Multiple Group Membership, Optimistic Bias, and Infection Risk in the Context of Emerging Infectious Diseases

IF 1.3 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL European Journal of Health Psychology Pub Date : 2023-01-19 DOI:10.1027/2512-8442/a000127
D. Frings, J. Wills, S. Sykes, K. Wood, I. Albery
{"title":"Multiple Group Membership, Optimistic Bias, and Infection Risk in the Context of Emerging Infectious Diseases","authors":"D. Frings, J. Wills, S. Sykes, K. Wood, I. Albery","doi":"10.1027/2512-8442/a000127","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract. Background: Understanding psychosocial factors which impact responses to emerging infectious diseases (EIDs) is vital in managing epidemics and pandemics. Two under-researched areas in this field are the interactive roles of optimistic bias (underestimation of the likelihood of negative events occurring to the self, relative to others) and group membership (a factor observed to be psychologically protective, but infection risk enhancing). Aims: The current study aimed to test the relationships between optimistic bias and membership of multiple groups upon EID-related emotional and psychological responses and behavioral intentions. Methods: Participants from the UK and US ( N = 360) rated how they would evaluate and respond to a fictitious EID immediately before the 2020 COVID-19 lockdowns in a correlational study. Results: Negative relationships were observed between optimistic bias and perceived infection vulnerability, infection prevention strategies, and perceived EID severity. Multiple group membership correlated negatively with germ avoidance, but positively with emotional responses such as disgust and increased perceived vulnerability to infection – factors linked to avoiding infection. Multiple group memberships and optimistic bias were unrelated. Limitations: The study focussed on a fictitious disease and relies on cross-sectional data and behavioral intentions. Conclusions: These findings build upon the small evidence base on the role of optimistic bias in EID management and suggest that multiple group membership is unlikely to increase optimistic bias. The theoretical and practical implications of the findings for EID management are discussed.","PeriodicalId":51983,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Health Psychology","volume":"32 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Health Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1027/2512-8442/a000127","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract. Background: Understanding psychosocial factors which impact responses to emerging infectious diseases (EIDs) is vital in managing epidemics and pandemics. Two under-researched areas in this field are the interactive roles of optimistic bias (underestimation of the likelihood of negative events occurring to the self, relative to others) and group membership (a factor observed to be psychologically protective, but infection risk enhancing). Aims: The current study aimed to test the relationships between optimistic bias and membership of multiple groups upon EID-related emotional and psychological responses and behavioral intentions. Methods: Participants from the UK and US ( N = 360) rated how they would evaluate and respond to a fictitious EID immediately before the 2020 COVID-19 lockdowns in a correlational study. Results: Negative relationships were observed between optimistic bias and perceived infection vulnerability, infection prevention strategies, and perceived EID severity. Multiple group membership correlated negatively with germ avoidance, but positively with emotional responses such as disgust and increased perceived vulnerability to infection – factors linked to avoiding infection. Multiple group memberships and optimistic bias were unrelated. Limitations: The study focussed on a fictitious disease and relies on cross-sectional data and behavioral intentions. Conclusions: These findings build upon the small evidence base on the role of optimistic bias in EID management and suggest that multiple group membership is unlikely to increase optimistic bias. The theoretical and practical implications of the findings for EID management are discussed.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
新发传染病背景下的多群体成员、乐观偏见和感染风险
摘要背景:了解影响对新发传染病反应的社会心理因素对于管理流行病和大流行病至关重要。这一领域的两个研究不足的领域是乐观偏见(相对于他人,低估了消极事件发生在自己身上的可能性)和群体成员(一种被观察到具有心理保护作用,但感染风险增加的因素)的互动作用。目的:本研究旨在检验乐观偏见与eid相关情绪心理反应和行为意向的多群体成员关系。方法:在一项相关研究中,来自英国和美国的参与者(N = 360)评估了他们将如何在2020年COVID-19封锁之前评估和应对虚构的EID。结果:乐观偏见与感知感染易感性、感染预防策略和感知EID严重程度呈负相关。多群体成员与细菌避免呈负相关,但与情绪反应(如厌恶和对感染的脆弱感增加)呈正相关,这些因素与避免感染有关。多群体成员和乐观偏见是不相关的。局限性:该研究集中于一种虚构的疾病,依赖于横断面数据和行为意图。结论:这些发现建立在乐观偏倚在EID管理中的作用的小证据基础上,并表明多组成员不太可能增加乐观偏倚。讨论了研究结果对EID管理的理论和实践意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
期刊介绍: Die "Zeitschrift für Gesundheitspsychologie" wurde gegründet, um dem raschen Anwachsen gesundheitspsychologischer Forschung sowie deren Relevanz für verschiedene Anwendungsfelder gerecht zu werden. Gesundheitspsychologie versteht sich als wissenschaftlicher Beitrag der Psychologie zur Förderung und Erhaltung von Gesundheit, zur Verhütung und Behandlung von Krankheiten, zur Bestimmung von Risikoverhaltensweisen, zur Diagnose und Ursachenbestimmung von gesundheitlichen Störungen sowie zur Verbessung des Systems gesundheitlicher Vorsorge.
期刊最新文献
Ambivalence Toward the Implementation of Preventive Measures in (Un-)Vaccinated German Citizens Personality Factors and Health Beliefs Related to Attitudes Toward Wearing Face Masks During the COVID-19 Pandemic Meeting Calendar List of Reviewers 2023 How Communicating Vaccine Benefits and Harms in Fact Boxes Affects Risk Perceptions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1