Research in which people compare themselves with an average peer has consistently shown that people evaluate themselves more favorably than they evaluate others. Seven studies were conducted to demonstrate that the magnitude of this better-than-average effect depends on the level of abstraction in the comparison. These studies showed that people were less biased when they compared themselves with an individuated target than when they compared themselves with a nonindividuated target, namely, the average college student. The better-than-average effect was reduced more when the observer had personal contact with the comparison target than when no personal contact was established. Differences in the magnitude of the better-than-average effect could not be attributed to the contemporaneous nature of the target's presentation, communication from the target, perceptual vividness, implied evaluation, or perceptions of similarity.

No abstract

No abstract

Laboratory research on rape has examined how the context of the offense and characteristics of the victim influence responsibility ascriptions. The present research examined the influence of the perpetrator's personality on such attributions. This study distinguished between evaluative (general likability) and descriptive (aggressiveness) components of the perpetrator's personality and assessed the effect of each on subjects' confidence of the perpetrator's guilt or innocence for an alleged acquaintance rape. Results showed that subjects were more confident in the defendant's guilt when he was described by cohorts as generally dislikable versus likable, and as aggressive versus unaggressive. Assessments of academic punishment and legal responsibility generally paralleled these findings. Females were more confident in the defendant's guilt, and this was particularly true when the defendant was described as aggressive.

No abstract