Distinctiveness is key: how different types of self-other similarity moderate social comparison effects.

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.