Age and the Better-Than-Average Effect

Ethan Zell1 Mark D. Alicke

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Ohio University

People generally evaluate their own attributes and abilities more favorably than
those of an average peer. The current study explored whether age moderates this
better-than-average effect. We asked young (n = 87), middle-aged (n = 75), and older
adults (n = 77) to evaluate themselves and an average peer on a variety of trait and
ability dimensions. On most dimensions, a better-than-average effect was observed
for young, middle-aged, and older adults. However, on dimensions for which older
individuals have clear deficiencies (i.e., athleticism, physical attractiveness), a better-
than-average effect was observed for young and middle-aged adults, while a worse-
than-average effect was observed for older adults. We argue that egocentrism
accounts for these age differences in comparative self-evaluations. jasp_752 1175..1188

How well do people know themselves? Are people’s perceptions of them-

selves accurate or inaccurate? These fundamental questions occupy psycholo-
gists, philosophers, and laypersons alike. A commonly utilized paradigm to
examine whether people have accurate self-knowledge has developed in an
area of research known as comparative self-evaluation. In this work, partici-
pants are asked to rate their characteristics, abilities, and future prospects in
comparison to an average peer. Research on comparative self-evaluation has
produced a remarkably stable finding. That is, people generally rate them-
selves and their potential futures more favorably than that of an average peer
(Alicke, 1985; Weinstein, 1980). Rating one’s current attributes and abilities
more favorably than an average peer is often referred to as the better-than-
average effect (BTAE). The BTAE is considered a form of bias or inaccuracy
in self-assessment because while most people are average, only a minority of
people recognize this reality.
The BTAE has been studied using two different research techniques: the
direct method and the indirect method (for relevant reviews, see Alicke &
Govorun, 2005; Chambers & Windschitl, 2004). Research using the direct
method asks participants to evaluate themselves in comparison to an average
person on a single scale. A sample item is “Compared to an average peer, how
intelligent are you?” with a scale midpoint labeled as average or 50th percen-
tile. If self-evaluations are above the midpoint of the scale, then the BTAE is
said to have occurred.
1
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ethan Zell, Department of
Psychology, University of Illinois, Champaign, IL 61820. E-mail: ezell2@illinois.edu

1175

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2011, 41, 5, pp. 1175–1188.

© 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
1176 ZELL AND ALICKE

Data collected during the 1976 College Board Exams (College Board
1976–1977) provide one of the most compelling demonstrations of the BTAE
derived from the direct method. Among a sample of about 1 million
Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) test takers, 70% rated themselves above the
median in leadership ability, 60% above the median in athletic ability, and
85% above the median in ability to get along with others. Another powerful
demonstration of the BTAE was provided by Svenson (1981). He found that
88% of American college students and 77% of Swedish college students
placed themselves above the 50th percentile on driving safety. But BTAEs are
not exclusive to young adults. Cross (1977) asked University of Nebraska
professors to evaluate their teaching ability in comparison to the average
college instructor. The results indicated that 94% of the professors rated
themselves as above-average teachers.
Research using the indirect technique has also provided robust evidence
for the BTAE. In this research, people evaluate themselves (e.g., “How
intelligent are you?”) and the average person (e.g., “How intelligent is the
average person?”) on separate scales. Researchers then subtract average
evaluations from self-evaluations. If the difference between self-evaluations
and average peer evaluations is significantly greater than zero, then the
BTAE is said to have occurred. Research utilizing this indirect method
demonstrates that self-evaluations are consistently more favorable than are
average peer evaluations when it comes to evaluations of social skills, intel-
ligence, and a host of other trait and ability dimensions (Alicke, 1985; Alicke,
Klotz, Breitenbecher, Yurak, & Vredenburg, 1995; Moore & Small, 2007).2
Several moderators of the BTAE have been uncovered. The BTAE is
magnified when people evaluate themselves in comparison to an average peer
on one scale (i.e., direct method), rather than rating themselves and the
average person on separate scales (i.e., indirect method; Otten & van der
Pligt, 1996). The BTAE is also more pronounced on subjective, rather than
objective dimensions (Dunning, Meyerowitz, & Holzberg, 1989); as well as
dimensions that are controllable, rather than uncontrollable (Alicke, 1985).
Individual differences have been found to influence the BTAE, such that the
BTAE is diminished among people who report low self-esteem (Brown, 1986;
Suls, Lemos, & Stewart, 2002) and depression (Tabachnik, Crocker, & Alloy,
1983). Finally, cultural variations in the BTAE have been observed
(Sedikides, Gaertner, & Toguchi, 2003) such that people in Western cultures

2
The use of the indirect (i.e., subtraction) method to compare self-ratings to average peer
ratings requires that these separate evaluations measure similar processes. To our knowledge,
only one study has tested this assumption (Vautier & Bonnefon, 2008). That research found
evidence suggesting that self-ratings were equivalent to average peer ratings for some dimen-
sions, but not others. Future research is needed to explore fully the conditions under which this
metric equivalence assumption is met when using the indirect method.
 BETTER-THAN-AVERAGE EFFECT 1177

rate themselves as better than average on traits that characterize indivi-

dualism (e.g., self-reliant, unique), while people in Eastern cultures rate
themselves as better than average on traits that characterize collectivism
(e.g., self-sacrificing, cooperative).
A potential moderator of the BTAE that has not been studied systemati-
cally is age. Consistent with previous research on psychology and aging (e.g.,
Isaacowitz et al., 2007; MacPherson, Phillips, & Della Sala, 2002; Malatesta,
Izard, Culver, & Nicolich, 1987), we define young adults as people between
the ages of 18 and 39 years; middle-aged adults as people between the ages of
40 and 59 years; and older adults as people between the ages of 60 and 85
years. The preponderance of studies on the BTAE have utilized young adults.
Specifically, research on undergraduate college student populations has
found the BTAE to be highly reliable across numerous traits and behaviors
(i.e., Alicke, 1985; Alicke et al., 1995). However, it is presently unknown
whether older adults as well as middle-aged adults show the same broad
tendency to rate themselves as above average across a variety of domains.
This unanswered question is important in that it speaks to the universality of
the BTAE. Additionally, it is important to know whether the BTAE—and
the benefits that it accrues—extends to age groups other than just young
adults.
One possibility is that the BTAE is exclusive to young adults. Young
adults are in the prime of their lives, which may exacerbate tendencies toward
overly positive self-assessment. On the other hand, middle-aged and older
adults have had considerably more time to learn about their relative strengths
and weaknesses, which might produce more modest comparative self-
evaluations. One might argue, therefore, that with age and experience, people
develop more accurate self-knowledge, which should reduce the likelihood of
the BTAE among middle-aged and older adults, in comparison to their
younger counterparts.
A second possibility is that the BTAE, obtained mostly with young
adults, generalizes to middle-aged and older adult populations. Recent work
has indicated that the BTAE results not from a general lack of self-
knowledge, but rather from several highly robust motivational and nonmo-
tivational mechanisms (Alicke & Govorun, 2005; Chambers & Windschitl,
2004). Most pertinent to the current report, research on the role of egocen-
trism in the BTAE has demonstrated that the BTAE is often the result of
people more heavily weighting their own characteristics than characteristics
of the average person when making comparative self-evaluations (Kruger,
1999; Moore & Kim, 2003; Windschitl, Kruger, & Sims, 2003). For
example, when people think that they are skilled in a domain (e.g., verbal
ability), they rate themselves as better than average because they fail to
recognize that other people are also skilled in this domain. Conversely,
1178 ZELL AND ALICKE

when people think they are unskilled in a domain (e.g., computer program-
ming), they rate themselves as worse than average because they fail to rec-
ognize that other people are also unskilled in this domain. Therefore, the
BTAE may occur for people of all ages on those dimensions in which most
people perceive themselves favorably (e.g., intelligence, honesty, sociability)
because people overweight their own strengths while simultaneously under-
weighting the strengths of their peers.
However, the egocentrism perspective also suggests unique circum-
stances under which age differences in the BTAE might arise. Although age
is associated with several psychological benefits (e.g., Mather & Carstensen,
2005), an unfortunate consequence of age is that people tend to experience
decline on several objective indexes. For example, athleticism clearly
declines across age. With age comes decreased mobility and flexibility, in
addition to increases in physical pain during rigorous exercise. Physical
attractiveness also decreases with age. Some may argue that “beauty is in
the eye of the beholder,” yet research has demonstrated that youthfulness is
an important determinant of physical attractiveness (Buss, 1989). Finally,
overall physical health declines during old age. Egocentrism predicts that
older adults may show a worse-than-average effect (WTAE) on dimensions
that decline across age groups (e.g., athleticism, health, physical attractive-
ness) because older adults overemphasize their own weaknesses in these
domains without recognizing the weaknesses of their peers when evaluating
themselves.
To explore the influence of age on the BTAE, we administered a com-
parative self-evaluation questionnaire to a sample of young (n = 87), middle-
aged (n = 75), and older adults (n = 77). The questionnaire asked participants
to evaluate themselves and an average peer on a variety of dimensions. Some
of the dimensions were traits or abilities that clearly decline across age
groups, while others were traits or abilities that do not clearly decline across
age groups. An important aspect of the study is that participants evaluated
themselves and an average peer on different scales (i.e., indirect method),
rather than on the same scale (i.e., direct method). This allows us to examine
whether the proposed age differences are a result of changes in how people
view themselves or the average person over time.

Method

Participants

Study participants (N = 239; 128 females, 111 males) ranged in age

from 19 to 85 years and were recruited from three communities in the
 BETTER-THAN-AVERAGE EFFECT 1179

midwestern United States. All of the participants were living in the com-
munity (i.e., not in nursing homes) and were native speakers of English.
Before they enrolled in the study, the participants were screened with a
checklist based on self-report. Participants were excluded if they reported
evidence of serious psychiatric problems (i.e., history of treatment with
psychotropic medications, psychiatric hospitalizations, suicide attempts),
substance abuse (i.e., alcohol/drug abuse that interferes with social or occu-
pational functioning), or brain damage (i.e., history of strokes, seizures, or
brain tumors).
For the purpose of the present analyses, participants were categorized
into three age groups: young adults (18–39 years), middle-aged adults (40–59
years), and older adults (60–85 years). Table 1 shows the sample sizes, mean
ages, gender distribution, and highest educational degree, broken down by
age group. The groups did not differ significantly with regard to gender, c2(2,
N = 239) = 5.38, ns. Educational levels were higher in the middle-aged group
than in the other groups ( ps < .001). Further, the young adult group reported
a slightly higher level of educational attainment than did the older adult
group ( p < .05).

Table 1

Study Demographics

Young Middle-aged Old

Variable (n = 87) (n = 75) (n = 77)
Age range (in years) 18–39 40–59 60–85
M age 23.7 (4.8) 49.2 (5.6) 70.2 (7.2)
Gender
Female 43.7% 60.0% 58.4%
Male 56.3% 40.0% 41.6%
Education
< high school 0.0% 1.3% 15.6%
High school diploma 11.5% 12.0% 37.7%
Some college 66.7% 20.0% 18.2%
College degree 16.1% 29.3% 15.6%
Advanced degree 5.7% 37.3% 13.0%
Note. SDs appear in parentheses.
1180 ZELL AND ALICKE

Procedure

Participants received a questionnaire packet that began with the following

instructions: “In this study, you will be asked to evaluate yourself and others
on different dimensions. Please indicate the extent to which the following
characteristics describe YOU and the AVERAGE PERSON the same age
and gender as you.” Then, participants were presented with a list of 12 traits
(see Table 2). Several of the included dimensions have been used in previous
research on the BTAE (Alicke et al., 1995). We purposefully selected traits
for which there are clear age differences (i.e., health, physical attractiveness,
athleticism, technology skill), as well as traits for which age differences are
subtle or do not exist (i.e., sociable, intelligent, honest). The order of presen-
tation of the traits was randomized for each participant.
For each trait, the first question asked participants to evaluate on an
11-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 10 (very much) the extent to which
they possess the characteristic. The second question asked participants to

Table 2

Mean Difference Scores Between Self-Evaluations

and Evaluations of the Average Person

Dimension MD SD d
Emotionally stable 1.06† 1.61 0.94
Physically attractive -0.27 1.99 0.20
Satisfied with life 1.06† 2.09 0.73
Self-sacrificing 1.46† 1.90 1.09
Athletic -0.33 2.82 0.18
Sociable 0.51† 2.09 0.36
Wise 1.11† 1.71 0.92
Healthy 0.46† 2.34 0.29
Intelligent 1.17† 1.82 0.91
Frugal 0.77† 2.50 0.45
Skilled at using technology 0.12 2.85 0.06
Honest 1.68† 1.69 1.40
All dimensions 0.73† 1.00 1.29
†Indicates a significant better-than-average effect,
p < .004.
 BETTER-THAN-AVERAGE EFFECT 1181

evaluate (using an identical rating scale) the extent to which the average
person of the same age and gender possesses the characteristic.

Results

Gender analyses were conducted for all subsequent tests. Because no

gender differences emerged, gender is not discussed further.

Replicating the BTAE

Difference scores between self-evaluations and evaluations of the average

person were calculated for each of the 12 traits. Table 2 presents the mean
difference scores across age groups for all 12 traits. One-sample t tests with
Bonferroni corrections were performed on the difference scores to examine
whether participants’ evaluations of themselves were significantly different
from their evaluations of the average person. These t tests compare the mean
difference score to a no-difference score of zero. For 9 of the 12 traits,
significant BTAEs emerged ( ps < .004, ds > 0.25). Participants evaluated
themselves as significantly better than average on the traits of emotionally
stable, satisfied with life, self-sacrificing, sociable, wise, healthy, intelligent,
frugal, and honest. On the remaining traits—including physically attractive,
athletic, and skilled at using technology—their self-evaluations were not
significantly different from evaluations of the average person ( ps > .025,
ds < 0.25).
Next, we aggregated the 12 difference scores into one index of compara-
tive self-evaluation (coefficient a = .67).3 Across traits, the participants dem-
onstrated a broad tendency to rate themselves more favorably than the
average person (MD = 0.73), t(238) = 11.29, p < .001, d = 1.29. Specifically,
74% of the participants evaluated themselves as above average, 5% rated
themselves as equal to the average person, and 21% evaluated themselves as
below average overall.

Age Differences in the BTAE

To examine whether there were age differences in the BTAE, we con-

ducted a one-way ANOVA on the difference between self-evaluations and

3
Aggregated self-evaluations (coefficient a = .73) and average peer evaluations (coefficient
a = .85) had substantially higher reliabilities than did aggregated comparative self-evaluations.
It should be noted that aggregated difference scores often do not yield reliabilities that are as
high as aggregated raw responses.
1182 ZELL AND ALICKE

average peer evaluations across traits. This analysis reveals a significant effect
of age, F(2, 236) = 17.99, p < .001, h2 = .13. Follow-up comparisons using
Tukey’s honestly significant difference procedure indicate that comparative
self-evaluations among the older adults (MD = 0.20) were significantly lower
than were those of middle-aged (MD = 0.98) and young adults (MD = 0.98;
ps < .001, ds > 0.80).
To explore further the nature of the age differences, we conducted sepa-
rate one-sample t tests on the comparative self-evaluations of participants in
each age group. Strong BTAEs emerged for both the young and middle-aged
adults ( ps < .001, ds > 1.30); however, only a modest BTAE emerged among
the older adult participants ( p = .04, d = 0.36). The impact of age on each of
the 12 specific trait judgments is summarized in Table 3.
We predicted that the BTAE would reverse among older adults on dimen-
sions that clearly decline across age groups. To test this hypothesis, we
aggregated the comparative self-evaluation difference scores for variables

Table 3

Comparative Self-Evaluations by Age

Young Middle-aged Old

Trait MD SD MD SD MD SD
Emotionally stable 0.83*** 1.90 1.29*** 1.29 1.08*** 1.51
Frugal 0.78** 2.76 0.83** 2.28 0.70* 2.44
Honest 1.78*** 2.08 1.80*** 1.52 1.45*** 1.31
Intelligent 1.41*** 1.95 1.17*** 1.70 0.90*** 1.77
Satisfied with life 1.27a*** 2.40 1.60a*** 1.46 0.31aa 2.06
Self-sacrificing 1.67b*** 2.21 1.75b*** 1.50 0.96bb*** 1.81
Sociable 0.42 2.50 0.28 1.85 0.86*** 1.76
Wise 1.44*** 2.02 1.00*** 1.45 0.86*** 1.51
Athletic 0.40c 2.45 0.32c 2.90 -1.77cc*** 2.63
Healthy 0.88d** 2.34 1.05d*** 2.17 -0.58dd* 2.17
Physically attractive 0.09e 2.08 -0.16 1.85 -0.74ee** 1.92
Skilled at using 0.97f*** 2.17 0.88f** 2.48 -1.57ff*** 3.16
technology
All dimensions 0.98g*** 1.04 0.98g*** 0.89 0.20gg* 0.85
Note. Matching subscripts denote significant differences ( p < .05).*Significant better-
than-average effect/worse-than-average effect at p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .005.
 BETTER-THAN-AVERAGE EFFECT 1183

that decline across age (i.e., physical attractiveness, health, athleticism, tech-
nology skill; coefficient a = .64) and for variables that do not decline across
age (i.e., emotionally stable, satisfied with life, self-sacrificing, sociable, wise,
intelligent, frugal, honest; coefficient a = .55). Then, we conducted a 3 (Age:
young, middle-aged, older) ¥ 2 (Variable Type: declines across age vs. does
not decline across age) ANOVA with repeated measures on the variable
type factor. A significant Age ¥ Variable Type interaction emerged from this
analysis, F(2, 236) = 20.96, p < .001, h2 = .15. This finding suggests that the
impact of age on comparative self-evaluation differs depending on whether
the observed dimensions decline across age.
We conducted follow-up contrasts to explore the impact of age (coded as
+1, +1, and -2, for young, middle-aged, and older adults, respectively) on
comparative self-evaluations. On dimensions that do not decline across age,
comparative self-evaluations of young and middle-aged adults were slightly
more favorable than those of older adults, F(1, 236) = 5.79, p < .02, h2 = .02.
On these dimensions, significant BTAEs were observed for young adults
(MD = 1.19, p < .001, d = 1.48), middle-aged adults (MD = 1.22, p < .001,
d = 2.08), and older adults (MD = 0.89, p < .001, d = 1.59).
Conversely, comparative self-evaluations of young and middle-aged
adults were dramatically different from comparative self-evaluations of older
adults on dimensions that decline across age, F(1, 236) = 61.82, p < .001,
h2 = .21. While young adults (MD = 0.56, p = .001, d = 0.54) and middle-
aged adults (MD = 0.52, p < .01, d = 0.46) rated themselves as significantly
better than average, older adults rated themselves as significantly worse
than average on dimensions that decline across age (MD = -1.17, p < .001,
d = 1.08). Therefore, consistent with our predictions, age may reverse the
BTAE on dimensions that clearly decline across age groups.
Finally, we tested whether the BTAE was reversed among older adults
on dimensions that decline across age because of age differences in self-
evaluations or evaluations of the average person. To test these possibilities,
we aggregated self-evaluations (coefficient a = .66) and average peer evalua-
tions (coefficient a = .67) on dimensions that decline across age. Then, we
conducted a 3 (Age: young, middle-aged, older) ¥ 2 (Target: self vs. average
peer) ANOVA with repeated measures on the target factor. A significant
Age ¥ Target interaction emerged from this analysis, F(2, 236) = 31.05,
p < .001, h2 = .21 (see Figure 1). This finding suggests that the impact of age
varied as a function of whether participants were evaluating themselves or an
average peer on dimensions that decline across age.
Follow-up contrasts (with age coded as +1, +1, and -2, for young, middle-
aged, and older adults, respectively) indicate that self-evaluations of older
adults (M = 4.76) were significantly less favorable than were self-evaluations
of young adults (M = 6.33) and middle-aged adults (M = 6.16) on dimensions
1184 ZELL AND ALICKE

6
Self-evaluations

Average evaluations
5

4
Young Middle- Old
aged

Figure 1. Age differences in self-evaluations and average peer evaluations on dimensions that
decline across age groups.

that decline across age, F(1, 236) = 53.76, p < .001, h2 = .19. However,
average peer evaluations made by older adults (M = 5.92) did not differ
significantly from those made by middle-aged adults (M = 5.64) and young
adults (M = 5.77; p > .10, h2 = .009). Thus, comparative self-evaluations
of older adults on dimensions that decline across age were less favorable
than those of young and middle-aged adults because of differences in self-
evaluations, as opposed to differences in average peer evaluations.

Discussion

In the present study, we explored the impact of age on the better-than-

average effect. On dimensions that do not clearly change across age groups
(i.e., intelligence, honesty, sociability), the BTAE was observed for young,
middle-aged, and older adult participants. However, on dimensions that
decline across age groups (i.e., health, physical attractiveness, athleticism,
technology skill), young and middle-aged adults showed a BTAE, while older
adults showed a WTAE.
These age differences in comparative self-evaluations are consistent with
the egocentrism interpretation of the BTAE (Kruger, 1999). According to
this perspective, people often rate themselves as better than average or worse
than average because they overweight their own characteristics and under-
weight characteristics of the average person when making comparative self-
evaluations. This leads people to evaluate themselves as above average in
 BETTER-THAN-AVERAGE EFFECT 1185

domains in which they have perceived strengths (e.g., verbal ability) and
below average in domains in which they have perceived weaknesses (e.g.,
computer programming).
In the current study, we found strong BTAEs across age groups on
dimensions in which people generally report favorable self-perceptions, such
as honesty and intelligence (Alicke et al., 1995). However, older adults
showed WTAEs on dimensions in which older individuals have clear defi-
ciencies. More specifically, older adults rated themselves less favorably than
other age groups on these dimensions, but did not rate the average person
differently than other age groups. Therefore, older adults may rate them-
selves as worse than average on dimensions that decline across age because
they overweight their own deficits and underweight the deficits of their peers
when making comparative self-evaluations.
The current study is the first of which we are aware to show that the
BTAE occurs for adults of all age groups. Research conducted on young
adults has found the BTAE to be highly robust (Alicke, 1985; Alicke et al.,
1995), and an important predictor of various beneficial outcomes. Self-
serving cognitions, such as the BTAE, have been linked with positive mental
health, being well liked, and adequate coping skills in stressful situations
(Taylor, Lerner, Sherman, Sage, & McDowell, 2003a, 2003b). The present
study discovered BTAEs among middle-aged and older adults, which sug-
gests that the benefits of self-serving cognitions may generalize to age groups
other than just young adults.
Further, the current research extends previous work exploring the influ-
ence of age on unrealistic optimism, which is the tendency to project a more
positive future for the self than for others. Madey and Gomez (2003) examined
whether age impacts comparative self-evaluations of susceptibility to future
illness. Age did not affect unrealistic optimism for medical conditions unre-
lated to age (i.e., tuberculosis, alcohol dependency). However, young adults
showed more pronounced unrealistic optimism effects than did middle-aged
and older adults for age-related medical conditions (i.e., osteoporosis, Alzhe-
imer’s disease). The current study expands on this analysis by showing that age
not only influences comparative self-evaluations of one’s future, but also
comparative evaluations of the attributes and abilities of the self in the present.
As the first systematic study on the role of age in the BTAE, the current
study suggests several avenues for future research. Although the current
study found domains in which older adults evaluated themselves less favor-
ably than young and middle-aged adults, it is possible that in other domains
older adults will evaluate themselves more favorably than their younger
counterparts. For example, on dimensions that improve with age (e.g., life
experience), older adults may evidence BTAEs of greater magnitude than
other age groups.
1186 ZELL AND ALICKE

In the current study, we included dimensions such as wise, emotional

stability, self-sacrificing, and frugal in the hope that older individuals would
rate themselves more favorably in comparison to an average peer than would
young and middle-aged adults, yet these findings did not obtain. Our inabil-
ity to find age differences on dimensions that improve across age may have
been the result of a ceiling effect. Older adults may truly see themselves as
more wise, emotionally stable, and frugal than their younger counterparts,
but because all age groups see themselves positively in these domains, scale
responses were not sensitive enough to detect age differences.
Additionally, to our knowledge, human development research has yet to
examine whether children show the BTAE. Research has indicated that 8-
and 9-year-old children are unrealistically optimistic about their future in
health- and non-health-related domains (Albery & Messer, 2005). It remains
to be seen when the BTAE emerges developmentally, and if the magnitude of
the BTAE obtained with children and adolescents is comparable to that
obtained from adult samples.
Finally, future research should examine how older adults cope with the
harsh reality that they are declining on several objective indexes (e.g., physi-
cal attractiveness, health). One possibility is that older adults bask in the
reflected glory of their younger selves, rather than focus on their current
status. Consistent with this logic, previous research (Suls & Mullen, 1983) has
indicated that older adults are more prone to temporal comparisons with past
selves—and are less prone to social comparisons with peers—than are young
adults.
In summary, the current study suggests that the better-than-average
effect, which had previously been demonstrated with young adults, gener-
alizes to middle-aged and older adult populations. On several dimensions,
older adults were just as likely as were their younger counterparts to see
themselves as better than average. Conversely, on dimensions that decline
across age groups, older adults rated themselves as worse than average.
These findings highlight the egocentric nature of self-evaluation across the
lifespan.

References

Albery, I. P., & Messer, D. (2005). Comparative optimism about health and
nonhealth events in 8- and 9-year-old children. Health Psychology, 24,
316–320.
Alicke, M. D. (1985). Global self-evaluation as determined by the desirability
and controllability of trait adjectives. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 49, 1621–1630.
 BETTER-THAN-AVERAGE EFFECT 1187

Alicke, M. D., & Govorun, O. (2005). The better-than-average effect. In

M. D. Alicke, D. A. Dunning, & J. I. Krueger (Eds.). The self in social
judgment (pp. 85–106). New York: Psychology Press.
Alicke, M. D., Klotz, M. L., Breitenbecher, D. L., Yurak, T. J., &
Vredenburg, D. S. (1995). Personal contact, individuation, and the better-
than-average effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68,
804–825.
Brown, J. D. (1986). Evaluations of self and others: Self-enhancement biases
in social judgments. Social Cognition, 4, 353–376.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary
hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–
49.
Chambers, J. R., & Windschitl, P. D. (2004). Biases in comparative
judgments: The role of nonmotivated factors in above-average and
comparative-optimism effects. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 813–838.
College Board. (1976–1977). Student descriptive questionnaire. Princeton, NJ:
Educational Testing Service.
Cross, P. (1977). Not can, but will college teachers be improved? New Direc-
tions for Higher Education, 17, 1–15.
Dunning, D., Meyerowitz, J. A., & Holzberg, A. D. (1989). Ambiguity and
self-evaluation: The role of idiosyncratic trait definitions in self-serving
assessments of ability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57,
1082–1090.
Isaacowitz, D. M., Lockenhoff, C. E., Lane, R. D., Wright, R., Sechrest, L.,
Riedel, R., et al. (2007). Age Differences in recognition of emotion
in lexical stimuli and facial expressions. Psychology and Aging, 22, 147–
159.
Kruger, J. (1999). Lake Woebegon be gone! The “below-average effect” and
the egocentric nature of comparative ability judgments. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 221–232.
MacPherson, S. E., Phillips, L. H., & Della Sala, S. (2002). Age, executive
function, and social decision-making: A dorsolateral prefrontal theory of
cognitive aging. Psychology and Aging, 17, 598–609.
Madey, S. F., & Gomez, R. (2003). Reduced optimism for perceived age-
related medical conditions. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25, 213–
219.
Malatesta, C., Izard, C. E., Culver, C., & Nicolich, M. (1987). Emotion
communication skills in young, middle-aged, and older women. Psychol-
ogy and Aging, 2, 193–203.
Mather, M., & Carstensen, L. (2005). Aging and motivated cognition: The
positivity effect in attention and memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9,
496–502.
1188 ZELL AND ALICKE

Moore, D. A., & Small, A. (2007). Error and bias in comparative judgment:
On being both better and worse than we think we are. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 92, 972–989.
Moore, D. A., & Kim, T. G. (2003). Myopic social prediction and the solo
comparison effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85,
1121–1135.
Otten, W., & van der Pligt, J. (1996). Context effects in the measurement of
comparative optimism in probability judgments. Journal of Social and
Clinical Psychology, 15, 80–101.
Sedikides, C., Gaertner, L., & Toguchi, Y. (2003). Pancultural self-
enhancement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 60–79.
Suls, J., Lemos, K., & Stewart, H. L. (2002). Self-esteem, construal, and
comparisons with the self, friends, and peers. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 82, 252–261.
Suls, J., & Mullen, B. (1983). Social and temporal bases of self-evaluation in
the elderly: Theory and evidence. International Journal of Aging and
Human Development, 18, 111–120.
Svenson, O. (1981). Are we all less risky and more skillful than our fellow
drivers? Acta Psychologica, 47, 143–148.
Tabachnik, N., Crocker, J., & Alloy, L. B. (1983). Depression, social com-
parison, and the false consensus effect. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 45, 688–699.
Taylor, S. E., Lerner, J. S., Sherman, D. K., Sage, R. M., & McDowell, N. K.
(2003a). Are self-enhancing cognitions associated with healthy or
unhealthy biological profiles? Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 85, 605–615.
Taylor, S. E., Lerner, J. S., Sherman, D. K., Sage, R. M., & McDowell, N. K.
(2003b). Portrait of the self-enhancer: Well-adjusted and well-liked or
maladjusted and friendless? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
84, 165–176.
Vautier, S., & Bonnefon, J. F. (2008). Is the above-average effect measurable
at all? The validity of the self-reported happiness minus others’ perceived
happiness construct. Applied Psychological Measurement, 32, 575–584.
Weinstein, N. D. (1980). Unrealistic optimism about future life events.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 806–820.
Windschitl, P. D., Kruger, J., & Sims, E. N. (2003). The influence of egocen-
trism and focalism on people’s optimism in competition: When what
affects us equally affects me more. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 85, 389–408.