Comparative optimism and well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic

Past research suggests that being comparatively optimistic about one's risk for disease is associated with benefits to mental health, such as lowered stress and anxiety. However, few studies have longitudinally examined whether comparative optimism has the same protective benefits during the COVID-19 pandemic. The current study examined levels of comparative optimism, changes in comparative optimism over time, and the association between comparative optimism and COVID-related mental and physical health outcomes among a US adult sample during the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants completed online surveys at four timepoints, over the course of four weeks in May and June of 2020. Results from paired-samples t-tests revealed that comparative optimism was present, such that participants estimated their risk for COVID-19 as being significantly lower than that of others their age and sex. Results from linear mixed models suggested that people who were more comparatively optimistic reported lower anxiety, depression, and stress. However, at times when people were more comparatively optimistic, they also reported greater depression and poorer sleep quality. Together, the findings suggest that the relationship between comparative optimism and health may be more complex than previously anticipated and further research is needed to examine the potential pathways through which comparative optimism affects health.     

How much risk can you stomach? Individual differences in the tolerance of perceived risk across gender and risk domain

Research within the psychological risk–return framework, namely, using the Domain-Specific Risk-Taking scale, has led to a conclusion that risk attitude—measured as an individual's sensitivity to the risk they perceive—is stable across people (e.g., gender) and domains (e.g., recreational, social, financial, & health). Risk taking differences across gender and domain have been interpreted in terms of differences in the magnitude of risk perceived (and expected benefit). Yet the Domain-Specific Risk-Taking scale items, contrived by researchers rather than decision makers themselves, may have failed to detect differences in perceived risk attitude by failing to adequately represent all combinations of risks and benefits across gender and domains. In Study 1, participants generated their own examples of activities, which we selected among in Studies 2 and 3 to construct a new scale representing various levels of perceived risk and expected benefit. Our findings reveal that women are more sensitive than men to risk they perceive (i.e., are less tolerant of risk) in the recreational, social, and financial domains but not in the health domain. Risk attitude also differed across domains, with participants tolerating more risk in some domains than in others. We conclude that gender and domain differences in risk taking stem partly from gender and domain differences in people's sensitivity to perceived risks. Our findings have theoretical implications for the psychological risk–return framework and bridge with other theoretical approaches, such as the expected utility framework. Our studies also provide a new scale for assessing differences in attitudes toward risk that overcomes shortcomings of existing scales.     

Comparative Optimism,Self-Superiority,Egocentric Impact Perception and Health Information Seeking: A COVID-19 Study

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.     

Mental Health Research in Correctional Settings: Perceptions of Risk and Vulnerabilities

With more than half of individuals incarcerated having serious mental health concerns, correctional settings offer excellent opportunities for epidemiological, prevention, and intervention research. However, due to unique ethical and structural challenges, these settings create risks and vulnerabilities for participants not typically encountered in research populations. We surveyed 1,224 researchers, Institutional Review Board (IRB) members, and IRB prisoner representatives to assess their perceptions of risks and vulnerabilities associated with mental health research conducted in correctional settings. Highest ranked risks were related to privacy, stigma, and confidentiality; lowest ranked risks were related to prisoners’ loss of privileges or becoming targets of violence due to having participated in research. Cognitive impairment, mental illness, lack of autonomy, and limited access to services emerged as the greatest sources of vulnerability; being male, being female, being older than age 60, being a minority, and being pregnant were the lowest ranked sources of vulnerability. Researchers with corrections experience perceived lower risks and vulnerabilities than all other groups, raising the question whether these researchers accurately appraise risk and vulnerability based on experience, or if their lower risk and vulnerability perceptions reflect potential bias due to their vested interests. By identifying areas of particular risk and vulnerability, this study provides important information for researchers and research reviewers alike.     

