The associations among well-being comparisons and affective styles in depression, anxiety, and mental health quality of life

Schlechter, P.; Morina, N.

Abstract

Objective Frame-of-reference theories suggest that individuals use different comparison types to evaluate their well-being. Research indicates that the frequency of aversive well-being comparisons is related to depression, with engendered comparison affective impact partly accounting for this relationship. We aimed to replicate this finding, examine whether this extends to anxiety and mental health quality of life, and whether these pathways are moderated by affective styles of concealing, adjusting, and tolerating. We expected concealing as a response-focused style to be associated with higher effects of comparison affective impact on depression, anxiety, and mental health quality of life. Adjusting as an antecedent-focused strategy was expected to mitigate the effects of aversive comparison frequency on comparison affective impact, and the effects of comparison affective impact on the outcomes. Finally, tolerating was expected to be associated with lower effects on both pathways. Methods and Measures Participants (N = 596) responded to measures of well-being comparisons, affective styles, depression, anxiety, and mental health quality of life. Results Frequency of aversive well-being comparisons was associated with all outcomes. These relationships were partially mediated by comparison affective impact. Adjustment moderated the pathway between aversive comparison frequency and comparison affective impact. No other moderation effect emerged. Conclusion The comparison process appears important in well-being evaluations.