Cited by 131Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesPersonality Traits and PsychologyNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior

Neural systems of social comparison and the “above-average” effect

Beer, Jennifer S., Hughes, Brent L.·2010·NeuroImage

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

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.10.075

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 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