Jason P. Rose

Cultural Differences in Unrealistic Optimism and Pessimism: The Role of Egocentrism and Direct Versus Indirect Comparison Measures

Recent research has raised questions regarding the consistency of unrealistic optimism and related self-enhancing tendencies, both within cultures and across cultures. The current study tested whether the method used to assess unrealistic optimism influenced cross-cultural patterns in the United States and Japan. The results showed that the direct method (a single comparison judgment between self and peers) produced similar patterns across cultures because of cognitive biases (e.g., egocentrism); specifically, participants were unrealistically optimistic about experiencing infrequent/negative events but pessimistic about experiencing frequent/ negative events. However, the indirect method (separate self- and peer judgments) produced different patterns across cultures because culturally specific motivational biases emerged using this method; specifically, the U.S. sample was more unrealistically optimistic than the Japanese sample. The authors discuss how these results might influence the interpretation of previous findings on culture and self-enhancement.

Are People Excessive or Judicious in Their Egocentrism? A Modeling Approach to Understanding Bias and Accuracy in People’s Optimism

People are often egocentric when judging their likelihood of success in competitions, leading to overoptimism about winning when circumstances are generally easy and to overpessimism when the circumstances are difficult. Yet, egocentrism might be grounded in a rational tendency to favor highly reliable information (about the self) more so than less reliable information (about others). A general theory of probability called extended support theory was used to conceptualize and assess the role of egocentrism and its consequences for the accuracy of peoples optimism in 3 competitions (Studies 1-3, respectively). Also, instructions were manipulated to test whether people who were urged to avoid egocentrism would show improved or worsened accuracy in their likelihood judgments. Egocentrism was found to have a potentially helpful effect on one form of accuracy, but people generally showed too much egocentrism. Debias instructions improved one form of accuracy but had no impact on another. The advantages of using the EST framework for studying optimism and other types of judgments (e.g., comparative ability judgments) are discussed.

Why does choice enhance treatment effectiveness? Using placebo treatments to demonstrate the role of personal control

In modern health care, individuals frequently exercise choice over health treatment alternatives. A growing body of research suggests that when individuals choose between treatment options, treatment effectiveness can increase, although little experimental evidence exists clarifying this effect. Four studies were conducted to test the hypothesis that exercising choice over treatment alternatives enhances outcomes by providing greater personal control. Consistent with this possibility, in Study 1 individuals who chronically desired control reported less pain from a laboratory pain task when they were able to select between placebo analgesic treatments. Study 2 replicated this finding with an auditory discomfort paradigm. In Study 3, the desire for control was experimentally induced, and participants with high desire for control benefited more from a placebo treatment when they were able to choose their treatment. Study 4 revealed that the benefit of choice on treatment efficacy was partially mediated by thoughts of personal control. This research suggests that when individuals desire control, choice over treatment alternatives improves treatment effectiveness by enhancing personal control.

Choice and placebo expectation effects in the context of pain analgesia

The current experiment examined whether having choice over treatment options facilitates or inhibits the strength of placebo expectations in the context of pain perception. All participants were exposed to an aversive stimulus (i.e., the cold pressor task), and participants in some conditions were given expectations for two pain-relieving treatments (actually the same inert ointment mixture). Critically, participants in these expectation conditions were also given a choice or not about which of the two treatments they preferred to use. Participants in a control condition were not provided with a treatment expectation. Despite receiving the same inert treatment, participants who had a choice over treatments showed increased placebo analgesia as compared to participants not given a choice and participants in the control condition. Moreover, this effect was mediated by changes in anxiety. Explanations and implications for these results are discussed.

Optimism Following a Tornado Disaster

Effects of exposure to a severe weather disaster on perceived future vulnerability were assessed in college students, local residents contacted through random-digit dialing, and community residents of affected versus unaffected neighborhoods. Students and community residents reported being less vulnerable than their peers at 1 month, 6 months, and 1 year after the disaster. In Studies 1 and 2, absolute risk estimates were more optimistic with time, whereas comparative vulnerability was stable. Residents of affected neighborhoods (Study 3), surprisingly, reported less comparative vulnerability and lower “gut-level” numerical likelihood estimates at 6 months, but later their estimates resembled the unaffected residents. Likelihood estimates (10%-12%), however, exceeded the 1% risk calculated by storm experts, and gut-level versus statistical-level estimates were more optimistic. Although people believed they had approximately a 1-in-10 chance of injury from future tornadoes (i.e., an overestimate), they thought their risk was lower than peers.

Are direct or indirect measures of comparative risk better predictors of concern and behavioural intentions

Recent research has shown that comparative risk perceptions account for unique variance in concern and behavioural intentions, above and beyond absolute self risk perceptions. However, comparative risk perceptions have been measured both directly (i.e. a single question requiring a self-to-peer comparison) and indirectly (i.e. separate, absolute questions about the self and ones peers), yet no study has examined which measure is more predictive of concern and intentions. Two studies examined this issue in the context of several health risks (e.g. cancer, heart attacks). Study 1 showed that direct comparisons were generally more predictive of concern and intentions than indirect comparisons. Study 2 replicated this finding and revealed asymmetries in how people responded to absolute self versus peer questions. Implications for risk screening in health contexts are discussed.

Choice as a Moderator of Placebo Expectation Effects: Additional Support From Two Experiments

Two experiments investigated the hypothesis that treatment choice enhances placebo treatment efficacy. In Experiment 1, prior to a pain task, participants were given either an expectation that two (inert) products could reduce pain or no expectation. In addition, participants either selected between the two products or were assigned a product to use. Participants given both the placebo expectation and treatment choice reported the lowest pain. Experiment 2 conceptually replicated this finding using a placebo paradigm with aversive auditory stimuli. Additional control conditions indicated that a choice availability (rather than choice restriction) explanation best accounted for these results.

Subjective Social Status and Well-Being: The Role of Referent Abstraction

ABSTRACT Subjective social status (SSS) has been shown to predict well-being and mental health, above and beyond objective social status (OSS). However, little is known about the factors that moderate this relationship. Two studies explored whether the link between SSS and well-being varied depending upon the referent used for comparison in SSS judgments. Participants judged their well-being and SSS in comparison to referents that varied in abstraction. A confirmatory factor analysis on SSS judgments yielded two factors: (a) SSS perceptions toward global referents and (b) SSS perceptions toward local referents. SSS relative to a global referent was a better predictor of depression (Studies 1 and 2), life satisfaction (Studies 1 and 2), and self-esteem (Study 2) than SSS relative to a local referent. These findings have theoretical implications for understanding how people differentiate between local vs. global referents and practical implications for status-related health disparities.

Interhemispheric interaction and egocentrism: The role of handedness in social comparative judgement

Previous research has shown that people are egocentrically biased when making judgements that require a self-to-peer comparison - leading to above-/below-average effects and comparative optimism/pessimism. Two experiments examined whether interhemispheric brain connectivity (assessed via strength of handedness) is associated with egocentrism in the comparative judgement process. In Experiment 1, strong handers (SH) and mixed handers (MH) made percentile rank judgements about their abilities in easy and hard domains. In Experiment 2, SH and MH judged their likelihoods of outperforming a co-participant in easy and hard tasks. Both experiments showed that SH were more egocentric than MH and thus showed (a) more above- and below-average effects when estimating their abilities (Experiment 1) and (b) generally larger optimism biases when predicting performances in a competition (Experiment 2). Taken together, these experiments provide evidence that underlying interhemispheric connectivity shapes egocentrism in comparative judgement.

When and why people are comparatively optimistic about future health risks: The role of direct and indirect comparison measures

The goal of the current research was to test whether direct versus indirect measures of comparative optimism yield different results as a function of health risk severity and prevalence. A random-digit sample of community residents (N = 259) responded to interview questions about perceived vulnerability using both direct (i.e. self-to-peer risk) and indirect comparison measures (i.e. separate questions about self and peer risk). Responses to direct comparison measures were more affected by prevalence, whereas indirect comparison measures were more affected by severity. These results may offer guidance to researchers and practitioners about when it may be more appropriate to use direct versus indirect measures of comparative health risk.