怎样会让我们感觉更危险 ——风险沟通渠道分析

以实验设计与问卷测量相结合的方法,向被试提供真实的环境风险材料,探讨不同类型的（人为或自然）风险、形象性信息、不同感觉通道的信息输入（声音或文字）,以及不同沟通渠道对风险认知的影响。实验一采用实验室设计,发现人为风险比自然风险引起更高的风险认知,形象性信息的呈现增加了风险认知,但不同感觉通道的信息输入对风险认知没有影响。实验二模拟现实生活中电视和网页对风险信息的传递,比较两种沟通渠道对风险认知的影响,结果表明电视比网页唤起更高的风险认知     

Use of absolute and comparative performance feedback in absolute and comparative judgments and decisions

Which matters more—beliefs about absolute ability or ability relative to others? This study set out to compare the effects of such beliefs on satisfaction with performance, self-evaluations, and bets on future performance. In Experiment 1, undergraduate participants were told they had answered 20% correct, 80% correct, or were not given their scores on a practice test. Orthogonal to this manipulation, participants learned that their performance placed them in the 23rd percentile or 77th percentile, or they did not receive comparative feedback. Participants were then given a chance to place bets on two games—one in which they needed to get more than 50% right to double their money (absolute bet), and one in which they needed to beat more than 50% of other test-takers (comparative bet). Absolute feedback influenced comparative betting, particularly when no comparative feedback was available. Comparative feedback exerted weaker and inconsistent effects on absolute bets. Absolute feedback also had stronger (and more consistent) effects on satisfaction with performance and state self-esteem. Experiment 2 replicated these effects in a different university sample, and demonstrated that the effects emerge even when bets are placed after participants rate their satisfaction with their performance (although these ratings do not mediate the effect of feedback on bets). These findings suggest that information about one’s absolute standing on a dimension may be more influential than information about comparative standing, partially supporting a key tenet of Festinger’s [Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140.] theory of social comparison.     

Salience Versus Proportional Reasoning: Rethinking the Mechanism Behind Graphical Display Effects

Two experiments examined predictions from two separate explanations for previously observed display effects for communicating low‐probability risks: foreground:background salience and proportional reasoning. According to foreground:background salience, people's risk perceptions are based on the relative salience of the foreground (number of people harmed) versus the background (number of people at risk), such that calling attention to the background makes the risk seem smaller. Conversely, the proportional reasoning explanation states that what matters is whether the respondent attends to the proportion, which conveys how small the risk is. In Experiment 1, we made the background more salient via color and bolding; in contrast to the foreground:background salience prediction, this manipulation did not influence participants' risk aversion. In Experiment 2, we separately manipulated whether the foreground and the background were displayed graphically or numerically. In keeping with the proportional reasoning hypothesis, there was an interaction whereby participants given formats that displayed the foreground and background in the same modality (graphs or numbers, thereby making the proportion easier to form) saw the probability as smaller and were less risk averse than participants given the information in different modalities. There was also a main effect of displaying the background graphically, providing some support for foreground:background salience. In total, this work suggests that the proportional reasoning account provides a good explanation of many display effects related to communicating low‐probability risks, although there is some role for foreground:background salience as well. Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Personalized Genomic Results: Analysis of Informational Needs

Use of genomic information in healthcare is increasing; however data on the needs of consumers of genomic information is limited. The Coriell Personalized Medicine Collaborative (CPMC) is a longitudinal study investigating the utility of personalized medicine. Participants receive results reflecting risk of common complex conditions and drug—gene pairs deemed actionable by an external review board. To explore the needs of individuals receiving genomic information we reviewed all genetic counseling sessions with CPMC participants. A retrospective qualitative review of notes from 157 genetic counseling inquiries was conducted. Notes were coded for salient themes. Five primary themes; “understanding risk”, “basic genetics”, “complex disease genetics”, “what do I do now?” and “other” were identified. Further review revealed that participants had difficulty with basic genetic concepts, confused relative and absolute risks, and attributed too high a risk burden to individual single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Despite these hurdles, counseled participants recognized that behavior changes could potentially mitigate risk and there were few comments alluding to an overly deterministic or fatalistic interpretation of results. Participants appeared to recognize the multifactorial nature of the diseases for which results were provided; however education to understand the complexities of genomic risk information was often needed.     

