IntroductionOptimism is boosted by leaders hoping for job creation, increased business spending, and a high consumption rate. In this research, we assessed the hazardous side effect for global health policies stemming from this optimism: unrealistic optimism (being unrealistically optimistic about future negative events), which may be responsible for new infections and may prevent the eradication of COVID-19. The goal of the research was not only to assess whether this effect exists and to find out whether such an effect is global but also to evaluate whether there are groups resistant to this effect (presenting a potential toolkit for reducing this effect).Material and methodsIn May and April of 2020, online surveys were administered among students in Iran, Kazakhstan, and Poland respectively to assess the unrealistic optimism/pessimism. In study 1/objective 1, the survey was conducted twice (in a period of about 3 weeks) to assess the potential change (due to the anonymous codes delivered by the participants, we were able to make follow-ups between the same participants) in time in the 3 countries. In the first wave, 1611 participants took the survey. In the second wave, there were 1426 respondents. In study 2, the survey was conducted among 207 Polish healthcare workers of the frontline hospital.ResultsIn study 1 across the 3 cultures (the first wave for unmatched data by the code of the specific participant F(1, 1608) = 419.2; p < 0.001, and for matched data F(1, 372) = 167.195; p < 0.001; ηp² = 0.31; ηp² = 0.21; the second wave for unmatched data F(1, 1423) = 359.61; p < 0.001; ηp² = 0.2, and for matched F(1, 372) = 166.84; p < 0.001; ηp² = 0.31), unrealistic optimism is present, and importantly it is constant in time. In study 2, unrealistic optimism was not found among healthcare professionals, who we hypothesized due to the medical knowledge are not inclined to be unrealistically optimistic t(206) = 1.06; p = 0.290, d = 0.07.ConclusionsMedical education of COVID-19 severity might reduce unrealistic optimism, which may be the reason why pandemic restrictions are not being respected.

Abstract. Clinical psychologists have frequently reported that similarity in movements can be greatly beneficial. It increases rapport and favors a better understanding of clients’ emotions. Social psychologists have shown that mimicking instills greater trust in the mimicker and that mimickees disclose more intimate information. Therefore, mimicry seems to be an ideal tool to implement during therapeutic interventions. However, the current study reveals a potentially perilous outcome stemming from mimicry: mimicked (verbally – Study 1, N = 49; nonverbally – Study 2, N = 40) participants were more eager to cheat the mimicker. This means that incorporating mimicry into the therapeutic process may lead to clients misinforming therapists. The discussion section describes some caveats associated with the experiments and suggests directions for future research.

Individuals automatically mimic a wide range of different behaviors, and such mimicking behavior has several social benefits. One of the landmark findings in the literature is that being mimicked increases liking for the mimicker. Research in cognitive neuroscience demonstrated that mentally simulating motor actions is neurophysiologically similar to engaging in these actions. Such research would predict that merely imagining being mimicked produces the same results as actually experiencing mimicry. To test this prediction, we conducted two experiments. In Experiment 1, being mimicked increased liking for the mimicker only when mimicry was directly experienced, but not when it was merely imagined. Experiment 2 replicated this finding within a high-powered online sample: merely imagining being mimicked does not produce the same effects as being actually mimicked. Theoretical and practical implications of these experiments are discussed.

No abstract

Unrealistic Optimism in the context of COVID-19 is described as the tendency to perceive peers as being more at risk of infection. To date, however, no research has proposed more specific comparisons. The present article not only replicates the most recent body of literature showing that people perceive themselves as less prone to COVID-19 infection than their peers, but fills the aforementioned gap by providing additional and more specific comparisons between those vaccinated and unvaccinated against COVID-19. Such comparisons may be crucial to curb the possibility of resurgence of COVID-19 by assessing how unvaccinated individuals perceive the probability of being infected by coronavirus. Some 622 Prolific—(un)vaccinated against COVID-19—users participated in an online quasi-experiment. Participants estimated the risk of COVID-19 infection for themselves, their peers or the average (un)vaccinated peer, which is a new addition to the literature. Results showed that there was an unrealistic optimism effect. Participants estimated their risk for infection as lower in comparison to others. Surprisingly, results showed that for unvaccinated people, vaccines seem to be an effective tool to reduce the risk of infection, but not for themselves.