People can be overly optimistic not only about their own future but also for the people with whom they identify. Furthermore, interpersonal perception generally forms along two universal dimensions, i.e. warmth and competence. In this study, we created four fictional characters that would map onto each quadrant of the two-dimensional space of warmth and competence, i.e. one in-group member (high on both warmth and competence) and three out-group members (high warmth, low competence; high competence, low warmth; low on both warmth and competence). We then asked respondents to assess the likelihood of each character experiencing a series of identical desirable and undesirable events in order to uncover potential optimistic biases. Our study had two goals. First, we wanted to balance the target desirable and undesirable events on four key characteristics, i.e. event frequency, controllability, emotional intensity and personal experience with the event. Second, we wanted to investigate whether stereotypes of warmth and competence could influence the respondents’ likelihood estimates for each character. We show that respondents manifested a strong desirability bias, expecting more desirable than undesirable events for the in-group member and the reverse pattern for the extreme out-group member. More important, we show that, within desirable and undesirable events, respondents anchored their judgments for the in-group member on their personal experience with the target events, further revealing an egocentric bias, but turned to stereotypical knowledge in the form of warmth and competence to judge out-group members. Implications for both social perception and optimism research are discussed.

Accounts of empathy distinguish between cognitive (attribution of mental states to a social target) and emotional (sharing of emotions with a social target) empathy. To date, however, little is known about whether and how (interactions between) person perceptions, situational characteristics, and the observer-target relationship affect these constructs. The current study hence investigated (a) how the perceived warmth and competence of different social targets relate to both types of empathy, (b) whether there are differences in empathic responding to positive vs. negative scenarios, and (c) the impact of identification with the social targets. Eighty-nine participants rated cognitive and emotional empathy regarding four stereotypical target characters (student, elderly person, businessperson, alcoholic person) facing diverse positive and negative events. They also rated how warm and competent these characters appeared to them and how strongly they identified with the social targets. Results for cognitive and emotional empathy were partly overlapping, but demonstrated several significant differences, thereby demonstrating the need to investigate the two concepts separately. Notably, stereotypes of warmth predicted both cognitive and emotional empathic responses more strongly in desirable than in undesirable scenarios, which may relate to greater freedom of response to positive (rather than negative) social outcomes permitted by society. Our data show that scenario valence mattered even more for cognitive (than for emotional) empathy because it additionally moderated the effects of perceived competence and social identification. Finally, both cognitive and emotional empathy increased as a positive function of social identification, and social identification moderated effects exerted by perceived warmth and competence (yet differently for the two types of empathy investigated). Together, these findings speak to empathic responses arising from a complex interplay between perceptions (i.e., warmth and competence), scenario valence, and social identification.

Individuals are more optimistic about their own future than a comparable person’s future (personal optimism bias). In addition, they show overoptimism toward people or social groups they identify with compared with those they do not identify with (social optimism bias). However, commonalities and differences between personal and social forms of optimism bias remain to be addressed. Data from an experiment on anticipated performances in soccer (including 160 participants), revealed (a) comparable magnitudes of personal and social optimism biases, and (b) only partial overlap between personal and social optimism biases. We further found the magnitude of the biases to depend on (c) prior experience in the investigated area. Social optimism bias, however, did not correlate with (d) the extent to which the participants identified with a social in-group. In addition, we demonstrate that (e) despite the availability of objective feedback, both personal and social optimism biases are hard to overcome. Our data further suggest (f) the existence of qualitatively different social optimism biases; biases that can possibly be distinguished by their degree of automaticity or the adoption of a more affective vs. utilitarian stance. Consequently, the present research reveals that the phenomenon of social optimism bias needs further refinement to adequately address its specific sub-components.

Background A growing number of cancer and hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) survivors require long-term follow-up with optimal communication schemes, and patients' compliance is crucial. Adolescents have various unmet needs. Regarding self-report of symptoms and health status, users of mobile apps showed enhanced compliance. Currently, HSCT aftercare at the HSCT outpatient clinic of the St. Anna Children’s Hospital in Vienna, Austria, is based on handwritten diaries, carrying various disadvantages. Recently, we developed the prototype of a web-based, self-monitoring gamified mobile app tailored for adolescents: the INTERACCT (Integrating Entertainment and Reaction Assessment into Child Cancer Therapy) app. Objective This observational, prospective study evaluated the usability of the INTERACCT app for tracking real-time self-reported symptoms and health status data in adolescent HSCT patients and a healthy matched control group. The primary outcome of the study was the quality of the self-reported medical information. We hypothesized that the mobile app would provide superior medical information for the clinicians than would the handwritten diaries. Methods Health data were reported via paper diary and mobile app for 5 consecutive days each. The quality of medical information was rated on a 5-point scale independently and blinded by two HSCT clinicians, and the duration of use was evaluated. A total of 52 participant questionnaires were assessed for gaming patterns and device preferences, self-efficacy, users’ satisfaction, acceptability, and suggestions for improvement of the mobile app. Interrater reliability was calculated with the intraclass correlation coefficient, based on a two-way mixed model; one-way repeated-measures analysis of variance and t tests were conducted post hoc. Descriptive methods were used for correlation with participants’ demographics. For users’ satisfaction and acceptability of the mobile app, the median and the IQR were calculated. Results Data from 42 participants—15 patients and 27 healthy students—with comparable demographics were evaluated. The results of our study indicated a superiority of the quality of self-reported medical data in the INTERACCT app over traditional paper-and-pencil assessment (mobile app: 4.14 points, vs paper-based diary: 3.77 points, P=.02). The mobile app outperformed paper-and-pencil assessments mainly among the patients, in particular among patients with treatment-associated complications (mobile app: 4.43 points, vs paper-based diary: 3.73 points, P=.01). The mobile app was used significantly longer by adolescents (≥14 years: 4.57 days, vs ≤13 years: 3.14 days, P=.03) and females (4.76 days for females vs 2.95 days for males, P=.004). This corresponds with a longer duration of use among impaired patients with comorbidities. User satisfaction and acceptability ratings for the mobile app were high across all groups, but adherence to entering a large amount of data decreased over time. Based on our results, we developed a case vignette of the target group. Conclusions Our study was the first to show that the quality of patient-reported medical information submitted via the INTERACCT app embedded in a serious game is superior to that submitted via a handwritten diary. In light of these results, a refinement of the mobile app supported by a machine learning approach is planned within an international research project.

