Optimism Bias and Parental Views on Safety
Optimism Bias and Parental Views on Safety
The use of optimism bias to explain health-related behavior is not a new concept. In his classic study on "unrealistic optimism" (p. 806) or optimism bias, Neil D. Weinstein (1980) examined how college students thought about the chances of both negative and positive events occurring in the course of their lives in comparison to others with the same demographics. His theory, supported by his study findings, was that individuals believed the odds of bad things happening to them were less than for others, and the odds of good things happening to them were greater than for others (Weinstein, 1980).
In a later study, Weinstein (1987) found similar results with a more diverse group of participants. He determined that optimism bias has little to do with the individual's "age, sex, education, or occupational prestige" (p. 496) and that optimism bias is mostly affected by the following four factors:
Weinstein (1987) concluded that programs aimed at improving health behaviors have to address optimism bias to succeed. Weinstein (1980) also states it is difficult to determine if an individual is actually wrong in believing that his or her chances of negative events happening are lower when compared to others. For example, statistical data indicate a certain number of children each year will have unintentional injuries but not which individual child will be injured or why. Due to the impossible nature of predicting which child will be injured each year, optimism bias should be addressed in every family. Parental optimism bias regarding their child's risk of injury may explain caregivers' failure to take safety precautions addressed during well-child visits.
Recently, researchers have used optimism bias to understand adult health behaviors. Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection in gay men is one health topic examined in the context of optimism bias (Gold, 2004, 2006). Gold (2004, 2006) looked at why some gay men believe their chances of being infected with the virus are less than for other gay men despite unsafe sexual practices. Gold (2004, 2006) found that the optimism bias displayed by gay men in his studies is a result of a common or instinctual human error in thinking, and therefore, difficult to change. Arnett (2000) found in his study that the majority of teenage smokers believed smoking was addictive, yet 60% of them displayed optimism bias by saying that they could stop smoking if they so desired. Researchers have also used optimism bias to understand why some college students do not perceive themselves to be at risk for alcohol-related problems despite admitting they drink alcohol (Dillard, Midboe, & Klein, 2009). Lastly, in looking at adult immunizations, researchers found a connection between im munized adults and "perceived likelihood, susceptibility, and severity [to illness]" (Brewer et al., 2007, p. 142).
Finding ways to help parents understand the risk of unintentional injuries to their children and address optimism bias is difficult. A literature review by Will and Geller (2004) on car and booster seat use looked at why caregivers fail to participate in car seat inspections despite common knowledge that car seats are often misused. Will and Geller (2004) theorized that the greatest barrier to changing behavior is that parents are "naïve to their own vulnerability for misusing their child's seat" (p. 264) because of optimism bias. Parents believe their chance of having a negative occurrence is below average and that they will not commit the common mistakes in installing a car seat that others make. In addition, parents tend to believe in "a just world" (Will & Geller, 2004, p. 266), or the belief that bad things happen to people who somehow were seeking out dangerous situations or were not as cautious as they were. It is also possible caregivers believe that they are capable of decreasing hazards by driving more carefully when children are in the car (Will & Geller, 2004). Findings by Will and Geller (2004) on interventions aimed at changing parental behaviors by increasing their sense of vulnerability are summarized in Table 1.
In a later literature review by Will (2005), the "immunity fallacy" (p. 949) is proposed to explain why parents fail to properly restrain their children in car seats. Will (2005) defines the "immunity fallacy" in this context as "a reduced perception of personal risk for motor vehicle injury in a crash" (p. 949) and explains that public safety information given to parents does not currently convince them of their children's vulnerability. Will (2005) states that most caregivers are well informed about the dangers related to motor vehicle driving but somehow view their own children as being exempt from danger. Many caregivers have a lot of confidence in their own ability to drive carefully and often see others as the problem drivers. Even when parents were told that "8 out of 10 caregivers unknowingly install their children's seats incorrectly" (Will, 2005, p. 98), parents continued to believe they used car seats properly. Will discusses the comparison that has been made between the immunity fallacy and the "precontemplation stage" of the Transtheoretical Model because caregivers fail to realize there is a risk for harm every time a child rides in a car (Will, 2005, p. 950). Will's (2005) safety intervention findings from this second study are also summarized in Table 1.
