Comparing for evaluation and enhancement

It is natural for humans to compare themselves to each other; this reflective process may occur so that we can evaluate our current or future standing, or so we can enhance our feelings about ourselves.  Both reasonings are discussed in Suls' article:

Evaluation
Comparison for the purposes of evaluation occurs when one reflects on questions such as:

• Am I capable of doing this?
• Will I like this?
• Is this correct?

In the case of the first question, we use a proxy as a comparison point from which we determine our own capability. The proxy must be someone with similar traits to our own, thus proving capability. For instance, one feels capable of completing a task because someone with similar skills and physical abilities has also proven capable of completing the task.

In the case of the latter two questions, we use a triadic model of similarity, expertise, and past experience to evaluate the answers for ourselves. We determine our own beliefs, opinions and assumptions based on others, because of our need to look up to those who may know better than us, such as experts or those with a shared history.

Enhancement
We compare to enhance our own feelings of self, to feel like we are among "good people" or that we are in a better situation than others. Comparisons may occur in an upward (looking up to those superior to us) or downward (looking down to those inferior to us). We may choose one direction on the other based on our current situation and our motivation for comparing. For instance, if I am in a bad situation (perhaps I am sick) and I want to feel like I am not alone and that there is hope, I am seeking an assimilative outcome that may lead me to compare upward with others to whom I feel a level of psychological closeness and a feeling of cohesiveness as a group. On the other hand, if I want to feel like my illness isn't quite as severe as it could be, I am seeking a contrastive outcome in which I look downward. However, in a moment of hopelessness I could also find myself comparing upward to those who are well and feel worse about my own situation.

Although not directly stated, I think that these ideas apply to online communities in the sense of understanding how groups of disparate people can become a cohesive group. Conversations allow members to evaluate their own capabilities and enhance their own self-image through comparison with  each other, if the community is designed to allow these interactions. Perhaps these differing types of comparisons indicate that online communities should be designed with different areas for each type of comparison-- for a cancer support site, evaluative comparison could be facilitated through boards in which topics revolve around treatment options and opinions of various approaches to treatment, while enhancement could be faciliated through boards in which topics revolve around how the members are doing with their chosen treatment plans.

For a site such as Geocaching, I can certainly see how evaluative comparison comes into play in user profiles. When I look at one's profile I can see the types of caches he has visited, and make assumptions about own own capabilities. If I can see what kind of caches the member likes to explore, his/her physical capabilities (can they handle rough terrain, find the tough-to-see places, etc) then I can determine whether I can handle the types of caches this member has visited and enjoyed. I may also enhance my own self image by comparing my successes to geocachers who are superior or inferior to my skills-- looking up to learn how to get better at locating difficult caches, or looking down to see how much progress I've made since I was a novice cacher.