The influence of incentives and instructions on behaviour in driving simulator studies

Abstract There are a number of factors which may influence the validity of experimental studies, including the incentives offered and the instructions provided to participants. These have been little-studied in the driving domain. The aim of this study was to investigate how manipulating these factors influenced participants’ feelings of ‘presence’ (i.e. the extent to which they believed they were actually driving and not in a simulated environment). The findings showed that imposing a penalty system for poor driving performance and providing ‘good driving’ instructions did not significantly affect presence ratings. This has a number of plausible explanations, including research study participants’ inherent need to perform well under test conditions and the small range of performance variability expected in a normal driving scenario. The financial penalty resulted in slightly slower speeds, although none of the participants drove excessively quickly, supporting the argument that study participants tend to perform diligently under test conditions irrespective of incentives or instructions. Participants in the penalty and instructions conditions gave higher ratings for negative effects (related to physically feeling unwell), suggesting that these conditions made them more aware of the physical symptoms of being in a simulator (but not that participants were actually experiencing more sickness). The results can be viewed positively in terms of reliability and generalizability across different driving simulator studies, as variations in study design (i.e. how instructions are delivered to participants and whether participants are paid to participate) do not have a significant effect on performance.

[1]  Jonathan Freeman,et al.  A Cross-Media Presence Questionnaire: The ITC-Sense of Presence Inventory , 2001, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[2]  Richard J. Tunney,et al.  Some decks are better than others: The effect of reinforcer type and task instructions on learning in the Iowa Gambling Task , 2006, Brain and Cognition.

[3]  Adrian B Ellison,et al.  Evaluating changes in driver behaviour: a risk profiling approach. , 2015, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[4]  Paul A. Green Standard definitions for driving measures and statistics: overview and status of recommended practice J2944 , 2013, AutomotiveUI.

[5]  Daniel M. Oppenheimer,et al.  Instructional Manipulation Checks: Detecting Satisficing to Increase Statistical Power , 2009 .

[6]  Berry Eggen,et al.  The relation between self-reported driving style and driving behaviour. A simulator study , 2018, Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.

[7]  Donald B. Rubin,et al.  Interpersonal expectancy effects: the first 345 studies , 1978, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[8]  Instruction Bias and Lineup Presentation Moderate the Effects of Administrator Knowledge on Eyewitness Identification , 2009, Law and human behavior.

[9]  Bob G. Witmer,et al.  Measuring Presence in Virtual Environments , 1994 .

[10]  E. A. Locke Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives , 1968 .

[11]  C. Grady,et al.  What's the price of a research subject? Approaches to payment for research participation. , 1999, The New England journal of medicine.

[12]  B. Kintz,et al.  The experimenter effect. , 1965 .

[13]  Evi Blana,et al.  DRIVING SIMULATOR VALIDATION STUDIES: A LITERATURE REVIEW , 1996 .

[14]  Daniel Mestre,et al.  The concept of “presence” as a measure of ecological validity in driving simulators , 2015, Journal of Interaction Science.

[15]  Simon Y. W. Li,et al.  Effects of monetary reward and punishment on information checking behaviour. , 2016, Applied ergonomics.

[16]  A. Wertheimer,et al.  Payment for research participation: a coercive offer? , 2008, Journal of Medical Ethics.

[17]  Gary Burnett,et al.  Driving Simulators for Research , 2017 .

[18]  Neville A. Stanton,et al.  On the reliability and validity of, and training in, ergonomics methods: a challenge revisited , 2016 .

[19]  R. Eisenberger,et al.  Detrimental effects of reward. Reality or myth? , 1996, The American psychologist.

[20]  M. Russell,et al.  Paying research subjects: participants' perspectives , 2000, Journal of medical ethics.

[21]  Paul M. Salmon,et al.  Systematic review of driving simulator validation studies , 2019, Safety Science.

[22]  S Stradling,et al.  Errors and violations on the roads: a real distinction? , 1990, Ergonomics.

[23]  R. Carey,et al.  Understanding instructions. , 1992, Journal of obstetric, gynecologic, and neonatal nursing : JOGNN.

[24]  A. Tversky,et al.  The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. , 1981, Science.

[25]  Yi-Ching Lee,et al.  Instruction-prompted objective behaviors as proxy for subjective measures in a driving simulator , 2018 .

[26]  M. Orne On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. , 1962 .

[27]  F. Biocca,et al.  The cyborg's dilemma: embodiment in virtual environments , 1997, Proceedings Second International Conference on Cognitive Technology Humanizing the Information Age.

[28]  Michael J. Singer,et al.  Measuring Presence in Virtual Environments: A Presence Questionnaire , 1998, Presence.

[29]  Robert M. Groves,et al.  UNDERSTANDING THE DECISION TO PARTICIPATE IN A SURVEY , 1992 .

[30]  Heike Hennig-Schmidt,et al.  Neutral versus loaded instructions in a bribery experiment , 2006 .

[31]  W EDWARDS,et al.  Costs and payoffs are instructions. , 1961, Psychological review.