See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/327561959

The culture of social comparison

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · September 2018

DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1721555115

CITATIONS READS

63 2,083

2 authors:

Matthew Baldwin Thomas Mussweiler

University of Florida London Business School
20 PUBLICATIONS 559 CITATIONS 117 PUBLICATIONS 10,376 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Temporal Comparison View project

Metaphor View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Matthew Baldwin on 10 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The culture of social comparison
Matthew Baldwina,1 and Thomas Mussweilerb
a
Social Cognition Center Cologne, University of Cologne, 50931 Cologne, Germany; and bOrganizational Behavior Faculty, London Business School, London
NW1 4SA, United Kingdom

Edited by Susan T. Fiske, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, and approved August 15, 2018 (received for review December 11, 2017)

Social comparison is one of the most ubiquitous features of human arguably the immense degree to which human beings process
social life. This fundamental human tendency to look to others for complex social information relative to available, and sometimes
information about how to think, feel, and behave has provided us imagined, comparison standards that sets our species apart from
with the ability to thrive in a highly complex and interconnected our animal cousins.
modern social world. Despite its prominent role, however, a Humans’ tendency to process information comparatively is
detailed understanding of the cultural foundations of social com- widespread and ubiquitous. Many decades of research in psy-
parison is lacking. The current research aims to fill this gap by chology and related fields have demonstrated that comparison
showing that two prominent cultural dimensions, tightness–loose- processes are involved in perceptions of physical objects (11),
ness and individualism–collectivism, uniquely explain variation in personal evaluations (12–15), language and problem solving
social-comparison proclivity across individuals, situations, and cul- (16), categorization (17), stereotyping (18), attitudes (19), per-
tures. We first demonstrate the yet-undocumented link between son perception (20), decision making (21–23), and emotion (24,
cultural tightness and comparison proclivity across individuals, 25). Comparisons unfold so spontaneously and effortlessly (26)
and further show that perceptions of ambient tightness and inter-
that they are even carried out with standards that are irrelevant
dependence are uniquely associated with stronger social-comparison
to the task at hand (27, 28) and for stimuli that are presented

PSYCHOLOGICAL AND
COGNITIVE SCIENCES
tendencies. Next, we show that these associations arise across social
outside of conscious awareness (29, 30). Comparative thinking
settings and can be attributed to properties of the settings them-
selves, not solely to individual differences. Finally, we show that
can be observed in humans even as early as infanthood (31–33).
both tight and collectivistic US states show a propensity to engage
This evidence suggests that comparison is one of the most basic
in Google searches related to specific social-comparison emotions, building blocks of human cognition.
but that the tightness–comparison link arises from a unique psycho- Despite the ubiquity of comparison, some findings suggest that
logical mechanism. Altogether, these findings show that social com- comparison can vary across individuals and situations. For one,
parison—a fundamental aspect of human cognition—is linked to people appear to differ in their social-comparison orientation,
cultural practices based both in prevalence and strength of social that is, in the frequency with which they seek, and the impor-
norms as well as the tendency to construe the self in relation tance they attribute to, information about how others are doing
to others. in a particular domain (8). Other findings offer insight into the
situational factors that influence social-comparison processes.
social comparison | tightness–looseness | individualism–collectivism | Most of this evidence follows up on the basic premise that in-
|
culture big data formation about others has the potential to satisfy basic human
needs, such as needs for certainty, affiliation, and esteem (13,
34–36), and is thus sought more, the more pronounced these
How much time he gains who does not look to see what his neighbor needs are.
says or does or thinks, but only at what he does himself . . . .
Marcus Aurelius, Meditations Significance

Humans have the unique ability to coordinate behavior, eco-

T he need to work together in large social groups characterizes

the social life of humans to an extent that is unparalleled in
the animal kingdom (1). Compared with other species, humans
nomic exchange, political action, and social relationships across
immense distances and times. To keep this level of coordina-
tion running smoothly, we often look to others as comparison
have developed elaborate systems of cooperation that go beyond standards for how to behave, think, and feel. A detailed un-
genes, geography, and time. This uniquely human inclination is derstanding of the relation between social comparison and
not only a prerequisite for efficient social and economic ex- broad patterns of social life is lacking, however. The current
change (2), it may also constitute the default mode for human research is a step in this direction—we show that social com-
social interaction (3). To successfully navigate this complex web parison is linked to cultural practices that promote strong
of social interactions, we need to assess our and others’ social norms and punishment for deviance (tightness) and those that
promote relational self-construal (collectivism). These findings
standing, strengths, and weaknesses. Furthermore, to facilitate
advance our understanding of the origins of social comparison
the social coordination necessary for survival in groups, we must
and highlight the essential role of comparison for the devel-
know and agree on norms for appropriate behavior and work
opment of social life.
together with others to maintain those norms.
These social processes require looking to others as comparison Author contributions: M.B. and T.M. designed research; M.B. performed research; M.B.
standards—we use those around us as standards to evaluate analyzed data; and M.B. and T.M. wrote the paper.
ourselves and gain information about how we should behave, The authors declare no conflict of interest.
think, and feel. Such social comparisons are pervasive in social This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.
life and are probably inevitable (4, 5). Indeed, knowing how one This open access article is distributed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-
measures up to others is a core human need (6), and how good NoDerivatives License 4.0 (CC BY-NC-ND).
we feel about ourselves and how happy we are with our lives are 1
To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: mbaldwin@uni-koeln.de.
determined less by our absolute qualities and fortunes than by This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.
our standing relative to others (5, 7, 8). Although some animals 1073/pnas.1721555115/-/DCSupplemental.
do exhibit a basic level of comparative cognition (9, 10), it is

www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1721555115 PNAS Latest Articles | 1 of 8

