Born to be biased? Unrealistic optimism and error management theory

Temporal aspects of unrealistic optimism and robustness of this bias: A longitudinal study in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic

Numerous studies on unrealistic optimism (UO) have shown that people claim they are less exposed to COVID-19 infection than others. Yet, it has not been assessed if this bias evolves; does it escalate or diminish when the information about the threat changes? The present paper fills this gap. For 12 months 120 participants estimated their own and their peers' risk of COVID-19 infection. Results show that UO regarding COVID-19 infection is an enduring phenomenon-It was the dominant tendency throughout almost the entire study and was never substituted by Unrealistic Pessimism. While the presence of UO-bias was constant, its magnitude changed. We tested possible predictors of these changes: the daily new cases/deaths, the changes in governmental restrictions and the mobility of participants' community. Out of these predictors, only changes in governmental restrictions proved to be significant- when the restrictions tightened, UO increased.

Conspiracy claims and secret intentions as predictors of psychological coping and vaccine uptake during the COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 vaccination campaign led to hesitancy, deferment and un-resolving resistance of certain groups or individuals worldwide. Reasons for these reactions include distrust in the COVID-19 vaccine that was developed rapidly, lack of trust in governing entities and unrealistic optimism (UO). Each of these reasons may involve claims of secret intentions or conspiracy theories. The present study examined the role of three different explanations for vaccine hesitancy and rejection, in predicting psychological coping, distress, and level of vaccine uptake, throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Blaming the vaccine and its producers, blaming the state's authorities, and expressing criticism in UO terms, which may hint of some secret intention that underlies the vaccination request. The research was conducted on a sample of 2002 Israeli adults who responded to an anonymous questionnaire about vaccine hesitancy and psychological coping. We assumed that conspiracy theories aimed at the medical and the governing authorities, and the UO insinuations of covert intentions of these authorities, represent two different psychological processes. UO responses to adversity are aimed at reducing anxiety attributing covert intentions to the authorities and the pharmaceutical companies is an expression of anxiety. Three major hypotheses are examined. First, stronger criticism of the vaccine will be associated with a lower level of vaccination. Second, more extreme criticism of the political and the medical authorities for requesting vaccination, raised as a reason for vaccine hesitation will positively predict a higher level of anxiety and negatively predict the extent of good psychological coping. A stronger opposition to the vaccine in terms of UO will be positively associated with a greater scope of resilience and coping and will be negatively linked to indicators of distress. Results supported these hypotheses and enhanced the ongoing discussion on the contribution of UO to psychological adjustment, by illustrating its beneficial effects on this adjustment. Conspiracy Theories and Secret Intentions as Predictors of Psychological Coping and Vaccine Uptake throughout the COVID-19 Pandemic in Israel.

Who looks on the bright side? Optimistic and pessimistic perceptual-response reflexes over American adulthood

Research suggests that the way individuals are oriented towards the future is deeply embedded in their psychology, shaping how they perceive and react to opportunities and threats, even at unconscious levels. We argue that exposures to opportunities and threats over the life course can shape future orientation at a deep level, and that word-valence effects to survey questions indicate optimistic and pessimistic "perceptual-response reflexes" that are manifestations of unconscious dispositions. Using data collected over 25 years in the Americans' Changing Lives (ACL) study we analyze variation in word-valence effects by age, birth cohort, gender, and race. The broad adult age-range of the sample and the length of follow-up permits the examination of birth cohorts ranging from the "First Children of the 20th Century" (born before 1917) to "Baby Boomers" (born 1947-1962). We find notable differences in age-graded trends across two overarching birth cohort groups: those who reached high school age before the Supreme Court's landmark Brown vs Board of Education decision in 1954 (i.e., born before 1932) and after (i.e., born in 1932 and later). Age-related trends in optimistic perceptual response diverge notably for women versus men, and for Black versus White Americans. Trends in pessimistic perceptual response differ from trends in optimistic response. For example, in early adulthood Black Americans score higher on both optimistic and pessimistic response patterns than White Americans. Birth-cohort differences in both outcomes vary by gender and race. Those differences are interpreted in terms of changes in political, demographic, and sociocultural contexts.

