By Jason Hreha

Glossary

Illusory Superiority

Reviewed by Jason Hreha

Published 3 min read

Two people can both claim to be better-than-average drivers. One is thinking about caution. The other is thinking about skill in bad weather. They appear to be making the same comparison, but “better” has changed underneath it.

Before deciding that either driver is wrong, we need to know what is being measured and who counts as average.

What is illusory superiority?

Illusory superiority is the tendency to rate oneself more favorably than other people on a trait or ability. It is often called the better-than-average effect, although researchers do not always use the two labels for exactly the same measure.

The effect can appear in judgments about ability, personality, conduct, and future prospects. It does not mean that everyone believes they are exceptional at everything. The trait, the comparison group, the evidence available, and the way the question is asked all matter.

Above average does not always mean mistaken

The phrase “better than average” creates a tempting statistical objection: everyone cannot be above average. But that depends on the average.

If a score is skewed, more than half of a group can be above the arithmetic mean. Most drivers, for example, could have no crashes while a small number have many, putting most people below the mean number of crashes. People may also compare themselves with a vague or unrepresentative “average person,” or define the trait in a way that favors their own strengths.

A better-than-average judgment is therefore not automatically an illusion. To show a biased comparison, a study needs a clear measure, a clear reference group, and some reason to think the self-rating is too favorable.

Why the trait matters

A comparison about “leadership” is not the same as a comparison about height. The first term gathers several qualities into one favorable label. Which qualities count, and how much control a person seems to have over them, can change the judgment.

In experiments by Mark Alicke, the desirability of a trait and how controllable it seemed affected global self-evaluations. This is one result within a larger literature, not a single explanation for every better-than-average finding.

When the effect reverses

People do not always put themselves above average. For difficult tasks, comparative judgments can reverse.

In Justin Kruger’s studies of the below-average effect, people tended to judge themselves worse than others on difficult tasks. The direction of the comparison changed with the difficulty of the task.

This matters because illusory superiority is often described as if it were a fixed trait—some people are simply deluded about their greatness. The research points to a more conditional judgment. Change the difficulty of the task, and the direction can change too.

Is illusory superiority the Dunning–Kruger effect?

No. The Dunning–Kruger effect concerns the relationship between measured performance and the accuracy of self-assessment, especially calibration among lower performers. Illusory superiority concerns a favorable comparison with other people.

The two can overlap in a particular study, but one confident claim is not enough to diagnose either effect. Someone can rate herself above average and be right. Someone can be badly calibrated without making an explicit social comparison.

Make “better” hold still

Make the comparison less accommodating. Which group counts as average? Which behavior measures the trait? Over what period? What evidence would distinguish an accurate self-assessment from a flattering one?

Then replace the global label with observable cases. “I am a better manager than most” is difficult to test. “My team has lower unwanted turnover, meets more deadlines, and reports fewer unresolved conflicts than comparable teams” is at least a claim that can meet evidence.

The point is not to assume the worst about yourself. It is to stop “better” from changing shape whenever the comparison gets uncomfortable.

Sources