An Investigation of Genetic Counselors' Discussions of Genetic Discrimination with Cancer Risk Patients

Twenty-five genetic counselors who see familial cancer risk patients were interviewed about their definitions of genetic discrimination, perceptions of patient risk for discrimination, frequency and type of discrimination experienced by their patients, sources of information about discrimination, and what they tell patients about genetic discrimination. There was variability in participant definitions and content of discussions of genetic discrimination. Although 82% regarded risk to be low to theoretical, 40% reported possible instances of genetic discrimination, including insurance companies requiring results to cover procedures, denial of life/health insurance, social discrimination, and employment discrimination. Ninety-six percent of the sample reported always or almost always discussing genetic discrimination, and one or more of the following: insurance discrimination risks, protective legislation, no known cases positively documenting discrimination, strategies to avoid discrimination, and uncertainty of protective measures. The majority use current literature and research as information sources. Practice, policy, and research implications are discussed.     

Smoking cross-culturally: Risk perceptions among young adults in Denmark and the United States

Research examining smokers’ understanding of their smoking risk reveals that smokers acknowledge some risk but often deny or minimize personal risk. We examined risk perceptions of lung cancer among smokers and non-smokers in a smoking-lenient (Denmark) and a smoking-prohibitive (the United States) culture. Participants were 275 Danish students attending trade schools (mean age 22.6 years) and 297 US students attending community colleges in Florida (mean age 23.6 years). Results revealed cross-cultural differences suggesting that Danish smokers showed greater risk minimization than US smokers. In addition, in both countries the risk of a typical smoker was rated as lower by smokers than non-smokers, and smokers rated their personal risk as lower than they rated the risk of the typical smoker. Cross-cultural differences in moralization of smoking might be one explanation for these findings.     

Women's Understanding of Their Risk of Developing Breast/Ovarian Cancer Before and After Genetic Counseling

Many studies have reported that individuals frequently over- or underestimate their risk of developing cancer both before and after they attend genetic counseling for breast and/or ovarian cancer. Using a combination of interviews and written questionnaires, we investigated counselees' understanding of their risk of developing cancer before and after genetic counseling. We demonstrate that although 76% of the sample thought that their risk was elevated relative to women in general, only a small proportion (17%) were willing or able to provide a numerical estimate of their risk of developing cancer before they attended the clinic. Following the consultation, 43% indicated that their risk of developing cancer was lower than they had anticipated. Twenty-two percent described their risk in absolute rather than relative terms, i.e., that they would definitely (not) develop cancer in the future. The implications of these findings for further research are discussed.     

Self-affirmation moderates effects of unrealistic optimism and pessimism on reactions to tailored risk feedback

We examined whether self-affirmation would facilitate intentions to engage in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among individuals who were off-schedule for CRC screening and who were categorised as unrealistically optimistic, realistic or unrealistically pessimistic about their CRC risk. All participants received tailored risk feedback; in addition, one group received threatening social comparison information regarding their risk factors, a second received this information after a self-affirmation exercise and a third was a no-treatment control. When participants were unrealistically optimistic about their CRC risk (determined by comparing their perceived comparative risk to calculations from a risk algorithm), they expressed greater interest in screening if they were self-affirmed (relative to controls). Non-affirmed unrealistic optimists expressed lower interest relative to controls, suggesting that they were responding defensively. Realistic participants and unrealistically pessimistic participants who were self-affirmed expressed relatively less interest in CRC screening, suggesting that self-affirmation can be helpful or hurtful depending on the accuracy of one's risk perceptions.     

Perceptions of absolute versus relative differences between personal and comparison health risk.

OBJECTIVE: To explain inconsistent results in previous attempts to determine whether, when presented with health risk information, people focus primarily on information about their own risk status or on a comparison with others. DESIGN: A randomized between-groups experiment in which participants were presented with hypothetical cardiac risk information. We examined whether affective responses were primarily sensitive to the relative difference between personal and comparison risk, rather than the absolute difference. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants' negative affective response to the risk information. RESULTS: When relative differences were held constant, participants' responses were independently influenced by both personal risk and comparative standing, effects that were greatly attenuated when absolute differences were held constant. When maintaining constant absolute differences, personal and comparison risk information appeared to interact. CONCLUSION: Previous studies tended to maintain constant absolute risk differences and so may have underestimated the impact of personal risk information. Participants' responses were sensitive to the way the risk difference was constructed. Basing experimental design decisions on assumptions about the information participants will respond to can lead to misinterpretations of the basis of risk judgments.     

