False-Uniqueness Effect: the Illusion of Specialness

False-Uniqueness Effect

The false-uniqueness effect is a well-studied phenomenon in social psychology that deals with an individual’s tendency to perceive their own abilities or personal attributes as more unique than they actually are. This cognitive bias leads people to overestimate their distinctiveness in comparison to others, especially regarding positive traits or desirable behaviors.

Various studies have demonstrated the prevalence of the false-uniqueness effect in different contexts, such as estimating the popularity of health-protective behaviors or underestimating the number of people who share the same opinion. This cognitive bias affects both individuals’ self-perception and their perceptions of the social environments they inhabit.

This cognitive bias is in contrast to the false consensus effect, in which people tend to exaggerate how normal and typical their beliefs and behaviors are in comparison to those of others. Both are related to self-esteem, which is an important aspect in determining how people perceive their own behavior.

False-Uniqueness Theoretical Foundations

Snyder and Shneckel first coined the term “illusion of uniqueness” in 1975 to describe how people mistakenly assume they are different from others. However, it was Suls, Wan, and Sanders (1988) who originated the phrase false-uniqueness effect in their research.

These two studies found that those who had low levels of self-reported fear or who engaged in healthy behaviors underestimated the number of low-fear peers as well as the prevalence of those who were healthy when compared to the actual numbers. This effect is closely related to other cognitive biases, such as the false consensus effect, which involves people overestimating the extent to which others share their own opinions or characteristics.

The importance of understanding cognitive biases lies in their potential impact on decision-making, self-perception, and social interactions. For the false-uniqueness effect specifically, it can lead to an inflated self-image or a sense that one is particularly special or talented.

Studies have explored this phenomenon in various contexts, such as name uniqueness and ability dimensions. A study by Suls, Wan, and Sanders indicated that false-uniqueness effects emerge when people compare their own estimates with actual sample figures. This suggests that the effect might arise from misperceptions of the distribution of traits in the population.


Egocentrism is the tendency for people to focus exclusively, or at least more heavily, on their own characteristics while ignoring the feelings, thoughts, attributes, and/or traits of others. This suggests that persons who have strong abilities, strong qualities, make significant contributions, or have intense emotions are more likely to rank themselves above average in all of these dimensions. People will perceive themselves to be below average if they judge themselves to be low in all of the preceding domains.

This tendency to focus on one’s own absolute position explains why people may incorrectly view particular features, emotions, or attitudes to be both favorably and negatively unique. When making a social comparison, people tend to think a lot more (and possibly completely) on themselves when they should be thinking about others as well, which could lessen illusory uniqueness effects.

Social Comparison Theory

Social comparison theory, proposed by Leon Festinger, provides a framework for understanding the false uniqueness effect. The theory suggests that people have a natural tendency to compare themselves with others to evaluate their own abilities and opinions.

There are two main types of social comparisons:

  • Upward comparison: Comparing oneself with someone perceived as superior or more successful.
  • Downward comparison: Comparing oneself with someone perceived as inferior or less successful.

The false-uniqueness effect can be partially explained by a preference for upward comparisons. When individuals engage in upward comparisons, they might focus more on their own positive attributes and underestimate the prevalence of these attributes in the general population. This, in turn, could contribute to the perception that their own desirable qualities are more unique than they actually are.

When asked to make a social comparison, we are considerably more likely to recall information about ourselves than information about others. As a result, the more easily knowledge about one’s particular trait comes to memory, the more weight it will have in the uniqueness judgment. This is related to the availability heuristic, which states that people value knowledge that they can recall quickly.

According to the self-enhancement theory, people may also choose to compare themselves to groups that are less successful than them (downward social comparison), because knowledge about people who do not share their attributes may come to mind more rapidly.

Differential Construal Theory offers an alternative and integrative explanation for false consensus and false uniqueness effects. According to this theory, people construe their own actions and traits differently from those of others, which could lead to biased perceptions of uniqueness or consensus.

Psychological and Behavioral Implications

This effect leads individuals to believe that their desirable traits and behaviors are more unique than they actually are. By overestimating their uniqueness, people can feel a sense of increased self-worth and reinforce positive self-perceptions.

However, this also means that their self-esteem may be built upon inaccurate assumptions, making it vulnerable to evidence that contradicts the false uniqueness belief.

Motivated Reasoning and Behaviour

The false-uniqueness effect can contribute to motivated reasoning, which is the propensity to accept, seek, and remember information in a way that confirms one’s prior beliefs or values. For instance, individuals may be more likely to selectively expose themselves to information that supports their perceived uniqueness while ignoring or discounting information that challenges it.

