Unrealistic optimism in the eye of the storm: Positive bias towards the consequences of COVID-19 during the second and third waves of the pandemic

UNREALISTIC OPTIMISM IN THE EYE OF THE STORM 1 1Unrealistic optimism in the eye of the storm: Positive bias towards the consequences of 2COVID-19 during the second and third waves of the pandemic. 3 4Ada Maksim 1¶ , Sławomir Śpiewak 1¶ , Natalia Lipp 1¶, Natalia Dużmańska-Misiarczyk 1¶, 5Grzegorz Gustaw1¶ Krzysztof Rębilas 1¶ , Paweł Strojny 1¶ 6 71 Institute of Applied Psychology, Faculty of Management and Social Communication, 8Jagiellonian University in Kraków, ul. Prof. St. Łojasiewicza 4, 30-348 Kraków, Poland 9 10 11*Corresponding author: e-mail: [email protected] (AM) 12 13¶ These authors contributed equally to this work. 14 15 16 17 18 19Ada Maksim, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8762-0784 20Sławomir Śpiewak, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9107-1389 21Natalia Lipp, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5738-6771 22Natalia Dużmańska-Misiarczyk, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7769-968X 23Grzegorz Gustaw, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9153-3387 24Krzysztof Rębilas https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4637-2358 25Paweł Strojny, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6016-044X 26 27 . CC-BY 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 10, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.10.22274918doi: medRxiv preprint NOTE: This preprint reports new research that has not been certified by peer review and should not be used to guide clinical practice. UNREALISTIC OPTIMISM IN THE EYE OF THE STORM 2 28 29Abstract 30Research conducted at the outset of the pandemic shows that people are vulnerable to 31unrealistic optimism (UO). However, the Weinstein model suggests that this tendency may 32not persist as the pandemic progresses. Our research aimed at verifying whether UO persists 33during the second (Study 1) and the third wave (Study 2) of the pandemic in Poland, whether 34it concerns the assessment of the chances of COVID-19 infection (Study 1 and Study 2), the 35chances of severe course of the disease and adverse vaccine reactions (Study 2). We show that 36UO towards contracting COVID-19 persists throughout the pandemic. However, in situations 37where we have little influence on the occurrence of the event, the participants do not show 38UO. The exceptions are those who have known personally someone who has died from a 39coronavirus infection. These results are discussed in terms of self-esteem protection and the 40psychological threat reduction mechanism. 41Keywords: unrealistic optimism, positive bias, positive illusions, contracting COVID-19, 42severe consequences of COVID-19 . CC-BY 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 10, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.10.22274918doi: medRxiv preprint UNREALISTIC OPTIMISM IN THE EYE OF THE STORM 3 43Unrealistic optimism in the eye of the storm: Positive bias towards the consequences of 44COVID-19 during the second and third waves of the pandemic. 45It is common for people to make predictions about their future. While pessimists tend to 46contemplate the worst-case scenario, optimists believe that good things will happen to them 47(1). According to recent meta-analyses, optimism is believed to be associated with benefits of 48various types, including health and well-being (2,3). For example, optimism is associated with 49a lower risk of cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality (3). Some authors (3,4) suggest 50that future studies should be focused on evaluating the benefits of interventions that are aimed 51at reducing pessimism and promoting optimism. However, not all aspects of optimism are 52desirable or beneficial. 53Dispositional optimism “is defined as the generalized positive expectancy that one 54will experience good outcomes” (5) and is mostly responsible for the above-mentioned 55benefits. Its dark side variant is so-called unrealistic optimism, a cognitive bias that makes 56people think that negative events are more likely to happen to others, and positive events are 57more likely to happen to them (6,7). Although some researchers (4) posit that unrealistic 58optimism functions as a positive illusion that helps people to cope with potentially threatening 59experiences by reducing anxiety, others (6,8–10) point to the maladaptive aspects of the 60optimistic bias. For example, unrealistic optimism may be related to developing some dire 61conditions such as coronary disease (5), alcoholism (9), breast cancer in women, and prostate 62cancer in men (6) as people have tendency to underestimate own risk of developing serious 63health problems. Unrealistic optimism is also correlated with risky and hazardous behaviours. . CC-BY 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 10, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.10.22274918doi: medRxiv preprint UNREALISTIC OPTIMISM IN THE EYE OF THE STORM 4 64People who perceive themselves as better drivers than others admit to violating speed limits 65(10), and young women who presume they are less likely than others to get pregnant are also 66less likely to use effective contraception methods—such behaviour could result in an 67unwanted pregnancy (8). 68Unrealistic optimism during the COVID-19 pandemic 69Being unrealistically optimistic about one’s chances of being infected by coronavirus 70(and the ability to infect others) may lead to the illusion that obeying the strict policies 71imposed by the government is simply unnecessary in one’s case (11). As a result, unrealistic 72optimism could lead to reckless behaviours during the pandemic, such as ignoring the 73protective measures recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO; keeping a social 74distance, covering mouth and nose with a mask, avoiding crowded or indoor settings, etc.) 75which could lead to spreading the disease (1). The issue of unrealistic optimism has grown in 76importance in light of recent research on the perceived risk of infection during the COVID-19 77pandemic. Dolinski and his colleagues (1) decided to verify if the imminent COVID-19 78pandemic would stimulate the expression of unrealistic optimism. The researchers tested 79whether subjects would perceive that they are exposed to the disease to the same extent as the 80average person like themselves or if they would be affected by the unrealistic optimism (or 81the opposite – unrealistic pessimism) bias. The research of Dolinski and colleagues (1) was 82conducted in March 2020 when the media reported about the first people diagnosed with 83coronavirus in Poland. In their study, the pattern of unrealistic optimism in the face of the 84beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic emerged. Similar results were obtained in other . CC-BY 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 10, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.10.22274918doi: medRxiv preprint UNREALISTIC OPTIMISM IN THE EYE OF THE STORM 5 85European countries (France, Great Britain, Switzerland, and Italy) in February 2020 before 86the collapse of the healthcare system in Italy (12). People who were asked about their chances 87of getting infected were generally optimistic and assessed the personal risk of contracting 88coronavirus as lower than others. 