The Social Comparison Rumination Scale: Development, Psychometric Properties, and Associations With Perfectionism, Narcissism, Burnout, and Distress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the current article, we describe the development and validation of the Social Comparison Rumination Scale. This measured was developed as a supplement to existing social comparison measures and to enable us to determine its potential relevance to perfectionism and other personality constructs. The Social Comparison Rumination Scale (SCRS) is a six-item inventory assessing the extent to which an individual is cognitively preoccupied and thinking repetitively about social comparison outcomes and information. Three studies with five samples of university students are described. Psychometric analyses established the SCRS consists of one factor assessed with high internal consistency and the measure is reliable and valid. Analyses showed that elevated levels of social comparison rumination are associated with trait perfectionism, perfectionistic automatic thoughts, perfectionistic self-presentation, ruminative brooding, burnout, depression, and fear of negative evaluation. Links were also established between social comparison rumination and both narcissism and dispositional envy. Overall, our findings support the further use of the SCRS and highlight the tendency of many people to think in deleterious ways about social comparisons long after the actual comparisons have taken place. We discuss social comparison rumination within the context of concerns about excessive social media use and young people being exposed to seemingly perfect lives that became a vexing cognitive preoccupation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".