A repeated cross-sectional survey assessing university students' stress, depression, anxiety, and suicidality in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in Poland.

BACKGROUND: The time of widespread outbreaks of infectious diseases can lead to elevated stress and mental health problems among all persons affected, and in particular those sub-groups of the population that are at an increased risk of mental health problems. One such vulnerable group constitutes university students. The aim of this study is to assess stress, depression, anxiety, and suicidality among different groups of university students (medical, psychology, and other). METHODS: Using a repeated cross-sectional study design, we collected survey data among a large sample of 7228 university students from Poland (mean age = 22.78, s.d. = 4.40; 81% female). Data were collected in five waves, during the first 2 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe (March and April 2020). RESULTS: The results demonstrate a significant increase in depression levels as the pandemic was progressing. We also found that female students scored significantly higher than male students on depression, anxiety, and stress. Psychology students recorded the lowest scores on depression and anxiety. Young adult students (aged 18-24 years) had more symptoms of depression, anxiety, and suicidality than adult students (⩾25 years). CONCLUSIONS: These results provide insights into stress and mental health among university students during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Findings can be used for a more effective identification of students who may struggle during next stages of the pandemic and future crises.

Is the COVID-19 bad news game good news? Testing whether creating and disseminating fake news about vaccines in a computer game reduces people's belief in anti-vaccine arguments.

Improving vaccination eagerness is crucial, especially during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and establishing new procedures to achieve that goal is highly important. Previous research (Roozenbeek & van der Linden, 2019a, 2019b) has indicated that playing the "Bad News" game, in which a player spreads fake news to gain followers, reduces people's belief in fake news. The goal of the present paper was to test an analogous new game called "COVID-19 Bad News (CBN)" to improve one's eagerness to vaccinate against coronavirus. CBN was constructed to examine whether creating and disseminating fake news focused on vaccinations and the COVID-19 pandemic has a similar effect and improves people's attitudes toward vaccination. Two experiments were conducted where participants played CBN or Tetris and afterwards evaluated the credibility of statements about vaccines against COVID-19 and finally filled out a questionnaire concerning their attitudes toward vaccination. The results show that playing CBN does not reduce evaluations of the credibility of all statements that are unfavorable to vaccines (false as well as true). Additionally, it does not enhance readiness to vaccinate. Future research and limitations are discussed.

Biased social comparison in the moment of crisis: The better-than-average effect and COVID-19

The better-than-average effect (BTAE) is a mechanism where people perceive oneself as better than others. The BTAE could be one of the phenomena explaining why people follow-in the moment of a global health crisis-guidelines ("I am superior to others, and I [will]) take extra precautions, e.g., a vaccine shot"). In this paper, we investigate the BTAE with 3,066 respondents. In Study 1, in all countries, across two measurements in time, the BTAE was present: Participants rated their involvement in self-protection as greater in comparison to others. Study 2 replicated this effect, proving its robustness. Participants estimated their willingness to vaccinate as higher than others. The BTAE was a significant predictor of willingness to vaccinate. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)

It Matters to Whom You Compare Yourself: The Case of Unrealistic Optimism and Gender-Specific Comparisons.

Unrealistic Optimism (UO) appears when comparing participants' risk estimates for themselves with an average peer, which typically results in lower risk estimates for the self. This article reports nuanced effects when comparison varies in terms of the gender of the peer. In three studies (total N = 2,468, representative sample), we assessed people's risk estimates for COVID-19 infections for peers with the same or other gender. If a peer's gender is not taken into account, previous studies were replicated: Compared with others, participants perceived themselves as less likely to get infected with COVID-19. Interestingly, this effect was qualified by gender: Respondents perceived women as less threatened than men because women are perceived as more cautious and compliant with medical guidelines.

Temporal aspects of unrealistic optimism and robustness of this bias: A longitudinal study in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Numerous studies on unrealistic optimism (UO) have shown that people claim they are less exposed to COVID-19 infection than others. Yet, it has not been assessed if this bias evolves; does it escalate or diminish when the information about the threat changes? The present paper fills this gap. For 12 months 120 participants estimated their own and their peers' risk of COVID-19 infection. Results show that UO regarding COVID-19 infection is an enduring phenomenon-It was the dominant tendency throughout almost the entire study and was never substituted by Unrealistic Pessimism. While the presence of UO-bias was constant, its magnitude changed. We tested possible predictors of these changes: the daily new cases/deaths, the changes in governmental restrictions and the mobility of participants' community. Out of these predictors, only changes in governmental restrictions proved to be significant- when the restrictions tightened, UO increased.

Biased Social Comparison in the Moment of Crisis

The better-than-average effect (BTAE) is a mechanism where people perceive oneself as better than others. The BTAE could be one of the phenomena explaining why people follow - in the moment of a global health crisis - guidelines ("I am superior to others, and I [will]) take extra precautions, e.g., a vaccine shot"). In this paper, we investigate the BTAE with 3,066 respondents. In Study 1, in all countries, across two measurements in time, the BTAE was present: Participants rated their involvement in self-protection as greater in comparison to others. Study 2 replicated this effect, proving its robustness. Participants estimated their willingness to vaccinate as higher than others. The BTAE was a significant predictor of willingness to vaccinate.

Active pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine groups: Their group identities and attitudes toward science.

Vaccine rejection is a problem severely impacting the global society, especially considering the COVID-19 outbreak. The need to understand the psychological mechanisms underlying the active involvement of the pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine movements is therefore very important both from a theoretical and practical perspective. This paper investigates the group identities of people with positive and negative attitudes towards vaccination, and their attitudes toward general science. A targeted sample study of 192 pro-vaccine and 156 anti-vaccine group members showed that the group identity of pro-vaccine individuals is higher than of anti-vaccine individuals. and that both pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine individuals had a positive attitude toward science. Results are discussed in context of the heterogeneity of motivations causing vaccine rejection and the relation between active involvement in online discussion and group identity.

We are infected with the new, mutated virus UO-COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: Optimism is boosted by leaders hoping for job creation, increased business spending, and a high consumption rate. In this research, we assessed the hazardous side effect for global health policies stemming from this optimism: unrealistic optimism (being unrealistically optimistic about future negative events), which may be responsible for new infections and may prevent the eradication of COVID-19. The goal of the research was not only to assess whether this effect exists and to find out whether such an effect is global but also to evaluate whether there are groups resistant to this effect (presenting a potential toolkit for reducing this effect). MATERIAL AND METHODS: In May and April of 2020, online surveys were administered among students in Iran, Kazakhstan, and Poland respectively to assess the unrealistic optimism/pessimism. In study 1/objective 1, the survey was conducted twice (in a period of about 3 weeks) to assess the potential change (due to the anonymous codes delivered by the participants, we were able to make follow-ups between the same participants) in time in the 3 countries. In the first wave, 1611 participants took the survey. In the second wave, there were 1426 respondents. In study 2, the survey was conducted among 207 Polish healthcare workers of the frontline hospital. RESULTS: In study 1 across the 3 cultures (the first wave for unmatched data by the code of the specific participant F(1, 1608) = 419.2; p < 0.001, and for matched data F(1, 372) = 167.195; p < 0.001; ηp² = 0.31; ηp² = 0.21; the second wave for unmatched data F(1, 1423) = 359.61; p < 0.001; ηp² = 0.2, and for matched F(1, 372) = 166.84; p < 0.001; ηp² = 0.31), unrealistic optimism is present, and importantly it is constant in time. In study 2, unrealistic optimism was not found among healthcare professionals, who we hypothesized due to the medical knowledge are not inclined to be unrealistically optimistic t(206) = 1.06; p = 0.290, d = 0.07. CONCLUSION: Medical education of COVID-19 severity might reduce unrealistic optimism, which may be the reason why pandemic restrictions are not being respected.

Research on Unrealistic Optimism among HoReCa Workers as a Possible Future Hotspot of Infections

As we are facing a new surge of the highly infectious delta variant of COVID-19, there is an urgent need for research to reduce the harm before this next wave hits. In the present paper, we present data that is alarming. We have found that HoReCa (hotels, restaurants, and catering services) workers, who are highly exposed to many new social interactions in close contact, present an unrealistic optimism (UO) bias: they perceive themselves as less at risk to this virus in comparison to others. From the literature, we already know that individuals holding this view are less involved in preventive actions and present more risky behaviors. In the face of the delta variant, this leads to the conclusion that restaurants will be new hot spots. What is more, we found that these unrealistic expectations are more pervasive: workers of the restaurant industry estimate low chances of bankruptcy, which may lead to unrealistic salary expectations, leading owners to a new upcoming wave of crisis: COVID-19 and bankruptcy—both of which may be caused by their workers.

