Perceiving is the process of constructing a mental representation through sensory information as a means of maintaining contact with the environment, so we can deduce that to perceive is to detect environmental information. We perceive information through signals and convert them into psychologically meaningful representations which define our behavior in the slopes.
The restorative effect that mountain nature generates is increased when there is resonance with the environment but some skiers do not seem to appreciate it. This connection, which depends on a sense of safety and perceptual evaluation, is distorted when a risky context is perceived.
Certain patterns in risk perception can be identified in risk as a fatal threat; as predestination; as a test of strength; as a possibility; or as an advance warning.
Theories of risk perception
According to the Risk homeostasis theory, we estimate the ‘optimal’ risk related to the pleasurable reward we will get from the performance we intend to execute. We monitor the level of risk we feel exposed to (subjective risk) and compare it to the level of risk we would accept (intentional risk), trying to reduce any difference between the two. If our subjective level is lower, then we tend to behave by increasing our exposure to risk. The level of risk subjectively tolerated depends on the benefit we will derive from our behaviors.
The Zero-risk theory considers that we, as riding a vehicle (our skis), are active agents and that our behavior is directed toward self-imposed goals and intentions. We determine the level of demand of our own skiing: to increase or decrease speed; to move closer to or further away from another skier or snowboarder; to overtake in a narrow or in a wide space; or to descend on a steep slope or on a smooth one.
In our skiing behavior, motives and emotions are more important than our technical skills. According to this theory, there are two motivational groups: excitatory motives that drive risky behavior; and inhibitory motives that lead to prudent behavior. When the balance is tilted towards excitatory motives, we have a tendency to become accustomed to tolerate risks that are too high, with a tendency for accidents to occur. A threat perceived as an imminent risk triggers an inhibitory behavior by braking to control the risk or to reduce it. Our behavior will remain within acceptable limits when there is a balance between the two motives.
Feature integration theory suggests that the features are captured early while the object is identified separately and at a later stage of visual attentional processing. According to this theory, this results because we are not aware as it occurs early in our perceptual process, i.e., before awareness of the whole object. For example, when perceiving a terrain that implies a potential risk, according to this theory, we would first perceive its characteristics: the slope, the configuration of the surface, the condition of the snow, or the dangerous elements it presents before perceiving the terrain as a whole.
According to the Risk compensation theory, we would adjust our behavior according to our own level of risk perception, i.e., we become more careful when we perceive a higher risk and less so if we feel protected.
The formation of expectations shapes risk perception
Perception is contaminated by our beliefs about the perceived world. The way we perceive the skiing environment depends on the expectations and the moods they generate. Thus, a distressed novice may perceive the beginner slope as a challenging one or an intermediate skier may interpret slight undulations as threatening moguls.
Skiing can become a risky but underestimated activity due to habituation and familiarity, factors that mitigate perceived risk. We perceive external conditions (slope, weather and terrain conditions, speed, possible trajectories, other people), including the perception of the potential risks that these conditions may generate; but also perceive our internal condition (skills, sensations, emotions, attention, decision making). Although we use a set of self-regulated actions to control our executions based on our experience, it is our expectations of how circumstances will develop that define our perception of risks: if these are below a certain threshold we will not perceive risk.
The influence of affectivity on risk perception
Our affective characteristic of a risky situation influences the way we perceive it and this influences our behavior because we tend to pay more attention to affective information than to rational information, since it constitutes a priority of our attentional resources. For example, our emotions influence visual perception. Experiencing a negative emotion leads to a decrease in our visual field, increasing the perception of risk. Fear can influence hazard perception, especially on steep slopes where the consequences of falling could be significant. The perception of height depends on whether or not we have fear of heights.
Auditory perception is considered a kind of alarm system that monitors the environment, allowing the orientation of our attention towards relevant or irrelevant stimuli. It encompasses the detection, analysis, and discernment of sounds and comprises both active and attentional hearing (listening) and a more passive and pre-attentional form (hearing).
Auditory perception is fundamental to our interaction with the environment. The noise of our skis on ice prior to an imbalance may condition us every time we hear it, causing tension even if there is no loss of balance or fall. This sound conditions our learning to anticipate the adoption of a more stable posture, so we can say that skiing is also learned by auditory perception.
Research reveals that sounds coming from behind generate stronger negative emotions and that auditory perception is faster and more accurate in detecting them. If we find ourselves in a negative emotional state, we may perceive with greater intensity the sound of our skis scrapping the snow, increasing our perception of risk, and interpreting it as an aversive experience of fear that would give an inhibitory response to our behavior through a braking reaction.
Relationship between difficulty of execution and risk perception
Difficulty of execution and risk perception are interrelated. When skiing, we try to keep the complexity of the descent within a certain range of execution difficulty in which we are comfortable. Difficulty comes from our perceived control and our ability to cope. Our perceived ability depends on our competencies (physical and mental constitution), technical skill, and deficiencies as variable factors (fatigue and distraction).
The demands of our executions are determined by the variability of the context. These variables can be terrain or snow conditions, speed, weather and, eventually, the level of congestion of a slope. If one of these variables is modified, for example, increasing our speed, the demands of our performance may increase as well as our perception of risk. If our performance warrants actions to reduce the requests of the run, this will depend on what we consider acceptable.
When the perceived risk of the descend exceeds our tolerable limit, then we will tend to slow down to reduce those demands. The determination of whether or not to slow down will lie in whether we adopt an avoidance behavior or a risk behavior.
We can determine how difficult or risky an execution will be. We are generally prone to avoid experiencing sensations of loss of control and will tend to balance the difficulty of our performance or the risk with the self-assessment of our own capabilities. More precisely, we will equate our perceived difficulty with our perceived risk: the greater the difficulty, the greater the risk and vice versa.
Risk perception tends to decrease if the risky situation is chosen by ourselves but tends to increase if it is imposed by someone else. It is not the same to decide to go down a threatening slope on our own as it is for our instructor asking us to do so. On the other hand, our own perception of safety is influenced by the confidence we have in the person in charge.
