Introduction

Human beings often pride themselves on their ability to “think independently.” Yet, closer inspection reveals that much of what we call “thinking” is in fact a process of comparison. Whether it is comparing a new idea with preconceptions, a personal achievement with the accomplishments of others, or even emotions with past experiences, comparison forms the backbone of cognition. We measure the present against the past, our abilities against others, or our beliefs against what we have already accepted.

This article introduces Comparison Theory, which argues that in general and in all cases, the vast majority of people resort to comparison when thinking.


Background & Problem Statement

Leon Festinger’s Social Comparison Theory (1954) demonstrated that individuals evaluate themselves by measuring their opinions and abilities against others, especially when objective standards are absent. Decades of research in psychology and sociology—spanning topics like self-concept, biases, heuristics, and social media effects—support the pervasiveness of comparison in shaping judgments and emotions.

However, these existing theories focus on specific contexts: social comparison, confirmation bias, implicit bias, or decision heuristics. What is missing is a general framework that unites them all under one principle: that comparison is the default mechanism of thought itself.

This gap creates two problems:

1. Overestimation of independent reasoning. People assume they are thinking freely, when in reality they are anchored to prior beliefs, reference groups, or contrasting stimuli.

2. Under-recognition of comparison’s universality. Without a unifying lens, disciplines treat comparison as an occasional factor rather than a foundational one.

Scientific and Personal Analysis and Viewpoint

 I would argue that in general and in all cases, the vast majority of people resort to comparison when thinking.

Sometimes they compare the current situation or the topic of discussion with their preconceptions. At other times, like in the Social Comparison Theory, people evaluate their own abilities and opinions by comparing themselves to others. In other cases, which are partly covered in this article, people make comparisons when they think.

I believe and argue that all of the following are subsets of what I am saying, which is that the overwhelming majority of people, in all cases when they say they are "thinking," are in fact resorting to comparison. The main reason for this is that thinking independently is difficult, while comparing is easy.

   Social Comparison Theory (Festinger, 1954)

Concept: Festinger argued that humans have an innate drive to evaluate their opinions and abilities. When objective standards are unavailable, people compare themselves to others to reduce uncertainty.

Key Insight: Individuals tend to compare themselves with others who are similar in relevant traits (e.g., age, background) to gain accurate self-assessments. This comparison is not merely occasional but a fundamental mechanism in self-perception.

Source:

     - [Social comparison theory])

     - [Social Comparison Theory]

Social Comparison Effects on Academic Self-Concepts

A study published in Frontiers in Education experimentally manipulated social comparative performance feedback and found that participants' self-evaluation of performance was significantly influenced by their relative standing within a reference group. (Frontiers)

Outcome Evaluation in Social Comparison

Research published in Frontiers in Psychology highlighted that people often compare themselves not just to individuals but to groups, and these comparisons influence their self-evaluation and emotional responses. (PMC)

Subliminal Social Comparison Standards Influence Self-Evaluation

A study in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology demonstrated that individuals often compare themselves to others, even without conscious awareness. (ScienceDirect)

Neural Evidence of Social Comparison

fMRI Studies: Research shows that brain regions like the ventral striatum (associated with reward processing) and dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC, involved in error detection) are activated during social comparisons.

  Real-Life Examples and Applications

   - Mate Selection: Studies show that self-perception in mating contexts is influenced by comparisons with others. For instance, individuals adjust their self-assessed "mate value" based on the attributes of potential competitors or partners.

   - Leadership and Self-Overestimation: Managers often overestimate their leadership abilities compared to ratings from subordinates, peers, or supervisors. This inaccuracy stems from social comparisons within organizational hierarchies.

   - Source:

     - [Social Comparisons on Self-Perception and Mate Preferences](https://www.academia.edu/116668206/Social_Comparisons_on_Self_Perception_and_Mate_Preferences_The_Self_and_the_Others) Note: This source is not directly in the provided search results but is implied by the context of.

     - [Leadership effectiveness in Higher Education: Managerial self-perceptions versus perceptions of others](https://sajip.co.za/index.php/sajip/article/view/867/1000) Note: This source is not directly in the provided search results but is implied by the context of.

   Problematic Social Media Use (PSMU):

Exposure to idealized images on social media platforms (e.g., Instagram) triggers upward comparisons, leading to negative self-perceptions, depressive mood, and low self-esteem.

  Cognitive Biases and Heuristics:

Research on cognitive biases (e.g., anchoring bias, framing effect) shows that people frequently rely on mental shortcuts rather than independent analysis. For example, the anchoring bias demonstrates how people depend on initial information (prejudices) rather than thinking independently.

  Implicit Bias:

Studies using the Implicit Association Test (IAT) reveal that unconscious prejudices affect 90-95% of people, influencing their judgments without their awareness.

  Myside Bias (Confirmation Bias):

What it is: People process information in a way that confirms their existing beliefs, often while being unaware of it.

Study: Research shows that individuals view others as biased but not themselves, across both confirmation bias ("myside bias") and social prejudices.

Source: A study in Europe PMC discusses this self–other asymmetry in recognizing bias—including political and social prejudices. Participants believed others were more influenced by preexisting beliefs than they themselves were.

Belief Bias in Logical Reasoning:

What it is: When evaluating an argument, people favor conclusions they find believable—even if the logic is invalid—and reject valid arguments with unbelievable conclusions.

Study: Evans, Barston, & Pollard (1983) demonstrated that participants judged conclusions by believability rather than logical validity.

Source: Wikipedia overview of belief bias

Solutions & Recommendations

1.  Cultivate Metacognition (Thinking About Thinking): Develop a habit of pausing to ask yourself: "What am I comparing this to? Is this comparison valid, fair, or useful?" When forming an opinion or making a judgment, interrogate the baseline or standard you are using.

2.  Seek Objective Standards: In areas of ability and opinion, consciously look for objective metrics instead of social ones. Rather than asking "Am I better than my peers?", ask "What are the defined criteria for mastery, and how do I meet them?"

3.  Curate Your Information Environment: Understand that social media feeds and certain media outlets are designed to trigger comparative judgments. Actively curate your digital environment to include diverse perspectives and objective information sources, reducing exposure to engineered social comparisons.

4.  Practice Intellectual Humility: Actively challenge your own views by seeking out information that contradicts them (a practice known as "red teaming"). This counteracts myside bias by forcing your brain to compare new information to your beliefs from a critical, rather than confirmatory, angle.

5.  Implement "Pre-Mortems" in Decision-Making: Before finalizing an important decision, assume it has failed and ask your team to compare the current plan to potential reasons for failure. This uses the comparative process proactively to identify flaws and blind spots.

6. Education: Encourage students to become aware of how much their self-assessments are shaped by comparison with peers. Teach them to identify when comparisons are constructive versus when they limit potential.

 Conclusion

Comparison is not a side effect of thinking—it is the essence of it. From biases in reasoning to emotional reactions shaped by social contexts, the vast majority of cognitive processes rely on comparing one idea, person, or experience to another. Comparison Theory provides a general framework to unify these observations, highlighting that independent thought is rare and that comparative processes dominate human cognition. Recognizing this reality can empower us: rather than denying our comparative nature, we can consciously guide it toward healthier, fairer, and more creative outcomes.

writer:
Danial Paeizi

Birthday: 22th November

National Code: 350109*19

Introduction

Human beings often pride themselves on their ability to “think independently.” Yet, closer inspection reveals that much of what we call “thinking” is in fact a process of comparison. Whether it is comparing a new idea with preconceptions, a personal achievement with the accomplishments of others, or even emotions with past experiences, comparison forms the backbone of cognition. We measure the present against the past, our abilities against others, or our beliefs against what we have already accepted.

This article introduces Comparison Theory, which argues that in general and in all cases, the vast majority of people resort to comparison when thinking.


Background & Problem Statement

Leon Festinger’s Social Comparison Theory (1954) demonstrated that individuals evaluate themselves by measuring their opinions and abilities against others, especially when objective standards are absent. Decades of research in psychology and sociology—spanning topics like self-concept, biases, heuristics, and social media effects—support the pervasiveness of comparison in shaping judgments and emotions.

However, these existing theories focus on specific contexts: social comparison, confirmation bias, implicit bias, or decision heuristics. What is missing is a general framework that unites them all under one principle: that comparison is the default mechanism of thought itself.

This gap creates two problems:

1. Overestimation of independent reasoning. People assume they are thinking freely, when in reality they are anchored to prior beliefs, reference groups, or contrasting stimuli.

2. Under-recognition of comparison’s universality. Without a unifying lens, disciplines treat comparison as an occasional factor rather than a foundational one.

Scientific and Personal Analysis and Viewpoint

 I would argue that in general and in all cases, the vast majority of people resort to comparison when thinking.

Sometimes they compare the current situation or the topic of discussion with their preconceptions. At other times, like in the Social Comparison Theory, people evaluate their own abilities and opinions by comparing themselves to others. In other cases, which are partly covered in this article, people make comparisons when they think.

I believe and argue that all of the following are subsets of what I am saying, which is that the overwhelming majority of people, in all cases when they say they are "thinking," are in fact resorting to comparison. The main reason for this is that thinking independently is difficult, while comparing is easy.

   Social Comparison Theory (Festinger, 1954)

Concept: Festinger argued that humans have an innate drive to evaluate their opinions and abilities. When objective standards are unavailable, people compare themselves to others to reduce uncertainty.

Key Insight: Individuals tend to compare themselves with others who are similar in relevant traits (e.g., age, background) to gain accurate self-assessments. This comparison is not merely occasional but a fundamental mechanism in self-perception.