Media intervention program for reducing unrealistic optimism bias: The link between unrealistic optimism, well-being, and health.

Unrealistic optimism is the tendency to perceive oneself as safer than others in situations that equally threaten everybody. By reducing fear, this bias boosts one's well-being; however, it is also a deterrent to one's health. Three experiments were run in a mixed-design on 1831 participants to eliminate unrealistic optimism (measured by two items-probability of COVID-19 infection for oneself and for others; within-subjects) toward the probability of COVID-19 infection via articles/videos. A between-subject factor was created by manipulation. Ostensibly, daily newspaper articles describing other people diligently following medical recommendations (experiment 1) and videos showing people who did not follow these recommendations (experiment 2) reduced unrealistic optimism. The third experiment, which included both articles and videos, replicated these results. These results can be applied to strategies for written and video communications that can be used by governments and public health agencies as best practices concerning not only COVID-19 but also any subsequent public health threat while promoting proactive, optimal, and healthy functioning of the individual.

The Credibility of Health Information Sources as Predictors of Attitudes toward Vaccination-The Results from a Longitudinal Study in Poland.

BACKGROUND: The research focused on the relationships between attitudes towards vaccination and the trust placed in different sources of information (science, experts and the information available on the Internet) before and during COVID-19. METHOD: A longitudinal design was applied with the first measurement in February 2018 (N = 1039). The second measurement (N = 400) was carried out in December 2020 to test if the pandemic influenced the trust in different sources of information. RESULTS: The final analyses carried out on final sample of 400 participants showed that there has been no change in trust in the Internet as a source of knowledge about health during the pandemic. However, the trust in science, physicians, subjective health knowledge, as well as the attitude towards the vaccination has declined. Regression analysis also showed that changes in the level of trust in physicians and science were associated with analogous (in the same direction) changes in attitudes toward vaccination. The study was also focused on the trust in different sources of health knowledge as possible predictors of willingness to be vaccinated against SARS-nCoV-2. However, it appeared that the selected predictors explained a small part of the variance. This suggests that attitudes toward the new COVID vaccines may have different sources than attitudes toward vaccines that have been known to the public for a long time.

Unrealistic Optimism in the Time of Coronavirus Pandemic: May It Help to Kill, If So-Whom: Disease or the Person?

Objective: The results of numerous empirical studies have showed the occurrence of so-called unrealistic optimism. Thus, we aimed to investigate whether in the situation of an imminent coronavirus pandemic, people would still perceive themselves as being less exposed to the disease than others. Methods: Survey studies were conducted to examine the level of unrealistic optimism. Participants (n = 171, 67.3% of women) in a subjective way judged the risk of their coronavirus infection and the likelihood that this would happen to an average student of the same sex from their class. The survey was conducted in three waves: prior to the announcement of the first case of coronavirus (2-3 March), immediately after that announcement (5-6 March), and a few days later (9-10 March). Results: We showed that women estimated the chances of being infected as significantly higher (M = 4.52, SD = 2.079;t = 2.387;p = 0.018;Cohen's d = 0.393) than men (M = 3.71, SD = 2.042). The phenomenon of unrealistic optimism was observed especially in men (as compared to other male participants) as it appeared in all three measures (M (you) = 3.95 vs. M (other male student) = 4.63;M = 3.71 vs. M = 4.68, and M = 4.46 vs. M = 5.38 in phase one, two, and three, respectively;p  0.006 for all comparison), but also in women in the last two measures (M(you) = 4.55 vs. M (other female student) = 4.95, and M = 4.99 vs. M = 5.38 in phase 2 and 3, respectively;p  0.012 for both comparisons). Conclusions: The study revealed a fairly general occurrence of unrealistic optimism, which was mainly observed in men as it appeared in all three measures, but also in women in the last two measures. This result is important for health experts who are responsible for making people comply with regulations concerning social distancing, putting masks on to stop infection, and staying at home. It is possible that unrealistically optimistic people will behave much less in line with the aforementioned recommendations, causing coronavirus to spread widely.