People choose social comparison partners only when similar on the judged feature

Evidence

Festinger was quick to point out that the choice of comparison partners was far from whimsical, insisting that comparators must be similar, at least in terms of the feature under comparison. Thus, in the absence of an objective gold standard, a chess grand master might seek to compare with other masters to gain insight into the quality of his or her game. The grand master would not be likely to use either author of this review as comparators, as neither would provide much in the way of opposition and thus the comparison would not allow an informative self-assessment of chess ability for either party. — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1388 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Kalick and Hamilton (1986) used ABM to simulate the well-known empirical fact that people tend to end up with romantic partners of about equal attractiveness to themselves. Highly attractive people end up with highly attractive people, moderately attractive people end up with moderately attractive people, and so on. A common explanation for this fact was that people actively seek partners with similar levels of attractiveness, presumably due to the fear of being rejected by more attractive prospects (e.g., Berscheid, Dion, Walster, & Walster, 1971) or from a general preference for similarity in all attributes. However, repeated studies found no support for the proposed similarity preference. Instead, all people demonstrate a strong preference for the most attractive potential partners (e.g., Curran & Lippold, 1975). Kalick and Hamilton sought to resolve this paradox via ABM. — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 825 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: People adopt modeled behaviors only when they see similar others rewarded for them.; Social comparison only informs when the comparator matches on the judged feature; People seek comparison partners similar on the dimension being judged — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1388 (+2 more)

Broader Connections

• People seek comparison partners similar on the dimension being judged #corroborates (0.95) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1388
• Assortative matching arises without anyone preferring a similar partner #complicates (0.80) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 825
• Friendship similarity differences stem from opportunity, not preference #complicates (0.78)