Personal Contact, Individuation, and the Better-Than-Average Effect

by Mark D. Alicke, Mary L. Klotz, David L. Breitenbecher, Tricia J. Yurak, and Debbie S. Vredenburg

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (Volume 68, Issue 5, pp. 804) 1995
  • Psychology

Research in which people compare themselves with an average peer has consistently shown that people evaluate themselves more favorably than they evaluate others. Seven studies were conducted to demonstrate that the magnitude of this better-than-average effect depends on the level of abstraction in the comparison. These studies showed that people were less biased when they compared themselves with an individuated target than when they compared themselves with a nonindividuated target, namely, the average college student. The better-than-average effect was reduced more when the observer had personal contact with the comparison target than when no personal contact was established. Differences in the magnitude of the better-than-average effect could not be attributed to the contemporaneous nature of the target's presentation, communication from the target, perceptual vividness, implied evaluation, or perceptions of similarity.