COVID-19和对感染和疫苗接种有偏见的公众心态:不切实际的乐观主义和接种疫苗和未接种疫苗之间的社会比较

IF 2.8 3区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Wojciech Kulesza, D. Doliński, Paweł Muniak, T. Grzyb, A. Rizulla
{"title":"COVID-19和对感染和疫苗接种有偏见的公众心态:不切实际的乐观主义和接种疫苗和未接种疫苗之间的社会比较","authors":"Wojciech Kulesza, D. Doliński, Paweł Muniak, T. Grzyb, A. Rizulla","doi":"10.1177/18344909221122573","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":45049,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"COVID-19 and a biased public mentality toward infection and vaccination: A case of unrealistic optimism and social comparisons between the vaccinated and unvaccinated\",\"authors\":\"Wojciech Kulesza, D. Doliński, Paweł Muniak, T. Grzyb, A. Rizulla\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/18344909221122573\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45049,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/18344909221122573\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/18344909221122573","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

在2019冠状病毒病背景下,不切实际的乐观主义被描述为认为同龄人更有感染风险的倾向。然而,到目前为止,还没有研究提出更具体的比较。本文不仅复制了最新的文献,表明人们认为自己比同龄人更不容易感染COVID-19,而且通过在接种COVID-19疫苗和未接种疫苗的人之间提供额外和更具体的比较,填补了上述空白。通过评估未接种疫苗的人如何看待被冠状病毒感染的可能性,这种比较对于遏制COVID-19卷土重来的可能性至关重要。622名多产(未接种)用户参加了在线准实验。参与者估计了自己、同龄人或平均(未)接种疫苗的同龄人感染COVID-19的风险,这是文献的新补充。结果表明,存在不切实际的乐观效应。参与者估计自己感染的风险比其他人要低。令人惊讶的是,结果表明,对于未接种疫苗的人来说,疫苗似乎是降低感染风险的有效工具,但对他们自己却不是。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology
Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信