Humor styles impact the relationship between symptoms of social anxiety and depression

Recent research suggests that examining humor styles may contribute to our understanding of clinical problems, such as risk and resiliency. The goal of the current study was to examine whether humor styles moderate the association between social anxiety and depressive symptoms in an unselected sample. Three-hundred and six participants (66% female) at a large Southern US university completed self-report measures of humor styles and symptoms of social anxiety and depression. Regression analyses suggested that affiliative and self-defeating humor styles individually moderated the relationship between social anxiety and depressive symptoms. Clinical implications regarding the monitoring of humor use as a means of understanding the maintenance of depressive symptoms among socially anxious individuals are discussed.     

Enhancing the effects of a narrative message through experiential information processing: An experimental study

First-person narratives are becoming a popular means to communicate health risk information. Although studies show they can increase risk perception and motivate health behaviours compared to statistical messages, more research on the conditions in which they are particularly likely to have effects is needed. In this study, we tested a moderator related to how information is processed. Specifically, we hypothesised that thinking in terms of emotions and personal experiences – known as experiential information processing – would increase people’s responsiveness to a narrative. Female college students (N = 138) who reported indoor tanning were randomly assigned to read a first-person narrative message or a statistical message about the risks of skin cancer. Prior to reading the message, the women received instructions that would activate either experiential or rational information processing. Participants then reported their risk perceptions of skin cancer, worry about skin cancer and behaviour intentions related to skin cancer. Analyses showed that message type and information processing interacted to influence risk perceptions and worry. Consistent with hypotheses, participants reported the highest risk perception and worry when they used an experiential information system prior to reading the narrative message. There were no effects on behaviour intentions. Implications of these findings are discussed.     

The academic achievement of African American students during early adolescence: an examination of multiple risk,promotive, and protective factors

This study examined the effects of multiple risk, promotive, and protective factors on three achievement-related measures (i.e., grade point average, number of absences, and math achievement test scores) for African American 7th-grade students (n = 837). There were 3 main findings. First, adolescents had lower grade point averages, more absences, and lower achievement test scores as their exposure to risk factors increased. Second, different promotive and protective factors emerged as significant contributors depending on the nature of the achievement-related outcome that was being assessed. Third, protective factors were identified whose effects were magnified in the presence of multiple risks. Results were discussed in light of the developmental tasks facing adolescents and the contexts in which youth exposed to multiple risks and their families live.     

澳门人少涉赌是规避风险还是规避后悔？

是风险规避还是后悔规避左右人们的冒险行为？基于风险行为跨领域特殊性,本研究假设：决策者是规避风险还是规避后悔具有领域特异性。本研究选取有涉赌经验的澳门居民为样本,以其参与13种博彩的次数为指标考察其真实风险行为。结果验证了上述假设,风险规避说或后悔规避说都不能单独解释个体的风险倾向,个体是风险规避、后悔规避,或二者皆有,取决于其所处的具体风险情境类别。该发现有助于加深对风险行为特征的认识,亦可为预防及应对问题赌博提供启发和指导。     

Effects of active information processing on the understanding of risk information

Two experiments investigated effects of active processing of risk information on participants' understanding and judgments. It was hypothesized that more active processing would lead to better understanding and differences in affective judgments (e.g. increased satisfaction and reduced perceived risk to health). In both experiments participants were given a written scenario about their being prescribed a fictitious medication. This medication was said to cause side effects in 2% of people who took it. Before answering a series of written questions, participants in the active conditions of both experiments were asked to carry out a reflective task (portraying the size of risk on a bar chart in Experiment 1 and answering a reflective question in Experiment 2). The results showed that active participants rated the likelihood of experiencing possible side effects significantly lower than passive participants (Experiment 1), and that active participants were significantly more satisfied with the information and judged perceived risk to health from taking the medication significantly lower than passive participants (Experiment 2). In both experiments, active participants were significantly more correct in their probability and frequency estimates. The studies demonstrate that active processing of risk information leads to improved understanding of the information given. This has important implications for risk communication. In the context of health, better understanding should lead to improved decision‐making and health outcomes. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.