=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1419/paper0070
|storemode=property
|title=Work- and Job-related Stress, Emotions, and Performance in Critical Situations. An Interdisciplinary Study in the Context of Airport Security
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1419/paper0070.pdf
|volume=Vol-1419
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/eapcogsci/BassettiFG15
}}
==Work- and Job-related Stress, Emotions, and Performance in Critical Situations. An Interdisciplinary Study in the Context of Airport Security==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1419/paper0070.pdf
Work- and Job-related Stress, Emotions, and Performance in Critical Situations
An interdisciplinary study in the context of airport security
Chiara Bassetti, Roberta Ferrario and Cinzia Giorgetta
(chiara.bassetti, roberta.ferrario, cinzia.giorgetta@loa.istc.cnr.it)
Institute of Cognitive Sciences and Technologies – CNR, Laboratory for Applied Ontology
via alla Cascata 56 C, 38123 Trento (Italy)
Abstract stress and emotions, on one side, and performance, on the
other, in a specific professional setting, that of airport
In this paper we present an interdisciplinary approach to
inquire the effects of stress in job environments, which security, looking at it from two different perspectives: the
integrates a cognitive psychology experiment and an one of cognitive psychology and that of ethnographic
ethnographic study, both conducted with the security guards studies. We will show the primary results of the two
of an International airport. approaches, but we will also show how very interesting
Keywords: airport security; decision-making; ethnography; insights and future directions for research can emerge from
emotion management; work-related stress; job-related stress; the encounter of the two.
work engagement.
The experiment: stress and decision-making
Introduction In this section we illustrate the experiment. Stress is the
The studies and reflections presented in this article are part cognitive perception that a situation is uncontrollable and
of the work conducted within the project VisCoSo1. It is an unpredictable and elicits psychological, physiological and
interdisciplinary project, involving members with behavioural reactions (e.g., Dickerson & Kemeny, 2004).
heterogeneous expertise. Its case study is an International Several individual factors may help individuals to cope with
airport, with a focus on specific areas where risk and stress, such as social support, self-efficacy, and coping style
emergency concerns are particularly present: security and (Taylor & Stanton, 2007; Bakker & Leiter, 2010). Since
surveillance. In this paper we will concentrate on the work decision-making is the ability to select the most adaptive
carried out, using different disciplinary approaches, with the course of action for the organism among all possible
personnel in charge of security checkpoints, namely private alternatives (Bechara et al., 2000), decision-making may
security guards (about 90 in total). Employees of a private represent one of the coping resources available for the
security firm, after specific training they serve as “public stressful situation. On the other side, Janis and Mann (1977)
officers” in the context of airport security, under the claimed that high stress levels can lead to make a decision
supervision of the Police. before all options have been taken into account and their
From April 2013 to May 2014, an ethnographer has possible outcome estimated (premature closure) – this is
conducted 380 hours of participant observation (e.g. Agar, riskier behaviour. Only recently researchers have started to
1996), distributed over different seasons, weekdays and time study the interaction between decision-making and stress
slots. After that, from July 2014 until March 2015, she has with different, and sometimes contrasting, results. However,
conducted audio-recorded qualitative interviews (38) with no studies have investigated how stress affects risky
some of the guards and the policemen. The ethnography has decision-making in individuals that are frequently exposed
produced more than 1000 pages of fieldnotes and 700 ca. to stressful situations. Therefore, within a specific
pages of interview transcriptions. On the other hand, in professional setting, i.e., airport security, our experiment
2014, also a cognitive psychology experiment, aimed at aims at investigating risky behaviour when facing stressful
studying the correlation between situated stress and risky situations as compared with non stressful ones.
attitude in professionals working in a complex and safety-
critical environment, has been conducted over 36 security Method and Experimental Procedures
guards. The analytical outcomes resulting from the Participants. The experiment has involved 36 participants,
application of these two approaches will constitute the basis recruited from the International airport that has been chosen
upon which an ontological model of the airport and a more as case study for the project. They are employed with the
general one of socio-material systems will be built, which is role of security guards. They have been randomly assigned
the final goal of the VisCoSo project (Bassetti et al. 2015). to one of the two experimental conditions: stressful vs.
