Social Cognition
Better Than Average Task
Also called: better-than-average effect task, above-average effect, illusory superiority task, self-enhancement task, comparative self-evaluation task
Measure the better-than-average effect: participants rate everyday qualities and skills for themselves and for the average person their age, in two parts on one scale.
3-5 minUntimed
Free to start: 10 free participants per account, then $0.99 per participant for academic research, or any yearly plan. Try it here first, with no account.
- Papers, 2021 to 2025
- 58
- Evidence grade
- D
- Registered clinical studies
- 0
What it measures
Measures the better-than-average effect. Participants rate how well 24 everyday qualities and skills, such as keeping promises or having a good memory, describe them and the average person their age, in two parts. The main score is how much more favorably people rate themselves than the average person.
Constructs
- Better-than-average effect
- Self-enhancement
- Social comparison
- Self-evaluation
Research uses
- Social cognition research
- Self-evaluation and self-enhancement research
- Cross-cultural comparison of self-evaluation
- Within-study group comparison
How the paradigm works
The better than average task measures the better-than-average effect: most people rate themselves above the average person on good qualities and below the average person on bad ones. Alicke (1985) had students rate trait words for how well each described them and how well it described the average college student, in two booklets in counterbalanced order, on a scale from 1 to 7. An earlier group had rated the words for how desirable they are and how far a person can control them. As Ziano, Mok and Feldman (2021) report his results, the students rated themselves 1.03 points above the average student on the most desirable traits a person can control and 0.50 points above on those they cannot, and 1.03 and 0.81 points below on the least desirable ones. Ziano and colleagues replicated the effect of desirability with 1,573 online participants and the same traits; the added effect of control was smaller. Across 291 samples, people rated themselves above their average peer (dz = 0.78), more for personality traits than for abilities and for positive than for negative qualities, and less in East Asian than in European American samples (Zell, Strickhouser, Sedikides and Alicke, 2020).
More about the paradigm
Here, participants rate 24 phrases written for this task, such as "Keeps promises" or "Sings out of tune", six of each kind (desirable or undesirable, largely or hardly under a person's control). Each phrase is rated from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very well) for how well it describes the participant, and in a separate part for how well it describes the average person their age. Which part comes first is drawn from the session's seed, so half of the sessions start with each, unless the study fixes it, and the order of the phrases is drawn for each part. The phrases are written in each of the eight languages as short verb phrases, so no language needs a gendered adjective, and none concerns health, appearance, money, politics, religion or a group of people. One practice phrase comes first, a 12-phrase form keeps three of each kind, and there is no time limit.
The main score is how much more favorably the participant rated themselves than the average person: their own rating minus the average person's for desirable phrases, and the reverse for undesirable ones, averaged over the phrases, from -6 to 6. The gaps for desirable and for undesirable phrases, the same score over the phrases a person can largely control and over those they cannot, and the shares of phrases rated more and less favorably for oneself come with it. The kinds of phrase are this task's design, set by its authors, where Alicke classed his traits from a panel's ratings. Scores describe how people rate themselves beside the average person their age; they are research measures for comparing groups, and they do not diagnose or describe a person's character.
Scores
- Better-Than-Average Scorescore
- Over the phrases rated for both, the participant's own rating minus the average person's for desirable phrases and the average person's minus their own for undesirable phrases, from -6 to 6.
- Positive means the participant rated themselves more favorably than the average person their age, the better-than-average effect
- Gap on Desirable Phrasesscore
- Over the desirable phrases, the participant's own rating minus the average person's.
- Positive means desirable qualities were rated as describing oneself better than the average person
- Gap on Undesirable Phrasesscore
- Over the undesirable phrases, the participant's own rating minus the average person's.
- Negative means undesirable qualities were rated as describing oneself less than the average person
- Score on Phrases a Person Controlsscore
- The main score over the phrases largely under a person's control, such as keeping promises.
- Informational
- Score on Phrases Hardly Under Controlscore
- The main score over the phrases largely outside a person's control, such as having a good memory.
- Informational
- Control Differencescore
- The score on phrases a person controls minus the score on phrases hardly under control.
