Abstract
This systematic review was conducted in order to identify, evaluate and summarise the findings of studies investigating social comparison processes in physical education. Five papers all published in the English-language were identified using electronic searches of seven databases and by manually searching reference lists and personal files. Studies included in the review researched young people aged 3 – 18 years, were cross-sectional, longitudinal or field studies, grounded in social comparison and investigated physical education. The papers included were generally diverse and as such, led to the undertaking of a narrative synthesis in order to collate and critique the studies as a collective. The ‘class’ was the frame of reference most frequently researched with physical self-concept dominating as the main dependant variable. The synthesis led to the proposition of multiple
recommendations for future research which if undertaken could help enhance understanding of social comparison processes in physical education.
Keywords: school, child, physical self-concept, social comparison, physical education, frame
Introduction
To assess their capabilities and opinions, humans engage in social comparisons with both objective and subjective comparison targets (Festinger, 1954; Klein, 1997; 2003). These comparison targets provide information which individuals can use to assess if a certain outcome is achievable. Furthermore, research has shown that individuals not only compare to evaluate their abilities, but also to self-improve and to self-enhance (Helgeson & Mickleson, 1995; Wood, 1989). Since the inception of Festinger’s (1954) theory of social comparison processes, researchers have sought to test these hypotheses and also develop their own theories regarding how these processes may occur. Theories such as the selective accessibility model (Mussweiler & Strack, 1999) and the related attributes hypothesis (Goethals & Darley, 1977) are two such theories which have shown respectively that, individuals tend to use information which is readily available to them i.e. a similar target repeatedly, and that individuals will choose to compare with people who they believe they are similar to them on characteristics predictive of the evaluated quality, i.e. which possess similar attributes.
Although there has been a wealth of research investigating these theories and many of Festinger’s (1954) hypotheses, the majority of this research has involved adult participants and leaves a gap in our knowledge surrounding the effects of social comparison on young people or how social comparisons are used by this population. Researching children’s and adolescent’s experiences of social comparison is important, not only because of the outcomes it may be associated with (Khoo & Oakes, 2003), but also because Butler (1992) found that comparison motives develop and change as children grow up. This suggests that children’s comparison behaviour changes whilst they develop and as such may be related to
developmental changes and formation of long lasting perceptions such as academic self- concept (for reviews, Marsh & Craven, 2006; Seaton et al., 2010; Valentine, DuBois, & Cooper, 2004).
A summary of the evidence concerning children’s social comparisons in the classroom has been provided by Dijkstra et al., (2008). The authors reviewed research investigating social comparison in the classroom from 1954 until 2007 providing a themed summary of the evidence. There was, however, no attempt to assess the magnitude of effects of social comparison in the classroom and physical education was only considered briefly within the review. This review highlighted the lack of research addressing children’s motives for comparison, the consequences of comparison, in addition to looking only very briefly as social comparison in physical education (PE), leaving a lack of clarity for those interested in
more physical domains. Given that academic classroom settings are more structured than physical education and that ability is on show to the rest of the class in physical education in a different way to academic subjects, it is likely that social comparison targets will be more readily available for comparison than in academic lessons where ability is less ‘on show’. This may mean that the consequences of comparison in PE are exacerbated compared to academic subjects. Given that PE is an influential and informative learning environment where children develop their physical skills, it seems important that researchers use this comparison rich environment for investigating and evaluating the effects of social
comparison. In order to provide a structured and up to date account of, and basis from which researchers can work, a systematic review was conducted.
A systematic review was chosen for various reasons. Firstly, there were a number of studies identified by Dijkstra et al. (2008) which primarily focused on the classroom, however, no ‘physical’ terms were used in the search strategy and it was, therefore thought that several studies involving physical education may have been missed in Dijkstra et al.’s (2008) review. Secondly, social comparison has many theories associated with it and
consequently there could be numerous studies in PE using these different theories. Thirdly, it allowed a systematic approach to searching and so provided a structured method for
searching for the literature on social comparison and PE.
The purpose of this systematic review was, therefore, to identify, evaluate and summarise the findings of social comparison research in physical education. The review focused on school aged children (aged 3 – 18) and included studies which investigate physical education only.5
Method
This review adhered to the systematic review guidance provided by the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (2009). The narrative synthesis was informed by the guidance produced by the Economic and Social Research Council (Popay et al., 2006).
