University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

In-flight turbulence: an articulated thoughts in simulated situations (ATSS) paradigm investigation of air travelers ' experiences

(USC Thesis Other)

In-flight turbulence: an articulated thoughts in simulated situations (ATSS) paradigm investigation of air travelers ' experiences

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

IN-FLIGHT TURBULENCE:
AN ARTICULATED THOUGHTS IN SIMULATED SITUATIONS (ATSS)
INVESTIGATION OF AIR TRAVELERS’ EXPERIENCES

by

Marat V. Zanov

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(PSYCHOLOGY)

August 2008

Copyright 2008 Marat V. Zanov
ii

Dedication
To my dear dad. I know you would’ve been proud.

iii

Acknowledgements
I am sincerely appreciative to the members of my qualifying examination and
dissertation committee: Rodney K. Goodyear, Ph.D., Stanley Huey, Jr., Ph.D., and
Stephen J. Read, Ph.D. for their guidance throughout this project and willingness to share
their wisdom and experience. In addition, I am grateful for the very supportive
mentorship of my advisor, Professor Gerald C. Davison, Ph.D., who had taught me to
think like a true scientist and whose own wide-ranging academic work continuously
inspires my creativity as a researcher. Finally, I would like to thank my research
assistants: Natalie Grey, Anikka Hoidal, Maynard Hughes, Lisa Mays, and Tyler
Newshott for their invaluable help in collecting and conscientious coding of the data.

iv

Table of Contents
Dedication
Acknowledgments
List of Tables
List of Figures
Abstract
Chapter One: Introduction

Chapter Two: Background
The state of air travel
Who are the fearful flyers?
Etiology of fear acquisition
Role of cognitions in the acquisition of fear
Information and coping with the fear of flying
Chapter Three: Significance
Chapter Four: Specific aims
Chapter Five: Method
Participants
Experimental design
Materials and apparatus
Measures
Procedures
Chapter Six: Results
Chapter Seven: Discussion
Chapter Eight: Conclusions
Chapter Nine: Limitations
Chapter Ten: Further Research
ii
iii
vi
vii
viii
1

3
3
4
5
12
14
19
21
25
25
25
27
27
33
35
52
67
73
76
v

References
Appendix A: Standard Pre-Flight Safety Announcement

Appendix B: ATSS Scenarios

Appendix C: Demographics Background Questionnaire

Appendix D: Travel History Survey

Appendix E: Questionnaire on Attitudes Toward Flying

Appendix F : Air Travel Survey

Appendix G : State Anxiety Inventory (STAI-S)

Appendix H: Perceived Satisfaction with the Flight

Appendix I : Intention to Fly Again

Appendix J: Manipulation Check

Appendix K: Debriefing Script

Appendix L: Referral Sheet

Appendix M: ATSS Instructions

Appendix N: ATSS Practice Scenario

Appendix O: Coding Manuals for the ATSS Codes

Appendix P: Scoring Criteria of the Air Travel Survey Responses

78
85

88

101

102

103

106

107

108

109

110

112

114

115

116

118

132
vi

List of Tables
Table 1: Experimental Design

Table 2: Demographic information of all participants

Table 3: Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) of the absolute coder
agreement for the ATSS variables

Table 4: Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) of the absolute coder
agreement for the air travel-related knowledge at pre- and post-
simulated flight

Table 5: Intentions to fly again and satisfaction with the flight as correlates
(Pearson’s r) of the ATSS- and questionnaire-derived variables

Table 6: Mediation of the satisfaction with the flight by the ATSS- and
questionnaire-derived variables as respective correlates of
encountering turbulence during the flight.

26

36

38

43

50

51

vii

List of Figures
Figure 1: Breakdown of the sample by experimental condition.

Figure 2: A graphical model of testing for potential mediating effects.

35

48

viii

Abstract
We examined whether enhancing the standard pre-takeoff announcement with
supplemental information that explains the basics of turbulence and the aircraft’s ability
to safely withstand it will favorably affect air travelers’ reactions to a severely turbulent
flight. With help of the Articulated Thoughts in Simulated Situations (ATSS) paradigm,
participants boarded a plane as passengers, heard either a standard or enhanced pre-flight
announcement, experienced either an uneventful or a very turbulent flight, and then
landed safely. Compared to the calm, the turbulent flight resulted in greater articulations
of anxiety, negative outcome expectancies, pleas for God’s help, appeals for explanation,
and relief about landing, all regardless of the announcement type, the passengers’ pre-
existing fear of flying (QAF), their state anxiety (STAI-S) at the time of boarding or the
extent of their past air travels.
Land-based transportation and not airplanes was the most preferred means of
travel. Additionally, neither the number of previous flights nor the pre-existing fear of
flying was instrumental in the passengers’ ATSS responses to turbulence. The latter,
however, significantly correlated with several variables. While decisions to fly in the
future significantly depended on satisfaction with the most recent flight, the latter was
exclusively a function of the in-the-moment (ATSS) cognitive reactions to turbulence and
not of any questionnaire-based variables. That is, it wasn’t just encountering turbulence
but the passengers’ particular cognitive reactions to it that was a decisive factor.
Specifically, greater articulated anxiety and negative outcome expectancies during the
turbulent flight led to reduction in satisfaction with it and, consequently, the diminished
ix

likelihood of flying again. Therefore, it appears that any efforts to improve the
passengers’ experience, particularly if turbulence is forecast, should focus specifically on
alleviation of their anxious thoughts and negative outcome expectancies. We conclude
that such informational enhancement will likely be most effective if delivered during the
actual turbulent encounter and not before the flight. The think-aloud data gathered via
the ATSS seemed to be more informative than those of either questionnaires (QAF and
STAI-S). We thus encourage continued utilization of the paradigm in this line of
research as a reliable and practical alternative to other approaches.
1

Chapter One: Introduction
Naturally capable of bipedal locomotion, our early predecessors found ways of
taming wild beasts to augment the efficiency of their terrainean travels. At some point in
evolution, early humans had learned to exploit their bodies’ natural buoyancy to traverse
waters by swimming. Eventually, they began constructing devices that would allow them
to cross rivers, lakes, and later oceans in a more efficient manner. Over the centuries,
ground and nautical transportation came to be integral elements of humankind’s
socioeconomic progress. However, only some time after the Wright brothers’ success at
the outset of the XX century were we afforded the opportunity of traveling by air. While
capable of swimming and walking, humans possess no wings or other nature-given
means to sustain flight. For them flying is arguably the least evolutionary-adaptive
behavior and, if anything, heights even pose some degree of danger. Depending on the
circumstances, the breakdown of a train or the sinking of a boat are conceivably
survivable events: one can at least still walk or swim until help arrives. However, should
an engine of a flying aircraft suddenly shut down, one would have little control over their
fate.
The notion of evolutionary-relevant fear acquisition is but one of several
influential theories of the etiology of phobias. Based in part on the Darwinian premise,
the preparedness perspective (Seligman, 1971) holds that humans readily learn specific
types of fears as an evolutionary self-preservation mechanism. That is, survival of the
human species ultimately owes a great deal to avoidance of dangerous situations,
locations, and objects, and such avoidance was propagated throughout generations.
2

According to this account, it comes as no surprise that most people are reasonably
cautious of heights for these are locations or situations that pose the risk of injury or
death as a result of a fall. Air travel provides the ultimate conditions for exposure to
heights because, unlike the case of a bridge or a high-rise building, an individual cannot
at will descend down a flight of stairs or ride an elevator to the ground level but instead
has to endure the flight until the landing. In fact, when it comes to traveling by air, an
estimated 10% - 40% of the industrialized world’s population actually fears flying (Dean
& Whitaker, 1982; Van Gerwen, & Diekstra, 2000).
3

Chapter Two: Background
The state of air travel
Modern aircraft are a far cry from the gliders manufactured in the Wright
brothers’ bicycle shop, and consequent technological advances in aviation engineering
made air travel fast, efficient, and reasonably comfortable. The world’s largest
manufacturer of passenger and military aircraft now insists that air travel is safe, in fact
much safer than traveling by car (Boeing, 2007). Incidentally, even compared to the 9/11
tragedy where passenger aircraft were used as weapons of terrorism, some estimate that
travel by air could approach the statistical level of danger associated with driving only if
disasters of such a grand scale took place once monthly for ten consecutive years (Sivak,
& Flannagan, 2003). The safety of air transportation is constantly improved and
monitored by such governmental agencies as the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) in the United States. As of the
time of this writing, the press and the cable news networks are mulling over the quality of
the FAA’s oversight of regular safety inspections at major US airlines (e.g., Bronstein,
2008). Unfortunately, whether due to malfunction, human error or something else,
accidents do take place and are all but inevitable, albeit rare.
The statistics available from the NTSB show a sporadic rise and fall of passenger
aircraft accident rates over the 1986-2005 period. In the year 1996 alone, for instance, an
estimated 592 million US passengers traveled by air, and aircraft accidents resulted in
319 passenger fatalities. In contrast, the year 2002 had seen an increase in air travel to
619 million passengers, but no fatal accidents were reported. Conversely, the latest
4

statistics include 18 fatalities that occurred while transporting 751 million airline
passengers in the year of 2005 (National Transportation Safety Board, 2006).
Additionally, no matter how relatively infrequent, aircraft accidents usually receive wide
media coverage. The 9/11 tragedy was followed by a slight drop in the numbers of air
travelers but, according to official data, their numbers have been steadily increasing every
year since (National Transportation Safety Board, 2006). In response to these terrorist
attacks, security at airports was enhanced nationwide, but, of course, anti-terrorist
measures do little to alleviate one’s concerns of injurious or even fatal malfunctions or
accidents, which still happen. Awareness of such accidents constitutes the potential risk
that the passengers must deal with when they plan their next trip. Ultimately, some view
air travel as safe and others less so, ending up either avoiding flying altogether in more
severe cases or wrestling with anxiety and fear every time they do fly.

Who are the fearful flyers?
So what sets fearful flyers apart from the rest? Wilhelm and Roth (1997) assessed
various characteristics of the fear of flying in a sample of phobics
1
and normal controls.
Participants’ list of concerns and expectations while flying included the following items
(in descending order): accident, possibility of airplane’s crashing, mechanical problem,
and threatening weather conditions. These items comprised the “external danger” factor,
which was of significantly greater concern to the clinical group. When asked about three
possible reasons for their fear of flying, the clinical sample cited unpleasant (such as

1
Wilhelm and Roth’s (1997) clinical sample actually consisted of three groups of fearful flyers: 1. Simple
phobia of flying, 2. Panic disorder with agoraphobia, 3. History of panic disorder.
5

turbulence or bad weather), life threatening (such as near accident or extreme turbulence
or air pocket) flight experiences, and general fear of heights. Furthermore, Ekeberg,
Seeberg, and Ellertsen (1988) polled Norwegian air travelers and found that about 20% of
them report considerable apprehension which frequently centered around turbulence.
Notably, individuals who report fear of flying are anything but a homogeneous
group. In essence, this is a situational phobia that may be accompanied by other, non-
situational ones as well (Van Gerwen, Spinhoven, Van Dyck, & Diekstra, 1999).
Agoraphobia, claustrophobia, and acrophobia, among other specific phobias can drive
one’s apprehension about air travel (McNally & Louro, 1992; Van Gerwen, Spinhoven,
Dieskstra, & Van Dyck, 1997; Wilhelm & Roth, 1997). It follows then that the focus of
apprehension may be quite different for each individual. For instance, a fearful flyer with
agoraphobia may be concerned with and embarrassed by the possibility of having a panic
attack on the plane but one without agoraphobia will give this thought little weight,
instead focusing on external dangers, such as crashing (McNally & Louro, 1992).

Etiology of fear acquisition

Associative accounts
Estimates that up to a third of air travelers actually fear to fly clearly suggest that
the scope of the problem is beyond a number of the isolated cases. So, are there specific
risk factors or identifiable pathways of the development of such fear? Several models of
fear acquisition have been advanced over the past century, notably starting with
6

Mowrer’s (1939) notion of anticipatory anxiety, which is a product of direct
conditioning. Here, the conditioned response (CR) of fear
2
is produced through repeated
pairings of a neutral conditioned stimulus (CS) with a fear-evoking unconditioned
stimulus (UCS). In line with this account, an onset of fear of flying would be a result of
association of anxiety-evoking in-flight experiences that took place on several occasions.
The already mentioned preparedness theory of Seligman (1971) is another type of
associative account that is still drawing a lot of attention. The difference here is that
unlike Mowrer’s equipotential view, only a selected number of phobias are most likely to
develop, but the CS+UCS pairing is still required. Specifically, it is assumed that the
evolutionary-relevant stimuli easily (i.e., in as little as one to a few conditioning trials)
associate with the fear response. In other words, fear of flying may be acquired via a
single negative in-flight experience (such as severe turbulence) that brings forth one’s
evolutionary fear of heights.

Vicarious and Verbal pathways
Retaining Seligman’s (1971) basic premise of preparedness of phobias, Rachman
(1977), however, considered conditioning to be “neither comprehensive nor adequate” (p.
383) as a mechanism of fear acquisition. In line with Bandura’s (1969; 1971; 1977)
notion of observational learning, Rachman (1977; 1991) formally delineated two
additional pathways: vicarious and verbal informational influence. According to this
view, for instance, observing fellow passengers’ fearful in-flight reactions to turbulence,

2
In this paper, Mowrer (1939) used terms “fear” and “anxiety” synonymously (please see his footnote on
page 553).
7

unusual engine noises and so forth (even if the individual themselves did not interpret the
turbulence or engine noises as threatening) may contribute to the development of one’s
own fear of flying in as little as one occasion. That is, Rachman’s explanation of fear
acquisition via vicarious influence suggests that upon seeing someone’s dramatically
fearful reaction, an observer may begin to doubt their own benign interpretation of
turbulence, unusual engine sounds, and so forth. Olsson and Phelps (2004) showed
vicarious (observational) learning to be effective in producing conditioned skin
conductance responses in much the same fashion as the classical learning. In their turn,
Menzies and Clarke’s (1995) non-associative model holds that aversive conditioning is
not always necessary for acquisition of fear. Some fears, they say, such as those of
“water, heights, spiders, strangers, and separation” (p. 43) are purely Darwinian in that
they may not require any conditioning. In all, it seems that this view would explain
development of the fear of phylogenetic (i.e., those cited above) stimuli better than that of
those of the ontogenetic type (i.e., an aircraft).

Automatic and encapsulated fear module
While some aspects of the prepared learning perspective have received mixed
empirical support (McNally, 1987), one of the premises of the recently advanced notion
of fear as an evolved, survival-relevant “behavioral, mental, and neural system” (fear
module, Öhman & Mineka, 2001) conceptually agrees with its basic idea. That is,
humans are especially sensitive to stimuli that may have threatened the survival of their
ancestors in the past. This view holds that once the fear module is activated, the resulting
8

fear response is automatic (its initiation is independent of the organism’s volition) and
encapsulated (not amenable to conscious influence, it will “run its course”). The
encapsulation, however, is semi-permeable in that it provides for some unidirectional
influence. At that, once the fear module is activated, the fear response is capable of
distorting one’s cognitive processes by introducing biased appraisal of the likely
resolution, with greater expectation of negative outcomes.
This model gives preference of fear acquisition to phylogenetic stimuli (p. 498),
and one may find its application to the fear of flying (with a flying aircraft being an
ontogenetic CS) somewhat challenging but not impossible. Assuming acrophobia (to
focus on just this evolutionary-salient fear as a concrete example) as the phylogenetic
fear, then perhaps the model would explain fear of flying as follows. Since every
individual who boards an airplane is evolutionarily “pre-wired” to be cautious of heights,
experiencing a potentially dangerous or anxiety-evoking incident (turbulence or
breakdown) while on the plane may result in triggering of the fear module. That is,
awareness of the altitude while in an aversive predicament activates the evolutionarily-
prescribed fear of heights, unleashing an irrepressible fear response.
Due to their ostensible focus on phylogenetic fears, Öhman and Mineka (2001)
allot only secondary role to cognitions. Since the fear module is impermeable to
cognitive influence, not until after the fear response has run its course may the individual
begin making sense (cognitive evaluation) of their emotional state. The primacy of
emotion vs. cognition debate has yielded some stimulating writings (i.e., Lazarus, 1984;
Zajonc, 1984), but it is unlikely that there is an absolute primacy of either one when it
9

comes to phobias. Etiological multimodality is actually reflected in the current
diagnostic classification of a specific phobia, which includes not only behavioral but also
the cognitive component of “anticipation of a specific object or a situation” (Criterion A,
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, APA, 2000). Surely it makes
sense to expect a nearly automatic (i.e., no conscious consideration) response to a snake
encountered on a narrow trail or a ravenous beast rushing through the brush towards you,
yet our environment is no longer the prehistoric jungle. While a number of phylogenetic
fears may be latent within everyone, there is quite a variety of specific phobias centered
on the evolutionary non-germane, ontogenetic stimuli (i.e., needle phobia, dental phobia,
flying phobia, etc.), and the importance of a number of cognitive processes has been
argued.

The Contemporary Conditioning Model
In the “contemporary conditioning model” of phobias advanced by Davey (1992,
1997), the process of CS+UCS pairing is mediated by outcome expectancies. In addition
to experiential, observable associations (classical conditioning), a substantial cognitive
component is introduced. Individuals are not mere “tabula rasa” (1997, p. 306) when
entering salient situations but they possess some expectancies about the likely outcomes
of these events (cf., Bandura, 1977). Hence, the automaticity in the sense of the lack of
cognitive input is no longer central. Instead, the outcome expectancies and reevaluations
of cognitive representations of the UCS assume mediating roles in the mechanism of
phobic conditioning. The outcome expectancies may consist of situational contingency
10

information, verbally transmitted information about the contingency, existing beliefs
about the CS and the contingency, and emotions elicited by the CS. The reevaluation
process of the UCS (mechanism by virtue of which one’s evaluation of the UCS may
change) may entail one’s experience with the UCS alone, socially/verbally transmitted
information about the UCS, interpretation of the interoceptive cues, cognitive rehearsal
UCS, and coping strategies which neutralize the UCS.
Davey’s (1992, 1997) model seems to allow for some flexibility in interpretation
of the etiology of phobias by virtue of not specifying exclusive primacy of one
mechanism over another. He does, however, place an emphasis on cognitive input. Such
a view of conditioning accounts for processing of incoming information about the UCS,
the experiential (memory) input, anticipatory expectancies, and possibility of application
of coping skills. That is, his model specifically accounts for human capacity to think, as
in cognitively processing one’s environment in most situations. Notably, Öhman and
Mineka (2001) actually recognize thinking as “another type of (evolutionary) mechanism
guaranteeing regular and adaptive relationships between the organism and its
environment” (p. 508). Additionally, Rachman’s (1977; 1991) vicarious and
informational pathways of fear acquisition are likely to be accounted for within Davey’s
framework as part of the expectancy variables. So, an example of expectancy mediation
of the development of flying phobia would be entering the situation of experiencing in-
flight turbulence with the pre-existing belief that turbulence is dangerous. Alternatively,
a conceivable example of UCS reevaluation that leads to development of fear of flying
11

may be one’s lack of skills to realistically evaluate what just took place (e.g.., a turbulent
flight) as a benign encounter and instead remember the event as profoundly dangerous.

Near miss experiences
Lovibond (2001) expanded the role of cognitions in fear conditioning by
proposing the near miss experience as a plausible fourth pathway (in addition to
conditioning, vicarious, and informational learning). A “near miss” is a situation where
the negative outcome does not actually take place. It is an “episode where an aversive
event almost occurs but fails to do so simply because of chance” (p. 36). He argues that
“near misses” are evolutionary-adaptive experiences that promote learning about harmful
events that are relevant to the individual’s environment. The defining feature of this
theory is that the negative outcome is inferred by the individual who consequently
deduces that the aversive outcome did not take place merely due to chance. The stimuli
to which danger is attributed (these may or may not be, in fact, the true threats) will elicit
a fear response in the future, and learning from this situation would generalize to
conceptually (as opposed to physically) similar stimuli. However, the anxiety that results
from such a “near miss” experience is assumed to be amenable to alteration either
retrospectively (via reevaluation) or prospectively (via consideration of the probability of
future occurrences). So, a relevant example of such learning may be flying through three
consecutive mild air pockets, where full blown turbulence never actually takes place.
However, for whatever reason the individual thought that the third “dip” was about to
develop into a violent, life threatening encounter that did not take place simply by chance
12

(i.e., “this time I got lucky”). Consequently, they may think that the next time they won’t
get as lucky.

Role of cognitions in the acquisition of fear
Evidently, quite different paradigms buttress each of the discussed positions on
the etiology of phobias. A supposition that the truth lies somewhere in the middle, and
each of these theories is referring to a distinct aspect of the general phenomenon may not
be all that unreasonable. Conceivably, Öhman and Mineka’s (2001) non-cognitively
activated preparedness mechanism describes what is an automatic response to many
phylogenetic fear-relevant stimuli that were evolutionarily selected for. In turn, Davey’s
(1992) expectancy-driven model may well illustrate fear conditioning to most ontogenetic
CSs. What if he describes responding to situations, events, and objects that may not yet
have had sufficient time to become evolutionary selected for and thus still require a
degree of cognitive input? There may be some support to this view. For example,
Dawson, Schell, and Banis (1984) found that while evolutionary-relevant phobic stimuli
produced increased resistance to extinction (compared to neutral), it was also
accompanied by increased resistance to cognitive extinction
3
of UCS expectancy.
Öhman’s own findings on masked conditioning (Öhman & Soares, 1993) suggested that
cognitive processing of the stimulus may be involved in conditioning to unprepared (i.e.,
evolutionary-irrelevant) but not prepared (i.e., spiders and snakes) stimuli. Furthermore,
Dawson, Rissling, Schell, and Wilcox (in press) found that awareness of CS-UCS pairing

3
Dawson, Schell, and Banis (1984) described cognitive expectancy of the UCS as participants’ explicitly
verbalized opinion as to whether they expect presentation of the shock following the next stimulus or not.
13

was a necessary factor in most stimulus conditions. Discussing the findings of their study
of the role of awareness during affective conditioning Dawson et al (in press) predicted
the importance of biological preparedness in automatic (“unaware”) conditioning.
Therefore, perhaps discounting the cognitive input in phobic fear responding across all
possible stimuli may be premature.
From the cognitive perspective, perceptions of threat and danger are among the
main propellants of anxiety. An anxious individual may tend to overestimate the amount
of the danger and has difficulty “slipping out” of this frame of mind (Beck, Emery, &
Greenberg, 1985). Situational pressures put in motion a stepwise appraisal process that
results in an anxious response. Appraisal, according to Lazarus (1993), is a process of
mediation, or “active negotiation” (p. 6) of environmental demands and/or constraints
and one’s goals and/or beliefs. Individual diatheses aside, it can be argued that the
accuracy of the primary appraisal, or the initial assessment of the significance of the
stressor (Lazarus, 1966), is one of the most important stages in the process. It is here that
one is drawing upon (be it rather rapidly) the most salient knowledge they possess to
evaluate the current situation along the dimension of its perceived danger. This appraisal,
essentially a cognitive representation of the external stressor that is swiftly constructed,
will be consequently “used” as a sort of measuring stick against which the individual will
assess their personal capacity to cope with the stressor. It follows, however, that if such
appraisal is based on inaccurate information, the ultimate decision as to one’s ability to
effectively handle the stressor (“secondary appraisal,” Lazarus, 1966) may not reflect
their true coping capacity.
14

Furthermore, such reliance on inaccurate information about the stressor may
undermine one’s sense of self efficacy (Bandura, 1977), an estimate of their mastery of
coping with similar situations in the future. One of the by-products of misinterpreting in-
flight events may be catastrophizing, or perceiving the situation worse than it actually is.
An example of such a thought would be “I continually think how horrible the situation
was.” Indeed, Kraaij, Garnefski and Van Gerwen (2003) found significant positive
correlation between catastrophizing and flight-related anxiety. Likewise, overestimation
of the seriousness of the perceived threat and preoccupation with danger were identified
among the most salient cognitions in fearful flyers by Möller, Nortje, and Helders (1998).
Van Gerwen and colleagues (2003) set out to evaluate the differential effects that various
aspects of intervention for fear of flying produce on individuals’ sense of self efficacy (as
in coping with in-flight anxiety and feelings of flight self-confidence). They found that
informational influence (i.e., provision of technical information, information on flying,
and aviation in general) was a factor in increasing self-efficacy of fearful flyers, rated
third most effective only to exposure and relaxation training.

