Mimicry and law: Experiments in a natural setting of a law company.

This paper joins an effort to build a relational approach to law practice by testing mimicry as a vehicle for building trust in a legal context. Mimicry research indicates that this phenomenon leads to benefits, like greater trust, willingness to help, and satisfaction from interactions, which shows a potential for practical applications in, for example, a legal context. In two experiments conducted in the natural setting of a legal company, the tendency to trust the mimicker on a yet unresearched and deep level, namely putting one's legal future and security in the hands of an attorney, was measured.

Is the COVID-19 bad news game good news? Testing whether creating and disseminating fake news about vaccines in a computer game reduces people's belief in anti-vaccine arguments.

Improving vaccination eagerness is crucial, especially during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and establishing new procedures to achieve that goal is highly important. Previous research (Roozenbeek & van der Linden, 2019a, 2019b) has indicated that playing the "Bad News" game, in which a player spreads fake news to gain followers, reduces people's belief in fake news. The goal of the present paper was to test an analogous new game called "COVID-19 Bad News (CBN)" to improve one's eagerness to vaccinate against coronavirus.

The chameleon effect in customer relationship management: Experiments on the spillover effects of mimicry in natural settings of a chain hotel and a chain grocery shop.

Numerous experiments have proven that mimicry is highly beneficial (mainly to the mimicker but also to the mimickee). Some studies have shown initial data suggesting the potential of applying this knowledge to business settings. In the present paper we unpack this issue in two ways.

Do unbiased people act more rationally?-The case of comparative realism and vaccine intention.

Within different populations and at various stages of the pandemic, it has been demonstrated that individuals believe they are less likely to become infected than their average peer. This is known as comparative optimism and it has been one of the reproducible effects in social psychology. However, in previous and even the most recent studies, researchers often neglected to consider unbiased individuals and inspect the differences between biased and unbiased individuals.

It Matters to Whom You Compare Yourself: The Case of Unrealistic Optimism and Gender-Specific Comparisons.

Unrealistic Optimism (UO) appears when comparing participants' risk estimates for themselves with an average peer, which typically results in lower risk estimates for the self. This article reports nuanced effects when comparison varies in terms of the gender of the peer. In three studies (total = 2,468, representative sample), we assessed people's risk estimates for COVID-19 infections for peers with the same or other gender.

The Effects of Offering Freedom to Comply by Pediatricians and Nurses, Using the But-You-Are-Free (BYAF) Technique, on Vaccination Compliance on 185 Parents of Newborn Babies Conducted in Outpatient Clinics in Poland Between January 2022 and July 2022.

BACKGROUND This study aimed to evaluate, in outpatient clinics in Poland between January 2022 and July 2022, the effectiveness of the But-You-Are-Free (BYAF) social influence technique by healthcare professionals during interaction with 185 parents deciding about vaccinating (eg, Hexacima, Prevenor 13, Synflorix, Rotateq, Act Hib, Boostrix, Pentaxim, DTP, Imovax, Priorix, MMR, Tetracim, Adacel, Euvax B, Fuvax, FSME, Varilix, Nimenrix, Bexero vaccines) their babies. MATERIAL AND METHODS During an interaction with pediatricians or nurses, the parents were encouraged to vaccinate their babies. In experimental condition (111 interactions), the BYAF technique was employed, and the phrase "But you are free" was added at the end of the conversation.

Temporal aspects of unrealistic optimism and robustness of this bias: A longitudinal study in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Numerous studies on unrealistic optimism (UO) have shown that people claim they are less exposed to COVID-19 infection than others. Yet, it has not been assessed if this bias evolves; does it escalate or diminish when the information about the threat changes? The present paper fills this gap. For 12 months 120 participants estimated their own and their peers' risk of COVID-19 infection.

Media intervention program for reducing unrealistic optimism bias: The link between unrealistic optimism, well-being, and health.

Unrealistic optimism is the tendency to perceive oneself as safer than others in situations that equally threaten everybody. By reducing fear, this bias boosts one's well-being; however, it is also a deterrent to one's health. Three experiments were run in a mixed-design on 1831 participants to eliminate unrealistic optimism (measured by two items-probability of COVID-19 infection for oneself and for others; within-subjects) toward the probability of COVID-19 infection via articles/videos.

We are infected with the new, mutated virus UO-COVID-19.

Introduction: Optimism is boosted by leaders hoping for job creation, increased business spending, and a high consumption rate. In this research, we assessed the hazardous side effect for global health policies stemming from this optimism: unrealistic optimism (being unrealistically optimistic about future negative events), which may be responsible for new infections and may prevent the eradication of COVID-19. The goal of the research was not only to assess whether this effect exists and to find out whether such an effect is global but also to evaluate whether there are groups resistant to this effect (presenting a potential toolkit for reducing this effect).

Unrealistic Optimism in the Time of Coronavirus Pandemic: May It Help to Kill, If So-Whom: Disease or the Person?

: The results of numerous empirical studies have showed the occurrence of so-called unrealistic optimism. Thus, we aimed to investigate whether in the situation of an imminent coronavirus pandemic, people would still perceive themselves as being less exposed to the disease than others. : Survey studies were conducted to examine the level of unrealistic optimism.

Dialogue and labeling. Are these helpful in finding volunteers?

Among social influence techniques, a special place is occupied by dialogue involvement - it is not only a means of improving chances for compliance, but it can also perform a synergistic function, reinforcing the workings of other influence techniques. In two field experiments, we explored what effectiveness the technique of dialogue involvement can have in acquiring volunteers (Study 1) and how it functions in combination with the labeling technique (Study 2). The achieved results demonstrate that dialogue involvement not only increases the chance of obtaining agreement to be a volunteer in a day room facility for children or in a pediatric ward of a local hospital, but it also increases the average number of hours that volunteers declare they will work.

The Face of the Chameleon: The Experience of Facial Mimicry for the Mimicker and the Mimickee.

This research addressed three questions concerning facial mimicry: (a) Does the relationship between mimicry and liking characterize all facial expressions, or is it limited to specific expressions? (b) Is the relationship between facial mimicry and liking symmetrical for the mimicker and the mimickee? (c) Does conscious mimicry have consequences for emotion recognition? A paradigm is introduced in which participants interact over a computer setup with a confederate whose prerecorded facial displays of emotion are synchronized with participants' behavior to create the illusion of social interaction. In Experiment 1, the confederate did or did not mimic participants' facial displays of various subsets of basic emotions. Mimicry promoted greater liking for the confederate regardless of which emotions were mimicked.