I want to argue that a substantial part of lay referral is most appropriately considered under the rubric of social comparison theory. At first glance, the direct role of social comparison in the lay referral network may not be apparent. Social comparison is conceptualized by social psychologists as the process in which one compares one’s standing or agreement on an ability or opinion dimension with other peoples’ standing on the same dimension in order to gauge capability or correctness; self-evaluation is the purpose of social comparison. Conferring with members of one’s lay referral network does not necessitate comparison, of course; the network may be the context for simple information-seeking. The network also provides a context for obtaining folk wisdom about illness and medical treatment both during illness episodes and at other times. Some uses of the lay referral network, however, involve comparison with others on the so-called illness dimension (e.g., "I have a headache and feel feverish. Have you had those symptoms lately?" to ascertain if the flu is going around). Other instances involve the comparison of opinions about the meaning or severity associated with reported symptoms. "I hurt my arm while lifting a heavy object. Do you think it’s probably nothing or should I see my physician?" In the latter situation, members of the network may draw on their general knowledge of physical illness, but they may also make explicit comparisons based on their past or current experiences with similar symptoms. According to Festinger’s theory of social comparison, people need to possess accurate assessments of their abilities and opinions and they find uncertainty an aversive condition. They prefer physical and objective standards to evaluate themselves, but these are commonly unavailable. Under such circumstances, people compare with others to assess their standing. Although Festinger restricted his model to abilities and opinions, Schachter and Singer recognized that social comparison may also apply to any situation where people are in a state of uncertainty. They argued that both physiological arousal and the cognitions that label physical sensations combine to create the perception of emotion (and other bodily states). Their experimental studies demonstrated that if people experience visceral arousal for which they have no obvious explanation they engage in a cognitive search to explain the aroused state. The emotions of other people around them may provide the cues, via social comparison, to label their own state. In sum, Schachter and Singer demonstrated that social comparison also is applicable to the labeling and interpretation of ambiguous physiological arousal as gcse coursework help. Mechanic extended this argument to situations in which the layperson has no objective criteria to determine whether physical or psychological sensations are indicative of serious illness. Thus, a person experiencing ambiguous somatic sensations may compare with others to determine whether they have or are experiencing the same thing and how they interpret these sensations. Note that the emphasis in these approaches is on self-evaluation; people are intent on obtaining an accurate rendering of their own status and its meaning and significance.