Are People Optimistically Biased about the Risk of COVID-19 Infection? Lessons from the First Wave of the Pandemic in Europe

Unrealistic optimism, the underestimation of one’s risk of experiencing harm, has been investigated extensively to understand better and predict behavioural responses to health threats. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, a relative dearth of research existed in this domain regarding epidemics, which is surprising considering that this optimistic bias has been associated with a lack of engagement in protective behaviours critical in fighting twenty-first-century, emergent, infectious diseases. The current study addresses this gap in the literature by investigating whether people demonstrated optimism bias during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe, how this changed over time, and whether unrealistic optimism was negatively associated with protective measures. Taking advantage of a pre-existing international participative influenza surveillance network (n = 12,378), absolute and comparative unrealistic optimism were measured at three epidemic stages (pre-, early, peak), and across four countries—France, Italy, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Despite differences in culture and health response, similar patterns were observed across all four countries. The prevalence of unrealistic optimism appears to be influenced by the particular epidemic context. Paradoxically, whereas absolute unrealistic optimism decreased over time, comparative unrealistic optimism increased, suggesting that whilst people became increasingly accurate in assessing their personal risk, they nonetheless overestimated that for others. Comparative unrealistic optimism was negatively associated with the adoption of protective behaviours, which is worrying, given that these preventive measures are critical in tackling the spread and health burden of COVID-19. It is hoped these findings will inspire further research into sociocognitive mechanisms involved in risk appraisal.

Oncologists’ reflections on patient rights and access to compassionate use drugs: A qualitative interview study from an academic cancer center

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allows patients with serious illnesses to access investigational drugs for “compassionate use” outside of clinical trials through expanded access (EA) Programs. The federal Right-to-Try Act created an additional pathway for non-trial access to experimental drugs without institutional review board or FDA approval. This removal of oversight amplifies the responsibility of physicians, but little is known about the role of practicing physicians in non-trial access to investigational drugs. We undertook semi-structured interviews to capture the experiences and opinions of 21 oncologists all with previous EA experience at a major cancer center. We found five main themes. Participants with greater EA experience reported less difficulty accessing drugs through the myriad of administrative processes and drug company reluctance to provide investigational products while newcomers reported administrative hurdles. Oncologists outlined several rationales patients offered when seeking investigational drugs, including those with stronger health literacy and a good scientific rationale versus others who remained skeptical of conventional medicine. Participants reported that most patients had realistic expectations while some had unrealistic optimism. Given the diverse reasons patients sought investigational drugs, four factors—scientific rationale, risk-benefit ratio, functional status of the patient, and patient motivation—influenced oncologists’ decisions to request compassionate use drugs. Physicians struggled with a “right-to-try” framing of patient access to experimental drugs, noting instead their own responsibility to protect patients’ best interest in the uncertain and risky process of off-protocol access. This study highlights the willingness of oncologists at a major cancer center to pursue non-trial access to experimental treatments for patients while also shedding light on the factors they use when considering such treatment. Our data reveal discrepancies between physicians’ sense of patients’ expectations and their own internal sense of professional obligation to shepherd a safe process for patients at a vulnerable point in their care.

Components of Unrealistic Optimism of College Students: The Case of the COVID-19 Pandemic

College students are among the most strongly affected populations by the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic because of uncertainty regarding academic success, future careers, and social life during their study period. Their mental health and behavior may dramatically be impacted. The study examined an unrealistic optimism of Israeli college students in assessing the health, security, and economic risks during the pandemic, and the contributions of these perceived risks to the prediction of psychological coping responses, such as well-being, and coping suppressing response of anxiety, expressed during this pandemic. Using social networks, a questionnaire was disseminated to students during the third lockdown that was implemented in Israel because of the pandemic. Depressive and anxiety symptoms, perceived threats, resilience, well-being, hope, and morale were measured using a structured quantitative questionnaire. First, we hypothesized that the three perceived risks would be inversely rated, so perceived health risk would be rated lowest, and perceived economic risk would be rated highest. The second and third hypotheses claimed that psychological coping responses articulated along this pandemic would be predicted by all these perceived risks, as well as the observance of pandemic precaution rules. The fourth hypothesis suggested that the three investigated perceived risks will positively and significantly correlate with each other. The results generally supported the hypotheses and indicated that the unrealistic optimism process was employed quite consistently by the participating students.