89Further research results also point to the implications of the positive bias for 90health-related behaviours (13,14). According to Oljača and colleagues (15), the optimistic 91bias may indeed influence attitudes towards compliance with restrictions. In a study 92conducted in Serbia, the participants who scored higher on the UOS–NLE subscale 93(measuring unrealistic optimism towards negative life events) assessed the risk connected 94with COVID-19 infection as lower and declared lower compliance with the pandemic 95restrictions. Similarly, Gordeeva and colleagues (16) found a positive link between defensive 96optimism (the tendency to diminish the risk of the emergence of negative events) and failure 97to comply with the stay-at-home rule in their study conducted in Russia in March and April 982020. 99Predictors of unrealistic optimism in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic 100So far, the most elaborated theoretical model of unrealistic optimism has been 101formulated by Neil Weinstein (7). Below we refer to the five factors that, according to the 102Weinstein model (7), may have the most significant impact on unrealistic optimism during the 103pandemic. At least two factors should inhibit the tendency to the positive bias among people 104at pandemic risk: (a) the perceived probability of the event and (b) the ease of recalling a 105stereotypical victim of a given situation. The first one is inherently connected with the . CC-BY 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 10, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.10.22274918doi: medRxiv preprint UNREALISTIC OPTIMISM IN THE EYE OF THE STORM 6 106pandemic’s growth and increasing numbers of people contracting coronavirus. Higher 107perceived frequency (i.e., probability) in the general population should affect personal 108judgement of the risk but not necessarily others’ judgement. Thus, when the event is more 109frequent, the unrealistic bias may be weakened by a higher own risk rating. The second 110predictor that works in a similar direction means that the assumption regarding stereotype 111salience is based on the representativeness heuristic (17). Weinstein (7) assumes that the 112harder it is to imagine a typical victim of a specific event, the weaker the optimistic bias will 113be. As the pandemic spreads, individuals should be more aware that the severe consequences 114of COVID-19 affect not only the elderly with significant health problems but also younger, 115healthy people. With the increase in diversity and the number of victims of the pandemic, it 116will be more difficult to create a stereotypical image of the person most exposed to 117coronavirus, which should reduce the tendency to create cognitive illusions. 118However, there are two other predictors that in our opinion would work in opposite 119directions to enhance positive illusions: (c) controllability of the situation, (d) the degree of 120desirability, and (e) the personal experience which the last one can work both ways. 121Controllability of the situation refers to a human’s sense that a situation’s outcome is 122dependent on their own actions. Therefore, people tend to overestimate their chances in 123positive events and underestimate their risks in negative events. In our opinion, people at risk 124during a pandemic may be vulnerable to the illusion of control through the availability of 125preventive measures: wearing a mask, keeping their distance, disinfecting hands. Thus, they 126can create the illusion of greater control of the situation and less chance of contracting the . CC-BY 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 10, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.10.22274918doi: medRxiv preprint UNREALISTIC OPTIMISM IN THE EYE OF THE STORM 7 127virus. In our opinion, a sense of control can foster a positive bias when asking individuals 128about the chances of contracting coronavirus. In this aspect, people seem more susceptible to 129the illusion of their own preventive actions but not necessarily for other aspects such as 130vulnerability to a severe course of COVID-19 or adverse vaccine reactions. The degree of 131desirability refers to the severity of the consequences. It is assumed that the more desirable a 132situation’s outcome, the greater the optimistic bias. However, negative events induce a more 133negative effect which leads to defensive strategies for protecting oneself and also results in 134higher optimistic bias. People desire positive outcomes, and when they are faced with the risk 135of losing their health or even their life they may be prone to reducing anxiety and protecting 136their self-esteem. One such strategy may be by creating positive illusions, which allows 137individuals to change their perception of a situation from threatening to less threatening. The 138last moderator mentioned by Weinstein (7) is the assumption about personal experience which 139is based on the availability heuristic (18). Previous experience with an event increases the 140belief in its reoccurrence. Personal experience may, in a similar vein, change the personal 141perception of the risk faced by an individual. However, two alternatives of these changes in 142the perception of the risk may be taken into account according to the existing literature (10). 143The first one is the shift in the perception of the situation to be more threatening and even 144leads to the opposite unrealistic pessimism phenomenon (19) or to a lower level of unrealistic 145optimism (10). Alternatively, personal experience may, in some cases, result in enhanced 146self-protective motivation and may lead to an underestimation of the personal risk in relation 147to others (9). . CC-BY 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 10, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.10.22274918doi: medRxiv preprint UNREALISTIC OPTIMISM IN THE EYE OF THE STORM 8 148Aim of the studies 149Considering the above, it seems important to examine the tendency to positive bias as 150the COVID-19 pandemic develops, so we decided to explore the susceptibility to unrealistic 151optimism during the second (Study 1) and the third wave of the pandemic in Poland (Study 2), 152when the number of infections increased dramatically. If the tendency to unrealistic optimism 153persists in the further stages of the pandemic, we expect to replicate the tendency to 154underestimate one’s own chance of contracting coronavirus despite the growth in the number 155of infections in the population both during the second (Study 1) and third (Study 2) waves of 156the pandemic in Poland. In addition, in Study 2, we decided to broaden the spectrum of 157assessing the tendency to unrealistic optimism with two issues that seem to be of particular 158importance as the pandemic develops: the severity of a potential COVID-19 infection and 159adverse vaccine reactions. As far as we know, there is scarce evidence whether the optimistic 160bias is limited only to the prediction of the chance of contracting COVID-19 or is related to 161other important health-related topics. The positive bias toward coronavirus risk assessments 162does not imply that people assume they are at risk of serious complications and at risk of 163losing their health and even their lives. On the contrary, it can be assumed that such cognitive 164bias may protect individuals from thinking about the serious consequences of contracting 165COVID-19. Thus, the presence of the cognitive bias towards contracting COVID-19 does not 166necessarily mean that people are positively biased towards assessment of the chances of a 167severe course of the disease or adverse vaccine reactions. Those two seem to be beyond . CC-BY 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 10, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.10.22274918doi: medRxiv preprint UNREALISTIC OPTIMISM IN THE EYE OF THE STORM 9 168individuals’ ability to take their own actions that could create the illusion of control and lead 169to the positive bias. 170Based on the research by Dolinski et al. (1), to determine the sample size, we expected 171Cohen's d effect sizes to be from d = 0.238 to d = 0.491. For the calculations, we adopted the 172average value of d = 0.365; expected power of .90 and alpha = .05. The analysis of the power 173in G*Power (version 3.1.9.7; 20) for the difference between the two dependent means and the 174two-tailed t-test, showed that the required power is achieved by a sample of 81 individuals. In 175order to meet these assumptions, we determined a sample size of at least 81 people in each of 176the studies. 177We report all manipulations, measures, and exclusions in these studies (supplementary 178materials for more details). No studies in this manuscript were preregistered. All statistical 179procedures were performed in IBM SPSS v.26.0 (21) 180Study 1 181We decided to conduct our first study in November 2020, during the spike of the very 182severe second wave of the pandemic in Poland. In 2020, 70,000 more people died in Poland 183than in previous years, which is nearly 20% more than in 2019 (and at the same time is the 184highest rate of death since World War II) (22). In November 2020 alone, 605,885 coronavirus 185cases were confirmed in Poland, and 11,494 people died as a result of the infection (23). Thus, 186the possible ramifications of excessive optimism became visible to every naive person. We 187expect to replicate the effect obtained by Dolinski and colleagues (1) who conducted their 188study at the beginning of the pandemic in Poland when people had not yet faced the . CC-BY 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 10, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.10.22274918doi: medRxiv preprint UNREALISTIC OPTIMISM IN THE EYE OF THE STORM 10 189widespread traumatic experiences of the deaths of their relatives and friends due to 190coronavirus. 191Method 192This study was part of a larger research plan concerning decision-making about resource 193allocation during the coronavirus pandemic. In this report, we focus on the elements of the 194procedure related to the measurement of unrealistic optimism (a full description of the 195procedure and other measures used in the study can be found in the supplementary materials). 196Detailed information on the materials and instructions for Study 1 can be found in the 197repository: https://zenodo.org/record/5984642. 198The study was approved by Research Ethics Committee at the Institute of Applied 199Psychology, Faculty of Management and Social Communication Jagiellonian University in 200Krakow. The participants were informed about the confidentiality of their data, the voluntary 201nature of the study and the possibility of ceasing to complete the survey at any time. Their 202answers were anonymized in the database. As the research was conducted online the consent to 203participate in the study was obtained online by entering personal data and clicking on the 204“continue” button. 205Participants 206The first study involved 111 participants (90 female and 21 male) aged 18 to 42 years (M 207= 22.23, SD = 3.53). All of the participants were students of the Jagiellonian University in 208Kraków. Of all the participants, two were quarantined during the study, and four had been, at 209some point, diagnosed with COVID-19. The participants were assigned to the study conditions . CC-BY 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 10, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.10.22274918doi: medRxiv preprint UNREALISTIC OPTIMISM IN THE EYE OF THE STORM 11 210on the basis of quasi-randomization. At the very beginning of the study, they were asked about 211their day of birth. The numbers between 1 and 31 were divided into four intervals which were 212used to redirect the participants to two different conditions (control and experimental) based on 213their answers. 214Materials 215Pandemic and neutral context 216The participants were assigned to one of two conditions related to one of two 217contexts—pandemic vs non-pandemic—as a part of the larger research project mentioned 218earlier. Four separate photos were used (i.e., two for the pandemic context and two for 219non-pandemic). More information about the chosen photos can be found in the supplementary 220materials. We had no theoretical predictions about the impact of manipulating the context (i.e., 221pandemic vs. neutral), however, due to the fact that context can significantly change the 222perception of the social situation, especially in people who are more or less exposed to the 223effects of a pandemic, we decided to take it into account in our preliminary analyses. 224Unrealistic optimism measurement 225Our main dependent variable was the measure of how the participants were unrealistically 226optimistic about the possibility of contracting coronavirus. To this end, we asked them two 227questions: 2281. How would you rate your chances of contracting coronavirus? 2292. How would you rate the chances that someone else like you will contract coronavirus? . CC-BY 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 10, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.10.22274918doi: medRxiv preprint UNREALISTIC OPTIMISM IN THE EYE OF THE STORM 12 230The participants answered both questions by estimating the chance of becoming infected as a 231percentage (from 0 to 100). It is suggested by Harris et al. (24) that such an indirect method of 232assessing the optimistic bias (by asking two separate questions) is more beneficial and 233informative than the classical, direct way introduced by Weinstein (7) which consists of only 234one item where participants are asked to compare themselves to an average other. 235Procedure 236The first study was conducted in November 2020 at the peak of the second wave of the 237coronavirus in Poland. Due to pandemic restrictions, the study was conducted online. 238Participants received an email invitation to take part in the study. If they clicked the link 239received in the email, they were redirected to an online survey. Firstly, they were informed 240about data privacy and gave active, informed consent. Then, after assignment to research 241conditions, they were asked two questions regarding the perceived chance of contracting 242coronavirus—by themselves and someone similar to them. Finally, the participants filled in 243demographic data and were thanked for participating in the study. Detailed information about 244all the additional materials and scales used in the study can be found in the supplementary 245materials. 