Gassen Jeffrey, Nowak Tomasz J, Henderson Alexandria D, Weaver Sally P, Baker Erich J, Muehlenbein Michael P
Department of Anthropology, Baylor University, Waco, TX, United States.
Waco Family Medicine, Waco, TX, United States.
Front Psychol. 2021 Jun 4;12:647461. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.647461. eCollection 2021.
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.
风险认知以及因此而采取的预防疾病行为往往与实际感染、发病和死亡风险不匹配。当个体错误地认为自己在同一风险类别中的个人结果会比其他人更有利时,就会出现不切实际的乐观主义。如果自然选择的益处(如心理韧性)超过其成本,那么它可能会青睐过度自信。然而,仅仅因为乐观偏差在我们的进化历史中可能带来了适应性优势,并不意味着它们总是最优的。当前的项目研究了严重 COVID-19 的个人风险、风险认知和预防行为之间的关系。我们预测,患严重 COVID-19 风险较高的人会表现出不切实际的乐观主义,其行为方式与其较高的发病和死亡风险不一致。计算了严重 COVID-19 的临床风险评分,并将其与 COVID-19 威胁评估、遵守就地避难令(2020 年 3 月 13 日至 5 月 22 日)和旅行限制、遵守公共卫生建议以及潜在协变量(如对 COVID-19 的自我评估知识)进行比较,该数据集来自美国德克萨斯州麦克伦南县的 492 名参与者。虽然临床风险高的人承认如果感染,他们患重病的可能性更大,但他们实际上报告的首先感染的感知可能性较低。虽然临床风险评分较高的人确实可能感染的可能性较小,但在控制了可能的职业暴露、家庭规模和其他与感染概率相关的因素后,这些结果的模式和显著性仍然成立。较高的临床风险还预测了在德克萨斯州内最近的旅行以及疫情期间较低的痛苦程度(即感觉压力、抑郁和无助感较小)。额外的行为数据表明,在就地避难令期间,临床风险评分较高的人的行为通常与评分较低的人没有差异。虽然不切实际的乐观主义可能会带来一些短期的心理益处,但由于对危险情况的不当评估,它可能是危险的;推断乐观偏差有进化起源并不意味着不切实际的乐观主义在每种情况下都是“最优的”。当个体面临新的风险来源(或规模),如全球大流行时,情况可能尤其如此。