Information and coping with the fear of flying
The importance of accurate information in possession of fearful flyers has been
widely recognized. Education regarding basic aeronautics has been frequently
implemented as a clinical intervention component. Such instruction has ranged from
educational handouts (i.e., Maltby, Kirsch, Mayers, & Allen, 2002) to an extensive
presentation by experienced pilots during which aircraft structure, turbulence,
15

aerodynamics, and air traffic control procedures were explained (i.e., Van Gerwen,
Spinhoven, & Van Dyck, 2006; Van Gerwen, Spinhoven, Diekstra, & Van Dyck, 2002).
A number of major commercial airlines incorporate aeronautics educational sessions into
their fear of flying treatment programs as well. For instance, Virgin Atlantic’s “Flying
without Fear” (Virgin Atlantic, 2004) program includes substantial instruction by aircraft
captains on how a plane operates, what the associated noises are, and how safe are the
turbulence encounters. In an international review of fear of flying treatment programs
offered by various airlines, Van Gerwen and Diekstra (2000) found that most such
programs consist of two treatment components, one being the test (or therapeutic) flight
and another—provision of information on flying safety, aspects of flight, and air traffic.
Turbulence is not an uncommon phenomenon, but if misunderstood or improperly
evaluated by a passenger, any encounter of rough air in flight may conceivably constitute
an initial step toward the development of fear of flying. Wilhelm and Roth (1997)
assessed knowledge about flying (i.e., “What creates the lift that makes an airplane
fly?”), and both the clinical and the control groups were marginally inaccurate in their
understanding of the matter. Recall that their clinical group also believed that life-
threatening and unpleasant in-flight experiences may have been the primary cause of the
development of their flying phobia. Essentially, these individuals thought that
experiencing severe turbulence or air pockets may result in development of fear of flying,
yet their basic knowledge about flying may have been less than accurate.
16

Provision of information has been shown to improve anxiety in fearful flyers.
Van Gerwen, Spinhoven and Van Dyck, (2006) reported significant improvement
4
on all
fear and anxiety measures in a sample of 150 fearful flyers as a result of just the first step
of their intervention. At this point, their participants had just received an informational
session administered by a pilot (on the nature of turbulence, flight safety, etc) and an
explanation of anxiety and its physical effects. Additionally, in their comparison of
Virtual Reality (VR) and attention-placebo group treatment (GT) for fear of flying
Maltby, Kirsch, Mayers and Allen (2002) found that both types of interventions were
significantly effective in reducing fear of flying. Their sample consisted of 45
individuals who initially refused the pre-treatment test flight and met criteria for either
specific phobia situational type, agoraphobia, or panic disorder with agoraphobia in
which flying was the primary feared stimulus. The GT was administered with the
rationale that learning the facts about flying and sharing each other’s fears related to
flying would alleviate anxiety. The treatment consisted of education about safety and
mechanics of flight in several group sessions with 4-6 individuals per group. Both types
of interventions were ultimately successful in alleviating participants’ fear of flying, with
VR exhibiting initial advantage which attenuated at 6-month follow-up.
It is possible that lack of understanding about various aspects of flight may
contribute to travelers’ inaccurate secondary appraisal of the flight-related experiences,
leading to any number of negative responses in the shortterm and possible longer-lasting
psychological consequences. Since not all air travelers possess the knowledge of the

4
While Van Gerwen et al (2006) report significance of such improvement at p<0.001, they did not provide
sufficient information for calculating an effect size.
17

basic physics of flight (Wilhelm & Roth, 1997), it is conceivable that some may not be
aware of the capabilities of passenger aircraft to withstand severe weather and air
turbulence. This, in turn, may hinder their coping abilities with the stress of encountering
atmospheric phenomena while in flight, effectively increasing the chances of either direct
fear conditioning or negatively reevaluating their perception of the turbulence itself. In
the latter case, their expectancies of future flights may be consequently altered in the
direction of fear and apprehension (cf., Davey, 1992).
Internet resources (i.e., Lim, 2005), some airline-maintained web pages (i.e.,
Virgin Atlantic, 2004; Boeing, 2007), self-help books (Brown, 1996; Hartman, 1995) and
other sources offer a great deal of information regarding safety of flying, plane structure,
and specifics of weather dynamics. The FAA’s “Turbulence Happens” campaign was
designed to increase the public’s awareness of this weather phenomenon and has released
a number of print ads (Federal Aviation Administration, 2005a) and radio public service
announcements (Federal Aviation Administration, 2005b). A fairly recent television
program (later released on a DVD) featured Boeing 747 and 777 aircraft and included the
footage of a structural endurance test that demonstrated the true breadth of the flexibility
of a commercial airplane’s wings (Family Home Entertainment, 2001). There, a wing of
an airliner was shown to withstand 154% of designed limit load (the strongest possible
forces an aircraft can experience in flight), demonstrating that it can be deflected (bent)
over 24 feet up before breaking
5
. So, the information is out there and is available for
consideration, but it may not be purposefully sought out for any number of reasons. It is

5
A video segment of this program featuring the wing load test can be viewed at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe9PVaFGl3o
18

feasible that, due to their insufficient understanding, a sizable segment of air travelers
isn’t adequately equipped to evaluate such objectively benign flight-related experiences
as turbulence encounters and, thus, may be poised for development of flight-related
anxiety.
19

Chapter Three: Significance
With more than half a billion travelers annually taking to the skies in the US
alone, consideration of their in-flight comfort should not be limited to just roomier
seating arrangements or better meal service. The prevalence estimates of fearful flyers
suggest that this problem is widespread and some purposeful action to alleviate its effects
should be considered. Research shows that provision of relevant information may be
useful in improving travelers’ perception of their flight experience. Less directed at the
clinical population than at the general public, such minor adjustment to a pre-flight
routine may be quite useful. For instance, Greco (1989) noted that while “true phobics”
may not experience a lasting effect of receiving air-travel safety information
6
, it may still
prove helpful to “anxious and uncomfortable flyers” (p. 5). That said, airlines do little to
comfort passengers with clear information about the safety of air travel. A typical pre-
flight announcement (please refer to Appendix A, p. 85) that most every US passenger
hears from a flight attendant on a commercial airliner informs them of the locations of
emergency exits, explains how to use an oxygen mask in case of cabin pressure loss, and
how to use their seat cushion as a flotation device in case of a water “landing.”
Essentially, the message here is: “if we crash (and presumably survive), here’s what to
do...” Arguably, this type of a message is far from being a reassurance that flying is safe
and that the plane is capable of taking on some serious physical stress, be it from severe
weather or strong turbulence.

6
Greco (1989) was actually talking about general statistical data on safety of flying and not specifics of the
turbulence that are of focus in the present study.
20

It is unlikely that major air carriers would consider the cost of adding an extra 90
seconds to their standard pre-flight announcement (and perhaps an extra page to the
safety brochure) economically unfeasible. Yet, foreseeable benefits of briefly describing
turbulence and the plane’s ability to withstand it may include alleviation of anxiety and
discomfort of the already fearful flyers and preventing those who have not “contracted”
the fear from misinterpreting non-threatening events. Conceivably, airlines’ ostensible
concern with the most drastic outcomes (crashing, cabin depressurization, etc) without
consideration of possible aversive psychological effects may be motivated by liability
control. However, ensuring (through reassuring) a positive psychological experience of a
flight may be consequentially reflected in carriers’ bottom line profits as well -- due to
increase of return business. That is, more individuals may evaluate non-threatening in-
flight events appropriately, and hence will have fewer reservations about booking their
next flight. Thus, such reassurance may be the difference between having an unbearably
unpleasant, potentially damaging (i.e., resulting in avoidance or further psychological
complications) flying experience and one that is manageable, unremarkable, worth
repeating, and even pleasant.
21

Chapter Four: Specific Aims
This was not designed as an intervention study per se. In fact, it was not intended
to purposefully target individuals who may already qualify for a formal diagnosis of a
specific phobia of flying. As mentioned above, many effective treatment programs are in
place for those who are ready to address their fear. The present work was not a substitute
for those interventions. What was of specific interest here is the otherwise general
population, those air travelers who do not report extremely elevated anxiety about flying.
This may be due to them having yet to experience considerable turbulence in previous
flights or even not having flown at all. Alternatively, there may be a significant portion
of airline passengers who are apprehensive about flying yet have little choice in the
matter for various reasons (e.g., Ekeberg, Seeberg, & Ellertsen, 1988). Whatever each
specific case may be, a number of these individuals may be poised to acquire some
degree of fear of flying due to their misinterpretation of an isolated adverse in-flight
event or a series thereof.
Whether or not one meets the DSM-IV-TR criteria for specific phobia situational
type (flying), encountering turbulence in flight may be an anxiety-evoking experience
(Wilhelm and Roth, 1997; Ekeberg, Seeberg, & Ellertsen, 1988) for anyone. If such an
experience is sufficiently frightening, it is conceivable that the individual would
experience anticipatory anxiety regarding their next flight, be less comfortable aboard a
plane or may perhaps even reconsider flying altogether. Although establishing the longer
term effects of a single aversive in-flight event would certainly serve the advancement of
etiological theorizing on flying phobia, the evidence of more immediate psychological
22

and behavioral effects that are the focus here are of no lesser significance. Before
assessing individual differences, effectiveness of specific coping strategies, and elaborate
treatment techniques, it may be worth looking at what it is that the passengers are
routinely informed of. Since the in-flight turbulence may be frightening, yet it’s been
shown that provision of instructions about turbulence, the aircraft structure, and other
aspects of flying alleviates anxiety in fearful travelers (Van Gerwen et al, 2006; Maltby et
al, 2002), perhaps making such information more readily available to all of the
passengers may favorably affect their perception of the occasional bumpy flights.
While airlines ensure that the aircraft they employ are in proper working order
and are capable of withstanding relatively severe turbulence and other foreseeable in-
flight adversities (i.e., flying through a storm), they do little in terms of providing
reassurance of safety to their passengers by sharing this information. Being a captive
audience of sort the air travelers are already exposed to a set of instructions (please refer
to Appendix A, p. 85 for a copy of a standard pre-flight announcement), but these do not
explicitly emphasize the safety while in-flight. In fact, it can be reasonably argued that
merely presented on its own a standard pre-flight announcement that instructs on how to
behave in case of an accident may actually prime the idea of impending catastrophe in the
minds of air travelers. A more sensible approach that airlines may consider could include
the addition of a routine, even if brief, explanation of the airplane’s true physical
capabilities before the takeoff. Requiring relatively little additional effort on behalf of
the air crew, doing so is similar to the educational component of the fear of flying
intervention programs in that it is a pre-emptive discomfort-alleviating strategy (cf.
23

Davey’s (1992, p. 56) notion of preventative treatment of phobias as in altering
“individual's assessment of the traumatic UCS at the time of the conditioning episode”).
This enhancement or minor alteration of what is already delivered to the passengers
would be aimed at boosting the accuracy of their perception of the in-flight events,
minimize negative outcome expectancies, thereby increasing their sense of self-efficacy
(Bandura, 1977), improving the chances that the secondary appraisal (Lazarus, 1966) of a
stressor (i.e., turbulence, should one be encountered) will result in one’s enhanced
capacity of coping with it, and ultimately augmenting the overall satisfaction with their
travel experience.
Thus, the purpose of this study was to test whether an explicit reassurance of
safety presented to all air travelers immediately prior to takeoff could mitigate their
perception of such potentially unpleasant experiences as the in-flight turbulence. To that
end, the Articulated Thoughts in Simulated Situations (ATSS; Davison, Robins, &
Johnson, 1983) paradigm was utilized to place study participants in an analogue flight
situation where the type of information (standard announcement vs. enhanced, which
included the added aircraft safety information) provided to the passengers and the type of
the flight conditions (uneventful vs. turbulent flight) was manipulated (please refer to
Appendix B, p. 88). Consequently, participants’ perception of the flight was investigated
by measuring the change in their self-reported state anxiety at pre- to post- simulated
flight and by assessing the incidence and severity of anxious statements they verbalized
in reaction to the imagined situation, in addition to their perceived satisfaction with the
24

flight and their intention to take a commercial flight again. Thus, the following
hypotheses were put to the test:
1. Individuals who received the enhanced safety pre-flight announcement and
experienced turbulence during the simulated flight would have less of an increase in pre-
to post- state anxiety (as assessed via STAI-S) than individuals who received the standard
pre-flight announcement and experienced in-flight turbulence.
2. Individuals who received the enhanced safety pre-flight announcement and
experienced turbulence during the simulated flight would react to the simulated situation
with lesser verbalized anxiety (as assessed via the ATSS) than individuals who received
the standard pre-flight announcement and experienced in-flight turbulence.
3. Individuals who received the enhanced safety pre-flight announcement and
experienced turbulence during the simulated flight would report greater satisfaction with
the flight (as assessed via the Perceived Satisfaction with the Flight questionnaire) than
individuals who received the standard pre-flight announcement and experienced in-flight
turbulence.
4. Individuals who received the enhanced safety pre-flight announcement and
experienced turbulence during the simulated flight would be more willing to fly
commercial airlines again (as assessed via the Intention to Fly questionnaire) than
individuals who received the standard pre-flight announcement and experienced in-flight
turbulence.
25

Chapter Five: Method

Participants
One hundred and thirty seven University of Southern California (USC)
undergraduates were recruited for this study using the Experimetrix online experiment
scheduling system. English speaking individuals of all genders and ethnicities were
invited to participate, and all eligible participants were compensated with extra course
credit.

Experimental Design
A 2 (pre-flight information type: “standard” vs. “enhanced safety”) X 2
(turbulence encountered in flight: “yes” vs. “no”) design (please refer to Table 1) was
utilized with random assignment of participants to one of the four experimental
conditions (simulated flight situations):

1. Flight with a standard announcement (FSA): participant boarded a plane, heard the
announcement regarding the emergency exits, oxygen masks, and flotation
devices, and had an uneventful flight.
2. Flight with a standard announcement, experiencing turbulence (FSA+T): participant
boarded a plane and heard the announcement regarding the emergency exits,
oxygen masks, and flotation devices. However, during the flight they experienced
severe turbulence.
26

3. Flight with an enhanced safety announcement (FESA): participant boarded a plane,
heard the announcement regarding the emergency exits, oxygen masks, flotation
devices and an announcement regarding the plane’s ability to withstand the most
severe turbulence. They had an uneventful flight.
4. Flight with an enhanced safety announcement, experiencing turbulence (FESA+T):
participant boarded a plane, heard the announcement regarding the emergency
exits and flotation devices, and an announcement regarding the plane’s ability to
withstand the most severe turbulence. However, during the flight they
experienced severe turbulence.

Table 1.
Experimental Design

Pre-flight Announcement Type
Flight Conditions

Standard Enhanced Safety
Turbulence FSA+T FESA+T
No Turbulence FSA FESA

27

Materials and Apparatus
Most of the pre- and post-ATSS questionnaires were presented on a Dell Optiplex
GX270 (2.26 GHz Pentium 4 processor and 512 Mb of RAM) computer (Windows XP
2002 SP-2) with a Panasonic Panasync S17 monitor. Vocal responses to the ATSS were
captured with a Somic CD-2688M.V headphone/microphone headset combo,
automatically converted into WMA (Windows Media Audio) format and stored on an
eMachines eTower 500ix2 computer placed out of participant’s view. To minimize
visual and auditory distractions, only a white, cone-shaped night light with a 40 watt light
bulb was turned on (during the ATSS phase), and a Sound Screen 580 “white noise”
machine was running (throughout the entire duration of the experiment).

Measures
1. Pre-measure questionnaires:
a. Demographics Background Questionnaire
Participants’ gender, age, ethnicity, school standing, number of years living in the
United States, native language, primary language used at home, and English language
competency were surveyed (please refer to Appendix C, p. 101).
b. Travel History Survey
Based on the measure used by Van Gerwen, Spinhoven, Dieskstra, and Van Dyck
(1997), the Travel History Survey was intended to assess individuals’ experience with
traveling by air. The questions solicited information on whether the participant had
28

flown on a commercial airliner, the total number of one-way flights that they had taken
over their lifetime, and when they had flown last (please refer to Appendix D, p. 102).
c. Questionnaire on Attitudes Toward Flying
Questionnaire on Attitudes toward Flying (QAF; Howard, Murphy, & Clarke,
1983) contains a 36-item sub-measure that solicits ratings of fear experienced in various
situations (i.e., anticipation, boarding, etc) encountered during air travel (please refer to
Appendix E, p. 103). The ratings are made on an 11-point scale ranging from “0” (no
fear at all) to “10” (extreme fear), yielding a total score that ranges between 0 and 360.
An additional item of the scale, the so-called fear item, asks the participant to rate their
present fear of flying. The measure’s test-retest reliability has been reported to be 0.92,
and split-half reliability was 0.99 (Howard, Murphy, & Clarke, 1983). In the present
study (N=137), the questionnaire’s internal consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha) was 0.99, its
split-half reliability was 0.97, and the full score on the QAF significantly correlated with
the QAF fear item (r(137)= 0.79, p<0.001). The questionnaire has been used as an
outcome measure in studies on treatment of fear of flying (i.e., Anderson et al, 2006;
Rothbaum et al, 2000; Rothbaum et al, 2006), and it is also capable of detecting
differential responses between phobic and non-phobic individuals in reaction to various
phases of air travel. For instance, with the exception of flight termination, a sample of
fearful flyers scored higher than normal controls during all other phases (Wilhelm &
Roth, 1997). For the present study, minor alterations were made to the questionnaire to
29

reflect modern conventions. Specifically, “saying goodbye just prior to entering the
boarding area” was replaced with “saying goodbye just prior to entering the “passengers
only” area,” “extinguish all smoking materials” was replaced with “no smoking,”
“hostess” was replaced with “flight attendant,” and the item “You are informed by the
signs that you can undo your seatbelt and that smoking is now permitted” was replaced
by “You are informed by the signs that you can undo your seatbelt” since smoking is no
longer permitted on US domestic flights.

2. Pre-ATSS phase
Air travel survey
This measure was specifically designed to assess participants’ understanding of
air turbulence, knowledge of the structural capabilities of commercial airplanes, and
recall from memory of what type of information is usually provided during the pre-flight
safety announcement (please refer to Appendix F, p. 106).
State Anxiety Inventory
As a self-report measure of state anxiety, the “State” subscale of the State-Trait
Anxiety Inventory (STAI-S, Spielberger, 1983) has been shown to be sensitive to the
dynamics of anxiety experienced during a commercial flight in a sample of flight phobics
and normal controls (Wilhelm & Roth, 1998). The scale taps situation-specific
apprehension, tension, worry, and nervousness as functions of perceived threat. Its
internal validity is over 0.9 (STAI-S, Spielberger, 1983) and test-retest reliability is low
30

(≈ 0.33, Spielberger & Sydeman, 1994) as would be expected for a state measure. At this
phase of the study, a computerized version of STAI-S was administered to assess the
baseline state anxiety of all participants (please refer to Appendix G, p. 107).

3. ATSS phase
A think-aloud approach to assessment of cognitions and emotions in analogue
settings, the Articulated Thoughts in Simulated Situations (ATSS; Davison, Robins, &
Johnson, 1983) paradigm has found a broad range of applications in clinical and
cognitive research (Davison, Vogel, & Coffman, 1997), as well as investigation of the
cognitive aspects of fear of flying (Möller, Nortje, & Helders, 1998). The essence of this
approach is that participants are asked to imagine themselves in a particular simulated
situation of interest to the researcher. They listen to a scenario which is usually
segmented into several parts and respond to what they hear into the microphone within a
30-second interval of silence that is marked by auditory tones preceding and following it.
In this study, four original scenarios (consisting of 8 segments each) were developed
specifically for the purposes of depicting a flight of a commercial airliner. The
participant was asked to immerse themselves in this situation as a passenger on this
aircraft. The scenarios differed on the type of the pre-flight announcement (standard vs.
enhanced safety information) presented in the introduction phase and the type of the
flight (uneventful vs. experiencing turbulence) described in the consequent segments.
The enhanced safety announcement included the addition of information on the aircraft’s
structural capabilities, the reason for occasional changes in the sound of the engines,
31

description of turbulence and how it can be withstood easily by the plane. The turbulence
experienced by the participants in two of the four experimental conditions of the
simulated situation was introduced in segments 4, 5, 6, and 7 (please refer to Appendix B,
p. 92 and 99). Its description was devised around the formal FAA definition of “severe
turbulence” (Federal Aviation Administration, 2005c). In the non-turbulent flight
conditions, segments 4, 5, 6, and 7 contained a description of an uneventful flight.
Across all four ATSS conditions all segments were matched on the number of words.
Additionally, in order to minimize possible influence of agoraphobia, acrophobia, and
claustrophobia, participants’ attention was not explicitly directed to the following:
description of the other travelers, view of the ground below or the clouds as seen from the
window while in flight, and description of the confined surroundings of the plane’s
interior. Prior to the commencement of the study these scenarios were pilot-tested on a
sample of participants who found them to be sufficiently realistic and believable.
Participants’ responses were transcribed and coded for verbalizations of anxiety.

4. Pos-ATSS phase
State Anxiety Inventory
In order to assess pre- to post-ATSS changes in the levels of situational anxiety
between subjects the second measure of state anxiety was taken via a computerized
administration of the STAI-S.

32

Perceived Satisfaction with the Flight
Using a single question measure, the extent of participants’ perceived overall
satisfaction with the flight was assessed on a “0” (Not at All), “50” (Somewhat) to “100”
(Absolutely Satisfied) Likert-type scale presented on a computer (please refer to
Appendix H, p. 108).
Intention to Fly Again
To assess participants’ intentions to fly again, they were asked to what extent are
they willing to fly again on a “0” (Not at All), “50” (Somewhat) to “100” (Absolutely
Willing) Likert-type scale presented on a computer (please refer to Appendix I, p. 109).
Manipulation Check
A modification of Rayburn’s (2003) Manipulation Checklist, this questionnaire
was devised to assess participants’ submergence into the simulated situation and their
perception of its realism. The entire measure was administered via computer (please
refer to Appendix J, p. 110).
Debriefing
At the conclusion of the experiment participants were debriefed as to the purposes
of the study and asked to share their reactions in response to the experimental procedure
(please refer to Appendix K, p. 112). In the improbable event that the individual was
adversely affected by their engagement in the simulated situation, they were offered a
contact sheet with a list of psychological resources both on and off campus (please refer
to Appendix L, p. 114).

