IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/diw/diwsop/diw_sp360.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Social Comparison Scale: Testing the Validity, Reliability, and Applicability of the Iowa-Netherlands Comparison Orientation Measure (INCOM) on the German Population

Author

Listed:
  • Simone Schneider
  • Jürgen Schupp

Abstract

Social comparisons are an essential source of information about the self. Research in social psychology has shown individual variation in the tendency toward comparison with other people's opinions and abilities, raising the question of whether social comparisons are driven by psychological dispositions. To test the empirical validity of this proposition, Gibbons and Buunk (1999) created an instrument that measures the tendency to engage in social comparison and captures central aspects of the self, the other, and the psychological interaction between the two. The Iowa-Netherlands Comparison Orientation Measure (INCOM) comprises 11 core items that have been tested in the United States and the Netherlands. To date, however, no attempt has been made to implement this instrument in a large-scale survey of the German population. To fill this gap, the core items of the INCOM scale were integrated into the 2010 SOEP (Socio-Economic Panel Study) pretest. This paper analyzes the validity of the INCOM scale and discusses potentials for shortening the instrument for continued use in large-scale population surveys. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis as well as scale validation tests (invariance tests combined with external validation techniques) produce acceptable results and confirm the measurement instrument as valid and effective. With regard to shortening the questionnaire, a six-item scale is recommended, which shows excellent model fit and proves to be a reliable and efficient indicator to grasp individual dispositions towards social comparison.

Suggested Citation

  • Simone Schneider & Jürgen Schupp, 2011. "The Social Comparison Scale: Testing the Validity, Reliability, and Applicability of the Iowa-Netherlands Comparison Orientation Measure (INCOM) on the German Population," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 360, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    • Handle: RePEc:diw:diwsop:diw_sp360
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.368747.de/diw_sp0360.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Niels Winkler & Martin Kroh & Martin Spieß, 2006. "Entwicklung einer deutschen Kurzskala zur zweidimensionalen Messung von sozialer Erwünschtheit," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 579, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Viola Ackfeld & Werner Güth, 2019. "Personal Information Disclosure under Competition for Benefits: Is Sharing Caring?," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2019_04, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    2. Kiessling, Lukas & Radbruch, Jonas & Schaube, Sebastian, 2018. "The Impact of Self-Selection on Performance," IZA Discussion Papers 11365, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    3. Lukas Kiessling & Jonas Radbruch & Sebastian Schaube, 2022. "Self-Selection of Peers and Performance," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(11), pages 8184-8201, November.
    4. Petra Nieken & Anna Ressi, 2022. "Which Peer Group to Choose? The Effects of Relative Performance Information on Employee Self-Selection and Performance," CESifo Working Paper Series 9940, CESifo.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Julius Grund & Antje Brock, 2019. "Why We Should Empty Pandora’s Box to Create a Sustainable Future: Hope, Sustainability and Its Implications for Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-20, February.
    2. Naef, Michael & Schupp, Jürgen, 2009. "Measuring Trust: Experiments and Surveys in Contrast and Combination," IZA Discussion Papers 4087, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    3. Simone Schneider & Jürgen Schupp, 2014. "Individual Differences in Social Comparison and its Consequences for Life Satisfaction: Introducing a Short Scale of the Iowa–Netherlands Comparison Orientation Measure," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 115(2), pages 767-789, January.
    4. Kuntscher, Manuela & Schmidt, Thomas & Goossens, Yanne, 2021. "Lebensmittelabfälle in derAußer-Haus-Verpflegung –Ursachen, Hemmnisse und Perspektiven –," Thünen Working Paper 309546, Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut (vTI), Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries.
    5. Katharina Werner, 2019. "The Role of Information for Public Preferences on Education – Evidence from Representative Survey Experiments," ifo Beiträge zur Wirtschaftsforschung, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, number 82.
    6. Delley, Mathilde & Brunner, Thomas A., 2017. "Foodwaste within Swiss households: A segmentation of the population and suggestions for preventive measures," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 172-184.
    7. Clemens Koob, 2021. "Determinants of content marketing effectiveness: Conceptual framework and empirical findings from a managerial perspective," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(4), pages 1-25, April.
    8. Kuntscher, Manuela & Schmidt, Thomas G. & Goossens, Yanne, 2020. "Lebensmittelabfälle in der Außer-Haus-Verpflegung: Ursachen, Hemmnisse und Perspektiven," Thünen Working Papers 161, Johann Heinrich von Thünen Institute, Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries.
    9. Kuntscher, Manuela & Schmidt, Thomas & Goossens, Yanne, 2021. "Lebensmittelabfälle in derAußer-Haus-Verpflegung–Ursachen, Hemmnisse und Perspektiven –," Thünen Working Paper 310008, Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut (vTI), Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries.
    10. Funke, Katja & Hirschauer, Norbert & Peth, Denise & Mußhoff, Oliver & Becker, Oliver Arránz, 2019. "Can personality traits explain compliance behaviour? - A study of compliance with water-protection rules in German agriculture," SocArXiv jnexr, Center for Open Science.
    11. Werner, Katharina, 2018. "Obstacles to Efficient Allocations of Public Education Spending," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 128, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    12. Börger, Tobias, 2011. "A direct test of socially desirable responding in contingent valuation interviews," FZID Discussion Papers 40-2011, University of Hohenheim, Center for Research on Innovation and Services (FZID).
    13. Julius Grund & Antje Brock, 2020. "Education for Sustainable Development in Germany: Not Just Desired but Also Effective for Transformative Action," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-20, April.
    14. Adnan Zogaj & Dieter K. Tscheulin & Jörg Lindenmeier & Stephan Olk, 2021. "Linking actual self-congruence, ideal self-congruence, and functional congruence to donor loyalty: the moderating role of issue involvement," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 91(3), pages 379-400, April.
    15. Thomas Stöber & Peter Kotzian & Barbara E. Weißenberger, 2019. "Design matters: on the impact of compliance program design on corporate ethics," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 12(2), pages 383-424, December.
    16. Börger, Tobias, 2013. "Keeping up appearances: Motivations for socially desirable responding in contingent valuation interviews," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 155-165.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Social comparisons; relative evaluations; reference groups; validity tests; SOEP;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D31 - Microeconomics - - Distribution - - - Personal Income and Wealth Distribution
    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
    • Z13 - Other Special Topics - - Cultural Economics - - - Economic Sociology; Economic Anthropology; Language; Social and Economic Stratification

    Lists

    This item is featured on the following reading lists, Wikipedia, or ReplicationWiki pages:
    1. SOEP based publications

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:diw:diwsop:diw_sp360. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Bibliothek (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sodiwde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.