Using two-wave panel survey data (N = 348) collected in South Korea in the context of H1N1 flu, we explored several important aspects of optimistic bias that have been relatively unexplored in previous research, including: (a) the extent to which risk communication and indirect risk experience affect changes in optimistic bias over time; (b) the utility of the concept of optimistic bias to predict subsequent risk behavior; and (c) how optimistic bias moderates the effect of risk communication and indirect risk experience on self-protection behavior. The findings revealed that optimistic bias is rather enduring and resilient, as it changed only under one condition (high indirect risk experience combined with low interpersonal communication). Optimistic bias had a nonsignificant association with self-protection behavior, but played an important moderating role by reducing the effect of interpersonal communication on self-protection behavior.

Science communicators and the broader scientific community often expect media information campaigns to mold attitudes about science and technology in predictable ways. But resistance to technology is not always based on ignorance, and the ability of media-based education to directly shape opinions is actually quite limited. This article uses data from a recent U.S. national survey on opinions about biotechnology to argue that trust in institutional actors is a bigger factor than genetic knowledge in predicting encouragement for specific applications of biotechnology. The results have implications for the practice of science, as well as for the practice of science communication.

Studies of risk perception examine the judgements people make when they are asked to characterize and evaluate hazardous activities and technologies. This research aims to aid risk analysis and policy-making by providing a basis for understanding and anticipating public responses to hazards and improving the communication of risk information among lay people, technical experts, and decision-makers. This work assumes that those who promote and regulate health and safety need to understand how people think about and respond to risk. Without such understanding, well-intended policies may be ineffective.

Studies disagree as to whether an optimistic bias can account for the commonly observed third-person perceptions. This study aims to help clarify the relationship between third-person perceptions and biased optimism in the context of assessing the impact of the news about bird flu outbreaks in Taiwan. Using a random sample of 1,107 college students, third-person perception and optimistic bias were found to be robust but unrelated. Although both optimistic bias and third-person effect are psychological perceptual judgments that can be attributed to self-serving motivation, the third-person perception is a biased interpretation of media influence, while biased optimistic perceptions are a social psychological mechanism of bolstering self-esteem in self-other comparisons regarding a risk.