Mapping Risk Judgment and Risk Taking in Mountain Hiking: An Information Integration Approach.

Risk analysis is essential for promoting hiking-based tourism. Our objective in the present study was to map 395 mountain hikers' positions on risk judgment and risk taking, according to how they integrated three antecedent factors of confidence (environment, team, and self). For integrating information, people can develop an additive rule whereby they apply the same weight to all information or use interaction rules (i.

Mapping Positions on Forgiving an Aggressor in Sport.

The objective of the present study was to map amateur athletes' positions on forgiving an aggressor in sport under various circumstances. One hundred and twenty-eight participants judged forgiveness in 32 scenarios built from combinations of five factors (moral disengagement, intention, consequence, apology, and incentive). Following a cluster analysis, ANOVAs, and chi-squared tests, a three-cluster solution was found: "Mainly Forgive, with Non-Additive Integration," "Seldom Forgive, with Additive Integration," and "Moderately Forgive, with Additive Integration.

Players' quality of play and overall interest of the game in dyadic competition.

These experiments examined the cognitive processes involved in judging the quality of play of a player competing against another player and the overall interest of a competitive game as a function of the players' respective ability and motivation levels. For the quality of play of one player, a very simple information integration rule was found. Quality of play was judged almost exclusively as an additive function of the ability and motivation levels of the player.

Performance schemata in dyadic competition and cooperation.

We examined performance schemata in dyadic competitive and cooperative situations, that is, the ways people perceive the relationship between performance level, capacity level, and degree of motivation in situations in which two people confront or collaborate with one another. In Experiment 1, 104 participants judged the possible performance of Person A, whose ability and motivation levels were communicated, competing against Person B, whose ability and motivation levels were also communicated. When judging A's performance, participants seemed first to assess the difficulty of the task facing A and second to integrate information relative to A according to a rule with changing parameters already proposed by Surber (1981a, 1981b).