Tehila Kogut

Adolescents in high-achieving academic settings frequently compare themselves with exceptional peers, yet little is known about how such environments influence normative social comparisons (i.e., comparisons with an average peer). Across four complementary studies conducted in a school of excellence, we examined how students evaluate themselves relative to peers from their former “regular” schools and from their current high-achieving cohort, and how these comparisons relate to subjective well-being. Study 1 (N = 234) revealed a robust better-than-average (BTA) effect toward previous peers among both girls and boys. In contrast, when evaluating peers within the excellence environment, boys rated themselves as similar to their peers, whereas girls exhibited a worse-than-average (WTA) pattern, particularly in 10th grade. Study 2 (N = 155) compared 10th graders at the school of excellence with students at a standard school and showed that only in the excellence environment did girls perceive their peers as more capable than themselves. A longitudinal follow-up within the same cohort (Study 3) showed that girls’ WTA tendency attenuated over the course of the school year. Finally, Study 4 (N = 179), conducted with an independent cohort and including self-reported academic achievement, replicated the gender differences and showed that they were not explained by reported academic achievement. Across studies, comparative self-evaluations relative to current peers were associated with well-being. These findings highlight how selective academic environments shape adolescents’ comparative self-perceptions and suggest that early adjustment to such contexts may be particularly challenging for girls.