Social comparison influences well-being, especially during psychological threat. Social comparison outcomes have been theorized to depend on motivation, frequency, contrast versus identification, with a better- versus worse-off other. To reduce this complexity in the theory, 94 senior-housing residents were interviewed and cluster analysis was conducted. Four clusters emerged. Half the interviewees formed a cluster using only adaptive social comparison methods. Adaptives were contrasted with a cluster of indiscriminate comparers, a cluster striving for improvement, and a cluster of participants disagreeing with most questions. Clusters differed especially in patterns of downward identification, upward and downward contrast. Self-evaluation and uncertainty-reduction also differed between clusters; self-enhancement and self-improvement motivations did not. Cluster membership had no direct effect on well-being, but moderation analysis demonstrated threat-buffering of high neuroticism in the adaptive cluster. The benefits were not due to self-esteem or educational level. By separating individuals rather than behaviors, cluster analysis provides a fresh perspective.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:MANITOBA/oai:mspace.lib.umanitoba.ca:1993/22162 |
| Date | 11 September 2013 |
| Creators | Haviva, Clove |
| Contributors | Bailis, Daniel (Psychology), Chipperfield, Judith (Psychology) Menec, Verena (Community Health Sciences) |
| Source Sets | University of Manitoba Canada |
| Detected Language | English |
Page generated in 0.0019 seconds