Previous studies have shown that people who have not been victimized by negative life events tend to perceive themselves as less vulnerable than others to victimization. The present 2 studies examined the conditions under which Ss' judgments of others' vulnerability would differ from judgments of their own vulnerability. In Study 1, 101 undergraduates saw vague comparison targets (either the average person or the average college student) as more vulnerable than themselves to 10 negative events. In contrast, Ss perceived a specific target (their closest friend, sibling, or same-sex parent) as equally invulnerable as themselves. In Study 2, 190 Ss who were instructed to consider a vague, abstract target (either the average college student or one of their friends) made downward comparisons, choosing a real or hypothetical other who was especially vulnerable to a particular event. Ss who were instructed to consider a specific, concrete target (their closest friend) perceived no self–other differences in risk status. It is concluded that when given the opportunity, Ss actively engage in downward comparisons, thereby seeing themselves as relatively invulnerable. Whereas vague targets facilitate downward comparisons, specific targets make such comparisons more difficult. Both cognitive and motivational mechanisms underlying such downward comparisons are discussed.