Imagine logging into social media after having a great day—only to see a friend announce a big promotion, an old classmate post photos from a luxury vacation, and a well-dressed coworker out to dinner with your boss. Suddenly, your day feels a little less satisfying.

We rarely evaluate ourselves in a vacuum. Instead, we look to the people around us to figure out if we’re on the right track. Social comparison theory helps explain this tendency, suggesting that when clear benchmarks are missing, we use others as a frame of reference.¹

According to this theory, social comparisons generally fall into two categories:

• Upward Comparisons: We evaluate ourselves against someone we perceive as better off, more successful, or more skilled. 
• Downward Comparison: We compare ourselves to someone we see as worse off, less skilled, or facing greater challenges. 

Upward comparisons can motivate growth and goal-setting, but may also trigger envy or self-doubt, especially if the gap feels unreachable. Meanwhile, downward comparisons can boost self-esteem and offer reassurance in uncertain situations, but may also lead to complacency, judgment, or a distorted sense of superiority. While there’s no prescribed formula, research generally suggests a balance of the two directions might be the way to go.²

When evaluating ourselves, we tend to compare ourselves with people who are similar to us in meaningful ways, like background, goals, or abilities. These “similar others” form our reference group, making comparisons more psychologically relevant and impactful. For example, a college student is more likely to compare themselves to classmates than to a Nobel Prize-winning researcher. The relevance of the reference group shapes whether a comparison feels motivating as we look toward where we want to be, or discouraging as we consider how far we’ve come.

Social comparison shapes how people think, feel, and act across many areas of life—including work, relationships, money, health, and social media. The theory is also widely used in disciplines like psychology, education, marketing, and organizational science.

Social Comparison: The mental process through which people evaluate their own opinions and abilities by comparing themselves to others. 

Reference Group: A social group used as a standard for evaluating one’s own traits, abilities, or beliefs. Comparisons tend to be most impactful when the reference group shares relevant characteristics like background or goals.

Self-Evaluation Maintenance (SEM) Model: A framework to explain how people regulate their self-esteem when faced with threatening social comparisons within their close social network. SEM suggests individuals may distance themselves or alter the relationship to protect how they feel about themselves.

Opinion Influence: The external social cues that validate or challenge a personal belief. Comparing opinions helps individuals adjust their views or gain confidence through social consensus.

Unidirectional Drive Upward: The motivational impetus to improve caused by a comparison to a slightly better-performing other. This upward orientation can drive growth, but may also lead to discouragement.

Evaluation Motive: An inherent drive in individuals to evaluate their opinions and abilities when they lack objective standards for comparison. This internal motivation sets the social comparison process in motion.

Before formally introducing social comparison theory, psychologist Leon Festinger was already exploring how people form and change their opinions through informal communication. In a 1950 paper, he argued that people seek agreement from others to reduce uncertainty and reinforce their own views.³ From an evlutionary perspective, this tendency likely served as a social survival tool to help individuals stay attuned to shifting dynamics and avoid isolation.

Festinger’s early work on social influence laid the foundation for him to introduce social comparison theory in 1954, highlighting the human need for shared understanding and the tendency to look to others for clarity. He proposed that individuals have an inherent drive to evaluate their opinions and abilities. When objective standards are unavailable, people turn to others—especially those who are similar—to gauge how well they are doing.

In the decades that followed, several scholars expanded Festinger’s original theory. Thomas Wills, a psychologist known for his work in health and social psychology, proposed the concept of downward comparison in 1981, extending social comparison theory to explain how comparing oneself to those worse off could enhance self-esteem and aid emotional coping.⁴

Later in the same decade, Abraham Tesser developed the self-evaluation maintenance (SEM) model, which explains how people handle social comparisons within close social circles to maintain or enhance their self-identity and relationships.⁵ According to Tesser, a friend's success in an area personally relevant to us can threaten our self-esteem, prompting defensive strategies such as distancing to feel better about our comparative position.

More recent research quantified how common social comparisons actually are in everyday life. Psychologist Amy Summerville found that up to 12% of people’s thoughts involve comparisons, underscoring that social comparison isn't occasional but an embedded cognitive process shaping daily experience.⁶

With the rise of social media, social comparison theory gained renewed attention. Modern studies show that online environments intensify upward comparisons, often distorting self-perception and negatively affecting mental health, including reduced self-esteem and increased anxiety.⁷ Today, the theory informs fields ranging from childhood development and education to marketing and workplace dynamics, highlighting our persistent tendency to define ourselves through others.

Leon Festinger

A pioneering social psychologist in the 1950s who introduced social comparison theory, which laid the groundwork for his other influential theory, cognitive dissonance. Both theories reflect his broader interest in how people resolve uncertainty and seek internal consistency. Festinger was a professor at several prestigious universities, including the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Stanford University, and remains among the most cited psychologists in history.

Thomas Wills

A psychologist best known for his 1981 development of downward comparison theory, which extended social comparison theory into the realm of emotional coping. Wills conducted influential research at the University of Hawaii and the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in health and developmental psychology, with a focus on adolescent behavior and social relationships. His work on substance use and stress positioned social comparison as a key factor in understanding both motivation and resilience.¹⁵

Abraham Tesser

A social psychologist who developed the self-evaluation maintenance (SEM) model in the late 1980s, extending social comparison theory into the realm of close personal relationships. Tesser spent much of his academic career at the University of Georgia, where his work shaped how researchers understand identity, self-esteem, and emotional regulation through comparison. His insights help explain not only how we respond to others’ success, but also why we may avoid difficult conversations when comparison threatens a relationship, as seen in phenomena like The MUM Effect.

Social comparison theory profoundly shapes our understanding of human behavior across individual, social, and institutional levels. By highlighting our tendency to assess ourselves relative to others, the theory has influenced diverse fields such as psychology, education, economics, and technology.

Social Media and Digital Culture

The pervasive use of social media has intensified social comparisons, particularly upward comparisons. Curated images of success and happiness online create unrealistic standards, potentially distorting self-perceptions and fueling mental health issues like depression, anxiety, and negative body image. Author Steven Furtick captures this idea effectively in his famous quote: “We compare our behind-the-scenes to everyone else’s highlight reel.”⁸

Beyond the emotional impact of not stacking up, social comparisons often shape how people craft their online identities. Many users feel pressure to meet the standards they see, prompting them to filter their lives, edit their appearances, or pursue achievements that don’t always reflect their true values. In fact, a 2015 study showed that 7.5% of Facebook users had a large gap between their true self and their Facebook persona.⁹ This constant calibration to others can erode authenticity and deepen the sense of falling behind, which fuels even more unrealistic standards and upward comparisons. In turn, this pressure often leads people to curate or exaggerate their online lives—further reinforcing the cycle of inauthenticity and unreachable expectations.

Workplace Dynamics and Performance

In professional settings, social comparisons shape how employees view their own performance and place within the team. Seeing a colleague succeed can spark motivation, clarify expectations, and drive goal-setting. But in high-pressure environments, those same comparisons can trigger imposter syndrome, disengagement, or even resentment, especially when recognition feels inconsistent or opaque.

Whether comparison becomes constructive or corrosive often depends on the level of psychological safety within a team. In environments where people feel safe to take risks, ask questions, and acknowledge mistakes, comparison is more likely to foster learning and collaboration. But when the stakes feel high and support is low, the drive to measure up can quietly undermine trust, morale, and long-term performance.

Economic and Consumer Behaviors

Social comparisons strongly influence how people spend, save, and signal value in the marketplace. When consumers observe what others have—or appear to have—they often adjust their own choices to match perceived norms or trends. This tendency to “keep up” can lead to a distorted sense of need.

Marketers frequently capitalize on this instinct by crafting aspirational branding and lifestyle cues that encourage upward comparison. Luxury goods, influencer marketing, and curated advertising all reinforce the idea that success is visible—and thus, purchasable. Though social comparison can drive consumption, it also fuels economic inequality and chronic dissatisfaction, as the goalposts of “enough” are constantly shifting and impossible for most to achieve.

Social comparison theory has significantly influenced psychological research, yet it has also faced critiques and undergone revisions over time. Scholars have questioned its assumptions, scope, and applicability in light of evolving understandings of human behavior and the rise of digital media.

Objective Standards Don’t Always Matter

Festinger’s original theory emphasized that social comparisons normally occur when objective standards are unavailable. But later research suggests that even when people do have access to objective benchmarks—like test scores or performance metrics—they still rely heavily on how they compare to others. In other words, social context may matter more than absolute performance.

In a 1997 study, psychologist William Klein found that people’s emotional and behavioral responses were shaped more by how their performance compared to peers than by the actual quality of their performance.¹⁰ Participants who received negative social comparison feedback—even with objectively “good” results—still experienced lower motivation and self-regard. This challenges a foundational assumption of the theory and points to the emotional weight social comparison carries, even in the presence of clear standards.

Too Rational, Too Narrow

Social comparison theory assumes that people engage in comparison primarily to evaluate their own opinions or abilities. But in practice, comparisons often serve other psychological purposes—like regulating emotions, reinforcing group identity, or even protecting one’s ego. Instead of seeking accurate self-knowledge, people sometimes compare themselves selectively to maintain optimism or avoid discomfort.¹¹ 

A more strategic use of comparison aligns with Festinger’s later theory of cognitive dissonance, which proposes that individuals are motivated to reduce the discomfort of conflicting beliefs or behaviors. Comparisons, then, serve more than truth-seeking by functioning as tools for resolving internal conflict and reinforcing preferences. This broader function of comparison challenges Festinger’s original framing, suggesting that the theory is too narrowly focused on rational self-evaluation and doesn’t reflect the many ways comparison is used to manage emotion and identity. More than half a century later, scholars like Kamarova et al continue to expand and revise social comparison theory to reflect the complexity of modern life.¹²

From Deliberate to Automatic

Social comparison theory originally described comparison as something we do on purpose to determine where we stand. But in today’s digital world, putting ourselves up to others often happens without us even noticing. Just scrolling through social media—past photos, comments, or follower counts—can spark a comparison before we’re fully aware of it.

