Optimism Bias and Parental Views on Safety
Optimism Bias and Parental Views on Safety
A review of literature on optimism bias and parental beliefs about early childhood injuries identified three research articles (summarized in Table 2). The purpose of a qualitative study by Chianese and colleagues (2009) was to understand inner-city parents' decision to bed-share following the 2005 American Academy of Pediatrics Policy Statement on Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) (AAP, Task Force on Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, 2005). Researchers looked at how parents weigh the benefits and risks of bed-sharing and how parents felt about being advised not to co-sleep by their PCPs. Focus group participants were recruited from a children's hospital's primary care center (PCC), self-referred, or referred by their PCP. The majority of participants were African Americans on Medicaid, and this limits the generalization of the study. To be included in the study, a parent or primary caregiver had to bed-share with a child between the ages of 0 and 6 months on a regular basis, which was defined as three or more times a week. Researchers also included those who only shared beds for part of the night.
Chianese et al. (2009) asked parents questions in the following categories: "1) parents' motivation to bed-share, 2) parents' beliefs about the risks of bed sharing, and 3) parents' responses to advice about bed sharing" (p. 28). One common belief among parents was that bed sharing led to a better night sleep for the parent and child due to less crying and awakenings. Many parents also said it was convenient to sleep with their child because they could check on them more easily, protect them from harm, and breastfeed more easily; others stated they had slept with their caregivers when they were children, and therefore, it was tradition. The most distressing finding, however, was that parents thought they could protect their infant from SIDS by sleeping in the same bed despite having been warned of the dangers. Some parents felt there was no increased risk with bed sharing because they were "light sleepers" or "would never roll on their children" (Chianese et al., 2009, p. 29). They expressed the belief that they would somehow know or sense if their child were in distress even if they themselves were sleeping. Some parents took steps to reduce risk of suffocation, such as by removing extra pillows. Lastly, parents agreed it was the obligation of PCPs to provide safety guidance, but it did not mean they would follow the advice.
The mothers in the study by Chianese et al. (2009) viewed co-sleeping as a risk for all others but themselves, clearly displaying some optimism bias. Many stated that even if they were told not to co-sleep by their PCPs, they would continue to do so. Some participants believed they were simply incapable of rolling onto their child because they would easily awaken. The parents in the study who had some concerns about co-sleeping reported they had experienced a moment where they almost hurt their infant while bed sharing; their experience had slightly decreased their optimism bias about co-sleeping, verifying that experience with a hazard leads to reduced optimism bias and the belief the event will happen again (Weinstein, 1980).
In an experimental study, Gaines and Schwebel (2009) sought to evaluate the ability of parents with children between the ages of 12 to 36 months to recognize potential hazards in homes and the susceptibility of their own children to injury as compared to other children. The participants in this study were primarily Cau casian (84.1%) women (75%), all with some level of college, and were about 30 years of age. This study was conducted in a psychology laboratory and consisted of parents identifying dangers for toddlers in a simulated living room, bathroom, and toddler bedroom. The ability to recognize potential hazards for children by parents was compared with the ability of pediatric health care providers and daycare workers to do the same. Parents were first asked to place colored stickers on anything they viewed as a hazard for any toddler in the simulated rooms. Once finished, the stickers were removed and parents were asked to once again go through the rooms and place stickers on what they perceived as hazards for their own toddlers. Pediatric health care workers and daycare workers were asked to identify hazards in the simulated rooms for any toddler only once. Parents labeled fewer hazards for their own child (40.16%) as compared to hazards for all toddlers (47.40%), but to the surprise of researchers, parents found more hazards than the pediatric health care workers and daycare workers.
Gaines and Schwebel (2009) found parents' levels of education were not correlated with their ability to find hazards; however, reading parenting magazines and attending parenting classes were related to finding more hazards in all three rooms. The authors concluded that the parents' ability to find more problems than health care and daycare workers may have been due to a greater interest in toddler safety, the increased time spent with toddlers, and familiarity with their behaviors. The authors explain that for many parents, their children seem more intelligent than most toddlers, and therefore, less likely to be involved in dangerous behaviors. Parents' lack of understanding about susceptibility to danger and optimism bias about safety was evident in comments, such as "my child isn't curious about the toilet" and "my child knows not to play with matches" (Gaines & Schwebel, p. 1073). The authors suggest that parents should be made aware of not only dangers but also their child's vulnerability to those dangers.
Similarly, Brown and colleagues (2005) agreed that helping parents understand their child's vulnerability to injury was key to increasing safety behaviors. In this experimental study, researchers tested whether parents would be more likely to implement safety measures in their home if they actually witnessed their children participating in dangerous behaviors. Brown et al. (2005) recruited families with children between 4 and 7 years of age from daycares, afterschool programs, and preschools. Researchers randomly divided the families into the following three groups: a simulated hazard condition (SHC) group in which parents saw videos of their children participating in dangerous behaviors; video condition (VC) group, in which parents watched other children of the same-sex as their own participating in dangerous behaviors; and a control condition (CC) group, in which parents saw a video about child development and the children of others, and were asked about safety in their home. Parents in the SHC and VC group were shown the simulated rooms where some of their children were video taped and asked to fill out a "vulnerability measure" (Brown et al., 2005, p. 574) form indicating what they believed to be their own child's risk for each hazard. These rooms contained a non-working cigarette lighter, a pill dispenser with candy, a dull knife, an iron without wires, an empty and locked BB gun, and a spray cleaner with colored water. The CC group filled out the same form but did not see the simulated rooms. The study consisted of two home visits and one visit to the clinic.
Parents who saw video clips of their own children playing with the locked and empty BB gun, the dull knife, or any of the other hazards in the simulated room did improve safety in their home as measured during a home visit after the experiment and compared with the pre-visit. Parents in the VC group who saw the children of others in hazardous situations did not improve safety in their homes. The authors believe that this was explained by Perloff's theory of "illusion of unique invulnerability" (as cited in Brown et al., 2005, p. 577). Those parents who witnessed their children engaged in dangerous acts perhaps had decreased levels of optimism bias, and therefore, saw the need to take precautions at home. One very interesting finding in this study was that when parents were asked about their mood after watching the videos, those in the SHC group were "proud" and "pleased," and those in the VC group used the words "fear" and "concern" to describe how they felt (Brown et al., 2005, p. 577). The authors pointed out that the children in the SHC group did not touch as many hazards as those in the VC group, and this could account for the difference in parents' responses. In addition, parents can be more critical of the children of others and make excuses for their own children's behavior. The authors state that the size of the study (only 61 families) and the lack of a strong vulnerability scale are weaknesses in this study. Future research would help validate the results of this study.
Literature Review
A review of literature on optimism bias and parental beliefs about early childhood injuries identified three research articles (summarized in Table 2). The purpose of a qualitative study by Chianese and colleagues (2009) was to understand inner-city parents' decision to bed-share following the 2005 American Academy of Pediatrics Policy Statement on Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) (AAP, Task Force on Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, 2005). Researchers looked at how parents weigh the benefits and risks of bed-sharing and how parents felt about being advised not to co-sleep by their PCPs. Focus group participants were recruited from a children's hospital's primary care center (PCC), self-referred, or referred by their PCP. The majority of participants were African Americans on Medicaid, and this limits the generalization of the study. To be included in the study, a parent or primary caregiver had to bed-share with a child between the ages of 0 and 6 months on a regular basis, which was defined as three or more times a week. Researchers also included those who only shared beds for part of the night.
Chianese et al. (2009) asked parents questions in the following categories: "1) parents' motivation to bed-share, 2) parents' beliefs about the risks of bed sharing, and 3) parents' responses to advice about bed sharing" (p. 28). One common belief among parents was that bed sharing led to a better night sleep for the parent and child due to less crying and awakenings. Many parents also said it was convenient to sleep with their child because they could check on them more easily, protect them from harm, and breastfeed more easily; others stated they had slept with their caregivers when they were children, and therefore, it was tradition. The most distressing finding, however, was that parents thought they could protect their infant from SIDS by sleeping in the same bed despite having been warned of the dangers. Some parents felt there was no increased risk with bed sharing because they were "light sleepers" or "would never roll on their children" (Chianese et al., 2009, p. 29). They expressed the belief that they would somehow know or sense if their child were in distress even if they themselves were sleeping. Some parents took steps to reduce risk of suffocation, such as by removing extra pillows. Lastly, parents agreed it was the obligation of PCPs to provide safety guidance, but it did not mean they would follow the advice.
The mothers in the study by Chianese et al. (2009) viewed co-sleeping as a risk for all others but themselves, clearly displaying some optimism bias. Many stated that even if they were told not to co-sleep by their PCPs, they would continue to do so. Some participants believed they were simply incapable of rolling onto their child because they would easily awaken. The parents in the study who had some concerns about co-sleeping reported they had experienced a moment where they almost hurt their infant while bed sharing; their experience had slightly decreased their optimism bias about co-sleeping, verifying that experience with a hazard leads to reduced optimism bias and the belief the event will happen again (Weinstein, 1980).
In an experimental study, Gaines and Schwebel (2009) sought to evaluate the ability of parents with children between the ages of 12 to 36 months to recognize potential hazards in homes and the susceptibility of their own children to injury as compared to other children. The participants in this study were primarily Cau casian (84.1%) women (75%), all with some level of college, and were about 30 years of age. This study was conducted in a psychology laboratory and consisted of parents identifying dangers for toddlers in a simulated living room, bathroom, and toddler bedroom. The ability to recognize potential hazards for children by parents was compared with the ability of pediatric health care providers and daycare workers to do the same. Parents were first asked to place colored stickers on anything they viewed as a hazard for any toddler in the simulated rooms. Once finished, the stickers were removed and parents were asked to once again go through the rooms and place stickers on what they perceived as hazards for their own toddlers. Pediatric health care workers and daycare workers were asked to identify hazards in the simulated rooms for any toddler only once. Parents labeled fewer hazards for their own child (40.16%) as compared to hazards for all toddlers (47.40%), but to the surprise of researchers, parents found more hazards than the pediatric health care workers and daycare workers.
Gaines and Schwebel (2009) found parents' levels of education were not correlated with their ability to find hazards; however, reading parenting magazines and attending parenting classes were related to finding more hazards in all three rooms. The authors concluded that the parents' ability to find more problems than health care and daycare workers may have been due to a greater interest in toddler safety, the increased time spent with toddlers, and familiarity with their behaviors. The authors explain that for many parents, their children seem more intelligent than most toddlers, and therefore, less likely to be involved in dangerous behaviors. Parents' lack of understanding about susceptibility to danger and optimism bias about safety was evident in comments, such as "my child isn't curious about the toilet" and "my child knows not to play with matches" (Gaines & Schwebel, p. 1073). The authors suggest that parents should be made aware of not only dangers but also their child's vulnerability to those dangers.
Similarly, Brown and colleagues (2005) agreed that helping parents understand their child's vulnerability to injury was key to increasing safety behaviors. In this experimental study, researchers tested whether parents would be more likely to implement safety measures in their home if they actually witnessed their children participating in dangerous behaviors. Brown et al. (2005) recruited families with children between 4 and 7 years of age from daycares, afterschool programs, and preschools. Researchers randomly divided the families into the following three groups: a simulated hazard condition (SHC) group in which parents saw videos of their children participating in dangerous behaviors; video condition (VC) group, in which parents watched other children of the same-sex as their own participating in dangerous behaviors; and a control condition (CC) group, in which parents saw a video about child development and the children of others, and were asked about safety in their home. Parents in the SHC and VC group were shown the simulated rooms where some of their children were video taped and asked to fill out a "vulnerability measure" (Brown et al., 2005, p. 574) form indicating what they believed to be their own child's risk for each hazard. These rooms contained a non-working cigarette lighter, a pill dispenser with candy, a dull knife, an iron without wires, an empty and locked BB gun, and a spray cleaner with colored water. The CC group filled out the same form but did not see the simulated rooms. The study consisted of two home visits and one visit to the clinic.
Parents who saw video clips of their own children playing with the locked and empty BB gun, the dull knife, or any of the other hazards in the simulated room did improve safety in their home as measured during a home visit after the experiment and compared with the pre-visit. Parents in the VC group who saw the children of others in hazardous situations did not improve safety in their homes. The authors believe that this was explained by Perloff's theory of "illusion of unique invulnerability" (as cited in Brown et al., 2005, p. 577). Those parents who witnessed their children engaged in dangerous acts perhaps had decreased levels of optimism bias, and therefore, saw the need to take precautions at home. One very interesting finding in this study was that when parents were asked about their mood after watching the videos, those in the SHC group were "proud" and "pleased," and those in the VC group used the words "fear" and "concern" to describe how they felt (Brown et al., 2005, p. 577). The authors pointed out that the children in the SHC group did not touch as many hazards as those in the VC group, and this could account for the difference in parents' responses. In addition, parents can be more critical of the children of others and make excuses for their own children's behavior. The authors state that the size of the study (only 61 families) and the lack of a strong vulnerability scale are weaknesses in this study. Future research would help validate the results of this study.
Source...