People with low self-esteem (LSE) seem to focus on self-protection; rather than trying to achieve gains for their self-esteem, they try to avoid losses. This research examined, in a social comparison context, the hypothesis that LSE Ss seek self-enhancement when they have an opportunity that is "safe," that is, carrying little risk of humiliation. Exps 1 and 2 indicated that LSE Ss sought the most social comparisons after receiving success feedback, whereas high-self-esteem (HSE) Ss sought the most comparisons after failure. Further results suggested that LSE Ss who succeeded were seizing a safe means of self-enhancement and that HSE Ss who failed were seeking to compensate for the failure. Also supporting this interpretation for LSE Ss was Exp 3, in which LSE Ss who succeeded sought the most comparisons when such comparisons promised to be favorable. All 3 studies illustrate the value of a new measure of social comparison selection.

Three studies tested the hypothesis that the motive to compensate—to cast favorable light on the self after a threat to self-esteem—can lead people to seek social comparisons. Participants were high self-esteem undergraduates. In Experiment 1, participants who had failed sought more comparisons when they were allowed to compare on their strongest attributes than when they were allowed to compare on their weakest attributes. In Experiment 2, participants had a choice between comparing on a coparticipant’s “superior” or “average” dimension. Success participants selected the other’s strength for comparison, whereas failure participants selected the other’s relative weakness. In Experiment 3, failure participants were less likely to seek comparisons if they had already compensated via a self-affirmation task. These studies employed novel or rarely used measures of social comparison, and the results have implications for both the social comparison and self-esteem literatures.

No abstract