In this paper we will analyse the relationship between relaxed situations (exposure to a video). The two groups
were matched (p=N.S. for all the comparisons) for
1
Detection of crisis in socio-material systems via VISual- demographic and personality characteristics (see Table 1 for
COgnitive-SOcial processes. www.loa.istc.cnr.it/projects/viscoso/
435
details). All participants provided written informed consent. participant selected one of them by pressing the
corresponding button. After their response a fixation point
Personality Assessment. At the beginning of the study was again presented for 500 msec.; the chosen gamble was
participants have been asked to answer questionnaires then presented in the centre of the screen. In case of win the
investigating the degree to which people perceive their life arrow stopped on the white side of the gamble and a label
as stressful (by using the Perceived Stress Scale – PSS; “You win!” appeared; in case of loss the arrow stopped on
Cohen et al., 1988) and negative emotional status (Negative the grey side and a label “You lose!” appeared. After this,
Affective scale – PANAS; Watson et al., 1999). PANAS has participants were asked to answer both an “Emotional”
again been administered after the video presentation, in (How do you feel about the outcome?) and a “Choice”
order to check whether and how it affected participants’ (Would you like to change your choice?) ratings on a 9-
emotion. At the end of the task the impulsiveness traits point scale, ranging from 1 (happy/definitely yes) to 9
questionnaire (Barratt Impulsiveness Scale – BIS11; Patton (sad/not at all). The outcome of each trial was determined
et al., 1995) was administered to make sure that differences pseudorandomly, with the overall constraint that each
in impulsiveness did not affect participants’ risky choices. participant experienced an equal number of wins and losses.
The number of small or large outcomes depended on the
Table 1: Demographic and personality assessment2 participants’ safe or risky choices and thus was not
controlled. Participants were instructed to earn as many
Relaxed Stressful points as possible. To enhance participants’ motivation at
Situation Group Situation Group the task, they were told they would be monetarily
Number 18 18 compensated depending on the outcomes of their choices in
Sex 10 M, 8 F 8 M, 10F 10 trials (out of 32), randomly selected by the computer at
Age 37.67 (10.92) 35.78 (10.48) the end of the experiment. For ethical reasons, all
participants received the same compensation (5€). There
Education (years) 13.58 (1.83) 13.22 (1.73)
were 32 trials in total, divided into 2 equal blocks. Stimulus
Work experience (months) 90.39 (57.1) 87.22 (56.01)
presentation and data acquisition have been controlled using
Perceived Stress Scale 13.78 (7.51) 14.72 (6.68) the E-prime software package (PST, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA),
Pre-video PANAS 16.39 (7.34) 16.55 (4.12) running on a Windows computer. Instructions were
Post-video PANAS 12.94 (6.61) 14.11 (4.54) presented in written form and the entire experiment lasted
Emotional involvement 7.75 (1.6) 6.97 (1.81) about 40 minutes.
Video presentation. Before participants performed the Results
experimental task they watched a video (about 3 min). The Emotional Assessment. Data have been analysed by
videos were chosen after an assessment of typical situations independent-samples T-test, where the responses to the
lived by guards at the airport. In one condition (Relaxed questionnaires were used as dependent variables and the two
Situation; RS), the video represented a very relaxing groups as the grouping variable. The two groups of
situation in an airport hall. In the other condition (Stressful participants did not show significant differences either on
Situation; SS), participants were instead presented with a their perceived stress (PSS) [t(39)=.41, p=.68] or on their
video showing passengers posing several problems. The impulsivity (BIS11) [p>.1], or in the negative affective scale
level of emotional involvement with the video was also (PANAS) [t(34)=.08, p=.93]. Therefore, any difference in
measured (see Table 1) in both conditions, on a 9-points the performance at the task between the two groups can be
scale, ranging from 1 (not at all) to 9 (definitely yes). ascribed to the video presentation. Notably, the means
recorded in the PSS, for both groups, were above that of
Task. We have used a gambling task, similar to a previous Caucasian population (M=12.8; Cohen et al., 1988) In order
one (Giorgetta et al., 2012), in which participants had to to check for the effect of the experimental conditions we
choose between a safer and a riskier option. Participants sat used, we performed within each group a T-test on the
comfortably in front of a computer to perform the task. On Negative Affective scale of the PANAS, administered pre
each trial of the experiment, participants first were asked to and post the video presentation. Findings showed that only
look at a fixation point, which lasted for 500 msec, and then participants in RS reduced their negative affectivity after the
were presented with two gambles displayed on either side of video presentation [t(1, 18)=2.9, p<.01], whereas
the screen. Participants were asked to choose one of these participants in SS did not [t(1, 18)=1.8, p=.1]. The
options. In one of the choices they could win more but also emotional involvement with the video between the two
lose more (riskier option), whereas in the other they could experimental conditions do not differ [t(34)=1.36, p=.2]. See
win less but also lose less (safer option). For both gambles, Table 1 for details.
