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 selfuniqueness were associated with differences in the number of information sources being used and trust on these sources. Higher comparative optimism for infection, selfsuperiority, 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

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

Psychometric Properties and Correlates of Precarious Manhood Beliefs in 62 Nations

Precarious manhood beliefs portray manhood, relative to womanhood, as a social status that is hard to earn, easy to lose, and proven via public action. Here, we present cross-cultural data on a brief measure of precarious manhood beliefs (the Precarious Manhood Beliefs scale [PMB]) that covaries meaningfully with other cross-culturally validated gender ideologies and with country-level indices of gender equality and human development. Using data from university samples in 62 countries across 13 world regions (N = 33,417), we demonstrate: (1) the psychometric isomorphism of the PMB (i.e., its comparability in meaning and statistical properties across the individual and country levels); (2) the PMB’s distinctness from, and associations with, ambivalent sexism and ambivalence toward men; and (3) associations of the PMB with nation-level gender equality and human development. Findings are discussed in terms of their statistical and theoretical implications for understanding widely-held beliefs about the precariousness of the male gender role

What's really in a name-letter effect? Name-letter preferences as indirect measures of self-esteem

People show a preference for the letters occurring in their name (Name-Letter Effect, Nuttin, 1984), a phenomenon that has inspired the development of a frequently used indirect measure of self-esteem. This article reviews the literature on the Name-Letter Effect as the basis for this measure. It discusses the tasks that have been used to measure name-letter preferences and the algorithms that have been designed to extract self-esteem scores from them. It also reviews the evidence that name-letter preferences are valid indicators of self-esteem. The article shows that current knowledge on the value of name-letter preferences as measures of self-esteem is limited by (a) the inherent difficulty of assessing the validity of implicit measures, (b) the use of different, insufficiently justified algorithms, (c) a historical focus on preferences for initials, and (d) neglect of the state-trait distinction. The article ends with recommendations for the use of name-letter preferences to measure self-esteem.status: publishe

The name letter effect and its implications for (social) psychology

status: publishe

Why did Johann Weyer write De praestigiis daemonum?: How Anti-Catholicism inspired the Landmark Plea for the Witches

Johann Weyer (1515/1516-1588)’s book De praestigiis daemonum, et incantationibus ac veneficiis (On devilish delusions and on enchantments and poisonings), first published in Basel in 1563, counts as a systematic attack on witch theories and witch trials. Vera Hoorens argues that Weyer wrote it not only to defend the witches but also and, perhaps even more, as an instrument to criticise the Catholic Church. This reinterpretation solves the problems that are associated with the traditional interpretation of De praestigiis daemonum, including the variety of its contents, Weyer’s seemingly enigmatic source use, and his having written the book before and not during the increase in witch trials. The article answers a number of questions that are raised by the reinterpretation, including those surrounding Weyer’s religious persuasion, why contemporaries and historians almost unanimously viewed De praestigiis daemonum as a treatise against witch trials, and the extent to which he truly cared about the witches.   Waarom schreef Jan Wier De praestigiis daemonum? Jan Wier (1515/1516-1588)’s boek De praestigiis daemonum, et incantationibus ac veneficiis (Over duivelse begoochelingen en over betoveringen en gifmengerijen), waarvan de eerste editie in 1563 in Basel verscheen, geldt als een systematische aanval op heksentheorieën en heksenprocessen. Vera Hoorens betoogt dat Wier het niet enkel schreef om de heksen te verdedigen, maar ook, en misschien nog wel meer, als een instrument voor zijn kritiek op de Katholieke Kerk. Deze herinterpretatie lost de problemen op die geassocieerd zijn met de traditionele interpretatie van De praestigiis daemonum, namelijk de verscheidenheid van zijn inhoud, Wiers schijnbaar raadselachtig bronnengebruik, en het feit dat hij zijn boek schreef voordat en niet terwijl de heksenprocessen toenamen. Dit artikel beantwoordt een aantal vragen die de voorgestelde herinterpretatie oproept, zoals wat Wiers religieuze overtuiging was, waarom tijdgenoten en historici De praestigiis daemonum bijna unaniem zagen als een traktaat tegen de heksenprocessen, en in welke mate Wier echt om de heksen gaf

“My lung cancer is as probable as yours (but not really)”: self favouring biases in the interpretation of health communication

People’s interpretation of verbal chance terms (e.g., ‘likely’) depend on their a priori beliefs concerning the likelihood of the health risks being described. The higher this likelihood, the higher the probability people associate with the verbal expression. Interestingly, most indivi¬duals believe that they are less likely than others to fall victim to various health risks. The occurrence of this comparative optimism implies that people’s interpretation of verbal chances terms may depend on whether they are used in messages that focus on their own risks versus in messages that focus on the risks of other people. In order to test this potential and thus far untested consequence of comparative optimism, participants were presented with probabilistic statements describing the likelihood of various health problems either in their own life or in the life of the average other. For each of these statements, they were asked to indicate the numerical probability meant by the chance term. In line with the expectations, numerical probabilities associated with verbal chance terms occurring in statements about one’s own risks were generally lower than numerical probabilities associated with verbal chance terms being used to describe the average other’s risks. At first sight, the obtained self-other difference was quite small, suggesting that its relevance for health education may be quite limited. However, methodological and ethical constraints may have limited the magnitude of the effects being obtained.status: publishe

Expectation

© 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Expectations are beliefs about something that will occur or that will be revealed in the future. They may be based on personal experience, information transmitted by others, cognitive construction, or heuristic thinking. Expectations play a role in learning, motivation, decision-making, affective responding and forecasting, and social interactions. Even though they show a variety of biases, expectations often incorrectly appear to be accurate. One reason for the overestimation of the validity of expectations is that they affect the identification and evaluation of behaviors and events, as well as causal reasoning, memory, and interpersonal communication. Moreover, expectations may affect behaviors in such a manner that they make themselves come true or, less frequently, falsify themselves.edition: 2ndstatus: publishe

Waarom controleerbare gebeurtenissen meer onrealistisch optimisme uitlokken dan oncontroleerbare gebeurtenissen: de controle-verwaarlozinghypothese getoetst

status: publishe