- Positive means more favorable self-ratings where a person has control, as Alicke (1985) found
- Phrases Rated Above Average%
- The share of phrases rated more favorably for the participant than for the average person.
- Informational
- Phrases Rated Below Average%
- The share of phrases rated less favorably for the participant than for the average person.
- Informational
- Median Rating Timems
- Median time from a rating screen appearing to a rating, over ratings at or after 100 ms.
- Informational
- Ratings Under 100 mscount
- Ratings made less than 100 ms after their screen appeared.
- 0 expected
- Phrases Rated for Bothcount
- Phrases rated for the participant and for the average person, out of 24 (12 in the short form).
- Informational
Use and evidence
58 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract, up 12% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 369 of 632 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.
Show the numbers
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 17 |
| 2024 | 11 |
| 2023 | 8 |
| 2022 | 16 |
| 2021 | 6 |
| 2020 | 13 |
| 2019 | 14 |
| 2018 | 11 |
| 2017 | 6 |
| 2016 | 8 |
| 2015 | 9 |
| 2014 | 11 |
| 2013 | 16 |
| 2012 | 12 |
| 2011 | 11 |
| 2010 | 11 |
| 2009 | 7 |
| 2008 | 4 |
| 2007 | 16 |
| 2006 | 6 |
| 2005 | 6 |
| 2004 | 5 |
| 2003 | 3 |
| 2002 | 2 |
| 2001 | 0 |
| 2000 | 1 |
Use grade D
30 to 99 papers from 2021 to 2025.
Evidence grade D
Little published measurement evidence found.
- Papers on test-retest reliability
- 0
- Papers on reliability or validity
- 10
- Registered clinical studies using it as an outcome
- 0
Measured on ConductCognition
Pooled across the studies that feed our platform norms, by device group. A figure needs 50 or more people.
No pooled figure yet.
How the grades work
Use: A is 1,000 or more papers from 2021 to 2025, B 300 to 999, C 100 to 299, D 30 to 99 and E fewer than 30. Evidence: A means at least 25 papers report its test-retest reliability and at least 25 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome; B, at least 8 test-retest papers, and either 5 registered clinical studies or 150 reliability or validity papers; C, at least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies; D, little published measurement evidence found. The counts measure use. They include every paper that names the task in its title or abstract. Grades describe the published research on this task, not ConductCognition's version of it.
Source: ConductCognition test census 0.44.0, counted 12 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Task design
The trial sequence as the test runs in ConductCognition.
- Phrases
- 24 written for this task about everyday qualities and skills, such as "Keeps promises" or "Sings out of tune", 6 of each kind: desirable or undesirable, and largely or hardly under a person's control. Each is a short verb phrase, so no language needs a gendered adjective, and none has health, appearance, money, political, religious or group content. They are shown in the session's language.
- Ratings
- Each phrase rated from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very well) on seven buttons: once for how well it describes the participant and once, in the other part, for how well it describes the average person their age.
- Order
- Two parts, one for each. Which part comes first is drawn from the session's seed, so half of the sessions start with each, or fixed by the study; the order of the phrases is drawn for each part. One practice phrase comes first and is not scored.
- Length
- 24 phrases by default; a 12-phrase form keeps 3 of each kind.
- Scores
- How much more favorably the participant rated themselves than the average person, from -6 to 6: their own rating minus the average person's for desirable phrases and the reverse for undesirable ones. Also the gaps for desirable and for undesirable phrases, the score over the phrases a person can largely control and over those they cannot, and the shares of phrases rated above and below average.
Alicke (1985) classed his trait words by a panel's ratings of how desirable they are and how far a person controls them; this task's four kinds of phrase are set by its authors. The average person of the participant's age takes the place of his average college student, and the two parts follow his two booklets. Scores describe ratings of oneself beside the average person and are best compared between groups; they do not describe a person's character and do not diagnose.
Quality checks
Each session is marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason, before you see its scores.
Scored rows: the scored run's ratings of the phrases. No rating is correct, so accuracy is not judged against chance. A run with no phrase rated for both the participant and the average person, or with fewer than half the planned phrases rated for both, is invalid, and any other shortfall is flagged; one number chosen for at least 90% of the ratings is flagged. Ratings under 200 ms on at least half the screens invalidate.
Why these rules
There is no correct option to compare with chance, so accuracy is not judged against chance. The scores describe how a person rates themselves beside the average person their age, so any rating is a possible answer, and so is rating both the same. The effect needs each phrase rated for both. One number for nearly every rating suggests the scale was not used; it is flagged for review because it can also be a real answer. An answer under 200 ms is faster than a simple visual reaction, so it cannot reflect the item. Following response-time effort screening for untimed tests (Wise and Kong 2005), the session is invalid only when at least half the answers are that fast.
No percentile. Scores and quality flags only.
Running this test
Settings you can change
| Setting | Standard | Allowed |
|---|---|---|
| Phrases | 24 phrases (standard) | 12 phrases, 24 phrases (standard) |
| Rated first | Drawn for each session (standard) | Drawn for each session (standard), The participant, The average person their age |
Yearly plans can change settings within these limits. Free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Need a setting this test does not have?
Devices and languages
- Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. Participant devices
- Languages: English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese.
- Available on: Every plan, including the free plan.
- No percentile. Scores and quality flags only. How norms work
- Recruiting online? See the setup guides for Prolific, Sona Systems, CloudResearch Connect and Qualtrics.
Cite and describe
Participants completed the Better Than Average Task in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; Alicke MD, 1985; Zell E, Strickhouser JE, Sedikides C, Alicke MD, 2020), with the standard settings (phrases: 24 phrases; rated first: Drawn for each session). The main score was better-than-average score (over the phrases rated for both, the participant's own rating minus the average person's for desirable phrases and the average person's minus their own for undesirable phrases, from -6 to 6).
ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.
- Alicke, M. D. (1985). Global self-evaluation as determined by the desirability and controllability of trait adjectives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(6), 1621-1630. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.6.1621
- Ziano, I., Mok, P. Y., & Feldman, G. (2021). Replication and extension of Alicke (1985) better-than-average effect for desirable and controllable traits. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(6), 1005-1017. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620948973A replication with 1,573 online participants, and the account of Alicke's procedure and results this page uses.
- Zell, E., Strickhouser, J. E., Sedikides, C., & Alicke, M. D. (2020). The better-than-average effect in comparative self-evaluation: A comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 146(2), 118-149. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000218The effect across 291 samples, and what makes it larger or smaller.
Source papers
- Zell, Strickhouser, Sedikides and Alicke (2020): across 291 samples from 124 articles and more than 950,000 participants, people rated themselves above their average peer (dz = 0.78, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.84).Paradigm source, Adults
Questions
How long does the Better Than Average Task take?
About 3 to 5 minutes, as listed in the test library.
What device does a participant need?
Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. The browser must be Chrome, Edge, Firefox or Safari.
What scores does it produce?
Better-Than-Average Score, Gap on Desirable Phrases, Gap on Undesirable Phrases, Score on Phrases a Person Controls, Score on Phrases Hardly Under Control, Control Difference, Phrases Rated Above Average, Phrases Rated Below Average, Median Rating Time, Ratings Under 100 ms and Phrases Rated for Both. Each session is also marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason.
How widely is the Better Than Average Task used in research?
58 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract, up 12% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 369 of 632 test families in the ConductCognition test census (use grade D). Source: ConductCognition test census 0.44.0, counted 12 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
How much reliability evidence does the Better Than Average Task have?
In the published research, 0 papers report its test-retest reliability and 0 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome (evidence grade D in the ConductCognition test census).
Does it report a percentile?
No. Scores and quality flags only.
Which settings can a researcher change?
Phrases (12 phrases, 24 phrases (standard)) and rated first (Drawn for each session (standard), The participant, The average person their age). Settings can be changed on yearly plans; free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Which languages can participants use?
Participants can take this test in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese, with its words in the same language. English is on every plan, and the other languages come with yearly plans. Have a native speaker read the machine-translated text before launch.
Is this a clinical test?
No. ConductCognition is for research use only. It runs, scores and exports the test; clinical interpretation is outside the platform.
Every test: the full test list.
Run this test in your next study
Start free with 10 free participants on any test, then use participant credits or a yearly plan.