the probability of winning and losing was the same (p=0.5).
The pair of gambles remained on the screen until the Decision under risk. In order to assess whether there was a
shift in risk-taking behaviour between the two groups due to
2
Data report average and, in brackets, standard deviation. the experimental condition (relaxed vs. stressful situation),
436
437
leading to burnout (e.g., Hakanen & Roodt, 2010). We protected, customers to satisfy, but they can also be potential
regard challenging demands as WS-producing factors, and threats to the system. And what does constitute such proofs?
hindrance ones as JS-producing. See, for instance, the Here issues of discretion, autonomy and expertise are
following interview excerpt. pivotal (cf. also Salter 2007, 2008).
There are times at which you do nothing, and times at which you Olive describes the job as subject to much pressure […] and
process 20 flights in one hour. And you wear yourself out with endowed with very little autonomy. Personal initiative, and the
stress 'cause the structure is lacking. [Xavier, 10 /10/14] consequent use the guard may make of her/his experience,
The problem is not the line or the crowded moment (WS), it competence and expertise, are discouraged, she explains. [...] If
somebody makes something click in me, maybe he has an
is the lack of job resources (JS).
attitude- I don’t know, that I see something, I notice something, I
Second, it is important to highlight the crucial role of cannot anyway decide to manually search him. [...] She says that
emotions and emotion management. Psychological studies the same goes for patting: [a middle manager] wants us to pat in
found positive emotions mediating work engagement, and only one and the same way. He wants little soldiers, only the
negative ones associated with burnout and hindrance job procedure counts. On the contrary, we should pat as we think
demands (e.g., Sweetman & Luthans, 2010). From a it’s better, for using one’s experience and for feeling at ease in
sociological point of view, a distinction should be drawn performing a task which, anyway, is embarrassing. [...] “This is
between “emotional labour” and “emotion work” certainly not the way to work well!”, she repeats several times,
(Hochshild, 1983), where the former concerns displayed and adds that the [middle manager] even writes you a note if he
emotions and the latter felt ones, with the consequent sees you’re patting in a different way. [fieldnotes, 05/04/13]3
possibility of emotional dissonance (a stressor in itself – cf. Such a control is heavily felt, and –even for those most
e.g., Hakanen et al., 2005). engaged with their work (trait engagement, cf. Sonnentag et
Turning to the empirical context at hand, ethnographic al., 2010)– this is aggravated by several conditions, such as
research found security guards' work environment as usually long work shifts and mandatory overtimes4.
sensorially distressing; characterized by overtimes, low Like I've always said, I like the job. The only thing are the hours
wages, and diffused job insecurity, as well as by [...] the shifts, they're the only thing that make us feel bad
contradictory pressures, high responsibility (both legal and sometimes. [Lucretia, 10/07/14]
felt), and elevated work control. “I like the job, but the wage is low and, especially, there’s much
It's tough for the tension, for the management you must– I mean, pressure —and for even 11 or 12 hours per day!” [...] she
you have one thousand control procedures, it's not that you say explains pressure means responsibility, but also and especially
“It’s like working as a bar-tender, I make coffee, I greet Tony, I (a) control by managers and (b) mandatory overtimes: “honestly,
wash”. And we're controlled for everything. [Joan, 11/05/14] at the tenth hour, I make everything pass, I don’t give a shit
anymore! After 10 hours that you repeat the same sentences, that
Furthermore, guards have to deal with passengers’ you press this button...”. [fieldnotes, 05/28/13]
resistance to control procedures, and this means engaging in
A further job-related stressor consists in sanctions like the
emotional labour and refraining oneself from answering in
notes mentioned by Olive, or “contestation letters”:
kind to resisting and/or rude (“unruly”) passengers.
