Social comparison and coping with multiple sclerosis

One hundred forty-three people with multiple sclerosis participated in the present study, which was an attempt to extend findings in the social comparison literature. The main goals were to investigate 1) the effects of time since diagnosis and functional status on social comparisons and mental health, and 2) affective consequences subsequent to comparisons with others. To attain the former objective, respondents were divided into three groups. Group one consisted of respondents who had been diagnosed with MS less than three years ago. Group two participants included people who had been diagnosed between five and ten years ago, matched on a case-by-case basis to group one respondents on functional status (a measure of physical disability). Group three was comprised of those who had also been diagnosed five to ten years prior, with more extreme cases of the disease than respondents in groups one and two. In contrast to downward comparison theory (which would predict that groups one and three would be most likely to downwardly compare and least likely to upwardly compare due to their greater threat), there were no differences between groups on frequencies of comparing with worse off others. Moreover, participants in group three were slightly more likely to make comparisons with better off others than respondents in groups one and two. In the overall sample, an interesting pattern of associations emerged between social comparisons, affective consequences, and a variety of other measures. Low levels of self-esteem and high levels of depression were positively correlated with making upward comparisons, yet were unassociated with downward comparisons. Optimism was unrelated to either. People lower on self-esteem and higher on depression were more likely to report feeling worse subsequent to comparing with others (especially better off others), yet were no more or less likely to report feeling better than their counterparts. Respondents higher on optimism were more likely to report feeling better subsequent to comparing with others, yet were no more or less likely to report feeling worse than those lower on optimism. Overall, respondents reported feeling better more often than worse when comparing both upward and downward. Respondents were asked about social comparisons on two dimensions: physical condition and coping ability. Downward comparisons were correlated with more extreme affect (made respondents feel both better and worse) on the physical condition than coping dimension, presumably because of increased salience, impact of forced comparisons, perceived controllability, and distortability of information. Consistent with the notion that downward comparisons are not regarded as socially acceptable yet have important psychological implications, perceived appropriateness of making comparisons was unassociated with upward comparisons, yet positively correlated with downward comparisons. Additionally, appropriateness was positively related to feeling good when comparing downward but not upward. As a whole, the findings support the notion that social comparisons are not intrinsically positive or negative, and demonstrate the importance of considering dimensions of comparison. Corroborating previous research, respondents demonstrated a positivity bias, that is, they believed they were doing better than others with MS, they downwardly compared more than they upwardly compared, and they reported feeling better after making comparisons more than they felt worse. Hence, both downward and upward comparisons seem to be used to attain psychological benefit, although respondents lower on self-esteem and higher on depression are more likely to report negative affective consequences.Arts, Faculty ofPsychology, Department ofGraduat