Background The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic presents a global crisis. To remain safe, individuals must take preventive measures. Health behavior theories suggest that perceived risk is a key determinant of engagement in preventive behavior. People often underestimate their risk for disease compared with similar others’, a phenomenon known as optimistic bias (OB). Objective This study aimed to explore how OB affected individuals' engagement in COVID-19 preventive behavior/intentions. Based on health behavior theories, this study considered risk perception and risk response as mediators of the relationship between OB and individuals’ preventive health behaviors and intentions. Methods This study used a cross-sectional survey design. Online survey platforms were used to recruit U.S. adults. A total of 293 valid responses were included in the analyses. Multivariate regression analyses were conducted to determine the relationship of OB to the respondents’ health information seeking intention and related behavioral outcomes. Results Results from the first regression model showed that OB was negatively related to risk perception. In other words, optimistically biased respondents perceived their risk of COVID-19 to be low. The second model demonstrated that perceived risk was related positively to affective responses to risk (e.g., worry and fear). That is, the lower their perceived risk of COVID-19, the less likely respondents were to feel anxiety and fear about this disease. Models 3 and 4 revealed positive relationships between risk response and respondents’ intentions and behaviors. Finally, the results supported a fully mediated pathway: OB → risk perception → risk response → information seeking intention and behavioral outcomes. Conclusions The study findings suggest that by decreasing their perceived risk and subsequent responses, optimistic bias can undermine individuals’ motivation to take precautions. To reduce this bias, the actual risk of COVID-19 should be reinforced.

The possible effects of ageist language and ageism on the structure and function of intimate and non-intimate relationships have received significant attention from social scientists. Recent research grounded in communication accommodation theory (Giles, Mulac, Bradac, & Johnson, ) point toward the numerous consequences of both negative and positive attitudes toward ageing. Focusing specifically on health care settings, this article reviews recent theoretical positions and empirical findings that link ageist language and ageism to these positive and negative social consequences, and offers pragmatic suggestions and directions for future research.

No abstract

No abstract

End-of-life (EOL) decisions in families are complex and emotional sites of family interaction necessitating family members coordinate roles in the EOL decision-making process. How family members in the United States enact the decision-maker role in EOL decision situations was examined through in-depth interviews with 22 individuals who participated in EOL decision-making for a family member. A number of themes emerged from the data with regard to the enactment of the decision-maker role. Families varied in how decision makers enacted the role in relation to collective family input, with consulting, informing and collaborating as different patterns of behavior. Formal family roles along with gender- and age-based roles shaped who took on the decision-maker role. Additionally, both family members and medical professionals facilitated or undermined the decision-maker’s role enactment. Understanding the structure and enactment of the decision-maker role in family interaction provides insight into how individuals and/or family members perform the decision-making role within a cultural context that values autonomy and self-determination in combination with collective family action in EOL decision-making.