Risk as feelings or risk and feelings? A cross‐lagged panel analysis

Abstract

This article focuses on affective and cognitive processes underlying the perception of risk. A limitation with most process models of affect/cognition is that they include only concurrent emotions. By following a group (n = 129) of military sailors prospectively during an international operation, we explored longitudinal relations between perceived risk and related feelings.

The risk‐relevant variables were embedded in a larger questionnaire aimed at studying mental readiness during international military operations at sea.

Longitudinal cross‐lagged path models were estimated to explore the relationships between perceived risk, worry, and emotional distress. Results gave support to earlier studies by showing that cross‐sectional measures of risk and worry were weakly related. Across time, worry and emotional distress were reciprocally related. Perceived risk had impact on worry but not on emotional distress. Neither worry nor emotional distress influenced perceived risk.

The risk‐as‐feelings hypothesis postulates a direct effect of feelings onto behavioural choice, and a reciprocal relation between cognitive evaluations and feelings.

Our findings do not support a reciprocal relation between judgements of risk and feelings, but an impact from risk on to worry. Between various measures of feelings reciprocity seems to exist. Further replications, including also behavioural measures, are needed.

Keywords:

• risk perception
• worry
• emotional distress
• risk as feelings

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a grant from the Norwegian Department of Defence. Statements expressed in the paper represent the authors' private opinions. We are grateful for Jan Sommerfelt‐Pettersen's approval of the study and for Dag Jenfoft and Petter Kammerhuber's administration of the data collecting. Many thanks are due to the crew at KNM Narvik for serving as respondents. We are also indebted to Norbert Schwarz for his valuable advice concerning the preparation of the paper. Thanks are also due to Kyrre Breivik, Rolf Reber, and an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments on earlier versions of the manuscript.

Notes

The risk‐relevant variables were embedded in a larger questionnaire aimed at studying mental readiness during international military operations at sea.

The reason for the different scales was that the questions were extracted from two separate psychometric instruments that differed in scaling.

Log transformation [1/(var.+1)(−1)] yielded skewness <1 for all variables except late emotional distress ( = 1.4).

In the present version of AMOS, FIML tends to give inflated CFI values (Breivik, 2002). We corrected the CFI values using the recommended procedure: New baseline models were estimated, in which all error variances and all paths were removed. Then, we applied Model Fit Calculator 2.0 (Arbuckle, 2001) to correct the CFI, on the basis of chi square statistics of our hypothesised model, a saturated model (in which all variables are 1.00 correlated) and the new baseline models.

The personnel passed an estimated distance of 1.521229 meters on the rowing machine between March 15^th and May 30^th. Source: Electronic letter no. 10, retrieved from the ship KNM Narvik's prior web‐site.