246Results 247Due to the fact that being infected with COVID-19 at some point could influence the 248assessment of the risk of contracting coronavirus, participants who had been diagnosed with 249COVID-19 (n = 4) and participants who were in quarantine (n = 2) were excluded from the 250analysis. Preliminary analysis (general linear model with the assessment of the chance of . CC-BY 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 10, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.10.22274918doi: medRxiv preprint UNREALISTIC OPTIMISM IN THE EYE OF THE STORM 13 251infection as a within-subject factor and sex, age, and condition as between-subject factors) 252showed that the assessment of the chance of infection was not influenced by the experimental 253condition (see pandemic vs neutral photos; F(1, 79) = 0.07, p = 0.791. There were also no 254differences related to the age (F(12, 107) = 1.53, p = 0.130) and sex (F(1, 79) = 0.03, p = 2550.869) of the participants. Therefore, in further analysis, all results were considered jointly, 256regardless of the manipulation of the pandemic vs the non-pandemic context, age, and gender 257of the participants. The estimate of contracting coronavirus oneself was significantly different 258from the estimate of it being contracted by someone else. The participants assessed their 259chance of becoming infected (M = 52.97, SD = 24.24) as lower than the chance of someone 260else becoming infected (M = 61.18, SD = 23.26). This difference is statistically significant and 261effect size is of moderate strength (t (103) = -4.69; p <0.001, Cohen’s d = -0.34). 262 Table 1 Summary of self and others’ chances assessments from the two studies Self Others Paired-samples t-testHow do you assess the chances of… related to Covid-19 M SD M SD t df p 95% CI Lower Upper Study 1 Contracting 52.97 24.24 61.18 23.26 4.69 103 <0.001 -11.68 -4.74 Contracting 42.55 24.67 51.03 22.98 5.69 70 <0.001 -11.45 -5.51 Serious complications 31.13 24.48 31.94 21.53 0.297 69 0.768 -6.28 4.65 Study 2 Developing adverse vaccine reactions 27.06 24.43 28.33 22.14 0.912 69 0.365 -4.05 1.51 263Discussion . CC-BY 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 10, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.10.22274918doi: medRxiv preprint UNREALISTIC OPTIMISM IN THE EYE OF THE STORM 14 264The results of our first study correspond with other reports confirming a tendency to 265unrealistic optimism in the context of the assessment of life- or health-threatening events 266(5,6,9). It can be argued that a similar relationship may occur in people’s behaviour in response 267to the threat of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our study is in line with the few reports to date (1,12– 26815), that show that unrealistic optimism may bias those who are at risk of the coronavirus 269pandemic. For example, in the study by Dolinski and colleagues (1), which was carried out at 270the beginning of the pandemic in Poland, the same group of students was asked three times 271about their assessment of the chances of contracting coronavirus, and it was shown that the 272tendency to unrealistic optimism remained stable among men but actually intensified among 273women during the week after the first COVID-19 infection was announced. However, it is not 274clear—according to the Weinstein model (7) — whether the tendency to underestimate the 275chances of contracting coronavirus will continue over the long term. Our study initially 276confirmed that there was a continuing tendency to underestimate the chances of catching 277COVID-19 during an exacerbating pandemic in Poland. 278Study 2 279In our second study, we decided to extend the scope of the optimistic bias exploration to 280more specific aspects of pandemic risk. During the development of a pandemic, two aspects 281seem to be particularly important, and little known from the point of view of unrealistic 282optimism: (a) estimating the chances of serious complications as a consequence of a possible 283COVID-19 infection, and (b) the perceived risk of developing adverse vaccine reactions. 284There is strong evidence in the literature on unrealistic optimism suggesting that this effect 285occurs rather in the case of events that we assume we can control to some extent (1,7). 286According to Weinstein (7), in the case of events that people feel they can control it is easier . CC-BY 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 10, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.10.22274918doi: medRxiv preprint UNREALISTIC OPTIMISM IN THE EYE OF THE STORM 15 287for them to visualise their own behaviour aimed at reducing the risk. Thus, they overestimate 288their influence on the situation and are more susceptible to the optimistic bias. People may, to 289some extent, try to minimise the risk of contracting COVID-19 through their behaviour, thus, 290the possibility of becoming infected seems to be dependent on a person’s actions and under 291their control. However, people believe that they have no control over whether, as a result of 292the infection, they will experience serious complications that may result in death or a serious 293threat to life. Thus, we hypothesise that although people will underestimate the chances of 294getting ill, at the same time they will not underestimate the chances of developing a serious 295course of the disease as a consequence of a possible COVID-19 infection. 296The chances of getting infected can be effectively reduced by following the 297recommendations of the WHO: limiting social contacts, wearing a face mask, or disinfecting 298hands. In the event of a severe course of COVID-19 infection, people do not have personal 299control over how the disease develops. In a study by Asimakopoulou and colleagues (11), 300participants showed lower unrealistic optimism when asked about the risk of hospitalisation, 301being taken into the intensive care unit, and being ventilated due to COVID-19 (less 302manageable situations) than when asked about the risk of contracting coronavirus or infecting 303someone else (more manageable situations). Therefore, we assume that in the case of the risk 304of a severe course of COVID-19, the effect of unrealistic optimism will be weaker. 305We decided to include one more variable which was not included in previous studies as 306they were conducted during a different stage of the pandemic. Our second study was 307conducted in February 2021, after the second coronavirus wave in Poland, which turned out to . CC-BY 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 10, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.10.22274918doi: medRxiv preprint UNREALISTIC OPTIMISM IN THE EYE OF THE STORM 16 308be much more severe than the first one. Between September and December 2020, 1,205,878 309new cases of coronavirus infections were confirmed and 25,656 people died due to a 310COVID-19 infection. At the peak of the second wave, COVID-19 patients occupied 20,000 311hospital beds (23). 