Earlier research revealed that cocaine users display impairments in emotional but not necessarily in cognitive empathy. However, no study to date has tested whether empathy is generally altered or whether impairments are restricted to specific social targets. The current investigation addresses this open question. In addition, we examined whether attributions of warmth and competence as well as personal future expectancies differed between cocaine users and substance-naïve controls. Twenty-two chronic cocaine users and 40 stimulant-naïve controls specified their perceived warmth and competence for four social targets [in-group member, opposite consumption out-group member (cocaine user for controls and non-user for cocaine user), opposite consumption out-group member of opposite gender, and elderly person]. They also specified their cognitive and emotional empathy for these four targets facing eight desirable and eight undesirable events. Finally, they rated the likelihood of these scenarios happening to themselves. Both cocaine users and controls attributed lower warmth to cocaine-using than non-using targets. Comparably, no in-group preference was observed in cocaine user’s emotional empathy ratings, and greater denigration of the in-group was associated with higher frequency and doses of cocaine consumption. In addition, cocaine users rated both desirable and undesirable events as more likely to happen to themselves than did controls. Results show that substance-naïve individuals stigmatize cocaine users. They further point to compromised self-esteem in cocaine users resulting from such stigmatization. Interventions should address stigmatization processes to break the vicious circle of mutual social distancing and stronger dedication to the drug.

In the presented study, the informative content of health data of a handwritten health diary was compared with health data submitted through a serious game. Physicians are able to derive a better and more complete health status of patients with higher informative content in health reports. The serious game was implemented in the project Interacct, in which patients submit health data through a mobile app on a daily basis to receive in-game rewards. The main hypothesis is, that the informative content of health data, which was submitted through a serious game, is higher than the informative content of hand written health diaries. Statistical results confirm this hypothesis significantly. This is especially important for young and adolescent cancer patients, where the results were even more conclusive than in the control group of students. Considering positive side effects of the serious game (such as high engagement, compliance and pleasure reporting health data through a serious game), the proposition of the authors is to conduct further studies and experiments regarding this topic.

People are eager to update their beliefs, such as a perceived risk, if they receive information that is better than expected but are reluctant to do so when the evidence is unfavourable. When estimating the likelihood of future outcomes, this phenomenon of asymmetrical belief update helps generate and maintain personal optimism bias. In this study, we investigated whether asymmetrical belief update also extends to estimating the future of other individuals. Specifically, we prompted respondents to assess the perceived likelihood of three social targets experiencing future positive and negative events: an in-group, a mild out-group and an extreme out-group. We then provided the respondents with feedback about the base rates of those events in the general population and prompted them to re-assess their initial estimates for all social targets. Respondents expected more positive than negative outcomes for the in-group and the mild out-group, but more negative outcomes for the extreme out-group. We also found an asymmetrical update of beliefs contingent on the valence of the future event and the social target. For negative outcomes, respondents updated more following good news than bad news, particularly for the mild out-group. For positive outcomes, respondents equally updated their beliefs following good news and bad news for the in-group and the mild out-group. However, they updated their beliefs significantly more following bad news than good news for the extreme out-group member. Our data thus reveal the strong and robust influence of social stereotypes on future expectancies for others.

People are eager to update their beliefs, such as a perceived risk, if they receive information that is better than expected but are reluctant to do so when the evidence is unfavourable. When estimating the likelihood of future outcomes, this phenomenon of asymmetrical belief update helps generate and maintain personal optimism bias. In this study, we investigated whether asymmetrical belief update also extends to estimating the future of other individuals. Specifically, we prompted respondents to assess the perceived likelihood of three social targets experiencing future positive and negative events: An in-group, a mild out-group, and an extreme out-group. We then provided the respondents with feedback about the base rates of those events in the general population and prompted them to re-assess their initial estimates for all social targets. Respondents expected more positive than negative outcomes for the in-group and the mild out-group, but more negative outcomes for the extreme out-group. We also found an asymmetrical update of beliefs contingent on the valence of the future event and the social target. For negative outcomes, respondents updated more following good news than bad news, particularly for the mild out-group. For positive outcomes, respondents equally updated their beliefs following good news and bad news for the in-group and the mild out-group. However, they updated their beliefs significantly more following bad news than good news for the extreme out-group member. Our data thus reveal the strong influence of social stereotypes on future expectancies for others.