THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AEROSPACE PSYCHOLOGY https://doi.org/10.1080/24721840.2018.1479639

Preflight Safety Briefings: Understanding the Relationship Between Mode of Delivery, Recall of Key Safety Messages, and Mood Brett R. C. Molesworth, Joanna Pagan, and Chloe Wilcock School of Aviation, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

ABSTRACT Objective: The aim of this research was to examine how mode of delivery affects recall of key information presented in the preflight safety briefing as well as mood. Background: Preflight safety briefings are required prior to every com- mercial flight. To meet this requirement, often use prerecorded briefings, in the form of audio or video, which can sometimes be supple- mented with a live demonstration. Method: One hundred and sixty-two participants were randomly divided into 5 groups—control (no briefing), audio only, audio plus live demonstra- tion, video only, and video plus live demonstration—and exposed to a prerecorded safety briefing. Recall performance in terms of key safety messages was analyzed postbriefing, as well as changes in mood from pre- to postbriefing. Results: Recall of certain key safety information is related to both cabin crew members and the medium in which the safety material is delivered. Native English speakers also recalled more information than their non- native counterparts. Participants' mood was adversely affected in the video condition. Conclusion: These results highlight the limitations associated with the way many airlines presently deliver their preflight safety briefing.

It is a regulatory requirement that airlines brief all passengers about the safety features of the they are aboard prior to every flight ( Safety Authority [CASA], 2009; Federal Aviation Administration [FAA], 2014). To comply with this requirement, airlines commonly use a prere- corded safety briefing. Although a prerecorded safety briefing is easy to deliver, it might have unintended consequences for cabin crew, the most notable being a possible loss of vital skills or knowledge. To protect against this, some airlines require their cabin crew to actively demonstrate a minimum number of safety briefings over a defined period (e.g., monthly). This can be achieved by delivering the safety briefing without the prerecorded material, or simply supplementing the briefing by demonstrating key features from it. From a passenger’s perspective, seeing a cabin crew member actively involved in the cabin briefing could also be beneficial (Thomas, 2003); it might encourage passengers to pay attention or help them better comprehend the content and, as a result, increase the likelihood of recalling key safety information in an emergency. Hence, the main aim of this research was to examine whether the medium in which the safety briefing is provided affects individuals’ recall of the content, namely key safety messages. In contrast to safety cards, which are designed to provide passengers with a quick reference source for emergency procedures, the preflight safety briefing, which is designed to educate passengers about the safety features of the aircraft they are aboard, has received little attention.

CONTACT Brett R. C. Molesworth [email protected] School of Aviation, University of New South Wales, Old Main Building, Room 205, Sydney, NSW 2052 Australia. © 2018 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC 2 B. R. C. MOLESWORTH ET AL.

