Mimicry boosts social bias: unrealistic optimism in a health prevention case

Unrealistic optimism bias appears when a person perceives oneself–in comparison to peers–as less at risk from threats. This bias has been widely reported and the consequences are clear: it puts one's health in danger. The existing body of literature proposes egocentrism as a mechanism leading to a reduction in this bias. The present paper tests a novel mechanism orienting a person toward others–thus linked with egocentrism–i.e., mimicry. Results showed directly opposing effects: mimicry induced a stronger tendency to perceive oneself as less threatened. This result is not only surprising but especially alarming since mimicry may be used in patient-doctor dialogue which may backfire, leading to resistance to medical recommendations provided by the doctor. © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

Unrealistic Optimism and Risk for COVID-19 Disease.

Risk perception and consequently engagement in behaviors to avoid illness often do not match actual risk of infection, morbidity, and mortality. Unrealistic optimism occurs when individuals falsely believe that their personal outcomes will be more favorable than others' in the same risk category. Natural selection could favor overconfidence if its benefits, such as psychological resilience, outweigh its costs. However, just because optimism biases may have offered fitness advantages in our evolutionary past does not mean that they are always optimal. The current project examined relationships among personal risk for severe COVID-19, risk perceptions, and preventative behaviors. We predicted that those with higher risk of severe COVID-19 would exhibit unrealistic optimism and behave in ways inconsistent with their elevated risk of morbidity and mortality. Clinical risk scores for severe COVID-19 were calculated and compared with COVID-19 threat appraisal, compliance with shelter-in-place orders (March 13-May 22, 2020) and travel restrictions, compliance with public health recommendations, and potential covariates like self-rated knowledge about COVID-19 in a robust dataset including 492 participants from McLennan County, TX, USA. While those with high clinical risk acknowledged their greater likelihood of experiencing severe illness if infected, they actually reported lower perceived likelihood of becoming infected in the first place. While it is possible that those with higher clinical risk scores truly are less likely to become infected, the pattern and significance of these results held after controlling for possible occupational exposure, household size, and other factors related to infection probability. Higher clinical risk also predicted more recent travel within Texas and lower distress during the pandemic (i.e., feeling less stressed, depressed, and helpless). Additional behavioral data suggested that those with higher clinical risk scores did not generally behave differently than those with lower scores during the shelter-in-place order. While unrealistic optimism may provide some short-term psychological benefits, it could be dangerous due to improper assessment of hazardous situations; inferring that optimism bias has evolutionary origins does not mean that unrealistic optimism is "optimal" in every situation. This may be especially true when individuals face novel sources (or scales) of risk, such as a global pandemic.

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)

Anyone but Me: Unrealistic Optimism, Emotions and Anxiety in the Face of COVID-19 Pandemic.

The worldwide COVID-19 pandemic (and its consequences, such as lockdown and public health regimes) was a novel and stressful situation for most of people, and, as such, it significantly affected both cognitive and emotional functioning of individuals. In our study, we explored unrealistic optimism bias (the cognitive error giving people a feeling of invulnerability) and any declared preventive behaviours undertaken in order to minimise the risk of contagion. We also measured twelve specific emotions (differing in valence and origin) and the feeling of the anxiety caused by the coronavirus. The results allowed us to confirm the occurrence of unrealistic optimism bias (being significantly stronger for men than women), which correlated negatively with the declared number of preventive behaviours. Unrealistic optimism was also positively correlated with negative automatic emotions and negatively correlated with positive reflective emotions. We created models accounting for the variance of general anxiety, finding significant predictors for both separate groups of younger and older adults (negative emotions, both automatic and reflective; and preventive behaviours). However, there was an effect of positive emotions (both automatic and reflective) having a protective role from the feeling of general anxiety, which was significant for the older group only. Our findings may be a valuable cue for coping with crisis situations.

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.

Trust in scientists, risk perception, conspiratorial beliefs, and unrealistic optimism: A network approach to investigating the psychological underpinnings of COVID-19 vaccination intentions

Using a network approach, we addressed in two studies interrelations among potential antecedents of vaccine intentions, related to both COVID-19 risk perception and epistemic beliefs (i.e., trust in scientists and conspiracy beliefs). In Study 1 and 2, we assessed a US (N = 994) and an international sample (N = 902) during spring and summer 2020. The network analysis reveals a complex interplay of factors where trust in scientists, the closest predictor of vaccine intention, is associated with conspiracy beliefs and danger perception. Furthermore, we found evidence for unrealistic optimism, with participants perceiving the risk of getting infected with COVID-19 as lower compared to the risk they attributed to other people. However, this bias was not associated with vaccine intention. Study 2 corroborated these results. The results call for a global change in the narrative which should highlight the epistemic authority of science in order to build a stronger trust in the scientific community. However, tackling trust in scientists needs a wider field of persuasion that includes conspiracy beliefs and risk perception factors. © Social Psychological Bulletin.All rights reserved.

COVID-19 and a biased public mentality toward infection and vaccination: A case of unrealistic optimism and social comparisons between the vaccinated and unvaccinated

Unrealistic Optimism in the context of COVID-19 is described as the tendency to perceive peers as being more at risk of infection. To date, however, no research has proposed more specific comparisons. The present article not only replicates the most recent body of literature showing that people perceive themselves as less prone to COVID-19 infection than their peers, but fills the aforementioned gap by providing additional and more specific comparisons between those vaccinated and unvaccinated against COVID-19. Such comparisons may be crucial to curb the possibility of resurgence of COVID-19 by assessing how unvaccinated individuals perceive the probability of being infected by coronavirus. Some 622 Prolific—(un)vaccinated against COVID-19—users participated in an online quasi-experiment. Participants estimated the risk of COVID-19 infection for themselves, their peers or the average (un)vaccinated peer, which is a new addition to the literature. Results showed that there was an unrealistic optimism effect. Participants estimated their risk for infection as lower in comparison to others. Surprisingly, results showed that for unvaccinated people, vaccines seem to be an effective tool to reduce the risk of infection, but not for themselves. © The Author(s) 2022.

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.

Potential sport tourists' decision-making during the pandemic

Purpose This study examined potential sport tourists' decision-making regarding a sporting event rescheduled due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Design/methodology/approach An extended model of goal-directed behavior - encompassing the perception of COVID-19, attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, positive anticipated emotion, negative anticipated emotion, desire and behavioral intention - was built and tested using survey data and structural equation modeling. Findings The perception of COVID-19 significantly influenced attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control and positive anticipated emotion, which then collectively led to desire. Desire, alongside optimism bias, had a substantial impact on behavioral intention. However, the perception of COVID-19 was not related to negative anticipated emotion. Originality/value The findings highlight the roles that optimism bias and the perception of COVID-19 play in shaping individuals' intentions to engage in sport tourism, suggesting how marketers and managers of sporting events should respond to the pandemic.

Conspiracy claims and secret intentions as predictors of psychological coping and vaccine uptake during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 vaccination campaign led to hesitancy, deferment and un-resolving resistance of certain groups or individuals worldwide. Reasons for these reactions include distrust in the COVID-19 vaccine that was developed rapidly, lack of trust in governing entities and unrealistic optimism (UO). Each of these reasons may involve claims of secret intentions or conspiracy theories. The present study examined the role of three different explanations for vaccine hesitancy and rejection, in predicting psychological coping, distress, and level of vaccine uptake, throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Blaming the vaccine and its producers, blaming the state's authorities, and expressing criticism in UO terms, which may hint of some secret intention that underlies the vaccination request. The research was conducted on a sample of 2002 Israeli adults who responded to an anonymous questionnaire about vaccine hesitancy and psychological coping. We assumed that conspiracy theories aimed at the medical and the governing authorities, and the UO insinuations of covert intentions of these authorities, represent two different psychological processes. UO responses to adversity are aimed at reducing anxiety attributing covert intentions to the authorities and the pharmaceutical companies is an expression of anxiety. Three major hypotheses are examined. First, stronger criticism of the vaccine will be associated with a lower level of vaccination. Second, more extreme criticism of the political and the medical authorities for requesting vaccination, raised as a reason for vaccine hesitation will positively predict a higher level of anxiety and negatively predict the extent of good psychological coping. A stronger opposition to the vaccine in terms of UO will be positively associated with a greater scope of resilience and coping and will be negatively linked to indicators of distress. Results supported these hypotheses and enhanced the ongoing discussion on the contribution of UO to psychological adjustment, by illustrating its beneficial effects on this adjustment. Conspiracy Theories and Secret Intentions as Predictors of Psychological Coping and Vaccine Uptake throughout the COVID-19 Pandemic in Israel.

Unrealistic pessimism and obsessive-compulsive symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic: Two longitudinal studies.

OBJECTIVE: Unrealistic pessimism (UP) is an aspect of overestimation of threat (OET) that has been associated with obsessive-compulsive disorder/symptoms (OCD/OCS). During the COVID-19 pandemic, UP may have played an important role in the course of OCD. To investigate the relationship, we conducted two longitudinal studies assuming that higher UP predicts an increase in OCS. METHOD: In Study 1, we investigated UP in the general population (N = 1,184) at the start of the pandemic asking about overall vulnerability to infection with SARS-CoV-2 and UP regarding infection and outcome of severe illness. Further, OCS status (OCS+/-) was assessed at the start of the pandemic and 3 months later. In Study 2, we investigated UP in individuals with OCD (N = 268) regarding the likelihood of getting infected, recovering, or dying from an infection with SARS-CoV-2 at the start of the pandemic and re-assessed OCS 3 months later. RESULTS: In Study 1, UP was higher in the OCS+ compared to the OCS- group, and estimates of a higher overall vulnerability for an infection predicted a decrease in OCS over time. UP regarding severe illness predicted an increase in symptoms over time. In Study 2, UP was found for a recovery and death after an infection with SARS-CoV-2, but not for infection itself. CONCLUSIONS: Exaggeration of one's personal vulnerability rather than OET per se seems pivotal in OCD, with UP being associated with OCD/OCS+ as well as a more negative course of symptomatology over the pandemic in a nonclinical sample. PRACTITIONER POINTS: Unrealistic optimism, a bias common in healthy individuals, is thought to be a coping mechanism promoting well-being in the face of danger or uncertainty. The current study extends findings that its inversion, unrealistic pessimism, may play an important role in obsessive-compulsive disorder and may also be involved in the development of the disorder. This study highlights the importance that prevention programs during a pandemic should include targeting unrealistic pessimism.

Exceptionalism at the Time of covid-19: Where nationalism meets irrationality

Exceptionalism is the view that one group is better than other groups and, by virtue of its alleged superiority, is not subject to the same constraints. Here we identify national exceptionalism in the responses made by political leaders in the United States and the United Kingdom to the covid-19 pandemic in early 2020. First, we observe that responses appealed to national values and national character and were marked by a denial of the severity of the situation. Second, we suggest an analogy between national exceptionalism and unrealistic optimism, i.e., people's tendency to make rosier predictions about their future than is warranted by the evidence due to illusions of superiority and control. Finally, we argue that, at the national level, exceptionalism gave rise to an assumption of invulnerability that made for slow responses to the pandemic, and at the individual level, it served as a justification of people's failures to adopt safety behaviors. © Lisa Bortolotti and Kathleen Murphy-Hollies, 2022

Components of Unrealistic Optimism of College Students: The Case of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

College students are among the most strongly affected populations by the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic because of uncertainty regarding academic success, future careers, and social life during their study period. Their mental health and behavior may dramatically be impacted. The study examined an unrealistic optimism of Israeli college students in assessing the health, security, and economic risks during the pandemic, and the contributions of these perceived risks to the prediction of psychological coping responses, such as well-being, and coping suppressing response of anxiety, expressed during this pandemic. Using social networks, a questionnaire was disseminated to students during the third lockdown that was implemented in Israel because of the pandemic. Depressive and anxiety symptoms, perceived threats, resilience, well-being, hope, and morale were measured using a structured quantitative questionnaire. First, we hypothesized that the three perceived risks would be inversely rated, so perceived health risk would be rated lowest, and perceived economic risk would be rated highest. The second and third hypotheses claimed that psychological coping responses articulated along this pandemic would be predicted by all these perceived risks, as well as the observance of pandemic precaution rules. The fourth hypothesis suggested that the three investigated perceived risks will positively and significantly correlate with each other. The results generally supported the hypotheses and indicated that the unrealistic optimism process was employed quite consistently by the participating students.

