Threatening Social Comparison Feedback Increases Negative Affect and Reduces Task Commitment

Receiving threatening social comparison feedback leads to pronounced increases in negative affect and alters cognitive coping responses without immediately changing behavioral persistence, according to an experimental investigation published in BMC Psychology. Researchers found that individuals who received false performance feedback indicating they performed poorly relative to peers experienced significantly greater spikes in negative affect and displayed marked shifts in how they cognitively related to the assigned task. Specifically, participants exposed to this upward social comparison threat demonstrated lower commitment to the task and engaged in greater rededication by actively downplaying its importance. Despite these clear affective and cognitive shifts, the threatening feedback did not produce a statistically significant difference in whether individuals chose to repeat the task.

The experiment was designed to provide an initial empirical evaluation of the general comparative processing model, termed gComp, which posits that social comparisons systematically shape human behavior. Under the gComp theoretical framework, evaluating personal attributes against salient upward social standards elicits a motivational appraisal ranging from threat to challenge. The model suggests that threat and challenge appraisals are typically associated with corresponding pessimistic or optimistic coping responses, respectively. These appraisal and coping mechanisms in turn manifest through specific affective, cognitive, and behavioral responses. According to the research team, this study represents the first experimental investigation to provide an initial empirical test of the core assumptions posited by gComp.

To experimentally test how comparative feedback operates across these psychological dimensions, the researchers evaluated participants completing a cognitive 2-back task. To establish an evaluative standard, the 2-back task was explicitly framed to participants as an indicator of academic performance. The study randomly assigned participants to either a high-threat condition comprising 67 individuals or a low-threat condition comprising 62 individuals. Upon finishing the task, participants received false social comparison feedback detailing their performance relative to the scores of previous participants. The investigators assessed three distinct categories of outcomes: affective reactions, cognitive responses encompassing rededication, distraction, reconstrual, and commitment, and an objective behavioral choice measured by whether participants decided to repeat the task.

The statistical results demonstrated notable differences between the experimental conditions across emotional and cognitive domains, but not in behavioral choices. Participants placed in the high-threat condition reported significantly higher increases in negative affect relative to participants in the low-threat condition (p < .001). Cognitive measures also diverged substantially between the two groups. Those facing high threat exhibited significantly greater rededication, which the researchers defined as downplaying the importance of the task (p = .011). In addition, participants in the high-threat group reported significantly lower commitment to the task compared to those in the low-threat group (p < .001). In contrast to these affective and cognitive effects, the behavioral outcome measure showed no statistically significant difference between the conditions (p = .149).

The study authors, Thomas Meyer, Ann-Kathrin Zenses, and Nexhmedin Morina, concluded that these findings highlight the utility of a process-based framework for examining social comparison phenomena. By demonstrating how false upward performance comparisons influence affective reactions and cognitive coping strategies like rededication and commitment, the research advances understanding of how comparative feedback shapes distinct psychological responses. The authors noted that taking a process-based approach to social comparison helps clarify the precise pathways through which comparative information alters internal emotional and cognitive appraisals even when behavioral repetition decisions do not significantly diverge.

Subject of Research: Affective, cognitive, and behavioral responses to threatening social comparison feedback

Article Title: Social comparison threat and coping: affective, cognitive and behavioral outcomes in response to false performance-related feedback

Article References: Meyer, T., Zenses, A.-K., & Morina, N. (2026). Social comparison threat and coping: affective, cognitive and behavioral outcomes in response to false performance-related feedback. BMC Psychology, 14(1), Article 1318. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-026-05536-9

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s40359-026-05536-9

Keywords: social comparison, gComp model, negative affect, cognitive coping, task commitment, performance feedback, working memory, psychological threat, Social, comparison, threat, coping