 Can such individual and situational variation in comparison systems of monitoring in tight cultures lead to a strong sense of
be traced to broader and more distal factors? To answer this accountability to others—feeling that one’s actions are being
question, we focus on two prominent perspectives in cultural evaluated and judged (39–41, 47, 51), which in turn can prompt
psychology, and first introduce the idea that comparison will be individuals to closely monitor their own behavior (52). Self-
particularly functional in tight cultures, or those that demand monitoring is highly dependent on comparing oneself to others,
adherence to social norms. Because tight cultures demand atten- so much so that individuals with high self-monitoring tendencies
tion to norms and norm violators to coordinate social behavior, are more likely to mimic the behavior of those around them (53).
and because social comparison provides valuable information Even though norms are often clear and known in tight settings,
about how to behave, think, and feel, we expect tightness to be people in those settings look to others to verify the norms at play,
associated with greater social-comparison proclivity. Alongside check how others interpret them, and regulate their own behavior
this prediction, we also aim to further test the idea that social accordingly.
comparison is more prominent in cultures that define the self in In tight contexts characterized by high behavioral monitoring,
relation to others (37). Because people in interdependent cultures social comparison is highly functional as it allows individuals to
tend to construe the self in relation to others, it has been dem- evaluate the appropriateness of their own behavior as well the
onstrated that people from these cultures also use available others behavior of others. Doing so helps coordinate social behavior in
as comparison standards when seeking information about how to large groups, an outcome that is highly valued in tight cultures and
behave, think, and feel (38). The following sections elaborate situations because these cultures experience many ecological and
further on tightness–looseness and self-construal and their hy- societal threats, which increase the need for social coordination
pothesized connection to social comparison. (39–41). To survive in such environments, strong social norms and
punishment for deviance help to reduce uncertainty and chaos,
Tightness–Looseness and Social Comparison facilitate the management of scarce resources, allow for groups of
Cultures can be distinguished by their degree of tightness– individuals to act cohesively in times of territorial threat, and so
looseness, which is defined as the strength of social norms and the on. Thus, in tight settings, comparison is particularly useful be-
degree to which behavior is regulated and sanctioned (39–41). In cause it facilitates the social coordination needed for survival.
tight societies, norms are clear and harsh punishments are
enforced for those who deviate from them, and as a result, Self-Construal and Social Comparison
knowing and following norms are particularly important in tight A second cultural variable that is likely to be intimately linked to
cultures. In one study, participants from a tight culture (China) social-comparison tendencies is self-construal related to in-
exhibited increased neural activity when confronted with social dependence–interdependence. In fact, social comparison will
norm violations compared with those from a loose culture (United likely be more prominent in cultures that value interdependent
States), indicating that individuals from tighter cultures have de- self-construals and fitting into the group (collectivistic) vs. in-
veloped neural systems that are sensitive to detecting such viola- dependent self-construals and standing out as an individual (in-
tions (42). The awareness of norms, along with the detection of dividualistic; ref. 37). Like tightness–looseness, self-construal
norm violations, can be considered the glue that holds tight also varies across nations (54–56) and US states (57); moreover,
societies together. some situations can promote the interdependent self, such as a
Tightness–looseness can meaningfully differentiate US states family reunion, whereas others can promote the independent
(43) and nations (44) and can also manifest in everyday situa- self, such as a job interview.
tions, in what is known as situational strength (45). Strong (tight) It is clear that social comparison is built into the fabric of col-
situations are those that have a high degree of behavioral re- lectivism because these comparisons are necessary for defining the
striction, and where behavior is highly monitored and restricted, self relationally, creating strong ingroups and outgroups, and
such as in the library or doctor’s office. Weak (loose) situations assessing one’s status relative to others in the group, all of which
are those that afford a wide range of behavioral variation, such as are characteristics of collectivist cultures. Indeed, research has
at a dance club or one’s own backyard. A study of nations showed found that individuals from collectivist cultures, and individuals
that a significant amount of variability in the strength of imme- primed with an interdependent self-construal, are more attentive
diate situations, self-reported by individuals from those nations, to contextual information (58), are more likely to assimilate to
could be explained by cultural tightness between those nations others (59), and are more influenced by social comparisons when
(44). In other words, tight cultures can also breed tight situations. prompted (60). However, these general patterns can be qualified
Because social comparison can be a particularly informative by other moderating variables. People from collectivistic cultures
and efficient way to gain information about social norms (26, 46), seem to engage in more social comparison primarily when self-
we hypothesize that people in tight cultures will be prone to en- improvement motives are strong (38), suggesting that collectivism
gage in social-comparison activity; and there is suggestive evidence may be more strongly related to comparison under certain con-
in the literature hinting at this possibility. For instance, if pressures ditions. There is other mixed evidence that individuals from col-
to look to others for information about appropriate behavior are lectivistic cultures are more prone to social comparison. In one
high in tight settings, we would expect that individuals from tight study, personally relevant economic behaviors exhibited by par-
settings display a general tendency to rely on contextual in- ticipants from individualist and collectivist countries were influ-
formation, as comparison requires comparing a target to available enced by social-comparison information to the same degree,
contextual stimuli. Indeed, people in tight settings tend to con- although the same social-comparison information differentially
strue the self in relation to its context rather than as a differen- affected participants’ neural activity (61). Social comparison, then,
tiated entity (47) and display field-dependent cognitive styles (48, may have stronger effects depending on the level of analysis (brain
49), meaning that they process information relative to the context vs. behavior) and whether the outcome is relevant for one’s re-
in which that information is found. lation to others (personal vs. collective action). Taken together,
Moreover, we would expect individuals in tight settings to pay these findings highlight that the link between interdependence/
close attention to others, due to pressure to monitor and report collectivism and social comparison has yet to be firmly established
nonnormative behaviors. For instance, children in some tight in the literature.
societies are expected to inform their superiors of individuals Perhaps the most obvious limitation of the current state of
who are deviating from societal rules (50) and individuals from the literature, however, is that the independent contributions of
tight cultures appear to be more perceptive of norm violations self-construal and tightness–looseness on social-comparison pro-
compared with those from loose cultures (42). These broad clivity have yet to be tested in a single study. Although collectivism

2 of 8 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1721555115 Baldwin and Mussweiler

and tightness are at least moderately correlated (43, 62–64), and and independent (e.g., “I do my own thing, regardless of what
each is said to emerge from similar environmental threats and others think”) aspects of the self. Finally, they completed the
pressures (39, 65, 66), it is likely that the mechanisms leading to same measure of social-comparison orientation as before.
social comparison in these cultures are different, as each culture Structural equation modeling was used to examine the unique
developed different ways of reacting to those threats and pres- contributions of tightness–looseness and self-construal to social-
sures. Whereas tight cultures developed formal systems of norm comparison proclivity by regressing social comparison on tight-
adherence and punishment, collective cultures developed strong ness, independence, and interdependence simultaneously. Tight-
bonds with similar others and a tendency to see clear boundaries ness was a significant predictor of stronger social-comparison
between ingroups and outgroups. Each of these unique cultural proclivity (b = 0.271, SE = 0.078, 95% CI [0.119, 0.424], β = 0.232,
practices are said to have protected individuals from exposure to, z = 3.480, P = 0.001). Interdependence was also associated with
and negative effects of, foreign disease, among other threats such higher social-comparison proclivity (b = 0.489, SE = 0.072, 95%
as extreme weather and foreign invasion. Thus, it should be the CI [0.348, 0.630], β = 0.419, z = 6.790, P < 0.001). Independence
case that tightness and collectivism have unique and independent was associated with significantly lower social-comparison pro-
contributions to social comparison through different mediating clivity (b = −0.205, SE = 0.069, 95% CI [−0.340, −0.069],
variables: attention to norms in the former and relational self- β = −0.175, z = −2.966, P = 0.003).
construal in the latter. Overall, people who experience ambient tightness in their
Against this backdrop, the current research aims to (i) examine daily lives, or who construe themselves in relation to others, are
the influence of tightness–looseness on comparison proclivity, (ii) also those who tend to compare themselves with others. By testing
to further elucidate the link between self-construal and compari- each variable simultaneously, these findings offer evidence that
son proclivity, and (iii) to assess the independent contribution of social comparison is a function of the unique influence of both
both tightness–looseness and self-construal on comparison pro- tightness and interdependence. For detailed methods and results,
clivity. We tackle these goals with diverse methods and measures, see SI Appendix, Part 1. Next, we examine whether the links
using both self-reports and big data from Google. among tightness, interdependence, and social comparison are

PSYCHOLOGICAL AND
COGNITIVE SCIENCES
found across situations.
The Present Research
In a series of studies, we investigate the associations between Part 2: The Context
tightness–looseness, self-construal, and comparison proclivity at In part 1, we focused on participants’ experience of tightness and
the level of the person, context, and culture. In part 1, we focus self-construal in their own lives. Now we extend this analysis to
on the individual, using self-reports to establish the link between focus on social comparison, tightness, and interdependence as
tightness and social-comparison proclivity and to assess the unique properties of everyday settings. We predict that settings that are
contributions of tightness and interdependence on social-comparison perceived as tight and interdependent are also those that are
proclivity. In part 2, we turn our focus to the situation and look at perceived as prompting social comparison. We tested this hy-
whether tight and interdependent settings are those that yield pothesis using three diverging but complementary approaches.
more social comparison. Part 3 focuses on culture and examines First, we presented ∼100 American adults with a list of 15 set-
social-comparison proclivity across states in the United States tings, which were taken from prior research (e.g., job interview,
using search data from Google. In part 3, we also identify a library). They were shown each set of 15 settings three separate
psychological mechanism that underlies the tightness–comparison times and were asked to rank the settings on tightness, interde-
link in an attempt to further distinguish the effects of tightness pendence, and comparison proclivity. For the tightness ranking,
from collectivism. they were told to “think about how much people adhere to social
norms, whether there are clear expectations for how to act, and
Part 1: The Person whether people would be punished for acting inappropriately” in
We first examined whether individual variation in perceptions of each situation. For the interdependence ranking, they were told to
ambient situational tightness predicts comparison activity in a “think about how much people are intertwined or connected to
group of American participants. Approximately 400 adults par- each other, how much people tend to define themselves in relation
ticipating online indicated their perceptions of tightness in situ- to others, and whether people’s group memberships mean more
ations at home, at work, and in public (e.g., “In public places, than their individuality” in each setting. For the comparison rank-
there are very clear expectations for how people should act”), ing, they were told to “think about how much people look to others
and then completed a measure of social-comparison orientation, for how to behave, compare what they are doing with what others
which assessed their agreement with statements about typical are doing, and pay a lot of attention to how others are doing
comparison activities and behaviors (e.g., “I always like to know things” in each setting. The ranking tasks were presented in
what others in a similar situation would do”). Structural equation random order.
modeling was used to examine the correlation between situa-
tional tightness and social-comparison orientation. As predicted, Within-Individual Perceptions. We then assessed the relative con-
participants who perceived their surroundings as tighter also tributions of perceived tightness and interdependence on per-
expressed stronger social-comparison proclivity (ϕ = 0.347, SE = ceived comparison by computing two partial rank correlations
0.057, z = 5.758, P < 0.001, 95% CI [0.217, 0.441]). for each participant: (i) the association between tightness and
Next, we assessed participants’ perceptions of ambient situa- comparison controlling for interdependence and (ii) the associ-
tional tightness as well as the strength of their own independent ation between interdependence and comparison controlling for
and interdependent self-construals. Doing so allowed us to tightness. Finally, we obtained the average correlations across all
compare the unique contribution of tightness and self-construal participants using a bootstrapping technique and examined the
on social-comparison proclivity. A new group of 400 American CI to determine whether each correlation was significantly dif-
adults participated online and were asked to consider “most ferent from zero.
situations” in their daily life before responding to the same six- As expected, there was some overlap between participants’
item measure of tightness–looseness as before (e.g., “There are tightness and interdependence rankings, such that situations that
very clear expectations for how people should act in most situ- were perceived as tight were also perceived as interdependent
ations”). Participants also completed a measure of self-construal, (ρ = 0.225, 95% CI [0.155, 0.294]). Despite this overlap, tight
which consisted of two subscales assessing interdependent (e.g., situations were also seen as promoting social comparison after
“I feel my fate is intertwined with the fate of those around me”) controlling for interdependence (ρpartial = 0.182, 95% CI [0.112,

Baldwin and Mussweiler PNAS Latest Articles | 3 of 8

0.253]), and interdependent situations were seen as promoting Part 3: Culture
social comparison after controlling for tightness (ρpartial = 0.293, In part 3, we operationalize social-comparison proclivity as the
95% CI [0.232, 0.358]). search for social-comparison emotions on the internet. Social-
These correlations reveal the positive correspondence among comparison emotions are those that arise primarily when com-
individual perceptions of tightness, interdependence, and com- paring oneself to others (25). For instance, comparing oneself to
parison across settings. However, this analysis does not provide a colleague after her promotion could lead to feelings of jealousy
evidence that participants agree on the rankings of each setting. for some people, or inspiration in others. Comparing oneself to
To know whether these associations are properties of the settings the same colleague after her being fired may prompt feelings of
themselves, we would need to test whether there is agreement sympathy. Importantly, similar affective experiences may also
among the individual participants, that is, whether one person’s arise if one looks to others to learn about pertinent social norms.
tightness rankings match another person’s comparison rankings, For instance, one might look to others to gain information about
and so on. the norms at play in the workplace, such as how to dress. As a
result, some could feel jealousy toward those who can afford ex-
Cross-Individual Perceptions. To test for these associations, we pensive suits and dresses, while others may be inspired to reach a
calculated the same partial rank correlations as before, but for similar status. Others still may feel sympathy for those colleagues
every possible pair of participants in the dataset. For instance, who cannot afford to meet the expected norm. In all of these
participant A’s tightness ranks were correlated with every other examples, social comparison is the primary reason for feeling the
participants’ comparison ranks, and then this procedure was emotion, which sets them apart from other emotional experiences.
repeated to obtain every partial rank correlation possible from If individuals from tight and interdependent settings are more
the data (5,151 total correlations). As before, we obtained the likely to engage in social-comparison activity, as shown pre-
average correlations of interest from this set of correlations viously, they should also be more likely to experience social-
using a bootstrapping technique and examined the CI to de- comparison emotions. To test this prediction, we examine the
termine whether each correlation was significantly different frequency of comparison emotion searches on the internet across
from zero. US states. The internet is a massive source of information,
Average correlations between participants’ tightness ranks containing what could be around 50 billion web pages (67).
(ρ = 0.320, 95% CI [0.310, 0.330]), interdependence ranks (ρ = People use the internet to ask specific questions (68) and to
0.195, 95% CI [0.185, 0.204]), and comparison ranks (ρ = 0.276, obtain social information, such as when seeking help or advice
95% CI [0.268, 0.285]) were all significantly different from zero. from other internet users in forums (69) or on websites tailored
This means that participants tended to agree on which settings to specific social groups or goals (70). Thus, web search activity
were tight, interdependent, and prompting comparison. More- can be useful for investigating individual psychological processes
over, participants’ tightness rankings correlated with other par- and motives with real-world activity in a variety of contexts (71).
ticipants’ comparison rankings on average, after controlling for Here, we make use of search data from Google Correlate,
interdependence (ρpartial = 0.104, 95% CI [0.095, 0.112]). The which is a database of tens of millions of search queries since the
same pattern was found for interdependence after controlling for year 2003 in the United States. This approach is highly reliable
tightness (ρpartial = 0.189, 95% CI [0.181, 0.197]). and ecologically valid. No research to our knowledge has in-
vestigated how comparison proclivity manifests as real-world
Cross-Sample Perceptions. In a final test, we compared the rank- information search on the internet. Thus, this research makes
ings of the sample of participants above (sample 1) to the av- use of a yet-undiscovered source of data to study this funda-
erage rankings from a completely new and independent sample mental aspect of human cognition. Moreover, search frequency
of 150 American participants (sample 2). The new participants data obtained from Google is composed of millions of search
were randomly assigned to rank the settings on either tightness, queries, tapping into billions of potential web pages, by hundreds
interdependence, or comparison, which resulted in ∼50 total of millions of individuals over several years. Thus, each indi-
rankings for each variable. We then calculated partial rank cor- vidual data point (i.e., a search frequency score for a single US
relations between each participant’s individual ranks in sample state) is highly reliable as the estimate is obtained from what is
1 and the average ranks in sample 2, and then obtained the average (virtually) the entire population of interest. Whereas laboratory
correlations across all sample 1 participants with bootstrapping. research can only speculate about how comparison might man-
We examined the CI to determine whether each correlation was ifest in the real world, this approach assesses such behavior di-
significantly different from zero. This procedure offers a rigorous rectly. See SI Appendix, Part 3, for details and validation of the
test that the links among tightness, interdependence, and social database for testing our culture-specific hypotheses.
comparison are properties of the settings themselves, and not
simply individual perceptions. State-Level Tightness, Looseness, and Comparison. To begin, we
Consistent with the findings above, individual rankings from computed a social-comparison emotion search index for each
sample 1 agreed with average rankings from sample 2: tightness, state by averaging Google search frequencies for each of seven
ρ = 0.533, 95% CI [0.463, 0.604]; interdependence, ρ = 0.388, social-comparison emotion words selected from a pilot study
95% CI [0.324, 0.451]; and comparison, ρ = 0.446, 95% CI (α = 0.810; SI Appendix, Pilot Study 2). We also tested six addi-
[0.382, 0.509]. Because completely independent raters agree on tional variables as potential covariates—political orientation
the ranks of these settings, it can be said that tightness, in- (conservatism), geographic region (coded south vs. nonsouth),
terdependence, and comparison are likely to be actual properties residential mobility, percent urban population, and percent mi-
of the settings themselves. nority population (total Hispanic, Asian, and Black). Given that
Also supporting our predictions, individual rankings of tight- each of these variables has been shown to correlated with
ness were correlated with average rankings of comparison after tightness or collectivism (43, 57), we considered that these var-
controlling for interdependence (ρpartial = 0.349, 95% CI [0.292, iables could potentially explain the association between culture
0.407]). The same pattern emerged for interdependence after and comparison emotion searches.
controlling for tightness (ρpartial = 0.325, 95% CI [0.270, 0.381]). First, we conducted an ordinary least-squares regression anal-
For detailed methods and results, see SI Appendix, Part 2. In part ysis to examine the independent contributions of tightness and
3, we zoom out further and examine the culture–comparison link collectivism on comparison emotion searches without covariates.
at the level of US states. Each variable contributed significantly to comparison emotion

4 of 8 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1721555115 Baldwin and Mussweiler

searches: btightness = 0.014, SE = 0.006, 95% CI [0.005, 0.021], β = describes general norms rather than individual preferences.
0.249, t(47) = 2.173, P = 0.035; bcollectivism = 0.032, SE = 0.007, 95% Generic-you phrases are especially useful for communicating
CI [0.020, 0.049], β = 0.539, t(47) = 4.693, P < 0.001. Next, we prescriptive norms—statements about how people should behave—
determined which subset of our predictor variables and covariates and use of the generic you emerges even in early childhood
best explained variation in comparison emotion searches across (72, 73).
states using a best subsets regression analysis, which searches for the On this basis, we predicted that internet searches for pre-
combination of predictors that maximizes model fit. The superior scriptive generic-you phrases would be more strongly associated
model for explaining variation in social-comparison emotion with tightness, compared with collectivism. We assessed atten-
searches was one that included tightness–looseness, collectivism, tion to norms with a generic-you index made from two search
and political orientation as predictors. In this model, tightness and terms: “you should” and “should you” [r(48) = 0.813, P < 0.001].
collectivism remained significant and positive: btightness = 0.026, These terms would capture searches such as “What should you
SE = 0.009, 95% CI [0.012, 0.037], β = 0.483, t(46) = 3.035, P = wear to a job interview?,” “How should you punish a child?,”
0.004; bcollectivism = 0.026, SE = 0.007, 95% CI [0.014, 0.045], β = “Things you should do at the beach,” and so on. To demonstrate
0.431, t(46) = 3.515, P = 0.001. The effect of political orienta- that tightness predicts attention to norms specifically, we created
tion was negative, such that conservative states engaged in a first-person index with two terms: “I should” and “should I”
fewer comparison emotion searches after controlling for cul- [r(48) = 0.673, P < 0.001]. Although these terms could be used in
ture (bpolitical orientation = −0.022, SE = 0.011, 95% CI [−0.044, similar searches (e.g., “Things I should do at the beach”), use of
0.009], β = −0.322, t(46) = 2.049, P = 0.046). A US map depicting the first-person pronoun reflects a shift away from rule-based
the frequency of social-comparison emotion searches in each state norms and a focus on individual preferences.
predicted by the final regression equation can be found in Fig. 1. As before, we first tested the unique contribution of tightness
and collectivism on generic-you searches without covariates.
Testing a Mechanism. We hypothesize that comparison proclivity Only tightness was a significant predictor: btightness = 0.047, SE =
related to tightness and collectivism results from different 0.009, 95% CI [0.033, 0.063], β = 0.622, t(47) = 5.305, P < 0.001;

PSYCHOLOGICAL AND
COGNITIVE SCIENCES
mechanisms. With regard to collectivism, the mechanism is built bcollectivism = 0.000, SE = 0.010, 95% CI [−0.018, 0.023], β =
into the construct itself—that is, social comparison in collective 0.004, t(47) = 0.034, P = 0.973. All variables were then submitted
cultures is a direct function of the extent to which people define to a best-subsets regression as before, and the superior model
themselves in relation to others. Self–other overlap is the driving was one that included only tightness–looseness as a predictor.
factor in the comparison–collectivism link. In contrast, the effect Neither cultural variable was a significant predictor of first-person
of tightness on social comparison is likely mediated by a third searches: btightness = 0.013, SE = 0.011, 95% CI [−0.004, 0.030],
variable, namely, attention to norms. It is not the mere presence β = 0.185, t(47) = 1.255, P = 0.216; bcollectivism = −0.003, SE = 0.012,
of established social norms and formal punishment that prompts 95% CI [−0.026, 0.021], β = −0.229, t(47) = −0.229, P = 0.820. Thus,
social comparison in tight cultures, but rather how much people we proceed to test the predicted mediation model with only
in those cultures constantly monitor and attend to the norms at generic-you searches as the mediator.
play. Attention to norms should be apparent across states as a We tested for the indirect effect of tightness on social-
function of tightness–looseness, and attention to norms should comparison emotions through generic-you searches as the me-
account for the effect of tightness, but not collectivism, on com- diator and, consistent with the findings above, included collec-
parison emotions searches. tivism and political orientation as covariates on comparison
We tested these hypotheses by assessing the extent to which emotions. In the mediation model, tightness was a significant
individuals from US states seek normative information on the predictor of generic-you searches (b = 0.047, SE = 0.0085, 95%
internet. Attention to norms can manifest linguistically in ex- CI [0.030, 0.064], β = 0.623, t(48) = 5.514, P < 0.001). As pre-
pressions of the “generic you” (72). People use generic-you dicted, generic-you searches were associated with increased
phrases when describing norms about behavior, for instance, comparison emotion searches (b = 0.454, SE = 0.075, 95% CI
when explaining uses for a hammer (e.g., “You hit nails with it”), [0.303, 0.604], β = 0.633, t(45) = 6.075, P < 0.001). The indirect
or what to do at the library (e.g., “You should whisper when you effect through generic-you searches was significant (ab = 0.021,
talk”). In these expressions, the “you” is interpreted as referring SE = 0.007, 95% CI [0.008, 0.034], abstandardized = 0.394, SE =
to people in general, rather than to an individual addressee, and 0.095, 95% CI [0.174, 0.548]).

Fig. 1. Tighter and more collectivist states make more searches for social-comparison emotions on Google. Color is proportional to the expected search
frequency from the regression equation (from low to high frequency of searches). Data from Google Correlate are adjusted for year-over-year growth, and
state-by-state variation in internet usage.

Baldwin and Mussweiler PNAS Latest Articles | 5 of 8

 After accounting for the effects of the generic-you mediator, about the self, about others, about the situation, and about rel-
the direct effect of tightness became nonsignificant (b = 0.008, evant threats. This tuning inevitably involves looking to others as
SE = 0.007, 95% CI [−0.007, 0.022], β = 0.144, t(45) = 1.096, P = social-comparison targets.
0.279). However, even after controlling for the generic-you me- As our studies show, however, broad cultural practices also
diator, the direct effect of collectivism remained significant and influence how this social comparison plays out—tightness and
positive (b = 0.024, SE = 0.006, 95% CI [0.132, 0.036], β = 0.404, interdependence each contribute uniquely to comparison, and as
t(45) = 4.383, P < 0.001). Thus, a focus on social norms fully we show in part 3, the process likely occurs through different
accounted for the effect of tightness, but not the effect of col- mechanisms. Put simply, there are many reasons why individuals
lectivism, on social-comparison emotions across states. The full would be motivated to seek information via social comparison,
path model can be found in Fig. 2. Detailed methods and results and our studies reveal that cultural practices modulate how those
can be found in SI Appendix, Part 3. comparisons play out and the kind of information people seek.
These individual processes continue to reinforce the specific
Discussion cultural practices for which they were enacted (attention to
Comparison is a basic building block of human cognition and a norms, relational self-construal), which feed into the way the
fundamental aspect of human social life. It facilitates thinking in broad culture develops, which continue to modulate individual
domains as diverse as person perception (18), emotion (24, 25), psychologies, and so on.
attitudes (19), and problem solving (16). Building on many de- Our studies also add to the growing body of research on the
cades of research focused on the processes and consequences of antecedents and consequences of cultural tightness–looseness.
comparative thinking, the current research takes a look at the Specifically, our data suggest a cognitive mechanism that might
situational and cultural factors that give rise to comparison in mediate the links between broad environmental factors and
daily life. Using self-report measures and real-world data from intraindividual psychologies described by the tightness–looseness
internet searches, we have demonstrated that social-comparison approach. For instance, cultural tightness is associated with ex-
proclivity has a cultural basis in both cultural tightness–looseness posure to environmental threat, which may produce a need for
and self-construal. Perceptions of tightness and perceptions of hierarchy, rigid morality, conformity, and social coordination
interdependence each contributed uniquely to social-comparison (43, 65, 66). At the individual level, tightness is hypothesized to
proclivity in self-reports, both across individuals and situations. be associated with a high degree of felt accountability among
These links were found at the broad cultural level as well—tight individuals, which manifests as greater accessibility of group
and collective states in the United States show a propensity to norms, prevention-focused self-regulation, and high regulatory
search for social-comparison emotions on the internet. Sup- strength. Social-comparison processes could well be the link
porting the notion that the tightness–comparison link is due to between these ecological threats, broad social practices, and in-
attention to norms and norm violations, we found that internet dividual psychological outcomes that define tight cultures. If
searches for prescriptive generic-you phrases were higher in tight true, the implication is that comparative thinking is not only a
states, which in turn predicted higher comparison emotion building block of cognition but also a building block of broad
search activity in those states. This pattern of mediation was not cultural practices and their psychological outcomes.
found for collectivism. Similar hypotheses could be derived about collectivism. Col-
Taken together, these studies can shed light on the contextual lectivism is also higher in regions with a history of pathogen
and individual difference variables that modulate social com- prevalence (65), which may contribute to the extent to which
parison by offering a cultural psychological perspective that collectivistic cultures draw sharp distinctions between ingroups
posits the mutually constitutive nature of cultures and selves and outgroups (41). Again, social comparison could plausibly
(74). According to this perspective, the self is the center of ex- link these environmental threats to cultural practices that de-
perience, which becomes tuned to the immediate environment mand interdependent self-construals and attention to ingroup
and as a result incorporates culturally specific rules that affect a and outgroup differences. The link between individualism–
variety of psychological processes. This perspective can speak to collectivism and comparison may not be as simple, however.
why social-comparison proclivity is positively associated with Individualism–collectivism can be expanded from one di-
variables such as self-awareness, uncertainty, and threat sensi- mension to the intersection of two dimensions—whether people
tivity (e.g., neuroticism; ref. 8). These features of the self and are focused on equality or hierarchy (horizontal vs. vertical) and
situation may activate the tendency to “tune” to the environment— whether the self is independent or interdependent (individualism
to take in information that may provide valuable information vs. collectivism; ref. 75). Horizontal individualism is focused on

Comparison
Emotions
.864
1
.00

P=
20,
= -. 0 = .542, P < .001
P<
4,
41
=.

= .622, P < .001

Tightness-Looseness Generic-You Collectivism
=.
78

= -. 2
3,

74, P
P

= .0
= .204, P = .002
<

11
.00
1

Comparison
Words

Fig. 2. Path model showing that tight states make more generic-you searches on Google, which, in turn, predicts higher comparison emotion searches.
Collectivism and political orientation (conservatism) were included as predictors and are depicted in gray. After accounting for the generic-you mediator,
tightness is no longer a significant predictor of comparison emotion searches. The solid lines highlight significant paths, and the dashed lines highlight
nonsignificant paths.

6 of 8 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1721555115 Baldwin and Mussweiler

distinguishing the self from others but keeping status equal threats, extreme weather, or disease outbreaks. In addition, fu-
across individuals, whereas vertical individualism stresses both ture research could examine broader seasonal trends in com-
distinctiveness and status. Horizontal collectivism is about pro- parison activity over time. For instance, comparison activity may
moting harmony and cohesion within the group, whereas vertical be higher in seasons that promote tightness or collectivism, such
collectivism is focused on submission and position in the hier- as the start of “flu season,” for months in which school is in
archy, such as when children submit to parents or when sacri- session, during national elections, and so on.
ficing one’s own pleasure for the sake of the group. This research represents a methodological innovation for the
It seems plausible, then, that people from individualistic cul- social and behavioral sciences and highlights the fruitfulness of
tures are also prone to comparisons, but specifically those that using ecologically valid internet search data for conducting re-
focus on differences between the self and others; these com- search in this field. Given that data from Google are highly
parisons would be particularly beneficial for vertical individual- representative of the population of interest (in our case, indi-
ists who value distinctiveness and status. In contrast, people from
viduals living in the United States), our findings are generaliz-
collectivistic cultures may favor both comparisons: a focus on
able. Furthermore, individuals conducting searches on the
similarities between the self and others for the purpose of group
internet are unlikely to predict how their search activity could be
harmony (horizontal), and a focus on differences between the
self and someone of relatively lower or higher status to assess the used for any specific hypothesis, and thus research with internet
hierarchy (vertical) (37). search data are absent of demand effects. Broadly speaking, this
Considering these possibilities, it seems difficult to imagine research makes clear how the internet can be considered an ex-
how these cultural practices could emerge and be sustained in tension of the mind, as it is a tool that facilitates cognition (76).
the absence of individuals engaging in a high degree of social This means that internet search data can be fruitfully explored to
comparison in daily situations. Such speculations could be tested examine basic social, behavioral, and psychological processes in
in future research by observing trends in tightness and compar- and across cultures.
ison activity over time, paying close attention to cross-lag causal All studies were covered under Institutional Review Board

PSYCHOLOGICAL AND
COGNITIVE SCIENCES
effects of each variable. Future research could also assess social- approval from the Social Cognition Center Cologne, and par-
comparison activities before and after events that would be ticipants provided consent by clicking a box on the first page of
expected to promote tightness or collectivism, such as terror each study.

1. Fehr E, Fischbacher U (2003) The nature of human altruism. Nature 425:785–791. 26. Mussweiler T, Epstude K (2009) Relatively fast! Efficiency advantages of comparative
2. Fehr E, Rockenbach B (2004) Human altruism: Economic, neural, and evolutionary thinking. J Exp Psychol Gen 138:1–21.
perspectives. Curr Opin Neurobiol 14:784–790. 27. Gilbert P, Allan S (1994) Assertiveness, submissive behaviour and social comparison. Br
3. Rand DG, Greene JD, Nowak MA (2012) Spontaneous giving and calculated greed. J Clin Psychol 33:295–306.
Nature 489:427–430. 28. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1975) Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases.
4. Mussweiler T (2003) Comparison processes in social judgment: Mechanisms and con- Utility, Probability, and Human Decision Making: Selected Proceedings of an
sequences. Psychol Rev 110:472–489. Interdisciplinary Research Conference, Rome, 3–6 September, 1973, eds Wendt D,
5. Suls J, Martin R, Wheeler L (2002) Social comparison: Why, with whom, and with what Vlek CA (Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands), pp 141–162.
effect? Curr Dir Psychol Sci 11:159–163. 29. Dehaene S, et al. (1998) Imaging unconscious semantic priming. Nature 395:597–600.
6. Tesser A (1988) Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of social behavior. 30. Mussweiler T, Rüter K, Epstude K (2004) The man who wasn’t there: Subliminal social
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, ed Berkowitz L (Academic, New York), comparison standards influence self-evaluation. J Exp Soc Psychol 40:689–696.
Vol 21, pp 181–227. 31. Baillargeon R (1991) Reasoning about the height and location of a hidden object in
7. Fliessbach K, et al. (2007) Social comparison affects reward-related brain activity in 4.5- and 6.5-month-old infants. Cognition 38:13–42.
the human ventral striatum. Science 318:1305–1308. 32. Gentner D, Medina J (1998) Similarity and the development of rules. Cognition 65:
8. Gibbons FX, Buunk BP (1999) Individual differences in social comparison: Develop- 263–297.
ment of a scale of social comparison orientation. J Pers Soc Psychol 76:129–142. 33. Gentner D, Rattermann MJ (1991) Language and the career of similarity. Perspectives
9. Nieder A (2005) Counting on neurons: The neurobiology of numerical competence. on Language and Thought: Interrelations in Development (Cambridge Univ Press,
Nat Rev Neurosci 6:177–190. New York), pp 225–277.
10. Schmitt V, Fischer J (2011) Representational format determines numerical compe- 34. Buunk BP (1994) Social comparison processes under stress: Towards an integration of
tence in monkeys. Nat Commun 2:257. classic and recent perspectives. Eur Rev Soc Psychol 5:211–241.
11. Coren S, Enns JT (1993) Size contrast as a function of conceptual similarity between 35. Pyszczynski T, Greenberg J, LaPrelle J (1985) Social comparison after success and
test and inducers. Percept Psychophys 54:579–588. failure: Biased search for information consistent with a self-serving conclusion. J Exp
12. Dunning D, Hayes AF (1996) Evidence for egocentric comparison in social judgment. Soc Psychol 21:195–211.
J Pers Soc Psychol 71:213–229. 36. Schachter S (1959) The Psychology of Affiliation (Stanford Univ Press, Stanford, CA).
13. Festinger L (1954) A theory of social comparison processes. Hum Relat 7:117–140. 37. Cross SE, Hardin EE, Gercek-Swing B (2011) The what, how, why, and where of self-
14. Gilbert DT, Giesler RB, Morris KA (1995) When comparisons arise. J Pers Soc Psychol construal. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 15:142–179.
69:227–236. 38. White K, Lehman DR (2005) Culture and social comparison seeking: The role of self-
15. Jones DC (2001) Social comparison and body image: Attractiveness comparisons to motives. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 31:232–242.
models and peers among adolescent girls and boys. Sex Roles 45:645–664. 39. Gelfand MJ, Nishii LH, Raver JL (2006) On the nature and importance of cultural
16. Gentner D, Markman AB (1997) Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. Am tightness-looseness. J Appl Psychol 91:1225–1244.
Psychol 52:45–56. 40. Pelto PJ (1968) The differences between “tight” and “loose” societies. Trans Action 5:
17. Nosofsky RM, Palmeri TJ (1997) An exemplar-based random walk model of speeded 37–40.
classification. Psychol Rev 104:266–300. 41. Triandis HC (1989) The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychol
18. Biernat M (2003) Toward a broader view of social stereotyping. Am Psychol 58: Rev 96:506–520.
1019–1027. 42. Mu Y, Kitayama S, Han S, Gelfand MJ (2015) How culture gets embrained: Cultural
19. Sherif M, Hovland CI (1961) Social Judgment: Assimilation and Contrast Effects in differences in event-related potentials of social norm violations. Proc Natl Acad Sci
Communication and Attitude Change (Yale Univ Press, Oxford). USA 112:15348–15353.
20. Higgins ET, Lurie L (1983) Context, categorization, and recall: The “change-of-stan- 43. Harrington JR, Gelfand MJ (2014) Tightness-looseness across the 50 United States.
dard” effect. Cognit Psychol 15:525–547. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111:7990–7995.
21. Choplin JM, Hummel JE (2002) Magnitude comparisons distort mental representa- 44. Gelfand MJ, et al. (2011) Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation
tions of magnitude. J Exp Psychol Gen 131:270–286. study. Science 332:1100–1104.
22. Herr PM (1986) Consequences of priming: Judgment and behavior. J Pers Soc Psychol 45. Mischel W (1977) The interaction of person and situation. Personality at the
51:1106–1115. Crossroads: Current Issues in Interactional Psychology, eds Magnusson D, Endler NS
23. Smith ER, Zárate MA (1992) Exemplar-based model of social judgment. Psychol Rev (Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ), pp 333–352.
99:3–21. 46. Miller DT, Prentice DA (1996) The Construction of Social Norms and Standards
24. Lange J, Crusius J (2015) The tango of two deadly sins: The social-functional relation (Guilford Press, New York).
of envy and pride. J Pers Soc Psychol 109:453–472. 47. Witkin HA, Berry JW (1975) Psychological differentiation in cross-cultural perspective.
25. Smith RH (2000) Assimilative and Contrastive Emotional Reactions to Upward J Cross Cult Psychol 6:4–87.
and Downward Social Comparisons (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The 48. Dawson JLM (1967) Cultural and physiological influences upon spatial-perceptual
Netherlands). processes in West Africa. Part I. Int J Psychol 2:115–128.

Baldwin and Mussweiler PNAS Latest Articles | 7 of 8

49. Nisbett RE, Peng K, Choi I, Norenzayan A (2001) Culture and systems of thought: 63. Uz I (2014) The index of cultural tightness and looseness among 68 countries. J Cross
Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychol Rev 108:291–310. Cult Psychol 46:319–335.
50. Hopwood D (2013) Syria 1945–1986 (RLE Syria): Politics and Society (Routledge, 64. Uz I (2018) Cross‐validation of cultural tightness and looseness measures. Int J Psychol
London). 53:287–294.
51. Tetlock PE (1992) The impact of accountability on judgment and choice: Toward a 65. Fincher CL, Thornhill R, Murray DR, Schaller M (2008) Pathogen prevalence predicts
social contingency model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, ed Zanna MP human cross-cultural variability in individualism/collectivism. Proc Biol Sci 275:
(Academic, New York), Vol 25, pp 331–376. 1279–1285.
52. Gangestad SW, Snyder M (2000) Self-monitoring: Appraisal and reappraisal. Psychol 66. Mrazek AJ, Chiao JY, Blizinsky KD, Lun J, Gelfand MJ (2013) The role of culture-gene
Bull 126:530–555. coevolution in morality judgment: Examining the interplay between tightness-
53. Cheng CM, Chartrand TL (2003) Self-monitoring without awareness: Using mimicry as looseness and allelic variation of the serotonin transporter gene. Cult Brain 1:
a nonconscious affiliation strategy. J Pers Soc Psychol 85:1170–1179.
100–117.
54. Conway LG, Sexton SM, Tweed RG (2006) Collectivism and governmentally initiated
67. van den Bosch A, Bogers T, de Kunder M (2016) Estimating search engine index size
restrictions: A cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis across nations and within a
variability: A 9-year longitudinal study. Scientometrics 107:839–856.
nation. J Cross Cult Psychol 37:20–41.
68. Ozmutlu S, Spink A, Ozmutlu HC (2003) Multimedia web searching trends: 1997–2001.
55. Hofstede G (1980) Culture and organizations. Int Stud Manage Organ 10:15–41.
Inf Process Manage 39:611–621.
56. Smith PB, Dugan S, Trompenaars F (1996) National culture and the values of orga-
69. Bickart B, Schindler RM (2001) Internet forums as influential sources of consumer
nizational employees: A dimensional analysis across 43 nations. J Cross Cult Psychol
information. J Interact Mark 15:31–40.
27:231–264.
70. Dutta-Bergman MJ (2004) Primary sources of health information: Comparisons in the
57. Vandello JA, Cohen D (1999) Patterns of individualism and collectivism across the
United States. J Pers Soc Psychol 77:279–292. domain of health attitudes, health cognitions, and health behaviors. Health Commun
58. Kühnen U, Hannover B (2000) Assimilation and contrast in social comparisons as a 16:273–288.
consequence of self-construal activation. Eur J Soc Psychol 30:799–811. 71. Mohebbi M, et al. (2011) Google Correlate Whitepaper. Available at https://www.
59. Haberstroh S, Oyserman D, Schwarz N, Kühnen U, Ji L-J (2002) Is the interdependent google.com/trends/correlate/whitepaper.pdf. Accessed September 1, 2016.
self more sensitive to question context than the independent self? Self-construal and 72. Orvell A, Kross E, Gelman SA (2017) How “you” makes meaning. Science 355:
the observation of conversational norms. J Exp Soc Psychol 38:323–329. 1299–1302.
60. Kemmelmeier M, Oyserman D (2001) The ups and downs of thinking about a suc- 73. Orvell A, Kross E, Gelman SA (2018) That’s how “you” do it: Generic you expresses
cessful other: Self-construals and the consequences of social comparisons. Eur J Soc norms during early childhood. J Exp Child Psychol 165:183–195.
Psychol 31:311–320. 74. Markus HR, Kitayama S (2010) Cultures and selves: A cycle of mutual constitution.
61. Kang P, Lee Y, Choi I, Kim H (2013) Neural evidence for individual and cultural vari- Perspect Psychol Sci 5:420–430.
ability in the social comparison effect. J Neurosci 33:16200–16208. 75. Triandis HC, Gelfand MJ (1998) Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical
62. Carpenter S (2000) Effects of cultural tightness and collectivism on self-concept and individualism and collectivism. J Pers Soc Psychol 74:118–128.
causal attributions. Cross-Cultural Res 34:38–56. 76. Clark A, Chalmers D (1998) The extended mind. Analysis 58:7–19.

8 of 8 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1721555115 Baldwin and Mussweiler

View publication stats