Biased Learning as a Simple Adaptive Foraging Mechanism

Adaptive cognitive biases, such as “optimism,” may have evolved as heuristic rules for computationally efficient decision-making, or as error-management tools when error payoff is asymmetrical. Ecologists typically use the term “optimism” to describe unrealistically positive expectations from the future that are driven by positively biased initial belief. Cognitive psychologists on the other hand, focus on valence-dependent optimism bias, an asymmetric learning process where information about undesirable outcomes is discounted (sometimes also termed “positivity biased learning”). These two perspectives are not mutually exclusive, and both may lead to similar emerging space-use patterns, such as increased exploration. The distinction between these two biases may becomes important, however, when considering the adaptive value of balancing the exploitation of known resources with the exploration of an ever-changing environment. Deepening our theoretical understanding of the adaptive value of valence-dependent learning, as well as its emerging space-use and foraging patterns, may be crucial for understanding whether, when and where might species withstand rapid environmental change. We present the results of an optimal-foraging model implemented as an individual-based simulation in continuous time and discrete space. Our forager, equipped with partial knowledge of average patch quality and inter-patch travel time, iteratively decides whether to stay in the current patch, return to previously exploited patches, or explore new ones. Every time the forager explores a new patch, it updates its prior belief using a simple single-parameter model of valence-dependent learning. We find that valence-dependent optimism results in the maintenance of positively biased expectations (prior-based optimism), which, depending on the spatiotemporal variability of the environment, often leads to greater fitness gains. These results provide insights into the potential ecological and evolutionary significance of valence-dependent optimism and its interplay with prior-based optimism.

Unrealistic Optimism and Risk for COVID-19 Disease

Risk perception and consequently engagement in behaviors to avoid illness often do not match actual risk of infection, morbidity, and mortality. Unrealistic optimism occurs when individuals falsely believe that their personal outcomes will be more favorable than others' in the same risk category. Natural selection could favor overconfidence if its benefits, such as psychological resilience, outweigh its costs. However, just because optimism biases may have offered fitness advantages in our evolutionary past does not mean that they are always optimal. The current project examined relationships among personal risk for severe COVID-19, risk perceptions, and preventative behaviors. We predicted that those with higher risk of severe COVID-19 would exhibit unrealistic optimism and behave in ways inconsistent with their elevated risk of morbidity and mortality. Clinical risk scores for severe COVID-19 were calculated and compared with COVID-19 threat appraisal, compliance with shelter-in-place orders (March 13–May 22, 2020) and travel restrictions, compliance with public health recommendations, and potential covariates like self-rated knowledge about COVID-19 in a robust dataset including 492 participants from McLennan County, TX, USA. While those with high clinical risk acknowledged their greater likelihood of experiencing severe illness if infected, they actually reported lower perceived likelihood of becoming infected in the first place. While it is possible that those with higher clinical risk scores truly are less likely to become infected, the pattern and significance of these results held after controlling for possible occupational exposure, household size, and other factors related to infection probability. Higher clinical risk also predicted more recent travel within Texas and lower distress during the pandemic (i.e., feeling less stressed, depressed, and helpless). Additional behavioral data suggested that those with higher clinical risk scores did not generally behave differently than those with lower scores during the shelter-in-place order. While unrealistic optimism may provide some short-term psychological benefits, it could be dangerous due to improper assessment of hazardous situations; inferring that optimism bias has evolutionary origins does not mean that unrealistic optimism is “optimal” in every situation. This may be especially true when individuals face novel sources (or scales) of risk, such as a global pandemic.

The Rules of Attraction: The Necessary Role of Animal Cognition in Explaining Conservation Failures and Successes

Integrating knowledge and principles of animal behavior into wildlife conservation and management has led to some concrete successes but has failed to improve conservation outcomes in other cases. Many conservation interventions involve attempts to either attract or repel animals, which we refer to as approach/avoidance issues. These attempts can be reframed as issues of manipulating the decisions animals make, which are driven by their perceptual abilities and attentional biases, as well as the value animals attribute to current stimuli and past learned experiences. These processes all fall under the umbrella of animal cognition. Here, we highlight rules that emerge when considering approach/avoidance conservation issues through the lens of cognitive-based management. For each rule, we review relevant conservation successes and failures to better predict the conditions in which behavior can be manipulated, and we suggest how to avoid future failures.