Literature Search and Inclusion Criteria
Seven electronic databases (ERIC; PubMed; Scopus; Medline; Psychinfo; Web of Science and SportDiscus) were searched using combinations of key terms. Key authors in the area were contacted for any papers that might be relevant or in press. Reference lists of included articles and review studies in related areas were screened using key words. In order
5 General sporting contexts were not included because the focus was specifically on physical education. It was
initially thought there would be many studies focusing just on physical education and there would, therefore, have been too many if sport was included as well. In hindsight, including sport may have been useful, given the small number of studies that resulted from this study, although this fact itself is an interesting finding.
to complete a comprehensive broad review of the area, a wide range of search terms were used. The search terms for social comparison and physical education were combined to identify potentially relevant studies. The key terms used for social comparison were: social comparison; self-enhancement; upward; downward; better; worse; self-evaluation
maintenance model; interpretation-comparison model; selective-accessibility model; big-fish- little-pond effect (BFLPE); assimilation; contrast; reflected glory; self-evaluation; self- improvement. The key terms for physical education were; physical education; fitness education; sport; games; school; class; lesson; physical activity.
Studies included in the review were required to meet several criteria as follows: investigate children aged 3 – 18 (or a mean within these ages); use a social comparison theory, or have social comparison/a specific frames of reference as a basis for investigation; assess at least one dependent variable; be based in a physical education lesson; have been published in a peer reviewed journal in the English language published before the end of April 2011. Studies assessing adults or children with disabilities were excluded.
Studies were screened against the inclusion criteria (Appendix A), first by title, then abstract and finally full papers were retrieved if inclusion was indeterminable by the title and abstract. If a study appeared to meet the inclusion criteria, the full paper was retrieved and assessed for inclusion. The literature searches identified 14649 articles which were
potentially relevant, however, only five of these met all the inclusion criteria. Figure 2B.1 shows the study selection process in the form of a flow chart.
Data Extraction and Synthesis
A data extraction form (Appendix B) was developed and completed for each study included in this review. Extracted information included the authors, date, country of study, design of study, participant characteristics (age, gender, ethnicity, socio-economic status, sample size), measures and their reliabilities and validities if reported. Data was then transferred into a descriptive table (Table 2B.1).
A narrative synthesis (Popay et al., 2006) was undertaken because the studies identified for inclusion were diverse in many ways, including their methods and outcome measures. This narrative synthesis involved interpretation of the studies in addition to
comparing and contrasting the studies to one another. Comparison was based on their sample characteristics, methods/research design, variables investigated and measures utilised and the theory used. Study quality was also assessed at this stage.
Figure 2B.1. Flow chart of literature search and identification of included studies.
Results Study Characteristics and Study Findings
The inclusion criteria were met by five studies (Figure 2B.1). These included three longitudinal, one field experiment and one cross-sectional study. Origin of the studies was France (n=3), Germany (n=1) and the Netherlands (n=1). No studies were identified from originating within the UK. In all studies children participated in physical education at school, with one study (Chanal et al., 2005) focusing specifically on a 10 week gymnastics unit within the physical education curriculum. Four of the studies investigated children of
approximately 13 years of age with only one study examining younger children (Mage = 9.29 years). In most studies the number of boys and girls assessed was roughly even. Ethnicity data was only reported in one study. Children included within the studies were nested in classes within schools, in the majority of cases, with a range of 5 to 66 classes investigated. Data from these studies is available from the authors. Participants were recruited
ERIC, PubMed, Scopus, Medline, Psychinfo Web of Science and SportDiscus (n = 14649)
Duplicates removed (n = 5406)
Titles screened (n = 9243) Excluded (n = 8526)
Abstracts identified and screened (n = 717) Excluded (n = 651)
Full copies retrieved and assessed for eligibility (n = 70)
Excluded (n = 65) based on: Not grounded in social comparison (n = 25) Not in PE (n = 33)
Not peer reviewed (n = 5) Foreign language (n = 2)
Population with disability n=1
Studies identified from contact with experts (n = 1) Studies identified from searching reference lists (n = 3)
Table 2B.1
Descriptive Summary of Included Studies Investigating Social Comparison in Physical Education
Study Sample Setting/Design Measures IV DV Results
1 Chanal et al., 2005; (France) N=405; CL =20 Mage= 13.5yrs 210=B; 195=G. PE (gymnastics) LO = 10 weeks. IA assessed by 3 judges; 3 items for GSC.
CA; IA; Age; Sex
GSC CA skills: Direct -tive effect T2 GSC. -tive effect of CA increased with time. IA: +tive effect on GD.
2 Chanal & Sarrazin 2007; (France) N=357; CL = 19 Mage= 13.4 85=B; 185=G; 15= NOD.
PE; CS. 6 items for PESC. IA rated by PE teacher & 2 trainees. CA; ITL; SGL; IA; Sex GD PESC
CA: –tive effect on PESC.
SGL: + tively related to PESC & GD.
IA: +tively related to PESC & +tively related to GD. 3 Kuyper & Dijkstra 2009; (ND) N=588; S = 4; CL=11, 8,7,7. 1st yr secondary, comparable to Grade 7 USA; 265=B; 323=G.
PE; LO = 3 years. Evaluations measured using single items on 5 point scale.
CA ability CA liking
LG AE
No sig. difference over 3 years of AE.
Sig diff. for LG, but no sig. change for year 3. Correlations between comparative ability & comparative liking increased over years 1 and 2
Table 2B.1 continued
Descriptive Summary of Included Studies Investigating Social Comparison in Physical Education
Study Sample Setting/Design Measures IV DV Results
4 Margas et al., 2006; (France) N=118; S=5; CL=5 Mage 12.35 HOG: 1S N=22; 14=B, 8=G; HTG: 4S-per school, 1CL with N=24 included, B=16, 8=G. PE; LO = 1yr Children grouped into high (HOG) & low (HTG) ability. 0-100 for PE evaluation – measured using ‘efficiency in PE’. Measured at 6 time points; status feeling induced for HOG group. grouping HOG/HTG PES CSS SCAT PCS PES SCAT
Sig. effect of grouping on PE self-evaluations from T0 to T6. Evolution of self-evaluation for 2 groups is sig. different.
Sig. effect of grouping on PCS & SCAT.
5 Trautwein et al., 2008; (Germany) N=1095; 22 schools; 66 classes; Mage at T1= 9.29 SD 0.64. PE; LO = 15 months. IA measured by obstacle course; PSC 5 items; PA measured /day & summed for week. CA ability IA GD PSC PA GD
CA ability: –tively predicted GD, T1 PSC, T2 PSC & T1 PA.
IA: = +tively predicted GD & T2 PSC.
Note. AE = ability evaluation; B = number of males; CA = class average; CL = number of classes included; CS= Cross sectional; CSS = class self –esteem; G = number of females; GD = PE grade; GSC = gymnastics self-concept; HOG= homogenous grouping; HTG = heterogeneous grouping; IA = individual ability; ITL = individual target level ; LG = Liking of PE; LO = longitudinal; N = number; ND = Netherlands; NOD = non-disclosed; PA = physical activity; PCS = perceived class status; PE = physical education; PES = PE self-evaluation; PESC = PE self-concept; PSC = physical self-concept; S = number of schools included; SCAT = self-categorisation; SGL = small group level; T1 = time point 1. T2 = time point 2.
as members of participant schools. None of the studies indicated following ethical guidelines and only one study reported contacting parents to gain consent for the children to take part. Given the small number of studies which met the inclusion criteria, the exclusion of those not written in the English language may have introduced bias into this review.
A variety of measures were used across included papers with no consistency in the measures chosen to assess similar concepts e.g. gym self-concept, physical self-concept (PSC), general PE self-concept and PE evaluation were all used to determine how the children felt about themselves physically. A mixture of methods, self-report, grades, observation were also used to assess children’s ability from both the teacher and individual perspectives. Using a variety of methods is a strength (e.g. observational and self-report), however, single item questions still dominate in the majority of the studies which is not a problem in itself, however, reliability and validity data for these could be collected and analysed in a separate sample for future research. The 4 studies which employed a
longitudinal design had follow up lengths varying from 10 weeks to 3 years. In all cases the research questionnaires were administered class wise with a number of individuals involved in the process of data collection including trained research assistants, teachers, trainees and researchers.
The dependent variable most frequently assessed was physical self-concept (PSC), with three of the studies suggesting that the higher the class average, the lower the level of PSC with this relationship enduring over the course of the study period (Chanal et al., 2005; Chanal & Sarrazin, 2007; Trautwein et al., 2008). In addition to PSC, class level comparisons were associated with liking of PE (Kuyper & Dijkstra, 2009) where liking decreased as class level increased. In contrast to the studies regarding PSC, Margas et al. (2006) proposed that the decline in self-evaluation seen in these three studies could be due to a reduction in self- categorisation rather than social comparison i.e. immediately after selection to a higher ability group, individuals’ self-perception increased, and then decreased over time to pre-selection levels. This study contradicts the findings of the others; however, there are several limitations that should be noted before drawing conclusions. The first is that Margas et al. (2006)
engaged in a manipulation to allow children to understand that they had been chosen for a high ability group which is not normally how schools would behave when streaming children. The second was the use of one item to assess social comparison which included no frame of reference and revolved around efficiency in class. This does not allow us to determine which frame of reference the children in this study used to assess their ‘efficiency’ against and highlights the need to define the frame of reference when researching social comparison. The
findings surrounding the long term effects on PSC remain, therefore, unclear and certainly warrant future research. Furthermore, some similarity in measure is needed and as well as multi-item measures, if research is to progress our understanding of comparison processes.
Other dependent variables assessed included grade and free time spent engaging in physical activity outside of the PE lesson (Chanal & Sarrazin, 2007; Trautwein et al., 2008). Trautwein et al. (2008) found a similar relationship for free time activity to PSC where individuals in a high ability class indicated spending less time engaged in free time physical activity than those in a lower ability class. The number of studies investigating these
relationships is, however, minimal and future research is needed to further examine and replicate these findings.
Furthermore, the findings highlight that research utilising frames of reference other than the class is very important if researchers wish to attain a comprehensive understanding of how social comparisons work both within physical education and more generally. This is demonstrated through the research by Chanal and Sarrazin (2007) where a positive
relationship between comparing oneself with a higher ability small group and grade was found whereas no relationship between comparing with a higher ability individual and grade was identified. These findings in addition to those for PSC indicate the need to examine multiple frames of reference at once.
Overall, these findings as a group attest to the important influence that the generalised (class) other has on physical self-concept and other dependent variables. In most cases the class provided the strongest prediction of outcome rather than an individual or small group of individuals. The study findings also highlight the differing effect that multiple frames of reference may have on outcomes and indicate a need to continue to examine these relationships.
Discussion
Even though a wide range of search terms in multiple combinations were utilised, only five studies which met the inclusion criteria were found which highlights the
discrepancy between the number of studies completed in psychology in general versus the number that have actually focused on or considered physical education.
Four out of the five studies employed a longitudinal method which is a strength of the research as it allows us to see how the relationships investigated developed and varied over time. This method allows us to examine reciprocal relationships over time and suggests that comparisons with the class are associated with physical self-concept and physical education grade. Future research, however, could employ other methods in order to examine these
relationships. For example an experimental design could be used to manipulate the comparison standard (upward/downward or generalised versus individual) and identify if there are certain combinations of direction and frames of reference which affect the outcomes of comparison. In addition, one study included was a field experiment; however, it
manipulated self-categorisation in an overt way instead of examining this simply in a
‘normal’ physical education environment. Future research could examine self-categorisation in the same way, but look to measure it without an overt manipulation. Furthermore, Margas et al., (2006) did not operationalise a particular comparison standard which makes drawing conclusions concerning comparative evaluations relatively difficult. The differing results between this and the other included studies may simply result from a lack of measuring social comparison effectively rather than a lack of its role or the importance of self-categorisation. This review also highlights that the studies within physical education only examine variables that have been pre-defined by researchers. So far there has been no in depth exploration, either qualitatively or quantitatively into possible outcomes of social comparisons for adolescents in physical education. This may explain why there are such a small number of outcomes which have currently been assessed in this context. The included studies do, however, utilise a variety of methods which is another strength of the research when considered as a collective. These methods include observational, self-report and objective scores on obstacle courses meaning that the results from the studies cannot be attributed to