Pressure, responsibility, control and related emotion The guards, Peter says, are too much controlled, and receive
contestation letters for whatever. He adds that any trust by the
management, alongside interaction with passengers, make
employer is missing, and this doesn’t help. [fieldnotes. 10/23/13]
airport security a deeply emotionally-charged context —not
only for passengers (e.g., Redden, 2012), but also for Such letters, which have actual impact on guards’ earnings
security operators. The cognitive and the emotive and career, may be sent by the employer for various reasons,
dimensions are deeply intertwined, and impact work among which “unkindness” towards passengers.
engagement and performance, entangled as they are.
(Unruly) Passengers and emotion management
Contradictory pressures, control, responsibility and The contradiction between detection and flow, security
(lack of) autonomy culture and consumer/customer one, comes in plain sight in
On the one hand, guards should be accurate and thorough in presence of the so-called “unruly” passengers: i.e.,
controlling passengers and their belongings but, at the same passengers who are unwilling to be checked, who do not
time, they should provide a nice, possibly brief experience collaborate and/or protest, who are rude and variously
for airport customers. A first contradiction, therefore, has to offend or insult guards. Most of “unruly behaviours” can be
do with (public) security’s vs. (private) profit’s logics and seen as practices of resistance on the part of the passengers.
ends. Salter (2007: 61) talks of detection vs. flow. Records range from nonverbal conduct:
“They tell you: ‘There’s the line, go on!’ What does it mean go He was grumbling with his nose; he had printed on his face and
on?!!”, Leonard rhetorically asks me. Pressure for avoiding line bodily posture an air of superiority with respect to everything
formation, he explains, starts from airport management and around him; he was parading —I would dare saying— boredom,
descends towards private security managers, shift-chiefs,
3
supervisors, until screening guards. [fieldnotes, 05/15/13] In fieldnotes excerpts, direct speech between inverted commas
and indirect speech in italics.
Another contradiction has to do with the role of 4
They are mandatory since the airport security service is
passengers per se. Until further proof, they are citizens to be
normatively framed as a public service (like police work).
438
annoyance and contempt for the procedures people around him is needed to clearly assess the import of the two. However,
were engaged in. [fieldnotes, 04/24/13] since ethnographic research was conducted with the very
To the passive-aggressive passenger: same subjects of the experiment, we can reasonably say that,
Besides me an elderly heterosexual couple quarrels while for most of them, non-situated stress stems from job-related
packing after the security check. A hostess who is waiting for aspects (even when there are personal stressors, their effect
conducting them to the gate (they are the last passengers of their is exacerbated by the interaction with job-related factors).
flight to embark), solicits them. The man swiftly replies: “Tell With this is mind, we analysed data on Perceived Stress
that to the Custom, here!”, and points with his chin towards the Scale of each participant and divided them in two further
security guards behind him. [fieldnotes, 05/09/13] groups: those with the average on PSS above (high stress,
To the various fans of communicative triangulation: HJS) and below (low stress; LJS) the mean of Caucasian
A woman says loudly to her husband, in Italian, with disgusted population (Cohen, 1988; M=12.8 and SD=6.2). Thus, we
voice: “In Moldavia there’s no such thing, only in Italy!”. analysed again data of the experiment by taking into
[fieldnotes, 05/09/13] consideration 4 different groups divided by the two
While passing through, passengers of a private flight complain conditions: WS (RS vs. SS) X JS (HJS vs. LJS) (Table 2).
about, and make fun of security control: e.g., “Then one should Findings allowed us to develop some interesting insights.
pass naked.” “Eh, we’re close.” [fieldnotes, 07/16/13]
To rude, coarse, offensive passenger: Table 2: Demographic / personality assessment (4 groups)
The man refuses [to undergo a procedure] and pretends he
knows the norm and the guard is wrong. The guard stays calm A: HJS B: HJS C: LJS D: LJS
and eventually succeeds in having the man doing what she +SS +RS +SS +RS
asked. At the end of that, he asks with ironic and paternalistic N. of subjects 11 8 7 10
tone: “That’s okay?”. “That’s okay, thank you. Next time Sex 3M 8F 3M 5F 5M 2F 7M 3F
remember to separate liquids”, she answers in a robot-like Age 30.82 35.25 45.57 39.6
manner. “Next time I will bring you the regulation!” he replies
raising his voice while walking away. [fieldnotes, 07/06/2013] Months of work 76.18 61.62 104.57 113.4
Perceived Stress 18.91 20.63 8.14 8.3
Alan has to trash the 150 ml. bottle of perfume of a British
passenger who [...] merely replies with a “Fuck off” in his Pre-PANAS 18.73 22.37 13.14 11.6
mother tongue. [fieldnotes, 08/01/13] Post-PANAS 15.54 16.37 11.86 10.2
In front of all these behaviours, security operators feel Risky Choices (%) 56.82 66.01 45.98 57.5
unprotected: “We’re nobody, therefore we must suffer in Time for RC msec 3059 3646.7 4421.6 3839.1
silence the rudeness of some passengers”. The only chance “Emotional” rating
is learning to manage one's emotions. loss on risky choice 4.45 3.21 3.03 3.29
on safe choice 4.31 3.65 4.01 3.68
It happens also to those who are kind: you find the passenger
who insults and offends you […] You try to act as if nothing has “Emotional” rating
happened, you let it go, even if maybe you feel bad, I mean, at win on risky choice 6.41 8.2 8.11 8.08
the beginning I felt bad when they... Then you must grin and on safe choice 6.06 8.3 7.81 8.02
bear it, though. [Leon, 07/31/14]
Finally, it is worth noticing that issues of felt First, independently from the WS conditions, participants
responsibility and connected emotion work are pivotal not in HJS showed higher scores to the PANAS, both pre and
only with regard to threat detection, but also with respect to post the video presentation. Between the two, those in RS
passenger-guard interaction and related decision-making. (condition B) seem to reduce more their negative emotions
(PANAS) after the video presentation. Also, HJS appears to
If there's an aspirin, and I see there's an old lady, then the
question is: Do you let her pass with the aspirin or do you act be related to other variables such as sex, age and work
“rigidly”? So, maybe you let her bring it after asking some experience (more females, lesser age and work experience).
questions, having understood if and why she deems important to Second, the amount of risky choices –that we may
carry the aspirin with her, and maybe you also make her taste it. consider an issue in the context of security– is higher with
There, in making such decisions, the emotional aspect becomes HJS (conditions A, B), when, moreover, the time of choice
heavier, precisely in taking such judgement calls. And maybe is shorter; instead, risky choices are at the lowest and
there are colleagues who slavishly follow norms, but I prefer to decision time is longer when there is WS but not JS
judge case by case, because, I mean, I definitely have to manage (condition C). Thus, there seems to be a positive effect of
this emotional aspect of... humanity. Maybe the passenger is
WS –intended as situated, critical-situation-grounded
going to a funeral, maybe she has never flown out, she is
scared... [Lucretia 10/07/14] stress– on work performance –intended as considered
choices– that vanishes, however, when JS is present too. In
Conclusions: Comparing the two approaches this case, and WS comes into play, decisions are made with
the typical “rush” of the unexperienced who faces critical
What we have defined as WS in the previous section pretty situations: in highly risky and less pondered ways.
much equals what has been defined situated stress in the Third, as for emotional response with respect to choice
experiment. As for JS, the latter was not designed to outcome –whose effects we can fairly assume on learning as
distinguish job-related vs. extra-job stress. Further research
439
well as future choice behaviour–, we see once more the Cohen, S. & Williamson, G. (1988). Perceived Stress in a
negative effect of JS, especially in critical situations: Probability Sample of the United States. Spacapan, S. and
condition A presents the highest level of task detachment Oskamp, S. (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Health.
(possibly extendable to work disengagement, further Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
research needed), whereas condition C shows the highest Dickerson, S. S., & Kemeny, M. E. (2004). Acute stressors
level of task involvement. In the latter case, indeed, positive and cortisol responses: a theoretical integration and
vs. negative outcomes produce clearly distinct positive vs. synthesis of laboratory research. Psychological Bulletin,
negative emotions accordingly, with higher happiness for 130, 355-391.
wins if the choice was risky (I've guessed right) rather than Giorgetta, C., Grecucci, A., Zanon, S., Perini, L., Balestrieri,
safe (It went as expected), and lesser sadness after losses if M., Bonini, N., Sanfey, A. G., & Brambilla, P. (2012).
it was safe (I've done my part anyway) instead of risky (I'm Reduced risk-taking behaviour as a trait feature of
guilty). On the contrary, when WS adds to already existing anxiety. Emotion, 12(6), 1373-1383.
JS, outcomes produce the least degree of emotions, no Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2005). How
matter the choice riskiness; the distance between after-win dentists cope with their job demands and stay engaged:
vs. after-loss emotional status is the least in this condition. The moderating role of job resources. European Journal
Unfortunately, we were not able to perform statistical of Oral Sciences, 113, 495-513.
analyses on these data, given the unbalanced and reduced Hakanen, J. J., & Roodt, G. (2010). Using the job demands-
number of participants in each group. However, we believe resources model to predict engagement: Analysing a
these preliminary insights open an interesting research conceptual model. In A. B. Bakker & M. P. Leiter (Eds.).
avenue thanks to the interdisciplinary integration of Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart. Berkeley:
experimental data and ethnographic analysis. Further studies University of California Press.
should distinguish job-related from extra-job stress, better Isen, A. M. (1987). Positive affect, cognitive processes, and
control for the four conditions, enlarge the sample, compare social behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in
work settings to improve generalizability, and consider work experimental social psychology, 20, 203-253). New York:
performance also beyond decision-making. Academic.
In summary, this study highlighted the interaction Janis, I. L., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision Making: A
between stress and risky decision-making in individuals Psychological Analysis of Conflict. Choice, and
trained to face stress in their daily work, and importantly, it Commitment. Free Press, New York.
suggested promising new avenues of research on the Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress Appraisal and
interaction between different kinds of stress and decisional Coping. Springer, New York.
processes. For instance, even when people are trained to Patton, J. H., Stanford, M. S., & Barratt, E. S. (1995). Factor
face WS, when JS is also present, it can encumber their structure of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale. Journal of
preparedness to react. This is an aspect that should be taken Clinical Psychology, 51, 768-774.
into serious consideration by policy makers. Redden, M. (2012). How Lines Organize Compulsory
Interaction, Emotion Management, and “Emotional
Funding Acknowledgments Taxes”: The Implications of Passenger Emotion and
Authors are supported by the VisCoSo project grant Expression in Airport Security Lines. Management
(Autonomous Province of Trento, “Team 2011” scheme). Communication Quarterly, 27 (1), 121-149.
Salter, M. (2007). Governmentalities of an airport:
References Heterotopia and confession. International Political
Sociology, 1 (1), 49-66.
Agar, M. (1980). The professional stranger: An informal Salter, M. (2008) (Ed.). Politics at the Airport (pp. i-xix).
introduction to ethnography. New York: Academic Press. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands- Sonnentag, S., Dormann, C., & Demerouti, E. (2010). Not
resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial all days are created equal: The concept of state work
Psychology, 22, 309-328. engagement. In A. B. Bakker & M. P. Leiter (Eds.).
Bakker, A. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2010) (Eds.), Work Sweetman, D., & Luthans, F. (2010). The power of positive
Engagement. A Handbook of Essential Theory and psychology: Psychological capital and work engagement.
Research. Hove and New York: Psychology Press. In A. B. Bakker & M. P. Leiter (Eds.).
Bassetti, C., Ferrario R., & Campos M. L. M. (2015). Taylor, S. E., & Stanton, A. L. (2007). Coping resources,
Airport security checkpoints: an empirically-grounded coping processes, and mental health. Annual Review of
ontological model for supporting collaborative work Clinical Psychology, 3, 377-401.
practices in safety critical environments. In L. Palen, M. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988).
Buscher, T. Comes, & A. Hughes (Eds.), Proceedings of Development and validation of brief measures of Positive
the 12th ISCRAM Conference. and Negative Affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of
Bechara, A., Damasio, H., & Damasio, A. R. (2000). Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.
Emotion, decision making and the orbitofrontal cortex.
Cerebral Cortex, 10, 295-307.
440