Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

We investigated the effects of different decision frames and incentives on training in a simulated airport security screening task using a 3 (frame: analytical, affective, comparative) x 2 (incentive: positive, negative) x 4 (trial block) design. Performance was measured by criterion settings, sensitivities, and detection response times. Results indicate that participants in the analytical frame (i.e., emphasis on gaining/losing points) outperformed participants in both the affective (i.e., emphasis on saving/losing lives) and comparative frames (i.e., emphasis on performing better/worse than peers). These results have implications for training airport luggage screeners in the real world in that eliciting strong emotions override our reason and logic and lead participants to perform poorly in discriminating between signal and noise.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Chaiken

Trope

(1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford Press.

de Sousa

(1987). The rationality of emotion. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Epstein

(1994). Integration of the cognitive and psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist, 49, 709–724.

Frederickson

H.G.

LaPorte

T.R.

(2002). Airport security, high reliability and the problem of rationality. Public Administration Review, 62.

Goethals

G.W.

Dennis

S.K.

(1986). Experiencing Youth: First Person Accounts. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Kuhberger

(1998). The influence of framing on risky decision: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75, 23–55.

Levin

I.P.

Schenider

S.L.

Gaeth

G.J.

(1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(2), 149–188.

Matthews

Davies

D.R.

Holey

P.J.

(1993). Cognitive predictors of vigilance. Human Factors, 35, 3–24.

Parasuraman

(1979). Memory load and event rate control sensitivity decrements in sustained attention. Science, 205, 925–927.

10.

Pfister

H-R.

Bohm

(2008). The multiplicity of emotions: A framework of emotional functions in decision making. Judgment and Decision Making, 3, 5–17.

11.

Sloman

S.A.

(1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 3–22.

12.

Slovic

Peters

Finucane

MacGregor

D.G.

(2005). Negative affect, risk, and decision making. Health Psychology, 24, 35–40.

13.

Stanovich

K.E.

West

R.F.

(2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 645–726.

14.

Tversky

Kahneman

(1981, January 30). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458.

Application of the Dual-Process Theory of Decision Making to Threat Detection during Airport Security Screening

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References