AP Syllabus focus:
‘People evaluate themselves through upward or downward social comparison and may judge deprivation relative to others.’
People rarely evaluate themselves in isolation. Instead, they use other people as reference points to judge ability, success, belonging, and fairness. These comparisons can motivate improvement or undermine well-being, especially when resources feel unequal.
Core Ideas
Social comparison
Social comparison shapes self-perception by providing standards for “how I’m doing” when objective measures are unclear (e.g., attractiveness, intelligence, popularity, life success).
Social comparison: evaluating oneself by comparing to others to form judgments about traits, abilities, or outcomes.
Social comparison is most likely when:
Standards are ambiguous or subjective
The trait matters to identity (grades, sports, appearance)
Similar peers are available as comparison targets
Upward vs. downward comparison
Comparisons differ by the direction of the target.
Table summarizing how upward versus downward social comparison can produce both beneficial and harmful outcomes. It contrasts typical positive emotions (e.g., hope/inspiration for upward; gratitude for downward) with typical negative emotions (e.g., envy/dissatisfaction for upward; scorn for downward), reinforcing that comparison direction can shift affect and self-evaluation. Source
Upward social comparison: comparing oneself to someone perceived as better off on a valued dimension.
Upward comparison often:
Increases motivation when the goal feels attainable
Decreases self-esteem when the gap feels large or fixed
Heightens envy or shame if the standard seems unfair or irrelevant
Downward comparisons can protect mood, especially after setbacks.
Downward social comparison: comparing oneself to someone perceived as worse off to feel better, safer, or more competent.
Downward comparison often:
Boosts self-esteem and reduces anxiety short-term
Encourages gratitude or resilience
Risks complacency or reduced effort if used to justify underperformance
How Social Comparison Influences Thoughts and Behaviour
Effects on self-concept and emotion
Social comparison can shift:
Self-esteem (confidence vs. inadequacy)
Affect (pride, inspiration, envy, resentment)
Perceived competence (“I can do this” vs. “I’ll never measure up”)
Key moderators include:
Perceived similarity: comparisons to similar peers feel more diagnostic (and more emotionally intense)
Domain importance: comparisons matter more in areas tied to identity
Perceived controllability: if improvement seems possible, upward comparison is more motivating
Behavioural consequences
Social comparison can guide choices about:
Effort and persistence (increased studying after seeing peers succeed)
Risk-taking or avoidance (withdrawing from a domain that threatens self-worth)
Consumption and status behaviours (pursuing symbols that signal success relative to others)
Relative Deprivation
The “worse off than expected” judgment
Relative deprivation describes feeling deprived not because of absolute hardship, but because of comparison to others or to what one believes one deserves.
Relative deprivation: perceived unfair disadvantage based on comparisons, leading someone to feel they have less than they are entitled to.
Relative deprivation is driven by:
Reference groups: who you compare to (friends, classmates, neighbours, online communities)
Entitlement beliefs: what you think is fair or deserved
Perceived injustice: the sense that outcomes violate expectations or norms
Individual vs. group relative deprivation
Relative deprivation can be experienced at different levels:
Personal relative deprivation: “I am being treated unfairly compared to others like me.”
Group relative deprivation: “My group is being treated unfairly compared to other groups.”
Both can shape:
Stress and dissatisfaction
Complaints and conflict
Support for change when deprivation is seen as illegitimate and fixable
Putting the Syllabus Focus Together
AP Psychology emphasizes that people evaluate themselves through upward or downward social comparison and may judge deprivation relative to others. In practice, the same objective outcome can feel satisfying or upsetting depending on the comparison target, the perceived gap, and whether the situation seems fair.
FAQ
Feeds disproportionately show high-status, curated moments and repeated exposure to the same “top performers,” narrowing reference groups to unusually successful targets.
This can shift perceived norms (what seems “average”), making gaps feel larger and more stable.
Near-peer targets feel highly diagnostic: “If they can, I should.” Small gaps can threaten identity because the domain seems controllable and personally relevant.
This often produces sharper self-evaluations than comparing to an extreme celebrity.
Yes. If others improve faster, the comparison gap widens. Expectations also rise with progress, so improvements may not reduce perceived unfairness.
Relative deprivation depends on changing standards, not only outcomes.
Reference groups stabilise when they are tied to identity, daily contact, or status goals (e.g., classmates in a competitive programme).
They also persist when switching groups threatens belonging or self-image.
In some collectivist contexts, comparison may emphasise group harmony and role fulfilment, so upward comparison can feel like guidance rather than threat.
In more individualist settings, comparison may be more self-focused, increasing pressure to stand out.
Practice Questions
Define upward social comparison and state one likely effect it can have on self-esteem. (1–3 marks)
1 mark: Correct definition of upward social comparison (comparison to someone better off on a valued dimension).
1 mark: Correct effect on self-esteem (e.g., may lower self-esteem if gap feels large; or may increase self-esteem/motivation if attainable).
1 mark: Effect clearly linked to the comparison (not a generic statement about mood).
Explain how social comparison can lead to feelings of relative deprivation. In your answer, refer to upward and/or downward comparison and the role of reference groups and perceived fairness. (4–6 marks)
1 mark: Accurate description of social comparison as self-evaluation via others.
1 mark: Accurate description of relative deprivation as perceived unfair disadvantage based on comparison (not absolute poverty).
1 mark: Explains the role of reference groups (who is chosen as the comparison target).
1 mark: Links upward and/or downward comparison to dissatisfaction or protection of self-worth.
1–2 marks: Explains perceived fairness/entitlement (expectations, deserved outcomes) as a driver of deprivation feelings, clearly connected to comparison.