What is known, however, is that passengers largely remain inattentive during the safety briefing or do not take this information seriously (Chang & Yang, 2011; Johnson, 1979; National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB], 2000; Parker, 2006). This has encouraged some airlines to be creative in how they design and market their safety briefings. For example, some airlines use humor, use celebrities, design the safety briefing around topical themes or movies, or even employ sex appeal. While theories relating to marketing such as the meaning transfer model (McCracken, 1986) and the elaboration likelihood model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1984)provide insight as to why (or why not) such techniques should be effective, there is limited research examining how effective such techniques are in practice. In one study, Molesworth (2014)found that using humor or a celebrity was effective in conveying key safety messages, compared to a briefing devoid of either, but recall of key safety messages averaged less than 50% in both cases when tested immediately following the briefing. Two hours postbriefing, recall performance was worse, decreasing on average an extra 4%. The preflight safety briefing is not only an opportunity to educate passengers about the safety features of the aircraft in which they are flying, it is also an opportunity to positively affect individuals’ mood (Tehrani & Molesworth, 2015). Mood is a long-lasting affective state (Russell, 2003), and sustained emotion has been linked to performance (Albarracin & Hart, 2011; Boldizsár, Soós, Whyte, & Hamar, 2016; Forgas, 1991; Pfaff, 2012). Positive mood is often accompanied by positive performance, and negative mood is associated with negative performance (Friedman, Forster, & Denzle, 2007; Morgan, Jones, & Harris, 2013). Mood is also an emotional contagion (Bhullar, 2012). Leaders or persons of influence can affect the feelings, and hence mood of others (Sy, Côté, & Saavedra, 2005). This is precisely what Molesworth (2014) found when examining a preflight safety briefing that featured an entertaining and humorous actor. Participants exposed to this briefing scored higher on a mood scale than others who were exposed to a safety briefing devoid of humor. Richards and Whittaker (1990) also found that reflecting on positive images (e.g., flowers) improves mood, whereas negative images (e.g., destruction caused by war) adversely affect mood. Employing such images (positive – flowers; negative – destruction), Tehrani and Molesworth (2016) found that during a mock emergency aircraft evacuation, passengers in a positive mood committed approximately seven times fewer errors than, and evacuated an aircraft in about half the time of, passengers in a negative mood. In many instances, the challenge for airlines is how to attract and maintain passengers’ attention to the preflight safety briefing in the first place. Using eye gaze data to determine the number of times passengers looked away during a briefing, Seneviratne and Molesworth (2015) found that embedding humor in the preflight safety briefings attracted and maintained passengers’ attention for longer than a briefing that employed a celebrity. However, irrespective of the method used to deliver the preflight safety briefing, recall of key safety messages averaged 50%. Whether varying the medium in which the briefing is presented (i.e., audio only, video only, and with or without live demonstration) positively affects recall remains unknown, and hence was the main focus of this research. Airlines comply with the passenger briefing regulatory requirement by delivering the preflight safety briefing using audio only, a video, or a combination of audio or video with a live demonstra- tion. In many cases, the medium in which the preflight safety briefing is delivered is influenced by the aircraft inflight entertainment system. Research investigating learning reveals that a combination of pictures and spoken text is superior to pictures and written text; an effect that is referred to as the modality effect (Mayer, 2009). Reduced mental effort and improved recall of information are just some of the benefits associated with the modality effect (Ginns, 2005). A combination of audio and visual (i.e., text or audiovisual) is better than just one of these modalities (Appiah, 2006; Atoum & Al-Simadi, 2000; Wogalter, Shaver, & Kalsher, 2014). Little is known, however, about the benefits of using a live person (e.g., a cabin crew member) to supplement this information. Having a cabin crew member involved in the briefing presumably not THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AEROSPACE PSYCHOLOGY 3 only maintains crew members’ currency, in terms of knowledge and emergency procedures, but also conveys a message to the passengers that safety is important and they should pay attention. According to Laughery (2006), this benefit is potentially greater for non-English speakers - ing with an on which the safety briefing is not provided in their native tongue, as the additional visual information provided by a cabin crew member should help address the language barrier (and any literacy concerns), ultimately aiding in comprehension. Presenting safety informa- tion visually also avoids the masking effect of aircraft engine noise. Broadband noise generated by aircraft engines has been shown to adversely affect memory, particularly for passengers whose native language is not English (Molesworth, Burgess, Gunnell, Löffler, & Venjakob, 2014). How the presence of a cabin crew member or the modality in which the safety briefing is presented affects passengers’ mood remains unknown. This additional visual source of information could facilitate information acquisition and recall. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of the medium in which the preflight safety briefing is provided, in terms of individuals’ recall of key safety messages embedded within it. In addition, because mood has been linked with performance and can be manipulated through different media, this study investigated the effect of media on mood. In pursuit of this aim, the following research questions were examined:

(1) Does the medium in which the preflight safety briefing is presented affect recall performance of key safety messages embedded within the briefing? (2) Does the medium in which the preflight safety briefing is presented affect individuals’ mood? (3) What is the relationship among the preflight safety briefing medium, native language, and recall of key safety messages?

Method Participants A total of 162 university students (61 female) with an average age of 19.69 (SD = 3.00) years volunteered for the research (i.e., there was no reimbursement). Of these, 72 were native English speakers (NS), and 88 were English as a second language (ESL)1 speakers. The native languages spoken by the ESL participants2 were Chinese (46), Cantonese (17), Korean (5), Thai (3), Mandarin (5), Indonesian (3), Portuguese (2), Farsi (1), Lao (1), Marathi (1), Mongolian (1), Tamil (1), and Urdu (1). The level of English of the ESL speakers was at a standard deemed acceptable for entry into an English-speaking university (i.e., an International English Language Testing System score above 6.5). The research, including all stimuli, was approved in advance by the University of New South Wales ethics panel.

Design The experimental design employed to examine the effects of safety briefing style on recall perfor- mance comprised a 2 × 2 × 2 between-groups design with the addition of a control group for comparison. The independent variables were: medium containing two levels (audio and video), live demonstration containing two levels (no demonstration and live demonstration), and native lan- guage also containing two levels (NS and ESL speaker). There were nine dependent variables, one for each of the nine different sections that comprised the safety briefing (seat belt, brace position, exits, emergency lighting, escape slides, oxygen, life jackets, smoking, and safety card). In total, the nine sections contained 32 key safety messages.

1Two participants failed to state their native language. 2One participant failed to state his or her native language. 4 B. R. C. MOLESWORTH ET AL.

The experimental design employed to examine the effect of mood on recall performance com- prised a 2 × 2 × 2 mixed repeated measures design. The between-groups variables of medium and live demonstration were featured, as in the first experimental design, in addition to the sole repeated- measures variable of mood, which contained two levels (presafety briefing and postsafety briefing). The same dependent variable (number of key safety messages recalled per briefing section) was featured along with the control group, which served as comparison.

Materials The materials were a demographics questionnaire (i.e., age, gender, native language), flight history questionnaire (i.e., number of flights during the previous 12 months and 5 years), actual preflight safety video (employed in the four experimental conditions, including the two audio conditions, with the visual display switched off), health care financial management video (used as a foil for the control group; video content—how compares with hospital safety), the Profile of Mood State–Short Form (POMS–SF; Shacham, 1983)questionnaire (employed preintervention and postintervention), and a comprehension test form (Barkow & Rutenberg, 2002;Molesworth,2014). The preflight safety video employed in the four experimental conditions (i.e., audio with and without live demonstration, video played with the visuals switched off, video, and video plus live demonstration) was an actual preflight safety video used by an Australian airline. Hence, it contained all the material required by the FAA and CASA (CASA, 2009; FAA, 2014) for preflight safety briefings. Specifically, the video presented information about seat belts, brace position, exits, emergency lighting, escape slides and life rafts, oxygen, life jackets, smoking, and safety cards (see Table 1). A female narrator provided the voice-over throughout the video, while two adults (male and female) and one child demonstrated the required actions. Soft music (without lyrics) played in the background of the video and the video had no subtitles. Shacham’s(1983)POMS–SF questionnaire is a mood adjective checklist designed to mea- sure six discrete mood states (depression, vigor [subscale weighted negatively], confusion, tension, anger, and fatigue). Participants had to state on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0(not at all)to4(extremely) how much each adjective applies to them. Possible scores range from 0 to 148. The comprehension test form employed by Molesworth (2014)wasused.Instructionsatthe beginning of the form asked participants to recall as much information as possible from the safety briefing to which they had just been exposed. There were no questions on this form, just the instructions noted earlier. To aid with recall, as opposed to leading with the use of questions, the form was divided into sections, each with a subheading, reflecting the structure of the video (i.e., seat belts, brace position, exits, emergency lighting, etc.; see Table 1). One additional subheading—Other—was included to aid in the capture of information participants had not noted elsewhere, or had spontaneously recalled. This could have included information about the crew and their safety role that had been incorporated in various sections throughout the safety video. For data analysis purposes, any safetymessagewrittenintheOthercategorywas transferred to its appropriate section and coded under this heading. The health care financial management video shown to the control group was completely unre- lated to aviation safety briefings, and hence served as a foil. Each video was displayed using a data projector and accompanying speakers. A separate loudspeaker was used to play broadband noise (i.e., simulated aircraft noise) at 65 dBA (Ozcan &Nemlioglu,2006, found that noise levels during the taxi in an A321 averaged 65 dBA). The target audio was set at 70 dBA, using the Bruel and Kjaer sound level meter (type 2250). This level was determined by a subject matter expert () with 16 years of flying experience (see Molesworth & Burgess, 2013); hence, all participants could clearly hear the target audio above the broadband noise. The background music in the target audio varied; at THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AEROSPACE PSYCHOLOGY 5