312We assumed that, at this point, most of the participants will already have had their own 313experiences related to coronavirus, and in particular, they might personally know someone for 314whom contracting coronavirus had serious consequences. We decided to verify if the personal 315experience of knowing someone who had developed a severe illness due to COVID-19 or 316died from it would affect the unrealistic optimism of the participants. 317In the literature on unrealistic optimism, we found mixed results related to the influence 318of personal experience (9,10). In a study by McKenna and Albery (10), participants who were 319involved in a car accident showed lower unrealistic optimism concerning their driving skills 320than other participants, but only if they were hospitalised as a result of the accident. In 321contrast, in a longitudinal study related to alcohol abuse (9), people who experienced negative 322consequences related to alcohol consumption at subsequent stages of the study still rated their 323own risk of developing serious problems related to alcohol abuse as lower than others. 324Finally, since the date of the study coincided with the commencement of the vaccination 325programme in Poland, we were also interested in the assessment of the chances of adverse 326vaccination reactions – self versus others. We assumed that as the chances of adverse 327vaccination reactions are beyond one’s control, we will not observe optimistic bias in this 328case. . CC-BY 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 10, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.10.22274918doi: medRxiv preprint UNREALISTIC OPTIMISM IN THE EYE OF THE STORM 17 329Method 330Participants 331The second study involved 84 participants (57 female, 26 male, and 1 nonbinary), aged from 19 332to 65 (M = 35.42, SD = 9.07). Eleven of the participants were at some point diagnosed with 333COVID-19, two were quarantined while participating in the study. Out of 84 participants, 78 334knew someone diagnosed with COVID-19, 47 knew someone who manifested severe 335symptoms of COVID-19, and 30 participants knew someone who died due to COVID-19. 336Materials 337Pandemic and neutral context 338Similarly, as in Study 1, we used the manipulation of the context of the unrealistic 339optimism assessment. Before the assessment, half of the participants were presented with 340pandemic-associated, death-related pictures whereas the other half were presented with - the 341same as in Study 1 - neutral images. The materials were chosen based on the separate pilot 342study. The stimuli used in the second study can be found in the supplementary materials. 343Detailed information on the materials and instructions for study 2 can be found in the repository: 344https://zenodo.org/record/5984642. 345Unrealistic optimism measurement 346As we wanted to verify whether unrealistic optimism would also apply to other aspects 347related to the coronavirus pandemic (apart from the assessment of the chances of being 348infected), we additionally asked the participants the following questions: . CC-BY 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 10, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.10.22274918doi: medRxiv preprint UNREALISTIC OPTIMISM IN THE EYE OF THE STORM 18 3491. How would you rate your chances of a severe course of the disease if you contract 350coronavirus? 3512. How would you rate the chances of someone else becoming severely ill if they contract 352coronavirus? 353These questions related to the possible unrealistic optimism about a severe course of 354coronavirus disease. As the coronavirus vaccination programme was already underway during 355the second study, we also wanted to check if there were some differences in the assessment of 356the possible side effects of a vaccination: 3571. How would you rate your chances of developing severe side effects after a coronavirus 358vaccination? 3592. How would you rate the chances of someone else developing severe side effects after a 360coronavirus vaccination? 361Personal experience of COVID-19 362The second study was conducted on the verge of the third wave of the coronavirus 363pandemic in Poland. Thus, we assumed that the participants may have had some personal 364experience of COVID-19 at this point, which might have influenced the way they assessed their 365chances of getting infected and developing severe symptoms of COVID-19. At the end of the 366study, participants reported if they personally knew someone diagnosed with COVID-19, if 367they personally knew someone who developed severe symptoms of COVID-19, and if they 368personally knew someone who died due to a COVID-19 infection. 369Procedure . CC-BY 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 10, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.10.22274918doi: medRxiv preprint UNREALISTIC OPTIMISM IN THE EYE OF THE STORM 19 370Again, due to the pandemic restrictions, the study was conducted online. Participants 371received an email invitation to take part in the study. If they clicked on the link received in the 372email, they were redirected to the online survey. Firstly, they were informed about data privacy 373and gave active, informed consent. Similar to the first study, participants were assigned to the 374research condition quasi-randomly, based on their day of birth. Depending on the condition, 375participants saw either neutral photos (control conditions) or photos related to the coronavirus 376pandemic (experimental conditions). 377In the next step, they were asked to estimate their perceived chances of being infected with 378COVID-19, developing severe symptoms of COVID-19, and suffering severe side effects of 379vaccination against COVID-19. To assess the tendency to the optimistic bias, they also 380answered the same questions regarding their co-workers/other students. Finally, the 381participants filled in demographic data and information about their personal experience of 382COVID-19. More detailed information about the other measures used in the study can be found 383in the supplementary materials. 384Results 385As in the first study, we excluded participants who declared that they had tested positive 386for the presence of coronavirus (n = 11) and participants who were in quarantine (n = 2) as 387their answers may have biased the results. Since during the second study, vaccination against 388coronavirus was already underway in Poland, we also excluded participants who had been 389vaccinated with at least one dose (n = 2). First, in the preliminary analysis, we checked if 390there were any differences in unrealistic optimism measures due to different experimental . CC-BY 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 10, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.10.22274918doi: medRxiv preprint UNREALISTIC OPTIMISM IN THE EYE OF THE STORM 20 391conditions (pandemic vs neutral photos). As we found none (F(1,15) = 0.13, p = .726), we 392decided to analyse all the data together. There were also no differences concerning unrealistic 393optimism due to the gender (F(1,15) = 0.13, p = .865) and age (F(32,15) = 0.71, p = .795) of 394the participants. The effect of unrealistic optimism related to the chances of contracting 395coronavirus has been successfully replicated (t(70) = -5.69, p < .001, Cohen’s d = -0.37). The 396respondents assessed their chances of becoming infected lower (M = 42.55, SD = 24.67) than 397the chances of other people (M = 51.03, SD = 22.98). 398There was no effect of unrealistic optimism related to a severe course of COVID-19 399infection (see Table 1). However, when assessing the chances of a severe course of the 400disease, personal experience related to coronavirus turned out to be an important factor. There 401was an interaction effect between unrealistic optimism and personal acquaintance with 402someone who died from a COVID-19 infection (F(1,68) = 6.50, p = .013, Cohen’s d = 0.58). 403Participants who knew someone who died as a result of COVID-19 infection estimated their 404chances of a severe course of coronavirus infection significantly lower (M = 26.29, SD = 40519.74) than the chances of substantial side effects of COVID-19 infection for other people (M 406= 36.41, SD = 19.27; p = .028). This effect did not appear in the case of participants who did 407not personally know any victims of COVID-19 infection (Mself = 33.65 SDself = 26.47 408comparing to Mother = 29.61 SDother = 22.47; p = .218). 409Other experiences with the coronavirus pandemic (i.e., knowing people who have 410become infected or who have been severely ill) did not contribute to the effect of unrealistic 411optimism concerning a severe course of COVID-19 disease. There was no interactional effect . CC-BY 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 10, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.10.22274918doi: medRxiv preprint UNREALISTIC OPTIMISM IN THE EYE OF THE STORM 21 412in the case of a personal acquaintance with someone who has been severely ill (F(1,68) = 2.03, 413p = .158, Cohen’s d = 0.31). Additionally, we decided not to perform analysis on a personal 414acquaintance with someone who has been infected as a between-subject factor since 78 of 84 415participants knew someone who has been ill. 416There was also no effect of unrealistic optimism concerning potential adverse reactions of 417the COVID-19 vaccination (see Table 1). Overall, respondents rated the chances of 418experiencing vaccination side effects as low for themselves (M = 27.06; SD = 24.43) as for 419others (M = 28.33, SD = 22.14). Any type of personal experiences with the coronavirus 420pandemic were of no importance in this case (knowing someone who has been severely ill: 421F(1,68) = 0.32, p = .573; Cohen’s d = 0.14; knowing someone who died from COVID-19 422infection: F(1,68) = 1.97, p = .166; Cohen’s d = 0.33). 423Discussion 424The evidence presented in our research supports the assumption that the optimistic bias 425is maintained as the COVID-19 pandemic progresses and is not limited to the initial stages of 426a pandemic outbreak. Bottemanne and colleagues (25) suggest that the optimism bias may 427diminish as coronavirus spreads around the world. They argue that in face of an inevitable 428threat people tend to use unfavourable information more likely to update their beliefs. At first, 429the coronavirus pandemic was rather distant and novel but with more and more cases the risk 430of infection was getting higher and, as a result, this might have updated people’s beliefs about 431their personal chances of getting ill and weakened the optimistic bias. In contrast to the 432assumptions of Bottemanne and colleagues (25), our data, collected in two studies conducted . CC-BY 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 10, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.10.22274918doi: medRxiv preprint UNREALISTIC OPTIMISM IN THE EYE OF THE STORM 22 433during the second and third waves of the pandemic in Poland, confirm the existence of 434unrealistic optimism regarding the assessment of the chances of contracting coronavirus. 435Moreover, as the pandemic progressed, not only did the optimism not diminish, but the 436strength of the effect appears to be stable (i.e., Cohen’s d in Study 1 vs. Study 2 is 0.34 and 4370.37, respectively). In both studies, the pandemic and non-pandemic contexts did not affect 438the assessment of any aspects of pandemic risk. This may be an argument for the high 439availability of information about the pandemic and relative insensitivity to additional 440information that would change the perception of reality during the second and third waves of 441the pandemic in Poland. 442Interestingly, in the second study, people assessed both their own likelihood of 443becoming infected and of others as lower than in the first study (i.e., 52.97 vs 42.10 for one’s 444own assessment and 61.18 vs 51.00 for others). However, it is difficult to draw conclusions 445about the differences in the estimates of absolute values on that basis, because the results 446come from different groups of respondents at different stages of the pandemic’s development. 447We do not know whether this result indicates the opposite trend to that observed in the studies 448by Dolinski et al. (1) or whether it represents differences in the perceived probability of 449infection of various groups of people. 450Nevertheless, maintaining the illusion of the lower vulnerability to infection that 451accompanies the sharp increase in the number of infected people — as we are dealing with in 452the second and third waves of the pandemic — indicates a strong cognitive bias that does not 453seem to have been reduced by the incoming information. According to Weinstein’s . CC-BY 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 10, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.10.22274918doi: medRxiv preprint UNREALISTIC OPTIMISM IN THE EYE OF THE STORM 23 454assumption of the perceived probability of the event (7), in March 2020, in Poland, there were 455a dozen new COVID-19 cases a day, while in the second half of the year, the numbers were 456oscillating around several thousand cases a day and more. As the incidence of the disease 457increases with the duration of the pandemic, individuals are supposed to make more realistic 458estimations of the chances of their own illness and should make those assessments similar to 459others, thus one would expect that the tendency to unrealistic optimism should decrease. 460However, the above argumentation assumes that people rationally evaluate the chances of 461positive and negative events in their lives, which, as we know from the many studies in the 462field about decision making and judgement, is no longer true (18,26). Likewise, the 463assumption that a growing number of infections should change the stereotypical image of a 464typical victim (7), which in turn should inhibit the tendency to the positive bias also turned 465out not to be valid in our studies. While people in our research showed positive illusions 466about coronavirus infection, the attempt to explain this phenomenon should focus on the role 467of factors that, from the theoretical point of view, could contribute to their maintenance. 