Comparison standards shape everyday judgments of low and high wellbeing in individuals with and without psychopathology: a diary-based investigation.

People can easily rate and express their current levels of wellbeing, but the cognitive foundations for such judgments are poorly understood. We examined whether comparisons to varying standards underlie fluctuating wellbeing judgments within-person (i.e., throughout daily episodes) and between-person (i.e., high vs. low levels of psychopathology). Clinical and non-clinical participants recorded subjective affect for each distinct episode for one week. Participants briefly described current, best, and worst daily episodes, which we coded for presence and type of comparison standard (social, past temporal, criteria-based, counterfactual, prospective temporal, and dimensional). Participants also rated their engagement with these standards and the respective affective impact. During best episodes, participants reported more downward (vs. upward) comparisons that resulted in positive affective impact. In worst episodes, upward (vs. downward) comparisons were more frequent. In best and worst episodes, we most frequently identified past-temporal and criteria-based comparisons, respectively. The clinical group engaged more often with all potential standard types during worst daily episodes and was more negatively affected by comparative thoughts, amid consistently more negative affect levels across all episode types. Our data suggest that judgments of affect and wellbeing may indeed rely on comparative thinking, whereby certain standards may characterize states of negative affect and poor mental health.