The desirability bias refers to when people's expectations about an uncertain event are biased by outcome preferences. Prior work has provided limited evidence that the magnitude of this motivated ...bias depends on (is moderated by) how expectations are solicited-as discrete outcome predictions or as likelihood judgments expressed on more continuous scales. The present studies extended the generalizability and understanding of the moderating process. The authors proposed that solicitations of predictions and likelihood judgments have different connotations that ultimately affect how much bias is expressed; this varies from a prior account that attributed the moderation effect to response scale differences (dichotomous vs. continuous). Study 1 confirmed the connotation difference, with predictions being viewed as more affording of hunches. Studies 2-4 directly tested the moderation effect, and unlike prior work focusing on expectations for purely stochastic events, the present studies involved more naturalistic events for which likelihood information was not supplied or directly knowable. Before viewing scenes from a basketball game (Study 2) or an endurance race (Studies 3 and 4), participants were led to prefer one contestant over another. After viewing most of the closely fought contest, they made either a prediction or likelihood judgment about the outcome. Participants' tendency to forecast their preferred contestant to win was significantly stronger among those making predictions rather than likelihood judgments. In support of the proposed account, this effect persisted even when both types of solicitations offered only dichotomous response options. Broader implications for measuring and understanding people's expectations or forecasts are discussed.
Abstract
Following the release of the first COVID‐19 vaccinations many people utilized social media to promote vaccination among their social circles. These attempts to persuade others to get ...vaccinated ranged from positive encouragement (e.g., emphasizing the prosocial benefits and positive outcomes) to shame and threats (e.g., name calling and threating to end friendships over vaccination status). The present study investigated how these different social media messages affected COVID‐19 vaccination intentions. In June 2021, shortly after vaccines had been made freely available to anyone over the age of 16 in the United States, unvaccinated participants read a manipulated Twitter message designed to be either
encouraging
or
shaming
. Message‐type did not significantly affect intentions to become vaccinated against COVID‐19; however, participants who saw the encouraging message reported that the post made them feel more likely to get vaccinated. Self‐efficacy was also manipulated but did not reveal any significant effects. Additional analyses suggest that having personal experience with COVID‐19 moderates reactions to these different messages. We discuss limitations and promising avenues for future research on the effects of social media messages on health behaviors.
Assessing perceived vulnerability to a health threat is essential to understanding how people conceptualize their risk, and to predicting how likely they are to engage in protective behaviors. ...However, there is limited consensus about which of many measures of perceived vulnerability predict behavior best. We tested whether the ability of different measures to predict protective intentions varies as a function of the type of information people learn about their risk. Online participants (
N
= 909) read information about a novel respiratory disease before answering measures of perceived vulnerability and vaccination intentions. Type-of-risk information was varied across three between-participant groups. Participants learned either: (1) only information about their comparative standing on the primary risk factors (
comparative-only
), (2) their comparative standing as well as the base-rate of the disease in the population (+
base-rate
), or (3) their comparative standing as well as more specific estimates of their absolute risk (+
absolute-chart
). Experiential and affective measures of perceived vulnerability predicted protective intentions well regardless of how participants learned about their risk, while the predictive ability of deliberative numeric and comparative measures varied based on the type of risk information provided. These results broaden the generalizability of key prior findings (i.e., some prior findings about which measures predict best may apply no matter how people learn about their risk), but the results also reveal boundary conditions and critical points of distinction for determining how to best assess perceived vulnerability.
Abstract
People often use tools for tasks, and sometimes there is uncertainty about whether a given task can be completed with a given tool. This project explored whether, when, and how people’s ...optimism about successfully completing a task with a given tool is affected by the contextual salience of a better or worse tool. In six studies, participants were faced with novel tasks. For each task, they were assigned a tool but also exposed to a comparison tool that was better or worse in utility (or sometimes similar in utility). In some studies, the tool comparisons were essentially social comparisons, because the tool was assigned to another person. In other studies, the tool comparisons were merely counterfactual rather than social. The studies revealed contrast effects on optimism, and the effect worked in both directions. That is, worse comparison tools boosted optimism and better tools depressed optimism. The contrast effects were observed regardless of the general type of comparison (e.g., social, counterfactual). The comparisons also influenced discrete decisions about which task to attempt (for a prize), which is an important finding for ruling out superficial scaling explanations for the contrast effects. It appears that people fail to exclude irrelevant tool-comparison information from consideration when assessing their likelihood of success on a task, resulting in biased optimism and decisions.
The phenomenon of ambiguity aversion suggests that people prefer options that offer precisely rather than imprecisely known chances of success. However, past work on people's responses to ambiguity ...in health treatment contexts found ambiguity seeking rather than aversion. The present work addressed whether such findings reflected a broad tendency for ambiguity seeking in health treatment contexts or whether specific attributions for ambiguity play a substantial role. In three studies, people choose between two treatment options that involved similar underlying probabilities, except that the probabilities for one option involved ambiguity. The attributions offered for the ambiguity played an important role in the results. For example, when the range of probabilities associated with an ambiguous treatment was attributed to the fact that different studies yield different results, participants tended to show ambiguity aversion or indifference. However, when the range was attributed to something that participants could control (e.g., regular application of a cream) or something about which they were overoptimistic (e.g., their immune system function), participants tended to show ambiguity seeking. Health professionals should be mindful of how people will interpret and use information about ambiguity when choosing among treatments.
With regard to intellectual performance, a large body of research has shown that stigmatized group members may perform more poorly when negative, self-relevant stereotypes become activated prior to a ...task. However, no research to date has identified the potential ramifications of stereotype activation that happens after-rather than before-a person has finished performing. Six studies examined how postperformance stereotype salience may increase the certainty individuals have in evaluations of their own performance. In the current research, the accessibility of gender or racial stereotypes was manipulated after participants completed either a difficult math test (Studies 1-5) or a test of child-care knowledge (Study 6). Consistent with predictions, stereotype activation was found to increase the certainty that women (Studies 1, 2, 4, and 5), African Americans (Study 3), and men (Study 6) had toward negative evaluations of their own test performance. These effects emerged when performance-related perceptions were stereotype consistent rather than inconsistent (Studies 1-6) and were found to be most pronounced among those who were highly identified with the stereotyped group (Study 5). Furthermore, greater certainty-triggered by negative stereotypes-predicted lowered domain-relevant beliefs (Studies 1, 2, 3, and 6) and differential exposure to domain-relevant stimuli (Studies 4 and 5).
Objective: Health communications are often viewed by people with varying levels of risk. This project examined, in the context of radon risk messages, whether information relevant to high-risk ...individuals can have an unintended influence on lower-risk individuals. Two studies assessed whether information about lung cancer risk from smoking reduced concerns about lung cancer risk from radon among nonsmokers. Method: American nonsmokers viewed radon messages that varied in what they communicated about smoking's effect on lung cancer risk. Study 1 used a 4-arm factorial, randomized, controlled design in which smoking information was included or excluded from messages assembled from 2 existing radon pamphlets. Study 2 used a 3-arm parallel, randomized, controlled design in which a new radon message excluded smoking information, described smoking as a lung cancer risk, or also described smoking's synergistic effect with radon. Results: In Study 1, the inclusion of smoking information reduced nonsmokers' (n = 462) concern-related reactions to possible radon exposure. In Study 2, nonsmokers' (n = 583) concern-related reactions were reduced in both smoking-information conditions; intentions to test their home for radon and perceived importance of testing were reduced in the synergistic condition. Conclusion: People reading health-risk information contextualize their risk relative to the risk of others. For people at midlevel risk, concern and related reactions prompted by a health message may be dampened when the message includes information about others who are more at risk. In the case of radon and smoking risks, the inclusion of smoking information can reduce the impact that radon messages have on nonsmokers.
In general, people prefer information that makes them look and feel good. This is information that is consistent with, or supportive of, their desires, beliefs, and behaviors. Much research has been ...devoted to examining biases in how we selectively seek some information and avoid other information as well as different factors that can mitigate or intensify these tendencies. The present project explored the impact of feeling powerful—a psychological experience shown to influence cognitions and behavior—on decisions about what information people choose to consume in a health context. Specifically, this was investigated in two different domains of health information consumption—selective exposure (Studies 1 & 2) and information avoidance (Studies 3 & 4). The first two studies investigated if feeling powerful affects selection of, or interest in, information known to be consistent or inconsistent with beliefs and behaviors. It was predicted that power would increase interest in belief-consistent (i.e., non-threatening) information. The final two studies examined how power impacts decisions about whether to receive or avoid an uncertain piece of health information that is potentially threatening. Contrary to selective exposure hypotheses, it was predicted that power would increase interest in this uncertain (i.e., threatening) information. All four studies revealed null largely effects of power, suggesting that feeling powerful may not influence how people chose to consume potentially threatening health information. A discussion of the potential limitations of these studies and the scope of this conclusion are included.
In general, people prefer information that makes them look and feel good. This is information that is consistent with, or supportive of, their desires, beliefs, and behaviors. Much research has been ...devoted to examining biases in how we selectively seek some information and avoid other information as well as different factors that can mitigate or intensify these tendencies. The present project explored the impact of feeling powerful—a psychological experience shown to influence cognitions and behavior—on decisions about what information people choose to consume in a health context. Specifically, this was investigated in two different domains of health information consumption—selective exposure (Studies 1 & 2) and information avoidance (Studies 3 & 4). The first two studies investigated if feeling powerful affects selection of, or interest in, information known to be consistent or inconsistent with beliefs and behaviors. It was predicted that power would increase interest in belief-consistent (i.e., non-threatening) information. The final two studies examined how power impacts decisions about whether to receive or avoid an uncertain piece of health information that is potentially threatening. Contrary to selective exposure hypotheses, it was predicted that power would increase interest in this uncertain (i.e., threatening) information.
All four studies revealed null largely effects of power, suggesting that feeling powerful may not influence how people chose to consume potentially threatening health information. A discussion of the potential limitations of these studies and the scope of this conclusion are included.
PDF
