User:Leibelk/sandbox

Potential References and Notes
Note: those in bold provide the best information for working with wikipedia page. Others might be useful in small amounts, but do not give a good overall look on the subject.
 * Bränström, R., & Brandberg, Y. (2010). Health risk perception, optimistic bias, and personal satisfaction. American Journal of Health Behavior, 34(2), 197-205.
 * In addition to specifically focusing on health risk perception, examens it in terms of life transitions, specifically during adolescence and young adulthood. Concepts discussed: theory of planned behavior, Health Belief Model, and protection motivation theory.  Could provide interesting information about the differences in the optimistic bias in demographics, particularly age groups, as well as how does the optimistic bias play into changes in personal satisfaction.  Article suggests that these can be ways of creating interventions to health threats, which could again present an interesting area of discussion in my wikipedia page.
 * Chapin, J., & Coleman, G. (2009). Optimistic bias: What you think, what you know or who you know? North American Journal of Psychology, 11(1), 121-132.
 * While the focus is on optimistic bias in domestic violence, continues to provide general examples and general information on the optimistic bias in positive ways. While I'm not sure how much of the major part of the article will be useful, definitely parts of the introduction and conclusion will prove helpful in formulating general information.  Could be a beneficial way in looking into optimistic bias in violent situations, as well as discuss other implications of the bias.
 * Gouveia, S. O., & Clarke, V. (2001). Optimistic bias for negative and positive events. Health Education, 101(5), 228-234. doi:10.1108/09654280110402080
 * Common topic that is appearing in many articles: negative and positive events. Could be potentially useful for a section in the article, considering that there seems to be a decent amount of information on the area.  Decent reading here--goes through very basic information (e.g. definitions, general concepts), that can be a good basis for starting on revising information currently in the article.  This specific article discusses how the optimistic bias occurs in both positive and negative events, rather than only negative events.  Provides information on the study they conducted, which could be a good reference in what I am working on.  Also provides information on participant ideas of differences between their perceptions and others, which could provide interesting aspects into the perception of optimistic bias.
 * Harris, P. (1996). Sufficient grounds for optimism? the relationship between perceived controllability and optimistic bias. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 15(1), 9-52.
 * Also helpful--discusses, as title suggests how perceived control effects optimistic bias. Found a lot of useful information in the sectional differences of the article, all of which could provide more psychology based discussion on the wikipedia page.
 * Harris, P., Middleton, W., & Joiner, R. (2000). The typical student as an in-group member: Eliminating optimistic bias by reducing social distance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30(2), 235-253. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(200003/04)30:2<235::AID-EJSP990>3.0.CO;2G
 * Interesting proposals of eliminating optimistic bias, which would be an interesting concluding section in the wikipedia page. Article discusses the importance of social distance, much of which relates to what we have been talking in class.  Overall, great information for concluding statements, and how to deal with the optimistic bias after now knowing so much about it.
 * Helweg-Larsen, M., & Shepperd, J. A. (2001). Do moderators of the optimistic bias affect personal or target risk estimates? A review of the literature. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(1), 74-95. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR001_5
 * Could be very useful--moderators as a specific article section, as well as adding in information on how the optimistic bias relates to heuristics in judgment and decision-making. This article provides ample advice and examples on various aspects of optimistic bias, including, as mentioned, moderators, but also the influence different categories of moderators have.  I think that this article will also be useful for examples and sources of other articles to use, as reference list is very large, and provides crucial information.  Will be helpful in forming sections of the overall wikipedia page.
 * Izuma, K., & Adolphs, R. (2011). The brain's rose-colored glasses. Nature Neuroscience, 14(11), 1355-1356. doi:10.1038/nn2960
 * Might be interesting in terms of neurological aspects of optimism and how this relates to the optimistic bias, could be a new section on these neurological processes. However, article is extremely short and might not be the best article to use--could probably find more significant research on the same subject elsewhere, e.g., looking into the article they discuss the most.
 * Klein, W. M. (1996). Maintaining self-serving social comparisons: Attenuating the perceived significance of risk-increasing behaviors.  Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 15 (1).  120-142
 * Klein, C. T. F., & Helweg-Larsen, M. (2002). Perceived control and the optimistic bias: A meta-analytic review. Psychology & Health, 17(4), 437-446. doi:10.1080/088704402200004920
 * Perceived control. Provides good description of general overviews of optimistic bias, interesting idea that "people are realistic about their own risk, but pessimistic about the risk of other people (Shepperd, 2000-should look into here as well)".  However, goes explicitly into the positive relationship of positive control and optimistic bias.  Looks at numerous studies on the two, so focus on the relationship is strong.  Overall, will provide large amounts of information on characteristics, and can provide useful facts.
 * Price, P. C., Pentecost, H. C., & Voth, R. D. (2002). Perceived event frequency and the optimistic bias: Evidence for a two-process model of personal risk judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(3), 242-252. doi:10.1006/jesp.20011509
 * Brings up how measurement styles affect outcomes in perceiving optimism bias. Discusses how the distance between an individual and their comparison group affect optimistic bias (for example,  family members versus general population)--might be interesting to look into some of our articles on psychic numbing and see if there are any comparisons here.  Other interesting thoughts:  how individuals determine their own risks versus others (singular modes vs. distributional modes).  Could also prove useful in a discussion on how to prevent/make people aware of the implications of the optimistic bias, especially in public health settings and education.
 * Sonoda, A. (2002). Optimistic bias and pessimistic realism in judgments of contingency with aversive or rewarding outcomes. Psychological Reports, 91(2), 445-456. doi:10.2466/PR0.91.6.44-456
 * Discussion of scales for measuring optimistic rates, specifically hopelessness scale and life orientation test. Discusses concept of "Self-serving attributional bias", "where individuals make more internal, stable, and global attributions for positive events" (454).  Once again, seems not to be the most helpful for information for writing my article, but perhaps could be useful as an example (of what, I'm not sure, so this is definitely at the bottom of my list of things to use).
 * Weinstein, N. D., & Klein, W. M. (1996).  Unrealistic optimism: Present and future.  Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 15 (1). 1-8.
 * Weinstein, N. D., & Lyon, J. E. (1999). Mindset, optimistic bias about personal risk and health-protective behaviour. British Journal of Health Psychology, 4, 289-300. doi:10.1348/135910799168641
 * Thought not my favorite article, will research some of his other works for more information--this one can be useful for looking at how to work with the optimistic bias in preventative measures (i.e., in the case of this article, radon levels in houses). Further consideration here is needed.

