The experiment outlined in this paper investigated the effect of interference on everyday dynamic risk-taking judgments. Two questions were addressed. First, can highly practised dynamic risk-taking decisions become automated, such that they are not affected by the presence of a demanding secondary task? Second, if risk-taking decisions are interfered with by a secondary task, what is the direction of the effect? Do people take more risks when they are distracted or do they compensate for the interference and take fewer risks? Drivers (N = 121) were required to perform video-simulation tests measuring driving-related, risk-taking decisions. Participants were required to carry out the tasks while either performing a concurrent verbal task or not. It was found that those in the dual-task condition took more risks. This suggests that dynamic risk-taking decisions in this context are not automatic and also that interference increases individuals' propensity to take risks. (A)
Abstract