Mimicry and law: Experiments in a natural setting of a law company.

This paper joins an effort to build a relational approach to law practice by testing mimicry as a vehicle for building trust in a legal context. Mimicry research indicates that this phenomenon leads to benefits, like greater trust, willingness to help, and satisfaction from interactions, which shows a potential for practical applications in, for example, a legal context. In two experiments conducted in the natural setting of a legal company, the tendency to trust the mimicker on a yet unresearched and deep level, namely putting one's legal future and security in the hands of an attorney, was measured. Both experiments consistently showed a greater tendency to give legal representation to an attorney when she verbally (Experiment #1) as well as both verbally and nonverbally (Experiment #2) mimicked the client. This paper explores the potential of applying mimicry in a legal service environment, focusing on fostering cooperation in professional conversations. Furthermore, the study contributes to the existing literature on mimicry by examining its effect on trust. Possible dangers, future studies and limitations are also discussed.

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.

The chameleon effect in customer relationship management: Experiments on the spillover effects of mimicry in natural settings of a chain hotel and a chain grocery shop.

Numerous experiments have proven that mimicry is highly beneficial (mainly to the mimicker but also to the mimickee). Some studies have shown initial data suggesting the potential of applying this knowledge to business settings. In the present paper we unpack this issue in two ways. First, by presenting potential benefits stemming from mimicry for the mimicking dyad, and second for the business environment represented by the mimicker. Two consecutive studies: a Pretest and a Main Experiment run in natural settings showed great potential in improving the assessments of quality of service provided by verbally mimicking (or not). The results of both studies showed that mimicry offers benefits for the mimicker (increased employee kindness and employee evaluation), and also spillover to the organization/company represented by the mimicking employee (increased opinion of and willingness to return to the shop/hotel). Future research directions and limitations are discussed.

Do unbiased people act more rationally?-The case of comparative realism and vaccine intention.

Within different populations and at various stages of the pandemic, it has been demonstrated that individuals believe they are less likely to become infected than their average peer. This is known as comparative optimism and it has been one of the reproducible effects in social psychology. However, in previous and even the most recent studies, researchers often neglected to consider unbiased individuals and inspect the differences between biased and unbiased individuals. In a mini meta-analysis of six studies (Study 1), we discovered that unbiased individuals have lower vaccine intention than biased ones. In two pre-registered, follow-up studies, we aimed at testing the reproducibility of this phenomenon and its explanations. In Study 2 we replicated the main effect and found no evidence for differences in psychological control between biased and unbiased groups. In Study 3 we also replicated the effect and found that realists hold more centric views on the trade-offs between threats from getting vaccinated and getting ill. We discuss the interpretation and implication of our results in the context of the academic and lay-persons' views on rationality. We also put forward empirical and theoretical arguments for considering unbiased individuals as a separate phenomenon in the domain of self-others comparisons.

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.

The Effects of Offering Freedom to Comply by Pediatricians and Nurses, Using the But-You-Are-Free (BYAF) Technique, on Vaccination Compliance on 185 Parents of Newborn Babies Conducted in Outpatient Clinics in Poland Between January 2022 and July 2022.

BACKGROUND This study aimed to evaluate, in outpatient clinics in Poland between January 2022 and July 2022, the effectiveness of the But-You-Are-Free (BYAF) social influence technique by healthcare professionals during interaction with 185 parents deciding about vaccinating (eg, Hexacima, Prevenor 13, Synflorix, Rotateq, Act Hib, Boostrix, Pentaxim, DTP, Imovax, Priorix, MMR, Tetracim, Adacel, Euvax B, Fuvax, FSME, Varilix, Nimenrix, Bexero vaccines) their babies. MATERIAL AND METHODS During an interaction with pediatricians or nurses, the parents were encouraged to vaccinate their babies. In experimental condition (111 interactions), the BYAF technique was employed, and the phrase "But you are free" was added at the end of the conversation. In the control condition (74 interactions), it was not employed. RESULTS In the experimental condition, 71 (64%) participants declared intention to vaccinate their children. In the control condition, it 61 (84%) participants declared intention to vaccinate (the difference in percentages was significant: P=0.006). The number of parents who actually vaccinated their babies in the experimental condition was 92 (83%) and in the control condition it was 70 (95%; P=0.018). CONCLUSIONS The findings showed that participants who were exposed to the BYAF technique declared lower intentions to vaccinate their babies, and vaccinated them less often than those in the control condition. This result critically highlights that this technique should not be employed in the medical settings of pediatric vaccination.

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.

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.

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.