Research on Unrealistic Optimism among HoReCa Workers as a Possible Future Hotspot of Infections

As we are facing a new surge of the highly infectious delta variant of COVID-19, there is an urgent need for research to reduce the harm before this next wave hits. In the present paper, we present data that is alarming. We have found that HoReCa (hotels, restaurants, and catering services) workers, who are highly exposed to many new social interactions in close contact, present an unrealistic optimism (UO) bias: they perceive themselves as less at risk to this virus in comparison to others. From the literature, we already know that individuals holding this view are less involved in preventive actions and present more risky behaviors. In the face of the delta variant, this leads to the conclusion that restaurants will be new hot spots. What is more, we found that these unrealistic expectations are more pervasive: workers of the restaurant industry estimate low chances of bankruptcy, which may lead to unrealistic salary expectations, leading owners to a new upcoming wave of crisis: COVID-19 and bankruptcy—both of which may be caused by their workers.

Demographic and Psychological Factors and Preparation for Earthquakes

<p>New Zealand, like many countries, is at risk from a number of natural disasters including flooding, volcanoes, and earthquakes. The risk of exposure to such disasters over the course of a lifetime is substantial (Norris, 1992). Despite this, many New Zealanders are unprepared for the consequences of a natural disaster; nearly a quarter of New Zealand homes have flaws which could see them seriously damaged or detached from their foundations in a major earthquake (Ansell & Taber, 1996). Recent research suggests that psychological variables contribute to people's lack of preparation for natural disasters. A limitation, however, of much of this research has been the lack of attention paid to the psychometric quality of the instruments used to measure key constructs. The present investigation aimed to examine the relationships between different dimensions of personality and earthquake preparation in a large sample of Wellington residents using psychometrically sound measures. Measures of locus of control, risk, and earthquake preparation were first evaluated in a series of studies using both university students and Wellington residents. These questionnaires were then administered, along with items pertaining to the construct of unrealistic optimism, to a total of 358 Wellington residents. The results showed that locus of control, risk precaution, home ownership, and length of residence were significant predictors of earthquake preparation. Moreover, people exhibited evidence of unrealistic optimism, as demonstrated by both a belief that they were better prepared for a major earthquake than an acquaintance, or other Wellingtonians, and by a belief that they were personally less likely than others to suffer injury in a major earthquake. The implications of these results for emergency managers are discussed and several recommendations are made.</p>

Demographic and Psychological Factors and Preparation for Earthquakes

<p>New Zealand, like many countries, is at risk from a number of natural disasters including flooding, volcanoes, and earthquakes. The risk of exposure to such disasters over the course of a lifetime is substantial (Norris, 1992). Despite this, many New Zealanders are unprepared for the consequences of a natural disaster; nearly a quarter of New Zealand homes have flaws which could see them seriously damaged or detached from their foundations in a major earthquake (Ansell & Taber, 1996). Recent research suggests that psychological variables contribute to people's lack of preparation for natural disasters. A limitation, however, of much of this research has been the lack of attention paid to the psychometric quality of the instruments used to measure key constructs. The present investigation aimed to examine the relationships between different dimensions of personality and earthquake preparation in a large sample of Wellington residents using psychometrically sound measures. Measures of locus of control, risk, and earthquake preparation were first evaluated in a series of studies using both university students and Wellington residents. These questionnaires were then administered, along with items pertaining to the construct of unrealistic optimism, to a total of 358 Wellington residents. The results showed that locus of control, risk precaution, home ownership, and length of residence were significant predictors of earthquake preparation. Moreover, people exhibited evidence of unrealistic optimism, as demonstrated by both a belief that they were better prepared for a major earthquake than an acquaintance, or other Wellingtonians, and by a belief that they were personally less likely than others to suffer injury in a major earthquake. The implications of these results for emergency managers are discussed and several recommendations are made.</p>

Public and Stakeholder Engagement in Developing Human Heritable Genome Editing Policies: What Does it Mean and What Should it Mean?

As scientific research pushes the boundaries of knowledge, new discoveries and technologies often raise ethical and social questions. Public responses vary from surprise, to unrealistic optimism about imminent new treatments, confusion, and absolute opposition. Regardless of the intent, the use of a precise gene editing tool on human embryos, such as CRISPR-Cas9, is an example of such a controversial emerging technology. Substantive disagreement about the appropriate research pathways and permissible clinical applications is to be expected. Many ethical concerns, especially related to genetic manipulation of human embryos, are rooted in deeply held moral, religious, or ideological beliefs that science alone cannot address. Today, more scientists and scientific societies as well as policy makers are calling for public and stakeholder engagement in developing guidelines and policies governing scientific practice. We conducted a critical interpretive review of the literature on public and stakeholder engagement in science policy development regarding emerging technologies to determine the ideals that should guide engagement efforts of entities developing recommendations or guidelines on policy for such technologies. We identify and describe five ideals. To illustrate possible applications of these ideals, we review the engagement efforts described in three reports on heritable human genome editing and assess those efforts in light of these ideals. Finally, we recommend possible avenues for engagement that would advance those goals.