Testing the dimensional comparison theory: When do students prefer dimensional comparisons to social and temporal comparisons?
Students compare their achievement in a subject with their classmates’ achievements (social comparison), their own prior achievements (temporal comparison), and their achievements in other subjects (dimensional comparison), which can each be better (upward comparison), equal (lateral comparison), or worse (downward comparison). Prior research has investigated the impact of different comparison motivations on the prevalence of social and temporal comparisons, but no study has examined the same for dimensional comparisons yet. The present study closes this gap: A total of 605 German high school students were presented with four situations, in which a fictitious student receives the same objective feedback for an exam in a certain subject, but is motivated either to evaluate, to enhance, to improve, or to differentiate himself. For each comparison motivation, the participants judged how likely the fictitious student was to draw dimensional, social, and temporal upward, lateral, and downward comparisons. As a central result, dimensional comparisons in all directions had the highest prevalences under the self-differentiation motivation. In contrast, the prevalences of dimensional comparisons were relatively low under the other three motivations. This finding complements the recently developed dimensional comparison theory. For the first time, we could empirically show that dimensional comparisons primarily serve self-differentiation motivations.
KeywordsDimensional comparison theory Social comparison theory Temporal comparison theory Self-differentiation Comparison motivation Comparison motive
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Biernat, M., & Eidelman, S. (2007). Standards. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (Vol. 2, pp. 308–333). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Eccles, J. S., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J. L., et al. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motivation (pp. 75–146). San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
- IBM. (2012). IBM SPSS Statistics (version 184.108.40.206 for Windows) [computer software]. Armonk, NY: IBM.Google Scholar
- Möller, J., Helm, F., Müller-Kalthoff, H., Nagy, N., & Marsh, H. (2015). Dimensional comparisons and their consequences for self-concept, motivation, and emotion. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International enceclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (2nd ed., pp. 430–436). Oxford: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Möller, J., & Köller, O. (1997). Leistungs- und geschlechtsbezogene Vergleiche in der Schule [Achievement and gender related comparisons at school]. Empirische Pädagogik [Empircial Pedagogy], 12, 119–131.Google Scholar
- Möller, J., & Köller, O. (1998). Dimensionale und soziale Vergleiche nach schulischen Leistungen [Dimensional and social comparisons of academic achievements]. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie [Journal of Developmental Psychology and Educational Psychology], 30, 118–127.Google Scholar
- Mussweiler, T., Rüter, K., & Epstude, K. (2006). The why, who, and how of social comparison: A social-cognition perspective. In S. Guimonde (Ed.), Social comparison and social psychology: Understanding cognition, intergroup relations, and culture (pp. 33–54). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Trautwein, U., & Möller, J. (2016). Self-concept: Determinants and consequences of academic self-concept in school contexts. In A. A. Lipnevich, F. Preckel, & R. D. Roberts (Eds.), Psychosocial skills and school systems in the 21st century: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 187–214). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- Wheeler, L., & Suls, J. (2005). Social comparison and self-evaluations of competence. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 566–578). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar