comparison theory thesis

Essay Papers Writing Online

A comprehensive guide to crafting a successful comparison essay.

Comparison essays are a common assignment in academic settings, requiring students to analyze and contrast two or more subjects, concepts, or ideas. Writing a comparison essay can be challenging, but with the right approach and guidance, you can craft a compelling and informative piece of writing.

In this comprehensive guide, we will provide you with valuable tips and examples to help you master the art of comparison essay writing. Whether you’re comparing two literary works, historical events, scientific theories, or any other topics, this guide will equip you with the tools and strategies needed to create a well-structured and persuasive essay.

From choosing a suitable topic and developing a strong thesis statement to organizing your arguments and incorporating effective evidence, this guide will walk you through each step of the writing process. By following the advice and examples provided here, you’ll be able to produce a top-notch comparison essay that showcases your analytical skills and critical thinking abilities.

Understanding the Basics

Before diving into writing a comparison essay, it’s essential to understand the basics of comparison writing. A comparison essay, also known as a comparative essay, requires you to analyze two or more subjects by highlighting their similarities and differences. This type of essay aims to show how these subjects are similar or different in various aspects.

When writing a comparison essay, you should have a clear thesis statement that identifies the subjects you are comparing and the main points of comparison. It’s essential to structure your essay effectively by organizing your ideas logically. You can use different methods of organization, such as the block method or point-by-point method, to present your comparisons.

Additionally, make sure to include evidence and examples to support your comparisons. Use specific details and examples to strengthen your arguments and clarify the similarities and differences between the subjects. Lastly, remember to provide a strong conclusion that summarizes your main points and reinforces the significance of your comparison.

Choosing a Topic for Comparison Essay

When selecting a topic for your comparison essay, it’s essential to choose two subjects that have some similarities and differences to explore. You can compare two books, two movies, two historical figures, two theories, or any other pair of related subjects.

Consider selecting topics that interest you or that you are familiar with to make the writing process more engaging and manageable. Additionally, ensure that the subjects you choose are suitable for comparison and have enough material for analysis.

It’s also helpful to brainstorm ideas and create a list of potential topics before making a final decision. Once you have a few options in mind, evaluate them based on the relevance of the comparison, the availability of credible sources, and your own interest in the subjects.

Remember that a well-chosen topic is one of the keys to writing a successful comparison essay, so take your time to select subjects that will allow you to explore meaningful connections and differences in a compelling way.

Finding the Right Pairing

When writing a comparison essay, it’s crucial to find the right pairing of subjects to compare. Choose subjects that have enough similarities and differences to make a meaningful comparison. Consider the audience and purpose of your essay to determine what pairing will be most effective.

Look for subjects that you are passionate about or have a deep understanding of. This will make the writing process easier and more engaging. Additionally, consider choosing subjects that are relevant and timely, as this will make your essay more interesting to readers.

Don’t be afraid to think outside the box when finding the right pairing. Sometimes unexpected combinations can lead to the most compelling comparisons. Conduct thorough research on both subjects to ensure you have enough material to work with and present a balanced comparison.

Structuring Your Comparison Essay

When writing a comparison essay, it is essential to organize your ideas in a clear and logical manner. One effective way to structure your essay is to use a point-by-point comparison or a block comparison format.

Whichever format you choose, make sure to introduce your subjects, present your points of comparison, provide evidence or examples to support your comparisons, and conclude by summarizing the main points and highlighting the significance of your comparison.

Creating a Clear Outline

Before you start writing your comparison essay, it’s essential to create a clear outline. An outline serves as a roadmap that helps you stay organized and focused throughout the writing process. Here are some steps to create an effective outline:

1. Identify the subjects of comparison: Start by determining the two subjects you will be comparing in your essay. Make sure they have enough similarities and differences to make a meaningful comparison.

2. Brainstorm key points: Once you have chosen the subjects, brainstorm the key points you want to compare and contrast. These could include characteristics, features, themes, or arguments related to each subject.

3. Organize your points: Arrange your key points in a logical order. You can choose to compare similar points side by side or alternate between the two subjects to highlight differences.

4. Develop a thesis statement: Based on your key points, develop a clear thesis statement that states the main purpose of your comparison essay. This statement should guide the rest of your writing and provide a clear direction for your argument.

5. Create a structure: Divide your essay into introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion. Each section should serve a specific purpose and contribute to the overall coherence of your essay.

By creating a clear outline, you can ensure that your comparison essay flows smoothly and effectively communicates your ideas to the reader.

Engaging the Reader

When writing a comparison essay, it is crucial to engage the reader right from the beginning. You want to hook their attention and make them want to keep reading. Here are some tips to engage your reader:

• Start with a strong opening statement or question that entices the reader to continue reading.
• Use vivid language and descriptive imagery to paint a clear picture in the reader’s mind.
• Provide interesting facts or statistics that pique the reader’s curiosity.
• Create a compelling thesis statement that outlines the purpose of your comparison essay.

By engaging the reader from the start, you set the stage for a successful and impactful comparison essay that keeps the reader engaged until the very end.

Point-by-Point vs Block Method

When writing a comparison essay, you have two main options for structuring your content: the point-by-point method and the block method. Each method has its own advantages and may be more suitable depending on the type of comparison you are making.

• Point-by-Point Method: This method involves discussing one point of comparison at a time between the two subjects. You will go back and forth between the subjects, highlighting similarities and differences for each point. This method allows for a more detailed and nuanced analysis of the subjects.
• Block Method: In contrast, the block method involves discussing all the points related to one subject first, followed by all the points related to the second subject. This method provides a more straightforward and organized comparison but may not delve as deeply into the individual points of comparison.

Ultimately, the choice between the point-by-point and block methods depends on the complexity of your comparison and the level of detail you want to explore. Experiment with both methods to see which one best suits your writing style and the specific requirements of your comparison essay.

Selecting the Best Approach

When it comes to writing a comparison essay, selecting the best approach is crucial to ensure a successful and effective comparison. There are several approaches you can take when comparing two subjects, including the block method and the point-by-point method.

The block method: This approach involves discussing all the similarities and differences of one subject first, followed by a thorough discussion of the second subject. This method is useful when the two subjects being compared are quite different or when the reader may not be familiar with one of the subjects.

The point-by-point method: This approach involves alternating between discussing the similarities and differences of the two subjects in each paragraph. This method allows for a more in-depth comparison of specific points and is often preferred when the two subjects have many similarities and differences.

Before selecting an approach, consider the nature of the subjects being compared and the purpose of your comparison essay. Choose the approach that will best serve your purpose and allow for a clear, organized, and engaging comparison.

Related Post

How to master the art of writing expository essays and captivate your audience, convenient and reliable source to purchase college essays online, step-by-step guide to crafting a powerful literary analysis essay, unlock success with a comprehensive business research paper example guide, unlock your writing potential with writers college – transform your passion into profession, “unlocking the secrets of academic success – navigating the world of research papers in college”, master the art of sociological expression – elevate your writing skills in sociology.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

10.7 Comparison and Contrast

Learning objectives.

• Determine the purpose and structure of comparison and contrast in writing.
• Explain organizational methods used when comparing and contrasting.
• Understand how to write a compare-and-contrast essay.

The Purpose of Comparison and Contrast in Writing

Comparison in writing discusses elements that are similar, while contrast in writing discusses elements that are different. A compare-and-contrast essay , then, analyzes two subjects by comparing them, contrasting them, or both.

The key to a good compare-and-contrast essay is to choose two or more subjects that connect in a meaningful way. The purpose of conducting the comparison or contrast is not to state the obvious but rather to illuminate subtle differences or unexpected similarities. For example, if you wanted to focus on contrasting two subjects you would not pick apples and oranges; rather, you might choose to compare and contrast two types of oranges or two types of apples to highlight subtle differences. For example, Red Delicious apples are sweet, while Granny Smiths are tart and acidic. Drawing distinctions between elements in a similar category will increase the audience’s understanding of that category, which is the purpose of the compare-and-contrast essay.

Similarly, to focus on comparison, choose two subjects that seem at first to be unrelated. For a comparison essay, you likely would not choose two apples or two oranges because they share so many of the same properties already. Rather, you might try to compare how apples and oranges are quite similar. The more divergent the two subjects initially seem, the more interesting a comparison essay will be.

Writing at Work

Comparing and contrasting is also an evaluative tool. In order to make accurate evaluations about a given topic, you must first know the critical points of similarity and difference. Comparing and contrasting is a primary tool for many workplace assessments. You have likely compared and contrasted yourself to other colleagues. Employee advancements, pay raises, hiring, and firing are typically conducted using comparison and contrast. Comparison and contrast could be used to evaluate companies, departments, or individuals.

Brainstorm an essay that leans toward contrast. Choose one of the following three categories. Pick two examples from each. Then come up with one similarity and three differences between the examples.

• Romantic comedies
• Internet search engines
• Cell phones

Brainstorm an essay that leans toward comparison. Choose one of the following three items. Then come up with one difference and three similarities.

• Department stores and discount retail stores
• Fast food chains and fine dining restaurants
• Dogs and cats

The Structure of a Comparison and Contrast Essay

The compare-and-contrast essay starts with a thesis that clearly states the two subjects that are to be compared, contrasted, or both and the reason for doing so. The thesis could lean more toward comparing, contrasting, or both. Remember, the point of comparing and contrasting is to provide useful knowledge to the reader. Take the following thesis as an example that leans more toward contrasting.

Thesis statement: Organic vegetables may cost more than those that are conventionally grown, but when put to the test, they are definitely worth every extra penny.

Here the thesis sets up the two subjects to be compared and contrasted (organic versus conventional vegetables), and it makes a claim about the results that might prove useful to the reader.

You may organize compare-and-contrast essays in one of the following two ways:

• According to the subjects themselves, discussing one then the other
• According to individual points, discussing each subject in relation to each point

See Figure 10.1 “Comparison and Contrast Diagram” , which diagrams the ways to organize our organic versus conventional vegetables thesis.

Figure 10.1 Comparison and Contrast Diagram

The organizational structure you choose depends on the nature of the topic, your purpose, and your audience.

Given that compare-and-contrast essays analyze the relationship between two subjects, it is helpful to have some phrases on hand that will cue the reader to such analysis. See Table 10.3 “Phrases of Comparison and Contrast” for examples.

Table 10.3 Phrases of Comparison and Contrast

Create an outline for each of the items you chose in Note 10.72 “Exercise 1” and Note 10.73 “Exercise 2” . Use the point-by-point organizing strategy for one of them, and use the subject organizing strategy for the other.

Writing a Comparison and Contrast Essay

First choose whether you want to compare seemingly disparate subjects, contrast seemingly similar subjects, or compare and contrast subjects. Once you have decided on a topic, introduce it with an engaging opening paragraph. Your thesis should come at the end of the introduction, and it should establish the subjects you will compare, contrast, or both as well as state what can be learned from doing so.

The body of the essay can be organized in one of two ways: by subject or by individual points. The organizing strategy that you choose will depend on, as always, your audience and your purpose. You may also consider your particular approach to the subjects as well as the nature of the subjects themselves; some subjects might better lend themselves to one structure or the other. Make sure to use comparison and contrast phrases to cue the reader to the ways in which you are analyzing the relationship between the subjects.

After you finish analyzing the subjects, write a conclusion that summarizes the main points of the essay and reinforces your thesis. See Chapter 15 “Readings: Examples of Essays” to read a sample compare-and-contrast essay.

Many business presentations are conducted using comparison and contrast. The organizing strategies—by subject or individual points—could also be used for organizing a presentation. Keep this in mind as a way of organizing your content the next time you or a colleague have to present something at work.

Choose one of the outlines you created in Note 10.75 “Exercise 3” , and write a full compare-and-contrast essay. Be sure to include an engaging introduction, a clear thesis, well-defined and detailed paragraphs, and a fitting conclusion that ties everything together.

Key Takeaways

• A compare-and-contrast essay analyzes two subjects by either comparing them, contrasting them, or both.
• The purpose of writing a comparison or contrast essay is not to state the obvious but rather to illuminate subtle differences or unexpected similarities between two subjects.
• The thesis should clearly state the subjects that are to be compared, contrasted, or both, and it should state what is to be learned from doing so.

There are two main organizing strategies for compare-and-contrast essays.

• Organize by the subjects themselves, one then the other.
• Organize by individual points, in which you discuss each subject in relation to each point.
• Use phrases of comparison or phrases of contrast to signal to readers how exactly the two subjects are being analyzed.

Writing for Success Copyright © 2015 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Research paper

What Is a Theoretical Framework? | Guide to Organizing

Published on October 14, 2022 by Sarah Vinz . Revised on November 20, 2023 by Tegan George.

A theoretical framework is a foundational review of existing theories that serves as a roadmap for developing the arguments you will use in your own work.

Theories are developed by researchers to explain phenomena, draw connections, and make predictions. In a theoretical framework, you explain the existing theories that support your research, showing that your paper or dissertation topic is relevant and grounded in established ideas.

In other words, your theoretical framework justifies and contextualizes your later research, and it’s a crucial first step for your research paper , thesis , or dissertation . A well-rounded theoretical framework sets you up for success later on in your research and writing process.

Table of contents

Why do you need a theoretical framework, how to write a theoretical framework, structuring your theoretical framework, example of a theoretical framework, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about theoretical frameworks.

Before you start your own research, it’s crucial to familiarize yourself with the theories and models that other researchers have already developed. Your theoretical framework is your opportunity to present and explain what you’ve learned, situated within your future research topic.

There’s a good chance that many different theories about your topic already exist, especially if the topic is broad. In your theoretical framework, you will evaluate, compare, and select the most relevant ones.

By “framing” your research within a clearly defined field, you make the reader aware of the assumptions that inform your approach, showing the rationale behind your choices for later sections, like methodology and discussion . This part of your dissertation lays the foundations that will support your analysis, helping you interpret your results and make broader generalizations .

• In literature , a scholar using postmodernist literary theory would analyze The Great Gatsby differently than a scholar using Marxist literary theory.
• In psychology , a behaviorist approach to depression would involve different research methods and assumptions than a psychoanalytic approach.
• In economics , wealth inequality would be explained and interpreted differently based on a classical economics approach than based on a Keynesian economics one.

To create your own theoretical framework, you can follow these three steps:

• Identifying your key concepts
• Evaluating and explaining relevant theories
• Showing how your research fits into existing research

1. Identify your key concepts

The first step is to pick out the key terms from your problem statement and research questions . Concepts often have multiple definitions, so your theoretical framework should also clearly define what you mean by each term.

To investigate this problem, you have identified and plan to focus on the following problem statement, objective, and research questions:

Problem : Many online customers do not return to make subsequent purchases.

Objective : To increase the quantity of return customers.

Research question : How can the satisfaction of company X’s online customers be improved in order to increase the quantity of return customers?

2. Evaluate and explain relevant theories

By conducting a thorough literature review , you can determine how other researchers have defined these key concepts and drawn connections between them. As you write your theoretical framework, your aim is to compare and critically evaluate the approaches that different authors have taken.

After discussing different models and theories, you can establish the definitions that best fit your research and justify why. You can even combine theories from different fields to build your own unique framework if this better suits your topic.

Make sure to at least briefly mention each of the most important theories related to your key concepts. If there is a well-established theory that you don’t want to apply to your own research, explain why it isn’t suitable for your purposes.

3. Show how your research fits into existing research

Apart from summarizing and discussing existing theories, your theoretical framework should show how your project will make use of these ideas and take them a step further.

You might aim to do one or more of the following:

• Test whether a theory holds in a specific, previously unexamined context
• Use an existing theory as a basis for interpreting your results
• Critique or challenge a theory
• Combine different theories in a new or unique way

A theoretical framework can sometimes be integrated into a literature review chapter , but it can also be included as its own chapter or section in your dissertation. As a rule of thumb, if your research involves dealing with a lot of complex theories, it’s a good idea to include a separate theoretical framework chapter.

There are no fixed rules for structuring your theoretical framework, but it’s best to double-check with your department or institution to make sure they don’t have any formatting guidelines. The most important thing is to create a clear, logical structure. There are a few ways to do this:

• Draw on your research questions, structuring each section around a question or key concept
• Organize by theory cluster
• Organize by date

It’s important that the information in your theoretical framework is clear for your reader. Make sure to ask a friend to read this section for you, or use a professional proofreading service .

As in all other parts of your research paper , thesis , or dissertation , make sure to properly cite your sources to avoid plagiarism .

To get a sense of what this part of your thesis or dissertation might look like, take a look at our full example .

If you want to know more about AI for academic writing, AI tools, or research bias, make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples or go directly to our tools!

Research bias

• Survivorship bias
• Self-serving bias
• Availability heuristic
• Halo effect
• Hindsight bias
• Deep learning
• Generative AI
• Machine learning
• Reinforcement learning
• Supervised vs. unsupervised learning

 (AI) Tools

• Grammar Checker
• Paraphrasing Tool
• Text Summarizer
• AI Detector
• Plagiarism Checker
• Citation Generator

While a theoretical framework describes the theoretical underpinnings of your work based on existing research, a conceptual framework allows you to draw your own conclusions, mapping out the variables you may use in your study and the interplay between them.

A literature review and a theoretical framework are not the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably. While a theoretical framework describes the theoretical underpinnings of your work, a literature review critically evaluates existing research relating to your topic. You’ll likely need both in your dissertation .

A theoretical framework can sometimes be integrated into a  literature review chapter , but it can also be included as its own chapter or section in your dissertation . As a rule of thumb, if your research involves dealing with a lot of complex theories, it’s a good idea to include a separate theoretical framework chapter.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Vinz, S. (2023, November 20). What Is a Theoretical Framework? | Guide to Organizing. Scribbr. Retrieved June 24, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/theoretical-framework/

Is this article helpful?

Sarah's academic background includes a Master of Arts in English, a Master of International Affairs degree, and a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science. She loves the challenge of finding the perfect formulation or wording and derives much satisfaction from helping students take their academic writing up a notch.

Other students also liked

What is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a literature review | guide, examples, & templates, what is a conceptual framework | tips & examples, what is your plagiarism score.

We’re reviewing our resources this spring (May-August 2024). We will do our best to minimize disruption, but you might notice changes over the next few months as we correct errors & delete redundant resources. 

Comparative Essays

Writing a comparison usually requires that you assess the similarities and differences between two or more theories, procedures, or processes. You explain to your reader what insights can be gained from the comparison, or judge whether one thing is better than another according to established criteria.

How to Write a Comparative Essay

1. Establish a basis of comparison 

A basis of comparison represents the main idea, category, or theme you will investigate. You will have to do some preliminary reading, likely using your course materials, to get an idea of what kind of criteria you will use to assess whatever you are comparing. A basis of comparison must apply to all items you are comparing, but the details will be different. 

For example, if you are asked to “compare neoclassical architecture and gothic architecture,” you could compare the influence of social context on the two styles.  

2. Gather the details of whatever you are comparing 

Once you have decided what theme or idea you are investigating, you will need to gather details of whatever you are comparing, especially in terms of similarities and differences. Doing so allows you to see which criteria you should use in your comparison, if not specified by your professor or instructor. 

• Appeal to Greek perfection
• Formulaic and mathematical
• Appeal to emotion
• Towers and spires
• Wild and rustic
• Civic buildings

Based on this information, you could focus on how ornamentation and design principles reveal prevailing intellectual thought about architecture in the respective eras and societies.

3. Develop a thesis statement 

After brainstorming, try to develop a thesis statement that identifies the results of your comparison. Here is an example of a fairly common thesis statement structure: 

e.g., Although neoclassical architecture and gothic architecture have [similar characteristics A and B], they reveal profound differences in their interpretation of [C, D, and E]. 

4. Organize your comparison  

You have a choice of two basic methods for organizing a comparative essay: the point-by-point method or the block method.  

The point-by-point method examines one aspect of comparison in each paragraph and usually alternates back and forth between the two objects, texts, or ideas being compared. This method allows you to emphasize points of similarity and of difference as you proceed. 

In the block method, however, you say everything you need to say about one thing, then do the same thing with the other. This method works best if you want readers to understand and agree with the advantages of something you are proposing, such as introducing a new process or theory by showing how it compares to something more traditional.

Sample Outlines for Comparative Essays on Neoclassical and Gothic Architecture 

Building a point-by-point essay.

Using the point-by-point method in a comparative essay allows you to draw direct comparisons and produce a more tightly integrated essay.

1. Introduction

• Introductory material
• Thesis: Although neoclassical and gothic architecture are both western European forms that are exemplified in civic buildings and churches, they nonetheless reveal through different structural design and ornamentation, the different intellectual principles of the two societies that created them.

2. Body Sections/Paragraphs

• Ornamentation in Text 1
• Ornamentation in Text 2
• Major appeal in Text 1
• Major appeal in Text 2
• Style in Text 1
• Style in Text 2

3. Conclusion

• Why this comparison is important?
• What does this comparison tell readers?

Building a Block Method Essay

Using the block method in a comparative essay can help ensure that the ideas in the second block build upon or extend ideas presented in the first block. It works well if you have three or more major areas of comparison instead of two (for example, if you added in a third or fourth style of architecture, the block method would be easier to organize).

• Thesis: The neoclassical style of architecture was a conscious rejection of the gothic style that had dominated in France at the end of the middle ages; it represented a desire to return to the classical ideals of Greece and Rome.
• History and development
• Change from earlier form
• Social context of new form
• What does the comparison reveal about architectural development?
• Why is this comparison important?

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation

What is a Theoretical Framework? | A Step-by-Step Guide

Published on 14 February 2020 by Shona McCombes . Revised on 10 October 2022.

A theoretical framework is a foundational review of existing theories that serves as a roadmap for developing the arguments you will use in your own work.

Theories are developed by researchers to explain phenomena, draw connections, and make predictions. In a theoretical framework, you explain the existing theories that support your research, showing that your work is grounded in established ideas.

In other words, your theoretical framework justifies and contextualises your later research, and it’s a crucial first step for your research paper , thesis, or dissertation . A well-rounded theoretical framework sets you up for success later on in your research and writing process.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Be assured that you'll submit flawless writing. Upload your document to correct all your mistakes.

Table of contents

Why do you need a theoretical framework, how to write a theoretical framework, structuring your theoretical framework, example of a theoretical framework, frequently asked questions about theoretical frameworks.

Before you start your own research, it’s crucial to familiarise yourself with the theories and models that other researchers have already developed. Your theoretical framework is your opportunity to present and explain what you’ve learned, situated within your future research topic.

There’s a good chance that many different theories about your topic already exist, especially if the topic is broad. In your theoretical framework, you will evaluate, compare, and select the most relevant ones.

By “framing” your research within a clearly defined field, you make the reader aware of the assumptions that inform your approach, showing the rationale behind your choices for later sections, like methodology and discussion . This part of your dissertation lays the foundations that will support your analysis, helping you interpret your results and make broader generalisations .

• In literature , a scholar using postmodernist literary theory would analyse The Great Gatsby differently than a scholar using Marxist literary theory.
• In psychology , a behaviourist approach to depression would involve different research methods and assumptions than a psychoanalytic approach.
• In economics , wealth inequality would be explained and interpreted differently based on a classical economics approach than based on a Keynesian economics one.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

To create your own theoretical framework, you can follow these three steps:

• Identifying your key concepts
• Evaluating and explaining relevant theories
• Showing how your research fits into existing research

1. Identify your key concepts

The first step is to pick out the key terms from your problem statement and research questions . Concepts often have multiple definitions, so your theoretical framework should also clearly define what you mean by each term.

To investigate this problem, you have identified and plan to focus on the following problem statement, objective, and research questions:

Problem : Many online customers do not return to make subsequent purchases.

Objective : To increase the quantity of return customers.

Research question : How can the satisfaction of company X’s online customers be improved in order to increase the quantity of return customers?

2. Evaluate and explain relevant theories

By conducting a thorough literature review , you can determine how other researchers have defined these key concepts and drawn connections between them. As you write your theoretical framework, your aim is to compare and critically evaluate the approaches that different authors have taken.

After discussing different models and theories, you can establish the definitions that best fit your research and justify why. You can even combine theories from different fields to build your own unique framework if this better suits your topic.

Make sure to at least briefly mention each of the most important theories related to your key concepts. If there is a well-established theory that you don’t want to apply to your own research, explain why it isn’t suitable for your purposes.

3. Show how your research fits into existing research

Apart from summarising and discussing existing theories, your theoretical framework should show how your project will make use of these ideas and take them a step further.

You might aim to do one or more of the following:

• Test whether a theory holds in a specific, previously unexamined context
• Use an existing theory as a basis for interpreting your results
• Critique or challenge a theory
• Combine different theories in a new or unique way

A theoretical framework can sometimes be integrated into a literature review chapter , but it can also be included as its own chapter or section in your dissertation. As a rule of thumb, if your research involves dealing with a lot of complex theories, it’s a good idea to include a separate theoretical framework chapter.

There are no fixed rules for structuring your theoretical framework, but it’s best to double-check with your department or institution to make sure they don’t have any formatting guidelines. The most important thing is to create a clear, logical structure. There are a few ways to do this:

• Draw on your research questions, structuring each section around a question or key concept
• Organise by theory cluster
• Organise by date

As in all other parts of your research paper , thesis, or dissertation , make sure to properly cite your sources to avoid plagiarism .

To get a sense of what this part of your thesis or dissertation might look like, take a look at our full example .

While a theoretical framework describes the theoretical underpinnings of your work based on existing research, a conceptual framework allows you to draw your own conclusions, mapping out the variables you may use in your study and the interplay between them.

A literature review and a theoretical framework are not the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably. While a theoretical framework describes the theoretical underpinnings of your work, a literature review critically evaluates existing research relating to your topic. You’ll likely need both in your dissertation .

A theoretical framework can sometimes be integrated into a  literature review chapter , but it can also be included as its own chapter or section in your dissertation . As a rule of thumb, if your research involves dealing with a lot of complex theories, it’s a good idea to include a separate theoretical framework chapter.

A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related to a specific topic or research question .

It is often written as part of a dissertation , thesis, research paper , or proposal .

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

McCombes, S. (2022, October 10). What is a Theoretical Framework? | A Step-by-Step Guide. Scribbr. Retrieved 24 June 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/the-theoretical-framework/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a literature review | guide, template, & examples, how to write a results section | tips & examples, how to write a discussion section | tips & examples.

• Writing Home
• Writing Advice Home

The Comparative Essay

• Printable PDF Version
• Fair-Use Policy

What is a comparative essay?

A comparative essay asks that you compare at least two (possibly more) items. These items will differ depending on the assignment. You might be asked to compare

• positions on an issue (e.g., responses to midwifery in Canada and the United States)
• theories (e.g., capitalism and communism)
• figures (e.g., GDP in the United States and Britain)
• texts (e.g., Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Macbeth )
• events (e.g., the Great Depression and the global financial crisis of 2008–9)

Although the assignment may say “compare,” the assumption is that you will consider both the similarities and differences; in other words, you will compare and contrast.

Make sure you know the basis for comparison

The assignment sheet may say exactly what you need to compare, or it may ask you to come up with a basis for comparison yourself.

• Provided by the essay question: The essay question may ask that you consider the figure of the gentleman in Charles Dickens’s Great Expectations and Anne Brontë’s The Tenant of Wildfell Hall . The basis for comparison will be the figure of the gentleman.
• Developed by you: The question may simply ask that you compare the two novels. If so, you will need to develop a basis for comparison, that is, a theme, concern, or device common to both works from which you can draw similarities and differences.

Develop a list of similarities and differences

Once you know your basis for comparison, think critically about the similarities and differences between the items you are comparing, and compile a list of them.

For example, you might decide that in Great Expectations , being a true gentleman is not a matter of manners or position but morality, whereas in The Tenant of Wildfell Hall , being a true gentleman is not about luxury and self-indulgence but hard work and productivity.

The list you have generated is not yet your outline for the essay, but it should provide you with enough similarities and differences to construct an initial plan.

Develop a thesis based on the relative weight of similarities and differences

Once you have listed similarities and differences, decide whether the similarities on the whole outweigh the differences or vice versa. Create a thesis statement that reflects their relative weights. A more complex thesis will usually include both similarities and differences. Here are examples of the two main cases:

While Callaghan’s “All the Years of Her Life” and Mistry’s “Of White Hairs and Cricket” both follow the conventions of the coming-of-age narrative, Callaghan’s story adheres more closely to these conventions by allowing its central protagonist to mature. In Mistry’s story, by contrast, no real growth occurs.

Although Darwin and Lamarck came to different conclusions about whether acquired traits can be inherited, they shared the key distinction of recognizing that species evolve over time.

Come up with a structure for your essay

Note that the French and Russian revolutions (A and B) may be dissimilar rather than similar in the way they affected innovation in any of the three areas of technology, military strategy, and administration. To use the alternating method, you just need to have something noteworthy to say about both A and B in each area. Finally, you may certainly include more than three pairs of alternating points: allow the subject matter to determine the number of points you choose to develop in the body of your essay.

When do I use the block method? The block method is particularly useful in the following cases:

• You are unable to find points about A and B that are closely related to each other.
• Your ideas about B build upon or extend your ideas about A.
• You are comparing three or more subjects as opposed to the traditional two.

• Walden University
• Faculty Portal

Writing a Paper: Comparing & Contrasting

A compare and contrast paper discusses the similarities and differences between two or more topics. The paper should contain an introduction with a thesis statement, a body where the comparisons and contrasts are discussed, and a conclusion.

Address Both Similarities and Differences

Because this is a compare and contrast paper, both the similarities and differences should be discussed. This will require analysis on your part, as some topics will appear to be quite similar, and you will have to work to find the differing elements.

Make Sure You Have a Clear Thesis Statement

Just like any other essay, a compare and contrast essay needs a thesis statement. The thesis statement should not only tell your reader what you will do, but it should also address the purpose and importance of comparing and contrasting the material.

Use Clear Transitions

Transitions are important in compare and contrast essays, where you will be moving frequently between different topics or perspectives.

• Examples of transitions and phrases for comparisons: as well, similar to, consistent with, likewise, too
• Examples of transitions and phrases for contrasts: on the other hand, however, although, differs, conversely, rather than.

For more information, check out our transitions page.

Structure Your Paper

Consider how you will present the information. You could present all of the similarities first and then present all of the differences. Or you could go point by point and show the similarity and difference of one point, then the similarity and difference for another point, and so on.

Include Analysis

It is tempting to just provide summary for this type of paper, but analysis will show the importance of the comparisons and contrasts. For instance, if you are comparing two articles on the topic of the nursing shortage, help us understand what this will achieve. Did you find consensus between the articles that will support a certain action step for people in the field? Did you find discrepancies between the two that point to the need for further investigation?

Make Analogous Comparisons

When drawing comparisons or making contrasts, be sure you are dealing with similar aspects of each item. To use an old cliché, are you comparing apples to apples?

• Example of poor comparisons: Kubista studied the effects of a later start time on high school students, but Cook used a mixed methods approach. (This example does not compare similar items. It is not a clear contrast because the sentence does not discuss the same element of the articles. It is like comparing apples to oranges.)
• Example of analogous comparisons: Cook used a mixed methods approach, whereas Kubista used only quantitative methods. (Here, methods are clearly being compared, allowing the reader to understand the distinction.

Related Webinar

Didn't find what you need? Email us at [email protected] .

• Previous Page: Developing Arguments
• Next Page: Avoiding Logical Fallacies
• Office of Student Disability Services

Walden Resources

Departments.

• Academic Residencies
• Academic Skills
• Career Planning and Development
• Customer Care Team
• Field Experience
• Military Services
• Student Success Advising
• Writing Skills

Centers and Offices

• Center for Social Change
• Office of Academic Support and Instructional Services
• Office of Degree Acceleration
• Office of Research and Doctoral Services
• Office of Student Affairs

Student Resources

• Doctoral Writing Assessment
• Form & Style Review
• Quick Answers
• ScholarWorks
• SKIL Courses and Workshops
• Walden Bookstore
• Walden Catalog & Student Handbook
• Student Safety/Title IX
• Legal & Consumer Information
• Website Terms and Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Accessibility
• Accreditation
• State Authorization
• Net Price Calculator
• Contact Walden

Walden University is a member of Adtalem Global Education, Inc. www.adtalem.com Walden University is certified to operate by SCHEV © 2024 Walden University LLC. All rights reserved.

• Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Acquisition
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music and Religion
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Ethics
• Business Strategy
• Business History
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Systems
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• Ethnic Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Politics of Development
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous
• Next chapter >

1 A History of Social Comparison Theory

• Published: December 2019
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

This chapter provides a history of social comparison theory starting in 1944 with the “Level of Aspiration” paper by Kurt Lewin and colleagues. From the work of Stan Schachter on affiliation in the 1950s, the chapter maintains a linear narrative, attempting to tell the story with numerous digressions into what and how particularly important events happened. The authors are uniquely suited to do this, as their professional lives and friendships have overlapped almost completely with the developments of social comparison theory. They then discuss several theories that are often confused as being based on social comparison theory but are not. They yield the razor with gusto! The chapter ends with a discussion of the neighboring fields and applications that are indeed on the reasons this book is being published.

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code
• Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card.

• Sign in with username/password
• Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

In order to continue enjoying our site, we ask that you confirm your identity as a human. Thank you very much for your cooperation.

Comparing and Contrasting

What this handout is about.

This handout will help you first to determine whether a particular assignment is asking for comparison/contrast and then to generate a list of similarities and differences, decide which similarities and differences to focus on, and organize your paper so that it will be clear and effective. It will also explain how you can (and why you should) develop a thesis that goes beyond “Thing A and Thing B are similar in many ways but different in others.”

Introduction

In your career as a student, you’ll encounter many different kinds of writing assignments, each with its own requirements. One of the most common is the comparison/contrast essay, in which you focus on the ways in which certain things or ideas—usually two of them—are similar to (this is the comparison) and/or different from (this is the contrast) one another. By assigning such essays, your instructors are encouraging you to make connections between texts or ideas, engage in critical thinking, and go beyond mere description or summary to generate interesting analysis: when you reflect on similarities and differences, you gain a deeper understanding of the items you are comparing, their relationship to each other, and what is most important about them.

Recognizing comparison/contrast in assignments

Some assignments use words—like compare, contrast, similarities, and differences—that make it easy for you to see that they are asking you to compare and/or contrast. Here are a few hypothetical examples:

• Compare and contrast Frye’s and Bartky’s accounts of oppression.
• Compare WWI to WWII, identifying similarities in the causes, development, and outcomes of the wars.
• Contrast Wordsworth and Coleridge; what are the major differences in their poetry?

Notice that some topics ask only for comparison, others only for contrast, and others for both.

But it’s not always so easy to tell whether an assignment is asking you to include comparison/contrast. And in some cases, comparison/contrast is only part of the essay—you begin by comparing and/or contrasting two or more things and then use what you’ve learned to construct an argument or evaluation. Consider these examples, noticing the language that is used to ask for the comparison/contrast and whether the comparison/contrast is only one part of a larger assignment:

• Choose a particular idea or theme, such as romantic love, death, or nature, and consider how it is treated in two Romantic poems.
• How do the different authors we have studied so far define and describe oppression?
• Compare Frye’s and Bartky’s accounts of oppression. What does each imply about women’s collusion in their own oppression? Which is more accurate?
• In the texts we’ve studied, soldiers who served in different wars offer differing accounts of their experiences and feelings both during and after the fighting. What commonalities are there in these accounts? What factors do you think are responsible for their differences?

You may want to check out our handout on understanding assignments for additional tips.

Using comparison/contrast for all kinds of writing projects

Sometimes you may want to use comparison/contrast techniques in your own pre-writing work to get ideas that you can later use for an argument, even if comparison/contrast isn’t an official requirement for the paper you’re writing. For example, if you wanted to argue that Frye’s account of oppression is better than both de Beauvoir’s and Bartky’s, comparing and contrasting the main arguments of those three authors might help you construct your evaluation—even though the topic may not have asked for comparison/contrast and the lists of similarities and differences you generate may not appear anywhere in the final draft of your paper.

Discovering similarities and differences

Making a Venn diagram or a chart can help you quickly and efficiently compare and contrast two or more things or ideas. To make a Venn diagram, simply draw some overlapping circles, one circle for each item you’re considering. In the central area where they overlap, list the traits the two items have in common. Assign each one of the areas that doesn’t overlap; in those areas, you can list the traits that make the things different. Here’s a very simple example, using two pizza places:

To make a chart, figure out what criteria you want to focus on in comparing the items. Along the left side of the page, list each of the criteria. Across the top, list the names of the items. You should then have a box per item for each criterion; you can fill the boxes in and then survey what you’ve discovered.

Here’s an example, this time using three pizza places:

As you generate points of comparison, consider the purpose and content of the assignment and the focus of the class. What do you think the professor wants you to learn by doing this comparison/contrast? How does it fit with what you have been studying so far and with the other assignments in the course? Are there any clues about what to focus on in the assignment itself?

Here are some general questions about different types of things you might have to compare. These are by no means complete or definitive lists; they’re just here to give you some ideas—you can generate your own questions for these and other types of comparison. You may want to begin by using the questions reporters traditionally ask: Who? What? Where? When? Why? How? If you’re talking about objects, you might also consider general properties like size, shape, color, sound, weight, taste, texture, smell, number, duration, and location.

Two historical periods or events

• When did they occur—do you know the date(s) and duration? What happened or changed during each? Why are they significant?
• What kinds of work did people do? What kinds of relationships did they have? What did they value?
• What kinds of governments were there? Who were important people involved?
• What caused events in these periods, and what consequences did they have later on?

Two ideas or theories

• What are they about?
• Did they originate at some particular time?
• Who created them? Who uses or defends them?
• What is the central focus, claim, or goal of each? What conclusions do they offer?
• How are they applied to situations/people/things/etc.?
• Which seems more plausible to you, and why? How broad is their scope?
• What kind of evidence is usually offered for them?

Two pieces of writing or art

• What are their titles? What do they describe or depict?
• What is their tone or mood? What is their form?
• Who created them? When were they created? Why do you think they were created as they were? What themes do they address?
• Do you think one is of higher quality or greater merit than the other(s)—and if so, why?
• For writing: what plot, characterization, setting, theme, tone, and type of narration are used?
• Where are they from? How old are they? What is the gender, race, class, etc. of each?
• What, if anything, are they known for? Do they have any relationship to each other?
• What are they like? What did/do they do? What do they believe? Why are they interesting?
• What stands out most about each of them?

Deciding what to focus on

By now you have probably generated a huge list of similarities and differences—congratulations! Next you must decide which of them are interesting, important, and relevant enough to be included in your paper. Ask yourself these questions:

• What’s relevant to the assignment?
• What’s relevant to the course?
• What’s interesting and informative?
• What matters to the argument you are going to make?
• What’s basic or central (and needs to be mentioned even if obvious)?
• Overall, what’s more important—the similarities or the differences?

Suppose that you are writing a paper comparing two novels. For most literature classes, the fact that they both use Caslon type (a kind of typeface, like the fonts you may use in your writing) is not going to be relevant, nor is the fact that one of them has a few illustrations and the other has none; literature classes are more likely to focus on subjects like characterization, plot, setting, the writer’s style and intentions, language, central themes, and so forth. However, if you were writing a paper for a class on typesetting or on how illustrations are used to enhance novels, the typeface and presence or absence of illustrations might be absolutely critical to include in your final paper.

Sometimes a particular point of comparison or contrast might be relevant but not terribly revealing or interesting. For example, if you are writing a paper about Wordsworth’s “Tintern Abbey” and Coleridge’s “Frost at Midnight,” pointing out that they both have nature as a central theme is relevant (comparisons of poetry often talk about themes) but not terribly interesting; your class has probably already had many discussions about the Romantic poets’ fondness for nature. Talking about the different ways nature is depicted or the different aspects of nature that are emphasized might be more interesting and show a more sophisticated understanding of the poems.

Your thesis

The thesis of your comparison/contrast paper is very important: it can help you create a focused argument and give your reader a road map so they don’t get lost in the sea of points you are about to make. As in any paper, you will want to replace vague reports of your general topic (for example, “This paper will compare and contrast two pizza places,” or “Pepper’s and Amante are similar in some ways and different in others,” or “Pepper’s and Amante are similar in many ways, but they have one major difference”) with something more detailed and specific. For example, you might say, “Pepper’s and Amante have similar prices and ingredients, but their atmospheres and willingness to deliver set them apart.”

Be careful, though—although this thesis is fairly specific and does propose a simple argument (that atmosphere and delivery make the two pizza places different), your instructor will often be looking for a bit more analysis. In this case, the obvious question is “So what? Why should anyone care that Pepper’s and Amante are different in this way?” One might also wonder why the writer chose those two particular pizza places to compare—why not Papa John’s, Dominos, or Pizza Hut? Again, thinking about the context the class provides may help you answer such questions and make a stronger argument. Here’s a revision of the thesis mentioned earlier:

Pepper’s and Amante both offer a greater variety of ingredients than other Chapel Hill/Carrboro pizza places (and than any of the national chains), but the funky, lively atmosphere at Pepper’s makes it a better place to give visiting friends and family a taste of local culture.

You may find our handout on constructing thesis statements useful at this stage.

Organizing your paper

There are many different ways to organize a comparison/contrast essay. Here are two:

Subject-by-subject

Begin by saying everything you have to say about the first subject you are discussing, then move on and make all the points you want to make about the second subject (and after that, the third, and so on, if you’re comparing/contrasting more than two things). If the paper is short, you might be able to fit all of your points about each item into a single paragraph, but it’s more likely that you’d have several paragraphs per item. Using our pizza place comparison/contrast as an example, after the introduction, you might have a paragraph about the ingredients available at Pepper’s, a paragraph about its location, and a paragraph about its ambience. Then you’d have three similar paragraphs about Amante, followed by your conclusion.

The danger of this subject-by-subject organization is that your paper will simply be a list of points: a certain number of points (in my example, three) about one subject, then a certain number of points about another. This is usually not what college instructors are looking for in a paper—generally they want you to compare or contrast two or more things very directly, rather than just listing the traits the things have and leaving it up to the reader to reflect on how those traits are similar or different and why those similarities or differences matter. Thus, if you use the subject-by-subject form, you will probably want to have a very strong, analytical thesis and at least one body paragraph that ties all of your different points together.

A subject-by-subject structure can be a logical choice if you are writing what is sometimes called a “lens” comparison, in which you use one subject or item (which isn’t really your main topic) to better understand another item (which is). For example, you might be asked to compare a poem you’ve already covered thoroughly in class with one you are reading on your own. It might make sense to give a brief summary of your main ideas about the first poem (this would be your first subject, the “lens”), and then spend most of your paper discussing how those points are similar to or different from your ideas about the second.

Point-by-point

Rather than addressing things one subject at a time, you may wish to talk about one point of comparison at a time. There are two main ways this might play out, depending on how much you have to say about each of the things you are comparing. If you have just a little, you might, in a single paragraph, discuss how a certain point of comparison/contrast relates to all the items you are discussing. For example, I might describe, in one paragraph, what the prices are like at both Pepper’s and Amante; in the next paragraph, I might compare the ingredients available; in a third, I might contrast the atmospheres of the two restaurants.

If I had a bit more to say about the items I was comparing/contrasting, I might devote a whole paragraph to how each point relates to each item. For example, I might have a whole paragraph about the clientele at Pepper’s, followed by a whole paragraph about the clientele at Amante; then I would move on and do two more paragraphs discussing my next point of comparison/contrast—like the ingredients available at each restaurant.

There are no hard and fast rules about organizing a comparison/contrast paper, of course. Just be sure that your reader can easily tell what’s going on! Be aware, too, of the placement of your different points. If you are writing a comparison/contrast in service of an argument, keep in mind that the last point you make is the one you are leaving your reader with. For example, if I am trying to argue that Amante is better than Pepper’s, I should end with a contrast that leaves Amante sounding good, rather than with a point of comparison that I have to admit makes Pepper’s look better. If you’ve decided that the differences between the items you’re comparing/contrasting are most important, you’ll want to end with the differences—and vice versa, if the similarities seem most important to you.

Our handout on organization can help you write good topic sentences and transitions and make sure that you have a good overall structure in place for your paper.

Cue words and other tips

To help your reader keep track of where you are in the comparison/contrast, you’ll want to be sure that your transitions and topic sentences are especially strong. Your thesis should already have given the reader an idea of the points you’ll be making and the organization you’ll be using, but you can help them out with some extra cues. The following words may be helpful to you in signaling your intentions:

• like, similar to, also, unlike, similarly, in the same way, likewise, again, compared to, in contrast, in like manner, contrasted with, on the contrary, however, although, yet, even though, still, but, nevertheless, conversely, at the same time, regardless, despite, while, on the one hand … on the other hand.

For example, you might have a topic sentence like one of these:

• Compared to Pepper’s, Amante is quiet.
• Like Amante, Pepper’s offers fresh garlic as a topping.
• Despite their different locations (downtown Chapel Hill and downtown Carrboro), Pepper’s and Amante are both fairly easy to get to.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Lift me up by looking down: social comparison effects of narratives.

• Human-Computer-Media Institute, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany

Stories are a powerful means to change recipients’ views on themselves by being transported into the story world and by identifying with story characters. Previous studies showed that recipients temporarily change in line with a story and its characters (assimilation). Conversely, assimilation might be less likely when recipients are less identified with story protagonists or less transported into a story by comparing themselves with a story character. This may lead to changes, which are opposite to a story and its characters (contrast). In two experiments, we manipulated transportation and experience taking via two written reviews (Experiment 1; N = 164) and by varying the perspective of the story’s narrator (Experiment 2; N = 79) of a short story about a negligent student. Recipients’ self-ratings in comparison to others, motives, and problem-solving behavior served as dependent variables. However, neither the review nor the perspective manipulation affected transportation or experience taking while reading the story. Against our expectations, highly transported recipients (in Study 1) and recipients with high experience taking (in Study 2) showed more persistency working on an anagram-solving task, even when controlling for trait conscientiousness. Our findings are critically discussed in light of previous research.

Introduction

In daily life, people are exposed to a great number of narratives, for example, in advertising, books, or movies. Narratives let us experience the personal history of people with various backgrounds that are different from our own. This can broaden our understanding of other people’s struggles and achievements, who we would have never met ( Sestir and Green, 2010 ) – or they can feature people who we might rather look down at ( Mares and Cantor, 1992 ). Thereby, narratives are potentially powerful means to produce temporal changes in recipients’ selves by giving them the experience of different lives and personas. The influence of stories is often attributed to their power to transport us to other places ( transportation ; Gerrig, 1993 ; Green and Brock, 2000 ). Furthermore, recipients identify with story characters ( Oatley, 1994 ; Cohen, 2001 ) by temporarily simulating their thoughts, emotions, and goals ( experience taking; Kaufman and Libby, 2012 ). Due to these processes, recipients’ selves can temporarily change in line with either the theme of the narrative or with specific traits of story characters, a process called assimilation ( Appel, 2011 ; Richter et al., 2014 ). However, stories do not always work like a simple “hypodermic needle” that injects a different self into its recipients. Instead, a story and its protagonists might also serve as a standard of social comparison ( Festinger, 1954 ; Biernat, 2005 ). As the result of a social comparison process (particularly with a lower comparison standard), recipients’ self-concepts, motives, and even their behaviors might temporarily change by contrasting themselves away from traits and behavior depicted in a story. These contrast effects are expected when recipients have a mindset that leads them to compare themselves with a story protagonist ( Mussweiler, 2007 ; Appel, 2011 ), and when they compare themselves downward with others who are worse off, in order to feel better about themselves ( Mares and Cantor, 1992 ). Up until now, downward social comparison with protagonists and potential (contrast) effects on recipients’ selves, as well as the mediating role of transportation and experience taking in the process are not well understood. Acknowledging this research gap, we took an experimental approach to manipulate transportation (Study 1) and experience taking (Study 2). The goal of the present research was to examine potential outcomes of contrast effects and downward social comparison with an incompetent protagonist (Study 1) and a negligent protagonist (Study 2).

Effects of Narratives on Recipients

To date, most research regarding narratives and how they influence the self is guided by the idea that recipients’ beliefs become similar to aspects of the story by being immersed into the story ( Green and Brock, 2000 ) or by temporarily assuming protagonists’ characteristics ( Cohen, 2001 ; Kaufman and Libby, 2012 ). Furthermore, there is some empirical evidence that stories could even temporarily shift recipients’ self-perceptions, motives, and behavior in line with the story and its characters, a process called assimilation ( Sestir and Green, 2010 ; Appel, 2011 ; Gabriel and Young, 2011 ; Richter et al., 2014 ). According to Appel (2011) , reading a highly transporting story and having a close connection to its protagonist should lead to assimilation effects. The central idea of transportation ( Green and Brock, 2000 ) is based on a metaphorical journey into the story. During this journey, recipients may temporarily lose access to their real world surroundings, and when they return, they are changed by this intense experience ( Gerrig, 1993 ).

Shedlosky-Shoemaker et al. (2011) and Bacherle (2015) experimentally manipulated transportation by asking participants to read a positive or negative review prior to reading the story. Through the review, people form a specific mindset and expectations about the upcoming story, which subsequently influence transportation while reading, listening to, or watching a story ( Shedlosky-Shoemaker et al., 2011 ). This approach has also been successfully applied in the area of health narratives. In an experimental study by Gebbers et al. (2017) , transportation was manipulated using negative vs. positive reviews before watching a video-clip about a car accident caused by a drunken driver. Highly transported participants (positive review condition) rated the risk severity of drunk driving significantly higher compared to less transported participants (negative review condition).

Complementary to transportation, which describes a more holistic involvement with the story, identification or experience taking particularly refer to character involvement. Experience taking ( Kaufman and Libby, 2012 ) or identification ( Cohen, 2001 ) describe the imaginative process of temporally simulating the perspective of a character in a story ( Dal Cin et al., 2007 ; Sestir and Green, 2010 ). As both concepts, experience taking and identification, are highly similar, we decided to employ the term experience taking throughout this manuscript. Sestir and Green (2010) experimentally manipulated experience taking and transportation via written instructions before watching a movie (e.g., high experience taking: “observe the clip as if you were the main character in the clip”; p. 277) in order to show assimilation effects. Participants with high experience taking and transportation scores showed stronger trait shifts in a Me/Not-Me task in line with the story character than participants who identified less with the story character and who were less transported.

Manipulations of experience taking include the variation of the narrative voice of a story. A first-person voice entails the main character, who narrates the story from his/her point of view, whereas in a third-person voice story, an independent observer serves as a more distant narrator of the story events and the characters. Kaufman and Libby (2012) showed that a story written from a first-person voice depicting a main character of the same group as the reader (i.e., in-group) led to higher experience taking values compared to a story written in a third-person voice with an out-group protagonist.

It is important to note that both processes of narrative involvement – transportation and experience taking – are considered to be largely intertwined, yet distinguishable ( Moyer-Gusé, 2008 ; Brown, 2015 ). A single experimental approach that aims at the manipulation of only one of these processes might not be sufficient to describe the specific processes of narrative involvement. On this account, we used two different manipulations that aimed at varying transportation (Study 1) and experience taking (Study 2), respectively. Figure 1 gives an overview of our complete model and assumptions.

FIGURE 1. Proposed model of assimilation vs. contrast effects for both studies.

Recipients’ engagement into a story and its characters are central mediators that might explain changes in participants’ selves in line with a story (assimilation effects). Yet, what happens if recipients have a more distant view toward a story and its protagonist? Both approaches, transportation and experience taking, do not explicitly address this open question. Under conditions of feeling less transported into a story and low experience taking with the protagonist, we expected recipients to compare themselves with others to gain relevant information about oneself ( Green, 2005 ).

Social Comparison Framework

Social comparison theory ( Festinger, 1954 ) posits that people strive to gain self-knowledge by comparing themselves with similar others, who usually offer the highest diagnostic information about oneself ( Wills, 1981 ). Especially when objective information is absent, people make meaning of their own performance and success by comparing themselves to relevant others ( Lyubomirsky and Ross, 1997 ). Social comparisons can occur in our daily life by both interpersonal interaction and mediated through mass communication (e.g., social media, TV shows), which both offer plentiful opportunities to gather information about other people’s actions, failures, and accomplishments ( Mares and Cantor, 1992 ; Knobloch-Westerwick and Hastall, 2010 , 2016 ). However, research combining the fields of media effects (especially through narratives) and social comparisons is somewhat limited, since media scholars have mainly focused on upward social comparisons (e.g., media effects related to body image; Cattarin et al., 2000 ; Groesz et al., 2002 ).

The outcome of a social comparison process (e.g., self-evaluation) is based on specific mental states, as Mussweiler (2003) describes in his selective accessibility model (SAM): if people are faced with the possibility to compare themselves with others, they form automatic, holistic impressions about other people based on salient features (e.g., gender, age, group affiliation). These features become a point of reference for one of the following judgments regarding self-other comparisons: (a) If the person is judged to be similar to oneself, people are more likely to consider information about themselves that is consistent with the other person. The outcome is an assimilation effect by adapting attributes of the person and becoming more similar. (b) If the person is considered to be dissimilar to oneself, different aspects of one’s self become more salient, which are opposite to the other person ( Mussweiler, 2007 ; Suls and Wheeler, 2017 ). As a result, a contrast effect emerges, as recipients shift away their judgment about themselves from the other person. Contrast effects have often been studied in association with downward social comparison with less fortunate people. According to Wills (1981) , people who experience threats to their self-esteem enhance their self-regard by comparing themselves downward. Likewise, cancer patients benefited from strategic downward comparisons with other less fortunate cancer patients, who they encountered in their daily life, TV shows, or newspaper articles ( Wood et al., 1985 ). In an experiment, Mares and Cantor (1992) asked older participants to watch a portrayal about an old man, who was depicted as either unhappy and isolated or happy and socially integrated. Lonely elderly participants who watched the unhappy portrayal compared themselves downward and, as a result, felt better about themselves.

Another relevant category for downward social comparisons is group affiliation ( Mastro, 2003 ; Mastro et al., 2008 ), since being part of relevant social groups is a central part of the self (cf. social identity theory ; Tajfel and Turner, 1986 ). Therefore, people seek out information which favors their own social group in comparison to a relevant out-group ( Harwood, 1999 ). For example, Mastro (2003) asked participants to read one out of two crime stories (written as a TV script) and only manipulated the name of the murderer (typical Caucasian vs. Latino name). Caucasian participants exposed to the TV script with a Latino murderer showed contrast effects by scoring higher on self-esteem measures than those who read the TV script with a Caucasian murderer. Meta-analytic data within the field of social psychology supports these findings: when a negative stereotype doubts the ability or worth of an out-group, people who belong to the in-group may experience stereotype lift – a performance boost that occurs when downward comparisons are made with a denigrated out-group ( Walton and Cohen, 2003 ). This effect can also occur as a consequence of stereotypic displays in the media (for a meta-analytic review see Appel and Weber, 2017 ). The enhanced performance has been attributed to increased self-efficacy and decreased self-doubts as a result of negative outgroup stereotypes ( Chatard et al., 2008 ).

Stereotypes About (Pre-service) Teachers

Stereotypes about specific groups can be encountered in media content ( Mastro and Tukachinsky, 2012 ). Especially entertainment media often demeans minorities, such as people with mental illness ( Caputo and Rouner, 2011 ), overweight persons ( Grabe et al., 2008 ), or non-Caucasians ( Mastro, 2015 ). Regarding different professions, teachers are subject to considerable stereotyping ( Carlsson and Björklund, 2010 ) in their professional life and during their studies, which is also evident in news and entertainment media ( Swetnam, 1992 ). The stereotype content model ( Fiske et al., 1999 , 2002 ) describes stereotypes along two independent dimensions: competence and warmth. Accordingly, pre-service teachers are perceived as less competent and less motivated in their studies, but also as warm and friendly ( Carlsson and Björklund, 2010 ).

Ihme and Möller (2015) found empirical support for the presence of these paternalistic stereotypes in a multi-study paper. First, they asked pre-service teachers about typical characteristics ascribed to their profession in an open-ended survey. Even pre-service teachers themselves believed in the incompetent, but warm stereotypes. Second, the authors asked other groups of people to rate typical characteristics of pre-service teachers, psychology, law, and computer science students on a list of competence and warmth adjectives. Results showed that pre-service teachers were perceived as significantly less competent, which includes a lack of study related motivation, compared to other fields, like psychology 1 . Furthermore, the authors found significant higher warmth ratings of pre-service teachers compared to law and computer science students, whereas there was no significant difference to psychology students.

Importantly, stereotypes like these do not require clear indications, such as open insults, to become salient. Instead, even subtle hints such as how a person is described in a news article ( Gupta et al., 2014 ) may be sufficient in order to trigger stereotypes that are associated with a certain group as research on stereotype threat has shown (for a review of media content that triggers stereotype threat see Appel and Weber, 2017 ). We argue that this may also activate downward social comparisons if the person described is part of a relevant outgroup. As psychology students and pre-service teachers are perceived to be similarly warm, yet different in competence ( Ihme and Möller, 2015 ), social comparison processes are likely to occur.

The Current Research

The current work examines the influence of stories on the self, with (a) a special emphasis on potential contrast effects, and (b) the mediating role of transportation and experience taking during the process. In Study 1, we focused on contrast effects via downward social comparisons based on group affiliation. Accordingly, we expected contrast effects after reading a story, if recipients (psychology students) have a more distant view toward a protagonist (pre-service teacher) and the story. This distant view might be reflected by a lower degree of transportation with the main character. However, when transportation is high, we expect assimilation effects by temporarily rating oneself and behaving similar to the protagonist. To induce contrast vs. assimilation effects, we tried to manipulate transportation via reviews prior to reading the story. In Study 2, we examined contrast effects via downward social comparison based on individual differences. By adding trait measures as possible alternative explanations, we intended to clarify the relation between narrative involvement measures and potential contrast effects. In this study, we tried to manipulate experience taking by varying the narrator’s voice in two otherwise identical stories.

In Study 1, transportation was experimentally manipulated by presenting a brief positive (e.g., “the story was emotionally involving”) or negative review (e.g., “the story was rather unemotional”) about a story prior to reading it ( Shedlosky-Shoemaker et al., 2011 ; Gebbers et al., 2017 ). Both reviews were written in a way that they might also influence experience taking. For example, the positive review about the story stated that the reader was forgetting about herself/himself by experiencing the story, as she/he felt like the protagonist herself/himself, whereas in the negative review, it was stated that the reader perceived the protagonist as strange and distant. To our knowledge, there are no studies so far which manipulated experience taking in that specific way.

It was assumed that recipients in the negative review condition compared to the control group would score lower on transportation and experience taking. Negative changes in transportation and experience taking were in turn expected to lead to (H 1a) an increase in self-reported competence ratings (but not warmth) in relation to others, (H 2a) higher learning goals ratings, and (H 3a) more time spent on an anagram task (i.e., contrast effects). Likewise, it was expected that recipients in the positive review condition compared to the control group would score higher on transportation and experience taking. Positive changes in transportation and experience taking were in turn expected to lead to (H 1b) a decrease in self-reported competence ratings (but not warmth) in relation to others, (H 2b) lower learning goals ratings, and (H 3b) less time spent on an anagram task (i.e., assimilation effects).

Participants

As indicated by an a-priori power analysis, for a medium direct effect ( d = 0.50) with α = 0.05 and power = 0.80, a sample size of N = 159 participants is needed (one-way ANOVA with three groups). One hundred seventy-nine participants were recruited in different psychology classes at the University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany. All participants signed an informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki before participating in the study. They were also assured that they could stop their participation without any consequences at any time. Participants received partial ourse credit and participated in a lottery. For the lottery, one time 30€ and seven times 10€ were raffled. The experiment was computer-based and took place in a laboratory with one to seven participants per session. Three participants had to be excluded from the sample due to technical problems. Moreover, five participants were excluded because they failed the manipulation check of the review manipulation. They could not correctly report (in an open-end text field) the valence of the review they had read as either negative or positive, indicating that they had not read the review. Another five participants were excluded as they did not correctly answer two control questions about the story, indicating that they had not read the story. Last, two participants were excluded from the final data analysis, as one indicated that the story was already known (despite the fact that the short story had been specifically written for the purpose of this study, see below), while the other did not study psychology, and thus, was not part of the in-group (see section on the stimulus text below). The final sample consisted of N = 164 psychology students ( n = 131 female) with a mean age of 21.81 years ( SD = 3.61; range: 18–49 years).

Review manipulation

Both reviews were specifically written for the purpose of this study, yet structure and wording were based on previous research ( Shedlosky-Shoemaker et al., 2011 ; Bacherle, 2015 ; Gebbers et al., 2017 ). Participants read either a negative, a positive, or no review at all of an upcoming short story (see Supplementary Material ). Both reviews were supposed to be from an online literature community 2 and were indicated to be written by an active and experienced community member. The reviews were comparable in word count (positive review: 218 words, negative review: 211 words) and layout design. Their main difference was the valence of the evaluation of the short story that followed. While the positive review emphasized the “intense impression of the story, which leaves the reader deeply impressed,” the negative review describes the story as “strange and leaves the reader rather unimpressed.” Moreover, there was a review on a five-star scale rated by community members at the end of both reviews (negative review: 1 star; positive review: 5 stars). After reading the review, as a manipulation check, participants were asked to summarize the main messages of the respective review in a text field. The authors thoroughly checked the open-ended answers regarding statements about the valence of the reviews. Five participant did not directly address whether the review had been positive or negative, and therefore, they were excluded from the statistical analyses.

Stimulus text

The experimental story (2939 words) was written for the purpose of this study and included a first-person narrator (see Supplementary Material ). The gender of the main protagonist was not specified to avoid comparison processes based on gender differences. The story was written in a way that made it easy to imagine both a female and a male protagonist, as no gender stereotypes were addressed. It featured a pre-service teacher who struggles with his/her schoolwork, while enjoying a student’s life outside of university with partying and playing sports. The pre-service teacher attends a psychology course along with psychology students (which is common practice regarding some courses at the university where this research was conducted). While preparing for an important exam as part of this course, the protagonist struggles studying – particularly compared to fellow psychology students. As a result, he/she fails the exam. While trying to figure out reasons for this disappointment, he/she visits the professor’s office hours. The professor tells the protagonist that most students had passed the exam, mainly psychology students, while most of his or her fellow pre-service teachers had also failed. However, the protagonist gets encouraged to repeat the course the next year.

The experimental story was written in a way that typical stereotypes of pre-service teachers were not directly addressed, but rather indirectly depicted in the story. Research on group-based stereotypes revealed that even subtle cues may trigger common stereotypes ( Nguyen and Ryan, 2008 ; Appel and Weber, 2017 ). We asked only psychology students (in-group) to read the story about the pre-service teacher (out-group). Accordingly, possible downward comparisons to prospect teachers regarding competence might be conceivable from the viewpoint of a psychology student, especially when they were less involved with the story and its protagonist.

Experience taking

In order to measure participants identification with the main character, the Experience Taking Scale was used ( Kaufman and Libby, 2012 ). In our sample, the reliability of this seven-item scale was good (α = 0.90). The items (e.g., “I understood the events of the story as though I were the character in the story.”) went with a nine-point Likert scale, as in the original publication ( 1 – strongly disagree; 9 – strongly agree ). The overall mean was 6.24 ( SD = 1.68).

Transportation

Participants’ immersion into the story world was measured via the Transportation Scale – Short Form ( Appel et al., 2015 ). In our sample, the reliability of this six-item scale was satisfactory (α = 0.78). The items (e.g., “I could picture myself in the scene of the events described in the narrative”) went with a seven-point Likert scale ( 1 – not at all; 7 – very much ). The overall mean was 4.65 ( SD = 1.15).

Social comparison

Participants rated their self-perceived competence (four items: competent, intelligent, diligent, and determined) and their self-perceived warmth (five items: likeable, helpful, sincere, warm, and kind) in relation to other students. Furthermore, three unrelated items (athletic, sense of humor, musical) were included as distractors (see Supplementary Material ). The scale was adapted from the Social Comparison and Interest Scale (SCIS) by Thwaites and Dagnan (2004) . As the original SCIS scale does not include the dimensions competence and warmth, we used competence and warmth adjectives based on the findings of Ihme and Möller (2015) for our scale. We took only those adjectives, which had the highest factor loadings on the two dimensions when describing pre-service teachers and psychology students (T.A. Ihme, personal communication, March 11, 2016). All items went with a bipolar ten-point Likert scale (e.g., “Compared to other students I feel… 1 – less intelligent to 10 – more intelligent ”). The competence sub-scale showed satisfactory reliability (α = 0.76) and the overall mean was 5.98 ( SD = 1.43). The warmth sub-scale also showed satisfactory reliability (α = 0.79) and the overall mean was 6.82 ( SD = 1.18).

Learning motives

Participants’ motivation to learn was assessed with the Scales for the Assessment of Learning and Performance Motivation School–Student Version (SELLMO-ST; Spinath et al., 2002 ). It is a standardized diagnostic measure, which assesses motivational goal orientation by 31 items on a five-point Likert scale ( 1 – totally disagree to 5 – totally agree ). The SELLMO-ST contains four dimensions: learning goals (e.g., “In school I want to get new ideas.”; α = 0.71, M = 4.43, SD = 0.41), performance-approach goals (e.g., “In school I want to show that I am good at things.”; α = 0.79, M = 3.17, SD = 0.67), performance-avoidance goals (e.g., “In school I don’t want the other students to think I am stupid.”; α = 0.88, M = 2.36, SD = 0.80), and work avoidance (e.g., “In school it is important for me to do only the necessary work.”; α = 0.83, M = 1.93, SD = 0.63).

Anagram-solving task

As a proxy for persistency and competent behavior, we measured time spent on an anagram-solving task ( Muraven et al., 1998 ). On the first page, participants were instructed to solve 20 anagrams. They were free to skip anagrams if they were not able to solve them. Furthermore, participants were told that they had as much time as they wanted for this task. They did not know that half of the anagrams were not solvable. In order to gather a reliable and valid measure, the entire anagram-solving task was presented on a single page, right after the introduction page, and the survey software automatically tracked the time spent on the page in the background. The overall mean was 535.66 s ( SD = 348.73). To reduce the extreme skewness and kurtosis, time spent on anagrams was logarithmically transformed ( Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007 ).

After arriving at the laboratory, participants were welcomed and randomly assigned to one of three experimental conditions. They either read a positive ( n = 56), a negative ( n = 53) or no review (control baseline; n = 55) prior to reading the story itself. We varied the order of the material for the two review conditions versus the no review condition (control baseline). In both review conditions, participants read the review first and answered related control questions, followed by the story with two control questions. Afterwards, they answered the Experience Taking Scale and the Transportation Scale – Short Form. Next, we asked the participants to rate themselves on our adapted version of the SCIS and the SELLMO-ST. These scales were presented on separate pages due to their different rating scales (experience taking entailed a nine-point Likert scale, whereas the SELLMO-ST went with a five-point Likert scale). After reading a short instruction, participants worked on the anagram task, while the time spent on the anagram page was measured. We changed the order of the material in the no review condition to establish a true baseline. In the no review condition, participants were first asked to rate themselves on the adapted version of the SCIS and the SELLMO-ST, followed by the anagram task. Afterwards, they read the story, answered the Experience Taking scale as well as the Transportation Scale – Short Form and two control questions regarding the story. Finally, on the last page, participants in all conditions provided demographic information. Upon completion of the study, participants were debriefed.

The experiment followed a between-subjects design with the positive vs. negative review condition as treatment and the no review condition as baseline. We propose a mediation model, with the review condition as independent variable, transportation and experience taking as mediating variables, and the SCIS – competence subscale, learning motives, and the anagram task as dependent variables.

A one-way between subjects ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of the review manipulation on experience taking and transportation. There were no significant effects of the experimental manipulation on experience taking, F (2,161) = 0.29, p = 0.75, and on transportation, F (2,161) = 0.05, p = 0.95. Due to the unsuccessful experimental manipulation, we refrained from conducting the mediation analyses for our hypotheses. Instead, we focus on the correlations between transportation/experience taking and the dependent variables in the following paragraphs. We only report the results for both review conditions ( n = 109), since the order of the stimulus material and measures differed between the two review conditions and the control condition.

Social Comparison

The SCIS – competence subscale was neither significantly correlated with experience taking, r (107) = -0.15, p = 0.12, nor with transportation, r (107) = -0.02, p = 0.82. Regarding the SCIS – warmth subscale, there was neither a significant correlation with experience taking, r (107) = 0.08, p = 0.40, nor with transportation, r (107) = 0.00, p = 0.98.

Learning Motives

Transportation and learning goals were significantly correlated, r (107) = 0.26, p = 0.01. However, there were no significant correlations between transportation and the other SELLMO-ST subscales; performance – approach goals, r (107) = 0.15, p = 0.11; performance – avoidance goals, r (107) = 0.05, p = 0.60; work avoidance, r (107) = 0.01, p = 0.89. Likewise, there were no significant correlations between experience taking and the SELLMO-ST subscales; learning goals, r (107) = 0.06, p = 0.55; performance – approach goals, r (107) = -0.03, p = 0.75; performance – avoidance goals, r (107) = 0.00, p = 0.97; work avoidance, r (107) = 0.09, p = 0.36.

Anagram-Solving Task

The correlation between experience taking and time spent on the anagram-solving task (log10 transformed) failed to reach significance, r (107) = 0.17, p = 0.08, while transportation and time spent on the anagram-solving task were significantly correlated, r (107) = 0.21, p = 0.03.

There was a positive correlation between transportation and time spent on the anagrams, whereas experience taking was only trend-significantly correlated to time spent on the anagrams. These results contradict our expectations, since we expected less transported participants who do not identify with the incompetent pre-service teacher in the story to contrast themselves away from the story and its main protagonist (e.g., by spending more time on the anagrams). Furthermore, the persistence to work on the anagram-solving task was not correlated to any of the other DVs. This suggests that the anagram-solving task might not be an indicator for competence self-ratings (in relation to others) or competence-related learning motives (see Table 1 ). To test an alternative explanation of this finding, we added trait conscientiousness as a broader concept in the follow-up study. Conscientiousness could be a third variable that explains the correlation between transportation/experience taking and time spent on anagrams, as the trait is related to persistence to stay on demanding tasks ( Dudley et al., 2006 ).

TABLE 1. Correlations among variables and descriptive statistics (Study 1).

Moreover, there were no significant correlations between the narrative involvement measures and the SCIS – competence subscale. Thus, it is unclear whether or not psychology students compared themselves downward to the pre-service teacher in our study. Maybe psychology students could relate to the pre-service teacher in the story, since he or she was also a student who was taking psychology classes. In other words, group affiliation might play a less important role in perceiving a story character (at least in the context of the content of our study), than interindividual differences, such as certain personality traits in relation to the story content. Consequently, in Study 2, we did not focus on in- vs. out-group; instead, we added different measures in order to test the alternative explanation that certain personality traits influence the experience of a story with a protagonist that is described as having certain (negative) characteristics. Furthermore, since the review manipulation had no impact on transportation and experience taking in Study 1, we chose a different manipulation of story and character involvement in Study 2.

In Study 2, we again focused on contrast effects of stories on recipients’ selves, and payed special attention to the mediating processes of transportation and experience taking. In order to establish a causal chain, we chose another experimental approach. Instead of manipulating the conditions before reading a story (e.g., presenting a review), we manipulated specific aspects of the story itself. We manipulated the narrative voice of the story by preparing a story in which either the protagonist was the narrator of the story or the entire story was written from the viewpoint of an independent observer (first-person voice vs. third-person voice). Compared to a third-person voice, a first-person voice is expected to create a more intimate and closer connection between a recipient and a main protagonist, which strengthens experience taking ( Kaufman and Libby, 2012 ). As in Study 1, we also included transportation as an additional measure of media involvement. However, the effect of narrative voice and related manipulations on transportation is according to Tukachinsky (2014) small to non-significant. Therefore, we included narrative engagement ( Busselle and Bilandzic, 2009 ) as a third story-related measure. The concept of narrative engagement is strongly related to both transportation and experience taking. However, since there is little empirical evidence on the effect of the narrative voice manipulation on transportation and narrative engagement, we were reluctant to predict clear-cut effects on both measures. Therefore, we included the analyses of these effects as explorative research questions.

The experimental story was about a female negligent and very unconscientious student, who had to prepare a seminar presentation, but instead of proper preparation, she rather spent her time with a friend 3 The story was specifically written in a way that the main protagonist was described in a rather negligent way (i.e., adjectives were used based on the personality trait conscientiousness; Ostendorf and Angleitner, 2004 ). Accordingly, we adapted the Social Comparison and Interest Scale (SCIS) by including these adjectives in order to capture specific media effects related to the experimental story. Moreover, we matched the study major of the protagonist of the story to our sample (i.e., media communication students).

Additionally, we included different trait measures in order to control for other third variables as alternative explanations. The broad trait measure of conscientiousness has been shown to be a valid predictor of work related behavior, like high job performance ( Dudley et al., 2006 ), academic success ( Poropat, 2009 ), and even the neatness of item responses in an experimental study ( Paunonen and Ashton, 2001 ). In line with these findings, Ventura et al. (2013) found evidence that time spent on an experimental anagram and riddle task was positively correlated to a self-report measure of conscientiousness. Moreover, we controlled for participants’ study-related motives, as well as their knowledge on how to perform well in their field of study. A higher degree of similarity between recipients and protagonists (in our case low study-related motives and little knowledge how to perform well in one’s study) has been shown to block the mediating effects of experience taking ( Hoeken et al., 2016 ).

We expected that participants who read the story with a third-person narrator would show lower levels of experience taking and transportation. Negative changes in experience taking and transportation were in turn expected to lead to contrast effects by increasing participants’ (H 1a) self-reported conscientiousness ratings in comparison to others, and (H 2b) time spent on an anagram-solving task. Likewise, we expected that participants who read the story with a first-person narrator would show more experience taking and transportation. Positive changes in experience taking and transportation were in turn expected to lead to an assimilation effect by decreasing participants’ (H 1b) self-reported conscientiousness ratings in comparison to others, and (H 2b) time spent on an anagram-solving task.

The total sample consisted of N = 81 media communication students, who were recruited in different communication studies and media psychology classes at the University of Würzburg, Germany. All participants received partial course credit. Participants signed an informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki before the study started. Furthermore, they were informed that they could revoke their participation without any consequences at any time. The study was conducted in a laboratory with one to eight participants per session. The entire study was computer-based. Two participants had to be excluded from the analyses, because they did not correctly answer control questions regarding the experimental stories, indicating that they had not properly read the story. The final sample consisted of N = 79 participants ( n = 69 female) with a mean age of 20.86 ( SD = 1.84; range: 18–28).

Manipulation of narrative voice

We manipulated the narrator’s voice similar to Kaufman and Libby (2012) . Either, participants read the story written from the main character’s point of view (first-person narrator), or they read the same story from the viewpoint of a third-person narrator (see Supplementary Material ).

Experimental story

The story titled “The day before” was about Tina, a negligent student of media communication, who was preparing a presentation for a course session together with a group of other students. The group was very eager to prepare a decent presentation; however, Tina was only doing as much as needed for the task ahead. Instead of thorough preparation, she preferred spending leisure time with a friend. The story (1657 words) had been specifically written for a previous study ( Krause and Appel, 2017 ). It was slightly adapted to the current context by changing the protagonist’s field of study and university (see Supplementary Material ).

As in Study 1, participants’ immersion into the story world was measured via the Transportation Scale – Short Form ( Appel et al., 2015 ), M = 4.59, SD = 1.10, α = 0.75.

Narrative engagement

In order to capture the processing of the experimental narrative in more detail, a second measure of participants’ immersion into the story world was assessed by using the Narrative Engagement scale ( Busselle and Bilandzic, 2009 ). The twelve items went with a seven-point Likert scale; 1 – not at all; 7 – very much . The Narrative Engagement scale ( M = 4.80; SD = 0.78; α = 0.78) consists of four subscales: attentional focus (e.g., “I found my mind wandering while reading.”; M = 5.15; SD = 1.31; α = 0.86), narrative understanding (e.g., “My understanding of the characters is unclear (R).”; M = 6.29; SD = 0.72; α = 0.64), emotional engagement (e.g., “The story affected me emotionally.”; M = 4.20; SD = 1.25; α = 0.68), and narrative presence (e.g., “At times during reading, the story world was closer to me than the real world.”; M = 3.55; SD = 1.41; α = 0.81).

As in Study 1, participants’ identification with the main character was assessed with the Experience Taking Scale ( Kaufman and Libby, 2012 ), M = 5.89, SD = 1.68, α = 0.90.

Similar to Study 1, participants were asked to rate themselves regarding their conscientiousness in relation to other people using ten items (DV1). Furthermore, eight other trait items were presented as distractors (see Supplementary Material ). All items went with a ten-point bipolar Likert scale (e.g., “ 1 – less organized ” to “ 10 – more organized ”). The scale was adapted from the Social Comparison and Interest Scale (SCIS; Thwaites and Dagnan, 2004 ) by using adjectives from the German translation of the NEO personality inventory ( Ostendorf and Angleitner, 2004 ). The overall mean of SCIS - conscientiousness subscale was 5.86 ( SD = 1.41; α = 0.85).

Time spent on an anagram-solving task ( Muraven et al., 1998 ) was assessed similar to Study 1 (DV2). Participants spent on average 613.06 seconds on the task ( SD = 554.86). As in Study 1, time spent on the anagram-solving task was logarithmically transformed (log10) in order to reduce the extreme kurtosis and skewness of this measure ( Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007 ).

Control scales

Three scales were assessed in order to rule out alternative explanations (i.e., that study-related motives or the personality trait conscientiousness would influence the effect of narrative involvement measures on the DVs). First, we assessed potential to succeed in school (subscale of the academic belonging scale; Cook et al., 2012 ) with four items (e.g., “I am the kind of person that does well in my school.”), which went with a six-point Likert scale; 1 – strongly disagree to 6 – strongly agree . The mean for this scale was 4.29 ( SD = 0.66; α = 0.44). Due to the low reliability of the scale, we refrained from including it in any analyses. The second scale was the domain identification measure (four items adapted from Smith and White, 2001 , e.g., “How important is it to you to be a student of media communication?”), which went with a five-point Likert scale; 1 – not at all to 5 – very . The mean for this scale was 3.55 ( SD = 0.74; α = 0.71). Third, participants were asked to rate five personality traits on the BFI-10 scale ( Rammstedt et al., 2014 ) with ten items on a five-point Likert scale ( 1 – disagree strongly to 5 – agree strongly ). Thereby, participants’ self-ascribed rating of conscientiousness (two items; e.g., “I see myself as someone who does a thorough job.”) was of special interest with a mean of 3.25 ( SD = 0.87; r = 0.64 4 ).

After arriving at the computer laboratory, participants were asked to answer the three control scales: potential to succeed in school, domain identification, and the BFI-10 personality scale. Afterwards, they were randomly assigned to one of two experimental story conditions (first-person vs. third-person narrator). After reading the story, participants were asked to answer two control questions regarding the content of the story as a manipulation check. Then, participants answered the narrative engagement and transportation scale, whereby the order of the items was randomized between and within both scales. Next, they answered the experience taking scale. Subsequently, both dependent variables were assessed, first the adapted SCIS, and second, the anagram-solving task. Finally, participants provided demographic information. Upon completion of the study, they were debriefed.

The experiment followed a between-subjects design with the story condition as independent variable (first-person vs. third-person narrator). Like in Study 1, transportation and experience taking were included as mediating variables. The SCIS - consciousness subscale and the anagram task served as dependent variables.

Three separate t -tests for independent samples revealed that there was no significant effect of narrative voice on transportation, t (77) = -0.30, p = 0.77, experience taking, t (77) = -0.23, p = 0.82, or narrative engagement, t (77) = -0.71, p = 0.48, and its subscales (see Table 2 for more information).

TABLE 2. Results of t -tests for independent samples between narrative voice and descriptive statistics (Study 2).

Again, due to the unsuccessful experimental manipulation on the narrative involvement measures, we refrained from conducting the mediation analyses for our hypotheses. Instead, the relations between variables were examined by using correlations (see Table 3 ) and stepwise multiple linear regressions analyses for each dependent variable (see Tables 4 , 5 ).

TABLE 3. Correlations among variables and descriptive statistics (Study 2).

TABLE 4. Hierarchical regression analysis predicting participants’ rating of conscientiousness in comparison to others (SCIS) for Study 2.

TABLE 5. Hierarchical regression analysis predicting time spent on the anagram-solving task (log 10 ) for Study 2.

Narrative Involvement

Regarding the correlation analyses, only the BFI-10 conscientiousness subscale was negatively correlated with all three narrative involvement measures, experience taking: r (77) = -0.39, p < 0.001; transportation: r (77) = -0.36, p < 0.001, and narrative engagement: r (77) = -0.27, p = 0.01 [of the four subscales only emotional engagement was significant, r (77) = -0.41, p < 0.001]. Furthermore, domain identification was not significantly correlated to any of the narrative involvement measures (for more information see Table 3 ). These results indicate that participants who were more conscientious felt less part of a story about an unconscientious student and were less likely to experience the story from the perspective of the negligent main character.

To investigate the relation between the narrative involvement measures and participants’ self-ratings regarding their conscientiousness in relation to other people (SCIS – conscientiousness subscale, DV1), a hierarchical multiple linear regression analysis was performed. We included the control measures domain identification and trait conscientiousness (BFI-10) as first block of predictors in order to control for possible effects on the SCIS – conscientiousness subscale. The second block entailed the transportation short-scale, the narrative engagement subscales, and the experience taking scale. Tests for multicollinearity indicated an acceptable level of multicollinearity for both models (all VIFs < 3; see also Table 4 ). For Model 1, which only included the control measures as predictors, a significant regression equation was found, F (2,76) = 24.46, p < 0.001, with an adjusted R 2 of 0.38. It was found that only trait conscientiousness significantly predicted participants’ ratings regarding their conscientiousness in relation to other people, β = 0.61, p < 0.001. Introducing the narrative involvement measures as additional predictors in Model 2, F (8,70) = 6.43, p < 0.001, with an adjusted R 2 of 0.36, did not significantly add explained variance, Δ R 2 = 0.03, p = 0.70. This finding suggests that only participants’ trait conscientiousness explained how they compare themselves to others regarding this trait, while the story had no influence on how people judge themselves in relation to others (see Table 4 for more information).

A second hierarchical multiple regression was conducted with time spent on the anagram-solving task (DV2). Again, the control measures were entered in the first block and the second block additionally entailed the narrative involvement measures. Tests for multicollinearity indicated an acceptable level of multicollinearity for both models (all VIFs < 3; see also Table 5 ). For Model 1, which only included domain identification and trait conscientiousness as predictors, a non-significant regression equation was found, F (2,76) = 0.27, p = 0.76, with an adjusted R 2 of 0.00. Entering transportation, the narrative engagement subscales, and experience taking into the second model, F (8,70) = 2.25, p = 0.03, with an adjusted R 2 of 0.11, significantly added explained variance, Δ R 2 = 0.20, p = 0.01. Regarding the individual coefficients, only the effect of experience taking was significant, β = 0.42, p = 0.01. This finding indicates that experience taking and time spent on the anagrams show a positive relation, even when controlling for domain identification and trait conscientiousness (see Table 5 for more information).

The findings suggest that interindividual differences in recipients’ traits in relation to the main character influence how participants experience a story. Less conscientious participants felt more like being part of the story world, and they strongly identified with the main protagonist. Indeed, character-audience similarity, respectively, familiarity with the story theme ( Green, 2004 ) have been shown to increase transportation ( Kim et al., 2016 ) and experience taking ( Hoeken et al., 2016 ). A multiple regression showed a positive relationship between trait conscientiousness and participants’ self-ratings regarding their conscientiousness levels compared to others. Reasons for this finding might be that the SCIS – conscientiousness subscale is a rather trait-like measure, which might not be sensitive enough to capture state-like effects, induced temporarily through a story. However, there was still a positive relation between narrative involvement (i.e., experience taking) and how much time participants spent on the anagram-solving task. Importantly, this result, which was partly in line with Study 1, could not be explained by participants’ trait conscientiousness or domain identification.

General Discussion

A unique feature of narratives is the power to enable us to be transported into foreign worlds ( Gerrig, 1993 ). Moreover, being transported into a story can influence the understanding of other people ( Mar and Oatley, 2008 ) and even how we see ourselves ( Cohen, 2001 ; Djikic et al., 2009 ). The present research tried to extend previous findings on stories and the self, which focused on how recipients’ selves change in line with the story, a process called assimilation ( Richter et al., 2014 ). Both transportation and experience taking have been shown to facilitate the influence of stories and its protagonists on recipients’ selves ( Sestir and Green, 2010 ; Kaufman and Libby, 2012 ).

Yet, a story is no “magic bullet,” which automatically changes recipients’ self-perceptions in line with its content and its protagonists. Based on theoretical assumptions and previous findings, in Study 1, we expected participants, who were less involved in the narrative, to distance themselves from the story by comparing themselves downward, and thus, lifting themselves up (e.g., by being more eager to spend time on the anagram-solving task). However, the correlations between the narrative involvement measures and the dependent variables of both experiments did not support this assumption. Against our assumptions, high experience taking (in Study 2) and high transportation values (in Study 1) were both positively correlated to persistently working on a partly unsolvable anagram task. Importantly, trait conscientiousness and domain identification, which were included as a potential alternative explanation (Study 2), could not explain the effects on how much time participants spent on the anagram-solving task.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

Despite its contribution to the literature, several limitations of this research need to be acknowledged. As we failed to find significant results regarding our hypotheses, we need to consider potential explanations why the expected results were not found. In the following, we would like to highlight three starting points that might inspire future research: (1) statistical reasons (where the studies underpowered or the design inappropriate?), (2) methodological reasons (where the manipulations or measures invalid?), or (3) theoretical reasons (is the theory invalid, and therefore, would another theory be more appropriate?).

Statistical Reasons

An important reason for the null-findings regarding our hypotheses is the unsuccessful manipulation of transportation and experience taking in both experiments. Indeed, findings on the effects of different approaches to manipulate transportation and experience taking are very heterogeneous between different studies, since there might be different moderating factors that influence the size of possible effects ( Tukachinsky, 2014 ). Therefore, (a) a larger number of participants in order to avoid low-power designs and (b) assessing potential moderating factors might be beneficial for future studies. Furthermore, we used only one short story in each of the two experiments. A higher number of different experimental stories might be useful in order to show the expected effects.

Methodological Reasons

In contrast to our failed attempts, similar manipulations of transportation ( Shedlosky-Shoemaker et al., 2011 ; Gebbers et al., 2017 ) and experience taking ( Kaufman and Libby, 2012 ; Hoeken et al., 2016 ) have been successfully used before. However, other techniques to manipulate narrative involvement such as disrupting the text structure ( Gnambs et al., 2014 ), using a non-narrative control text as baseline ( Bal and Veltkamp, 2013 ), or giving simple instructions before reading or watching a story (e.g., “read/watch the story as if you were the character”; Sestir and Green, 2010 ) might have been more effective in our context.

Moreover, all our measures regarding recipients’ experience of a story were based on post exposure recall; we did not directly measure related processes in both studies. Therefore, an alternative approach to measure recipients’ experience of a story while they are reading or watching it by using psycho-physiological continuous methods, like facial electromyography, heart rate, and electrodermal activity, might be useful for future studies ( Ravaja, 2004 ; Weber et al., 2015 ). Indirect or implicit measures, like the Implicit Association Test ( Nosek et al., 2002 ) might be also valuable in order to detect more subtle temporal changes in recipients’ association between their selves and aspects of the story ( Dal Cin et al., 2007 ; Sestir and Green, 2010 ; Gabriel and Young, 2011 ). The use of an IAT measure could be especially beneficial for assessing traits, motives, or ratings of (inferior) others compared to oneself, which might all subject to social desirability biases on explicit self-report measures ( Hefner et al., 2011 ).

In Study 1, we expected psychology students to compare themselves downward to the pre-service teacher in the experimental story. However, future studies are recommended to control for interindividual differences in social comparison tendencies (e.g., measured via the Iowa-Netherlands Comparison Orientation Measure; INCOM; Schneider and Schupp, 2011 ) in order to show contrast effects. Furthermore, social comparison may be directly manipulated in an experimental approach for future studies. For example, Appel (2011) instructed participants to find dissimilarities between themselves and a stupid main protagonist. These participants (compared to participants without such an instruction) performed better in a knowledge test after reading an experimental story about a stupid protagonist, indicating a contrast effect. Future studies regarding social comparison with media personae should also take into account the salience and importance of social group categories (one’s own group vs. out groups) that could trigger social comparison processes ( Trepte and Loy, 2017 ).

Furthermore, research on the persuasive power of stories showed that the effects of transportation on recipients beliefs ( Appel and Richter, 2007 ) and on empathy ( Bal and Veltkamp, 2013 ) increase over time ( absolute sleeper effect ). Likewise, possible contrast effects on participants’ selves may also appear with a time delay. Therefore, future studies on contrast effects under conditions of low transportation should also include a delayed assessment of its DVs.

Theoretical Reasons

In Study 1, transportation was only positively correlated to the SELLMO subscale “learning goals,” whereas both narrative involvement measures (i.e., transportation, experience taking) were not correlated to any of the other SELLMO-ST subscales. Drawing on personality traits as a potential third variable influencing this relationship, learning goals (i.e., a drive to broaden ones horizon and competences) might be linked to interindividual differences in recipients’ general tendency to become transported into a story. Therefore, future studies might also consider including a trait measure of transportability ( Mazzocco et al., 2010 ) in order to explain assimilation vs. contrast effects.

In both studies, we found strong evidence for positive relations between high narrative involvement and participants’ perseverance to work on anagrams, even when controlling for trait consciousness and domain identification. These unexpected results could be interpreted in line with other theories and research regarding non-interactive media entertainment and well-being ( Rieger et al., 2014 ). Indeed, a recent study demonstrated that participants who were highly involved into a narrative showed higher recovery experience and – somewhat similar to our finding – higher cognitive performance ( Rieger et al., 2017 ). In other words, narratives enable recipients to experience a temporal self-relief ( Moskalenko and Heine, 2003 ); it might be that even the boundaries of their selves expand while they are transported into a story (TEBOTS; Slater et al., 2014 ). During this process, recipients’ selves replenish, and after reading a story, they might be more energized to work on a challenging (anagram-solving) task. However, the underlying causal processes and related outcomes need to be explored more systematically in future research.

The primary aim of this research was to developa better understanding of narratives’ influence how recipients see themselves compared to a story character. Furthermore, we tried to measure recipients’ motives and even their behavior after experimentally manipulating both transportation and experience taking. Going beyond previous studies on narrative effects, we did not only expect assimilation effects (changes that are in line with a story); rather, we tried to reveal contrast effects (changes that are opposite to a story). Despite the fact that our hypotheses were not supported, we are still inspired by the statement “progress occurs when existing expectations are violated” ( Open Science Collaboration, 2015 ). Therefore, we hope that the results of this research will encourage others to future research in order to shed light on the underlying mechanisms of story reception and to advance theory of how it could influence the self in different directions.

Data Availability

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this manuscript will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation, to any qualified researcher.

Ethics Statement

According to institutional guidelines of the Institute of Communication and Media Psychology at the University Koblenz-Landau and the Human-Computer-Media Institute at the University of Würzburg, full ethical reviews are not required for the type of studies conducted in this research. We adhered to all ethical requirements for research with human subjects according to the German Psychological Society (DGPs) and the Declaration of Helsinki. All participants gave their informed consent in a written form.

Author Contributions

SK and SW conceptualized and designed both the experiments. SK implemented the studies, carried out the analysis for both studies, and also wrote the manuscript with valuable input from SW.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Markus Appel for the very helpful and insightful input on both studies, as well as on the manuscript. Furthermore, we are grateful for Miriam Hellriegel’s support in creating the experimental stimuli. Great thanks are also addressed to Anna Hohm, Sabrina Gado, and Julius Klingelhöfer, who supported us with data collection. We would also like to thank the reviewers for their comments and suggestions, which we found very valuable and helpful in improving the manuscript.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01889/full#supplementary-material

• ^ It is important to note that empirical studies show no significant differences between pre-service teachers and other students regarding their actual achievement motivation and intelligence ( Spinath et al., 2005 ).
• ^ https://www.leselupe.de/
• ^ In contrast to Study 1, we chose to use a protagonist with a specific gender, since telling a story from the view of an independent observer without directly referring to the protagonist’s gender is rather untypical for a story.
• ^ Spearman-Brown reliability estimate.

Appel, M. (2011). A story about a stupid person can make you act stupid (or smart): behavioral assimilation (and contrast) as narrative impact. Media Psychol. 14, 144–167. doi: 10.1080/15213269.2011.573461

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Appel, M., Gnambs, T., Richter, T., and Green, M. C. (2015). The transportation scale–short form (TS–SF). Media Psychol. 18, 243–266. doi: 10.1080/15213269.2014.987400

Appel, M., and Richter, T. (2007). Persuasive effects of fictional narratives increase over time. Media Psychol. 10, 113–134.

Google Scholar

Appel, M., and Weber, S. (2017). Do mass mediated stereotypes harm members of negatively stereotyped groups? A meta-analytical review on media-generated stereotype threat and stereotype lift. Commun. Res. 8, 1–29. doi: 10.1177/0093650217715543

Bacherle, P. (2015). Eintauchen in Narrative Welten - theoretische und Empirische Zugänge zum Rezeptionserleben [Immersion into Narrative Worlds - Theoretical and Empirical Approaches to Audience Experience]. Doctoral dissertation, University Koblenz-Landau, Mainz.

Bal, P. M., and Veltkamp, M. (2013). How does fiction reading influence empathy? An experimental investigation on the role of emotional transportation. PLoS One 8:e55341. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0055341

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Biernat, M. (2005). Standards and Expectancies: Contrast and Assimilation in Judgments of Self and Others. New York, NY: Psychology Press. doi: 10.4324/9780203338933

Brown, W. J. (2015). Examining four processes of audience involvement with media personae: transportation, parasocial interaction, identification, and worship. Commun. Theory 25, 259–283. doi: 10.1111/comt.12053

Busselle, R., and Bilandzic, H. (2009). Measuring narrative engagement. Media Psychol. 12, 321–347. doi: 10.1080/15213260903287259

Caputo, N. M., and Rouner, D. (2011). Narrative processing of entertainment media and mental illness stigma. Health Commun. 26, 595–604. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2011.560787

Carlsson, R., and Björklund, F. (2010). Implicit stereotype content. Soc. Psychol. 41, 213–222. doi: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000029

Cattarin, J. A., Thompson, J. K., Thomas, C., and Williams, R. (2000). Body image, mood, and televised images of attractiveness: the role of social comparison. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 19, 220–239. doi: 10.1521/jscp.2000.19.2.220

Chatard, A., Selimbegoviæ, L., Konan, P., and Mugny, G. (2008). Performance boosts in the classroom: stereotype endorsement and prejudice moderate stereotype lift. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 44, 1421–1424. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2008.05.004

Cohen, J. (2001). Defining identification: a theoretical look at the identification of audiences with media characters. Mass Commun. Soc. 4, 245–264. doi: 10.1207/S15327825MCS0403-01

Cook, J. E., Purdie-Vaughns, V., Garcia, J., and Cohen, G. L. (2012). Chronic threat and contingent belonging: protective benefits of values affirmation on identity development. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 102, 479–496. doi: 10.1037/a0026312

Dal Cin, S., Gibson, B., Zanna, M. P., Shumate, R., and Fong, G. T. (2007). Smoking in movies, implicit associations of smoking with the self, and intentions to smoke. Psychol. Sci. 18, 559–563. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01939.x

Djikic, M., Oatley, K., Zoeterman, S., and Peterson, J. B. (2009). On being moved by art: how reading fiction transforms the self. Creat. Res. J. 21, 24–29. doi: 10.1080/10400410802633392

Dudley, N. M., Orvis, K. A., Lebiecki, J. E., and Cortina, J. M. (2006). A meta-analytic investigation of conscientiousness in the prediction of job performance: examining the intercorrelations and the incremental validity of narrow traits. J. Appl. Psychol. 91, 40–57. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.40

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Hum. Relat. 7, 117–140. doi: 10.1177/001872675400700202

Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., and Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content. Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 82, 878–902. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878

Fiske, S. T., Xu, J., Cuddy, A. C., and Glick, P. (1999). (Dis)respecting versus (dis)liking. Status and interdependence predict ambivalent stereotypes of competence and warmth. J. Soc. Issues 55, 473–489. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00128

Gabriel, S., and Young, A. F. (2011). Becoming a vampire without being bitten: the narrative collective-assimilation hypothesis. Psychol. Sci. 22, 990–994. doi: 10.1177/0956797611415541

Gebbers, T., de Wit, J. B. F., and Appel, M. (2017). Transportation into narrative worlds and the motivation to change health-related behavior. Int. J. Commun. 11, 4886–4906.

Gerrig, R. J. (1993). Experiencing Narrative Worlds: On the Psychological Activities of Reading. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Gnambs, T., Appel, M., Schreiner, C., Richter, T., and Isberner, M.-B. (2014). Experiencing narrative worlds: a latent state–trait analysis. Pers. Individ. Dif. 69, 187–192. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2014.05.034

Grabe, S., Ward, L. M., and Hyde, J. S. (2008). The role of the media in body image concerns among women: a meta-analysis of experimental and correlational studies. Psychol. Bull. 134, 460–476. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.134.3.460

Green, M. C. (2004). Transportation into narrative worlds: the role of prior knowledge and perceived realism. Discourse Process. 38, 247–266. doi: 10.1207/s15326950dp3802_5

Green, M. C. (2005). “Transportation into narrative worlds: implications for the self,” in On building, Defending and Regulating the Self: A Psychological Perspective , eds A. Tesser, J. V. Wood, and D. A. Stapel (New York, NY: Psychology Press), 53–75.

Green, M. C., and Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 79, 701–721. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.79.5.701

Groesz, L. M., Levine, M. P., and Murnen, S. K. (2002). The effect of experimental presentation of thin media images on body satisfaction: a meta-analytic review. Int. J. Eat. Disord. 31, 1–16. doi: 10.1002/eat.10005

Gupta, V. K., Goktan, A. B., and Gunay, G. (2014). Gender differences in evaluation of new business opportunity: a stereotype threat perspective. J. Bus. Venturing 29, 273–288. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2013.02.002

Harwood, J. (1999). Age identification, social identity gratifications, and television viewing. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 43, 123–136. doi: 10.1080/08838159909364479

Hefner, D., Rothmund, T., Klimmt, C., and Gollwitzer, M. (2011). Implicit measures and media effects research. Challenges and opportunities. Commun. Methods Measures 5, 181–202. doi: 10.1080/19312458.2011.597006

Hoeken, H., Kolthoff, M., and Sanders, J. (2016). Story perspective and character similarity as drivers of identification and narrative persuasion. Hum. Commun. Res. 42, 292–311. doi: 10.1111/hcre.12076

Ihme, T. A., and Möller, J. (2015). “He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches?”. Stereotype threat and preservice teachers. J. Educ. Psychol. 107, 300–308. doi: 10.1037/a0037373

Kaufman, G. F., and Libby, L. K. (2012). Changing beliefs and behavior through experience-taking. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 103, 1–19. doi: 10.1037/a0027525

Kim, M., Shi, R., and Cappella, J. N. (2016). Effect of character-audience similarity on the perceived effectiveness of antismoking PSAs via engagement. Health Commun. 31, 1193–1204. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2015.1048421

Knobloch-Westerwick, S., and Hastall, M. R. (2010). Please your self: social identity effects on selective exposure to news about in- and out-groups. J. Commun. 60, 515–535. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01495.x

Knobloch-Westerwick, S., and Hastall, M. R. (2016). Social comparisons with news personae. Commun. Res. 33, 262–284. doi: 10.1177/0093650206289152

Krause, S., and Appel, M. (2017). Stories and the self: assimilation, contrast, and the role of being transported into the narrative world. Paper Presented at the 67th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association (ICA) , San Diego, CA.

Lyubomirsky, S., and Ross, L. (1997). Hedonic consequences of social comparison. A contrast of happy and unhappy people. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 73, 1141–1157. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.73.6.1141

Mar, R. A., and Oatley, K. (2008). The function of fiction is the abstraction and simulation of social experience. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 3, 173–192. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00073.x

Mares, M.-L., and Cantor, J. (1992). Elderly viewers’ responses to televised portrayals of old age. Empathy and mood management versus social comparison. Commun. Res. 19, 459–478. doi: 10.1177/009365092019004004

Mastro, D. (2015). Why the media’s role in issues of race and ethnicity should be in the spotlight. J. Soc. Issues 71, 1–16. doi: 10.1111/josi.12093

Mastro, D., and Tukachinsky, R. (2012). “The influence of media exposure on the formation, activation, and application of racial/ethnic stereotypes,” in The International Encyclopedia of Media Studies , eds A. N. Valdivia and E. Scharrer (Boston, MA: Wiley-Blackwell), 295–315.

Mastro, D. E. (2003). A social identity approach to understanding the impact of television messages. Commun. Monogr. 70, 98–113. doi: 10.1080/0363775032000133764

Mastro, D. E., Behm-Morawitz, E., and Kopacz, M. A. (2008). Exposure to television portrayals of Latinos: the implications of aversive racism and social identity theory. Hum. Commun. Res. 34, 1–27. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00311.x

Mazzocco, P. J., Green, M. C., Sasota, J. A., and Jones, N. W. (2010). This story is not for everyone: transportability and narrative persuasion. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 1, 361–368. doi: 10.1177/1948550610376600

Moskalenko, S., and Heine, S. J. (2003). Watching your troubles away: television viewing as a stimulus for subjective self-awareness. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 29, 76–85. doi: 10.1177/0146167202238373

Moyer-Gusé, E. (2008). Toward a theory of entertainment persuasion: explaining the persuasive effects of entertainment-education messages. Commun. Theory 18, 407–425. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.00328.x

Muraven, M., Tice, D. M., and Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Self-control as a limited resource. Regulatory depletion patterns. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 74, 774–789. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.774

Mussweiler, T. (2003). Comparison processes in social judgment: mechanisms and consequences. Psychol. Rev. 110, 472–489. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.110.3.472

Mussweiler, T. (2007). “Assimilation and contrast as comparison effects: a selective accessibility mode,” in Assimilation and Contrast in Social Psychology , eds D. A. Stapel and J. Suls (New York, NY: Psychology Press), 165–185.

Nguyen, H.-H. D., and Ryan, A. M. (2008). Does stereotype threat affect test performance of minorities and women? A meta-analysis of experimental evidence. J. Appl. Psychol. 93, 1314–1334. doi: 10.1037/a0012702

Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R., and Greenwald, A. G. (2002). Math = male, me = female, therefore math ≠ me. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 83, 44–59. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.83.1.44

Oatley, K. (1994). A taxonomy of the emotions of literary response and a theory of identification in fictional narrative. Poetics 23, 53–74. doi: 10.1016/0304-422X(94)P4296-S

Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 349, 943–951. doi: 10.1126/science.aac4716

Ostendorf, F., and Angleitner, A. (2004). NEO-Persönlichkeitsinventar nach Costa und McCrae: NEO-PIR [NEO Personality Inventory According to Costa and McCrae: NEOPIR]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

Paunonen, S. V., and Ashton, M. C. (2001). Big five factors and facets and the prediction of behavior. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 81, 524. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.81.3.524

Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance. Psychol. Bull. 135, 322–338. doi: 10.1037/a0014996

Rammstedt, B., Kemper, C. J., Klein, M. C., Beierlein, C., and Kovaleva, A. (2014). Big Five Inventory (BFI-10). Zusammenstellung sozialwissenschaftlicher Items und Skalen [The Collection of Social Science Items and Scales]. doi: 10.6102/zis76

Ravaja, N. (2004). Contributions of psychophysiology to media research: Review and recommendations. Media Psychol. 6, 193–235. doi: 10.1207/s1532785xmep0602-4

Richter, T., Appel, M., and Calio, F. (2014). Stories can influence the self-concept. Soc. Influ. 9, 172–188. doi: 10.1080/15534510.2013.799099

Rieger, D., Reinecke, L., and Bente, G. (2017). Media-induced recovery: the effects of positive versus negative media stimuli on recovery experience, cognitive performance, and energetic arousal. Psychol. Pop. Media Cult. 6, 174–191. doi: 10.1037/ppm0000075

Rieger, D., Reinecke, L., Frischlich, L., and Bente, G. (2014). Media entertainment and well-being - Linking hedonic and eudaimonic entertainment experience to media-induced recovery and vitality. J. Commun. 64, 456–478. doi: 10.1111/jcom.12097

Schneider, S., and Schupp, J. (2011). The Social Comparison Scale. Testing the Validity, Reliability, and Applicability of the Iowa-Netherlands Comparison Orientation Measure (INCOM) on the German Population. Available at: http://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.368747.de/diw_sp0360.pdf

Sestir, M., and Green, M. C. (2010). You are who you watch: identification and transportation effects on temporary self-concept. Soc. Influ. 5, 272–288. doi: 10.1080/15534510.2010.490672

Shedlosky-Shoemaker, R., Costabile, K. A., DeLuca, H. K., and Arkin, R. M. (2011). The social experience of entertainment media: effects of others’ evaluations on our experience. J. Media Psychol. 23, 111–121. doi: 10.1027/1864-1105/a000042

Slater, M. D., Johnson, B. K., Cohen, J., Comello, M. G., and Ewoldsen, D. R. (2014). Temporarily expanding the boundaries of the self: motivations for entering the story world and implications for narrative effects. J. Commun. 64, 439–455. doi: 10.1111/jcom.12100

Smith, J. L., and White, P. H. (2001). Development of the domain identification measure: a tool for investigating stereotype threat effects. Educ. Psychol. Measure. 61, 1040–1057. doi: 10.1177/00131640121971635

Spinath, B., Stiensmeier-Pelster, J., Schöne, C., and Dickhäuser, O. (2002). SELLMO—Skalen zur Erfassung der Lern-und Leistungsmotivation, Testmanual [SELLMO—Learning and Achievement Motivation Assessment Scales, Manual]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

Spinath, B., van Ophuysen, S., and Heise, E. (2005). Individuelle Voraussetzungen von Studierenden zu Studienbeginn: sind Lehramtsstudierende so schlecht wie ihr Ruf? [University students’ learning- and achievement-related characteristics: the case of teacher students]. Psychol. Erziehung Unterricht 52, 186–197.

Suls, J., and Wheeler, L. (2017). “On the trail of social comparison,” in The Oxford Handbook of Social Influence , eds S. G. Harkins, K. D. Williams, and J. M. Burger (New York, NY: Oxford University Press), 71–86.

Swetnam, L. A. (1992). Media distortion of the teacher image. Clearing House 66, 30–32. doi: 10.1080/00098655.1992.9955921

Tabachnick, B. G., and Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics , 5th Edn. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Tajfel, H., and Turner, J. C. (1986). “The social identity theory of intergroup behavior,” in Psychology of Intergroup Relations , eds S. Worchel and W. G. Austin (Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall), 7–24.

Thwaites, R., and Dagnan, D. (2004). Moderating variables in the relationship between social comparison and depression: an evolutionary perspective. Psychol. Psychother. 77, 309–323. doi: 10.1348/1476083041839376

Trepte, S., and Loy, L. S. (2017). “Social identity theory and self-categorization theory,” in The International Encyclopedia of Media Effects , eds P. Rössler, C. A. Hoffner, and L. van Zoonen (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc),1–12.

Tukachinsky, R. (2014). Experimental manipulation of psychological involvement with media. Commun. Methods Measures 8, 1–33. doi: 10.1080/19312458.2013.873777

Ventura, M., Shute, V., and Zhao, W. (2013). The relationship between video game use and a performance-based measure of persistence. Comput. Educ. 60, 52–58. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.07.003

Walton, G. M., and Cohen, G. L. (2003). Stereotype lift. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 39, 456–467. doi: 10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00019-2

Weber, R., Eden, A., Huskey, R., Mangus, J. M., and Falk, E. (2015). Bridging media psychology and cognitive neuroscience. J. Media Psychol. 27, 146–156. doi: 10.1027/1864-1105/a000163

Wills, T. A. (1981). Downward comparison principles in social psychology. Psychol. Bull. 90, 245–271. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.90.2.245

Wood, J. V., Taylor, S. E., and Lichtman, R. R. (1985). Social comparison in adjustment to breast cancer. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 49, 1169–1183. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.49.5.1169

Keywords : self, self-concept, transportation, identification, experience taking, narratives, social comparison

Citation: Krause S and Weber S (2018) Lift Me Up by Looking Down: Social Comparison Effects of Narratives. Front. Psychol. 9:1889. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01889

Received: 27 June 2018; Accepted: 14 September 2018; Published: 18 October 2018.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2018 Krause and Weber. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Stefan Krause, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Social Comparison Theory

• Reference work entry
• First Online: 01 January 2024
• pp 6518–6519
• Cite this reference work entry

• Nattavudh Powdthavee 2  

112 Accesses

Downward comparison theory ; Multiple Discrepancies Theory (MDT) ; Social comparison ; Upward comparison

Social comparison theory (SCT) is a theory that explains the reasons, as well as the processes, behind the idea that people evaluate their own opinions, values, achievements, and abilities by comparison respectively with the opinions, values, achievements, and abilities of others.

Description

Social comparison theory was first popularized by psychologist Leon Festinger in 1954 (Festinger 1954 ). SCT proposes that there is a primitive drive within individuals to compare themselves with others in order to evaluate their own opinions and abilities. It was originally thought that individuals do this partly in order to limit hostility and deprecation of others, given that the act of comparing oneself with others is one of the ways to strengthen bonds and ensure uniformity within a social group. Festinger also hypothesized that the tendency to compare oneself with others...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Clark, A. E. (2003). Unemployment as a social norm: Psychological evidence from panel data. Journal of Labor Economics, 21 , 323–351.

Article   Google Scholar  

Clark, A. E., Kristensen, N., & Westergård-Nielsen, N. (2009). Economic satisfaction and income rank in small neighbourhoods. Journal of the European Economic Association, 7 , 519–527.

Easterlin, R. A. (1974). Does economic growth improve the human lot? In P. A. David & M. W. Reder (Eds.), Nations and households in economic growth: Essays in honour of Moses abramovitz . New York: Academic.

Google Scholar  

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7 , 117–140.

Hirschman, A. O. (1973). Changing tolerance for income inequality in the course of economic development. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87 (4), 544–566.

Powdthavee, N. (2005). Unhappiness and crime: Evidence from South Africa. Economica, 72 , 531–547.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

London School of Economics, London, UK

Nattavudh Powdthavee

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nattavudh Powdthavee .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Dipartimento di Scienze Statistiche, Sapienza Università di Roma, Roma, Roma, Italy

Filomena Maggino

Section Editor information

Department of Political Science, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy

Mara Tognetti

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Powdthavee, N. (2023). Social Comparison Theory. In: Maggino, F. (eds) Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17299-1_2740

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17299-1_2740

Published : 11 February 2024

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-17298-4

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-17299-1

eBook Packages : Social Sciences Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Share this entry

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research