The tendency for people to evaluate themselves more favorably than an average-peer--the better-than-average effect (BTAE)--is among the most well-documented effects in the social-psychological literature. The BTAE has been demonstrated in many populations with various methodologies, and several explanations have been advanced for it. Two essential questions remain conspicuously unanswered in the BTAE literature. The first concerns the extent to which the BTAE can be represented as a social-comparative phenomenon, and the second concerns the role that strategic motivational processes play in self versus average-peer judgments. With regard to the first question, Study 1 provides direct experimental evidence that self versus average-peer judgments are made relationally rather than independently and, further, that self-ratings anchor these relational judgments. Moreover, Study 1 demonstrates that the consequence of this comparison is for judgments of average to be assimilated toward, not contrasted from, self-ratings. Studies 2-4 provide evidence that self-enhancement motives play a moderating role in the outcome of self versus average-peer judgments. We show that for dimensions on which the self is positively evaluated, enhancement motives restrict the extent to which average-peer assimilation occurs (Study 2). But for dimensions on which the self is negatively evaluated, enhancement motives amplify average-peer assimilation (Studies 3 and 4). Discussion focuses on the function of such differential assimilation, the relation of the current findings to extant perspectives, and directions for future research.

Authenticity refers to behaving in a manner that aligns with one’s true self. The true self, though, is positive. From a self-enhancement standpoint, people exaggerate their strengths and overlook their shortcomings, forming positively-distorted views of themselves. We propose a self-enhancement framework of authenticity, advocating a reciprocal relation between the two constructs. Trait self-enhancement was associated with higher trait authenticity (Study 1), and day-to-day fluctuations in self-enhancement predicted corresponding variations in state authenticity (Study 2). Furthermore, manipulating self-enhancement elevated state authenticity (Studies 3–4), which was associated with meaning in life (Study 4), and manipulating authenticity augmented self-enhancement, which was associated with meaning in life and thriving (Study 5). The authentic self is largely the self-enhancing self.

Previous studies ( Baumeister & Steinhilber, 1984 Baumeister, R. F. 1984. Choking under pressure: Self-consciousness and paradoxical effects of incentives on skillful performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46: 610–620. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] [Google Scholar] ; Schlenker, Phillips, Boniecki, & Schlenker (1995a) Schlenker, B. R. , Phillips, S. T. , Boniecki, K. A. and Schlenker, D. R. 1995a. Championship pressures: Choking or triumphing in one's own territory?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68: 632–643. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] [Google Scholar] have found conflicting results regarding whether home teams have an advantage or not in athletic performance. We conducted two studies to explore the effects of basketball teams playing at home in playoff competition. We archived more than fifty years of National Basketball Association (NBA) playoff data, extending previous research to include a longer range of time and broader sample of NBA playoff games. We also extended previous studies by archiving a unique sample of college playoff basketball competition. Results are discussed in terms of both theoretical and applied implications. In sum, we found virtually no evidence of a home choke and strong evidence in favor of a home court advantage.