Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39747974›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Optimism bias, judgment of severity, and behavioral change during two stages of the pandemics in China.

Dannuo Lyu, Fanli Jia, Xiaosong Gai

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Dannuo LyuSchool of Psychology, Northeast Normal University, Changchun, China.
Fanli JiaDepartment of Psychology, Seton Hall University, South Orange, USA.
Xiaosong GaiSchool of Psychology, Northeast Normal University, Changchun, China. gaixs669@nenu.edu.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We investigated the factors and consequences of optimism bias during two critical periods of the COVID-19 outbreak in China. In February 2020, we conducted Study 1 (N = 4313) to examine the initial outbreak. The findings revealed that individuals exhibited optimism bias toward COVID-19. Additionally, the number of newly confirmed and suspected cases positively influenced optimism bias. Later, in December 2022, we conducted Study 2 (N = 1767) to explore the Omicron outbreak. The results indicated that optimism bias persisted, albeit to a lesser extent. In this study, the number of infections among participants' social relations negatively predicted optimism bias, while the judged severity of COVID-19 consequences positively predicted it. Notably, optimism bias can attenuate the positive prediction of anxiety by perceived severity, while also positively predicting protective behavior by mediating the relationship between perceived severity and protective actions. This study highlights the beneficial role of optimism bias, both physically and psychologically, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Indexed as

COVID-19OptimismPandemicsSARS-CoV-2AdolescentAdultAnxietyChinaFemaleHumansJudgmentMaleMiddle AgedSeverity of Illness IndexYoung AdultBehavioral changeCOVID-19Optimism biasRisk perceptionUnrealistic optimism

Identifiers

PMID39747974
PMCPMC11695625

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.