ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To examine if personal and comparative optimism, perceived effectiveness, and moralization of vaccination predict people's decision to get vaccinated. METHODS: We measured self-reported vaccination decisions in a five-wave longitudinal study (N â 5,000/wave) in Belgium over a six months period (December 2020-May 2021) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Among the predictors were demographic factors, personal and comparative optimism for three aspects of COVID-19 (infection, severe disease, good outcome), perceived effectiveness of vaccination, and the extent to which vaccination is being viewed in prosocial terms (altruism, civic spirit) versus as instrumental in one's self-interest (common sense, concern about one's health). RESULTS: The actual availability of vaccines changed people's outlook on vaccination. Marked differences emerged in vaccination decision between linguistic-cultural regions (Flemish Region, Walloon Region, Brussels Capital Region). Personal and comparative optimism predicted vaccination decisions to different extents depending on participants' age and on whether the optimism was for infection, severe disease, or a good outcome. In older participants, vaccination decision was mostly predicted by personal optimism; in younger participants, it was mostly predicted by comparative optimism. Moralizing vaccination predicted a lower likelihood of a positive vaccination decision, that is, higher vaccine hesitancy or refusal, particularly in older participants. CONCLUSIONS: Assessments of risk perception serving to inform vaccination campaigns should differentiate between expectations concerning the risk of infection and expectations concerning the outcome of an infection. Public health messages should address comparative optimism, particularly when targeting younger populations. Contrary to popular belief, moralizing vaccination may reduce the willingness to get vaccinated. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
ABSTRACT
RATIONALE: Research on health-related self-uniqueness beliefs suggested that these beliefs might predict adherence to precautions against COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: We examined if comparative optimism (believing that one is less at less than others), self-superiority (believing that one already adheres better to precautions than others), and egocentric impact perception (believing that adverse events affect oneself more than others) predicted intended adherence to precautions. METHOD: We measured self-reported intentions, optimism for self and others, perceived past adherence by self and others, and perceived impact of the measures and the disease on self and others in a 5-wave longitudinal study in December 2020-May 2021 (N ≈ 5000/wave). The sample was in key respects representative for the Belgian population. We used joint models to examine the relationship between self-uniqueness beliefs and intended adherence to the precautions. RESULTS: Believing that COVID-19 would affect one's own life more than average (egocentric impact perception) was associated with higher intentions to adhere to precautions, as was believing that the precautions affected one's life less than average (allocentric impact perception). Self-superiority concerning past adherence to precautions and comparative optimism concerning infection with COVID-19 were associated with higher intended adherence, regardless of whether their non-comparative counterparts (descriptive norm, i.e., perceived adherence to precautions by others, and personal optimism, respectively) were controlled for. Comparative optimism for severe disease and for good outcome were associated with lower intended adherence if personal optimism was not controlled for, but with higher intended adherence if it was controlled for. CONCLUSION: Self-uniqueness beliefs predict intended adherence to precautions against COVID-19, but do so in different directions.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Longitudinal Studies , Self Report , Optimism , IntentionABSTRACT
Rationale. Research on health-related self-uniqueness beliefs suggested that these beliefs might predict adherence to precautions against COVID-19. Objective We examined if comparative optimism (believing that one is less at less than others), self-superiority (believing that one already adheres better to precautions than others), and egocentric impact perception (believing that adverse events affect oneself more than others) predicted intended adherence to precautions. Method We measured self-reported intentions, optimism for self and others, perceived past adherence by self and others, and perceived impact of the measures and the disease on self and others in a 5-wave longitudinal study in December 2020–May 2021 (N ≈ 5000/wave). The sample was in key respects representative for the Belgian population. We used joint models to examine the relationship between self-uniqueness beliefs and intended adherence to the precautions. Results Believing that COVID-19 would affect one's own life more than average (egocentric impact perception) was associated with higher intentions to adhere to precautions, as was believing that the precautions affected one's life less than average (allocentric impact perception). Self-superiority concerning past adherence to precautions and comparative optimism concerning infection with COVID-19 were associated with higher intended adherence, regardless of whether their non-comparative counterparts (descriptive norm, i.e., perceived adherence to precautions by others, and personal optimism, respectively) were controlled for. Comparative optimism for severe disease and for good outcome were associated with lower intended adherence if personal optimism was not controlled for, but with higher intended adherence if it was controlled for. Conclusion Self-uniqueness beliefs predict intended adherence to precautions against COVID-19, but do so in different directions.
ABSTRACT
We examined perceived self-other differences (self-uniqueness) in appraisals of one's risk of an infectious disease (COVID-19), one's adherence to behavioural precautionary measures against the disease, and the impact of these measures on one's life. We also examined the relationship of self-uniqueness with information seeking and trust in sources of information about the disease. We administered an online survey to a community sample (N = 8696) of Dutch-speaking individuals, mainly in Belgium and The Netherlands, during the first lockdown (late April-Mid June 2020). As a group, participants reported that they were less likely to get infected or infect others or to suffer severe outcomes than average (unrealistic optimism) and that they adhered better than average to behavioural precautionary measures (illusory superiority). Except for participants below 25, who reported that they were affected more than average by these measures (egocentric impact bias), participants also generally reported that they were less affected than average (allocentric impact bias). Individual differences in self-uniqueness were associated with differences in the number of information sources being used and trust on these sources. Higher comparative optimism for infection, self-superiority, and allocentric impact perception were associated with information being sought from fewer sources; higher self-superiority and egocentric impact perception were associated with lower trust. We discuss implications for health communication.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Comparative optimism, the belief that negative events are more likely to happen to others rather than to oneself, is well established in health risk research. It is unknown, however, whether comparative optimism also permeates people's health expectations and potentially behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVES: Data were collected through an international survey (N = 6485) exploring people's thoughts and psychosocial behaviours relating to COVID-19. This paper reports UK data on comparative optimism. In particular, we examine the belief that negative events surrounding risk and recovery from COVID-19 are perceived as more likely to happen to others rather than to oneself. METHODS: Using online snowball sampling through social media, anonymous UK survey data were collected from N = 645 adults during weeks 5-8 of the UK COVID-19 lockdown. The sample was normally distributed in terms of age and reflected the UK ethnic and disability profile. FINDINGS: Respondents demonstrated comparative optimism where they believed that as compared to others of the same age and gender, they were unlikely to experience a range of controllable (eg accidentally infect/ be infected) and uncontrollable (eg need hospitalization/ intensive care treatment if infected) COVID-19-related risks in the short term (P < .001). They were comparatively pessimistic (ie thinking they were more at risk than others for developing COVID-19-related infection or symptoms) when thinking about the next year. DISCUSSION: This is one of the first ever studies to report compelling comparative biases in UK adults' thinking about COVID-19.