How am I doing compared to different standards? Comparative thinking and well-being following exposure to a vehicle-ramming attack

Abstract

Background: Exposure to potentially adverse events might intensify thinking about different comparison standards in relation to one’s own well-being. Objective: To examine how frequently survivors of a recent potentially traumatic event use different comparison standards to evaluate their current well-being. Method: A survey with 223 participants directly or indirectly exposed to a vehicle-ramming attack was conducted. Symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression, quality of life, and the sum score of the frequency of different types of comparison standards were assessed. The latter consisted of temporal, counterfactual, social, dimensional, and criteria-based comparisons. Results: In total, 98% of participants reported some form of comparative thinking during the last two weeks. The most frequent comparison types were temporal and dimensional comparisons, with 94 and 87% of participants reporting them, respectively. Notably, comparative thinking predicted unique variance in PTSD symptoms, over and above depressive symptoms. Conclusion: The results suggest that comparative thinking may be a significant factor in understanding psychological distress following exposure to aversive events. Replication of the results in larger samples and using longitudinal and experimental designs is clearly necessary.

Keywords

• comparison standards
• comparative thinking
• counterfactual
• well-being
• ptsd
• depression