Die Bedeutung sozialer Vergleichsprozesse für die Gesundheitskommunikation

  • Andreas FahrEmail author
  • Alexander Ort


Soziale Vergleichsprozesse können in medienvermittelten Situationen einen Einfluss auf verschiedene gesundheitsrelevante Faktoren, wie z. B. Wissen, Einstellungen, Intentionen oder tatsächliches Verhalten, haben. Die Konfrontation mit Medienpersonen und die daraus entstehenden Bindungen können, in Abhängigkeit des dargestellten Verhaltens, sowohl positive als auch negative Folgen für das Wohlbefinden und die Gesundheit der Rezipientinnen und Rezipienten haben. Dieses Kapitel beleuchtet die Entstehung und die Folgen sozialer Vergleichsprozesse und gibt darauf aufbauend einen Überblick zu deren Relevanz für die Gesundheitskommunikation. Vor dem Hintergrund einschlägiger Studien werden sowohl gesundheitsrelevante Chancen als auch Risiken identifiziert.


Parasoziale Beziehung Soziale Informationsverarbeitung Social Perception Identifikation Empathie Sozialer Vergleich 


  1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bandura, A. (1979). Sozial-kognitive Lerntheorie. Stuttgart: Klett.Google Scholar
  3. Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 6, 1–62.Google Scholar
  4. Bond, B. J., & Drogos, K. L. (2014). Sex on the shore: Wishful identification and parasocial relationships as mediators in the relationship between Jersey Shore exposure and emerging adults’ sexual attitudes and behaviors. Media Psychology, 17(1), 102–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, W. J., Basil, M. D., & Bocarnea, M. C. (2003). The influence of famous athletes on health beliefs and practices: Mark McGwire, child abuse prevention, and androstenedione. Journal of Health Communication, 8(1), 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buunk, A. B., Gibbons, F. X., & Reis-Bergan, M. (1997). Social comparison in health and illness: An overview. In B. P. Buunk & F. X. Gibbons (Hrsg.), Health, coping, and wellbeing: Perspectives from social comparison theory (S. 1–23). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  8. Chory-Assad, R. M., & Cicchirillo, V. (2005). Empathy and affective orientation as predictors of identification with television characters. Communication Research Reports, 22(2), 151–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen, J. (2001). Defining identification: A theoretical look at the identification of audiences with media characters. Mass Communication & Society, 4(3), 245–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human Nature and the Social Order. London, UK: Scribner's.Google Scholar
  11. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 49(3), 182–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dove. (2016). Dove – eine Marke für wahre Schönheit. Zugegriffen am 27.07.2016.
  13. Ellis, G. J., Streeter, S. K., & Engelbrecht, J. D. (1983). Television characters as significant others and the process of vicarious role taking. Journal of Family Issues, 4(2), 367–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Früh, W., & Wünsch, C. (2009). Empathie und Medienempathie. Publizistik, 54(2), 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grabe, S., Ward, L. M., & Hyde, J. S. (2008). The role of the media in body image concerns among women: A meta-analysis of experimental and correlational studies. Psychological Bulletin, 134(3), 460–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hargreaves, D. A., & Tiggemann, M. (2009). Muscular ideal media images and men’s body image: Social comparison processing and individual vulnerability. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 10(2), 109–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hartmann, T. (2010). Parasoziale Interaktion und Beziehungen. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  20. Hippel, K. (1992). Parasoziale Interaktion. Bericht und Bibliografie. montage/av, 1(1), 135–150.Google Scholar
  21. Hobza, C. L., Walker, K. E., Yakushko, O., & Peugh, J. L. (2007). What about men? Social comparison and the effects of media images on body and self-esteem. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 8(3), 161–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hoffner, C. A., & Cohen, E. L. (2012). Responses to obsessive compulsive disorder on monk among series fans: Parasocial relations, presumed media influence, and behavioral outcomes. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56(4), 650–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hoffner, C. A., & Ye, J. (2009). Young adults’ responses to news about sunscreen and skin cancer: The role of framing and social comparison. Health Communication, 24(3), 189–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Holt, K., & Ricciardelli, L. A. (2002). Social comparisons and negative affect as indicators of problem eating and muscle preoccupation among children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 23(3), 285–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lin, L., & McFerran, B. (2016). The (Ironic) dove effect: Use of acceptance cues for larger body types increases unhealthy behaviors. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 35(1), 76–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Litt, D. M., Lewis, M. A., Stahlbrandt, H., Firth, P., & Neighbors, C. (2012). Social comparison as a moderator of the association between perceived norms and alcohol use and negative consequences among college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 73(6), 961–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Luszczynska, A., Gibbons, F. X., Piko, B. F., & Tekozel, M. (2004). Self-regulatory cognitions, social comparison, and perceived peers’ behaviors as predictors of nutrition and physical activity: A comparison among adolescents in Hungary, Poland, Turkey, and USA. Psychology & Health, 19(5), 577–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Moyer-Gusé, E. (2008). Toward a theory of entertainment persuasion: Explaining the persuasive effects of entertainment-education messages. Communication Theory, 18(3), 407–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mueller, A. S., Pearson, J., Muller, C., Frank, K., & Turner, A. (2010). Sizing up peers: Adolescent girls’ weight control and social comparison in the school context. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 51(1), 64–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mussweiler, T. (2003). Comparison processes in social judgment: Mechanisms and consequences. Psychological Review, 110(3), 472–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mussweiler, T. (2006). Sozialer Vergleich. In H.-W. Bierhoff & D. Frey (Hrsg.), Handbuch der Sozialpsychologie und Kommunikationspsychologie (Bd. III, S. 103–112). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  32. Peter, C. (2016). Fernsehen als Zerrspiegel. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Premack, D., & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(04), 515–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Richins, M. L. (1991). Social comparison and the idealized images of advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(1), 71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schemer, C. (2006). Soziale Vergleiche als Nutzungsmotiv? Überlegungen zu Nutzung von Unterhaltungsangeboten auf der Grundlage der Theorie sozialer Vergleichsprozesse. In W. Wirth, H. Schramm & V. Gehrau (Hrsg.), Unterhaltung durch Medien. Theorie und Messung (S. 80–101). Köln: Halem.Google Scholar
  36. Schramm, H., & Hartmann, T. (2008). The PSI-Process scales. A new measure to assess the intensity and breadth of parasocial processes. Communications, 33(4), 385–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Smeesters, D., Mussweiler, T., & Mandel, N. (2010). The effects of thin and heavy media images on overweight and underweight consumers: Social comparison processes and behavioral implications. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(6), 930–949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Strack, F., Schwarz, N., Chassein, B., Kern, D., & Wagner, D. (1990), Salience of comparison standards and the activation of social norms: Consequences for judgements of happiness and their communication. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 303–314. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1990.tb00912.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Hrsg.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (S. 33–47). Monterey: Brooks-Cole.Google Scholar
  40. Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92(4), 548–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Weinstein, N. D., & Klein, W. M. (1996). Unrealistic optimism: Present and future. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 15(1), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Weinstein, N. D., & Klein, W. M. (1997). Social comparison and unrealistic optimism about personal risk. In B. P. Buunk, F. X. Gibbons & A. Buunk (Hrsg.). (2013). Health, coping, and well-being: Perspectives from social comparison theory (S. 25–62). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  43. Wills, T. A. (1981). Downward comparison principles in social psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 245–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wimmer, H., & Perner, J. (1983). Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children’s understanding of deception. Cognition, 13, 103–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wood, J. V., & Wilson, A. E. (2005). How important is social comparison? In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Hrsg.), Handbook of self and identity (S. 344–366). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  46. Wood, J. V., Taylor, S. E., & Lichtman, R. R. (1985). Social comparison in adjustment to breast cancer. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1169–1183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wulff, H. J. (1992). Fernsehkommunikation als parasoziale Interaktion: Notizen zu einer interaktionistischen Fernsehtheorie. Semiotische Berichte, 16(3–4), 279–295.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Fakultät, Departement für Kommunikationswissenschaft und MedienforschungUniversität FreiburgFreiburgSchweiz

Personalised recommendations