IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i21p14259-d959689.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Novelty Appraisal of the Feeling of Risk in Vehicles

Author

Listed:
  • Meng Zhang

    (Institute of Transportation Systems, German Aerospace Center (DLR), 12489 Berlin, Germany)

  • Meike Jipp

    (Institute of Transport Research, German Aerospace Center (DLR), 12489 Berlin, Germany)

  • Klas Ihme

    (Institute of Transportation Systems, German Aerospace Center (DLR), 38108 Braunschweig, Germany)

Abstract

Nowadays, vehicle assistance systems may assess the risks of the traffic situation with the help of advanced sensor technology and optimized algorithms. However, the passengers’ feelings of risk in the vehicle have been mostly neglected. According to the Component Process Model of emotions, during the feeling of risk, novelty is one of the relevant event appraisals leading to particular physiological and facial responses. In order to identify whether or not indicators for novelty appraisal may be used for detecting the feeling of risk of vehicle occupants, we investigated physiological responses and facial expressions of individuals experiencing the feeling of risk with different levels of novelty. This secondary analysis of an earlier simulator study revealed that pupil diameter amplitude, skin conductance level changes, and changes in and amplitude of activity in facial expressions (the inner and outer brow raiser, brow lowerer, upper lid raiser and lid tightener) were correlated with the reduction in the novelty, suggesting that they could indicate the novelty of the feeling of risk of vehicle occupants. Hence, this research provides evidence for the novelty appraisal of the feeling of risk. Furthermore, it informs research on affect-aware systems to identify and reduce the feeling of risk of vehicle occupants in order to help to keep trust in automated vehicles high.

Suggested Citation

  • Meng Zhang & Meike Jipp & Klas Ihme, 2022. "The Novelty Appraisal of the Feeling of Risk in Vehicles," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-13, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:21:p:14259-:d:959689
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/21/14259/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/21/14259/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yaling Deng & Lei Chang & Meng Yang & Meng Huo & Renlai Zhou, 2016. "Gender Differences in Emotional Response: Inconsistency between Experience and Expressivity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-12, June.
    2. Peng Jing & Gang Xu & Yuexia Chen & Yuji Shi & Fengping Zhan, 2020. "The Determinants behind the Acceptance of Autonomous Vehicles: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-26, February.
    3. Paul Slovic & Melissa L. Finucane & Ellen Peters & Donald G. MacGregor, 2004. "Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 311-322, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Kang, Min Jung & Park, Heejun, 2011. "Impact of experience on government policy toward acceptance of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3465-3475, June.
    2. Branden B. Johnson, 2017. "Explaining Americans’ responses to dread epidemics: an illustration with Ebola in late 2014," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(10), pages 1338-1357, October.
    3. Joanna Sokolowska & Patrycja Sleboda, 2015. "The Inverse Relation Between Risks and Benefits: The Role of Affect and Expertise," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1252-1267, July.
    4. Thomas Deroche & Yannick Stephan & Tim Woodman & Christine Le Scanff, 2012. "Psychological Mediators of the Sport Injury—Perceived Risk Relationship," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(1), pages 113-121, January.
    5. Pam A. Mueller & Lawrence M. Solan & John M. Darley, 2012. "When Does Knowledge Become Intent? Perceiving the Minds of Wrongdoers," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(4), pages 859-892, December.
    6. Mutlu, Asli & Roy, Debraj & Filatova, Tatiana, 2023. "Capitalized value of evolving flood risks discount and nature-based solution premiums on property prices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    7. Therese Kobbeltvedt & Katharina Wolff, 2009. "The Risk-as-feelings hypothesis in a Theory-of-planned-behaviour perspective," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(7), pages 567-586, December.
    8. Visschers, Vivianne H.M. & Keller, Carmen & Siegrist, Michael, 2011. "Climate change benefits and energy supply benefits as determinants of acceptance of nuclear power stations: Investigating an explanatory model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3621-3629, June.
    9. Dolores J. Severtson & Jeffrey B. Henriques, 2009. "The Effect of Graphics on Environmental Health Risk Beliefs, Emotions, Behavioral Intentions, and Recall," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(11), pages 1549-1565, November.
    10. Martijn Adriaan Boermans & Daan Willebrands, 2017. "Entrepreneurship, risk perception and firm performance," International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 31(4), pages 557-569.
    11. Christiane Riedinger & Jackie Campbell & William M P Klein & Rebecca A Ferrer & Juliet A Usher-Smith, 2022. "Analysis of the components of cancer risk perception and links with intention and behaviour: A UK-based study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(1), pages 1-16, January.
    12. Liana Fraenkel & Marilyn Stolar & Jonathan R. Bates & Richard L. Street Jr & Harjinder Chowdhary & Sarah Swift & Ellen Peters, 2018. "Variability in Affect and Willingness to Take Medication," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(1), pages 34-43, January.
    13. Frisch, L.C. & Mathis, J.T. & Kettle, N.P. & Trainor, S.F., 2015. "Gauging perceptions of ocean acidification in Alaska," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 101-110.
    14. Hoti, Ferdiana & Perko, Tanja & Thijssen, Peter & Renn, Ortwin, 2021. "Who is willing to participate? Examining public participation intention concerning decommissioning of nuclear power plants in Belgium," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    15. Diego Fernandez-Duque & Timothy Wifall, 2007. "Actor/observer asymmetry in risky decision making," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 2, pages 1-8, February.
    16. Thomas Kourouxous & Thomas Bauer, 2019. "Violations of dominance in decision-making," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 12(1), pages 209-239, April.
    17. Zhang, Qiyuan & Wallbridge, Christopher D. & Jones, Dylan M. & Morgan, Phillip L., 2024. "Public perception of autonomous vehicle capability determines judgment of blame and trust in road traffic accidents," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    18. Myeonggil Choi & Changhan Lee, 2015. "Information Security Management as a Bridge in Cloud Systems from Private to Public Organizations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(9), pages 1-20, August.
    19. Tim Slack & Vanessa Parks & Lynsay Ayer & Andrew M. Parker & Melissa L. Finucane & Rajeev Ramchand, 2020. "Natech or natural? An analysis of hazard perceptions, institutional trust, and future storm worry following Hurricane Harvey," 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. 102(3), pages 1207-1224, July.
    20. Xin-Wei Li & Hong-Zhi Miao, 2023. "How to Incorporate Autonomous Vehicles into the Carbon Neutrality Framework of China: Legal and Policy Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-24, March.

    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:19:y:2022:i:21:p:14259-:d:959689. 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.