Social Comparison in eCommunities (aka Erika part 2)

This is a continuation of Erika's summary of Sul's article of social comparison. Basically, people compare themselves with others for three reasons. 

• self-evaluation - to gain a sense of whether performance is good enough (note: this tends to happen when performance standards are ambiguous or non-existent).

• self-enhancement - to feel better about oneself

• self-improvement - to provide the motivation to do better at a task.

All three of these motives can be seen as regulatory behavior. Self-evaluation tells us when it is time to stop working (e.g. when performance is good enough) self-enhancement helps restore homeostasis in mood and self-improvement may increase the drive to achieve a desired state.

Regardless of the motivation for social comparison, social comparisons necessarily influence both beliefs about performance and affective response towards performance.

Social comparisons can either be upward (against a superior target) or downward (against an inferior target).  Although intuitively it seems like upward comparisons should make people feel worse and downward comparisons this is not necessarily the case. The conclusions people reach depend on whether they contrast themselves with the target or assimilate the target. Assimilation effects occur when people conclude that the target is in some way a part of the current or future self. Contrast effects occur when the target is excluded from a representation of the current or future self. Thus, upward assimilation effects and downward contrast effects produce substantially the same result.

Social Comparison in eCommunities

The main issue for eCommunities seems to be what information people use to determine whether they contrast or assimilate themselves with a target. The vast majority of eCommunity users will have the potential to make both upward and downward comparisons, and will probably engage in both at different times.

• Length of membership in a community may be important. New members may assimilate towards members who have been around for longer. However, this variable will interact with group permeability. New members should be more likely to assimilate in groups that have few barriers to entry (because membership is attainable), whereas excessively high barriers to entry may result in contrast effects for people who believe that they have no hope of becoming a member.
• Similarly, people are likely to assimilate themselves towards targets who have the same "level" of membership (e.g. moderators with other moderators).
• The level of self-construal also seems to matter. Assimilation effects should be more common when the community sees itself as a "we" (perhaps through a membership requirement) while contrast effects should emerge when group identity is low.
• Perceived level of similarity also matters. People assimilate towards similar others even if the similarity is irrelevant (e.g. a shared birthday. I am not sure how this plays out in an environment in which there are relatively few social cues though. On one hand it could be argued that everyone is assumed to be more similar on the net (because there is less info to distinguish them). On the other hand, this could also make them seem more alien.