1. //
  2. Start
  3. //
  4. Publications
  5. Do unbiased people act more rationally? ...
  6. Output formats
  7. //

Do unbiased people act more rationally? - The case of comparative realism and vaccine intention

Research output: Journal contributions › Journal articles › Research › peer-review

Standard

Do unbiased people act more rationally? - The case of comparative realism and vaccine intention. / Izydorczak, Kamil; Dolinski, Dariusz; Genschow, Oliver et al.
In: Royal Society Open Science, Vol. 10, No. 2, 220775, 01.02.2023.

Research output: Journal contributions › Journal articles › Research › peer-review

Harvard

Izydorczak, K, Dolinski, D, Genschow, O, Kulesza, W, Muniak, P, Casara, BGS & Suitner, C 2023, 'Do unbiased people act more rationally? - The case of comparative realism and vaccine intention', Royal Society Open Science, vol. 10, no. 2, 220775. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.220775

APA

Izydorczak, K., Dolinski, D., Genschow, O., Kulesza, W., Muniak, P., Casara, B. G. S., & Suitner, C. (2023). Do unbiased people act more rationally? - The case of comparative realism and vaccine intention. Royal Society Open Science, 10(2), Article 220775. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.220775

Vancouver

Izydorczak K, Dolinski D, Genschow O, Kulesza W, Muniak P, Casara BGS et al. Do unbiased people act more rationally? - The case of comparative realism and vaccine intention. Royal Society Open Science. 2023 Feb 1;10(2):220775. doi: 10.1098/rsos.220775

Bibtex

@article{194241ad4a704793b99f5038bf1f32b0,
title = "Do unbiased people act more rationally? - The case of comparative realism and vaccine intention",
abstract = "Within different populations and at various stages of the pandemic, it has been demonstrated that individuals believe they are less likely to become infected than their average peer. This is known as comparative optimism and it has been one of the reproducible effects in social psychology. However, in previous and even the most recent studies, researchers often neglected to consider unbiased individuals and inspect the differences between biased and unbiased individuals. In a mini meta-analysis of six studies (Study 1), we discovered that unbiased individuals have lower vaccine intention than biased ones. In two pre-registered, follow-up studies, we aimed at testing the reproducibility of this phenomenon and its explanations. In Study 2 we replicated the main effect and found no evidence for differences in psychological control between biased and unbiased groups. In Study 3 we also replicated the effect and found that realists hold more centric views on the trade-offs between threats from getting vaccinated and getting ill. We discuss the interpretation and implication of our results in the context of the academic and lay-persons' views on rationality. We also put forward empirical and theoretical arguments for considering unbiased individuals as a separate phenomenon in the domain of self-others comparisons.",
keywords = "COVID-19, meta-analysis, realisms, self-others comparisons, unrealistic optimism, vaccine intention, Psychology, Business psychology",
author = "Kamil Izydorczak and Dariusz Dolinski and Oliver Genschow and Wojciech Kulesza and Pawel Muniak and Casara, {Bruno Gabriel Salvador} and Caterina Suitner",
note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2023 The Authors. This research was supported by grants: 1. RID(Regionalna Inicjatywa Doskona{\l}o{\'s}ci Mazowsza—Regional Excellence Initiative for Masovian District—https://www.gov.pl/web/edukacja-i-nauka/regionalna-inicjatywa-doskonalosci): {\textquoteleft}Unrealistic optimism in the age of pandemic. Health research and ensuring safety for the inhabitants of Mazovia district{\textquoteright} granted to D.D. (2020/2). 2. The Polish National Agency for Academic Exchange (NAWA—https://nawa.gov.pl/) within the Urgency Grants programme granted to W.K. (number: PPN/GIN/2020/1/00063/U/00001).",
year = "2023",
month = feb,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1098/rsos.220775",
language = "English",
volume = "10",
journal = "Royal Society Open Science",
issn = "2054-5703",
publisher = "The Royal Society",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Do unbiased people act more rationally? - The case of comparative realism and vaccine intention

AU - Izydorczak, Kamil

AU - Dolinski, Dariusz

AU - Genschow, Oliver

AU - Kulesza, Wojciech

AU - Muniak, Pawel

AU - Casara, Bruno Gabriel Salvador

AU - Suitner, Caterina

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2023 The Authors. This research was supported by grants: 1. RID(Regionalna Inicjatywa Doskonałości Mazowsza—Regional Excellence Initiative for Masovian District—https://www.gov.pl/web/edukacja-i-nauka/regionalna-inicjatywa-doskonalosci): ‘Unrealistic optimism in the age of pandemic. Health research and ensuring safety for the inhabitants of Mazovia district’ granted to D.D. (2020/2). 2. The Polish National Agency for Academic Exchange (NAWA—https://nawa.gov.pl/) within the Urgency Grants programme granted to W.K. (number: PPN/GIN/2020/1/00063/U/00001).

PY - 2023/2/1

Y1 - 2023/2/1

N2 - Within different populations and at various stages of the pandemic, it has been demonstrated that individuals believe they are less likely to become infected than their average peer. This is known as comparative optimism and it has been one of the reproducible effects in social psychology. However, in previous and even the most recent studies, researchers often neglected to consider unbiased individuals and inspect the differences between biased and unbiased individuals. In a mini meta-analysis of six studies (Study 1), we discovered that unbiased individuals have lower vaccine intention than biased ones. In two pre-registered, follow-up studies, we aimed at testing the reproducibility of this phenomenon and its explanations. In Study 2 we replicated the main effect and found no evidence for differences in psychological control between biased and unbiased groups. In Study 3 we also replicated the effect and found that realists hold more centric views on the trade-offs between threats from getting vaccinated and getting ill. We discuss the interpretation and implication of our results in the context of the academic and lay-persons' views on rationality. We also put forward empirical and theoretical arguments for considering unbiased individuals as a separate phenomenon in the domain of self-others comparisons.

AB - Within different populations and at various stages of the pandemic, it has been demonstrated that individuals believe they are less likely to become infected than their average peer. This is known as comparative optimism and it has been one of the reproducible effects in social psychology. However, in previous and even the most recent studies, researchers often neglected to consider unbiased individuals and inspect the differences between biased and unbiased individuals. In a mini meta-analysis of six studies (Study 1), we discovered that unbiased individuals have lower vaccine intention than biased ones. In two pre-registered, follow-up studies, we aimed at testing the reproducibility of this phenomenon and its explanations. In Study 2 we replicated the main effect and found no evidence for differences in psychological control between biased and unbiased groups. In Study 3 we also replicated the effect and found that realists hold more centric views on the trade-offs between threats from getting vaccinated and getting ill. We discuss the interpretation and implication of our results in the context of the academic and lay-persons' views on rationality. We also put forward empirical and theoretical arguments for considering unbiased individuals as a separate phenomenon in the domain of self-others comparisons.

KW - COVID-19

KW - meta-analysis

KW - realisms

KW - self-others comparisons

KW - unrealistic optimism

KW - vaccine intention

KW - Psychology

KW - Business psychology

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85147576553&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1098/rsos.220775

DO - 10.1098/rsos.220775

M3 - Journal articles

C2 - 36756056

AN - SCOPUS:85147576553

VL - 10

JO - Royal Society Open Science

JF - Royal Society Open Science

SN - 2054-5703

IS - 2

M1 - 220775

ER -

Related by journal

Analytic reproducibility in articles receiving open data badges at the journal Psychological Science: An observational study

Hardwicke, T. E., Bohn, M., MacDonald, K., Hembacher, E., Nuijten, M. B., Peloquin, B. N., Demayo, B. E., Long, B., Yoon, E. J. & Frank, M. C., 06.01.2021, In: Royal Society Open Science. 8, 1, 9 p., 201494.

Research output: Journal contributions › Journal articles › Research › peer-review

Is implicit Theory of Mind real but hard to detect? Testing adults with different stimulus materials

Kulke, L., Wübker, M. & Rakoczy, H., 10.07.2019, In: Royal Society Open Science. 6, 7, 14 p., 190068.

Research output: Journal contributions › Journal articles › Research › peer-review

Other publications by the same author(s)

Addressing climate change with behavioral science: A global intervention tournament in 63 countries

Vlasceanu, M., Doell, K. C., Bak-Coleman, J. B., Todorova, B., Berkebile-Weinberg, M. M., Grayson, S. J., Patel, Y., Goldwert, D., Pei, Y., Chakroff, A., Pronizius, E., Broek, K. L. V. D., Vlasceanu, D., Constantino, S., Morais, M. J., Schumann, P., Rathje, S., Fang, K., Aglioti, S. M., Alfano, M., Alvarado-Yepez, A. J., Andersen, A., Anseel, F., Apps, M. A. J., Asadli, C., Awuor, F. J., Azevedo, F., Basaglia, P., Bélanger, J. J., Berger, S., Bertin, P., Białek, M., Bialobrzeska, O., Blaya-Burgo, M., Bleize, D. N. M., Bø, S., Boecker, L., Boggio, P. S., Borau, S., Bos, B., Bouguettaya, A., Brauer, M., Brick, C., Brik, T., Briker, R., Brosch, T., Buchel, O., Buonauro, D., Butalia, R., Carvacho, H., Chamberlain, S. A. E., Chan, H-Y., Chow, D., Chung, D., Cian, L., Cohen-Eick, N., Contreras-Huerta, L. S., Contu, D., Cristea, V., Cutler, J., D'Ottone, S., Keersmaecker, J. D., Delcourt, S., Delouvée, S., Diel, K., Douglas, B. D., Drupp, M. A., Dubey, S., Ekmanis, J., Elbaek, C. T., Elsherif, M., Engelhard, I. M., Escher, Y. A., Etienne, T. W., Farage, L., Farias, A. R., Feuerriegel, S., Findor, A., Freira, L., Friese, M., Gains, N. P., Gallyamova, A., Geiger, S. J., Genschow, O., Gjoneska, B., Gkinopoulos, T., Goldberg, B., Goldenberg, A., Gradidge, S., Grassini, S., Gray, K., Grelle, S., Griffin, S. M., Grigoryan, L., Grigoryan, A., Grigoryev, D., Gruber, J., Guilaran, J., Hadar, B., Hahnel, U. J. J., Halperin, E., Harvey, A. J., Haugestad, C. A. P., Herman, A. M., Hershfield, H. E., Himichi, T., Hine, D. W., Hofmann, W., Howe, L., Huaman-Chulluncuy, E. T., Huang, G., Ishii, T., Ito, A., Jia, F., Jost, J. T., Jovanović, V., Jurgiel, D., Kácha, O., Kankaanpää, R., Kantorowicz, J., Kantorowicz-Reznichenko, E., Mintz, K. K., Kaya, I., Kaya, O., Khachatryan, N., Klas, A., Klein, C., Klöckner, C. A., Koppel, L., Kosachenko, A. I., Kothe, E. J., Krebs, R., Krosch, A. R., Krouwel, A. P. M., Kyrychenko, Y., Lagomarsino, M., Lamm, C., Lange, F., Cunningham, J. L., Lees, J., Leung, T. Y., Levy, N., Lockwood, P. L., Longoni, C., Ortega, A. L., Loschelder, D. D., Lu, J. G., Luo, Y., Luomba, J., Lutz, A. E., Majer, J. M., Markowitz, E., Marsh, A. A., Mascarenhas, K. L., Mbilingi, B., Mbungu, W., McHugh, C., Meijers, M. H. C., Mercier, H., Mhagama, F. L., Michalakis, K., Mikus, N., Milliron, S., Mitkidis, P., Monge-Rodríguez, F. S., Mora, Y. L., Moreau, D., Motoki, K., Moyano, M., Mus, M., Navajas, J., Nguyen, T. L., Nguyen, D. M., Nguyen, T., Niemi, L., Nijssen, S. R. R., Nilsonne, G., Nitschke, J. P., Nockur, L., Okura, R., Öner, S., Özdoğru, A. A., Palumbo, H., Panagopoulos, C., Panasiti, M. S., Pärnamets, P., Paruzel-Czachura, M., Pavlov, Y. G., Payán-Gómez, C., Pearson, A. R., Costa, L. P. D., Petrowsky, H. M., Pfattheicher, S., Pham, N. T., Ponizovskiy, V., Pretus, C., Rêgo, G. G., Reimann, R., Rhoads, S. A., Riano-Moreno, J., Richter, I., Röer, J. P., Rosa-Sullivan, J., Ross, R. M., Sabherwal, A., Saito, T., Sarrasin, O., Say, N., Schmid, K., Schmitt, M. T., Schoenegger, P., Scholz, C., Schug, M. G., Schulreich, S., Shreedhar, G., Shuman, E., Sivan, S., Sjåstad, H., Soliman, M., Soud, K., Spampatti, T., Sparkman, G., Spasovski, O., Stanley, S. K., Stern, J. A., Strahm, N., Suko, Y., Sul, S., Syropoulos, S., Taylor, N. C., Tedaldi, E., Tinghög, G., Huynh, L. D. T., Travaglino, G. A., Tsakiris, M., Tüter, İ., Tyrala, M., Uluğ, Ö. M., Urbanek, A., Valko, D., Linden, S. V. D., Schie, K. V., Stekelenburg, A. V., Vanags, E., Västfjäll, D., Vesely, S., Vintr, J., Vranka, M., Wanguche, P. O., Willer, R., Wojcik, A. D., Xu, R., Yadav, A., Zawisza, M., Zhao, X., Zhao, J., Żuk, D. & Bavel, J. J. V., 09.02.2024, In: Science Advances. 10, 6, 19 p., eadj5778.

Research output: Journal contributions › Journal articles › Research › peer-review

Correction: The Open Anchoring Quest Dataset: Anchored Estimates from 96 Studies on Anchoring Effects (Journal of Open Psychology Data, (2022), 10, 1, (16), 10.5334/jopd.67)

Röseler, L., Weber, L., Helgerth, K., Stich, E., Günther, M., Tegethoff, P., Wagner, F. S., Ambrus, E., Antunovic, M., Barrera-Lemarchand, F., Halali, E., Ioannidis, K., Genschow, O., McKay, R., Milstein, N., Molden, D. C., Papenmeier, F., Pavlovic, Z., Rinn, R., Schreiter, M. L., Zimdahl, M. F., Allen, E., Bahník, Š., Bermeitinger, C., Blower, F. B. N., Bögler, H. L., Burgmer, P., Cheek, N. N., Dorsch, L., Fels, S. A., Frech, M. L., Freira, L., Harris, A. J. L., Hartig, B., Häusser, J. A., Hedgebeth, M. V., Henkel, M., Horvath, D., Imhoff, R., Intelmann, P., Klamar, A., Knappe, E., Köppel, L-M. A., Krueger, S. M., Lagator, S., Bóo, F. L., Navajas, J., Norem, J. K., Novak, J., Onuki, Y., Page, E., Pearton, J., Ponader, S., Rebholz, T. R., Rostekova, A., Sartorio, M., Schindler, S., Seida, C., Shanks, D. R., Siems, M. C., Speekenbrink, M., Stäglich, P., Starkulla, M., Stitz, M., Straube, T., Thies, K., Thum, E., Ueda, K., Undorf, M., Urlichich, D., Vadillo, M. A., Wolf, A. H., Zhou, A. & Schütz, A., 23.08.2024, In: Journal of Open Psychology Data. 12, 1, 3 p., 8.

Research output: Journal contributions › Comments / Debate / Reports › Research

How to Communicate Science to the Public?

Konig, L. M., Altenmüller, M. S., Fick, J., Crusius, J., Genschow, O. & Sauerland, M., 06.09.2024, (E-pub ahead of print) In: Zeitschrift fur Psychologie / Journal of Psychology. 12 p.

Research output: Journal contributions › Scientific review articles › Research

Imitation as social influence

Genschow, O. & Oomen, D., 2024, (Accepted/In press) The research handbook on social influence. Edward Elgar Publishing

Research output: Contributions to collected editions/works › Chapter › peer-review

Possibilities of imitation

Oomen, D. & Genschow, O., 22.05.2024, (E-pub ahead of print) In: Possibility studies & Society . 12 p.

Research output: Journal contributions › Scientific review articles › Research

Documents

DOI