Neural systems of social comparison and the “above-average” effect
Abstract
Extant neural models of self-evaluation are dominated by associations with medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC) and posterior cingulate cortex (PCC) function and have mostly been developed from studies differentiating self-evaluation from evaluation of other people. Although self-evaluation is robustly characterized by systematic biases, current neural models of self-evaluation cannot speak to their neurobiology because of a lack of research. The few extant studies have made claims about associations between bias and ventral anterior cingulate cortex (vACC) function but have confounded bias with the valence of experimental stimuli. In study 1, fMRI was used to examine the neurobiology of the "above-average" effect, a robust self-evaluation bias. The majority of people judge their personality to be more desirable (i.e., more positive and less negative traits) than their peers' personalities. MPFC and PCC were significantly more activated by a condition that reduced susceptibility to "above-average" judgments. However, MPFC and PFCC activity were not modulated by individual differences in "above-average" judgments. VACC activity distinguished positive from negative valence but did not predict individual differences in "above-average" judgments. Instead, the extent to which participants viewed themselves as "above average" was negatively correlated with orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) and, to a lesser extent, dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC) activation. A complementary study found that mental load increases "above-average" judgments (study 2). These findings are the first to directly examine the neural systems involved in social judgment bias and have implications for the association between frontal lobe dysfunction and poor insight.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The less positively people rated themselves relative to others, the greater the activation in medial PFo and to a lesser extent dorsal anterior cingulate cortex area 24.
“The less positively people rated themselves relative to others, the greater the activation level in the medial PFo [and to a lesser extent also in the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (area 24), a part of the MFa].”
From Localization of Dysfunction in Major Depressive Disorder: Prefrontal Cortex and Amygdala (2011) · cites this paper as [110]
PFo activation correlated with the degree to which a person's self-valuation exceeded their valuation of others.
“activations in PFo correlated with how much each person’s valuation of ‘self’ exceeded their valuations of others.”
From Localization of Dysfunction in Major Depressive Disorder: Prefrontal Cortex and Amygdala (2011) · cites this paper as [110]
Self-evaluations are more positive than evaluations of others.
“Self-evaluations are also more positive than the evaluations of others (110).”
From Localization of Dysfunction in Major Depressive Disorder: Prefrontal Cortex and Amygdala (2011) · cites this paper as [110]
In humans, decreased activation in and lesions of PFo correlate with excessively high self-esteem.
“In humans, decreased activation in and lesions of PFo correlate with excessively high self-esteem (109, 110).”
From Localization of Dysfunction in Major Depressive Disorder: Prefrontal Cortex and Amygdala (2011) · cites this paper as [110]
The precuneus and posterior cingulate cortices are thought to support mentalizing processes, facilitating an individual's ability to comprehend or interpret other people's thoughts, feelings and intentions.
“The precuneus and posterior cingulate cortices, dominant hubs of the default mode network, are thought to support mentalizing processes, facilitating an individual’s ability to comprehend or interpret other people’s thoughts, feelings and intentions (Beer and Hughes, 2010; Frith and Frith, 2003; Hyatt et al., 2015).”
From Neural correlates of social exclusion across ages: A coordinate-based meta-analysis of functional MRI studies (2017) · cites this paper as Beer and Hughes, 2010
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 48 · Cited by 131
- Authors
- Beer, J. S., & Hughes, B. L.
- Affiliations
- The University of Texas at Austin (US)
- Corresponding author
- Beer, Jennifer S.
- Venue
- NeuroImage
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2010-02
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 2671-2679
- ISSN
- 1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2150781818
- Cited by
- 131
- References
- 48
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 12
- FWCI
- 3.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
- Keywords
- above-average effect, self-assessment bias, social comparison, medial prefrontal cortex, posterior cingulate cortex, ventral anterior cingulate cortex, orbitofrontal cortex, dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, mental workload, individual differences, frontal lobe dysfunction, insight
- MeSH terms
- Brain, Brain Mapping, Female, Humans, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Judgment, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Self Concept, Social Perception, Young Adult
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review