33

Procedures
Pre-ATSS Phase:
Part of the mass packet of online questionnaires given to students enrolled in the
undergraduate psychology classes, Demographics Background Questionnaire,
Questionnaire on Attitudes toward Flying, and Travel History Survey were administered
to prospective participants at least two weeks prior to their arrival in our lab. Interested
participants were scheduled for the study via the Experimetrix online experiment
scheduling system and, upon their arrival, were greeted and led into the experimental
room to read the informed consent form. When finished and having been provided an
opportunity to ask any questions, participant was asked to either sign the informed
consent or refuse to sign and dismissed with full credit. In case of the former, they were
seated at a desk with a computer and a keyboard in front of them, at which time the
experimenter verbally conducted the Air Travel Survey. Upon completion of this
measure the participant was asked to respond to the computerized version of the State
Anxiety Inventory. Once finished, they were moved to another desk that was surrounded
by an office cubicle partition (in order to minimize visual and aural distractions).
ATSS Phase:
Seated in the cubicle, they were fitted with a headset/microphone combo and the
experimenter ensured that the device was resting comfortably on their head. Participant
was then told that shortly they would hear a series of vignettes and that they would be
asked to imagine being part of what is happening. They were to imagine being a
passenger of a major airline. As they were taken through the various stages of the flight,
34

they were to respond to what was happening during several 30-seconds intervals, each of
which was preceded and followed by a tone (please refer to Appendix M, p. 115). A
practice scenario was played first, during which the experimenter remained in the room to
clarify the task and ensure participant’s understanding of the procedures (please refer to
Appendix N, p. 116). When adequate mastery was achieved, the experimenter turned on
one of the four randomly assigned ATSS scripts, turned on the voice recording
equipment, ensured that the white noise machine was running (it was running throughout
the experiment to minimize extraneous auditory distractions), turned off the lights,
leaving just the night light on, and exited the room, instructing the participant to knock on
the door when finished.
Post-ATSS phase
After hearing the signal that the ATSS phase was over, the experimenter walked
back into the room, turned on the lights, asked the participant to be seated in front of the
computer and informed them of a series of computerized questionnaires (much like the
initially completed state anxiety measure) that was about to be administered. The
experimenter then initiated the computer script for the State Anxiety Inventory, Perceived
Satisfaction with the Flight, Intentions to Fly Again, and Manipulation Check
questionnaires, each of which was administered automatically in sequence. To ensure
undisturbed performance, the experimenter exited the room instructing the participant to
knock on the door when finished. This task was followed by a debriefing session where
participants were asked follow-up questions, advised as to the goals of the study, asked if
they had any questions, offered a list of psychological referrals, and thanked.
35

Chapter Six: Results

1. A note on the statistical approach
The distributions of the main variables of interest were tested for normality with
the Shapiro-Wilk test (Shapiro & Wilk, 1965). To minimize the possible threat of non-
normality where applicable, a number of statistical methods that are less reliant on
normality and heteroscedasticity assumptions were utilized (reader is referred to Wilcox
(2005) for a succinct overview of the rationale for using these statistical techniques) in
addition to the conventional data analytical approaches The former types of analyses
were carried out using the R statistical package (R Development Core Team, 2008) and
were accompanied by corresponding detailed notations in reporting the results.

2. Participants’ recruitment outcomes
Figure 1. Breakdown of the sample by experimental condition.

300
Responded to the pre-measures
144
Signed up for the study
-7
Malfunctions, no-shows, etc
FSA
(n=35)
FSA+T
(n=35)

FESA
(n=33)

FESA+T
(n=34)

36

3. Descriptive statistics of the sample

Table 2 contains the basic background information of our participants and their
responses to the preliminary questionnaires. All of these data were gathered at least 2
weeks prior to the laboratory portion of the experiment.

Table 2
Demographic information of all participants

Gender
Variable

Male Female

School standing: 1-st Year 2 14
School standing: Sophomore 7 36
School standing: Junior 4 27
School standing: Senior 13 32
School standing: Graduate student 0 2
Ethnicity: Asian 6 19
Ethnicity: Black 3 2
Ethnicity: Hispanic 2 20
Ethnicity: White 11 53
Ethnicity: Other 4 17
N 26 111
Age 20.5 (1.79) 19.98 (1.57)
Number of lifetime flights taken to-date 41.19 (36.51) 34.25 (31.60)
State anxiety (STAI-S) prior to the experiment 46.53 (3.36) 45.41 (4.96)
Current fear of flying (QAF fear item) 2.27 (1.31) 3.33 (2.49)
Overall fear of flying (QAF full score) 61.38 (32.13) 103.14 (69.93)

Note. Standard deviations are given in parentheses
37

4. ATSS outcomes
a. ATSS Manipulation Check:
Responses to the post-ATSS manipulation check questionnaires suggest that we
succeeded at placing our participants in a vividly imagined, sufficiently realistic situation,
prompting them to think in ways they likely would in similar circumstances in real life.
At that, 112 participants (81.7%) perceived the simulated situation to be moderately to
extremely realistic, 111 (81%) felt as if it was really happening to them, and 132 (96.3%)
believed that the thoughts they reported would be moderately to extremely similar to
those they’d experience if the situation really took place.
b. Talkativeness:
Participants’ verbal responses to the ATSS scenarios were audio recorded and
consequently transcribed into text. The total word counts (talkativeness) did not
significantly differ across the four experimental conditions (F (3,133)=1.47, p=0.22).
That is, neither the presence of turbulence nor the type of the pre-flight announcement
significantly influenced their talkativeness.
c. Inter-rater agreement on the ATSS variables:
Having completed extensive training on their respective coding manuals (please
refer to Appendix O, p. 118), two teams of two independent judges each examined the
resulting audio files and transcriptions for several ATSS variables. Coding
disagreements between the co-raters within a given team were later resolved by an
independent arbiter. The coding teams were comprised of the undergraduate research
assistants, and another undergraduate student who served as a study coordinator acted as
38

an independent arbiter. Developed specifically for this study, the ATSS codes were
intended to detect participants’ verbalizations of anxiety, appeals to God, need for
explanation of what is happening, negative and positive outcome expectancies, and
expressions of relief upon landing of the aircraft. Table 3 contains the intra-class
correlation coefficients (ICC; Shrout & Fleiss, 1979) of coding reliability within each
team of co-raters (based on an absolute coder agreement of average items) calculated
prior to the arbiter’s involvement.

Table 3
Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) of the absolute coder agreement for the ATSS
variables
Code Code Description ICC

Anx-I

Incidence of anxious, fearful, and/or apprehensive verbalizations

0.99
Anx-M

Molar (segment) ratings of anxiety, fear, and/or apprehension

0.96
GOD

Appeals to God

1.0
INF

Need of explanation or discontent with the lack of explanation

0.99
NOE

Negative outcome expectancies

0.98
POE

Positive outcome expectancies

0.99
REL

Expressions of relief

0.97

39

5. Main hypotheses

Hypothesis 1 (Pre-Post Anxiety ratings on STAI-S):
Regardless of the type of the pre-flight announcement (F (1,67)=0.30, p=0.58),
the post-flight state anxiety (M=43.88, SD=5.87) was significantly lower than the pre-
flight state anxiety (M=45.46, SD=4.50) ratings for all participants who experienced
turbulence (F (1,67)=6.83, p=0.011, d=0.30). This hypothesis was also examined using
the bootstrap-t (599 samples) method of pair-wise comparison for the split-plot design for
20% trimmed means with the R function tsplitbt(4,2,STAI,tr=.2,alpha=.05,nboot=599).
It confirmed the original result of the significant main effect of Time (Q
test
=5.25,
Q
critical
=3.84), but absence of either the main effect of Condition (Q
test
=0.66,
Q
critical
=2.45) or the Condition X Time interaction (Q
test
=0.78, Q
critical
=2.30).

Hypothesis 2 (Anxiety assessed with the ATSS in response to turbulence):
a. Coding approach
Participants’ verbal responses to the simulated situation were examined for two
types of anxiety articulations: Anx-I and Anx-M (to minimize any potential of bias each
was coded by a different team of co-raters). The code Anx-I reflects only the
presence/absence (i.e., incidence) of anxious verbalizations in a given segment.
Conversely, the code Anx-M is the molar rating of an entire given segment in terms of
the extent of anxiety, fear and/or apprehension that was conveyed in it (please refer to
40

Appendix O, p. 118). Consequent comparison revealed that these two codes were highly
correlated (r (137)=0.87, p<0.001).
b. Anx-I (incidence of anxiety)
Regardless of the type of the pre-flight announcement (F(1,133)=0.85, p=0.36),
participants who experienced turbulence (N=69, M=2.59, SD=1.31) verbalized anxiety
significantly more frequently (F (1,133)=189.85, p<0.001, d=2.35) than those who didn’t
(N=68, M=0.22, SD=0.57)
7
. This hypothesis was also examined using the percentile
bootstrap (2000 samples) test for no main effects and no interactions, utilizing 20%
trimmed means with Mahalanobis-type depth determination with the R function
pbad2way(2,2,AnxI,est=tmean,conall=T,alpha=.05,nboot=2000,grp=NA,op=F). It
confirmed the original result of the significant main effect of Turbulence (p<0.001), but
absence of either the main effect of Announcement (p=0.14) or the Turbulence X
Announcement interaction (p=0.14).
c. Anx-M (extent of anxiety)
Regardless of the type of the pre-flight announcement (F(1,133)=0.71, p=0.40),
participants who experienced turbulence (M=1.88, SD=0.84) verbalized anxiety to a
significantly greater extent (F (1,133)=262.40, p<0.001, d=2.80) than those who didn’t
(M=0.11, SD=0.31). This hypothesis was also examined using the percentile bootstrap
(2000 samples) test for no main effects and no interactions, utilizing 20% trimmed means

7
Only segments # 4, 5, 6, and 7 depicted turbulence in the two turbulent conditions (thus, these four
segments were used in the corresponding analyses), while in the two non-turbulent conditions the same
segments# 4-7 depicted an uneventful flight. Segment #1 was the pre-flight announcement (enhanced vs.
standard, depending on the condition), and segments #2, 3, and 8 were identical in all four conditions and
described the takeoff, leveling-off, and landing, respectively.
41

with Mahalanobis-type depth determination with the R function pbad2way(2,2,AnxM,est
=tmean,conall=T,alpha=.05,nboot=2000,grp=NA,op=F). It confirmed the original
result of the significant main effect of Turbulence (p<0.001), but absence of either the
main effect of Announcement (p=0.09) or the Turbulence X Announcement interaction
(p=0.10).

Hypothesis 3 (Perceived satisfaction with the flight):
Regardless of the type of the pre-flight announcement (F(1,133)=0.63, p=0.43),
the perceived satisfaction with the flight was greater (F(1,133)=199.98, p<0.001, d=2.43)
for those passengers who did not experience the in-flight turbulence (M=82.50,
SD=20.40) compared to those who did (M=25.22, SD=26.32). This hypothesis was also
examined using the percentile bootstrap (2000 samples) test for no main effects and no
interactions, utilizing 20% trimmed means with Mahalanobis-type depth determination
with the R function pbad2way(2,2,Sat,est=tmean,conall=T,alpha=.05,nboot=2000,
grp=NA,op=F). It confirmed the original result of the significant main effect of
Turbulence (p<0.001), but absence of either the main effect of Announcement (p=0.36)
or the Turbulence X Announcement interaction (p=0.72).

Hypothesis 4 (Intentions to fly again):
Regardless of the type of the pre-flight announcement (F(1,133)=0.17, p=0.68),
the intentions to fly again were greater (F(1,133)=36.88, p<0.001, d=1.04) for those
passengers who did not experience the in-flight turbulence (M=88.97, SD=23.70)
42

compared to those who did (M=61.16, SD=29.58). This hypothesis was also examined
using the percentile bootstrap (2000 samples) test for no main effects and no interactions,
utilizing 20% trimmed means with Mahalanobis-type depth determination with the R
function pbad2way(2,2,Int,est=tmean,conall=T,alpha=.05,nboot=2000,grp=NA,op=F).
It confirmed the original result of the significant main effect of Turbulence (p<0.001), but
absence of either the main effect of Announcement (p=0.28) or the Turbulence X
Announcement interaction (p=0.17).

6. Additional findings

Effects related to enhancing the pre-flight announcement:
Participants’ knowledge of the general safety information (i.e., what is normally
said in the standard pre-flight message to the passengers regarding the seatbelts,
emergency exits, flotation devices, oxygen masks, etc.), their turbulence-related
knowledge, and their basic understanding of the structural capabilities of the passenger
airplanes (i.e., plane’s wings are designed to bend, airplanes can withstand severe
weather/storms, considerable physical stress, turbulence, etc) was assessed twice. Their
existing knowledge was evaluated via the Air Travel Survey before the experiment
began. At the post-experiment, their recall (which was likely based in part on our pre-
simulation announcement) was assessed during the debriefing. Their responses to these
queries were transcribed and independently coded by two trained judges who adhered to
the specifically designed coding manual (please refer to Appendix P, p. 132). Table 4
43

contains the intra-class correlation coefficients between these judges for each of the three
variables at both testing phases. Controlling for the extent of their pre-existing
knowledge (Air Travel Survey point of assessment), participants’ understanding of air
turbulence (F(1,132)=124.36, p<0.001, d=1.89) and the basic structural capabilities of the
plane (F(1,132)=65.07, p<0.001, d=1.34) were significantly more extensive as a function
of the enhancement of the pre-flight announcement. The announcement’s enhancement
did not influence their pre- to post-flight knowledge of general safety (F(1,134)=1.84,
p=0.18).

Table 4
Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) of the absolute coder agreement for the air
travel-related knowledge at pre- and post- simulated flight (N=137)
ICC
Realm of Knowledge

Pre-ATSS

Post-ATSS

General air travel safety

0.95

0.97
Aircraft structural safety

0.91

0.96
Turbulence

0.92

0.96

“Priming” effect of the pre-flight announcement:
Articulations of anxiety shortly after hearing the pre-flight announcement seemed
to be dependent on the type of message presented to them. The incidence (Anx-I;
χ
2
(1,
44

N=137)=4.39, p<0.05, φ=0.18) and severity (Anx-M; F(1,135)= 5.30, p<0.05, d=0.37) of
anxious reactions immediately following the announcement (segment #1) of those who
heard the enhanced instructions were greater than those who heard the standard pre-flight
message. The Anx-I finding was confirmed (p=0.04) using the Storer-Kim (Storer &
Kim, 1990) method for comparing two independent binomials with the R function
twobinom(r1=sum(AnxI1St),n1=length(AnxI1St),r2=sum(AnxI1Enh),n2=length(AnxI1En
h)). The Anx-M finding was also confirmed (p=0.02) using the percentile bootstrap
(2000 samples) method for comparing 20% trimmed means with the R function
trimpb2(AnxM1St,AnxM1Enh,tr=0.2,alpha=0.05,nboot=2000,WIN=F,win=0.1).
Additionally, those who heard the enhanced announcement (M=0.39, SD=0.49) were
more likely (Anx-I;
χ
2
(1, N=137)=5.86, p<0.05, φ=0.21) to respond anxiously during the
take-off of the aircraft (i.e., segment #2) than those who heard the standard pre-flight
message (M=0.20, SD=0.40). This finding was also confirmed (p=0.02) using the Storer-
Kim method for comparing two independent binomials with the R function twobinom
(r1=sum(AnxI2St),n1=length(AnxI2St),r2=sum(AnxI2Enh),n2=length(AnxI2Enh)).

Turbulence-specific effects:
Perceived realism (F(1,135)=21.80, p<0.001, d=0.80) of the simulated situation,
subjective feelings of it happening to the participant at that time (F(1,135)=4.03, p<0.05,
d=0.34), and self-estimated similarity of their thoughts to the real-life responses
(F(1,135)=8.83, p<0.01, d=0.51) were significantly higher in the non-turbulent flight
conditions. This series of findings was confirmed (p<0.001, p=0.03, & p=0.001,
45

respectively) using the percentile bootstrap (2000 samples) method for comparing 20%
trimmed means with the R function trimpb2(xTurbxNonTurb,tr=0.2,alpha=0.05,
nboot=2000,WIN=F,win=0.1).
Compared to those who didn’t encounter turbulence and regardless of the
announcement type (all F(1,133)=0.06-2.05, p=0.15-0.80), the individuals who
experienced the in-flight turbulence verbalized the following ATSS variables (in
segments #4-7) to a significantly greater extent: appeals to God (GOD; F(1,133)=16.15,
p<0.001, d=0.70), need of explanation for what was happening (INF; F(1,133)=70.17,
p<0.001, d=1.43), incidence (ANX-I; F(1,133)=189.85, p<0.001, d=2.35) and degree
(ANX-M; F(1,133)=265.22, p<0.001, d=2.80) of the articulated anxiety, negative
outcome expectancies (NOE; F(1,133)=103.72, p<0.001, d=1.73), and expressions of
relief upon landing (REL;
χ
2
(3, N=137)=8.57, p<0.05). The first five of these findings
were also tested using the percentile bootstrap (2000 samples) test for no main effects and
no interactions, utilizing means with Mahalanobis-type depth determination with the R
function pbad2way(2,2,X, est=mean,conall=T,alpha=.05,nboot=2000,grp=NA,op=F).
They confirmed the original results of the significant main effect of Turbulence (all
p<0.001), but absence of either the main effect of Announcement (all p=0.14-0.68) or the
Turbulence X Announcement interaction (all p=0.12-0.68).
The significant decrease in pre- to post-flight state anxiety that was reported
earlier was also apparently turbulence-specific because unlike those in the turbulent flight
(F (1,67)=6.83, p=0.011), the two state anxiety ratings of the passengers in a calm flight
were not significantly different (F (1,66)=1.61, p=0.21). A confirmation (p=0.527) of the
46

latter finding came from the percentile bootstrap (2000 samples) method of analysis of
marginal distributions for comparing the 20% trimmed means of two dependent groups,
using the R function rmmcppb(STAIpreNT,STAIpostNT,alpha=0.05,est=mean,tr=0.2,
dif=F, plotit=F,nboot=2000,BA=T).
The extent of anxiety (Anx-M) verbalized in response to turbulence (i.e., in
segments #4-7 of the turbulent condition) was significantly positively correlated with the
negative outcome expectancies (NOE; r(69)= 0.31, p<0.01) but inversely correlated with
the positive outcome expectancies (POE; r(69)= -0.25, p<0.05) articulated in those
segments, with the overall flight satisfaction (r(69)= -0.24, p<0.05), and with intentions
to fly again (r(69)= -0.36, p<0.01).

Self-reported fear of flying:
The full score on Questionnaire on Attitudes toward Flying (QAF) positively
correlated with the incidence (Anx-I; r(137)= 0.26, p<0.01) and severity of the articulated
in-flight anxiety (Anx-M; r(137)= 0.26, p<0.01) and verbalizations of relief upon landing
(REL; (r(137)= 0.19, p<0.05), but inversely correlated with the intentions to fly again
(r(137)= -0.43, p<0.001) and the number of flights taken before
8
(r(129)= -0.33,
p<0.001). Notably, unlike the participants of Rothbaum et al., (2002) who scored on
average 7.78 on the QAF fear item, the mean response in the present sample was 3.13
(SD=2.35), with the median of 2 and mode of 1 (87.6% scored below 7). Without any

8
The 8 participants who reported to not have flown before or gave conflicting responses on the background
questionnaire were not included in the analyses that accounted for the number of flights taken prior to
participation. The scores of the 8 participants who reported to have flown over 120 times were Winsorized.
47

type of intervention for the fear of flying our participants scored closer to the 6 months
post-treatment follow-up levels of the Rothbaum and colleagues’ (2002) sample. That is,
ours was not a clinical sample.

Gender difference in the self-reported fear of flying and ATSS anxiety:
Overall, males (M=61.39, SD=32.13) scored significantly lower (F(1,135)= 8.80,
p<0.01, d=0.77) than females (M=103.14, SD=69.93) on the full QAF measure of fear of
flying. This finding was confirmed (p=0.003) using the percentile bootstrap (2000
samples) method for comparing 20% trimmed means with the R function
trimpb2(QAFfullM,QAFfullF,tr=0.2,alpha=0.05,nboot=2000,WIN=F,win=0.1).
However, we observed no similar gender differences on the ATSS variables that
approximate the QAF-measured fear of flying as it may be articulated during the flight.
Thus, in segments 4-7 of both turbulent conditions combined, gender did not significantly
differentiate occurrences of the following ATSS variables: incidence of anxiety (Anx-I;
p=0.15), extent of anxiety (Anx-M; p=0.38), negative outcome expectancies (NOE;
p=0.92), and appeals for help to God (GOD; p=0.72).

Fear of flying as a potential intervening variable in responses to turbulence:
To test whether the extent of one’s fear of flying (either the full score on the QAF
or the QAF fear item) mediated (i.e., the “a-b” pathway in Figure 2) the participants’
reactions (one of the 10 variables occupying the “DV” area in Figure 2) to turbulence
(“IV” area in Figure 2), the Sobel statistic (Sobel, 1982) and the bootstrap estimate of the
48

confidence intervals were computed using the Preacher and Hayes’ (2004) syntax. Yet,
their self-reported fear of flying did not play a significant intervening role in participants’
post-experimental state anxiety (p=0.52), pre- to post- experimental change in state
anxiety (p=0.62), their overall talkativeness (p=0.41), appeals to God (p=0.42), need for
explanation of what’s happening (p=0.78), positive outcome expectancies (p=0.56),
negative outcome expectancies (p=0.39), expressions of relief upon landing (p=0.33), and
incidence (p=0.27) or extent (p=0.27) of the articulated anxiety.

Figure 2. A graphical model of testing for potential mediating effects.

Past air travel history:
More participants (n=84, 61.3%) preferred to travel by any terranean means (car
n=68, train n=14, and walking n=2) than by commercial airlines (n=53, 38.7%). The
most common (32.4%) reason for traveling by car was being in control, and the most
common (58.5%) reason for traveling by air was getting to the destination quicker. A
c'
a b
Mediator
IV DV
49

comparison between those who preferred traveling by car and those who favored
airplanes did not yield significant differentiation on the extent of their fear of flying
(p>0.05). For all participants the number of 1-way flights taken in the past inversely
correlated with the number of days ago they had flown last (r(129)= -0.28, p<0.001).
The frequency of past air travel did not meditate participants’ satisfaction with the flight
(z=0.04, p=0.96) or their plans of future air travel (z=-0.09, p=0.93) as respective
correlates of encountering turbulence during the simulated flight.

Recent (simulated) experience and future air travel plans
The passengers’ satisfaction with the simulated flight significantly correlated
(r(137)= 0.71, p<0.001) with their intentions to fly in the future. Additionally, as the data
in Table 5 imply, more relationships existed among these and other variables.
Specifically, while the full score on the fear of flying questionnaire and the fear item
significantly inversely correlated with the intentions to fly again, the ATSS codes Anx-
M, NOE, and Anx-I significantly inversely correlated with both the overall satisfaction
with the flight and with the reported intentions to fly again. To examine the potential
nature of these relationships a series of tests for moderation by the extent of pre-existing
fear of flying (either the full QAF score or the QAF fear item) were conducted using the
hierarchical multiple regression-based guidelines of Aiken and West (1991). Thus, each
of the ATSS variables in Table 5 (incidence and extent of verbalized anxiety and negative
outcome expectancies) were separately entered as IVs, with the overall satisfaction with
the flight and intentions to fly again being entered as separate DVs. None of the resultant
50

interaction terms was significant (all p=0.17-0.91). Conversely, a significant (z=7.96,
p<0.001) Sobel test of mediation identified the overall satisfaction with the flight as an
instrumental variable in making decisions about future air travel as a correlate of
encountering turbulence during the simulated flight.

Table 5
Intentions to fly again and satisfaction with the flight as correlates (Pearson’s r) of the
ATSS- and questionnaire-derived variables (N=137)
Variable

Satisfaction
with
the Flight

Intentions
to Fly
Again

Anx-M (ATSS Extent of Anxiety) -0.71*** -0.65***
NOE (ATSS Negative Outcome Expectancies) -0.66*** -0.54***
Anx-I (ATSS Incidence of Anxiety) -0.59*** -0.51***
QAF (full score) ns -0.43***
QAF (fear item) ns -0.33***

Note. *** p<0.001

Potential mechanisms leading to flight satisfaction:
Shifting focus from the molar onto the more specific, we examined the nature of
the relationship between participants’ encountering turbulence and their satisfaction with
the flight. A series of Sobel and bootstrap tests was conducted with each of the 9
variables tested successively. As is seen in Table 6, only the ATSS variables (incidence
51

and extent of verbalized anxiety and negative outcome expectancies) acted as significant
mediators. Neither the self-reported pre-existing fear of flying nor the state anxiety levels
(pre- or post-experiment) were identified as the likely mechanisms leading to decisions
about the passengers’ satisfaction with the flight.