Are People Optimistically Biased about the Risk of COVID-19 Infection? Lessons from the First Wave of the Pandemic in Europe.

Unrealistic optimism, the underestimation of one's risk of experiencing harm, has been investigated extensively to understand better and predict behavioural responses to health threats. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, a relative dearth of research existed in this domain regarding epidemics, which is surprising considering that this optimistic bias has been associated with a lack of engagement in protective behaviours critical in fighting twenty-first-century, emergent, infectious diseases. The current study addresses this gap in the literature by investigating whether people demonstrated optimism bias during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe, how this changed over time, and whether unrealistic optimism was negatively associated with protective measures. Taking advantage of a pre-existing international participative influenza surveillance network (n = 12,378), absolute and comparative unrealistic optimism were measured at three epidemic stages (pre-, early, peak), and across four countries-France, Italy, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Despite differences in culture and health response, similar patterns were observed across all four countries. The prevalence of unrealistic optimism appears to be influenced by the particular epidemic context. Paradoxically, whereas absolute unrealistic optimism decreased over time, comparative unrealistic optimism increased, suggesting that whilst people became increasingly accurate in assessing their personal risk, they nonetheless overestimated that for others. Comparative unrealistic optimism was negatively associated with the adoption of protective behaviours, which is worrying, given that these preventive measures are critical in tackling the spread and health burden of COVID-19. It is hoped these findings will inspire further research into sociocognitive mechanisms involved in risk appraisal.

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.

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.

How are you holding up? Personality, cognitive and social predictors of a perceived shift in subjective well-being during COVID-19 pandemic.

While well-being is known to be mainly predicted by relatively stable personality traits and demographic factors, under circumstances of the current COVID-19 pandemic, the role of these predictors may be attenuated, and more situational factors may come into play. In the present study, we examined those relatively stable predictors of well-being along with COVID-19 specific factors, such as the perception of health and economic threat, unrealistic optimism, lack of control, trust in government regulations, and the endorsement of conspiracy beliefs. The data collection took place in early November 2020, when the second wave in Slovakia started to gain momentum and a strict lockdown was issued. Slovak adults (N = 1020) reported their current positive and negative affect and current, as well as estimated pre-pandemic and predicted future life satisfaction. The results showed that positive and negative affect was predicted mainly by extraversion and negative emotionality. On the other hand, life satisfaction, and its perceived change from before the pandemic and in three months, was predicted mainly by COVID-19 factors, especially perceived economic threat, unrealistic optimism, and trust in governmental regulations. We discuss the importance of these factors when considering the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on peoples' well-being.

"It Won't Happen to Us": Unrealistic Optimism Affects COVID-19 Risk Assessments and Attitudes Regarding Protective Behaviour.

People generally believe that their own future will be better than the one of comparable others. Robust evidence documents such unrealistic optimism in many domains of life. Here, we examine how unrealistic optimism may affect people's risk assessments of COVID-19 infection as well as their attitudes regarding behaviours intended to protect against contagion. In two studies conducted in the USA (N = 160) and UK (N = 161), at different times during the pandemic, we show that participants considered the likelihood of contracting and carrying the infection lower for themselves and their close other compared to an acquaintance, while they considered the likelihood of engaging in protective behaviours higher for themselves and their close other than an acquaintance. The findings document unrealistic optimism in relation to COVID-19. Such biases are particularly critical in relation to infectious diseases, where underestimating the risk for both oneself and close others may reduce precautions and increase virus spreading.

Comparative optimism about infection and recovery from COVID-19; Implications for adherence with lockdown advice.

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.