Search

Protective behavior is crucial during crisis conditions, especially amid the Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) pandemic. This study aimed to examine whether (1) unrealistic optimism significantly correlates with risk perception; (2) risk perception significantly affects protective behavior; (3) risk perception mediates the relationship between unrealistic optimism and protective behavior; and (4) whether these factors (unrealistic optimism, risk perception, protective behavior) shift from the early phase to the middle phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in an Indonesian context. The study employed a cross-sectional quantitative method, involving 549 respondents (with a mean age of 26.02) obtained through nonprobability (accidental) sampling. The study was divided into two time windows: Study 1 during the early period of the COVID-19 pandemic and Study 2 when the pandemic had been ongoing for over a year. The results confirmed a relationship between unrealistic optimism and protective behavior, as well as between risk perception and protective behavior. However, risk perception did not mediate the relationship between unrealistic optimism and protective behavior. There was a shift in the levels of unrealistic optimism, risk perception, and protective behavior over time, particularly between Study 1 and Study 2. Respondents exhibited higher levels of unrealistic optimism in Study 1 compared to Study 2. Risk perception among respondents increased with the prolonged duration of the pandemic, while the level of protective behavior decreased as the pandemic persisted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ideal partner preferences (i.e., ratings of the desirability of attributes like attractiveness or intelligence) are the source of numerous foundational findings in the interdisciplinary literature on human mating. Recently, research on the predictive validity of ideal partner preference matching (i.e., Do people positively evaluate partners who match vs. mismatch their ideals?) has become mired in several problems. First, articles exhibit discrepant analytic and reporting practices. Second, different findings emerge across laboratories worldwide, perhaps because they sample different relationship contexts and/or populations. This registered report-partnered with the Psychological Science Accelerator-uses a highly powered design ( N = 10,358) across 43 countries and 22 languages to estimate preference-matching effect sizes. The most rigorous tests revealed significant preference-matching effects in the whole sample and for partnered and single participants separately. The "corrected pattern metric" that collapses across 35 traits revealed a zero-order effect of β = .19 and an effect of β = .11 when included alongside a normative preference-matching metric. Specific traits in the "level metric" (interaction) tests revealed very small (average β = .04) effects. Effect sizes were similar for partnered participants who reported ideals before entering a relationship, and there was no consistent evidence that individual differences moderated any effects. Comparisons between stated and revealed preferences shed light on gender differences and similarities: For attractiveness, men's and (especially) women's stated preferences underestimated revealed preferences (i.e., they thought attractiveness was less important than it actually was). For earning potential, men's stated preferences underestimated-and women's stated preferences overestimated-revealed preferences. Implications for the literature on human mating are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).