Table 6
Mediation of the satisfaction with the flight by the ATSS- and questionnaire-derived
variables as respective correlates of encountering turbulence during the flight (N=137)
95% CI 95% CI BS
1

Indirect
Effects

Point
Estimate

SE

Z
LL UL LL UL

Anx-M 17.27 3.83 4.50*** 9.75 24.79 8.44 26.14
NOE 12.81 3.48 3.68*** 5.99 19.63 6.47 20.10
Anx-I 9.16 2.98 3.07** 3.32 15.01 2.58 16.19
QAF full
2
-1.46 1.37 -1.06 -4.15 1.23 -4.65 1.01
QAF fear
3
-0.95 1.17 -0.81 -3.23 1.34 -4.00 1.10
STAI pre
4
0.45 1.15 0.39 -1.80 2.69 -1.76 3.01
STAI post
5
1.83 1.42 1.29 -0.95 4.61 -0.62 5.26
STAI ∆
6
0.78 0.81 0.96 -0.81 2.37 -0.19 2.95
Past flying
7
0.02 0.39 0.04 -0.74 0.77 -0.62 1.04

Note:
1
BS - bootstrap (3,000 samples);
2
QAF full is the full score and
3
QAF fear is the “fear
item” score of the fear of flying questionnaire;
4
STAI pre is the pre- and
5
STAI post is the
post-experiment state anxiety;
6
STAI ∆ is the change in state anxiety from pre- to post-
experiment;
7
Past flying is the number of prior flights; **p<0.01, ***p<0.001; N=137.
52

Chapter Seven: Discussion

The overall demographics of our participants were fairly typical of study
volunteers at a major university. Since our experiment was largely a simulation-based
endeavor, it was important for us to reach an adequate degree of realism of the analogue
situation in which the participants were placed. Another important consideration was to
conduct thorough training of the judges so that the highest possible accuracy of coding
the articulated responses would be achieved. The post-experimental manipulation check
questionnaires and the inter-rater agreement computations for all of the ATSS codes and
the interview items indicate that we succeeded at both tasks. Moreover, the
questionnaire-based outcomes and several of the ATSS results correlated in a meaningful
manner. For instance, the fact that the extent of anxiety articulated during a turbulent
flight positively correlated with negative outcome expectancies but inversely correlated
with articulated positive expectations, satisfaction with the flight and intentions of future
travel suggests that the simulation elicited a rich spectrum of cognitions and our coding
of them was sound.
The main purpose of this study was to test whether the inclusion of additional
explanatory information in the routine pre-flight announcement may favorably affect the
passengers’ overall travel experience in the event that they encounter turbulence. The
first of our four main hypotheses addressed the potential differences in the pre- to post-
flight state anxiety (as assessed via the STAI-S questionnaire). Specifically, it was
anticipated that upon experiencing a turbulent flight the passengers who heard an
enhanced announcement would have less of an increase in state anxiety than those who
53

heard the standard pre-flight message. Our data show that such provision of additional
information did not significantly influence the pre- to post- flight state anxiety change. In
fact, at the end of the simulated flight the anxiety significantly decreased for the
participants in both turbulent conditions (enhanced and standard announcement).
One may initially conclude that the latter finding could be suggestive of the
overall attitudes of air travelers. That is, perhaps passengers board a plane already
somewhat anxious (e.g., due to the residual stress of getting to the airport gate on time).
Consequently, upon making the flight their anxiety begins to decrease and by the time
they’ll have landed its levels are vastly lower. For instance, right before the takeoff
participant #113 said, “I am really excited that I made the flight. What normally makes
me the most nervous about going to the airport is that I might miss the flight.” At the end
of their uneventful journey participant #116 shared, “[I am] happy that the flight went as
planned no unexpected turbulence or any safety issues.” However, an interesting
observation was that this significant decrease in state anxiety was true only for the
passengers of the two turbulent flights. That is, unlike those in the calm condition (who
likely habituated or just maintained their initial anxious state throughout the duration of
the flight), these individuals may have experienced a sense of relief upon landing safely
and being unharmed after encountering some adverse in-flight events. Assessed with the
ATSS, this relief indeed was unambiguously evident in their verbalizations immediately
following the landing (segment #8), and it was articulated significantly more frequently
by the passengers of turbulent flights than those whose journeys were uneventful. So, it’s
54

possible that a sense of elation upon surviving a potentially dangerous situation had
spilled into an improvement of the participants’ baseline anxiety levels.
Alternatively, even though our sample scored well within the sub-clinical levels
of pre-existing fear of flying, that state anxiety decrease could actually indicate an
exposure-like “treatment” effect. Given the small yet significant positive correlation
between the fear of flying scores and the articulated relief upon landing, it may be the
case that whatever apprehension one may have experienced regarding the upcoming
(simulated) flight had dissipated upon landing. That is, they no longer had to worry
about not knowing what to expect of the flight because at the second administration of
the state anxiety inventory they already knew that the flight did end safely and there was
nothing else to worry about.
Not unlike the first, the second hypothesis also examined the possible mitigation
of the passengers’ anxious reactions to turbulence by enhancement of the pre-flight
announcement. Unlike the findings just discussed, here we evaluated the immediate,
online reactions as opposed to the latent changes of pre- to post- flight state anxiety
ratings. Specifically, the participants’ verbalizations were examined for not only the
incidence but also the degree of articulated anxiety in the very moment they experienced
it. Provision of additional pre-flight safety information did not lead to detectable
significant differences in verbalized anxiety between the standard and enhanced
announcement conditions. The two ATSS codes, however, received a sound validation
here because the incidence and extent of articulated anxious thoughts were exclusively
dependent upon the incidence of turbulence during the simulated flight.
55

The final two hypotheses were intended to determine whether the provision of
additional pre-flight safety information would ultimately influence the turbulent flight
passengers’ perceived satisfaction with the flight and their planning of future air travel.
Consistent with our earlier findings on anxiety, the type of pre-flight message was not as
instrumental in producing differential responding as was the fact of whether turbulence
was encountered during their journey. Compared to others, those who took part in an
uneventful, turbulence-free flight reported greater overall satisfaction with it and were
more willing to plan their future travels by air.
Taken together, these findings suggest that delivering additional safety-related
information prior to the flight may not be the most beneficial approach to improving the
air travelers’ experience. This is not to say that the enhancement of the pre-flight
announcement did not serve one of its purposes: informing the passengers beyond the
conventional message. For instance, participant #10 responded to the enhanced
announcement as follows, “[The announcement was] pretty informational. I have never
gotten such an in depth explanation for turbulence before, so I guess I know what to
expect now.” In a sense, our data prior to furnishing the enhanced message extend
Wilhelm and Roth’s (1997) findings of air travelers’ unawareness of the basic aeronautics
to their lack of understanding of turbulence and the plane’s ability to withstand it as well.
Yet, it was encouraging to observe that not only did our passengers allot adequate
attention to that announcement, but they demonstrated significantly greater knowledge
about turbulence and the aircraft’s basic physical capabilities as a result of listening to it.
Of note is the concurrent finding that there was no comparable increase in the traditional
56

(i.e., what is normally relayed to the passengers) safety information knowledge, which is
predictable because the enhancement did not contain that information. Nevertheless, the
enhancement did not prove to be nearly as effective in achieving the main purpose of our
study: improving the air travelers’ experience of turbulence during their flight. The
readily apparent fact is that the passengers’ emotional response during their journey, their
overall evaluation of the flight, and their plans of future travel significantly relied upon
the presence or absence of turbulence during the simulation.
Not surprisingly, in some cases participants openly shared their frequent practice
of tuning out the pre-flight announcement when they normally board a plane. For
example, participant #47 said, “because I’ve heard the announcements a lot in my life I’m
kind of tuned out and just relaxing and looking out the window,” and participant #65
admitted, “I usually just ignore that and I don’t even hear it.” While it’s tempting to
suppose that the lack of attention to what was said in our enhancement may be the
potential reason for absence of the hypothesized effects, it’s likely not entirely true for
several reasons. First, examination of the data suggests that some participants noticed the
alteration of the announcement and were actually irritated at its increased length. For
instance, in response to the enhanced message participant #88 said, “I am kind of
annoyed I just listened to the flight attendant talk forever. I just want to take off and get
on with my trip.” To be fair, the standard announcement received its share of annoyance
as well. Participant #84 said, “I always find that the stewardess’ comments and her
whole introduction very-very annoying. Usually it’s spoken a lot faster than that but it’s
always usually long, I understand that, um, all those explanations are needed but perhaps
57

it could just be written in a pamphlet.” Echoing the latter sentiment, participant #134
noted, “That [expletive] announcement always takes so long. We could land like 6
minutes earlier if they just had everybody read it while we took off.” But even if
responses such as these are not adequately indicative of participants at least noticing the
announcement, the already discussed increase in retention of information as a function of
enhancing the pre-flight script is certainly convincing.
In addition, the strongest evidence against inattention as reason for the lack of
anticipated effects is the finding that not only did the passengers listen to and retain some
factual information from the announcement but that the enhancement thereof actually
resulted in some priming effects. Compared to the standard announcement, provision of
additional information about the turbulence and the plane’s capabilities to withstand
severe physical stress had led to greater articulated anxiety immediately following the
message as well as during the aircraft’s takeoff. Ironically, this observation seemingly
confirms our earlier supposition of priming the apprehension by mere presentation of the
pre-flight instructions. Essentially, the enhanced announcement relays to the passenger
somewhat unfamiliar information and, perhaps more importantly, this information makes
them think of potentially unnerving events (i.e., getting into severe turbulence, being
hurt, etc.) that they probably never thought would happen to them. Of course, the mere
novelty of presenting such atypical pre-flight information may have led our passengers to
become a bit more guarded, resulting in some anticipatory anxiety. For instance,
participant #12 responded, “I’ve never heard anyone talk about the plane so much or talk
about turbulence or weather so much, and I’m really freaked out. I’m really nervous
58

right now because now I’m expecting to hit a rough patch and, I don’t know, I feel like
she [the announcer] was making excuses. And I feel like it’s gonna be not a smooth ride.
And I’m always calm before flights, but right now I feel nervous.” However, it may be
argued that if such an announcement was provided routinely on all flights then the
passengers would not only habituate to it (i.e., the fear priming effect would dissipate)
but may even begin treating it as an annoyance and waste of their time—much like the
standard announcement is seen already.
The one unifying theme that clearly emerged from this experiment was that
encountering turbulence noticeably impacts the passengers’ experience. It must be noted
that one of the challenges here was to strike a balance between the realism of the
simulated situation and its capacity to elicit very specific affective reactions (e.g.,
anxiety), which then would be shared out loud. Our data demonstrate that we’ve done so.
However, we also observed the higher perceived realism ratings among the passengers of
the uneventful compared to those of the turbulent flight. Several plausible explanations
for that may be offered. First, a cognitive behaviorist may propose that this was the result
of our participants’ general habituation to flying in largely calm atmospheric conditions.
This, in turn, would form the basis for an expectation that, while light turbulence
sometimes happens, severe turbulence would never be encountered. Therefore, because
these individuals in their past air travels have never experienced as severe turbulence as
was depicted in the simulation (reader will recall that it was specifically devised around
the formal FAA definition of “severe turbulence”) they were rating it as comparatively
less realistic. Alternatively, an astute clinician may even entertain the possible onset of
59

derealization, one of the symptoms of a panic attack (APA, 2000; p. 432). That is, the
depicted situation may have been so terrifying that it resulted in a temporary -- about 10
minutes (which incidentally was the length of our simulation as well) state of not
believing that what’s happening around them is real.
A different explanation consistent with our findings could be advanced by a
psychodynamically-trained scholar. They may propose that what took place here was
ego defenses at work. According to Freud (1949), the ego “has the task of self-
preservation” (p. 2), which includes dealing with external stimuli via adaptation or, if the
threatening stimulus is too strong, avoidance. In that vein, at some point during
experiencing an upsetting and frightening situation such as a severely turbulent flight,
one’s ego defenses may step in and repress or deny the perception of reality to protect
them from being overwhelmed by anxiety. When asked later to reflect upon the situation
(as in evaluating its realism, etc.), an individual may be less likely to provide an accurate
rating then as a result of such unseen psychodynamic interjection.
Whatever the explanation is, these relative differences between conditions
certainly do not mean that the simulated turbulence was not believable. In fact, instead of
saying little, chatting casually on an unrelated topic, or even questioning the plausibility
of the situation, our participants responded to it with a broad range of situation-congruent
cognitions. Compared to the calm and uneventful journey, the passengers whose plane
went through turbulence were more often appealing for help to God throughout that
experience. Consistent with earlier studies that utilized questionnaires (e.g., Wilhelm and
Roth, 1997; Ekeberg, Seeberg, & Ellertsen, 1988), our participants also articulated more
60

frequent and more extensive anxiety and candidly contemplated negative outcomes of
that flight. When all was over and the plane was taxiing towards the arrival terminal,
these individuals also expressed more relief about landing and ultimately being
unharmed. In other words, our passengers reacted to this ostensibly dangerous situation
in a manner in which anyone likely would if they experienced such severe turbulence in
real life. It is unlikely that this was due to guessing the hypothesis because the immediate
post-flight state anxiety ratings were clearly inconsistent with our manipulation, but
nothing prevented the participants from reporting increased state anxiety after a turbulent
flight.
While significantly correlating with a number of ATSS variables, a pre-existing
fear of flying did not appear to be the most influential variable in this experiment. The
positive correlation between fear of flying and the extent of anxiety verbalized during the
flight could suggest that pre-existing apprehension about flying may predispose to greater
emotional reactivity to the less than ordinary in-flight events. Likewise, the more fearful
of flying one may be, the greater a sense of relief at the end of the flight they may
experience. Conversely, the negative association between the fear of flying and
intentions of future air travel is consistent with the greater verbalized anxiety during the
flight and relief upon its conclusion. Yet, the extent of fear of flying did not seem to
exert any significant intervening influence on the state anxiety ratings, the quantity
(talkativeness) or the content of the articulated reactions to encountering turbulence.
This is not surprising because, overall, our participants scored much lower than the
clinical samples of fearful flyers who participate in intervention studies. As a result, we
61

were probably less likely to detect significant mediation or moderation effects by fear of
flying on any of the cognitive-affective variables. Therefore, we’ll defer here to the
interpretation cited by Davison and colleagues (1983) in the very first ATSS
investigation, suggesting that representatives of non-clinical populations may be better
understood by examining the particular situation they are in, instead of the amount of a
given trait they may possess.
The observed gender difference, with males reporting on a questionnaire less
flying-related apprehension than females, is not an anomalous finding from the general
perspective of prevalence of phobias and from the one specific to fear of flying. For
instance, Fredrikson and colleagues (Fredrikson, Annas, Fischer & Wik; 1996) found that
women to a greater extent than men are likely to endorse the symptoms of such animal
phobias as of snakes or spiders and such situational phobias as of lightning, closed
spaces, darkness, heights, and flying. While devising a socio-demographic and clinical
typology of individuals with the fear of flying, Van Gerwen and colleagues (1997) also
identified some specific gender differences. One subtype of fearful flyers in their study,
those who were mostly preoccupied with social anxiety or loss of control while on a
plane, was composed largely of women between 17 and 35 years of age. It seems that the
observations of both of these studies are consistent with our own.
One noteworthy concurrent finding was that unlike the self-reported anxiety about
flying, the cognitive-affective responding along the proximal analogues of the QAF
variables (i.e., articulations of anxiety, negative outcome expectancies, and appeals for
help to God during a rough flight) suggests that experiences of males and females may be
62

not significantly dissimilar after all, at least when being placed in a simulated flight. This
lack of statistically significant differentiation could be rather informative. First, it may be
that males indeed are no less anxious than females about the various aspects of flying, but
for whatever reason they choose to minimize that apprehension when directly asked
about it. It would follow then that the ATSS in our study was able to circumvent some
degree of self-presentation, which is not new for the paradigm. For instance, Davison
and Zighelboim (1987) found that individuals who were seeking treatment for social
anxiety were less willing to admit the irrationality of their beliefs when given a
questionnaire, but, placed in a stressful socio-evaluative ATSS simulation, they
articulated significantly more such beliefs than did the controls. In addition, our findings
may practically demonstrate another advantage of the paradigm, its situational sensitivity,
which has been noted in the past (i.e., Davison, Navarre, & Vogel, 1995). Unlike
assessment of the general opinions/attitudes about flying, which is done with a typical
questionnaire, the ATSS allows one to evaluate individual’s thoughts and feelings in a
very specific, intentionally realistic situation. So, the latter approach may be more
reflective of one’s actual responses in a given setting than what could be deduced from
their general attitudes.
The early (e.g., Mowrer, 1939) and contemporary (e.g., Davey, 1992; 1997;
Lovibond, 2001) models of development of specific fears identify direct conditioning as
one of the instrumental pathways in this process. Therefore, we entertained the
possibility that one’s past experiences with air travel may somehow factor into their
considerations of flying in the future. These additional analyses yielded some thought-
63

provoking outcomes. First, the negative correlation between the length of time since
one’s last flight and frequency of their past air travels, along with the similarly negative
correlation with their current fear of flying, may be suggestive of more than what meets
the eye. Of course, it is not surprising that those who reported traveling by air more
frequently were also more likely to have flown in the recent past, and those with greater
fear of flying generally tended to fly less. What was remarkable, however, is the
concurrent explicit preference by the majority of our participants for any land-based
means of transportation to flying. In fact, they often justified their choice by desiring to
have more control over the situation when they travel by land. Incidentally, the lack of
control while flying is one of several persistent concerns shared by many phobics (e.g.,
Wilhelm & Roth, 1997). Taking the sub-clinical levels of fear of flying in our sample
into consideration, it is not unreasonable to theorize that the avoidance behavior (i.e., Van
Gerwen et al, 2006) may actually extend beyond the clinical population. In effect, it
seems that even those who do not report significant apprehension about flying could still
exhibit some degree of this fearful behavioral pattern, but just have a different
justification for that.
Of course, the observed hesitation to fly again after a frightening encounter with
turbulence may constitute the evidence of triggering the evolutionary (cf., Seligman,
1971), vicarious (cf., Rachman, 1977; 1991), future expectancies-based (cf., Davey,
1992; 1997) or altogether non-cognitive (cf., Öhman & Mineka, 2001) fear acquisition
mechanisms in our passengers. However, without more comprehensive background
information on our participants, proper control of their future exposure to flying and
64

follow-up assessments such a claim is imprudent. Besides, ours was explicitly not an
investigation on the etiology of phobic behavior. It is also easy to argue that the mere
frequency of past air travel is an ambiguous premise for interpretation because it says
little about the individual’s actual experience during the flight. We did find that flying
history per se was not a mediating factor in either the ratings of satisfaction with the
flight or decisions to fly again in response to turbulence. In other words, the number of
previously taken flights itself does not serve as either an inoculation or other influence on
the psychological (satisfaction) and behavioral (planning to take another flight in the
future) reactions to turbulence. Yet, since the design of our study allowed for a unique
look at the passengers’ cognitions throughout an ongoing (be it simulated) flight and at
the same time gather their self-assessments, we were able to test some additional
relationships between the self-reported and articulated variables.
To begin with, anxiety and negative outcome expectancies articulated during the
flight inversely correlated with the passengers’ satisfaction with their journey, but the
latter was not a significant correlate of the pre-existing fear of flying. This pattern of
observations appears to lend itself to the following interpretation. First, the overall
satisfaction with the flight is rather an affect-based judgment, so an individual will likely
reflect upon their experience (i.e., what they thought and how they felt during the flight)
before considering an appropriate rating. Because we know what the passengers thought
(their thoughts were shared with us via the ATSS), and how they later responded to the
questionnaires, we may conclude that it is very likely that they first reflected upon their
cognitive and affective reactions during the flight before judging their satisfaction with it.
65

At the same time, such a decision may be not greatly dependent upon the pre-existing,
trait-like apprehension about flying because what one was really asked here was to
evaluate a very specific recent experience and not a general attitude. Thus, the lack of
significant correlation between fear of flying and satisfaction with the flight is not
surprising. Along with our earlier analyses, these latter findings have finally led us to
shift focus largely from the pre-existing fear of flying and onto the in-the-moment
experiences of the passengers instead.
As a result we found that one’s satisfaction with the most recent flight was not
only strongly predictive of but functioned as an instrumental mediating variable in
appraising their likelihood of traveling by air again. This in itself is logical and hardly
groundbreaking. However, our consequent examination of the specific affective
responses during the flight provided an opportunity to better understand how the
judgments about satisfaction and plans of repeat air travel were likely made. Since the
tests for mediation allow for causal inferences, our analyses seem to suggest the
following. Regardless of one’s pre-existing apprehension about flying, the number of
flights taken over the lifetime, or even their self-reported anxiety (either pre- or post-), it
is only the anxiety and the fearful thoughts experienced in the moment (during the most
recent flight) that are predictive of the passengers’ perceived satisfaction with it. In
essence, it’s not just whether the severe turbulence was encountered but it’s the actual
online experience of it (specifically the anxiety and expectancies of a negative outcome)
that is instrumental in the qualitative judgments of the flight and, by implication, the
decisions about flying again.
66

To some extent, the latter observations appear to be consistent with Lovibond’s
(2001) explanation of a “near-miss” experience as a pathway to developing situational
anxiety. It may be possible that the severe turbulence encountered during our simulated
flight was seen by some as a “near-miss” situation which could have led to the
development of apprehension about flying again. Nevertheless, since we assessed only
the intentions to fly again and not the anticipatory anxiety regarding future flights, we
recognize the serious limitations of such analogy with the “near-miss” fear conditioning.
Although we can say with a good deal of certainty that the simulation did elicit anxiety
which led to the decline in the overall satisfaction and lower likelihood of intending to fly
again, it would be still necessary to know if this was indeed perceived as a “near-miss”
situation. Speaking more generally, since we found that a turbulent in-flight encounter
may significantly affect previously non-fearful air travelers, the continued search for
ways of alleviating the effects of these events seems to be a worthy cause.
67

Chapter Eight: Conclusions
First, the outcomes of this experiment confirmed our anticipation that flying
through turbulence has a measurable effect on the air travelers’ experience in a number of
important ways. Unlike a calm, uneventful journey, a turbulent encounter is likely to
result in feelings of anxiety and fears of crashing, ultimately leading to the passengers’
overall diminished satisfaction with the flight. Furthermore, the travelers’ plans of future
flying will depend upon their satisfaction with the most recent flight, more so than such
variables as the number of previous flights they’d taken, their pre-existing fear of flying
or how anxious they were at the time of boarding their plane.
Naturally, the passengers and the airlines alike may benefit from improving the
overall experience of air travelers. Since it is not always possible to avoid flying through
turbulence or severe weather (when devising our study, we conceived of turbulence as a
functional generalization of any bumpy flight), it may be helpful to provide the
passengers with some basic means of coping with these unpleasant events. Our findings
indicate that the perceived satisfaction with the flight itself was largely a function of the
types of cognitive reactions that passengers experience in response to the turbulence.
Unlike their self-assessed anxiety and fear of flying, these articulated reactions were
instrumental in the qualitative evaluation of the flight and, consequently, in making their
future travel plans. So then attempts to boost air travelers’ coping skills should probably
focus on alleviating very specific types of cognitions, such as anxious thoughts and
expectations of negative outcomes. In other words, the goal here should be providing a
targeted cognitive inoculation to turbulence.
68

Essentially, the aim of our study was to decrease the passengers’ emotional
discomfort during a turbulent flight by educating them beforehand about the turbulence
and the plane’s ability to safely withstand it. We expected to see this improvement not
only through provision of reassurance of safety, however. Our aim was also to minimize
their uncertainty (i.e., lack of understanding), much like the accurate descriptions of
forthcoming uncomfortable physical sensations prior to experiencing them will reduce
the actual perception of distress (Johnson, 1973), an effect which holds true even for such
noxious situations as endoscopic examination (Johnson & Leventhal, 1974). While our
original approach was to combine an informational-educational piece with the existing
pre-flight instructions, it seems that the delivery strategy should be given greater
consideration. At the very least, informing the passengers before the flight may not be
the most effective way of reducing their discomfort in case turbulence does trigger their
apprehension when the plane is already thousands of feet up in the air. The fact that the
effectiveness of a message depends principally on the way the salient information is
presented to its consumers was acknowledged fairly early in research on communication
and persuasion (Hovland, Janis, & Kelley, 1953). Specifically, Janis and Feshbach
(1953) found that if a fear appeal was to be communicated in a particular message, it
must be “relieved by reassurances” (p.271) consequently provided to the audience.
Otherwise, the recipients will not pay sufficient attention to it, rendering the persuasion
attempt all but ineffective.
In retrospect, something of that sort may have taken place in our experiment. We
observed that the additional information about turbulence in juxtaposition with the
69

standard pre-flight announcement triggers some apprehension among the passengers
(e.g., the enhancement presented some specific things to worry about). Perhaps this
apprehension was greater than the reassurance of safety contained within that
communication, thus resulting in their tuning out of the message altogether. The
enhancement part of the message therefore did not get a chance of providing the intended
coping boost at the time the turbulence was encountered. Alternatively, perhaps not as
true for our simulation as it is for a real-life flight, such lack of effect also could be due to
the amount of time that will have passed between the delivery of information and the
opportunity to utilize it. It’s likely that turbulence will be encountered later than 7
minutes into the flight (the approximate point in our simulation where the turbulence was
introduced in real time), so some memory-specific biases may also potentially influence
the recall and effective utilization of the coping-focused material.
Because we found that the factual information within the pre-flight enhancement
was retained but not taken advantage of as anticipated, at this juncture it is tempting to
consider the possibility of changing the timing of its delivery. For example, doing so
right in the moment when the plane is going through the choppy air may be more
appropriate than our original strategy and consistent with the notion of preventative
treatment by correcting one’s perception of the traumatic UCS right at the time of the
potential conditioning episode (cf., Davey, 1992). It seems particularly reasonable to do
so because the passengers of our turbulent flights clearly verbalized their need for
explanation of what was happening and even questioned why they were not being
addressed about that by the crew. That is, introduction of the turbulence-related
70

information could be likely more appropriate at that stage of the flight. Also, since many
of our participants were displeased with the length of the announcement or in some cases
the need for it, perhaps it may be truncated to present only the essential information or its
delivery may be done in some other way, such as an audio presentation via the
headphones that are routinely made available to the passengers. In fact, because every
airplane seat is now equipped with a headphone jack and a channel selector, that
information could be made available on demand and not just turned on during the
turbulent encounter. This would allow those travelers who will find it necessary to
discretely tune into a specifically designated channel, learn more about this atmospheric
phenomenon, the plane’s ability to safely withstand it, and so comfort themselves. A
related suggestion may be to consider relaying this address (be it live or in a pre-recorded
form) by the captain or the second pilot themselves instead of the flight attendant.
Presumably, some passengers may perceive the reassurance that the plane is in no danger
as more credible when it is issued by the individuals who are actually at the controls of
the aircraft rather than by other members of the crew.
In addition to illuminating the passengers’ inner experience, the outcomes of our
investigation may also have a number of methodological implications. Because each of
the three fear/anxiety-related types of articulations (i.e., Anx-I, Anx,-M, and NOE) was
more informative than either of the questionnaires (STAI-S, QAF), we conclude that with
a non-clinical population in this line of research the ATSS appears to be more
informative than self-report-based measures. Specifically, comparing the results of the
state anxiety ratings (STAI-S) and the ATSS articulations, we’ve learned that the online
71

assessment of affective dynamics which is afforded by the latter reveals more than the
“static,” pre- to post- experiment questionnaire. In addition, the self-reported fear of
flying (QAF) did not fare as well as the ATSS paradigm either. This is so because while
the responses on the former measure suggested that females were significantly more
apprehensive about flying than were males, that difference disappeared as soon as the
participants were submerged into a realistic simulated flight experience. We suspect the
ATSS’ ability to obviate self-presentation is responsible for this incongruence between
the two assessment approaches.
Lastly, this investigation suggests the utility of ATSS in fear of flying research.
Although the general focus of our study is consistent with that of Möller and associates
(1998), the specifics of our ATSS application and the questions we sought to answer
differed from theirs. Instead of using a series of disjointed vignettes presented in random
order, our simulated situation was a more “traditional” ATSS scenario, where in several
logically connected segments we depicted a progression of an airliner flight. In contrast
to the examination of irrational thinking in the clinical population of fearful flyers, we
were interested in the whole spectrum of cognitions experienced by typical air travelers.
Thus, while Möller and colleagues (1998) showed that the paradigm worked well with a
clinical sample, we found that the ATSS is also capable of producing a realistic simulated
flight experience that allows for meaningful assessment of cognitions among the more
general population. When Davison and colleagues (Davison, Zanov, Rizzo, & Themis,
2008) compared the relative effectiveness of the ATSS and virtual reality technology in
eliciting various types of cognitions (i.e., anger and anxiety), they found that neither
72

approach was more advantageous, with each producing comparably high perceived
realism ratings of the respective simulated situation. Taken in conjunction with the
findings of our study, it seems that the ATSS paradigm could be considered in future
research on the fear of flying as a less costly alternative to the often utilized (e.g., Maltby
et al., 2002; Rothbaum et al., 2006) virtual reality methodology. It is particularly so
because the ATSS requires no software, very basic hardware (a voice recorder), and no
technical support for either software of hardware related issues.
73

Chapter Nine: Limitations
Several potential limitations of our experiment should be discussed, though some
of them may be not as significant as others. First, one can raise the concern regarding the
external validity of the findings obtained here merely because this was a simulation-based
study. Of course, a prudent scientist will always reasonably question the external validity
of any laboratory-based work, but we believe that the ATSS paradigm has gathered
sufficient empirical support over the years and is as good if not better in some situations
than other cognitive assessment approaches (please see Davison et al, 1997 and Zanov &
Davison, 2008 for comprehensive reviews). Moreover it is quite comparable to virtual
reality (Davison et al., 2008) with which many of the fear of flying researchers are
familiar.
Furthermore, since we were specifically interested in the general population of air
travelers, we don’t have the option of evaluating the behavior in the same types of
situations of those who are truly fearful of flying. In assessment of the fear of flying,
while the QAF fared well statistically (i.e., based on our own estimates of its internal
consistency and split-half reliability), we’re not fully certain that it was sensitive enough
of a measure to detect the underlying fear of flying. Also, those interpretations of our
analyses that involve accounting for participants’ pre-existing fear of flying should be
examined with care. The QAF was used with clinical samples in the past as a measure of
change, but in our experiment it was used primarily to rule out a potential confound.
Since we intentionally used a non-clinical population, it may be prudent to keep in mind
74

that the QAF-assessed fear of flying may have a very different relationship with the same
variables for clinically-fearful flyers.
Because we examined the passengers’ perceptions of an airplane flight, the
importance of controlling for various clinical conditions of our sample may be argued for.
Having deliberately structured our scenarios in such a way as to avoid the potential
triggers (please refer to “ATSS Phase” description, p. 30), we did not screen for such
conditions as claustrophobia, acrophobia, and agoraphobia, which have been shown to
contribute to one’s fear of flying (McNally & Louro, 1992; Van Gerwen, et al., 1997;
Wilhelm & Roth, 1997). So, there’s still a possibility that at least for some of our
participants the intended manipulation did not work because their responses were
influenced by concerns which were not experienced by others. For instance, even before
the simulated flight took off participant #6 shared, “I really wish we could smoke. I
really don’t like being on planes. I am feeling really claustrophobic right now. It’s a
really tight space. It’s small.” This is in contrast to participant #94 who, having heard
the same type of the pre-flight announcement and at the very same stage of their
simulation said, “I always love this part just because you go so fast, and I love looking
out the window and seeing the ground suddenly being 20 feet away from you. So, I am
ready let’s get this flight going.” Lastly, another individual differences-focused potential
limitation may be raised regarding our not accounting for the specifics of our
participants’ previous flying experiences. Since we did not gather information on
75

what percentage of their past flights were calm and uneventful, it is unknown whether
previous exposure to turbulence contributes to either resilience or increased apprehension
regarding future encounters.
76

Chapter Ten: Further research
Those who, like us, find this line of research intriguing enough to pursue further
may benefit from bearing in mind the following suggestions. First, we encourage an
experimental confirmation of changing the timing (and, possibly the means) of delivering
the turbulence and the aircraft durability-related information. It may prove informative to
evaluate to what extent our existing information-based manipulation may work for the
clinical population. More important, however, is the question of whether its presentation
in the midst of the simulated turbulent encounter will significantly improve the clinically
fearful flyers’ experience. In addition, learning of the individual factors that could
increase one’s resilience to turbulence is undoubtedly ideal. To that end, it may be
helpful to gather more extensive background information from the participants, including
their previous turbulence exposure and what, if any, coping strategies they found to work
best for them.
Instead of devising the description of turbulence that depicts a very severe event,
it may be more sensible to create several situations, such as mild and moderate. Besides
the concern of frightening the participant so greatly that they no longer suspend their
disbelief and disengage from the simulation, there may still be the possibility that the
efficacy of the announcement manipulation could be dependent on the degree of fear
conveyed by the simulation. In other words, perhaps the additional safety information is
more helpful at milder rather than severe turbulence situations. It may also prove
beneficial to learn if experiencing such severe turbulence indeed creates a “near-miss”
77

experience for our participants. Thus, an additional question during the debriefing, for
example, may carry some important theoretical and practical implications.
On a more technical ATSS note, we’ve found that molar coding for the degree of
presence of a particular type of articulations during an entire segment (i.e., Anx-M) tends
to yield more informative outcomes (i.e., reader will recall that the Anx-M code was a
stronger correlate and a more significant mediator in our data vs. the Anx-I) than tallying
the judgments of presence vs. absence of such verbalizations (e.g., Anx-I). We therefore
encourage future researchers to structure their coding approach accordingly. Finally,
some may consider continuous assessment of state anxiety ratings in order to get a better
sense of how its levels fluctuate throughout the ATSS scenario. However, this should be
done with caution because every additional assessment measure between the segments of
the simulated situation may jeopardize participants’ immersion in the action that is
unfolding before them.
78

References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple Regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders (4th ed., text revision). Washington, DC: Author.

Anderson, P., Jacobs, C. H., Lindner, G. K., Edwards, S., Zimand, E., & Hodges, L. et al.
(2006). Cognitive behavior therapy for fear of flying: Sustainability of treatment
gains after september 11. Behavior Therapy, 37(1), 91-97.

Bandura, A. (1969). The principles of behavior modification. New York: Holt, Rinehart,
and Winston.

Bandura, A. (Ed). (1971). Psychological Modeling. Chicago: Atherton Press.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New York: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological review, 84(2), 191-215.

Beck, A.T., Emery, G., & Greenberg, R. (1985). Anxiety and its disorders: A cognitive
perspective. New York: Basic Books.

Boeing (2007). Jetliner Safety: How safe is flying? Retrieved March 3, 2007, from
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/safety/howsafe.html

Brown, D. (1996). Flying without Fear. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications.

Bronstein, S. (2008, April 1). FAA takes risks with shoddy oversight, experts say. CNN.
Retrieved April 2, 2008, from http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/01/faa.oberstar/
index.html?iref=newssearch

Davey, G. C. (1992). Classical conditioning and the acquisition of human fears and
phobias: A review and synthesis of the literature. Advances in Behaviour
Research & Therapy, 14(1), 29-66.

Davey, G.C.L. (1997). Conditioning Model of Phobias. In G.C.L. Davey (Ed.),
Phobias. A Handbook of Theory Research and Treatment (pp. 301-322). New
York, NY: John Wiley & Sons LTD.
79

Davison, G. C., Navarre, S. G., & Vogel, R. S. (1995). The articulated thoughts in
simulated situations paradigm: A think-aloud approach to cognitive assessment.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4(1), 29-33.

Davison, G. C., Navarre, S. G., & Vogel, R. S. (1995). The articulated thoughts in
simulated situations paradigm: A think-aloud approach to cognitive assessment.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4(1), 29-33.

Davison, G. C., Robins, C., & Johnson, M. K. (1983). Articulated thoughts during
simulated situations: A paradigm for studying cognition in emotion and
behavior. Cognitive Therapy & Research, 7(1), 17-39.

Davison, G. C., Vogel, R. S., & Coffman, S. G. (1997). Think-aloud approaches to
cognitive assessment and the articulated thoughts in simulated situations
paradigm. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 65(6), 950-958.

Davison, G. C., Zanov, M. V., Rizzo, A. A., & Themis, S. (2008). An Experimental
Evaluation of the Verisimilitude of Virtual Reality Technology via the Articulated
Thoughts Paradigm. Manuscript in preparation.

Davison, G. C., & Zighelboim, V. (1987). Irrational beliefs in the articulated thoughts of
college students with social anxiety. Journal of Rational-Emotive Therapy, 5(4),
238-254.

Dawson, M. E., Rissling, A. J., Schell, A. M., & Wilcox, R. (in press). Under what
conditions can human affective conditioning occur without contingency
awareness? Test of the evaluative conditioning paradigm. Emotion.

Dawson, M. E., Schell, A. M., & Banis, H. (1984). Classical conditioning of the SCR
using phobic and natural CSs with concomitant measurement of UCS expectancy.
Presented at the meetings of the Society for Psychophysiological Research,
Milwakee, Wisconsin, October 1984. [Abstract]. Psychophysiology, 21, 575.

Dean, R.D., & Whitaker, K.M. (1982). Fear of flying: Impact on the U.S. air travel
industry. Journal of Travel Research, 21, 7—17.

Ekeberg, O., Seeberg, I., & Ellertsen, B. B. (1988). The prevalence of flight anxiety in
Norwegian airline passengers. Scandinavian Journal of Behaviour Therapy,
17(3), 213-222.

Family Home Entertainment. (2001). Great Planes! Boeing 747 & 777. [Television
documentary]. Discovery Channel Video.
80

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (in press). G*Power 3: A flexible
statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical
sciences. Behavior Research Methods.

Federal Aviation Administration. (2005a). Turbulence magazine ads. Retrieved March
10, 2007, from http://www.faa.gov/passengers/media/SLICK_BodyPSA.pdf

Federal Aviation Administration. (2005b). Recorded radio public service announcement
for use anytime. Retrieved March 10, 2007, from
http://www.faa.gov/passengers/media/RADIO_scripts.pdf

Federal Aviation Administration. (2005c). Preventing injuries caused by turbulence.
Advisory circular AC No120-88.

Fredrikson, M., Annas, P., Fischer, H., & Wik, G. (1996). Gender and age differences in
the prevalence of specific fears and phobias. Behaviour Research and Therapy,
34(1), 33-39.

Freud, S. (1949). An Outline of Psycho-Analysis. New York: W.W. Norton &
Company, Inc.

Greco, T. (1989). A Cognitive-Behavioral Approach to Fear of Flying: A Practitioner’s
Guide. Phobia Practice and Research Journal, 2(1), 3-15.

Hartman, C. (1995). Fearless Flyer. Portland, OR: Eighth Mountain Press.

Howard, W. A., Murphy, S. M., & Clarke, J. C. (1983). The nature and treatment of fear
of flying: A controlled investigation. Behavior Therapy, 14(4), 557-567.

Inquisit 2.0.41230.0 [Computer software]. (2004). Seattle, WA: Millisecond Software.

Johnson, J. E. (1973). Effects of accurate expectations about sensations on the sensory
and distress components of pain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
27(2), 261-275.

Johnson, J. E., & Leventhal, H. (1974). Effects of accurate expectations and behavioral
instructions on reactions during a noxious medical examination. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 29(5), 710-718.

Kraaij, V., Garnefski, N., & Van Gerwen, L. (2003). Cognitive coping and anxiety
symptoms among people who seek help for fear of flying. Aviation, Space, and
Environmental Medicine, 74(3), 273-277.
81

Lazarus, R. S. (1984). On the primacy of cognition. American Psychologist, 39(2), 124-
129.

Lazarus, R. S. (1993). From psychological stress to the emotions: A history of changing
outlooks. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 1-21.

Lazarus, R.S. (1966). Psychological Stress and the Coping Process. New York:
McGraw-Hill.

Lim (2006). Flying safely on the Boeing 777. Retrieved March 10, 2007, from
http://www.geocities.com/khlim777_my/fpIntrox.htm

Lovibond, P. F. (2001). The "near miss" as a fourth pathway to anxiety. Behavioural and
Cognitive Psychotherapy, 29(1), 35-43.

Maltby, N., Kirsch, I., Mayers, M., & Allen, G. J. (2002). Virtual reality exposure
therapy for the treatment of fear of flying: A controlled investigation. Journal of
consulting and clinical psychology, 70(5), 1112-1118.

McNally, R. J. (1987). Preparedness and phobias: A review. Psychological bulletin,
101(2), 283-303.

McNally, R. J., & Louro, C. E. (1992). Fear of flying in agoraphobia and simple phobia:
Distinguishing features. Journal of anxiety disorders, 6(4), 319-324.

Menzies, R. G., & Clarke, J. C. (1995). The etiology of phobias: A nonassociative
account. Clinical psychology review, 15(1), 23-48.

Möller, A. T., Nortje, C., & Helders, S. B. (1998). Irrational cognitions and the fear of
flying. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive Behavior Therapy, 16(2), 135-
148.

Mowrer, O. H. (1939). A stimulus-response analysis of anxiety and its role as a
reinforcing agent. Psychological review, 46(6), 553-565.

National Transportation Safety Board (2006). AVIATION ACCIDENT STATISTICS.
Retrieved March 3, 2007, from http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/stats.htm

Olsson, A., & Phelps, E. A. (2004). Learned fear of "unseen" faces after pavlovian,
observational, and instructed fear. Psychological Science, 15(12), 822-828.

Öhman, A., & Mineka, S. (2001). Fears, phobias, and preparedness: Toward an evolved
module of fear and fear learning. Psychological review, 108(3), 483-522.
82

Öhman, A., & Soares, J. J. (1993). On the automatic nature of phobic fear: Conditioned
electrodermal responses to masked fear-relevant stimuli. Journal of abnormal
psychology, 102(1), 121-132.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect
effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments,
and Computers, 36, 717-731.

Rachman, S. (1977). The conditioning theory of fear-acquisition: A critical examination.
Behaviour research and therapy, 15(5), 375-387.

Rachman, S. (1991). Neo-conditioning and the classical theory of fear acquisition.
Clinical Psychology Review.Special Issue: Applied learning theory: Research
issues for the 1990s, 11(2), 155-173.

Rayburn, N. R. (2003). Psychological reactions to racial hate crime targetization: An
investigation utilizing the articulated thoughts in simulated situations paradigm.
Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences & Engineering,
63(12), 6104.

R Development Core Team (2008). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical
Computing (Version 2.6.2) [Computer software]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation
for Statistical Computing.

Rothbaum, B. O., Anderson, P., Zimand, E., Hodges, L., Lang, D., & Wilson, J. (2006).
Virtual reality exposure therapy and standard (in vivo) exposure therapy in the
treatment of fear of flying. Behavior Therapy, 37(1), 80-90.

Rothbaum, B. O., Hodges, L., Anderson, P. L., Price, L., & Smith, S. (2002). Twelve-
month follow-up of virtual reality and standard exposure therapies for the fear of
flying. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 70(2), 428-432.

Rothbaum, B. O., Hodges, L., Smith, S., Lee, J. H., & Price, L. (2000). A controlled
study of virtual reality exposure therapy for the fear of flying. Journal of
consulting and clinical psychology, 68(6), 1020-1026.

Seligman, M. E. (1971). Phobias and preparedness. Behavior Therapy, 2(3), 307-320.

Shapiro, S. S., & Wilk, M. B. (1965). An analysis of variance test for normality
(complete samples). Biometrika, 52(3,4), 591-611.

Shrout, P.E., & Fleiss, J.L. (1979). Intraclass correlation: uses in assessing rater
reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420-428.
83

Sivak, M., & Flannagan, M. J. (2003). Flying and Driving after the September 11
Attacks. American Scientist Online, 91 (1). Retrieved March 3, 2007, from
http://www.americanscientist.org/Issues/Macroscope/macroscope03-01.html

Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural
equation models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1982 (pp. 290-
312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Spielberger, C.D. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory: STAI (Form Y).
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Spielberger, C.D. & Sydeman, S.J. (1994). State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and State trait
Anger Expression Inventory. In M.E. Maruish (Ed.), The use of psychological
tests for treatment planning and outcome assessment (pp. 292-321). Hillsdale,
NJ: LEA.

Storer B. E., & Kim, C. (1990). Exact properties of some exact test statistics for
comparing two binomial proportions. Journal of the American Statistical
Association, 85, 146-155.

Van Gerwen, L. J., & Diekstra, R. F. W. (2000). Fear of flying treatment programs for
passengers: An international review. Aviation, Space, and Environmental
Medicine, 71(4), 430-437.

Van Gerwen, L. J., Spinhoven, P., & Van Dyck, R. (2006). Behavioral and cognitive
group treatment for fear of flying: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of
Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 37(4), 358-371.

Van Gerwen, L. J., Spinhoven, P., Diekstra, R. F. W., & Van Dyck, R. (2002).
Multicomponent standardized treatment programs for fear of flying: Description
and effectiveness. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 9(2), 138-149.

Van Gerwen, L. J., Spinhoven, P., Dieskstra, R. F. W., & Van Dyck, R. (1997). People
who seek help for fear of flying: Typology of flying phobics. Behavior Therapy,
28(2), 237-251.

Van Gerwen, L. J., Spinhoven, P., Van Dyck, R., & Diekstra, R. F. W. (1999).
Construction and psychometric characteristics of two self-report questionnaires
for the assessment of fear of flying. Psychological assessment, 11(2), 146-158.

Van Gerwen, L. J., Van de Wal, C., Spinhoven, P., Diekstra, R. F. W., & Van Dyck, R.
(2003). Differential effects on self-efficacy of treatment components for fear of
flying. International Journal of Applied Aviation Studies, 3(2), 291-309.
84

Virgin Atlantic (2004). Flying Without Fear. Retrieved March 3, 2007, from
http://www.flyingwithoutfear.info/thecourses.htm

Wilcox, R. (2005). New Methods for Comparing Groups: Strategies for Increasing the
Probability of Detecting True Differences. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 14(5), 272-275.

Wilhelm, F. H., & Roth, W. T. (1997). Clinical characteristics of flight phobia. Journal
of anxiety disorders, 11(3), 241-261.

Wilhelm, F. H., & Roth, W. T. (1998). Taking the laboratory to the skies: Ambulatory
assessment of self-report, autonomic, and resipiratory responses in flying phobia.
Psychophysiology, 35(5), 596-606.

Zajonc, R. B. (1984). On the primacy of affect. American Psychologist, 39(2), 117-123.

Zanov, M.V., & Davison, G. C. (2008). Getting into the Black Box: 25 Years of the
Articulated Thoughts in Simulated Situations (ATSS) Paradigm. Manuscript in
preparation.
85

Appendix A:
STANDARD PRE-FLIGHT SAFETY ANNOUNCEMENT

Note: This document entitled “EMB190 Script” was graciously furnished by the
US Airways staff on 03/06/07 for the purposes of this study and is believed to be the
most current pre-flight safety script. It is provided below in its entirety.

In English

Welcome aboard US Airways.

In preparation for departure, be certain that your seat back is straight up, your headrest is
lowered, and your tray table is stowed. Make sure that your carry-on items are placed
completely under the seat in front of you.

Portable telephones are not approved for use inflight; however, you may use certain other
electronic devices when advised by your crew.”

Please direct your attention to the flight attendant(s) in the cabin. For everyone’s safety,
regulations require your compliance with all lighted signs, placards and crewmember
instructions.

(4-second pause)

Fasten your seat belt by placing the metal fitting into the buckle, and adjust the strap so it
fits low and tight around your hips. To release, lift the face plate of the buckle.

(5-second pause)

Please review the Safety Instructions card in the seat pocket in front of you. It explains
the safety features of this aircraft, as well as the location and operation of the exits and
flotation devices.

Your seat cushion serves as an approved flotation device. To remove it, pull up and take
it with you to the nearest usable exit. After exiting the aircraft, place your arms through
the straps and then hug the cushion to your chest.

86

Appendix A:
CONTINUED

As the flight attendants are pointing out, there are:

two door exits in the front of the aircraft,

two window exits over the wings, and

two door exits in the rear of the aircraft.

(4-second pause)

Once again, there are:
two door exits in the front of the aircraft,

two window exits over the wings, and

two door exits in the rear of the aircraft.

Take a moment to locate the exit nearest you, keeping in mind that the closest usable exit
may be located behind you.

If there is a loss of this aircraft’s electrical power, low-level emergency lights will
illuminate. All exits are indicated by lighted exit signs.

(3-second pause)

If needed, oxygen masks will be released from overhead and may be held in a plastic
retainer. To start the flow of oxygen, reach up and remove the mask from the retainer,
pull the mask firmly toward you fully extending the plastic tubing. Place the mask over
your nose and mouth and slip the elastic band over your head.

