self-presentation. Facebook posts tend to be about positive events and good feelings rather than negative events and bad feelings (Denti et al., 2012). Although Facebook contains visual content such as photos or videos, content can be selectively presented to feature the self in the most favorable manner (Gonzales & Hancock, 2011). Posts garnering unfavorable impressions can be edited or deleted. Unflattering photos or videos can be untagged or the user can ask the Facebook member to remove the photo or video from the site. As a result, Facebook functions as a hyperpersonal social environment, a platform where everyone gets the opportunity to put his or her best proverbial foot forward.

Moreover, Facebook may make social comparison more efficient; users can access a world of optimized selves simply by logging on. Forty-five percent of Facebook users check the site multiple times a day (Duggan, Ellison, Lampe, Lenhart, & Madden, 2015), with Smartphone users checking Facebook an average of 14 times a day (Subbaraman, 2013). Facebook also offers various tools to search, observe, and make comments about the profiles of others. An individual with a certain social comparison target (i.e., an individual) in mind, for example, can conduct a simple search on Facebook rather than seeking out an offline interaction. In sum, Facebook not only creates an environment of optimized selves, but also offers opportunities to access other optimized selves at a faster rate.

Given users’ tendency to present themselves in favorable ways on Facebook, Chou and Edge (2012) found frequent Facebook users believed others were happier and had better lives compared their own and agreed to a lesser extent that life was fair. Similarly, Mehdizadeh (2010) reported Facebook activity to be significantly and negatively correlated with self-esteem. More recent work pointing to positive associations among Facebook use, social comparison frequency, and negative affect after comparison (Feinstein et al., 2013, Lee, 2014, Locatelli et al., 2012) has led researchers to take a closer look at social comparison practices on the social networking site.

The current manuscript aims to delve further into the complex nature of social comparison on Facebook by addressing four objectives. First, we attempt to explain inconsistent findings in social comparison literature by following Helgeson and Mickelson’s (1995) functional approach. We believe a possible reason for conflicting results is that a number of previous studies assume a straightforward match-up between social comparison motives and respective targets (i.e., self-evaluation motivation for similar comparison targets, self-improvement for upward targets, and self-enhancement for downward targets) and thus overlook the multiplex motives characterizing social comparison behavior. Thus, we use Helgeson and Mickelson’s (1995) functional approach, focusing on motives (i.e., self-enhancement, self-improvement, self-evaluation, and self-destruction) of social comparison, rather than the targets of social comparison (i.e., downward, upward, and similar). To date, researchers have yet to examine the relationship among motivation, esteem, and affect variables in the context of social comparison on social media.

Second, we believe that social comparison motive and behaviors can elicit differential psychological consequences depending on individual differences. Thus, we examine the moderating effects of self-esteem to determine if systematic differences between individuals with low and high self-esteem can impact how one feels after comparing oneself to another on Facebook.

Third, we attempt to illuminate a ‘big picture’ of social comparison by investigating multiple social comparison motives collectively rather than separately. That is, instead of focusing on one motivation type, we test the effect of four social motivation types (i.e. self-enhancement, self-improvement, self-evaluation, and self-destruction) concurrently to examine each comparison motivation in the context of the other three. Our final objective is to begin to distill a popular phenomenon, a term we refer to as Facebook fatigue, in empirical social comparison work. We want to understand whether or not the interaction of an individual's social comparison motivation, self esteem, and affect leads to a desire to reduce Facebook use. Each of the objectives will be developed in the following sections.

According to social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954), humans evaluate abilities and opinions by comparison to others when ‘objective, non-social’ means of comparison are not available. The central tenets of the theory hold that we compare ourselves with those who are similar in ability or opinion for the purposes of self-evaluation (similar comparison). Individuals also maintain a ‘unidirectional drive upward,’ a desire to boost ability, and may seek to improve the self by comparing to superior others (upward comparison; Festinger, 1954, Wood, 1989). Self-enhancement prompts us to compare ourselves to those we perceive as less fortunate in order to feel better about ourselves (downward comparison; Wills, 1981).

Despite what appears to be a straightforward match-up between motives (self-evaluation, self-improvement, self-enhancement) and respective targets (similar, upward, downward), extant research reveals a complex relationship between motivation for and targets of social comparison. Wood (1989) argued each self-comparison motive is not confined to one specific target. For example, individuals motivated by self-improvement may compare to superior others (upward comparison) to learn what to do, but also to inferior others to figure out what not to do (downward comparison). Taylor and Lobel (1989) demonstrated an individual predilection to engage in downward comparison to enhance self-esteem but also to affiliate with upward contacts to enhance motivation and hope; in both directions (upward and downward comparison), the motivation is self-enhancement.

Due to the complicated nature of social comparison, Helgeson and Mickelson (1995) argue, the tendency of past social comparison research to study only one motivation type in a single study presents problems. Contending that people engage in social comparison behavior for a variety of reasons, they suggest studying social comparison based on a range of motives (e.g., self-enhancement, self-improvement, self-evaluation) rather than targets of social comparison (i.e., downward, upward, and similar). In other words, motivations can reveal more about social comparison behaviors than respective targets. Helgeson and Mickelson (1995) thereby elected to use functional analysis, offering a motivational basis of attitudes (Katz, 1960), to better understand the complexity of social comparison.

Social comparison research also attempts to examine emotions elicited after comparison. For example, Wheeler and Miyake (1992) found positive affect to increase after downward comparisons, while negative affect arose from upward comparisons. The researchers were puzzled by a general tendency for individuals to engage in upward comparison rather than downward comparison despite the negative affect ensuing from upward comparison. They conjectured upward comparisons may produce negative affect but simultaneously trigger perceptions of personal control and hopefulness. Collins (2000) suggested individuals compare themselves upwardly in order to find similarity with superior targets. Concluding “they are among the better ones” (2000, p. 170) leads individuals to experience increased positive affect. Correspondingly, Lockwood and Kunda (1997) found comparison with superstars (upward comparison) inspired a desire to enhance the self, but only when the superstar's success was viewed to be attainable.

In all, research on the emotions arising from social comparison in any direction remains inconclusive (Suls, Martin, & Wheeler, 2002). Exposure to someone who is inferior can lead to either positive or negative evaluations because such exposure suggests that one's status is relatively advantaged but could decline. Relatedly, exposure to someone who is superior can lead to either positive or negative evaluations because such exposure communicates one's status is relatively disadvantaged but could improve.

Considerable social comparison research examines self-esteem as a factor influencing post-comparison affect. Some studies (Wheeler & Miyake, 1992) observe individuals with high self-esteem (HSEs) to be more inclined to seek self-enhancement through downward comparisons compared to those with low self-esteem (LSEs). A dominant body of literature, however, demonstrates the opposite pattern. Wills (1981) suggested LSEs engage in more downward comparisons for the purposes of self-enhancement: comparing oneself to a worse-off other can help an individual feel better. Wills’ downward comparison theory receives support from the seminal work of Aspinwall and Taylor (1993), who examined self-esteem as a variable moderating the relationship between a social comparison target and affect following comparison. LSEs in whom a negative mood had been induced tended to engage in downward comparison to enhance subjective well-being; following a downward comparison, LSEs reported an increase in positive mood as well as more favorable self-evaluations and expectations for success. The caveat to the findings was that the relationship was observed only when a negative mood had been induced; for LSEs in whom a positive mood had been induced, exposure to downward comparison was not uplifting.

