Modifying Evaluations and Decisions in Risky Situations

Abstract

The main aim of this research was to investigate the decision making process in risky situations. We studied how different types of feedback on risky driving behaviors modulate risk evaluation and risk-taking. For a set of risky traffic situations, participants had to make evaluative judgments (judge the situation as risky or not) and urgent decisions (brake or not). In Experiment 1, participants received feedback with and without negative emotional content when they made risky behaviors. In Experiment 2 we investigated the independent effects of feedback and negative emotional stimuli. The results showed three important findings: First, urgent decisions were faster [F(1, 92) = 6.76, p = .01] and more cautious [F(1, 92) = 17.16, p < .001] than evaluative judgments. These results suggest that evaluative judgments of risk and actual risk-taking may not always coincide, and that they seem to be controlled by two different processing systems as proposed by dual process theories. Second, feedback made participants' responses even faster [F(1, 111) = 71.53, p < .001], allowing greater risk sensitivity [F(1, 111) = 22.12, p < .001] and skewing towards more cautious responses [F(1, 111) = 14.09, p < .001]. Finally, emotional stimuli had an effect only when they were presented as feedback. The results of this research increase our understanding of the processes involved in risky driving behavior and suggest efficient ways to control risk taking through the use of feedback.

The role of feedback in shaping responses to risky road scenarios: Evidence from electrodermal activity

“…Moreover, the differences found in the PR between the two tasks, with a higher PR for the Decision task in risky situations, are in line with the postulates that Decision and the Evaluation tasks can be guided by different processes. According to previous studies (Maldonado et al, 2016;Torres et al, 2017), and following the dualprocess models of decision making (Kahneman, 2011;Reyna, 2004;Slovic et al, 2004), the Decision task would be mainly controlled by the experiential-affective system, which is more automatic and affective-driven than the rational-analytic system (Megías et al, 2015;Slovic et al, 2007). These characteristics would allow the experiential-affective system, compared with the rational-analytic system, to be more sensitive and prone to safer reactions produced by the need to act urgently (e.g., braking), thus resulting in an increased PR toward the safe response option under risky circumstances.…”

“…For instance, the use of contingent negative feedback (that is, feedback contingently applied to the behavior) has consistently been shown to promote correct responses in a computerized behavioral task in which the participants had to decide whether or not to brake when faced with a set of traffic images (Maldonado, Serra, Catena, Cándido, & Megías, 2016;Maldonado et al, 2020;Torres, Megías, Catena, Cándido, & Maldonado, 2017). This task, also called "Decision task", is thought to bring into play the activation of the experiential-affective system, due to the urgency of the required response that would make less possible the (slower) activation of the other system (rational-analytic).…”

“…This task, also called "Decision task", is thought to bring into play the activation of the experiential-affective system, due to the urgency of the required response that would make less possible the (slower) activation of the other system (rational-analytic). In this task, the contingent negative feedback appears to modify the individual decision criterion (that is, the response bias) toward a better perception of risk, leading to risk-averse behaviors (Maldonado et al, 2016, Torres et al, 2017. Conversely, the use of non-contingent feedback was found to generate the opposite effect, that is, a reduction in the frequency of braking decisions (Torres et al, 2017).…”

“…In this task, participants have to rate the images as risky or not risky (thus increasing the influence of the rationalanalytic system). When this task has been used to study the effect of feedback in comparison to the Decision task, although the effect is still evident, the participants were generally more rapid in responding during the Decision task when compared with the performance at the Evaluative task (Maldonado et al, 2016). This suggests that the types of required responses in the two tasks are differentially controlled by the two systems proposed by the dual-process theories (Maldonado et al, 2016).…”

“…When this task has been used to study the effect of feedback in comparison to the Decision task, although the effect is still evident, the participants were generally more rapid in responding during the Decision task when compared with the performance at the Evaluative task (Maldonado et al, 2016). This suggests that the types of required responses in the two tasks are differentially controlled by the two systems proposed by the dual-process theories (Maldonado et al, 2016). In the same vein, the behavioral effect of feedback on both the urgent and evaluative tasks seems to be paralleled by system-specific alterations in brain activation (Megías et al, 2015), which provides further evidence of the involvement of two different systems (Megías et al, 2015).…”