The Spheres & Shield Maze Task: A Virtual Reality Serious Game for the Assessment of Risk Taking in Decision Making

Carla de-Juan-Ripoll, José L Soler-Domínguez, Irene Alice Chicchi Giglioli, Manuel Contero, Mariano Alcañiz, Carla de-Juan-Ripoll, José L Soler-Domínguez, Irene Alice Chicchi Giglioli, Manuel Contero, Mariano Alcañiz

Abstract

Risk taking (RT) is an essential component in decision-making process that depicts the propensity to make risky decisions. RT assessment has traditionally focused on self-report questionnaires. These classical tools have shown clear distance from real-life responses. Behavioral tasks assess human behavior with more fidelity, but still show some limitations related to transferability. A way to overcome these constraints is to take advantage from virtual reality (VR), to recreate real-simulated situations that might arise from performance-based assessments, supporting RT research. This article presents results of a pilot study in which 41 individuals explored a gamified VR environment: the Spheres & Shield Maze Task (SSMT). By eliciting implicit behavioral measures, we found relationships between scores obtained in the SSMT and self-reported risk-related constructs, as engagement in risky behaviors and marijuana consumption. We conclude that decontextualized Virtual Reality Serious Games are appropriate to assess RT, since they could be used as a cross-disciplinary tool to assess individuals' capabilities under the stealth assessment paradigm.

Keywords: evaluation methodologies; implicit measures; risk taking; serious games; virtual reality.

Conflict of interest statement

No competing financial interests exist.

Figures

FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.
Screenshots of the SSMT with fire and precipice (left) and slippery puddle (right). SSMT, Spheres & Shield Maze Task. Color images are available online.
FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.
Top view of the maze and risk distribution. Color images are available online.
FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.
Screenshot of the practice SSMT session. Color images are available online.
FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.
T-test results of self-report and SSMT variables between marijuana consumers and nonconsumers. Bars represent the average and lines represent the standard deviation. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01. Color images are available online.

References

    1. Bechara A, Damasio H, Tranel D, et al. . The Iowa Gambling Task and the somatic marker hypothesis: some questions and answers. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2005; 9:159–162
    1. Krain AL, Wilson AM, Arbuckle R, et al. . Distinct neural mechanisms of risk and ambiguity: a meta-analysis of decision-making. Neuroimage 2006; 32:477–484
    1. Einhorn HJ. The use of nonlinear, noncompensatory models in decision making. Psychological Bulletin 1970; 73:221.
    1. Hunt RG, Krzystofiak FJ, Meindl JR, et al. . Cognitive style and decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 1989; 44:436–453
    1. Figner B, Weber EU. Who takes risks when and why? Determinants of risk taking. Current Directions in Psychological Science 2011; 20:211–216
    1. Endsley MR. (2000) Theoretical underpinnings of situation awareness: A critical review. In Endsley MR, Garland DJ, eds. Situation awareness analysis and measurement. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., pp. 3–32
    1. Endsley MR. Situation awareness global assessment technique (SAGAT). In Proceedings of the IEEE National 1988. Dayton, OH: IEEE, pp. 789–795
    1. Tremblay SA. (2017) Cognitive approach to situation awareness: theory and application. London: Routledge
    1. Lauriola M, Levin IP. Personality traits and risky decision-making in a controlled experimental task: an exploratory study. Personality and Individual Differences 2001; 31:215–226
    1. Rundmo T. Associations between risk perception and safety. Safety Science 1996; 24:197–209
    1. Risk Research Committee. (1980) Accidents in Norway. How Do We Perceive and Handle Risk?. Oslo: Royal Norwegian Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (NTNF)
    1. Zuckerman M, Kuhlman DM. Personality and risk-taking: common bisocial factors. Journal of Personality 2000; 68:999–1029
    1. Dahlen ER, Martin RC, Ragan K, et al. . Driving anger, sensation seeking, impulsiveness, and boredom proneness in the prediction of unsafe driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention 2005; 37:341–348
    1. Donohew L, Zimmerman R, Cupp PS, et al. . Sensation seeking, impulsive decision-making, and risky sex: implications for risk-taking and design of interventions. Personality and Individual Differences 2000; 28:1079–1091
    1. Leeman RF, Hoff RA, Krishnan-Sarin S, et al. . Impulsivity, sensation-seeking, and part-time job status in relation to substance use and gambling in adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health 2014; 54:460–466
    1. Moreno M, Estevez AF, Zaldivar F, et al. . Impulsivity differences in recreational cannabis users and binge drinkers in a university population. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 2012; 124:355–362
    1. Dvorak RD, Day AM. Marijuana and self-regulation: examining likelihood and intensity of use and problems. Addictive Behaviors 2014; 39:709–712
    1. Trocki KF, Drabble LA, Midanik LT. Tobacco, marijuana, and sensation seeking: comparisons across gay, lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual groups. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 2009; 23:620.
    1. Ames SL, Zogg JB, Stacy AW. Implicit cognition, sensation seeking, marijuana use and driving behavior among drug offenders. Personality and Individual Differences 2002; 33:1055–1072
    1. Highhouse S, Nye CD, Zhang DC, et al. . Structure of the Dospert: is there evidence for a general risk factor? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 2017; 30:400–406
    1. Jackson DN, Hourany L, Vidmar NJ. A four-dimensional interpretation of risk taking. Journal of Personality 1972; 40:483–501
    1. Lejuez CW, Read JP, Kahler CW. Evaluation of a behavioral measure of risk taking: the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). Journal of Experimental Psychology 2002; 8:75–84
    1. Skeel RL, Neudecker J, Pilarski C, et al. . The utility of personality variables and behaviorally-based measures in the prediction of risk-taking behavior. Personality and Individual Differences 2007; 43:203–214
    1. Horvath P, Zuckerman M. Sensation seeking, risk appraisal, and risky behavior. Personality and Individual Differences 1993; 14:41–52
    1. Lejuez CW, Aklin WM, Zvolensky MJ, et al. . Evaluation of the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART) as a predictor of adolescent real-world risk-taking behaviours. Journal of Adolescence 2003; 26:475–479
    1. Verhulst N, De Keyser A, Gustafsson A, et al. . Neuroscience in service research: An overview and discussion of its possibilities. Journal of Service Management 2019; 30:621–649
    1. De-Juan-Ripoll C, Soler-Domínguez J, Guixeres J, et al. . Virtual reality as a new approach for risk taking assessment. Frontiers in Psychology 2018; 9:2532.
    1. Shute VJ. Stealth assessment in computer-based games to support learning. Computer Games and Instruction 2011; 55:503–524
    1. Bechara A, Damasio AR, Damasio H, et al. . Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex. Cognition 1994; 50:7–15
    1. Manchester D, Priestley N, Jackson H. The assessment of executive functions: coming out of the office. Brain Injury 2004; 18:1067–1081
    1. Sbordone RJ. Ecological validity of neuropsychological testing: critical issues. Neuropsychology Handbook 2008; 367:394
    1. Bottari C, Dassa C, Rainville C, et al. . The factorial validity and internal consistency of the instrumental activities of daily living profile in individuals with a traumatic brain injury. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation 2009; 19:177–207
    1. Verschoor A, D'Exelle B, Perez-Viana B. Lab and life: does risky choice behaviour observed in experiments reflect that in the real world?. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 2016; 128:134–148
    1. Tarr MJ, Warren WH. Virtual reality in behavioral neuroscience and beyond. Nature Neuroscience 2002; 5:1089.
    1. Alcañiz M, Rey B, Tembl J, et al. . A neuroscience approach to virtual reality experience using transcranial Doppler monitoring. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 2009; 18:97–111
    1. Chittaro L, Ranon R (2009) Serious games for training occupants of a building in personal fire safety skills. In Conference in Games and Virtual Worlds for Serious Applications 2009; VS-GAMES'09. Coventry, UK: IEEE, pp. 76–83
    1. Lovreglio R, Gonzalez V, Amor R, et al. (2017) The need for enhancing earthquake evacuee safety by using virtual reality serious games. In Proceedings of the Lean & Computing in Construction Congress. Crete, Greece, pp. 4–12
    1. Rizzo A, Bowerly T, Buckwalter JG, et al. . A virtual reality scenario for all seasons: the virtual classroom. CNS Spectrums 2006; 11:35–44
    1. Chicchi Giglioli IA, de Juan Ripoll C, Parra E, et al. . Are 3D virtual environments better than 2D interfaces in serious games performance? An explorative study for the assessment of executive functions. Applied Neuropsychology: Adult 2019; 1–10. DOI: 10.1080/23279095.2019.1607735
    1. Alcañiz M, Baños R, Botella C, et al. . The EMMA project: emotions as a determinant of presence. PsychNology Journal 2003; 1:141–150
    1. Huang HM, Rauch U, Liaw SS. Investigating learners' attitudes toward virtual reality learning environments: based on a constructivist approach. Computers & Education 2010; 55:1171–1182
    1. Dalgarno B, Lee MJ. What are the learning affordances of 3-D virtual environments?. British Journal of Educational Technology 2010; 41:10–32
    1. Mora F. (2013) Neuroeducación. Madrid: Alianza Editorial
    1. Fowler C. Virtual reality and learning: where is the pedagogy?. British Journal of Educational Technology 2015; 46:412–422
    1. Pérez J, Torrubia R. Reliability and validity of the Spanish version of the Sensation Seeking Scale (Form V). Latin American Journal of Psychology 1986; 18:7–22
    1. Zuckerman M, Kolin EA, Price L, et al. . Development of a sensation-seeking scale. Journal of Consulting Psychology 1964; 28:477–482
    1. Barratt ES. Impulsiveness subtraits: arousal and information processing. Motivation, Emotion and Personality 1985; 99:137–145
    1. Oquendo MA, Baca-García E, Graver R, et al. . Spanish adaptation of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS-11). European Journal of Psychiatry 2001; 15:147–155
    1. Patton JH, Stanford MS, Barratt ES. Factor structure of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology 1995; 51:768–774
    1. Sneddon A, Mearns K, Flin R. Stress, fatigue, situation awareness and safety in offshore drilling crews. Safety Science 2013; 56:80–88
    1. So RHY, Lo WT, Ho ATK. Effects of navigation speed on motion sickness caused by an immersive virtual environment. Human factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2001; 43:452–461
    1. Zuckerman M. Sensation seeking. The International Encyclopedia of Communication 2008. DOI: 10.1002/9781405186407.wbiecs029
    1. Orlebeke JF, Van der Molen MW, Dolan C, et al. . The additive factor logic applied to the personality trait disinhibition. Personality and Individual Differences 1990; 11:553–558
    1. Popham LE, Kennison SM, Bradley KI. Ageism, sensation-seeking, and risk-taking behavior in young adults. Current Psychology 2011; 30:184
    1. Roberti JW. A review of behavioral and biological correlates of sensation seeking. Journal of Research in Personality 2004; 38:256–279
    1. Zuckerman M, Eysenck SB, Eysenck HJ. Sensation seeking in England and America: cross-cultural, age, and sex comparisons. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1978; 46:139.
    1. Palmgreen P, Donohew L, Lorch EP, et al. . Television campaigns and adolescent marijuana use: tests of sensation seeking targeting. American Journal of Public Health 2001; 91:292.
    1. Hoyle RH, Stephenson MT, Palmgreen P, et al. . Reliability and validity of a brief measure of sensation seeking. Personality and Individual Differences 2002; 32:401–414
    1. Barry D, Petry NM. Predictors of decision-making on the Iowa Gambling Task: independent effects of lifetime history of substance use disorders and performance on the Trail Making Test. Brain and Cognition 2008; 66:243–252
    1. Businelle MS, Apperson MR, Kendzor DE, et al. . The relative impact of nicotine dependence, other substance dependence, and gender on Bechara Gambling Task performance. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology 2008; 16:513.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe