-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: In this chapter we present research showing that people are not always optimistic and will sometimes surrender their optimism for a less favorable outlook. Next we discuss when people shift from optimism and why the shift occurs. This discussion of the shift is followed by an exploration of the costs and benefits of surrendering an optimistic outlook. Finally, we organize the disparate explanations for the shift under a single adaptive purpose and discuss directions for future research. In discussing the downward shift from optimism we do not focus on whether judgments about the future are objectively optimistic, realistic, or pessimistic relative to some external criterion. When predicting future outcomes, people often have little sense of what objectively represents an optimistic versus a pessimistic prediction, making it meaningless to define one point as objectively optimistic and another as objectively pessimistic. Thus, when examining judgments across time, the transition between points is more important than starting and end points. Our review explores the process by which judgments become progressively lower relative to an initial judgment. Because an optimistic outlook appears to represent the ambient state for most people, we employ the term optimism to refer to the initial judgment. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
10/2012;
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Background Communicating bad news serves different goals in health care, and the extent to which physicians and patients agree on the goals of these conversations may influence their process and outcomes. However, we know little about what goals physicians and patients perceive as important and how the perceptions of physicians and patients compare. Objective To compare physicians' and patients' perceptions of the importance of different communication goals in bad news conversations. Design Survey-based descriptive study. Participants Physicians in California recruited via a medical board mailing list (n = 67) and patients (n = 77) recruited via mailing lists and snowball recruitment methods. Measurements Physicians reported their experience communicating bad news, the extent to which they strive for various goals in this task and their perceptions of the goals important to patients. Patients reported their experience receiving bad news, the goals important to them and their perceptions of the goals important to physicians. Main results Physicians and patients were quite similar in how important they personally rated each goal. However, the two groups perceived differences between their values and the values of the other group. Conclusions Physicians and patients have similar perceptions of the importance of various goals of communicating bad news, but inaccurate perceptions of the importance of particular goals to the other party. These findings raise important questions for future research and clinical practice.
Health expectations: an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy 07/2011; · 1.80 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing is an increasingly available option among individuals searching for information about their health risk factors and ancestry. This study is one of the first to examine predictors of interest in DTC genetic testing. Participants read one of the three types of information about DTC genetic testing (positive only, negative only or both) and reported perceptions of and intentions to pursue testing. The information which people read, their perceptions of the benefits of testing, their perceptions of the barriers to testing and anticipated regret predicted intentions to undergo testing. Interestingly, people who read both positive and negative information did not differ from people who read only negative information in their intentions to pursue testing. We discuss the implications of these findings for predicting interest in this relatively new type of genetic testing and for designing interventions to encourage (or discourage) testing.
Psychology & Health 01/2011; 26(10):1259-72. · 1.69 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Although acquiring information can provide numerous benefits, people often opt to remain ignorant. We define information avoidance as any behavior designed to prevent or delay the acquisition of available but potentially unwanted information. We review the various literatures that examine information avoidance and provide a unique framework to integrate the contributions of these disparate areas of research. We first define information avoidance and distinguish it from related phenomena. We then discuss the motivations that prompt information avoidance and the factors that moderate the likelihood of avoidance. Finally, we discuss individual differences that predict preferences for information avoidance. We conclude by evaluating the current state of research on information avoidance and discussing directions for future research. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Review of General Psychology 11/2010; 14(4):340-353. · 1.78 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Research suggests that optimism feels good. However, does it always feel good? We suggest that the benefits (and costs) of optimism and pessimism depend on their timing. A study of exam score estimates revealed that, after controlling for actual exam performance, optimistic expectations are unrelated to how people feel immediately before feedback, in contrast to the common wisdom that optimism "feels good." Furthermore, optimism has costs after feedback-participants who predicted higher scores before feedback felt worse after learning their scores. Finally, people seem to be aware of the potential costs of optimism-participants who predicted higher scores before feedback also anticipated experiencing greater disappointment should they perform poorly. These findings suggest that people may proactively manage their expectations to avoid the costs of optimism.
Emotion 10/2010; 10(5):750-3. · 3.88 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: People can respond to bad news in a variety of ways. The Bad News Response Model suggests that three aspects of bad news (the controllability, likelihood, and severity of negative consequences) predict which response (Watchful Waiting, Active Change, or Acceptance) people are likely to choose. This article presents an initial test of the predictions of the Bad News Response Model. College students (N = 234) and older adults (N = 116) read a scenario about a person with a suspicious mole that varied in the controllability, likelihood, and severity of the outcomes. Consistent with our predictions, people prefer Watchful Waiting when controllability, likelihood, and severity are low, Active Change when controllability and likelihood are high, and Acceptance when controllability is low. These findings provide support for the Bad News Response Model and suggest that responses to bad news may be foreseeable based on the type of news people receive.
Psychology & Health 10/2009; 24(8):895-907. · 1.69 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Although people generally are optimistic about the future, they will lower their predictions to brace for bad news when confronting a challenge to their predictions. Three studies examined whether this shift in predictions for self-relevant outcomes extends to predictions for others' outcomes. That is, the authors explored whether people display "compassionate bracing." Results reveal that participants did not brace for friends even when their friend faced imminent feedback (Study 1) and even when the outcome was highly important to the friend (Study 2). Participants braced for friends only when the friend's performance had self-relevant implications (Study 3). The authors discuss the implications of these findings for communication and relationship health.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 01/2009; 35(2):160-71. · 2.22 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The self-serving bias refers to a tendency for people to take personal responsibility for their desirable outcomes yet externalize responsibility for their undesirable outcomes. We review a variety of explanations for this attribution bias. Although researchers have historically pitted cognitive and motivational explanations for the self-serving bias against one another, cognitive and motivation processes often work in tandem to lead people to conclude that they are responsible for the desirable but not the undesirable outcomes.
Social and Personality Psychology Compass 02/2008; 2(2):895 - 908.
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Two studies examined when and why people experience disappointment for others. Study 1 demonstrated that participants reported disappointment for another's outcome only when the outcome had strong personal implications. Study 2 demonstrated that self-image concerns rather than empathy or resource concerns mediated the experience of disappointment for others. Collectively, these findings suggest that people experience disappointment for others when those outcomes implicate the self-image.
Cognition and Emotion 11/2007; 21(7):1565-1576. · 2.52 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Previous research has shown that people become pessimistic about potentially bad news to "brace for the worst." Three studies examined whether people brace differently for rare and common negative events. Results reveal that people brace more for rare negative events than for common negative events (Studies 1-3a), but only when the event is self-relevant (Study 3b). Results also show that people brace more for rare events when feedback is imminent (Study 1), when negative outcomes are salient (Study 2), and when the outcomes are important or consequential (Study 3a). The authors discuss several possible explanations for the findings, including ignorance of the base rate, random responding, and anchoring and adjustment, and ultimately suggest that people may brace "enough."
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 09/2007; 33(8):1064-75. · 2.22 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Giving bad news is an unpleasant task, and the medical literature provides numerous guidelines for giving bad news well. However, what people mean by "giving bad news well" is less clear. What should be the goal when communicating bad news? The authors suggest that the goal of news-givers should be to guide recipients toward a desired response and the authors propose a theoretical framework, the Bad News Response Model, for delivering bad news that draws from research in health and social psychology. The model is applicable to all forms of bad news and specifies that three characteristics of the news (controllability, likelihood, and severity) influence which response (Watchful Waiting, Active Change, or Acceptance) will most often lead to the best quality of life for the recipient. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Review of General Psychology 08/2007; 11(3):235-257. · 1.78 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Four studies examined whether people manipulate audience expectations about outcomes to influence audience satisfaction. Studies 1 and 2 revealed that waiting customers often receive overestimations of the time they must wait before they can speak to a customer service representative (Study 1) or receive a table at a restaurant (Study 2). Studies 3 and 4 revealed that restaurant staff members are acutely aware of the relationship between expectations and outcome satisfaction, and intentionally overestimated wait times to influence how customers feel. We discuss the implications of these findings, including the conditions under which people may be more or less likely to manipulate expectations and when manipulation may be more or less successful.
Social Influence 06/2007; 2(2):98-111. · 0.46 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Although subjective optimism is generally regarded as adaptive, people show a sharp decline in optimism when they anticipate self-relevant feedback in the near future. The authors discuss moderators of the shift in future outlooks as well as reasons for the shift. The authors propose that the shift can reflect a response to new information or an attempt to brace for undesired outcomes. Both explanations represent a response to an adaptive need to prepare for uncertain states of the world. Finally, the authors discuss unanswered questions and directions for future research. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Review of General Psychology 02/2006; 10(1):56-73. · 1.78 Impact Factor
