People who have not been victimized by negative life events tend to perceive themselves as less vulnerable than others (i.e., as "uniquely invulnerable") to victimization. We examined the conditions under which people's judgments of others' vulnerability differ from judgments of their own vulnerability.In Study 1, subjects saw vague comparison targets (either the "average person" or the "average college student") as more vulnerable than themselves to 10 negative events. In contrast, subjects perceived a specific target (their closest friend, sibling, or same-sex parent) as equally invulnerable as themselves.In Study 2, subjects who were instructed to consider a vague, abstract target (either the "average college student" or "one of your friends") made downward comparisons, choosing a real or hypothetical other who was especially vulnerable to a particular event. On the other hand, subjects who were instructed to consider a specific, concrete target (their closest friend) perceived no self-other differences in risk status. We concluded that when given the opportunity, subjects actively engage in downward comparisons, thereby seeing themselves as relatively invulnerable. Whereas vague targets facilitate downward comparisons, specific targets make such comparisons more difficult. Both cognitive and motivational mechanisms underlying such downward comparisons are discussed.Nonvictims, individuals who have not been victimized by undesirable life events, often underestimate their own personal vulnerability to victimization in relation to other people's vulnerability. In other words, nonvictims appear to have an "illusion of unique invulnerability," in which they see themselves as less vulnerable to victimization than they see most other people (Perloff, 1983). This biased perception is reflected in the common saying, "It won't happen to me," a statement that generally implies that it will happen to others instead. Although many studies have demonstrated the existence of these illusions of unique invulnerability, we still know relatively little about the mediating processes underlying these perceptions. In our two studies, we explore the social comparison processes that nonvictims use when estimating their own and others' risk. Specifically, we examine the conditions under which people's judgments of others' vulnerability differ from judgments of their own vulnerability.Numerous studies have documented the existence of illusions of unique invulnerability among nonvictims. For example, people have judged themselves as less likely than others to be victims of diseases such as cancer, heart attack, pneumonia, alcoholism, and venereal disease (

As a test of 'control theory', 75 Type A/B undergraduates completed a multidimensional health locus-of-control measure. Type A behaviour correlated significantly with beliefs regarding personal control over health, but not with beliefs regarding chance or powerful others. These findings suggest Type As' desire for control is multidimensional.

Physicians often need to make prognostic judgments. In the present study, the accuracy was explored of survival estimates for patients in the Medical Intensive Care Unit (MICU). Estimates were made by physicians and nurses several times during each patient’s stay in the MICU and were compared to those of the APACHE II scale, a widely used quantitative index for critically ill patients. ROC curve and calibration curve analyses were performed to assess the accuracy of these estimates. Results revealed that MICU personnel were fairly accurate discriminators of patients who survived vs. who died, although there was a consistent tendency to underestimate survival. In addition, there was some relationship between the level of physician training and forecasting accuracy, but only within the patient’s first 24 hours in the MICU. Finally, the estimates of physicians did not differ significantly from those of the APACHE II scale. Physicians tended to be better calibrated in their predictions, while the APACHE II scale was slightly superior in terms of discrimination.

No abstract

No abstract