Optimism Bias
The use of optimism bias to explain health-related behavior is not a new concept. In his classic study on "unrealistic optimism" (p. 806) or optimism bias, Neil D. Weinstein (1980) examined how college students thought about the chances of both negative and positive events occurring in the course of their lives in comparison to others with the same demographics. His theory, supported by his study findings, was that individuals believed the odds of bad things happening to them were less than for others, and the odds of good things happening to them were greater than for others (Weinstein, 1980).
In a later study, Weinstein (1987) found similar results with a more diverse group of participants. He determined that optimism bias has little to do with the individual's "age, sex, education, or occupational prestige" (p. 496) and that optimism bias is mostly affected by the following four factors:
The belief that if the problem has not yet appeared, one is exempt from future risk.
The perception that the problem is preventable by individual action.
The perception that the hazard is infrequent.
Lack of experience with the hazard (Weinstein, 1987, p. 496).
Weinstein (1987) concluded that programs aimed at improving health behaviors have to address optimism bias to succeed. Weinstein (1980) also states it is difficult to determine if an individual is actually wrong in believing that his or her chances of negative events happening are lower when compared to others. For example, statistical data indicate a certain number of children each year will have unintentional injuries but not which individual child will be injured or why. Due to the impossible nature of predicting which child will be injured each year, optimism bias should be addressed in every family. Parental optimism bias regarding their child's risk of injury may explain caregivers' failure to take safety precautions addressed during well-child visits.
Recently, researchers have used optimism bias to understand adult health behaviors. Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection in gay men is one health topic examined in the context of optimism bias (Gold, 2004, 2006). Gold (2004, 2006) looked at why some gay men believe their chances of being infected with the virus are less than for other gay men despite unsafe sexual practices. Gold (2004, 2006) found that the optimism bias displayed by gay men in his studies is a result of a common or instinctual human error in thinking, and therefore, difficult to change. Arnett (2000) found in his study that the majority of teenage smokers believed smoking was addictive, yet 60% of them displayed optimism bias by saying that they could stop smoking if they so desired. Researchers have also used optimism bias to understand why some college students do not perceive themselves to be at risk for alcohol-related problems despite admitting they drink alcohol (Dillard, Midboe, & Klein, 2009). Lastly, in looking at adult immunizations, researchers found a connection between im munized adults and "perceived likelihood, susceptibility, and severity [to illness]" (Brewer et al., 2007, p. 142).
Finding ways to help parents understand the risk of unintentional injuries to their children and address optimism bias is difficult. A literature review by Will and Geller (2004) on car and booster seat use looked at why caregivers fail to participate in car seat inspections despite common knowledge that car seats are often misused. Will and Geller (2004) theorized that the greatest barrier to changing behavior is that parents are "naïve to their own vulnerability for misusing their child's seat" (p. 264) because of optimism bias. Parents believe their chance of having a negative occurrence is below average and that they will not commit the common mistakes in installing a car seat that others make. In addition, parents tend to believe in "a just world" (Will & Geller, 2004, p. 266), or the belief that bad things happen to people who somehow were seeking out dangerous situations or were not as cautious as they were. It is also possible caregivers believe that they are capable of decreasing hazards by driving more carefully when children are in the car (Will & Geller, 2004). Findings by Will and Geller (2004) on interventions aimed at changing parental behaviors by increasing their sense of vulnerability are summarized in Table 1.
In a later literature review by Will (2005), the "immunity fallacy" (p. 949) is proposed to explain why parents fail to properly restrain their children in car seats. Will (2005) defines the "immunity fallacy" in this context as "a reduced perception of personal risk for motor vehicle injury in a crash" (p. 949) and explains that public safety information given to parents does not currently convince them of their children's vulnerability. Will (2005) states that most caregivers are well informed about the dangers related to motor vehicle driving but somehow view their own children as being exempt from danger. Many caregivers have a lot of confidence in their own ability to drive carefully and often see others as the problem drivers. Even when parents were told that "8 out of 10 caregivers unknowingly install their children's seats incorrectly" (Will, 2005, p. 98), parents continued to believe they used car seats properly. Will discusses the comparison that has been made between the immunity fallacy and the "precontemplation stage" of the Transtheoretical Model because caregivers fail to realize there is a risk for harm every time a child rides in a car (Will, 2005, p. 950). Will's (2005) safety intervention findings from this second study are also summarized in Table 1.
Source...