Illusory superiority
Illusory superiority, often referred to as the above-average effect, is a cognitive bias whereby individuals overestimate their own qualities and abilities relative to others. This phenomena leads people to believe they are better than average in various domains, including intelligence, performance, and other competencies.
How it works
This bias arises from our need for maintaining a positive self-image. Psychologically, individuals are motivated to view themselves in a favorable light, which can distort their self-assessments. Illusory superiority is reinforced by phenomena such as the Dunning-Kruger effect, where less competent individuals overestimate their abilities, while more competent ones may underestimate theirs, based on inaccurate self-perception and feedback mechanisms.
Examples
- A student believing they scored in the top tier of a test, only to find out later that their performance was below average.
- Managers consistently rating their leadership skills as above average compared to their peers, despite a lack of evidence or poor feedback.
- Drivers often believing they are more skilled than the majority, leading to overconfidence on the road.
Consequences
Illusory superiority can lead to poor decision-making and risk assessment as individuals may be oblivious to their limitations. In organizations, it can result in ineffective teamwork, with employees overestimating their contributions, whereas in personal contexts, it may hinder learning and self-improvement since individuals are less likely to recognize their areas for growth.
Counteracting
Ways to counteract illusory superiority include encouraging self-reflection and self-awareness practices, soliciting feedback from trusted peers or mentors, and engaging in continuous learning and skill improvement. Cognitive-behavioral therapy may also help individuals recognize and adjust their unrealistic self-perceptions.
Critiques
Some argue that a certain degree of illusory superiority may bolster self-confidence and motivation, serving a positive psychological function. Moreover, measuring the bias is often challenged by social and cultural factors that influence self-representation.
Fields of Impact
Also known as
Relevant Research
Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments
Dunning, D., & Kruger, J. (1999)
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121-1134
Are we all less risky and more skillful than our fellow drivers? Acta Psychologica, 47(2), 143-148
Svenson, O. (1981)
The trouble with overconfidence
Moore, D. A., & Healy, P. J. (2008)
Psychological Review, 115(2), 502-517
Recommended Books
Thinking, Fast and Slow
Daniel Kahneman
2011
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases
Daniel Kahneman, Paul Slovic, Amos Tversky
1982
Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me)
Carol Tavris, Elliot Aronson
2007
The Scout Mindset
Julia Galef
2021
Blindspot: Hidden Biases of Good People
Mahzarin R. Banaji, Anthony G. Greenwald
2013
Case Studies
Real-world examples showing how Illusory superiority manifests in practice
Context
A Series B SaaS startup was under pressure from investors to hit a major feature launch before the end of the quarter. The product and engineering leads believed their team was unusually efficient compared with peers and assumed they could compress customary QA and staging work to meet the deadline.
Situation
With two weeks to the public launch, the CTO insisted on a hard launch date and pushed to skip an extended beta and full regression testing. The product manager deferred concerns from QA and customer success, trusting the engineering team's past speed and their own assessment that the release was 'mostly done.'
The Bias in Action
Team leaders consistently compared themselves to an idealized internal baseline (their fastest sprint) rather than objective industry norms or historical defect rates, leading them to discount QA warnings. They believed their skills and processes were above average so they reduced testing cycles, declined a staggered rollout, and turned off a planned feature flag strategy. This overconfidence led them to ignore external signals — incomplete telemetry hooks and unresolved integration tests — assuming the edge cases would be minor.
Outcome
Within 36 hours of launch, a memory-leak bug in a new module caused repeated service degradations across major customer accounts and broke several integrations. The company rolled back the release after emergency patches but suffered substantial customer anger and trust erosion.