To tighten the fit, pull the tab on each side of the mask. The plastic bag does not need to
inflate when oxygen is flowing. Be sure to secure your own mask before assisting others.

A life vest is located under your seat. To wear it, tear open the plastic package, remove
the life vest, and slip it over your head. Wrap the strap around your waist, snap the two
ends together and tighten.

Inflate the vest by pulling down on one of the red tabs, saving the other chamber as a
back-up. The vest can be manually inflated by blowing into one of the red tubes and is

87

Appendix A:
CONTINUED

equipped with a water-activated locator light. It is important that you do not inflate your
life vest until after exiting the aircraft.

As a reminder, smoking is not permitted in any area of the aircraft, including the
lavatories. Tampering with, disabling, or destroying a lavatory smoke detector is
prohibited.

On behalf of the captain and your entire crew, it is our pleasure to have you aboard. We
hope you enjoy your flight.

To be used for Spanish and French

Welcome aboard US Airways

Before departing, please review the Security Instruction card located in the seat pocket in
front of you. It explains the safety features of this aircraft, as well as the location and
operation of the exits and flotation devices.

If you are seated in an exit row, you may be required to assist the crew in an
emergency. If you are unable or do not want to perform these functions, please ask to
be reseated.

For everyone’s safety, regulations require your compliance with all lighted signs,
placards, and crewmember instructions

As you know, turbulence is sometimes unexpected, so we require your seat belt be
fastened at all times.

As you know, smoking is not permitted in any area of the aircraft, including the
lavatories.

Tampering with, disabling or destroying a lavatory smoke detector is prohibited.

If you need assistance, please notify a Flight Attendant.

Thank you for choosing US Airways.

88

Appendix B:
ATSS SCENARIOS

ATSS Scenario#1
Flight with a standard announcement (FSA)

SEGMENT 1
You just boarded the plane and settled into your seat. The crew has closed the
door shut and all of the baggage is stowed into the overhead compartments. The plane
slowly begins to taxi, and the flight attendants line up in the middle row for their pre-
flight announcement. You hear a click in the speakers above and the announcement
comes:
(Note: the announcement itself is read in a different female’s voice)
Welcome aboard Our Airlines! In preparation for departure, be certain that your
seatback is straight up, your headrest is lowered, and your tray table is stowed. Make
sure that your carry-on items are placed completely under the seat in front of you.
Portable telephones are not approved for use in-flight. However, you may use certain
other electronic devices when advised by your crew. Please direct your attention to the
flight attendants in the cabin. For everyone’s safety, regulations require your
compliance with all lighted signs, placards, and crewmember instructions. Fasten your
seatbelt by placing the metal fitting into the buckle, and adjust the strap so it fits low and
tight around your hips. To release, lift the faceplate of the buckle.
Please review the Safety Instructions card in the seat pocket in front of you. It
explains the safety features of this aircraft, as well as the location and operation of the
exits and flotation devices. Your seat cushion serves as an approved flotation device. To
remove it, pull up and take it with you to the nearest usable exit. After exiting the
aircraft, place your arms through the straps and then hug the cushion to your chest.
There are: two door exits in the front of the aircraft, two window exits over the wings,
and two door exits in the rear of the aircraft. Once again, there are: two door exits in the
front of the aircraft, two window exits over the wings, and two door exits in the rear of
the aircraft. Take a moment to locate the exit nearest you, keeping in mind that the
closest usable exit may be located behind you. If there is a loss of this aircraft’s
electrical power, low-level emergency lights will illuminate. All exits are indicated by
lighted exit signs. If needed, oxygen masks will be released from overhead and may be
held in a plastic retainer. To start the flow of oxygen, reach up and remove the mask from
the retainer, pull the mask firmly toward you fully extending the plastic tubing. Place the
mask over your nose and mouth and slip the elastic band over your head. To tighten the
fit, pull the tab on each side of the mask. The plastic bag does not need to inflate when
oxygen is flowing. Be sure to secure your own mask before assisting others. A life vest is
located under your seat. To wear it, tear open the plastic package, remove the life vest,
and slip it over your head. Wrap the strap around your waist, snap the two ends together
89

Appendix B:
CONTINUED

and tighten. Inflate the vest by pulling down on one of the red tabs, saving the other
chamber as a back-up. The vest can be manually inflated by blowing into one of the red
tubes and is equipped with a water-activated locator light. It is important that you do not
inflate your life vest until after exiting the aircraft. As a reminder, smoking is not
permitted in any area of the aircraft, including the lavatories. Tampering with,
disabling, or destroying a lavatory smoke detector is prohibited.
On behalf of the captain and your entire crew, it is our pleasure to have you
aboard. We hope you enjoy your flight.
(Note: this portion and the rest of the scenario is read by the original narrator)
The announcement is over, and you hear a click in the speaker again. The plane
stops taxiing and its engines rev up in preparation for the takeoff.
(
♫
TONE
♫
, 30 seconds of silence to allow for the participant’s response,
♫
TONE
♫
)

SEGMENT 2
The sound of the plane’s engines quickly escalates and becomes very loud. You
feel a sudden jolt, and the plane quickly begins to accelerate down the runway. Through
the bottom of your seat you feel continuous bumps, shakes, and jolts, as the plane’s
wheels run over the uneven surface of the runway. The pressure is building up in your
ears and your hearing becomes muffled. The engines rev even louder, there’s a final jolt,
and the plane is finally airborne.
(
♫
TONE
♫
, 30 seconds of silence to allow for the participant’s response,
♫
TONE
♫
)

SEGMENT 3
The plane begins to level off. With a chime, “Buckle Your Seatbelt” signs are
turned off. The flight attendants begin serving refreshments in the front rows. Realizing
that you have some time until they’ll get to your row, you pull out a stack of colorful
readings stowed in the pocket of the seat in front of you. A chime sounds again and
“Buckle Your Seatbelt” signs turn on.
(
♫
TONE
♫
, 30 seconds of silence to allow for the participant’s response,
♫
TONE
♫
)

SEGMENT 4
In the stack of readings you find a brochure of in-flight movies available for you
to watch and you now begin scanning through the titles. You don’t even notice when a
flight attendant asks what you would like to drink.
(
♫
TONE
♫
, 30 seconds of silence to allow for the participant’s response,
♫
TONE
♫
)

90

Appendix B:
CONTINUED

SEGMENT 5
You browse through the available in-flight movie listings. However, you soon
realize that you’ve seen most of the films. You look back at the magazines from the seat
pocket, and they seem recent enough. So you decide to continue browsing through them
instead. Clicks and some static are heard from the overhead speakers. The plane is
maintaining the altitude, speed, and the ride is smooth.
(
♫
TONE
♫
, 30 seconds of silence to allow for the participant’s response,
♫
TONE
♫
)

SEGMENT 6
Somewhere behind the soundproof walls of the fuselage the plane’s engines hum
monotonously. Wanting to stretch, you recline your seat and sit back. You lay your arms
on the armrests of your seat, and find yourself glancing at the left wing of the plane
perfectly visible now through the closest window. The wing’s perfectly aerodynamic
shape is lazily glistening in the rays of the morning sun.
(
♫
TONE
♫
, 30 seconds of silence to allow for the participant’s response,
♫
TONE
♫
)

SEGMENT 7
The plane is seemingly making a slight turn, and you feel its gentle, barely
noticeable change of direction to the left. A short while later, one of the flight attendants
walks through the isle collecting empty cups. Full of clanking bottles, the beverage cart
is rolled back up front, toward the curtains of the first class area.
(
♫
TONE
♫
, 30 seconds of silence to allow for the participant’s response,
♫
TONE
♫
)

SEGMENT 8
Shortly, the plane is level again, whatever it was, it probably didn’t last more
than a few minutes. The beverage cart is rolled back to the rear of the plane by a flight
attendant. A soft chime is heard through the overhead speakers again, and “Buckle Your
Seatbelt” signs are turned off. The rest of the flight goes pretty uneventful, and soon
you’re cleared for landing. The wheels touch down and after a quick run, the plane
slows down and taxies to the terminal.
(
♫
TONE
♫
, 30 seconds of silence to allow for the participant’s response,
♫
TONE
♫
)

91

Appendix B:
CONTINUED

ATSS Scenario #2
Flight with a standard announcement, experiencing turbulence (FSA+T)

SEGMENT 1
You just boarded the plane and settled into your seat. The crew has closed the
door shut and all of the baggage is stowed into the overhead compartments. The plane
slowly begins to taxi, and the flight attendants line up in the middle row for their pre-
flight announcement. You hear a click in the speakers above and the announcement
comes:
(Note: the announcement itself is read in a different female’s voice)
Welcome aboard Our Airlines! In preparation for departure, be certain that your
seatback is straight up, your headrest is lowered, and your tray table is stowed. Make
sure that your carry-on items are placed completely under the seat in front of you.
Portable telephones are not approved for use in-flight. However, you may use certain
other electronic devices when advised by your crew. Please direct your attention to the
flight attendants in the cabin. For everyone’s safety, regulations require your
compliance with all lighted signs, placards, and crewmember instructions. Fasten your
seatbelt by placing the metal fitting into the buckle, and adjust the strap so it fits low and
tight around your hips. To release, lift the faceplate of the buckle.
Please review the Safety Instructions card in the seat pocket in front of you. It
explains the safety features of this aircraft, as well as the location and operation of the
exits and flotation devices. Your seat cushion serves as an approved flotation device. To
remove it, pull up and take it with you to the nearest usable exit. After exiting the
aircraft, place your arms through the straps and then hug the cushion to your chest.
There are: two door exits in the front of the aircraft, two window exits over the wings,
and two door exits in the rear of the aircraft. Once again, there are: two door exits in the
front of the aircraft, two window exits over the wings, and two door exits in the rear of
the aircraft. Take a moment to locate the exit nearest you, keeping in mind that the
closest usable exit may be located behind you. If there is a loss of this aircraft’s
electrical power, low-level emergency lights will illuminate. All exits are indicated by
lighted exit signs. If needed, oxygen masks will be released from overhead and may be
held in a plastic retainer. To start the flow of oxygen, reach up and remove the mask from
the retainer, pull the mask firmly toward you fully extending the plastic tubing. Place the
mask over your nose and mouth and slip the elastic band over your head. To tighten the
fit, pull the tab on each side of the mask. The plastic bag does not need to inflate when
oxygen is flowing. Be sure to secure your own mask before assisting others. A life vest is
located under your seat. To wear it, tear open the plastic package, remove the life vest,
and slip it over your head. Wrap the strap around your waist, snap the two ends together

92

Appendix B:
CONTINUED

and tighten. Inflate the vest by pulling down on one of the red tabs, saving the other
chamber as a back-up. The vest can be manually inflated by blowing into one of the red
tubes and is equipped with a water-activated locator light. It is important that you do not
inflate your life vest until after exiting the aircraft. As a reminder, smoking is not
permitted in any area of the aircraft, including the lavatories. Tampering with,
disabling, or destroying a lavatory smoke detector is prohibited.
On behalf of the captain and your entire crew, it is our pleasure to have you
aboard. We hope you enjoy your flight.
(Note: this portion and the rest of the scenario is read by the original narrator)
The announcement is over, and you hear a click in the speaker again. The plane
stops taxiing and its engines rev up in preparation for the takeoff.
(
♫
TONE
♫
, 30 seconds of silence to allow for the participant’s response,
♫
TONE
♫
)

SEGMENT 2
The sound of the plane’s engines quickly escalates and becomes very loud. You
feel a sudden jolt, and the plane quickly begins to accelerate down the runway. Through
the bottom of your seat you feel continuous bumps, shakes, and jolts, as the plane’s
wheels run over the uneven surface of the runway. The pressure is building up in your
ears and your hearing becomes muffled. The engines rev even louder, there’s a final jolt,
and the plane is finally airborne.
(
♫
TONE
♫
, 30 seconds of silence to allow for the participant’s response,
♫
TONE
♫
)

SEGMENT 3
The plane begins to level off. With a chime, “Buckle Your Seatbelt” signs are
turned off. The flight attendants begin serving refreshments in the front rows. Realizing
that you have some time until they’ll get to your row, you pull out a stack of colorful
readings stowed in the pocket of the seat in front of you. A chime sounds again and
“Buckle Your Seatbelt” signs turn on.
(
♫
TONE
♫
, 30 seconds of silence to allow for the participant’s response,
♫
TONE
♫

SEGMENT 4
All of a sudden, you feel as if the whole plane is bumped hard, the engines’ pitch
drops, and almost immediately the plane begins to plunge down. You are violently forced
against your seatbelt and the seat begins to shake.
(
♫
TONE
♫
, 30 seconds of silence to allow for the participant’s response,
♫
TONE
♫
)

93

Appendix B:
CONTINUED

SEGMENT 5
Clicks and loud static noises are heard from the overhead speakers and you feel
that the plane is sharply tilting to the left. Instead of the ceiling, the sun is now lighting
the floor of the cabin. You realize that the plane is undergoing large and abrupt changes
in altitude by climbing up for a short while and suddenly plunging down with mind-
boggling speed.
(
♫
TONE
♫
, 30 seconds of silence to allow for the participant’s response,
♫
TONE
♫
)

SEGMENT 6
As the plane continues to plunge, the engines begin to whine in a high pitch. The
fuselage now starts to shake pretty roughly. You grasp the armrests of your seat and find
yourself glancing at the left wing of the plane perfectly visible now through the closest
window. It is clearly evident that the wing is actually bending up and down as the
plane’s altitude changes.
(
♫
TONE
♫
, 30 seconds of silence to allow for the participant’s response,
♫
TONE
♫
)

SEGMENT 7
Full of clanking bottles, the beverage cart flies forward into the curtains of the
first class area. It seems that the entire cabin is now creaking, the walls, the seats,
everything. The continuous vibrations cause several of the overhead compartments to
suddenly burst open here and there, and assorted pieces of luggage rain down the middle
aisle.
(
♫
TONE
♫
, 30 seconds of silence to allow for the participant’s response,
♫
TONE
♫
)

SEGMENT 8
Shortly, the plane is level again, whatever it was, it probably didn’t last more
than a few minutes. The beverage cart is rolled back to the rear of the plane by a flight
attendant. A soft chime is heard through the overhead speakers again, and “Buckle Your
Seatbelt” signs are turned off. The rest of the flight goes pretty uneventful, and soon
you’re cleared for landing. The wheels touch down and after a quick run, the plane
slows down and taxies to the terminal.
(
♫
TONE
♫
, 30 seconds of silence to allow for the participant’s response,
♫
TONE
♫
)

94

Appendix B:
CONTINUED

ATSS Scenario #3
Flight with an enhanced safety announcement (FESA)

SEGMENT 1
You just boarded the plane and settled into your seat. The crew has closed the
door shut and all of the baggage is stowed into the overhead compartments. The plane
slowly begins to taxi, and the flight attendants line up in the middle row for their pre-
flight announcement. You hear a click in the speakers above and the announcement
comes:
(Note: the announcement itself is read in a different female’s voice)
Welcome aboard Our Airlines! In preparation for departure, be certain that your
seatback is straight up, your headrest is lowered, and your tray table is stowed. Make
sure that your carry-on items are placed completely under the seat in front of you.
Portable telephones are not approved for use in-flight. However, you may use certain
other electronic devices when advised by your crew. Please direct your attention to the
flight attendants in the cabin. For everyone’s safety, regulations require your
compliance with all lighted signs, placards, and crewmember instructions. Fasten your
seatbelt by placing the metal fitting into the buckle, and adjust the strap so it fits low and
tight around your hips. To release, lift the faceplate of the buckle.
Please review the Safety Instructions card in the seat pocket in front of you. It
explains the safety features of this aircraft, as well as the location and operation of the
exits and flotation devices. Your seat cushion serves as an approved flotation device. To
remove it, pull up and take it with you to the nearest usable exit. After exiting the
aircraft, place your arms through the straps and then hug the cushion to your chest.
There are: two door exits in the front of the aircraft, two window exits over the wings,
and two door exits in the rear of the aircraft. Once again, there are: two door exits in the
front of the aircraft, two window exits over the wings, and two door exits in the rear of
the aircraft. Take a moment to locate the exit nearest you, keeping in mind that the
closest usable exit may be located behind you. If there is a loss of this aircraft’s
electrical power, low-level emergency lights will illuminate. All exits are indicated by
lighted exit signs. If needed, oxygen masks will be released from overhead and may be
held in a plastic retainer. To start the flow of oxygen, reach up and remove the mask from
the retainer, pull the mask firmly toward you fully extending the plastic tubing. Place the
mask over your nose and mouth and slip the elastic band over your head. To tighten the
fit, pull the tab on each side of the mask. The plastic bag does not need to inflate when
oxygen is flowing. Be sure to secure your own mask before assisting others. A life vest is
located under your seat. To wear it, tear open the plastic package, remove the life vest,
and slip it over your head. Wrap the strap around your waist, snap the two ends together
and tighten. Inflate the vest by pulling down on one of the red tabs, saving the other
95

Appendix B:
CONTINUED

chamber as a back-up. The vest can be manually inflated by blowing into one of the red
tubes and is equipped with a water-activated locator light. It is important that you do not
inflate your life vest until after exiting the aircraft. As a reminder, smoking is not
permitted in any area of the aircraft, including the lavatories. Tampering with,
disabling, or destroying a lavatory smoke detector is prohibited.
And now please listen to this special message from the captain.
Please keep in mind that our aircraft is built to withstand severe weather
conditions, including turbulence. Throughout the duration of the flight, you will hear the
pitch and the tone of the plane’s engines change seemingly unexpectedly. Rest assured
that what you’ll hear is a normal operational response during such occasional
maneuvers as gaining altitude, turning, slowing down, and so forth. We’d like to remind
you that turbulence is air movement that normally cannot be seen and often occurs
unexpectedly. It can be created by many different conditions, including atmospheric
pressure, jet streams, air around mountains, cold or warm weather fronts or
thunderstorms. Turbulence can even occur when the sky appears to be clear. While
turbulence is normal and happens often, its bumpy ride can cause passengers who are
not wearing their seatbelts to be thrown from their seats without warning, so please wear
your seatbelt. To better understand the structural strength of our plane, please look at
the last page of the safety instructions card we mentioned earlier. Among other safety
facts there, you can see that our plane’s wings are designed to flex quite a bit in response
to the atmospheric conditions, which is absolutely normal. Just remember that weather
service planes routinely fly right into the centers of storms. Again, while our plane is
designed to withstand severe weather just fine, we don’t want the turbulence to catch you
by surprise. Safely buckled in, you’ll come through with flying colors.
On behalf of the captain and your entire crew, it is our pleasure to have you
aboard. We hope you enjoy your flight.
(Note: this portion and the rest of the scenario is read by the original narrator)
The announcement is over, and you hear a click in the speaker again. The plane
stops taxiing and its engines rev up in preparation for the takeoff.
(
♫
TONE
♫
, 30 seconds of silence to allow for the participant’s response,
♫
TONE
♫
)

SEGMENT 2
The sound of the plane’s engines quickly escalates and becomes very loud. You
feel a sudden jolt, and the plane quickly begins to accelerate down the runway. Through
the bottom of your seat you feel continuous bumps, shakes, and jolts, as the plane’s
wheels run over the uneven surface of the runway. The pressure is building up in your
ears and your hearing becomes muffled. The engines rev even louder, there’s a final jolt,
and the plane is finally airborne.
(
♫
TONE
♫
, 30 seconds of silence to allow for the participant’s response,
♫
TONE
♫
)
96

Appendix B:
CONTINUED

SEGMENT 3
The plane begins to level off. With a chime, “Buckle Your Seatbelt” signs are
turned off. The flight attendants begin serving refreshments in the front rows. Realizing
that you have some time until they’ll get to your row, you pull out a stack of colorful
readings stowed in the pocket of the seat in front of you. A chime sounds again and
“Buckle Your Seatbelt” signs turn on.
(
♫
TONE
♫
, 30 seconds of silence to allow for the participant’s response,
♫
TONE
♫

SEGMENT 4
In the stack of readings you find a brochure of in-flight movies available for you
to watch and you now begin scanning through the titles. You don’t even notice when a
flight attendant asks what you would like to drink.
(
♫
TONE
♫
, 30 seconds of silence to allow for the participant’s response,
♫
TONE
♫
)

SEGMENT 5
You browse through the available in-flight movie listings. However, you soon
realize that you’ve seen most of the films. You look back at the magazines from the seat
pocket, and they seem recent enough. So you decide to continue browsing through them
instead. Clicks and some static are heard from the overhead speakers. The plane is
maintaining the altitude, speed, and the ride is smooth.
(
♫
TONE
♫
, 30 seconds of silence to allow for the participant’s response,
♫
TONE
♫
)

SEGMENT 6
Somewhere behind the soundproof walls of the fuselage the plane’s engines hum
monotonously. Wanting to stretch, you recline your seat and sit back. You lay your arms
on the armrests of your seat, and find yourself glancing at the left wing of the plane
perfectly visible now through the closest window. The wing’s perfectly aerodynamic
shape is lazily glistening in the rays of the morning sun.
(
♫
TONE
♫
, 30 seconds of silence to allow for the participant’s response,
♫
TONE
♫
)

SEGMENT 7
The plane is seemingly making a slight turn, and you feel its gentle, barely
noticeable change of direction to the left. A short while later, one of the flight attendants
walks through the isle collecting empty cups. Full of clanking bottles, the beverage cart
is rolled back up front, toward the curtains of the first class area.
(
♫
TONE
♫
, 30 seconds of silence to allow for the participant’s response,
♫
TONE
♫
)
97

Appendix B:
CONTINUED

SEGMENT 8
Shortly, the plane is level again, whatever it was, it probably didn’t last more
than a few minutes. The beverage cart is rolled back to the rear of the plane by a flight
attendant. A soft chime is heard through the overhead speakers again, and “Buckle Your
Seatbelt” signs are turned off. The rest of the flight goes pretty uneventful, and soon
you’re cleared for landing. The wheels touch down and after a quick run, the plane
slows down and taxies to the terminal.
(
♫
TONE
♫
, 30 seconds of silence to allow for the participant’s response,
♫
TONE
♫
)

ATSS Scenario #4
Flight with an enhanced safety announcement, experiencing turbulence (FESA+T)

SEGMENT 1
You just boarded the plane and settled into your seat. The crew has closed the
door shut and all of the baggage is stowed into the overhead compartments. The plane
slowly begins to taxi, and the flight attendants line up in the middle row for their pre-
flight announcement. You hear a click in the speakers above and the announcement
comes:
(Note: the announcement itself is read in a different female’s voice)
Welcome aboard Our Airlines! In preparation for departure, be certain that your
seatback is straight up, your headrest is lowered, and your tray table is stowed. Make
sure that your carry-on items are placed completely under the seat in front of you.
Portable telephones are not approved for use in-flight. However, you may use certain
other electronic devices when advised by your crew. Please direct your attention to the
flight attendants in the cabin. For everyone’s safety, regulations require your
compliance with all lighted signs, placards, and crewmember instructions. Fasten your
seatbelt by placing the metal fitting into the buckle, and adjust the strap so it fits low and
tight around your hips. To release, lift the faceplate of the buckle.
Please review the Safety Instructions card in the seat pocket in front of you. It
explains the safety features of this aircraft, as well as the location and operation of the
exits and flotation devices. Your seat cushion serves as an approved flotation device. To
remove it, pull up and take it with you to the nearest usable exit. After exiting the
aircraft, place your arms through the straps and then hug the cushion to your chest.
There are: two door exits in the front of the aircraft, two window exits over the wings,

