The Ups and Downs of Social Comparison: Mechanisms of Assimilation and Contrast.

Abstract

Social comparisons influence self-evaluations in multiple ways. Sometimes self-evaluations are assimilated toward a given standard. At other times, they are contrasted away from the standard. On the basis of the selective accessibility model (T. Mussweiler, 2003a), the authors hypothesized that assimilation results if judges engage in the comparison process of similarity testing and selectively focus on similarities to the standard, whereas contrast occurs if judges engage in dissimilarity testing and selectively focus on differences. If these alternative comparison mechanisms are indeed at play, then assimilative and contrastive social comparisons should be accompanied by diverging informational foci on similarities versus differences. Results of 5 studies support this reasoning, demonstrating that assimilation results under conditions that foster similarity testing, whereas contrast occurs under conditions that foster dissimilarity testing. Furthermore, assimilative social comparisons are accompanied by a general informational focus on similarities, whereas contrastive comparisons are accompanied by a focus on differences.

Interpersonal similarity as a social distance dimension: Implications for perception of others’ actions

“…For example, Tesser and colleagues' research on self-evaluation maintenance processes has operationalized closeness in terms of similarity to others on various dimensions, such as age, gender, and personality traits (e.g., Tesser & Campbell, 1980;Tesser & Paulhus, 1983). The assumption that similarity conveys social closeness has also formed the basis for research on comparison processes with respect to close and distant others (e.g., Brewer & Weber, 1994;Brown, Novick, Lord, & Richards, 1992;Mussweiler, Rüter, & Epstude, 2004).…”

Does Service Employees’ Appearance Affect the Healthiness of Food Choice?

“…This focus on dissimilarities resulted in contrast as respondent's behavioral consequence and influenced the food choice process. To contrast away from the norm of healthy eating led respondents to focus on unhealthy meal alternatives (Haddock, Macrae, & Fleck, 2002;Mussweiler, 2003;Mussweiler, Rüter, & Epstude, 2004). Perhaps with its prevalence, being overweight is not perceived as a salient feature that causes consumers to focus on dissimilarities and contrast away from the standard.…”

“…According to Mussweiler, Rüter, and Epstude's (2004) selective accessibility model, people perceive others as similar or dissimilar to themselves or to socially agreed standards, an evaluation that is the consequence of an initial holistic assessment in which people focus on salient features or their perception that the person belongs to a certain category (Mussweiler, 2003). The informational analysis that forms the comparison builds mostly on semantic, rather than sensory, phenomena (Mussweiler, 2003).…”

“…Social psychology acknowledges comparative evaluation as a mechanism that underlies human decision making (Mussweiler, 2003;Mussweiler, Rüter, & Epstude, 2004). Existing research often deals with consumers' comparisons with professional models in advertising (Buunk & Dijkstra, 2011;D'Alessandro & Chitty, 2011).…”

“…On the basis of findings from these three streams, which indicate that (a) healthy eating is a normative standard (Jutel, 2005), (b) social influence affects eating (Herman, Polivy, & Roth, 2003), and (c) behaviors are influenced by social comparisons (Mussweiler, 2003;Mussweiler, Rüter, & Epstude, 2004), this study offers the following hypotheses: H1: When exposed to an unhealthy-looking, that is, overweight service employee as opposed to a healthy-looking service employee, customers pay quicker (H1a) and more sustained (H1b) attention to unhealthy meal alternatives, which leads to the choice of unhealthy meal alternatives (H1c).…”