More recent social comparison research on body image (Jones & Buckingham, 2005) also reveals self-esteem to operate as a moderating variable for social comparison effects. When making comparisons to an unattractive female, LSEs reported higher body esteem than when comparing to an attractive female, favoring downward comparisons. Conversely, HSEs reported lower body esteem when making comparisons to an unattractive female compared to an attractive female, favoring upward comparisons. Results confirm Mussweiler's selective accessibility model (2003), demonstrating that LSEs feel better about themselves by comparing themselves to a dissimilar standard (contrast effect). HSEs exhibited a tendency to feel better after comparison to a similar standard (assimilation affect). The findings compel further empirical inquiry into the role of self-esteem as a moderating variable in social comparison.

We postulate the target of social comparison depends on an individual's level of self-esteem. Given the hyperpersonal nature of Facebook as well as users' tendency to believe others are happier and possess better lives (Chou & Edge, 2012), upward comparison may occur more frequently than downward comparison. Vogel et al. (2014) found frequent users of Facebook engaged in upward comparison to a greater extent than downward comparison.

The nature of social comparison motivation, however, may differ across Facebook users. Although results are mixed, social comparison literature generally contends that LSEs engage in downward comparison to feel better about themselves by comparing to worse-off others (self-enhancement), while HSEs compare themselves with better-off others to improve the self (self-improvement; see Wills, 1981, Aspinwall and Taylor, 1993, Jones and Buckingham, 2005). Thus, we hypothesize LSEs will visit Facebook with a self-enhancement motivation, while HSEs will log on to the social media site with a self-improvement motivation. Moreover, we hypothesize that social comparison motives will not produce a uniform affect among individuals. Instead, in accordance with the selective accessibility model (Mussweiler, 2003), a self-improvement motive will produce greater positive affect among HSEs compared to LSEs, while self-enhancement will engender positive affect more prominently among LSEs compared to HSEs.

H1: On Facebook, LSEs will be more likely to engage in social comparison for the motive of (a) self-enhancement, while HSEs will be more inclined to engage in social comparison for the purpose of (b) self-improvement.

H2: On Facebook, a self-improvement motive for social comparison will produce greater positive affect among HSEs compared to LSEs, while a self-enhancement motive will engender positive affect more prominently among LSEs compared to HSEs.

Along with self-enhancement and self-improvement, the current study probes into the relationship among self-esteem and two additional social comparison motivations. Social comparison literature lacks clear and consistent findings describing the impact of self-esteem on the motive of self-evaluation, considered a similar or lateral comparison. Festinger (1954) posits the desire to evaluate the self is innately human; therefore, in the absences of objective, non-social criteria for evaluation, “people evaluate their opinions and abilities by comparison respectively with the opinions and abilities of others” (p. 118). Presumably, comparing oneself to a similar other to assess how one ‘measures up’ would be a tendency of both HSEs and LSEs.

Beyond self-evaluation, Helgeson and Mickelson’s (1995) study is exceptional in its examination of a social comparison motivation for self-destruction. Defined as a motive to confirm the expectation that things will get worse, a self-destruction motive was found only among LSEs. Self-destruction can be perceived as a desire to fulfill a negative prophecy about the self through social comparison. Regarding self-evaluation and self-destruction motives for comparison, the following question emerges:

RQ1: How does self-esteem influence other social comparison motivations (i.e., self-evaluation and self-destruction) on Facebook?

Social comparison, affect, and self-esteem may work in concert to diminish intentions to use Facebook, a notion known in popular culture as Facebook fatigue. A Pew study found 61% of Facebook users had voluntarily taken a break from the social media site—9% attributed the break to gossip, negativity, conflict, and drama (Rainie, Smith, & Duggan, 2013). Popular news media outlets such as CNN (Kelly, 2013), the Financial Times (Cookson, 2013), and Forbes (Bercovici, 2013) use the term “Facebook fatigue” in articles reporting the study. Beyond the Pew study, Facebook fatigue has received little empirical attention—accordingly, this study attempts to examine the concept as a potential psychosocial outcome of social comparison on Facebook among college students.

RQ2: Do social comparison motivations influence Facebook fatigue? If so, how do the effects differ depending on the level of self-esteem?