Social comparison only informs when the comparator matches 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)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: People choose social comparison partners only when similar 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

Broader Connections

• People seek comparison partners similar on the dimension being judged #corroborates (0.92) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1388