98

Appendix B:
CONTINUED

and two door exits in the rear of the aircraft. Once again, there are: two door exits in the
front of the aircraft, two window exits over the wings, and two door exits in the rear of
the aircraft. Take a moment to locate the exit nearest you, keeping in mind that the
closest usable exit may be located behind you. If there is a loss of this aircraft’s
electrical power, low-level emergency lights will illuminate. All exits are indicated by
lighted exit signs. If needed, oxygen masks will be released from overhead and may be
held in a plastic retainer. To start the flow of oxygen, reach up and remove the mask from
the retainer, pull the mask firmly toward you fully extending the plastic tubing. Place the
mask over your nose and mouth and slip the elastic band over your head. To tighten the
fit, pull the tab on each side of the mask. The plastic bag does not need to inflate when
oxygen is flowing. Be sure to secure your own mask before assisting others. A life vest is
located under your seat. To wear it, tear open the plastic package, remove the life vest,
and slip it over your head. Wrap the strap around your waist, snap the two ends together
and tighten. Inflate the vest by pulling down on one of the red tabs, saving the other
chamber as a back-up. The vest can be manually inflated by blowing into one of the red
tubes and is equipped with a water-activated locator light. It is important that you do not
inflate your life vest until after exiting the aircraft. As a reminder, smoking is not
permitted in any area of the aircraft, including the lavatories. Tampering with,
disabling, or destroying a lavatory smoke detector is prohibited.
And now please listen to this special message from the captain.
Please keep in mind that our aircraft is built to withstand severe weather
conditions, including turbulence. Throughout the duration of the flight, you will hear the
pitch and the tone of the plane’s engines change seemingly unexpectedly. Rest assured
that what you’ll hear is a normal operational response during such occasional
maneuvers as gaining altitude, turning, slowing down, and so forth. We’d like to remind
you that turbulence is air movement that normally cannot be seen and often occurs
unexpectedly. It can be created by many different conditions, including atmospheric
pressure, jet streams, air around mountains, cold or warm weather fronts or
thunderstorms. Turbulence can even occur when the sky appears to be clear. While
turbulence is normal and happens often, its bumpy ride can cause passengers who are
not wearing their seatbelts to be thrown from their seats without warning, so please wear
your seatbelt. To better understand the structural strength of our plane, please look at
the last page of the safety instructions card we mentioned earlier. Among other safety
facts there, you can see that our plane’s wings are designed to flex quite a bit in response
to the atmospheric conditions, which is absolutely normal. Just remember that weather
service planes routinely fly right into the centers of storms. Again, while our plane is
designed to withstand severe weather just fine, we don’t want the turbulence to catch you
by surprise. Safely buckled in, you’ll come through with flying colors.
On behalf of the captain and your entire crew, it is our pleasure to have you
aboard. We hope you enjoy your flight.
99

Appendix B:
CONTINUED

(Note: this portion and the rest of the scenario is read by the original narrator)
The announcement is over, and you hear a click in the speaker again. The plane
stops taxiing and its engines rev up in preparation for the takeoff.
(
♫
TONE
♫
, 30 seconds of silence to allow for the participant’s response,
♫
TONE
♫
)

SEGMENT 2
The sound of the plane’s engines quickly escalates and becomes very loud. You
feel a sudden jolt, and the plane quickly begins to accelerate down the runway. Through
the bottom of your seat you feel continuous bumps, shakes, and jolts, as the plane’s
wheels run over the uneven surface of the runway. The pressure is building up in your
ears and your hearing becomes muffled. The engines rev even louder, there’s a final jolt,
and the plane is finally airborne.
(
♫
TONE
♫
, 30 seconds of silence to allow for the participant’s response,
♫
TONE
♫
)

SEGMENT 3
The plane begins to level off. With a chime, “Buckle Your Seatbelt” signs are
turned off. The flight attendants begin serving refreshments in the front rows. Realizing
that you have some time until they’ll get to your row, you pull out a stack of colorful
readings stowed in the pocket of the seat in front of you. A chime sounds again and
“Buckle Your Seatbelt” signs turn on.
(
♫
TONE
♫
, 30 seconds of silence to allow for the participant’s response,
♫
TONE
♫

SEGMENT 4
All of a sudden, you feel as if the whole plane is bumped hard, the engines’ pitch
drops, and almost immediately the plane begins to plunge down. You are violently forced
against your seatbelt and the seat begins to shake.
(
♫
TONE
♫
, 30 seconds of silence to allow for the participant’s response,
♫
TONE
♫
)

SEGMENT 5
Clicks and loud static noises are heard from the overhead speakers and you feel
that the plane is sharply tilting to the left. Instead of the ceiling, the sun is now lighting
the floor of the cabin. You realize that the plane is undergoing large and abrupt changes
in altitude by climbing up for a short while and suddenly plunging down with mind-
boggling speed.
(
♫
TONE
♫
, 30 seconds of silence to allow for the participant’s response,
♫
TONE
♫
)
100

Appendix B:
CONTINUED

SEGMENT 6
As the plane continues to plunge, the engines begin to whine in a high pitch. The
fuselage now starts to shake pretty roughly. You grasp the armrests of your seat and find
yourself glancing at the left wing of the plane perfectly visible now through the closest
window. It is clearly evident that the wing is actually bending up and down as the
plane’s altitude changes.
(
♫
TONE
♫
, 30 seconds of silence to allow for the participant’s response,
♫
TONE
♫
)

SEGMENT 7
Full of clanking bottles, the beverage cart flies forward into the curtains of the
first class area. It seems that the entire cabin is now creaking, the walls, the seats,
everything. The continuous vibrations cause several of the overhead compartments to
suddenly burst open here and there, and assorted pieces of luggage rain down the middle
aisle.
(
♫
TONE
♫
, 30 seconds of silence to allow for the participant’s response,
♫
TONE
♫
)

SEGMENT 8
Shortly, the plane is level again, whatever it was, it probably didn’t last more
than a few minutes. The beverage cart is rolled back to the rear of the plane by a flight
attendant. A soft chime is heard through the overhead speakers again, and “Buckle Your
Seatbelt” signs are turned off. The rest of the flight goes pretty uneventful, and soon
you’re cleared for landing. The wheels touch down and after a quick run, the plane
slows down and taxies to the terminal.
(
♫
TONE
♫
, 30 seconds of silence to allow for the participant’s response,
♫
TONE
♫
)

101

Appendix C:
DEMOGRAPHICS BACKGROUND QUESTIONNAIRE

1) Age: _____ yrs.

2) Sex: _____ F _____ M

3) Year in USC: _____ First Year
_____ Sophomore
_____ Junior
_____ Senior
_____ Graduate Student

4) Your ethnicity (please check only one choice that you feel is the most appropriate to you
or use “other” to elaborate):
_____ Asian
_____ Black
_____ Hispanic
_____ Indian
_____ Middle-Eastern
_____ White
_____ Other (please describe):________________________________

5) Is English your native language?

Yes ______
No ______ What is your native language?:_____________________________

6) What is the primary language used in your home? _______________________________

7) Do you consider yourself competent in speaking, reading, and writing in English?

Yes ______
No ______

102

Appendix D:
TRAVEL HISTORY SURVEY

1. Have you ever flown on a commercial airliner?
Please check one: Yes No

2. To the best of your recollection, how many one-way flights (i.e., a flight to a
destination and back would count as “2”) have you taken over your lifetime?
Write your response here: ________

3. To the best of your recollection, when was the last time that you took a flight?
Write your response here: ________

103

Appendix E:
QUESTIONNAIRE ON ATTITUDES TOWARD FLYING

1. Please circle the number on the scale below, which you feel best reflects your
feelings about flying at this time.
NO FEAR --0-----1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7-----8-----9-----10-- EXTREME FEAR

2. Please imagine that you are in each of the following situations and are not flying with
anyone you know. For each situation, circle the number on the scale which you feel
would best reflect your feelings in that situation. (You are flying to Miami for a holiday,
and are returning in a week's time).

- Thinking about the plane trip which you are scheduled to take in two weeks.
NO FEAR --0-----1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7-----8-----9-----10-- EXTREME FEAR

- Ordering tickets and planning flight details.
NO FEAR --0-----1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7-----8-----9-----10-- EXTREME FEAR

- At home packing and preparing on the day of the flight.
NO FEAR --0-----1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7-----8-----9-----10-- EXTREME FEAR

- Driving to the airport.
NO FEAR --0-----1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7-----8-----9-----10-- EXTREME FEAR

- Arriving at the airport.
NO FEAR --0-----1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7-----8-----9-----10-- EXTREME FEAR

- Checking in your baggage at the ticket counter.
NO FEAR --0-----1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7-----8-----9-----10-- EXTREME FEAR

- In the passenger lounge waiting for your flight number to be called.
NO FEAR --0-----1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7-----8-----9-----10-- EXTREME FEAR

- Saying goodbye just prior to entering the “passengers only” area.
NO FEAR --0-----1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7-----8-----9-----10-- EXTREME FEAR

- Boarding the plane.
NO FEAR --0-----1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7-----8-----9-----10-- EXTREME FEAR

- Getting seated.
NO FEAR --0-----1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7-----8-----9-----10-- EXTREME FEAR
104

Appendix E:
CONTINUED

- The cabin staff shut all the doors.
NO FEAR --0-----1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7-----8-----9-----10-- EXTREME FEAR

- The engines start.
NO FEAR --0-----1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7-----8-----9-----10-- EXTREME FEAR

- The safety instructions are given by a flight attendant.
NO FEAR --0-----1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7-----8-----9-----10-- EXTREME FEAR

- The signs saying "no smoking and fasten your seat belts" go on.
NO FEAR --0-----1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7-----8-----9-----10-- EXTREME FEAR

- The plane taxis to the runway.
NO FEAR --0-----1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7-----8-----9-----10-- EXTREME FEAR

- The plane is cleared for take-off and you feel the sudden surge and thrust as the plane
moves quickly down the runway.
NO FEAR --0-----1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7-----8-----9-----10-- EXTREME FEAR

- You feel the plane lift off the ground.
NO FEAR --0-----1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7-----8-----9-----10-- EXTREME FEAR

- The plane begins to turn sharply as it climbs.
NO FEAR --0-----1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7-----8-----9-----10-- EXTREME FEAR

- The plane is climbing to cruising altitude.
NO FEAR --0-----1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7-----8-----9-----10-- EXTREME FEAR

- You are informed by the signs that you can undo your seatbelt.
NO FEAR --0-----1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7-----8-----9-----10-- EXTREME FEAR

- The plane is flying along in clear, calm weather.
NO FEAR --0-----1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7-----8-----9-----10-- EXTREME FEAR

- The noise of the engine suddenly increases.
NO FEAR --0-----1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7-----8-----9-----10-- EXTREME FEAR

- The food trolley is by your seat and completely takes up all the aisle space next to your
seat blocking you in.
NO FEAR --0-----1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7-----8-----9-----10-- EXTREME FEAR
105

Appendix E:
CONTINUED

- You look out of the window and can see a small town, miles and miles below you.
NO FEAR --0-----1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7-----8-----9-----10-- EXTREME FEAR

- The plane is flying through heavy clouds.
NO FEAR --0-----1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7-----8-----9-----10-- EXTREME FEAR

- The plane hits an air pocket, is rocked around and drops suddenly before recovering.
NO FEAR --0-----1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7-----8-----9-----10-- EXTREME FEAR

- An announcement on the PA tells you to fasten your seat belts.
NO FEAR --0-----1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7-----8-----9-----10-- EXTREME FEAR

- You are flying at night, and it is impossible to see anything through the windows, which
are pitch-black.
NO FEAR --0-----1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7-----8-----9-----10-- EXTREME FEAR

- The plane is flying through a turbulent area, and you are jolted and swayed in your seat.
NO FEAR --0-----1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7-----8-----9-----10-- EXTREME FEAR

- The plane is descending at your destination.
NO FEAR --0-----1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7-----8-----9-----10-- EXTREME FEAR

- You feel the jolt of the undercarriage as the wheels drop into position for landing.
NO FEAR --0-----1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7-----8-----9-----10-- EXTREME FEAR

- The wheels touch down and almost immediately the engines roar into reverse thrust,
slowing the plane noticeably.
NO FEAR --0-----1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7-----8-----9-----10-- EXTREME FEAR

- The plane is taxiing back to the terminal.
NO FEAR --0-----1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7-----8-----9-----10-- EXTREME FEAR

- You are getting out of the plane.
NO FEAR --0-----1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7-----8-----9-----10-- EXTREME FEAR

- You pick up your baggage inside the air terminal.
NO FEAR --0-----1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7-----8-----9-----10-- EXTREME FEAR

- You are leaving the airport.
NO FEAR --0-----1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7-----8-----9-----10-- EXTREME FEAR
106

Appendix F:
AIR TRAVEL SURVEY

Experimenter reads verbatim: During this portion of the study, we’d like to ask you to
share what you may know of things related to air travel. This will be done in a brief
interview format where I’ll ask you one question at a time and write down your
responses. OK. Let’s begin.

General/practice question:
Please tell us what mode of travel (for instance, car, airplane, train, and so forth) do you
like the most and why?
(Write down participant’s responses verbatim in the space provided)

Air travel general:
Please tell us what do you think of traveling by commercial airlines? For instance, you
can tell us how you feel about it, what first comes to mind when you think about traveling
by air, or anything else you’d like to say about traveling by commercial airlines.
(Write down participant’s responses verbatim in the space provided)

General safety:
Now, if you can, please try to remember what flight attendants normally say when they
make their pre-flight safety announcement to the passengers.
(Write down participant’s responses verbatim in the space provided)

Turbulence:
Please tell us what you know about air turbulence.
(Write down participant’s responses verbatim in the space provided)

Airplane structural safety:
Please tell us what know (if anything) of the structural capabilities of commercial
airplanes.
(Write down participant’s responses verbatim in the space provided)

Concluding instructions: The questionnaire is now over. Thank you for your responses!
Let’s move on to the next portion of the study.

107

Appendix G:
STAI-S

A number of statements which people have used to describe themselves are given
below. Read each statement and then circle the appropriate number to indicate how you
feel right now, that is, at the moment. There are no right or wrong answers. Do not
spend too much time on any one statement but give answer that seems to describe your
present feelings best.

Not at all Somewhat
Moderately
So
Very much
So
1. I feel calm ------1---------------2---------------3----------------4-----
2. I feel secure ------1---------------2---------------3----------------4-----
3. I am tense ------1---------------2---------------3----------------4-----
4. I feel strained ------1---------------2---------------3----------------4-----
5. I feel at ease ------1---------------2---------------3----------------4-----
6. I feel upset ------1---------------2---------------3----------------4-----
7. I am presently worrying
over possible misfortunes
------1---------------2---------------3----------------4-----
8. I feel satisfied ------1---------------2---------------3----------------4-----
9. I feel frightened ------1---------------2---------------3----------------4-----
10. I feel comfortable ------1---------------2---------------3----------------4-----
11. I feel self confident ------1---------------2---------------3----------------4-----
12. I feel nervous ------1---------------2---------------3----------------4-----
13. I am jittery ------1---------------2---------------3----------------4-----
14. I feel indecisive ------1---------------2---------------3----------------4-----
15. I am relaxed ------1---------------2---------------3----------------4-----
16. I feel content ------1---------------2---------------3----------------4-----
17. I am worried ------1---------------2---------------3----------------4-----
18. I feel confused ------1---------------2---------------3----------------4-----
19. I feel steady ------1---------------2---------------3----------------4-----
20. I feel pleasant ------1---------------2---------------3----------------4-----
108

Appendix H:
PERCEIVED SATISFACTION WITH THE FLIGHT

If this was a real flight that you had just taken, on the scale from 0 (not at all) to
100 (absolutely satisfied) please tell us how satisfied would you be with this particular air
travel experience?

Not at all Somewhat Absolutely
Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied

---0------10------20------30------40------50------60------70------80------90------100---

109

Appendix I:
INTENTION TO FLY AGAIN

If this was a real flight that you had just taken, on the scale from 0 (not at all) to
100 (absolutely willing) please tell us how strong is your intention to fly again, at this
point?

Not at all Somewhat Absolutely
Willing Willing Willing

---0------10------20------30------40------50------60------70------80------90------100---

110

Appendix J:
MANIPULATION CHECK

Perceived realism scale:
On the scale from 0 (not at all realistic) to 100 (extremely realistic), how realistic
was this imagined situation?

Not at all Moderately Extremely
Realistic Realistic Realistic

---0------10------20------30------40------50------60------70------80------90------100---

Perceived similarity scale:
On the scale from 0 (not at all similar) to 100 (extremely similar), with regards to
the thoughts you verbalized in this imagined situation, how similar were they to the
thoughts you would have had in a similar situation in real life?

Not at all Moderately Extremely
Similar Similar Similar

---0------10------20------30------40------50------60------70------80------90------100---

111

Appendix J:
CONTINUED

Perceived situation scale:
On the scale from 0 (not at all) to 100 (extremely), how much did you feel like
this imaginary situation was really happening to you at that moment?

Not at all Moderately Extremely

---0------10------20------30------40------50------60------70------80------90------100---

112

Appendix K:
DEBRIEFING SCRIPT

Experimenter will read the bold text verbatim:

“The experiment is now over. I would like to ask you a few questions about your
experience in this study.”
1. “Overall, what was the experience like for you?”
Write down the reply:_____________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________

2. “Did you feel any strong emotions during the experiment?”
Write down the emotions:__________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________

3. “Thinking back to the beginning of the flight, tell me everything you can recall
from the pre-flight announcement that you heard”
Write down the reply:_____________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________

“The purpose of this study was to assess whether the type of the information presented
in the pre-flight announcement influences air travelers’ perception of their flight, and
their decisions to fly again in the future. At this point, I would like to remind you that
the situation you’ve experienced during this study was fictitious and that you were
under no threat of harm at any time. It is part of the procedure here to inform you of
the free on-campus counseling. If you would like to discuss your feelings about this
study with a counselor at the USC student counseling center, I can provide that phone

113

Appendix K:
CONTINUED

number for you. Are you interested in the USC student counseling center’s phone
number or any additional help referrals?”
If “Yes,” write down this number for the participant: (213) 740-7711 and give them the
referral sheet below.

“Finally, please refrain from telling about the study to the students who you know
may participate in this study. Do you have any questions for me?”
If “Yes,” answer participant’s questions, otherwise: “Thank you for your
participation.”

114

Appendix L:
REFERRAL SHEET

Crisis & Counseling Resources

Below are three mental health/crisis resources in the local area. We provide this
sheet to all people participating in our research. We encourage you to make use of these
resources.

Suicide Prevention Center
available 24 hours/7 days a week
(310) 391-1253

The University of Southern California Student Counseling Center
University Park Campus
857 W. 36th Place (YWCA Building)
(213) 740-7711

The University of Southern California Psychology Services Center
University Park Campus
1002 Childs Way
(213) 740-1600

We ask you to please also notify the Principal Investigator, Marat V. Zanov via email at
zanov@usc.edu or by phone at (213) 740-2280 of your intent to use any of the above
services due to your participation in our study. This information will help us be aware of
any potential side effects that may be addressed with future participants of our study.

115

Appendix M:
ATSS INSTRUCTIONS

“In this study, we are interested in the things people say to themselves when they are
confronted with different situations. Often, when people are going about their daily
affairs, interacting with others and so forth, they have a kind of internal monologue going
through their heads, a constant stream of thoughts or feelings which reflect their
reactions to something that is happening.

What we’d like you to do is play a part in a situation we have recorded. Your task
will involve paying attention to this situation, imagining yourself in it, tuning into what is
running through your mind, and then, when we’ll signal you to do so—to say your
thoughts out loud. The signal to say your thoughts out loud will be a tone like this
(
♫
TONE
♫
). You’ll have about half a minute to articulate your thoughts and say
everything that is going through your mind at that time. Say as much as you can until
you hear the tone again (
♫
TONE
♫
). At that point please stop talking and listen to the
next segment that continues to describe this situation. When that segment plays itself out,
again there will be a tone—your signal to think out loud, and then another tone to stop
talking and to attend to the next segment.

Say as much as you can of what is going through your mind in reaction to what had
just been presented to you. Of course, there are no right or wrong answers, so please
just say whatever comes to mind, whether it seems appropriate or not. The more you say
out loud the better.

Try to imagine as clearly as you can that it is really you in the situation RIGHT
NOW. Please do not speak to the individual on the tape, as though you were having a
conversation with them. Rather, you should tune into your own thoughts and say out
loud everything that is going through your mind at that moment.

OK, let’s practice a bit. Please listen to the following situation and when you hear a
tone, please say out loud everything that is going through your mind.

Remember, everything you say will be ABSOLUTELY CONFIDENTIAL AND IN NO
WAY WILL BE ASSOCIATED WITH YOU OR YOUR IDENTITY.”

116

Appendix N:
ATSS PRACTICE SCENARIO

Please get ready. Here’s what’s happening… (pause for 2 seconds)

SEGMENT 1:
It’s a weekend and you have the entire two days to yourself. You and your friend
went to the Old Town Pasadena for a day outing. As you’re walking down the busy
sidewalk, the two of you notice the coffee shop inside of the bookstore across the street.
You decide to cross the street, walk towards the pedestrian crosswalk and press the
button that controls the traffic light.
(
♫
TONE
♫
, 30 seconds of silence to allow for the participant’s response,
♫
TONE
♫
)

SEGMENT 2:
After an unexpectedly long wait the light finally changes to green and the two of
you proceed to cross the intersection in the company of other pedestrians. You see a
young woman with a boy of about 4 walking in front of you.. All of a sudden, the child
loses the grip of the ball he was bouncing and begins to chase after it into the moving
traffic.
(
♫
TONE
♫
, 30 seconds of silence to allow for the participant’s response,
♫
TONE
♫
)

SEGMENT 3:
Long before the boy even reached the moving traffic, the ball is deflected by the
wheels of one of the cars and gently bounces back into the child’s hands. With a happy
smile the boy runs to his mother who didn’t even notice what happened.
(
♫
TONE
♫
, 30 seconds of silence to allow for the participant’s response,
♫
TONE
♫
)

The practice is now over. Please note that the actual situation in which you will
participate shortly will involve you taking a flight on a commercial airliner. This
scenario is about to begin. But before moving on, do you understand your task? Please
ask the experimenter if you need any additional clarifications.

117

Appendix O:
CODING MANUALS FOR THE ATSS CODES

ANX-I
(Incidence of verbalizations consistent with Anxiety, Fear, or Apprehension)

Verbalizations in this category will clearly indicate that our participant was
scared/intimidated/spooked by the situation. This code, unlike all others we’ve worked
on requires you to listen to the actual audio so you can hear the indications of anxiety in
participants’ voice subtleties. ANX-I verbalizations will resemble some of these:

This is very scary
I feel panicky
This stresses me out.
This feels like an anxiety-evoking situation.
I want to get out of here before the situation will get worse.
What if this gets worse?
I feel like I'm about to die.
Being here is really freaking me out.
It’s too dangerous for me to sit in this plane.
I hope I will come out of this alive.
I feel really uneasy about this.
I'm scared right now.
This couldn’t be good
I would be freaking out
That would scare the heck out of me
I’d probably be pretty panicked
I feel really nauseous
I feel my heart kinda go in my stomach
Just do not let the plane crash
I am a little nervous
I don’t wanna die
I’m somewhat scared
Because I’m feeling claustrophobic I’m nauseous
I’m screaming
Holy shit I’m just terrified
I am kinda stressing out here
I’m usually calm when I fly but now I am nervous.
I will definitely get panicked a little bit
Something isn’t right: planes don’t do this
I have a little bit of anxiety because of the plane’s shaking
It’s a kind of a panicky situation
118

Appendix O:
CONTINUED

I’d be really terrified
I’m getting even more scared
This is kind of scary
I’m feeling really upset
I am kinda overwhelmed
My heart is beating (said in the context of describing their reaction to what they are
experiencing during the flight, not just statement of the fact as it “My heart is beating,
I am breathing, the sun is shining, etc”)
My breathing gets harder (said in the context of describing their reaction to what they
are experiencing during the flight)
I feel very confused, there must be something wrong (said in the context of describing
their reaction to what they are experiencing during the flight)
I felt butterflies in my stomach when we hit the turbulence.
It's making me worried that the aircraft is losing altitude.
I'm scared that we’ll continue to fall.
I should not be here because this is getting too stressful.
This situation makes me feel (insert a word from the column below)
Frightened
Insecure
Jittery
Nervous
Not at ease
Strained
Tense
Uncomfortable
Unpleasant
Unsteady
Upset
Worried
…etc

! False code caution:
Note that “I am gonna die” is not ANX-I but instead better fits the Negative
Outcome Expectancy (NOE) because they are sort of predicting what’s going to happen
to them. However, “I don’t want to die” fits the ANX-I very well because they are
obviously anxious about the prospect of death. Also, “I feel like I am about to die” fits
ANX-I as well because the very word “feel” implies one’s emotions/affect, which in
conjuction with their anticipation of death would suggest anxiety. Do you see how?