Table 1. Average number of key safety messages recalled presented as a percentage in each of the nine sections of the safety briefing for both native English speakers (NS) and English as a Second Language speakers (ESL) distributed across the five experimental conditions. Experimental Condition Audio Plus Video Plus All Control Audio Only Demonstration Video Only Demonstration Native Briefing Section Language % SD % SD % SD % SD % SD % SD Seat belt NS 39.79 18.29 34.83 20.33 32.46 15.19 43.75 24.25 39.58 17.08 48.33 14.59 ESL 16.28 13.84 17.54 13.00 27.45 21.20 —— 14.45 17.67 21.97 17.36 Total 28.04 16.07 26.19 16.67 29.95 18.19 21.88 12.12 27.01 17.37 35.15 15.97 Brace position NS 44.83 17.28 34.09 23.11 44.74 13.38 48.44 17.00 46.88 12.50 50.00 20.41 ESL 20.23 21.94 18.42 23.34 27.94 23.19 25.00 21.13 15.00 20.70 14.77 21.35 Total 32.53 19.61 26.26 23.22 36.34 18.29 36.72 19.07 30.94 16.60 32.39 20.88 Exits NS 77.50 31.81 90.91 30.15 81.58 29.86 65.63 35.21 84.38 30.10 65.00 33.75 ESL 35.70 40.76 44.74 40.47 35.30 45.98 46.67 44.19 20.00 36.84 31.82 36.34 Total 56.60 36.29 67.82 35.31 58.44 37.92 56.15 39.70 52.19 33.47 48.41 35.04 Emergency lighting NS 75.52 43.93 72.73 46.71 73.68 45.24 73.68 45.24 87.50 34.16 70.00 48.31 ESL 32.13 47.94 31.58 47.76 35.29 49.26 35.29 49.26 26.67 45.77 31.82 47.67 Total 53.82 45.94 52.16 47.23 54.49 47.25 54.49 47.25 57.09 39.97 50.91 47.99 Escape slides NS 35.22 26.30 60.61 20.10 26.32 23.78 31.25 33.26 31.25 33.26 26.67 21.08 ESL 15.98 21.10 29.82 26.98 21.57 26.20 6.67 18.69 6.67 13.80 15.15 19.86 Total 25.60 23.70 45.22 23.54 23.94 24.99 18.96 25.98 18.96 23.53 20.91 20.47 Oxygen NS 50.73 25.72 46.97 27.71 42.11 23.15 58.33 25.09 47.92 20.97 58.33 31.67 ESL 27.43 23.22 27.19 18.60 27.45 28.22 34.45 16.02 17.78 24.77 30.30 28.47 Total 39.08 24.47 37.08 23.15 34.78 25.69 46.39 20.56 32.85 22.87 44.32 30.07 Life jackets NS 52.62 23.89 50.00 26.87 57.90 23.15 58.33 25.09 46.88 22.13 50.00 22.22 ESL 28.62 23.54 14.04 15.97 34.31 31.99 41.11 21.70 23.33 25.82 30.30 22.20 Total 40.62 23.72 32.02 21.42 46.10 27.57 49.72 23.40 35.10 23.97 40.15 22.21 Smoking NS 95.40 16.01 100.00 — 94.74 22.94 94.74 22.94 87.50 34.16 100.00 — ESL 95.54 16.01 89.47 31.53 94.12 24.25 94.12 24.25 100.00 — 100.00 — Total 95.47 16.01 94.74 15.77 94.43 23.60 94.43 23.60 93.75 17.08 100.00 — Safety cards NS 38.51 25.83 51.52 27.34 36.84 24.58 29.17 16.67 41.67 33.33 33.33 27.22 ESL 25.87 24.66 28.07 22.94 27.45 26.97 31.11 19.79 20.00 27.60 22.73 26.00 Total 32.19 25.24 39.79 25.14 32.15 25.77 30.14 18.23 30.83 30.47 28.03 26.61 Grand total NS 60.18 24.70 54.48 24.59 55.92 27.20 57.06 26.41 55.74 24.36 56.68 25.45 ESL 33.43 26.73) 36.76 30.81 34.93 23.89 27.10 23.66 33.21 24.36 33.09 25.89 Total 46.81 25.72) 45.62 27.70 45.43 25.54 42.08 25.04 44.74 24.36 46.81 25.72

the start, prior to the introduction, the music was at 70 dBA, and when the female narrator spoke, the music fell to approximately 65 dBA. A female cabin crew member (32 years old) with 9 years of flying experience on both wide-body and narrow-body aircraft delivered the live demonstration. Props used during the live demonstration included: a seat belt, oxygen mask, life jacket, and safety card.

Procedure Potential participants were invited to volunteer for the research by putting their names on a sign-up sheet. Participants were randomly divided into five groups. Each group completed the research on the same day of the week and at the same time (to control for the effects of circadian rhythm). Participants were asked to complete a consent form, complete a POMS–SF questionnaire (preinter- vention), watch the assigned video or audio, complete a second POMS–SF questionnaire (post- intervention), complete a comprehension test form, and finally complete a demographics and flight 6 B. R. C. MOLESWORTH ET AL. history questionnaire. The reproduced broadband noise was set at 65 dBA, and the target audio was set at 70 dBA. No time limit was set for participants to complete the study. On average each group took approximately 40 min to complete the experiment sequence.

Results Data Reduction Participants were awarded one point for the accurate recall of information pertaining to a safety message. To award points, the following process was undertaken. The words of the narrator were scripted and divided into their respective topic or section (i.e., seat belt, brace position, etc.). Sentences in the script were left whole if they contained one safety message. When a sentence contained multiple safety messages, they were divided to ensure each sentence only contained one safety message. A safety message was defined as a piece of information pertaining to an action (instruction) or acquisition of knowledge. For example, the following sentence appeared in the script, which was deemed to contain two safety messages; the first summarized was as “when to fasten your seat belt,” and the second was summarized as “knowledge about brace position.” The sentence read, “While seated at all other times we require you to have your seat belt fastened and in the unlikely event of an emergency, it is important that you are familiar with the brace position appropriate for your seat.” The division of sentences into safety messages was conducted by two researchers, both with flying experience (commercial pilot license holders). This process resulted in 32 safety messages. Three sentences in the script were excluded as they contained no safety message (two introductory and one farewell sentence). A single point was awarded only if the participant was able to articulate in whole the action or knowledge pertaining to the safety message. For example, one sentence in the script relating to the operation of the oxygen mask stated, “Pull down on it firmly to activate the flow of oxygen.” Participant 19 was awarded one point as he or she wrote “Pull down firmly to start flow of oxygen.” Similarly, Participant 60 was also awarded a point for writing “I must pull it to start the flow.” Participant 61 received no points for stating “pull out oxygen mask,” nor did this relate to any other safety message. To ensure the coding was as accurate as possible, two coders independently scored participants’ ’ responses. Discrepancies in coding were noted with 10 participants (Cohen s K = .94). Following the initial coding, all discrepancies were discussed, resulting in consensus. Participants received a score out of 32 (see “Materials” section), which was converted into a percentage for ease of presentation and interpretation (see Table 1).

Memory of Content Participants’ recall score in each section of the briefing for the four experimental groups (i.e., audio only, audio plus live demonstration, video, and video plus live demonstration) and, for the control group, their ability to recall any key safety messages from previous preflight safety briefings was compared between groups. However, before conducting this analysis, it was important to determine whether the groups differed based on prior exposure to safety briefings. Hence, two separate one- way analyses of variances (ANOVAs) were conducted, one for data pertaining to the number of flights made in the previous 12 months, and a second pertaining to data for the number of flights in the previous 5 years. The dependent variable in this analysis was total number of safety messages recalled (out of 32). With alpha set at .05, and test assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance satisfactory, the results failed to reveal any differences between groups on either dependent variable: largest F, F(4, 150) = .517, p = .724, partial η2 = .014 (number of flights in the previous 5 years). This result indicates that the groups did not differ from one another based on prior exposure to preflight safety briefings. THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AEROSPACE PSYCHOLOGY 7