Source:

     - [Social comparison theory])

     - [Social Comparison Theory]

Social Comparison Effects on Academic Self-Concepts

A study published in Frontiers in Education experimentally manipulated social comparative performance feedback and found that participants' self-evaluation of performance was significantly influenced by their relative standing within a reference group. (Frontiers)

Outcome Evaluation in Social Comparison

Research published in Frontiers in Psychology highlighted that people often compare themselves not just to individuals but to groups, and these comparisons influence their self-evaluation and emotional responses. (PMC)

Subliminal Social Comparison Standards Influence Self-Evaluation

A study in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology demonstrated that individuals often compare themselves to others, even without conscious awareness. (ScienceDirect)

Neural Evidence of Social Comparison

fMRI Studies: Research shows that brain regions like the ventral striatum (associated with reward processing) and dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC, involved in error detection) are activated during social comparisons.

  Real-Life Examples and Applications

   - Mate Selection: Studies show that self-perception in mating contexts is influenced by comparisons with others. For instance, individuals adjust their self-assessed "mate value" based on the attributes of potential competitors or partners.

   - Leadership and Self-Overestimation: Managers often overestimate their leadership abilities compared to ratings from subordinates, peers, or supervisors. This inaccuracy stems from social comparisons within organizational hierarchies.

   - Source:

     - [Social Comparisons on Self-Perception and Mate Preferences](https://www.academia.edu/116668206/Social_Comparisons_on_Self_Perception_and_Mate_Preferences_The_Self_and_the_Others) Note: This source is not directly in the provided search results but is implied by the context of.

     - [Leadership effectiveness in Higher Education: Managerial self-perceptions versus perceptions of others](https://sajip.co.za/index.php/sajip/article/view/867/1000) Note: This source is not directly in the provided search results but is implied by the context of.

   Problematic Social Media Use (PSMU):

Exposure to idealized images on social media platforms (e.g., Instagram) triggers upward comparisons, leading to negative self-perceptions, depressive mood, and low self-esteem.

  Cognitive Biases and Heuristics:

Research on cognitive biases (e.g., anchoring bias, framing effect) shows that people frequently rely on mental shortcuts rather than independent analysis. For example, the anchoring bias demonstrates how people depend on initial information (prejudices) rather than thinking independently.

  Implicit Bias:

Studies using the Implicit Association Test (IAT) reveal that unconscious prejudices affect 90-95% of people, influencing their judgments without their awareness.

  Myside Bias (Confirmation Bias):

What it is: People process information in a way that confirms their existing beliefs, often while being unaware of it.

Study: Research shows that individuals view others as biased but not themselves, across both confirmation bias ("myside bias") and social prejudices.

Source: A study in Europe PMC discusses this self–other asymmetry in recognizing bias—including political and social prejudices. Participants believed others were more influenced by preexisting beliefs than they themselves were.

Belief Bias in Logical Reasoning:

What it is: When evaluating an argument, people favor conclusions they find believable—even if the logic is invalid—and reject valid arguments with unbelievable conclusions.

Study: Evans, Barston, & Pollard (1983) demonstrated that participants judged conclusions by believability rather than logical validity.

Source: Wikipedia overview of belief bias

Solutions & Recommendations

1.  Cultivate Metacognition (Thinking About Thinking): Develop a habit of pausing to ask yourself: "What am I comparing this to? Is this comparison valid, fair, or useful?" When forming an opinion or making a judgment, interrogate the baseline or standard you are using.

2.  Seek Objective Standards: In areas of ability and opinion, consciously look for objective metrics instead of social ones. Rather than asking "Am I better than my peers?", ask "What are the defined criteria for mastery, and how do I meet them?"

3.  Curate Your Information Environment: Understand that social media feeds and certain media outlets are designed to trigger comparative judgments. Actively curate your digital environment to include diverse perspectives and objective information sources, reducing exposure to engineered social comparisons.

4.  Practice Intellectual Humility: Actively challenge your own views by seeking out information that contradicts them (a practice known as "red teaming"). This counteracts myside bias by forcing your brain to compare new information to your beliefs from a critical, rather than confirmatory, angle.

5.  Implement "Pre-Mortems" in Decision-Making: Before finalizing an important decision, assume it has failed and ask your team to compare the current plan to potential reasons for failure. This uses the comparative process proactively to identify flaws and blind spots.

6. Education: Encourage students to become aware of how much their self-assessments are shaped by comparison with peers. Teach them to identify when comparisons are constructive versus when they limit potential.

 Conclusion

Comparison is not a side effect of thinking—it is the essence of it. From biases in reasoning to emotional reactions shaped by social contexts, the vast majority of cognitive processes rely on comparing one idea, person, or experience to another. Comparison Theory provides a general framework to unify these observations, highlighting that independent thought is rare and that comparative processes dominate human cognition. Recognizing this reality can empower us: rather than denying our comparative nature, we can consciously guide it toward healthier, fairer, and more creative outcomes.

writer:
Danial Paeizi

Birthday: 22th November

National Code: 350109*19