119

Appendix O:
CONTINUED

Another note has to do with utterances like “I’m scared that somebody takes my
baggage” which are not ANX-I because the participant is concerned with losing their
luggage (or some other travel-related inconveniences) and not with the actual flight
experience (i.e., bumpiness, turbulence, danger, lack of understanding of what’s going
on, etc.).

ANX-M
(Molar ratings of a given segment in terms of conveyed Anxiety, Fear, or
Apprehension)

First, we’re examining every segment again (not just #8). Second, unlike the
codes you’ve worked with before, this code will involve a scale. So, instead of just
determining whether the participant shared their anxiety with us, we’d want to assign
the degree of anxiety in their verbalizations. That is, in a particular segment did they
express absolutely no anxiety, low, mild, or extreme anxiety? It may be helpful to think
of it along the following scale:

No Anxiety Low Anxiety Mild Anxiety Extreme Anxiety
------0------------------1------------------2-----------------3------
No Anxiety Low Anxiety Mild Anxiety Extreme Anxiety

A VERY IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION: Since it is possible that there can be several
utterances per segment that can be sort of conflicting in terms of the degree of anxiety
each of them conveys, please follow this rule: after detecting however many of the
anxiety-relevant utterances in each segment, please read that segment aloud and listen to
the audio of it. Then, taking into consideration the participant’s tone (from their audio)
and all of the anxious utterances they verbalized per that segment, make a
determination of how anxious that particular segment sounds to you. Again, you’ll
assign the degree of anxiousness to the ENTIRE segment. So it is possible that the
segment may contain Low and Mild Anxiety verbalizations, but upon examining it as a
whole and listening to the audio, you’ll make a determination that the entire segment
120

Appendix O:
CONTINUED

actually deserves “Mild” (or “2”) rating. Of course, it is also possible that various
segments of the same participant’s transcript will differ in their degree of anxiety. For
instance, Segment 1 may be rated as “0,” Segment 2 as “3,” Segment 3 as “1,” etc.

NOTE ON RESOLVING INCONSISTENCIES IN A SEGMENT: Our intention here is
to examine the entire segment, which means not disregarding any parts of it due to an
overwhelming majority of others. That is, if there's one utterance that is consistent with a
rating of 3 (extreme anxiety) but there are several others that are consistent with "1" (low
anxiety) then if possible the median rating should be assigned to the entire segment. This
way the rating of 3 is being accounted for along with all of the ratings of 1 (merely
assigning 1 to the entire segment disregards the presence of the utterance that was
consistent with the rating of 3). If the situation was such that there was only one of "2"
and several "1"s then the median rating is not possible (which is fine because the
distinction between 1 and 2 is much more subtle than one between 1 and 3), and thus the
rating of "1" (the prevailing type of statements) can be assigned to the entire segment.

Here are the guidelines for making your degree of
anxiety determination:

! False code caution:
Note that “I am gonna die” is not ANX-M but instead better fits the Negative
Outcome Expectancy (NOE) because they are sort of predicting of what’s going to
happen to them. However, “I don’t want to die” fits the ANX-M very well. Do you see
how?
“I’m scared that somebody takes my baggage” is not ANX-M because the
participant is concerned with losing their luggage and not with the actual flight
experience (i.e., bumpiness, turbulence, lack of understanding of what’s going on, etc.).

121

Appendix O:
CONTINUED

“0” – No Anxiety

Verbalizations in this category will clearly indicate that our participant was NOT
scared/intimidated/spooked by the situation.

“1” – Low Anxiety

Verbalizations in this category will clearly indicate that our participant was only a
little scared/intimidated/spooked, etc by the situation. Basically, the participant is hinting
that they are marginally distressed by the situation, perhaps even unsure whether they are
scared/intimidated/spooked, etc by it. Some of the qualifying markers you should look
out for (though do not exclusively rely on them) include:

A little
Somewhat
Sort of
Slightly
Tiny bit
Kind of
…etc

The Low Anxiety verbalizations will resemble some of these:

What if this gets worse?
This feels like an anxiety-evoking situation.
This couldn’t be good
I’m somewhat scared
I am a little nervous
I am kinda stressing out here
This is kind of scary
I have a little bit of anxiety because of the plane’s shaking
It’s a kind of a panicky situation
Something isn’t right: planes don’t do this
I will definitely get panicked a little bit

122

Appendix O:
CONTINUED

My heart is beating (said in the context of describing their reaction to what they are
experiencing during the flight, not just statement of the fact as it “My heart is beating,
I am breathing, the sun is shinning, etc”)
I am kinda overwhelmed
My breathing gets harder (said in the context of describing their reaction to what they
are experiencing during the flight)
I felt butterflies in my stomach when we hit the turbulence.
This situation makes me feel a little/somewhat/kind of/, etc (insert a word from the
column below)
Frightened
Insecure
Jittery
Nervous
Not at ease
Strained
Tense
Unpleasant
Unsteady
Upset
Worried
…etc

“2” – Mild Anxiety

Verbalizations in this category will clearly indicate that our participant was
noticeably scared/intimidated/spooked, etc by the situation. Basically, if the participant
does not qualify their feelings with either markers of “somewhat/low” or “extreme/high”
anxiety, then we’ll code them as mild. Such verbalizations will resemble some of these:

I feel panicky
This stresses me out.
I want to get out of here before the situation will get worse.
I'm scared right now.
I would be freaking out
Because I’m feeling claustrophobic I’m nauseous
I’d probably be pretty panicked

123

Appendix O:
CONTINUED

I feel very confused, there must be something wrong (said in the context of describing
their reaction to what they are experiencing during the flight)
I'm scared that we’ll continue to fall.
I should not be here because this is getting too stressful.
It's making me worried that the aircraft is losing altitude.
I’m usually calm when I fly but now I am nervous.
I am very uncomfortable
I feel my heart kinda go in my stomach
This situation makes me feel (insert a word from the column below)
Frightened
Insecure
Jittery
Nervous
Not at ease
Strained
Tense
Unpleasant
Unsteady
Upset
Worried
…etc

“3” – Extreme Anxiety

Verbalizations in this category will clearly indicate that our participant was
extremely scared/intimidated/spooked, etc by the situation. Some of the qualifying
markers you should look out for (though do not exclusively rely on them) include:

Very
Really
A lot
Very much
Extremely
Terribly
Absolutely
…etc

124

Appendix O:
Continued

The Extreme Anxiety verbalizations will resemble some of these:

This is very scary
I feel like I'm about to die (one must be extremely scared if they’re foreseeing their
death)
Being here is really freaking me out.
It’s too dangerous for me to sit in this plane.
I hope I will come out of this alive (one must be extremely scared if they’re
contemplating possible death)
I feel really uneasy about this.
That would scare the heck out of me
I feel really nauseous
Just do not let the plane crash
I don’t wanna die
I’m screaming (obviously, one has to be very upset to scream)
Holy shit I’m just terrified
I’d be really terrified
I’m getting even more scared
I’m feeling really upset
This situation makes me feel very/extremely/utmost/absolutely, etc (insert a word from
the column below)
Frightened
Insecure
Jittery
Nervous
Strained
Tense
Unpleasant
Upset
Worried
…etc

125

Appendix O:
CONTINUED

GOD
(Appeals to God)

Verbalizations in this category will clearly indicate that our participant was
referring to God (or Gosh, etc) in the context of a prayer driven by anxiety/fear, basically
soliciting God’s help to get them through the dangerous situation (these should not be
indicative of positive excitement or relief that they ALREADY landed safely, see the False
Code Caution below). Such verbalizations may resemble some of these:

God, please let me survive this
God, I want to live
I’m praying to god that I don’t die
God told me he wants me to live longer
I’m thinking in my head dear god don’t let me die
I should pray for help
I am going to pray
I need to pray
I am praying
If there is an emergency I will just pray
Praying to God that everything will be okay
Please God guide the plane to safety
God please let me get home safe
Dear Lord please help me
Please God watch over us through this hard time
Please God I want to see my family again
God, please keep the plane in the air
God, please stop the turbulence
I'm gonna pray and hope the plane doesn't break apart
If this gets much worse, I'll start praying for God's help
Oh God, please calm my heart and help me endure whatever is going on.

! False code caution:
Expressions “God I love that part,” “Oh my God, this is so awesome!” or “Oh
God, this is a great flight!” would not count here because they are said as exclamations of
excitement, happiness, exhilaration, etc and not praying out of fear or out of relief that
one landed safely.
“Good god, whoever the pilot was should be fired” would not count because there
is apparently more anger than intent of a prayer here.

126

Appendix O:
CONTINUED

“Dear god, that safety instruction was really long” would not count because there
is apparently more discontent than intent of a prayer here.
“Oh my god this is really scary” is fear but not prayer, so don’t code it as GOD.
The following expressions are also not fitting codes because they are less of a
prayer but more of a relief, so don’t code them or similar ones as GOD:

I praise the Lord that we’re all safe and that nothing happene
Thank god we had another safe flight
Thank god we made it alive that
Thank God everything’s alright
Thank god that we made it ok
Thank god that is over with
Thank you Lord
Praise the Lord
Thank God

INF
(Need for explanation or discontent with the lack of explanation)

Verbalizations in this category will clearly indicate that our participant was
affected by what was going on in the scenario to such an extent that they needed to find
out what is happening. This is not just exclamations of the type “What’s that?” or
“What’s going on?” because these wouldn’t clearly indicate that they are seeking
explanation from the crew. Instead, the INF code covers those utterances that explicitly
refer to the need of additional information from the crew regarding what’s going on with
the plane as it’s flying or, alternatively, participant’s discontent with the fact that the crew
did not provide such explanation. Such verbalizations may resemble some of these:

I’m pissed that nobody explained what just happened
I want to find out from the attendants what’s going
I will ask somebody if they know what’s going on
Are you kidding! They didn’t make any announcement after all that hell we went
through
I’m gonna call the flight attendant to see what’s wrong
I’m waiting for the captain to tell us what is going on
I don’t understand why the pilot hasn’t come on and told us what’s going on
I wonder if they’re going to give me an explanation of what happened
127

Appendix O:
CONTINUED

I can’t believe they didn’t even explain to us what happened
I am trying to find a flight attendant to ask them what is going on
Why haven’t we had an announcement? (when discussing the rough flight)
I wonder what is going on (the need for explanation is implied here)
Why haven't we heard anything about what just happened?
I'm still waiting to hear what the flight attendent or captain has to say about this.
Why is the plane jolting and they haven't made any announcements about it?
I want to ask the flight attendant if everything is ok.
I wish I knew what that was about (after mentioning the flight was rough).
I don’t understand why they didn’t say anything (talking about the rough flight)
I am upset that nobody explained it (by “it” the participant is referring to the rough
ride)
I’m waiting for the people to make an announcement about it (when discussing the
rough flight)
I might call the airline and see why the plane was being like that (talking about the
rough flight)
That is really bizarre that the captain is not on the speaker phone letting us know what
is going on
I’m thinking that the flight attendants or someone should be coming on the intercom
some time soon and tell us what is going on
The pilot never said anything about what happened? He really never clarified what
was wrong with the plane if it was turbulence if it was plane or I don’t know why not

NOE
(Negative Outcome Expectancies)

Verbalizations in this category will clearly indicate that our participant anticipates
something bad to happen to them or to the plane they are flying in. In fact, they are
explicitly verbalizing their belief that the flight scenario will turn out negatively (thus
their expectancy of the negative outcome). While some participants consistently use
“would” as in “I would do such and such” or “I would say such and such,” please do not
confuse such consistent use of “would” throughout their transcript with them being
unsure as to whether things will turn out terrible or not. The cases where you clearly see
participant’s uncertainty about the scenario outcome should not be coded as NOE. For
instance, don’t code the utterances where participant would say “I am not sure,” or

128

Appendix O:
CONTINUED

“Maybe” before talking about their outcome expectancy (see the False Code Caution
below). True NOE verbalizations may resemble some of these:

I am gonna die
I would think the plane is going to crash
The plane is about to blow up
This is the end
I would think that the plane was crashing
I probably won’t make it (said not as them being unsure, you can determine that
fairly well by reading their entire segment)
The plane is crashing
This is not going to be good
I think I’m going to die (said not as them being unsure, you can determine that fairly
well by reading their entire segment)
I’m only 25 years old and I’m already facing death on this fucking plane
I might actually not survive this (said not as them being unsure, you can determine
that fairly well by reading their entire segment)
I’d fall into the ocean and because I can’t swim, I’d be fucked (when they are
considering technical trouble with the plane)
Is this plane crashing? I’m pretty sure of it now. (this is a good example of a
compounded code. In other words, they are saying “I am pretty sure now that the
plane is crashing”)
I wonder if when this thing wrecks I’ll have a heart attack before the actual explosion.
(Here they are obviously considering the fact that the plane’ll crash).
What I’ve always thought of happening is actually happening now I’m going to have
to test my emergency skills and I think I’m not ready cause I barely remember safety
info (when responding to turbulence and apparently foreseeing the crash, you see
how this is the NOE code by them predicting that they are about to crash?)

! False code caution:
“Is the wing gonna break off?” or “I would probably be wondering if the wing
would just suddenly snap off” would indicate them being unsure of whether something
that is taking place is dangerous or not and may lead to a negative outcome. So it is not
NOE. Do you see how?

129

Appendix O:
CONTINUED

POE
(Positive Outcome Expectancies)

Basically, this code is the exact opposite of the code NOE. Verbalizations in this
category will clearly indicate that our participant does not anticipate anything bad to
happen to them or to the plane they are flying in. In fact, they are explicitly verbalizing
their belief that everything will turn out just fine (thus their expectancy of the positive
outcome). While some participants consistently use “would” as in “I would do such and
such” or “I would say such and such,” please do not confuse such consistent use of
“would” throughout their transcript with them being unsure as to whether things will turn
out allright or not. The cases where you clearly see participant’s uncertainty about the
scenario outcome should not be coded as POE. For instance, don’t code the utterances
where participant would say “I am not sure,” “Maybe,” “Hopefully,” “I hope,” or “I
guess” before talking about their outcome expectancy (see the False Code Caution
below). True POE verbalizations may resemble some of these:

Turbulence can’t do anything bad to this airplane
Turbulence is nothing to worry about
I know that the plane can withstand the turbulence
This is just a little shaking, and we’ll get through it OK
I’m sure we are going to land fine
It’s going to be a great flight
Everything’s going to be fine
I’m gonna be ok
I’ll be fine
This is gonna be exciting
It’s going to be ok
I know we’ll get there alright because I’ve flown a lot before.
It’s going to be a smooth flight.
This flight is like any other, we’re going to be fine.
The turbulence scared me but the plane will be fine.
I know that nothing’s going to happen on the plane
I am positive this turbulence will stop soon.
I know the plane will touch down on the ground safely.
Turbulence happens routinely and won't affect our safety.
I've experienced rough flights before and I know everything will turn out fine.
I am confident the plane is strong and the pilot is capable of getting us through this
just fine.

130

Appendix O:
CONTINUED

It won’t last much longer and will be over in probably a few seconds (said when
talking about encountering turbulence in flight).

! False code caution:
“Hopefully we’ll be OK,” “Hopefully nothing bad happens,” “I guess we’ll be
fine” or “I am hoping everything’s going to be fine” etc. is not POE because participant
is unsure of the outcome of this flight (they don’t know if it’ll end up positively or
negatively or they are merely hoping for the positive outcome while being unsure). Do
you see how this is different?

REL
(Expressions of relief)

Verbalizations in this category will clearly indicate that our participant is relieved
about finally landing or about landing safely. Since the landing of the aircraft is depicted
in the Segment #8, we’ll be only looking for this code in that segment of participants’
transcripts. Such verbalizations may resemble some of these:

A sense of relief is coming over me now that we’re landing
I am glad that everything is back under control
I am just glad we are landing
I am relieved that I survived
I am relieved that it’s almost time to get off
I am so ecstatic that I’m alive
I am so glad the plane is down
I am very relieved
I can’t wait to get off this airplane, touch the soil and kiss the ground.
I feel calm relieved since we’ve landed
I feel less nervous on the ground then up in the air
I praise the Lord that nothing happened
I’d be relieved that we had gotten there safely
I’m glad everything’s ok
I’m glad I made it safely
I’m glad that damned flight is over
I’m glad to be alive
I’m happy that we’re finally going to be on the ground
131

Appendix O:
CONTINUED

I’m just happy to have a safe landing
I’m just relieved that we made it there safely
I’m so glad to be off this plane
I’m so thankful I’m alive
Praise the Lord that we made it
So great I got back in one piece
Thank God everything’s alright
Thank god that flight was over
Thank god that is over with
Thank god that we made it alive
Thank god that we made it ok
Thank god that we were able to survive and reach our destination
Thank god we survived
Thank God I will be getting off this plane
Wow I feel so much better now that the flight is over
I so happy to be back on solid ground
I am so relieved we landed after all that turbulence
I am so glad to be alive after that near- death experience
Oh thank you Jesus we finally touched down
Sweet mother of God I'm glad we landed
Jesus and Mary mother of God I'm glad we're finally back on the ground
Oh wow I'm really glad the plane's on the ground again
I'm so happy that I can feel solid earth beneath the wheels again
Thank God we are safe
Thank god we had a safe flight
Thank god we had another safe flight
Thank god we made it alive
Thank you Lord for letting us land safely
There’s nothing better than arriving safely
It’s not as bad as I thought (this statement also conveys relief because they apparently
anticipated a worse experience than they actually got. But to make sure that this is
the case, please read the entire segment several times and listen to the actual audio as
well)
I would be so glad to get off the plane (if the context is such that they were concerned
about turbulence: look at the previous segments to see if they did experienced
turbulence and listen to the actual audio as well)
I am glad that the flight went ok (this statement also conveys relief because they
apparently considered a worse experience than they actually went through)

132

Appendix P:
SCORING CRITERIA OF THE AIR TRAVEL SURVEY RESPONSES

Scoring method for the item “General Safety”:
Each participant will receive a score from “0” to “2” on this item. Responses
indicative of lack of knowledge or incorrect understanding (i.e., if someone answers as
follows: “Flight attendants are talking about food selection on the plane”) must receive a
score of “0.” Also, those who answer something like: “I don’t know anything about that”
must also receive a score of “0.”
Incomplete responses like “They said something about safety things” or “They
provided us with the safety info” without mentioning any details should receive a score of
“1.”
Responses where some details are given, for example “Seatbelts instructions,”
should be upgraded to the score of “2” because participants are indicating to us their
knowledge about the subject that is more than just basic. Here are some additional
examples of the details: “Flight attendants inform about emergency exits,” “Flight
attendants inform regarding cabin depressurization (oxygen mask use),” “Flight
attendants inform regarding flotation devices,” ”They said how to use vests,” etc. Also,
some of you wrote participant’s responses in shorthand, so something like “Flotation
device, oxygen masks,” “Gas masks above, exits behind” or something along those lines
is indicative of detailed knowledge as well. Do you see how responses like these
examples are different (more detail-oriented) from something like “They said something

133

Appendix P:
CONTINUED

about safety things,” which is an incomplete response (that will get only 1 point) that
doesn’t focus on any specific detail?

Scoring method for the item “Turbulence”:
Each participant will receive a score from “0” to “2” on this item. Responses
indicative of lack of knowledge or incorrect understanding (i.e., if someone answers as
follows: “turbulence is the sound that the engines make when the turbines start”) must
receive a score of “0.” Also, those who answer something like: “I don’t know anything
about that” must also receive a score of “0.”
Incomplete responses like “They said something about turbulence” without
mentioning any details should receive a score of “1.”
Responses where some details are given, for example “Turbulence is normal” or
“Turbulence can throw one out of their seat,” etc. should be upgraded to the score of “2”
because participants are indicating to us their knowledge about the subject that is more
than just basic. Here are some additional examples of the details: “Turbulence is
normal,” “Turbulence can happen when the sky appears to be clear,” “Turbulence can
occur unexpectedly,” “Turbulence is safe,” “Turbulence is an air movement,” “They said
how turbulence happens,” etc. Also, some of you wrote participant’s responses in
shorthand, so something like “Turbulence-normal,” “Turbulence-safe” or something

134

Appendix P:
CONTINUED

along those lines is indicative of detailed knowledge as well. Do you see how responses
like these examples are different (more detail-oriented) from something like “They said
something about turbulence,” which is an incomplete response (that will get only 1 point)
that doesn’t focus on any specific detail?

Scoring method for the item “Airplane Structural Safety”:
Each participant will receive a score from “0” to “2” on this item. Responses
indicative of lack of knowledge or incorrect understanding (i.e., if someone answers as
follows: “Flight attendants were talking about airplane”) must receive a score of “0.”
Also, those who answer something like: “I don’t know anything about that” must also
receive a score of “0.”
Incomplete responses like “They said that the airplane is going to be fine” or
“They said something about the plane” without mentioning any details should receive a
score of “1.”
Responses where some details are given, for example “Seatbelts instructions,”
should be upgraded to the score of “2” because participants are indicating to us their
knowledge about the subject that is more than just basic. Here are some additional
examples of the details: “Plane’s wings can bend,” “Airplanes can withstand severe
weather or storms,” “Airplanes can withstand turbulence,” “Airplanes can withstand
considerable physical stress,” “Airplanes are safe,” “Airplanes are durable,” “How
135

Appendix P:
CONTINUED

plane deals with turbulence,” “They said about structural integrity of the plane,” etc.
Also, some of you wrote participant’s responses in shorthand, so something like “Wings
bending,” “Wing capabilities” or something along those lines is indicative of detailed
knowledge as well. Do you see how responses like these examples are different (more
detail-oriented) from something like “They said something about the plane,” which is an
incomplete response (that will get only 1 point) that doesn’t focus on any specific detail?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract We examined whether enhancing the standard pre-takeoff announcement with supplemental information that explains the basics of turbulence and the aircraft s ability to safely withstand it will favorably affect air travelers reactions to a severely turbulent flight. With help of the Articulated Thoughts in Simulated Situations (ATSS) paradigm, participants boarded a plane as passengers, heard either a standard or enhanced pre-flight announcement, experienced either an uneventful or a very turbulent flight, and then landed safely. Compared to the calm, the turbulent flight resulted in greater articulations of anxiety, negative outcome expectancies, pleas for God s help, appeals for explanation, and relief about landing, all regardless of the announcement type, the passengers pre-existing fear of flying (QAF), their state anxiety (STAI-S) at the time of boarding or the extent of their past air travels.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Assessing therapeutic change mechanisms in motivational interviewing using the articulated thoughts in simulated situations paradigm

PDF

Measuring narcissistic cognitions in response to relationship threat using articulated thoughts in simulated situations

PDF

Exploring experiences of minority-stress and alcohol use among sexual minorities using articulated thoughts in simulated situations: a proof of concept study

PDF

Memory, gender, and rumination in depression: recall of simulated situations with articulated thoughts and the Rivermead behavioral memory test

PDF

The articulated thoughts of heterosexual male college students in reaction to anti-gay hate speech

PDF

Personalized normative feedback applied to undergraduates with problem drinking: a comparison with psychoeducation and an examination of cognitive-affective change mechanisms via the articulated ...

PDF

Reacting to the negative consequences of your decisions: an ATSS comparison of cognitive and affective reactions in older versus younger adults

PDF

Age differences in jealousy: an ATSS examination of the role of attributions in the emotional reactions of older and younger adults in relationship-threatening situations

Asset Metadata

Creator Zanov, Marat V. (author)

Core Title In-flight turbulence: an articulated thoughts in simulated situations (ATSS) paradigm investigation of air travelers ' experiences

School College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Psychology

Publication Date 07/18/2008

Defense Date 06/10/2008

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag articulated thoughts in simulated situations,ATSS,fear of flying,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Advisor Davison, Gerald C. (committee chair), Goodyear, Rodney K. (committee member), Huey, Stanley J., Jr. (committee member), Read, Stephen J. (committee member)

Creator Email zanov@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1354

Unique identifier UC177079

Identifier etd-Zanov-20080718 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-87515 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1354 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Zanov-20080718.pdf

Dmrecord 87515

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Zanov, Marat V.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu