Scheier and Carver, in a review of studies on the positive relation between optimism and physical health, show that the beneficial impact of optimism on health is the result of two processes. For example, optimists report various health problems less frequently than do pessimists, after coronary bypass surgery they make faster progress during the recovery period and experience less severe anginal pain, they also exhibit high blood pressure less frequently than pessimists.

A wealth of psychological studies also indicates a link between optimism and physical health. Numerous psychological studies have demonstrated that optimism is, generally speaking, associated with better social and task-related functioning and increases the chances of achieving successes. Pessimists expect rather unfavorable developments, while optimists usually think that events will develop in a manner that is beneficial to them. This is important for them in terms of formulating goals and making decisions. People are frequently engaged in making predictions about various aspects of their own future, including health aspects. It is possible that unrealistically optimistic people will behave much less in line with the aforementioned recommendations, causing coronavirus to spread widely. This result is important for health experts who are responsible for making people comply with regulations concerning social distancing, putting masks on to stop infection, and staying at home. 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. Objective: The results of numerous empirical studies have showed the occurrence of so-called unrealistic optimism.

Unrealistic optimism example