468One reason why individuals may be motivated to maintain a positive illusion is when 469they are trying to control an unpredictable situation (27). The outbreak of a pandemic is 470undoubtedly a factor that increases the unpredictability and uncertainty of actions and raises 471many risks related to the consequences of the decisions that individuals are making. There is a 472growing body of literature suggesting that the experience of uncontrollability increases 473uncertainty (28) and leads to the experience of lack of control which is challenging for 474various aspects of human functioning (29). In the context of our research, the most interesting . CC-BY 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 10, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.10.22274918doi: medRxiv preprint UNREALISTIC OPTIMISM IN THE EYE OF THE STORM 24 475seems the self-protection motivation (30,31) and regaining control when people are facing 476unpredictable situations (32). The positive illusion may be a form of self-protection and 477cognitive bias can serve as promoting positivity in one’s self-views. Following this argument, 478it can be expected that the growing number of infections will not only reduce the positive bias 479but will foster uncertainty about the future and enhance motivation to regain control of the 480situation, especially in terms of those aspects that may be perceived as controllable. We 481expected, according to Weinstein’s model (7), that the positive illusion will be especially 482strong in the case of the relatively controllable aspect of the pandemic situation (the chances 483of contracting of COVID-19) but not for those aspects that are beyond control (a severe 484course of COVID-19, adverse vaccine reactions). The results of Study 2 are consistent with 485the above assumptions and other studies suggesting the existence of the positive illusion for 486manageable rather than unmanageable situations (11). We predicted that in the case of the 487chances of infection, such an illusion of control is more likely to occur than for other aspects 488of assessment. Hand disinfection, self-isolation, and wearing a mask are actions that an 489individual can take at any time because they depend solely on their will. There is, however, an 490interesting contradiction in this aspect. Paradoxically, research shows that unrealistically 491optimistic people less often follow the rules and respect limitations. In fact, they tend to 492ignore protective measures and thus contribute to the spread of the virus. A positive illusion 493can therefore be a knife that cuts both sides: from an individual’s perspective, the belief that 494preventive measures are readily available strengthens the illusion of control, but it actually . CC-BY 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 10, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.10.22274918doi: medRxiv preprint UNREALISTIC OPTIMISM IN THE EYE OF THE STORM 25 495leads to the ignoring of limitations, which not only does not reduce the risk but also seriously 496increases it. 497We did not expect to report the unrealistic optimism in regard to a severe course of 498COVID-19. The degree of desirability which refers to the severity of the consequences 499according to the Weinstein model (7) increases the pressure for a more realistic risk 500assessment. As the risk of a wrong and inadequate assessment of the situation increases, 501individuals pay higher costs for their wrong decisions. The results obtained are consistent 502with our assumptions that an individual will not be prone to unrealistic optimism when 503assessing a serious course of the disease. However, there is an interesting exception regarding 504people who knew someone who died from a COVID-19 infection. The results obtained in 505Study 2 show that people who experienced the death of a person they knew are unrealistically 506optimistic in regards to the assessment their own chances of a severe course of COVID-19. 507Knowing a person who died of COVID-19 may indicate the role of personal experience in the 508development of the positive illusion. The existing literature does not allow for conclusive 509assumptions about the influence of personal experience in the development of the positive 510bias. Rather, our results may suggest that personal experience enhances the positive illusion, 511however, there is another important factor that one cannot ignore. There is a considerable 512number of empirical findings suggesting the consequences of mortality salience evoke a 513psychological defence mechanism to protect self-esteem and reduce the psychological threat 514and anxiety (33,34). The personal experience in our study took a specific form beyond 515knowing someone infected with COVID-19. During the third wave of the pandemic, almost . CC-BY 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 10, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.10.22274918doi: medRxiv preprint UNREALISTIC OPTIMISM IN THE EYE OF THE STORM 26 516all respondents knew someone who had already been infected with coronavirus and our 517results suggest that those kinds of experiences are not sufficient to enhance the positive bias 518towards a severe course of the disease. The experience of COVID-19 does not necessarily 519imply its seriousness. In the case of death, we are dealing not only with the experience of 520severe complications but, above all, with mortality salience which bears far more 521psychological consequences (35) than only the experience of a severe course of coronavirus 522infection. Unfortunately, our study does not allow us to make a conclusion about the role of 523the specificity of these kinds of personal experiences. More research is needed to verify the 524role of assessing the consequences of infecting others in creating a positive illusion about the 525seriousness of the disease. It cannot be ruled out that unrealistic optimism may be a specific 526consequence of the awareness of one’s own mortality, which has not been verified in the 527empirical research so far. 528In our research, we refer to the predictions based on the Weinstein model (7), which we 529consider to be the most elaborated theoretical framework in the literature explaining the 530predictors of unrealistic optimism. We are aware that the inference about the relationship to 531risk assessment in our research was indirect rather than direct. Further efforts should be made 532to better demonstrate the direct relationship of factors in the Weinstein model (7) with the 533development of the positive illusions regarding the assessment of various aspects of pandemic 534risk (contagion risk, risk of a severe course, risk of unexpected vaccine reactions) and the role 535of mortality salience in upholding positive illusions. 536References . CC-BY 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 10, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.10.22274918doi: medRxiv preprint UNREALISTIC OPTIMISM IN THE EYE OF THE STORM 27 537 5381. Dolinski D, Dolinska B, Zmaczynska-Witek B, Banach M, Kulesza W. Unrealistic 539Optimism in the Time of Coronavirus Pandemic: May It Help to Kill, If So—Whom: 540Disease or the Person? JCM. 2020 May 13;9(5):1464. 5412. Nes LS, Segerstrom SC. Dispositional Optimism and Coping: A Meta-Analytic Review. 542Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2006 Aug;10(3):235–51. 5433. Rozanski A, Bavishi C, Kubzansky LD, Cohen R. Association of Optimism With 544Cardiovascular Events and All-Cause Mortality: A Systematic Review and 545Meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Sep 27;2(9):e1912200. 5464. Taylor SE, Brown JD. Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on 547mental health. Psychological Bulletin. 1988;103(2):193–210. 5485. Radcliffe NM, Klein WMP. Dispositional, Unrealistic, and Comparative Optimism: 549Differential Relations with the Knowledge and Processing of Risk Information and 550Beliefs about Personal Risk. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2002 Jun;28(6):836–46. 5516. Clarke VA, Lovegrove H, Williams A, Machperson M. Unrealistic Optimism and the 552Health Belief Model. Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 2000;23(4):367–76. 5537. Weinstein ND. Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal of Personality and 554Social Psychology. 1980;39(5):806–20. 5558. Burger JM, Burns L. The Illusion of Unique Invulnerability and the Use of Effective 556Contraception. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 1988 Jun;14(2):264–70. 5579. Dillard AJ, Midboe AM, Klein WMP. The Dark Side of Optimism: Unrealistic 558Optimism About Problems With Alcohol Predicts Subsequent Negative Event 559Experiences. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2009 Nov;35(11):1540–50. 56010. McKenna FP, Albery IP. Does Unrealistic Optimism Change Following a Negative 561Experience? J Appl Social Pyschol. 2001 Jun;31(6):1146–57. 56211. Asimakopoulou K, Hoorens V, Speed E, Coulson NS, Antoniszczak D, Collyer F, et al. 563Comparative optimism about infection and recovery from COVID‐19; Implications for 564adherence with lockdown advice. Health Expect. 2020 Dec;23(6):1502–11. 56512. Raude J, Debin M, Souty C, Guerrisi C, Turbelin C, Falchi A, et al. Are people 566excessively pessimistic about the risk of coronavirus infection? [Internet]. PsyArXiv; 5672020 Mar [cited 2022 Jan 14]. Available from: https://osf.io/364qj . CC-BY 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 10, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.10.22274918doi: medRxiv preprint UNREALISTIC OPTIMISM IN THE EYE OF THE STORM 28 56813. Gassen J, Nowak TJ, Henderson AD, Weaver SP, Baker EJ, Muehlenbein MP. 569Unrealistic Optimism and Risk for COVID-19 Disease. Front Psychol. 2021 Jun 5704;12:647461. 57114. Salgado S, Berntsen D. “It Won’t Happen to Us”: Unrealistic Optimism Affects 572COVID-19 Risk Assessments and Attitudes Regarding Protective Behaviour. Journal of 573Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. 2021 Sep;10(3):368–80. 57415. Oljača M, Sadiković S, Branovački B, Pajić D, Smederevac S, Mitrović D. Unrealistic 575optimism and HEXACO traits as predictors of risk perception and compliance with 576COVID-19 preventive measures during the first wave of pandemic. PP. 1970 Jan 5771;13(4):405–25. 57816. Gordeeva TO, Sychev OA, Semenov YI. Constructive Optimism, Defensive Optimism, 579and Gender as Predictors of Autonomous Motivation to Follow Stay-at-Home 580Recommendations during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Psych Rus. 2020;13(4):38–54. 58117. Kahneman D, Tversky A. Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. 582Cognitive Psychology. 1972 Jul;3(3):430–54. 58318. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and 584probability. Cognitive Psychology. 1973 Sep;5(2):207–32. 58519. Dolinski D, Gromski W, Zawisza E. Unrealistic Pessimism. The Journal of Social 586Psychology. 1987 Oct;127(5):511–6. 58720. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang AG. Statistical power analyses using G*Power 5883.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods. 2009 589Nov;41(4):1149–60. 59021. IBM Corp. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp; 2019. 59122. Pawłowska D. Zgony w czasie pandemii w Polsce i innych krajach. Rok 2021 też zaczął 592się rekordowo. Gazeta Wyborcza [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2021 Mar 31]; Available from: 593https://biqdata.wyborcza.pl/biqdata/7,159116,26747678,zgony-w-czasie-pandemii-w-pol 594sce-i-innych-krajach-rok-2021.html 59523. Polish Ministry of Health. Data published by the Ministry of Health in Poland 596concerning the number of infections, hospitalizations and deaths caused by the 597coronavirus on government website. 2020. 59824. Harris PR, Griffin DW, Murray S. Testing the limits of optimistic bias: Event and person 599moderators in a multilevel framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 6002008;95(5):1225–37. . CC-BY 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 10, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.10.22274918doi: medRxiv preprint UNREALISTIC OPTIMISM IN THE EYE OF THE STORM 29 60125. Bottemanne H, Morlaàs O, Fossati P, Schmidt L. Does the Coronavirus Epidemic Take 602Advantage of Human Optimism Bias? Front Psychol. 2020 Aug 26;11:2001. 60326. Thaler R. Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior 604& Organization. 1980 Mar;1(1):39–60. 60527. Makridakis S, Moleskis A. The costs and benefits of positive illusions. Front Psychol 606[Internet]. 2015 Jun 30 [cited 2022 Jan 14];6. Available from: 607http://journal.frontiersin.org/Article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00859/abstract 60828. Kofta M, Sedek G. Uncontrollability as irreducible uncertainty. Eur J Soc Psychol. 1999 609Aug;29(5–6):577–90. 61029. Kofta M, Sędek G. Repeated failure: A source of helplessness or a factor irrelevant to its 611emergence? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 1989;118(1):3–12. 61230. Agostinelli G, Sherman SJ, Presson CC, Chain L. Self-Protection and Self-Enhancement 613Biases in Estimates of Population Prevalence. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 1992 614Oct;18(5):631–42. 61531. Alicke MD, Sedikides C. Self-enhancement and self-protection: What they are and what 616they do. European Review of Social Psychology. 2009 Feb;20(1):1–48. 61732. Greenaway KH, Philipp MC, Storrs KR. The motivation for control: Loss of control 618promotes energy, effort, and action. In: Coping with lack of control in a social world. 619New York, NY, US: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group; 2017. p. 35–48. (Current 620issues in social psychology.). 62133. Greenberg J, Pyszczynski T, Solomon S. The Causes and Consequences of a Need for 622Self-Esteem: A Terror Management Theory. In: Baumeister RF, editor. Public Self and 623Private Self [Internet]. New York, NY: Springer New York; 1986 [cited 2022 Jan 14]. p. 624189–212. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-1-4613-9564-5_10 62534. Pyszczynski T, Solomon S, Greenberg J. Thirty Years of Terror Management Theory. 626In: Advances in Experimental Social Psychology [Internet]. Elsevier; 2015 [cited 2022 627Jan 14]. p. 1–70. Available from: 628https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0065260115000052 62935. Pyszczynski T, Lockett M, Greenberg J, Solomon S. Terror Management Theory and the 630COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of Humanistic Psychology. 2021 Mar;61(2):173–89. 631 . CC-BY 4.0 International licenseIt is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 10, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.10.22274918doi: medRxiv preprint