![]() M = 5.38 in phase 2 and 3, respectively p ≤ 0.012 for both comparisons). M (other female student) = 4.95, and M = 4.99 vs. M = 5.38 in phase one, two, and three, respectively p ≤ 0.006 for all comparison), but also in women in the last two measures ( M (you) = 4.55 vs. ![]() M (other male student) = 4.63 M = 3.71 vs. The phenomenon of unrealistic optimism was observed especially in men (as compared to other male participants) as it appeared in all three measures ( M (you) = 3.95 vs. Results: We showed that women estimated the chances of being infected as significantly higher ( M = 4.52, SD = 2.079 t = 2.387 p = 0.018 Cohen’s d = 0.393) than men ( M = 3.71, SD = 2.042). The survey was conducted in three waves: prior to the announcement of the first case of coronavirus (2–3 March), immediately after that announcement (5–6 March), and a few days later (9–10 March). Participants ( n = 171, 67.3% of women) in a subjective way judged the risk of their coronavirus infection and the likelihood that this would happen to an average student of the same sex from their class. ![]() Methods: Survey studies were conducted to examine the level of unrealistic optimism. Thus, we aimed to investigate whether in the situation of an imminent coronavirus pandemic, people would still perceive themselves as being less exposed to the disease than others. Objective: The results of numerous empirical studies have showed the occurrence of so-called unrealistic optimism.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |