![]() ![]() Fewer studies have focused on egocentric impact perception, but it has similarly been demonstrated across genders, ages, contexts, and types of circumstances ( Blanton et al., 2001 Chambers et al., 2003a Davidai & Gilovich, 2016). Illusory superiority is also general across ages, genders, cultures, and comparison dimensions ( Sedikides et al., 2003, 2007), including health behaviour ( Hoorens & Harris, 1998). Unrealistic optimism has been demonstrated across cultures, ages, and genders, and in various domains ( Harris et al., 2008), including health ( Hoorens, 1994 Weinstein, 1987). We borrow these concepts and, in line with them, allocentric impact bias to denote the general occurrence of allocentric impact perception. For that reason, the general occurrence of comparative optimism has been called unrealistic optimism ( Weinstein, 1980), the general occurrence of self-superiority has been called illusory superiority (e.g., Hoorens & Harris, 1998), and the general occurrence of egocentric impact perception has been called the egocentric impact bias (Chambers & Suls, 2007). Yet, at least some individuals must err if most members of a group claim that they are less likely to experience negative events and more likely to experience positive events, that they are or act better, or that they are more (or less) affected by some external circumstance than average (unless the distribution is extremely skewed). Individuals may also engage in specific actions more or less than average or be more affected by some external circumstance. ![]() Some individuals may truly be more likely than average to experience certain outcomes, or less likely to experience other ones. Egocentric impact perception has been measured by eliciting relative or absolute impact judgments or by inviting people to generate reasons for failures in competitions ( Davidai & Gilovich, 2016).Īt the individual level, it is virtually impossible to determine the validity of comparative optimism, self-superiority, and egocentric or allocentric impact perception. The hypothetical opposite of egocentric impact perception is allocentric impact perception or the perception that others are more impacted than the self. Its measurement typically involves asking participants to judge themselves relative to others on given traits or behaviours or to separately judge the self and others, although some researchers have asked participants to generate examples of their own and others’ behaviours (e.g., Messick et al., 1985).įinally, egocentric impact perception is the belief that external circumstances and events (e.g., adverse competition circumstances or laws and regulations) affect oneself more than others ( Blanton et al., 2001 Chambers et al., 2003b). Self-superiority is the belief that one is or acts better than average ( Alicke, 1985 Zell et al., 2020). A few researchers have examined comparative optimism by having participants judge the severity of negative events for them as compared to others ( Hevey & French, 2012) or generate events that may occur in their or other people’s future ( Hoorens et al., 2008). In studies on comparative optimism, participants typically estimate their likelihood to experience each of a list of given events as compared to the average other or most others (generally specified as ‘of your age and gender’) or estimate absolute likelihoods for themselves and others, with the researchers then calculating self-other differences. Self-Uniqueness in Expectations, Self-Judgments, and Impact AppraisalsĬomparative optimism is the belief that one’s future will be better than other people’s future ( Shepperd et al., 2015 Weinstein, 1980). #Are age 21 and under unrealistic optimism how toWe examined self-uniqueness beliefs in future expectations, self-judgments, and perceptions of the impact of precautionary measures, and their relationship with information seeking and trust in sources of information about how to protect oneself and others against an infectious disease such as COVID-19. Self-uniqueness may reduce the perceived relevance of available health information for the self, and thus discourage information seeking and reduce trust in potential sources of information. ![]() Among the phenomena that may limit the effectiveness of health communication targeting the general audience is the belief, arguably held by many, that one differs from one’s peers in important manners ( Hoorens, 1993). Even if people find rules generally useful, however, they do not necessarily follow them. The COVID-19 crisis has confronted governments with the challenge of promoting behavioural precautions. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |