IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i18p9496-d631811.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Powder Fever and Its Impact on Decision-Making in Avalanche Terrain

Author

Listed:
  • Andrea Mannberg

    (School of Business and Economics, Faculty of Biosciences, Fisheries and Economics, UiT the Arctic University of Norway, 9037 Tromsø, Norway)

  • Jordy Hendrikx

    (Snow and Avalanche Lab, Department of Earth Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717, USA)

  • Jerry Johnson

    (Department for Political Science, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717, USA)

  • Audun Hetland

    (Department of Psychology, Faculty of Health Sciences, UiT the Arctic University of Norway, 9037 Tromsø, Norway)

Abstract

We examined the effect of emotions, associated with “powder fever”, on decision-making in avalanche terrain. Background: Skiing in avalanche terrain is a voluntary activity that exposes the participant to potentially fatal risk. Impaired decision-making in this context can therefore have devastating results, often with limited prior corrective feedback and learning opportunities. Previous research has suggested that arousal caused by emotions affects risk assessment and intentions to engage in risky behavior. We propose that powder fever may induce similar responses. Methods: We used the following two experimental methods: laboratory studies with visual visceral stimuli (ski movies) and a field study with real stimuli (skiing exciting terrain). We evaluated the effect of emotions on attention, risk assessment, and willingness to expose oneself and others to risk. Results: Both the laboratory studies and the field study showed that skiing-related stimuli had a relatively strong effect on reported emotions. However, we found very few significant effects on decision-making or assessment of risk. Conclusions: Skiing activities make people happier. However, despite the clear parallels to sexual arousal, powder fever does not appear to significantly impair decision-making in our study. More research on the effects of powder fewer on milder forms of risk-taking behavior is needed.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrea Mannberg & Jordy Hendrikx & Jerry Johnson & Audun Hetland, 2021. "Powder Fever and Its Impact on Decision-Making in Avalanche Terrain," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(18), pages 1-22, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:18:p:9496-:d:631811
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/18/9496/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/18/9496/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Martina Raue & Bernhard Streicher & Eva Lermer & Dieter Frey, 2017. "Being active when judging risks: bodily states interfere with accurate risk analysis," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(4), pages 445-462, April.
    2. Matthew B. Stephensen & Torsten Martiny-Huenger, 2021. "Liking and perceived safety across judgments of distinct instances of a category of activity," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(11), pages 1482-1498, November.
    3. Slovic, Paul & Finucane, Melissa L. & Peters, Ellen & MacGregor, Donald G., 2007. "The affect heuristic," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(3), pages 1333-1352, March.
    4. Ali Siddiq Alhakami & Paul Slovic, 1994. "A Psychological Study of the Inverse Relationship Between Perceived Risk and Perceived Benefit," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(6), pages 1085-1096, December.
    5. Tiedens, Larissa Z. & Linton, Susan, 2001. "Judgment under Emotional Uncertainty: The Effects of Specific Emotions and Their Associated Certainty Appraisals on Information Processing," Research Papers 1629, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tuomas Immonen & Eric Brymer & Keith Davids & Timo Jaakkola, 2022. "An Ecological Dynamics Approach to Understanding Human-Environment Interactions in the Adventure Sport Context—Implications for Research and Practice," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(6), pages 1-21, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. De Silva, Muthu & Rossi, Federica & Yip, Nick K.T. & Rosli, Ainurul, 2021. "Does affective evaluation matter for the success of university-industry collaborations? A sentiment analysis of university-industry collaborative project reports," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    2. Rita Saleh & Angela Bearth & Michael Siegrist, 2019. "“Chemophobia” Today: Consumers’ Knowledge and Perceptions of Chemicals," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(12), pages 2668-2682, December.
    3. Mannberg, Andréa, 2012. "Risk and rationalization—The role of affect and cognitive dissonance for sexual risk taking," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(6), pages 1325-1337.
    4. Perlaviciute, Goda & Steg, Linda, 2014. "Contextual and psychological factors shaping evaluations and acceptability of energy alternatives: Integrated review and research agenda," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 361-381.
    5. Michael Greenberg & Charles Haas & Anthony Cox & Karen Lowrie & Katherine McComas & Warner North, 2012. "Ten Most Important Accomplishments in Risk Analysis, 1980–2010," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(5), pages 771-781, May.
    6. Jason R. Holley & Katherine A. McComas & Catherine E. Lambert & Natalie P. Snider & Grace K. Tucker, 2022. "Responding to flood risk in Louisiana: the roles of place attachment, emotions, and location," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 113(1), pages 615-640, August.
    7. MacFarlane, Douglas & Hurlstone, Mark J. & Ecker, Ullrich K.H., 2020. "Protecting consumers from fraudulent health claims: A taxonomy of psychological drivers, interventions, barriers, and treatments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 259(C).
    8. Featherman, Mauricio & Jia, Shizhen (Jasper) & Califf, Christopher B. & Hajli, Nick, 2021. "The impact of new technologies on consumers beliefs: Reducing the perceived risks of electric vehicle adoption," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    9. Matthias Buchholz & Oliver Musshoff, 2021. "Tax or green nudge? An experimental analysis of pesticide policies in Germany [A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit]," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 48(4), pages 940-982.
    10. A Morton & B Fasolo, 2009. "Behavioural decision theory for multi-criteria decision analysis: a guided tour," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(2), pages 268-275, February.
    11. Christine Merk & Gert Pönitzsch, 2017. "The Role of Affect in Attitude Formation toward New Technologies: The Case of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(12), pages 2289-2304, December.
    12. Piers Fleming & Ellen Townsend & Joost A. van Hilten & Alexa Spence & Eamonn Ferguson, 2012. "Expert relevance and the use of context-driven heuristic processes in risk perception," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(7), pages 857-873, August.
    13. Lienert, Pascal & Suetterlin, Bernadette & Siegrist, Michael, 2015. "Public acceptance of the expansion and modification of high-voltage power lines in the context of the energy transition," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 573-583.
    14. Tyler, B. David & Cobbs, Joe & Satinover Nichols, Bridget & Dalakas, Vassilis, 2021. "Schadenfreude, rivalry antecedents, and the role of perceived sincerity in sponsorship of sport rivalries," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 708-719.
    15. Sanders, Rebecca L, 2013. "Examining the Cycle: How Perceived and Actual Bicycling Risk Influence Cylcing Frequency, Roadway Design Preferences, and Support for Cycling Among Bay Area Residents," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt1tf5v738, University of California Transportation Center.
    16. Donald W. Hine & Kirsten Clarke & Anthony D. G. Marks & Methuen I. Morgan, 2019. "Feelings About Fracking: Using the Affect Heuristic to Understand Opposition to Coal Seam Gas Production," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(3), pages 586-598, March.
    17. Sanders, Rebecca Lauren, 2013. "Examining the Cycle: How Perceived and Actual Bicycling Risk Influence Cycling Frequency, Roadway Design Preferences, and Support for Cycling Among Bay Area Residents," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt6ct7x8hp, University of California Transportation Center.
    18. Vicente Martínez-Tur & Vicente Peñarroja & Miguel A Serrano & Vanesa Hidalgo & Carolina Moliner & Alicia Salvador & Adrián Alacreu-Crespo & Esther Gracia & Agustín Molina, 2014. "Intergroup Conflict and Rational Decision Making," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-17, December.
    19. Harrington, Jean & Morgan, Myfanwy, 2016. "Understanding kidney transplant patients' treatment choices: The interaction of emotion with medical and social influences on risk preferences," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 43-50.
    20. Hung‐Chih Hung & Tzu‐Wen Wang, 2011. "Determinants and Mapping of Collective Perceptions of Technological Risk: The Case of the Second Nuclear Power Plant in Taiwan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 668-683, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:18:p:9496-:d:631811. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.