Social comparisons in adults with type 2 diabetes: Patients’ reasons for target selection

Cornell, Max; Smyth, Joshua M.

doi:10.1080/08870446.2018.1432759

Cited by 14 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results are in line with the Identi cation/Contrast Model of comparison 15 that proposes that a downward comparison with greater identi cation leads to worse quality of life and less motivation, whereas identi cation with an upward standard increases quality of life and motivation. In our study, we found that ICD + patients identi ed more strongly with the worse-off standards in line with results from 42 and selected standards with bad coping more often.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

“…Finally, despite comparable mood levels at the beginning of the study, ICD + patients displayed signi cantly worsened mood after presentation of the case vignette than ICD-patients, irrespective of their comparison choice (H4). 42 reported that patients with a more severe course of a type 2 diabetes had worse quality of life and higher levels of depression. In comparison, we only found trends towards worse psychological health in ICD + patients who also have a physically more severe disease in comparison to ICD-patients (H1).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Selection of social comparison standards in cardiac patients with and without experienced defibrillator shock

Willy

Meyer

Eckardt

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) often report psychological distress. However, both physical disease severity and psychological adjustment are variable. The role of social comparison in illness coping has not been studied in these patients yet. We theorize that relative to patients without experienced shock (ICD-), those with experienced ICD shocks (ICD+) display higher levels of psychological distress and thereby compare more frequently with fellow patients with more severe disease, but better disease coping and identify more strongly with these comparison standards. We recruited 92 patients with (ICD+, n = 38) and without an experienced ICD shock (ICD-, n = 54), who selected one of four comparison standards varying in disease severity and coping capacity. Relative to ICD-, ICD + patients reported higher levels of device-related distress, but there were no significant differences in anxiety, depression, or quality of life. ICD + patients selected more often comparison standards with poor coping. Irrespective of standard choice, ICD + patients displayed more negative mood following comparison. Our results support the view that ICD patients suffer from elevated levels of psychological distress, whereby ICD + patients tend to compare unfavorably to fellow patients. Altogether, the findings warrant further research into social comparison as a relevant coping mechanism in ICD patients.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selection of social comparison standards in cardiac patients with and without experienced defibrillator shock

Willy

Meyer

Eckardt

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Which combinations lead to the greatest increases in PA (or lead to increases vs decreases) and for whom are significant empirical questions [25,66,67]. Basic research indicates that the opportunity to select a comparison target does not always lead to optimal affective or health-relevant outcomes, nor does it always fulfill comparers' goals (eg, to feel better) [18,68,69]. Thus, providing information about only the targets that a PA app user wants may not lead to benefits.…”

Section: Social Comparison Theory and Evidence Relevant To Physical A...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Comparison Features in Physical Activity Promotion Apps: Scoping Meta-Review

Brown¹,

Pasko²,

Suls³

2020

J Med Internet Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Smartphone apps promoting physical activity (PA) are abundant, but few produce substantial and sustained behavior change. Although many PA apps purport to induce users to compare themselves with others (by invoking social comparison processes), improvements in PA and other health behaviors are inconsistent. Existing literature suggests that social comparison may motivate PA for some people under some circumstances. However, 2 aspects of work that apply social comparison theory to PA apps remain unclear: (1) how comparison processes have been operationalized or harnessed in existing PA apps and (2) whether incorporating sources of variability in response to comparison have been used to tailor comparison features of apps, which could improve their effectiveness for promoting PA. Objective The aim of this meta-review was to summarize existing systematic, quantitative, and narrative reviews of behavior change techniques in PA apps, with an emphasis on social comparison features, to examine how social comparison is operationalized and implemented. Methods We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and PsycINFO for reviews of PA smartphone apps. Of the 3743 initial articles returned, 26 reviews met the inclusion criteria. Two independent raters extracted the data from these reviews, including the definition of social comparison used to categorize app features, the percentage of apps categorized as inducing comparison, specific features intended to induce comparison, and any mention of tailoring comparison features. For reference, these data were also extracted for related processes (such as behavioral modeling, norm referencing, and social networking). Results Of the included review articles, 31% (8/26) categorized app features as prompting social comparison. The majority of these employed Abraham and Michie’s earliest definition of comparison, which differs from versions in later iterations of the same taxonomy. Very few reviews specified what dimension users were expected to compare (eg, steps, physical fitness) or which features of the apps were used to induce comparison (eg, leaderboards, message boards). No review referenced tailoring of comparison features. In contrast, 54% (14/26) reviews categorized features for prompting behavioral modeling and 31% (8/26) referenced tailoring app features for users’ personal goals or preferences. Conclusions The heterogeneity across reviews of PA apps and the absence of relevant information (eg, about dimensions or features relevant for comparison) create confusion about how to best harness social comparison to increase PA and its effectiveness in future research. No evidence was found that important findings from the broader social comparison literature (eg, that people have differing preferences for and responses to social comparison information) have been incorporated in the design of existing PA apps. Greater integration of the mobile health (mHealth) and social comparison literatures may improve the effectiveness of PA apps, thereby increasing the public health impact of these mHealth tools. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) RR2-https://osf.io/nh4td/

show abstract

“…One is that people do not always select the comparison opportunities that fulfill either self-improvement or self-enhancement goals; at times, their intentions are to confirm that their own situation is bad or could worsen or to justify not making difficult behavior changes such as increasing their PA (eg, "I'm already doing better than someone else, so I'm doing fine" [56,57]). Even when they do have positive, goal-oriented intentions for selecting particular comparison opportunities (eg, to learn important information or to feel better), their expectations are not always met by the target provided [58]. In such situations, the comparison opportunity may actually lead to negative outcomes.…”

Section: Xsl • Fomentioning

confidence: 99%

Selection of and Response to Physical Activity–Based Social Comparisons in a Digital Environment: Series of Daily Assessment Studies

Gray¹,

Dallal²,

Villereale³

et al. 2023

JMIR Hum Factors

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Innovative approaches are needed to understand barriers to and facilitators of physical activity among insufficiently active adults. Although social comparison processes (ie, self-evaluations relative to others) are often used to motivate physical activity in digital environments, user preferences and responses to comparison information are poorly understood. Objective We used an iterative approach to better understand users’ selection of comparison targets, how they interacted with their selected targets, and how they responded to these targets. Methods Across 3 studies, different samples of insufficiently active college students used the Fitbit system (Fitbit LLC) to track their steps per day as well as a separate, adaptive web platform each day for 7 to 9 days (N=112). The adaptive platform was designed with different layouts for each study; each allowed participants to select their preferred comparison target from various sets of options, view the desired amount of information about their selected target, and rate their physical activity motivation before and after viewing information about their selected target. Targets were presented as achieving physical activity at various levels below and above their own, which were accessed via the Fitbit system each day. We examined the types of comparison target selections, time spent viewing and number of elements viewed for each type of target, and day-level associations between comparison selections and physical activity outcomes (motivation and behavior). Results Study 1 (n=5) demonstrated that the new web platform could be used as intended and that participants’ interactions with the platform (ie, the type of target selected, the time spent viewing the selected target’s profile, and the number of profile elements viewed) varied across the days. Studies 2 (n=53) and 3 (n=54) replicated these findings; in both studies, age was positively associated with time spent viewing the selected target’s profile and the number of profile elements viewed. Across all studies, upward targets (who had more steps per day than the participant) were selected more often than downward targets (who had fewer steps per day than the participant), although only a subset of either type of target selection was associated with benefits for physical activity motivation or behavior. Conclusions Capturing physical activity–based social comparison preferences is feasible in an adaptive digital environment, and day-to-day differences in preferences for social comparison targets are associated with day-to-day changes in physical activity motivation and behavior. Findings show that participants only sometimes focus on the comparison opportunities that support their physical activity motivation or behavior, which helps explain previous, equivocal findings regarding the benefits of physical activity–based comparisons. Additional investigation of day-level determinants of comparison selections and responses is needed to fully understand how best to harness comparison processes in digital tools to promote physical activity.

show abstract

Social comparisons in adults with type 2 diabetes: Patients’ reasons for target selection

Abstract: Patients' reasons for a particular comparison are associated with short-term changes in affect and self-care motivation, and warrant greater empirical and clinical attention.

Cited by 14 publications

References 28 publications

Selection of social comparison standards in cardiac patients with and without experienced defibrillator shock

Selection of social comparison standards in cardiac patients with and without experienced defibrillator shock

Social Comparison Features in Physical Activity Promotion Apps: Scoping Meta-Review

Selection of and Response to Physical Activity–Based Social Comparisons in a Digital Environment: Series of Daily Assessment Studies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About