The Experts below are selected from a list of 195153 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Valerie A Clarke - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
optimistic bias for negative and positive events
Health Education, 2001Co-Authors: Susana O Gouveia, Valerie A ClarkeAbstract:Presents results of an investigation into the occurrence of optimistic bias in relation to both positive and negative events, using absolute judgements to assess perceived risk for each of six events. Participants were asked why they offered different ratings for themselves and for others. The results showed that optimistic bias is a pervasive phenomenon that occurs for both positive and negative events. It occurred for all six events when Comparisons were made with an unspecified person of the same age and sex, and occurred for three of six events when Comparisons were made with the same‐sex best friend. Participants could provide information about their own behaviour that they felt justified their positive outlook; however, they implicitly assumed that the Comparison Target did not engage in the same behaviour. Concludes that risk‐reduction education needs to be made personally relevant to the Target audience.
James A. Shepperd - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
do moderators of the optimistic bias affect personal or Target risk estimates a review of the literature
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2001Co-Authors: Marie Helweglarsen, James A. ShepperdAbstract:The optimistic bias is defined as judging one's own risk as less than the risk of others. Researchers have identified numerous personal and situational factors that moderate the extent to which people display the bias. It is unclear, however, whether these moderators affect the bias by influencing people's personal risk estimates or their risk estimates for a Target. A review of moderators of the optimistic bias reveals evidence for both influences. Moderators associated with negative affect (negative mood, dysphoria, trait and state anxiety, event severity, and proximity of feedback) and control related moderators (perceived control and prior experience) appear primarily to affect personal risk estimates. Positive mood affects Target risk estimates. Finally, moderators that surround the Comparison process appear to have different effects. Specifically, the type of Comparison Target appears to affect Target risk estimates, whereas attention to personal risk-related behaviors affects personal risk estimates.
Susana O Gouveia - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
optimistic bias for negative and positive events
Health Education, 2001Co-Authors: Susana O Gouveia, Valerie A ClarkeAbstract:Presents results of an investigation into the occurrence of optimistic bias in relation to both positive and negative events, using absolute judgements to assess perceived risk for each of six events. Participants were asked why they offered different ratings for themselves and for others. The results showed that optimistic bias is a pervasive phenomenon that occurs for both positive and negative events. It occurred for all six events when Comparisons were made with an unspecified person of the same age and sex, and occurred for three of six events when Comparisons were made with the same‐sex best friend. Participants could provide information about their own behaviour that they felt justified their positive outlook; however, they implicitly assumed that the Comparison Target did not engage in the same behaviour. Concludes that risk‐reduction education needs to be made personally relevant to the Target audience.
Marie Helweglarsen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
do moderators of the optimistic bias affect personal or Target risk estimates a review of the literature
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2001Co-Authors: Marie Helweglarsen, James A. ShepperdAbstract:The optimistic bias is defined as judging one's own risk as less than the risk of others. Researchers have identified numerous personal and situational factors that moderate the extent to which people display the bias. It is unclear, however, whether these moderators affect the bias by influencing people's personal risk estimates or their risk estimates for a Target. A review of moderators of the optimistic bias reveals evidence for both influences. Moderators associated with negative affect (negative mood, dysphoria, trait and state anxiety, event severity, and proximity of feedback) and control related moderators (perceived control and prior experience) appear primarily to affect personal risk estimates. Positive mood affects Target risk estimates. Finally, moderators that surround the Comparison process appear to have different effects. Specifically, the type of Comparison Target appears to affect Target risk estimates, whereas attention to personal risk-related behaviors affects personal risk estimates.
Susa T Fiske - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
promote up ingratiate down status Comparisons drive warmth competence tradeoffs in impression management
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2016Co-Authors: Jillia K Swencionis, Susa T FiskeAbstract:Abstract We hypothesized participants would adopt diverging impression management strategies when interacting with lower- versus higher-status others, to disconfirm status-based stereotypes of their own respective coldness or incompetence. In Study 1, downward comparers downplayed their own competence to appear warmer, and upward comparers downplayed their own warmth to appear more competent. In status Comparisons with counter-stereotypical Targets, Studies 2a and 2b showed impression management strategies no longer diverge, but effects do not reverse, suggesting a combination of stereotype-disconfirming and Target trait-matching goals. Study 3 replicates diverging strategies in downward and upward status Comparisons and suggests diverging reasons for these strategies: Downward comparers perceive reason to disconfirm status-based stereotypes, while upward comparers perceive reason to match their Comparison Target. Together, these studies show mere status differences shift individuals' interaction goals in conveying two central dimensions of impression formation, warmth and competence.