References look good. The key folks are Weinstein (in the early days), Bill Klein, James Shepperd, Peter Harris, and others. Marie Helweg-Larsen (talk) 17:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the advice; will take all into consideration in finding more articles!

Proposed Structure Changes for Optimistic Bias
Currently, the wikipedia page on the Optimistic Bias is very basic, and very focused on the economics of the theory. While this is not a bad thing and these aspects should definitely be kept in consideration, I want to focus on making the article more psychology-based rather than where it is at now. With these proposed changes, I wish to maintain the overal general information, but provide more information in the theories and concepts that make up the bias, how these can be measured, and finally, what might be done to eliminate some of the effects of these biases. Much of the general structure can be saved, but I want to specifically cover more psychology-based information, and perhaps make the economics a small section. Proposed changes and things to keep are listed:
 * General Overview/Definition
 * Overall, this paragraph is fine, does provide the general gist of the article--however, Kline et. al. (2002) has a nice overview of exactly what the optimistic bias is, and would be extremely useful in addition to the information provided. However, most of this is fine, might only change in minor ways.  Some of the terms used currently are rather confusing, and could be simplified, as well as adding in more information, as mentioned, about the psychology of this, rather than just the economics.

sections to add (still in no particular order) Each of these are things that have been discussed excessively in the literature of optimistic bias, and I don't see why they shouldn't be included. Though these could also be briefly discussed in the introduction, I find that there is enough information in the literature to each merit their own sections. I'm particularly interested in focusing on the importance of eliminating optimistic bias and perceived control, though each of them prove to provide necessary information to understanding the topic. Examples could be provided of each, citing from the articles.
 * Health-Risk Perceptions
 * Measuring Optimistic Bias
 * Optimistic Bias in Positive/Negative Events
 * Perceived Control
 * Eliminating Optimistic Bias
 * Optimistic Bias in Decision Making

sections to eliminate Some of these can be eliminated because there should be enough examples added in to provide information without it need it's own section. Other sections can also be added in to the newly planned ones, and would keep a lot of the same information available. These specific sections seem to brief to provide information, and could definitely be improved through use in other areas.
 * planning
 * class forecasting--could be combined with outcomes/prevention
 * Depression
 * Experimental demonstration

sections to keep I have a basic article on neurological issues of the optimistic bias (Izuma, 2011), and with more information, can probably find more information. Since there is already a little on it now, I think it could be interesting to add more to see another aspect of the neurological side of the bias. As for financial problems, I find that it could be interesting to keep to provide a specific focus on economics. It could be beneficial to add in all information economics related to this section, as it does have a lot to do with finances (re-title?)
 * Mechanisms
 * Financial Problems

Optimistic Bias
Optimistic bias (also known as Comparative Optimism, Unrealistic Optimism) is the tendency for people to judge their own risks as less than the risks of others (cite: H-L & S). This has been shown for many topics: people believe they are less at risk for death from smoking, being a victim of crime (cite: Chapin & Coleman), and illness (cite: Bränström & Brandberg). (add in information from Shepperd).

Measuring Optimistic Bias
The optimistic bias is typically measured through participants estimating the likelihood of experiencing an event compared to someone else of the similar demographics (age, sex). These are assessed through direct/comparative or indirect/absolute measures, with direct/comparative measurements being done on a scale comparing a participant to someone similar to them, and with indirect/absolute measurements asking participants to rate how likely they would experience an event, and how likely someone similar to them would experience the same event (H-L & S; Gouveia & Clarke). Because of the difficulty of determining if an individual is being optimistic or if a positive score is realistic, the optimistic bias is general defined at the group level (H-L & S; Gouveia & Clarke).

personal risk estimates vs. target estimates


 * use of comparative risk judgment
 * use of absolute risk judgment
 * depending on what risk judgements are used--influences optimistic bias (price et. al.)

(sonata)
 * hopelessness scale
 * life orientation test

Peter harris
 * assessing optimistic bias
 * optimistic bias can only be assessed in samples of subjects, rather than individual judgments.

Affect
Studies reveal that people show less symptoms of the optimistic bias when they are in negative moods and more optimistic bias when they are in positive moods (H-L & S). Negative moods lead to greater retention of negative memories, which lead individuals to believe that they are more at risk of bad events than others (H-L & S).

Perceived Control
Greater perceived control over an event or outcome is associated with greater optimistic bias (Harris 1996). Overall, individuals believe that risks are less dangerous if they believe they can control the outcomes of the events, rather than events that they perceive uncontrollable (Klein, Klein & H-L). For example, someone might believe that they are a better driver than others and less likely to be in an accident because they have more control over their actions (cite?). Harris (1996) also suggests that perceived control is sufficient but not necessary for optimistic bias (14). Elaborate. In a meta analysis done by Klein and Helweg-Larsen (2002), researchers found that studies using participants from the United States showed a stronger association between optimistic bias and control than those using participants not from the United States. Control was also stronger across age (college students vs. non-college students), (Elaborate).

Perceived Frequency
Some studies suggest that the optimistic bias can be either negatively or positively related to perceived frequencies of events (Price, Pentecost & Voth). Overall, they found that "the direction of the relationship between the perceived frequency of an event and the magnitude of the optimistic bias depends on the method used to elicit people's risk judgments" (250).

Prior Experience
Prior experience generally results in less optimistic bias, perhaps because individuals may now have a decreased perception of the event, or belief that they have more control over the outcomes. These experiences also lead individuals to now imagine themselves in the experience, and believe that it is more likely to occur (H-L & S, but Greenberg, etc.). Klein, Helweg-Larsen

Positive and Negative Events
According to Gouveia and Clarke (2001), optimistic bias occurs equally often for both positive and negative events.

Health-Risk Perceptions
cognition models of health behavior: The Health Belief Model suggests that the perception of being susceptible to an illness will lead to health preventive behaviors (Becker & Rosenstock as seen in H-L & S).
 * theory of planned behavior
 * Health Belief Model
 * protection motivation theory

(from Bränström and Brandberg)

it is possible that all of these work into judgments of individual risks--elaborate more on a discussion of how optimistic bias works into health concepts 1. tobacco 2. AIDS 3. alcohol consumption 4. etc.

differences between individual and environmental caused health risks.

Using the Optimistic Bias for risk reduction
Susana O. Gouveia and Valeria Clarke (2001) suggest in the ending of their article on Optimistic bias for negative and positive events that optimistic bias can be used in risk reduction education. In this specific area, one needs to make risk reduction personally relevant towards the target audience. It is a challenge to people designing things like health promotion materials: they need to convince the reader that they are "sufficiently average", and because of this, they should adapt to the recommended behavior changes.

Eliminating Optimistic Bias
Studies have conflicting views of whether or not the optimistic bias can be eliminated. While Weinstein and Klein (1995) suggest that eliminating the optimistic bias is very difficult, Harris, Middleton, and Joiner (2000) have suggested that by reducing social distance, that is, the making the comparison target closer to the person doing the comparing, the perception of the bias shrinks. This suggests that comparisons that are at an intergroup level form perceived similarities in groups (237--Harris, Middleton, Joiner).

Optimistic Bias Final
The optimism bias (also known as unrealistic or comparative optimism) is a self-serving bias that causes a person to believe that they are less at risk of experiencing a negative event as compared to others. There are four factors that cause a person to be optimistically biased: their desired end state, their cognitive mechanisms, the information they have about themselves versus others, and overall mood. The optimistic bias is seen in a number of situations, including people believing that they are less at risk of being a crime victim, smokers believing that they are less likely to contact lung cancer or disease than other smokers, and first-time bungee jumpers believing that they are less at risk of an injury than other jumpers. Although the optimism bias occurs for both positive, such as believing to be more financially successful than others and negative events, such as less likely to have a drinking problem, there is more research and evidence suggesting that the bias is stronger in negative events. However, different consequences result from these events: positive events often lead to feelings of well being and self-esteem, while negative events lead to consequences involving more risk, such as engaging in risky behaviors and not taking precautionary measures for safety. This article will discuss the different contributing factors of the optimistic bias, as well as how it is measured and why this is important for decision-making.

Measuring Optimistic Bias
The optimistic bias is typically measured through two determinants of risk: absolute risk, where individuals are asked to estimate their likelihood of experiencing a negative event compared to their actual chance of experiencing a negative event (comparison against self), and comparative risk, where individuals are asked to estimate the likelihood of experiencing a negative event compared to others of a same age and sex (comparison against others). There are problems that occur when trying to measure absolute risk,, because it is extremely difficult to determine the actual risk statistic for a person. Therefore, the optimistic bias is primarily measured in comparative risk forms, where people compare themselves against others, through direct and indirect comparisons. Direct comparisons ask whether an individual's own risk of experiencing an event is negative, positive or equal than the someone else's risk, indirect comparisons ask individuals to provide separate estimates of their own risk of experiencing an event and other's risk of experiencing the same event.

After obtaining scores, researchers are able to use the information to determine if there is a difference in the mean risk estimate of the individual compared the mean risk estimate of their peers. Generally for negative events, the mean risk of an individual appears lower than the risk estimate of others. This is then used to demonstrate the bias' effect. The optimistic bias can only be defined at a group level, because at an individual level the positive assessment could be true. Likewise, difficulties can arise in measurement procedures, as it is difficult to determine when someone is being optimistic, realistic, or pessimistic. From the research, it is suggested that the bias comes from an overestimate of group risks than underestimating own risk.

Factors of Optimistic Bias
The factors leading to the optimistic bias can be categorized into four different groups: desired end states of comparative judgment, cognitive mechanisms, information about the self versus a target, and underlying affect. These are explained more in detail below.

1. Desired End States of Comparative Judgment
Many explanations for the optimistic bias come from the goals that people want. People tend to view their risks as less than others because they believe that this is what other people want to see. These explanations include self-enhancement, self-presentation, and perceived control.

Self-Enhancement
Self-enhancement suggests that optimistic predictions are satisfying, and that it feels good to think that positive events will happen. People can control their anxiety and other negative emotions fi they believe they are better off than others. People tend to focus on finding information that supports what they want to see happen, rather than what will happen to them. With regards to the optimistic bias, individuals will perceive events more favorable, because that is what they would like the outcome to be. This also suggests that people might lower their risks compared to others to make themselves look better than average: they are less at risk than others and therefore better.

Self-Presentation
Studies suggest that people attempt to establish and maintain a desired personal image in social situations. People are motivated to present themselves towards others in a good light, and some researchers suggest that the optimistic bias is a representative of self-presentational processes, and people want to appear more well off than others. However, this is not conscious processing. In a study where participants believed their driving skills would be either tested in either real-life or driving simulations, had less optimistic bias and were more modest about their skills than individuals who would not be tested. Studies also suggest that individuals who present themselves in a pessimistic and more negative light, are generally less accepted by the rest of society.

Personal Control/Perceived Control
People tend to be more optimistically biased when they believe they have more control over events than others do. For example, people are more likely to think that they wil not be harmed in a car accident if they are the one driving the vehicle, or if someone believes that they have a lot of control over becoming infected with HIV, they are more likely to view their risk of contracting the disease to be low. Studies have suggested that the greater perceived control someone has, the greater their optimistic bias. Stemming from this, control is a stronger factor when it comes to personal risk assessments, but not when assessing others.

A meta-analysis reviewing the relationship between the optimistic bias an perceived control found that a number of moderators contribute to this relationship. In previous research, participants from the United States general had higher levels of optimistic bias relating to perceived control than those of other nationalities. Students also showed larger levels of the optimistic bias than non-students. The format of the study also demonstrated differences in the relationship between perceived control and the optimistic bias: direct methods of measurement suggested greater perceived control and greater optimistic bias as compared to indirect measures of the bias. The optimistic bias is strongest in situations where an individual needs to rely heavily on direct action and responsibility of situations.

An opposite factor of perceived control is that of prior experience. Prior experience is typically associated with less optimistic bias, which some studies suggest is from either a decrease in the perception of personal control, or make it easier for individuals to imagine themselves at risk. Overall, prior experience suggests that events may be less controllable than previously believed.

2. Cognitive Mechanisms
IThe optimistic bias is possibly also influenced by three cognitive mechanisms that guide judgments and decision-making processes: the representativeness heuristic, singular target focus, and interpersonal distance.

Representativeness Heuristic
The estimates of likelihood associated with the optimistic bias are based on how closely an event matches a person's general idea of the specific event. Some researchers suggest that the representative heuristic is the reason for the optimistic bias: individuals think in stereotypical categories rather than of their actual targets when making comparisons. For example, when drivers are asked to think about a car accident, they are more likely to associate not a typical driver with the accident, but a bad driver. Individuals compare themselves with the negative elements that come to mind, rather than an overall accurate comparison between them and another driver. Additionally, when individuals are asked to compare themselves towards friends, they choose more vulnerable friends based on the events they were looking at. Individuals generally choose a specific friend based on if they resemble a given example, rather than just an average friend. Overall, people find examples that relate directly to what they are asked, resulting in representativeness heuristics.

Singular Target Focus
One of the difficulties of the optimistic bias is that people know more about themselves than they do about others. While individuals know how to think about themselves as a singular person, they still think of others as a generalized group, which leads to biased estimates and inabilities to sufficiently understand their target. Likewise, when making judgments and comparisons about their risk compared to others, people generally ignore the average person, but primarily focus on their own feelings and experiences.

Interpersonal Distance
Perceived risk differences occur depending on how far or close a compared target is to an individual making a risk estimate. The greater the perceived distance between the self and the comparison target, the greater the perceived difference in risk. When one brings the comparison target closer to the individual, risk estimates appear closer together than if the comparison target was someone more distant to the participant. There is support for perceived social distance in determining the optimistic bias. Through looking at comparisons of personal and target risk between the intergroup level contributes to more perceived similarities than when individuals think about intragroup comparisons which lead to greater perceived differences. In one study, researchers manipulated the social context of the comparison group, where participants made judgements for two different comparison targets: the typical student at their university and a typical student at another university. Their findings not only did people work with the closer comparison first, but also had closer ratings to themselves than the "more different" group.

Studies have also noticed that people demonstrate more optimistic bias when making comparisons when the other is a vague individual, but biases are reduced when the other is a familiar person, such as a friend or family member. This also is determined due to the information they have about the individuals closest to them, but not having the same information about other people.

3. Information about Self versus Target
As mentioned before, individuals know a lot more about themselves than they do about others. Because information about others is less available, information about the self versus others leads people to make specific conclusions about their own risk, but results in them having a hard time making conclusions about the risks of others. This leads to differences in judgments and conclusions about self-risks compared to the risks of others.

Person-Positivity Bias
Person-positivity bias is tendency to evaluate an object more favorably the more the object resembles an individual human being. Generally, the more a comparison target resembles a specific person, the more familiar it will be, however groups of people are more abstract, which leads to less favorable judgments. With regards to the optimistic bias, when people compare themselves to an average person, whether someone of the same sex or age, the target continues to be viewed as less human, less personified, which will result in less favorable comparisons between the self and others.

Egocentric Thinking
Egocentric thinking refer to how individuals know more of their own personal information and risk that they can use to form judgments and make decisions. One difficulty, though, is that people have a large amount of knowledge about themselves, but no knowledge of others. Therefore, when making decisions, people have to use other information available to them, such as population data, in order to learn more about their comparison group. This can relate to an optimism bias, as people are using the available information they have about themselves, they have difficulty understanding correct information about others. This self-centered thinking is seen most commonly in adolescents and college students, who generally think more about themselves than others.

However, it is possible that one can escape egocentric thinking. In one study, researchers had one group of participants list all factors that influenced their chances of experiencing a variety of events, and then a second group read the list. Those who read the list showed less optimistic bias in their own reports. It's possible that greater knowledge about others and their perceptions of their chances of risk bring the comparison group closer to the participant.

Underestimating Average Person's Control
Also regarding egocentric thinking, it is also possible that individuals underestimate the amount of control the average person has. This is explained in two different ways: For example, many smokers believe that they are taking all necessary precautionary measures so that they won't get lung cancer, such as smoking only once a day, or using filtered cigarettes, and believe that others are not taking the same precautionary measures. However, it is likely that many other smokers are doing the same things.
 * 1) People underestimate the control that others have in their lives.
 * 2) People completely overlook that others have control over their own outcomes.

4. Underlying Affect
The last factor of optimistic bias is that of underlying affect and affect experience. Research has found that people show less optimistic bias when experiencing a negative mood, and more optimistic bias when in a positive mood. Sad moods reflect greater memoires of negative events, which lead to more negative judgments. while positive moods promote happy memories and more positive feelings on events. This suggests that overall negative moods, including depression, result in increased personal risk estimates but less of the optimistic bias overall. Anxiety also leads to less optimistic bias, continuing to suggest that overall positive experiences and positive attitudes lead to more optimistic bias in events.

Why do we Care about the Optimistic Bias?
In health, the optimistic bias tends to dissuade individuals to take on preventative measures to ensure good health. That is, researchers need to be aware of the optimistic bias and the ways it can prevent people from taking precautions regarding their lifestyles. One study noticed that people who underestimated their comparative risk of heart disease knew less about heart disease, and even after reading an article with more information, were still less concerned about their heart disease risk. Because the optimistic bias can be so strong, it is important to look at how risk perception is determined and how this will result in preventative behaviors. Risk perceptions are particularly important for individual behaviors, such as exercise, diet, and even sunscreen use.

A large amount of information on risk perception is targeted towards adolescents. Especially with health risk perception, adolescence is associated with an increased frequency of risky health-related behaviors such as smoking, drugs, and unsafe sex. While adolescents are aware of the risk, this awareness does not change behavior habits. Adolescents with strong positive optimistic bias toward risky behaviors had an overall increase in the optimistic bias with age.

However, many times in these tests there are methodological problems. There is constantly the use of unconditional risk questions in cross-sectional studies. In this case, concerning vaccines, perceptions of those who have not be vaccinated are compared to the perceptions of people who have been. Other problems which arise include the failure to know a person's perception of a risk. Knowing this information will be helpful for continued research on optimistic bias and preventative behaviors.

Attempts to Alter and Eliminate Optimistic Bias
Studies have shown that is is very difficult to eliminate the optimistic bias, however some people believe that by trying to reduce the optimistic bias will encourage people to adapt to health-protective behaviors. Researchers suggest that the optimistic bias cannot be reduced, and that by in trying to reduce the optimistic bias, the end result was typically more optimistically biased. In a study of four different tests to reduce the optimistic bias, researchers found that regardless of the attempts to reduce the bias, through lists of risk factors, participants perceiving themselves as inferior to others, participants asked to think of high-risk individuals, and giving attributes of why they were at risk, all increased the bias rather than decreased it. Although studies have tried to reduce the optimistic bias through reducing distance, overall, the optimistic bias still remains.

Although research has suggested that it is very difficult to eliminate the bias, some factors may help in closing the gap of the optimistic bias between an individual and their target risk group. First, by placing the comparison group closer to the individual, the optimistic bias can be reduced: studies found that when individuals were asked to make comparisons between themselves and close friends, there was almost no difference in the likelihood of an event ocurring. Additionally, by actually experiencing an event leads to a decrease in the optimistic bias. While this only applies to events with prior experience, knowing the previously unknown will result in less optimism of it not occurring.

Pessimistic Bias
Researchers have not coined the term pessimism bias, because the principles of the optimistic bias continue to be in effect in situations where individuals regard themselves as worse off than others. Optimism may occur from either a distortion of personal estimates, representing personal optimism, or a distortion for others, representing personal pessimism, making the term "pessimistic bias" obsolete.