Some researchers argue that these environmental prompts shift comparison from a motivated, intentional process to a reactive one.⁶ Users don’t necessarily want to compare—they’re just exposed to content that makes it nearly impossible not to. This raises questions about whether the original model accounts for how deeply external stimuli can shape, or even hijack, the comparison process in modern contexts.

Workplace Performance and Peer Comparison

A study of over 250 employees in Chinese enterprises found that workers who frequently compared themselves to peers tended to perform better on the job.¹³ These comparisons—especially upward ones—motivated employees to improve their skills and pursue promotions. However, the impact wasn’t universally positive; this depended on how individuals perceived their standing and whether their environment encouraged collaboration or competition. 

In environments where collaboration and shared success are prized, comparisons tend to inspire learning and goal-setting. But in more competitive settings where peers are framed as rivals, those same comparisons also fuel stress or disengagement.

Cultural context may play a role too. In collectivist settings like China, social comparison may be more closely tied to group identity and accepted as a natural part of workplace motivation. This emphasis on social interconnectedness can amplify the emotional impact of comparison, intensifying both the positive drive to improve and the negative stress of falling behind. In more individualistic cultures, the same comparisons might feel threatening or personal, suggesting that the emotional outcomes of comparison can shift depending on broader social norms.

Open Source Development and Community Status

The most influential open-source software (OSS) communities—Linux, the Apache Software Foundation, and GitHub—are built on transparency and peer contribution. In these types of environments, project health isn’t judged by code alone. A 2022 study found that OSS developers often use informal comparisons between projects, contributors, and activity levels to assess how well a community is functioning.¹⁴ These judgments influence not just perception but behavior: contributors decide whether to switch projects or step up their participation based on how they measure up to others.

Social comparison theory helps explain why some developers stay engaged and others burn out. When contributors see themselves falling behind or receiving less recognition, their motivation may drop—regardless of the actual value they provide. In these decentralized communities, perceived social standing can be just as powerful as objective metrics.

The Key to High-Performing Teams: Psychological Safety

In team settings, social comparison can either build or erode trust. When psychological safety is high, comparisons tend to support growth and collaboration—but in unsafe environments, they may lead to withholding ideas or competing for approval. This article explores how creating a safe team environment shapes interpersonal dynamics and performance.

Collectivism

In collectivist cultures, social comparison tends to reinforce group harmony rather than individual achievement. Comparisons may be more accepted and serve to align personal behavior with group values. This article explores how cultural orientation shapes motivation and self-perception.

1. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202 
2. Collins, R. L. (1996). For better or worse: The impact of upward social comparison on self-evaluations. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 51–69. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.51
3. Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57(5), 271–282. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0056932
4. Wills, T. A. (1981). Downward comparison principles in social psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 90(2), 245–271. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.90.2.245
5. Tesser, A. (1988). Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of social behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 181–227). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60227-0
6. Summerville, A., & Roese, N. J. (2008). Dare to compare: Fact-based versus simulation-based comparison in daily life. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(3), 664–671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2007.04.002
7. Vogel, E. A., Rose, J. P., Roberts, L. R., & Eckles, K. (2014). Social comparison, social media, and self-esteem. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 3(4), 206–222. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000047
8. Furtick, S. (2014). Crash the chatterbox: Hearing god’s voice above all others. Multnomah Books. 
9. Gil-Or, O., Levi-Belz, Y., & Turel, O. (2015). The "Facebook-self": characteristics and psychological predictors of false self-presentation on Facebook. Frontiers in psychology, 6, 99. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00099
10. Klein, W. M. (1997). Objective standards are not enough: Affective, self-evaluative, and behavioral responses to social comparison information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(4), 763–774. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.4.763
11. Wood, J. V. (1989). Theory and research concerning social comparisons of personal attributes. Psychological Bulletin, 106(2), 231–248. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.106.2.231
12. Kamarova, S., Papaioannou, A., & Chatzisarantis, N. (2021). Editorial: Current perspectives on social comparisons and their effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 739783. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.739783
13. Dai, L. and Xiao, R. (2016) The Influence of Social Comparison on Job Performance. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 4, 147-151. doi: 10.4236/jss.2016.47024.
14. Lumbard, K., Germonprez, M., & Goggins, S. (2024). An empirical investigation of social comparison and open source community health. Information Systems Journal, 34(2), 499–532. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12485
15. Research.com. (n.d.). Thomas Ashby Wills. Research.com. https://research.com/u/thomas-ashby-wills