This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Stapel, D. A. Articles by Marx, D. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Stapel, D. A. Articles by Marx, D. M. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Distinctiveness is Key: How Different Types of Self-Other Similarity Moderate Social Comparison Effects

Tilburg University, the Netherlands

David M. Marx

San Diego State University

In relevant research to date, the impact of self-other similarity on the outcome of social comparison effects is not well understood. The authors argue that the extent to which this similarity is distinctive is a key to understanding such effects. In two experiments, they demonstrate that when self-other similarity is distinctive (unique), assimilation is more likely, whereas when self-other similarity is nondistinctive (common), contrast is more likely. These results suggest that what matters is the type rather than the quantity of similarity: Similarity on one distinctive dimension more readily leads to assimilation than similarity on numerous nondistinctive dimensions. Importantly, these assimilation effects are especially likely to occur when the comparison dimension is unimportant. Contrast is more likely to occur when the comparison dimension is important. Thus, these findings both replicate and extend Tesser's (1988) Self-Evaluation Maintenance Model.

Key Words: social comparison • similarity • distinctiveness • self-evaluation • contrast • assimilation

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?