Gold R S, Aucote H M
School of Psychology, Deakin University, Victoria, Australia.
Int J STD AIDS. 2003 Jan;14(1):18-23. doi: 10.1258/095646203321043200.
Among the self-justifications that gay men use when engaging in high-risk sex is the thought that they are less at risk than most gay men. Two explanatory models of such 'unrealistic optimism' (UO) have been proposed: while the motivational account holds that UO arises because it serves the function of bringing comfort, the cognitive account holds that UO serves no particular function, being simply a by-product of normal cognitive strategies. This study investigated predictions derived from the motivational account. Gay men uninfected with HIV (n = 88) answered two test questions, requiring them to estimate, respectively, their own risk of becoming infected and that of the average gay man. The questions were presented in the two possible orders, and were either separated or not separated by unrelated filler material. The great majority of the men (89%) exhibited UO. Neither question order nor the interpolation of filler material affected responses to either test question. The results were inconsistent with the motivational account, but explicable in terms of the cognitive account. It seems that the cognitive account provides the better explanation of at least that form of UO measured in this study. Implications for AIDS educators are discussed.
男同性恋者在进行高风险性行为时所使用的自我辩解理由之一是，他们认为自己比大多数男同性恋者面临的风险更低。针对这种“不切实际的乐观主义”（UO），人们提出了两种解释模型：动机解释认为，UO的出现是因为它起到了带来安慰的作用；认知解释则认为，UO没有特定功能，只是正常认知策略的副产品。本研究调查了从动机解释中得出的预测。未感染艾滋病毒的男同性恋者（n = 88）回答了两个测试问题，要求他们分别估计自己感染的风险以及普通男同性恋者感染的风险。问题以两种可能的顺序呈现，并且由无关的填充材料隔开或未隔开。绝大多数男性（89%）表现出不切实际的乐观主义。问题顺序和填充材料的插入都没有影响对任何一个测试问题的回答。结果与动机解释不一致，但从认知解释的角度可以解释。看来，认知解释至少为本研究中所测量的那种形式的不切实际的乐观主义提供了更好的解释。文中还讨论了对艾滋病教育工作者的启示。