This biased information processing can create a self-reinforcing feedback loop, influencing their behavior and decision-making in ways that may not always be beneficial in the long run.

Locus of Control and Self-Presentation

Locus of control, referring to the degree to which individuals believe they have control over their life events, can be influenced by false-uniqueness. Those who exhibit false-uniqueness may be more likely to have an internal locus of control, meaning they perceive themselves as agents with the ability to shape their own lives.

This can lead to increased self-confidence in their abilities, but may also contribute to an unrealistic sense of control over external factors.

Additionally, false-uniqueness can impact self-presentation, or the way individuals present themselves to others. Believing that one’s positive attributes are unique can shape the way an individual represents themselves in social situations, affecting the impressions they create. This might result in an overly self-assured attitude or display of arrogance, potentially hindering their ability to develop healthy relationships.

Health and Safety Behaviors

The effect has implications in the field of health and safety behaviors. For instance, individuals might underestimate the prevalence of certain protective behaviors among their peers. This can lead to reluctance in adopting such behaviors themselves, as they may view it as uncommon or socially undesirable. Research suggests that the false-uniqueness effect might be particularly relevant during the COVID-19 pandemic concerning behaviors like mask-wearing and vaccination-seeking.

Jerry Suls,  Choi K. Wan,  Glenn S. Sanders conducted a study in 1988 which found that the prevalence of health-protective behaviors was underestimated, potentially leading to lower adoption rates. Therefore, raising awareness and creating a sense of social engagement around such behaviors are important to improve public health outcomes.

For example, health campaigns that emphasize the commonality of mask-wearing and vaccination might be effective in altering people’s perceptions of these behaviors.

Highlighting testimonials from various demographic groups
Using shared stories from individuals who have successfully adopted these behaviors

This approach can help people identify with the behavior, reduce their sense of isolation, and promote adherence to health-protective measures.

Group Decisions and Consensus

In group settings, the false-uniqueness effect can influence consensus estimates and decision-making processes. Individuals might believe their own opinions are more unique than they actually are. This can lead to an overestimation of diversity in opinions or preferences within a group, leading to challenges in reaching a consensus.

To mitigate the impact of the false-uniqueness effect in consensus estimation, groups can employ several strategies:

  • Establish open communication channels, encouraging sharing and discussion of ideas and differing viewpoints
  • Emphasize collaborative decision-making to create a sense of shared ownership and understanding of the process
  • Acknowledge commonalities in perspectives to demonstrate the prevalence of similar opinions within the group

Numeracy, Risk, and Psychological Fears

When it comes to understanding numbers and making decisions involving risks, the false-uniqueness effect can also have consequences. People with low numeracy skills may incorrectly assume that they possess knowledge about probability, risk, and statistics that others do not. Conversely, those with high numeracy skills may also downplay their expertise, believing their skills are not as unique or valuable as they truly are.

In practical terms, this can have significant implications for decision-making in situations involving risk or uncertainty. For instance, an individual may overestimate their ability to invest in volatile financial markets, thinking their insights are unique, and subsequently expose themselves to significant losses.

Psychological fears can also be influenced by the false-uniqueness effect. If a person believes that their fears are unique or rare, they may be less likely to seek help or support. On the other hand, they may underestimate the prevalence of common fears, which can result in feelings of embarrassment and isolation.

  1. Alicke, M. D., & Govorun, O. (2005). The Better-Than-Average Effect. In M. D. Alicke, D. A. Dunning, & J. I. Krueger (Eds.), Studies in self and identity. The Self in Social Judgment. Psychology Press
  2. Chambers, J.R. (2008), Explaining False Uniqueness: Why We are Both Better and Worse Than Others. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2: 878-894.
  3. Gilovich T. Differential construal and the false consensus effect. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1990;59(4):623-634. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.59.4.623
  4. Kruger, J. (1999). Lake Wobegon be gone! The “below-average effect” and the egocentric nature of comparative ability judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(2), 221–232.
  5. Kulig, J.W. (2013), What’s in a name? Our false uniqueness!. Br. J. Soc. Psychol., 52: 173-179
  6. McFarland, C., & Miller, D. T. (1990). Judgments of Self-Other Similarity: Just Like Other People, Only More So. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16(3), 475-484
  7. Suls, J., & Wan, C. K. (1987). In search of the false-uniqueness phenomenon: Fear and estimates of social consensus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 211–217
  8. Suls, J., Wan, C.K. and Sanders, G.S. (1988), False Consensus and False Uniqueness in Estimating the Prevalence of Health-Protective Behaviors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18: 66-79
  9. Suls, J. (2007). False uniqueness bias. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Encyclopedia of social psychology (Vol. 1). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781412956253.n213