![]() Conclusions: The study revealed a fairly general occurrence of unrealistic optimism, which was mainly observed in men as it appeared in all three measures, but also in women in the last two measures. 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. It will require us to pay more attention to how patient-subjects apply information to themselves and to become more aware of the social-psychological factors that might impair decision-making in this context.Objective: The results of numerous empirical studies have showed the occurrence of so-called unrealistic optimism. The authors said that unrealistic optimism has the potential to compromise informed consent "by interfering with the ability to apply information realistically." They concluded: "Improving the consent process in oncology research will require us to do more than address deficits in understanding. Misunderstanding the purpose was not significantly related to unrealistic optimism, the study found. However, a substantial majority of the respondents 72 percent accurately understood that the purpose of the trials was to advance knowledge with the potential to benefit future patients and not necessarily to benefit them. Study respondents exhibited unrealistic optimism in response to three of five questions about the likelihood of particular events happening to them compared with other trial participants: having their cancer controlled by drugs administered in the trials, experiencing a health benefit from the drugs in the trials, and not experiencing a health problem from the drugs in the trials. Individuals can have one form of optimism without the other. Unrealistic optimism, which social psychologists define as being specific to a situation and consider a form of bias, is distinct from "dispositional optimism," which is a general outlook on life and is neither realistic nor unrealistic. Questionnaires assessed signs of unrealistic optimism, as well as participants' understanding of the trials' purpose. The study included 72 patients with cancer who were enrolled in early-phase oncology trials in the New York metropolitan area between August 2008 and October 2009. "Others have claimed that unrealistic expectations for benefit are a result of misunderstanding and that the proper response to them is to provide patient-subjects with more information " But the study cast doubt on both assumptions. Many cancer researchers and ethicists assume that hope and optimism in the research context are "always ethically benign, without considering the possibility that they reflect a bias," write the authors of the study, which appears in IRB: Ethics & Human Research.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |