The potential impact of emotionally loaded stimuli on over/under-estimating neutral situations among power plant control-room operators

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Human emotions vary on a contextual basis. The significance of emotions becomes even more salient in Control Room Operators (CROs) in power plants. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the effects of emotionally loaded pictures on over/underestimating neutral situations. METHODS: Twenty CROs voluntarily enrolled in the present study. Twenty-one blocks were considered, including ten emotionally loaded and 11 neutral blocks. The stimuli were alternatively submitted to subjects in random order. Each block comprised 13 images from the International Affective Picture System (IAPS), which were shown for 5 seconds. Subjects were required to complete the Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM) after exposure to the first and the last neutral blocks, which were identical. RESULTS: Our analyses showed significant differences between IAPS arousal and SAM1 and SAM2 arousal ratings (p SAM1&IAPS = 0.00, p SAM2&IAPS = 0.02). There was no significant relationship between the first and the second arousals, and emotionally loaded images corresponded to no significant difference in terms of valence. CONCLUSION: The findings suggested that the participants overestimated neutral situations compared with IAPS only in arousal level. Furthermore, CROs can still retain their ability to assess neutral situations in the case of viewing emotional stimuli, especially in valence level, at least half an hour after the first rating. A study design with pure negative/positive and high arousal levels may still provide even more significant results. © 2023 – IOS Press. All rights reserved.

Description

Keywords

CROs, Emotion, IAPS, performance, SAM

Citation

Ghanbari, Z., Nami, M., Choobineh, A., Zakerian, S. A., Gharagozlou, F., Kamali, A. M., & Kazemiha, M. (2023). The potential impact of emotionally loaded stimuli on over/under-estimating neutral situations among power plant control-room operators. Work, 76(4), 1385-1394. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-220162

DOI