By providing a thorough systematic evaluation of more than three decades of academic contribution on social comparison in decision-making, this paper fills a significant need in the synthesis and integration of this imminent topic. The literature has grown but is still fragmented, with multiple theoretical perspectives and methodological heterogeneity. Festinger's groundbreaking social comparison theory is the main foundation of this field, which holds that people assess their skills and opinions in relation to others in situations of risk and uncertainty (Festinger, 1954). Through a thorough bibliometric and systematic evaluation of 307 peer-reviewed papers from the Scopus database, this study maps significant academic contributions, outlines changing publishing trends, and uses theme analysis to reveal the domain's intellectual structure. Its comprehensive approach, which blends quantitative bibliometric mapping with qualitative content analysis, is what makes this work novel. It goes beyond traditional individual-level decision models to emphasize the ubiquitous impact of social preferences, peer effects, and contextual moderators in management, economics, and consumer behavior. This review offers fresh perspectives on the evolution of the field by pointing out understudied theoretical dimensions like prospect theory, social cognition, and fear affiliation as well as the widespread reliance on lab experiments that restrict external validity. It also suggests a research agenda that prioritizes methodological pluralism, context-specific inquiry, and multidimensional theory expansion. Hence, this study provides a key, integrative basis to drive further research into the intricate processes by which social comparison influences decision-making paradigms.
Divya Aggarwal (Tue,) studied this question.