The next step involved examining differences between groups (independent variable) based on recall of key safety messages in each of the nine different sections of the briefing (dependent variable). Hence, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed with the following three independent variables: medium, live demonstration, and language background. With alpha set at .05 and the ANOVA test assumptions satisfactory, the results revealed a main effect for native language in eight of the nine sections, smallest F, F(1, 122) = 4.65, p = .033, partial η2 = .04; safety card section. The one section where the result was not statistically significant was Smoking, F(1, 122) = .09, p = .77, partial η2 = .00. As can be seen in Table 1 (in the All column), native English speakers recalled more items correctly than their non-native speakers, except in the smoking section (recall was high across both groups). To determine if the same trend existed with the participants who were not exposed to any briefing (i.e., control group), a second MANOVA was conducted, this time with native language as the sole independent variable and the nine sections of the briefing as dependent variables. The results revealed a significant difference for the seat belt, exits, life jacket, and safety card sections, (smallest F, F(1, 28) = 6.33, p = .02, partial η2 = .19, for the safety card section), where native English speakers recalled more information than their non-native counter- parts (see Table 1). No significant differences were observed for the brace position, lighting, escape slides, oxygen, and smoking sections, largest F, F(1, 28) = .09, p = .77, partial η2 = .00. This result indicates that certain sections of the briefing were more memorable than others, and in these circumstances native English speakers found them easier to recall than nonnative speakers. A main effect for medium was only present in one of the nine sections, life jackets, F(1, 122) = 5.45, p = .021, partial η2 = .04. Participants recalled more items correctly when the safety briefing material was presented in audio format (47.91%, SD = 25.48) as opposed to video (37.63%, SD = 23.09; p = .017). To determine if this recall was similar to that in the control group, a second MANOVA was conducted examining performance differences between the control group and the two groups comprising the medium variable (audio and video). With alpha adjusted to .025 control for family-wise error, the results revealed a significant difference between groups, F(2, 159) = 7.56, p = .001, partial η2 = .09. Post- hoc pairwise comparisons reveal the significant difference was between the audio condition and the control group only (p < .001). Participants in the audio condition recalled on average 47.91% (SD = 25.48) of the safety messages in the life jacket section. In contrast, participants in the control group recalled 32.02% (SD = 21.42). This result indicates that audio is the best method to present information about life jackets, but recall even with this method was less than 50%. Table 2 highlights the six key pieces of information contained in the life jacket section of the demonstration. As can be seen in Table 2, participants in the audio group consistently recalled more pieces of information, with the exception of the first piece of information (familiarize yourself with location of life jacket) presented in this section. There was also one main effect for live demonstration, this time with oxygen, F(1, 122) = 6.51, p = .01, partial η2 = .05. As can be seen in Table 3, participants recalled more key safety messages relating to the use of oxygen when the crew member demonstrated its usage (45.35%, SD = 25.31) compared to without (33.81%, SD = 24.28). This was true for each of the six pieces of information contained in the oxygen section of the demonstration.

Table 2. Percentage of participants who recalled each specific key safety message relating to the life jacket distributed across the medium groups and control. Control Audio Video Life Jacket (LJ) Section % n % n % n Familiarize yourself with location of LJ 53.33 16 66.67 46 76.19 48 Actual location of LJ 16.67 5 55.07 38 28.57 18 Pay attention to team member; they will demonstrate use 0.00 0 15.94 11 6.39 4 How to place LJ on 16.67 5 47.82 33 25.39 16 Accessories on LJ 46.66 14 44.92 31 41.27 26 When to inflate LJ 30.00 9 47.82 33 38.10 24 8 B. R. C. MOLESWORTH ET AL.

Table 3. Percentage of participants who recalled each specific key safety message relating to the oxygen distributed across the two crew member groups. No Crew Crew Member Oxygen Section % n % n Oxygen, altitude and consciousness 8.30 8 18.50 12 In emergency, mask will appear 62.90 61 70.80 46 How to operate oxygen 37.10 36 38.50 25 How to secure mask 23.70 23 36.90 24 How oxygen is delivered 9.30 9 20.00 13 When to help others 64.90 63 70.80 46

The MANOVA comparing recall performance in all nine sections between the two groups comprising the live demonstration variable (with crew member and without crew member) and the control group revealed only one significant difference, this time with the life jacket section, F(2, 159) = 3.94, p = .02, partial η2 = .05; largest F, F(2, 159) = 2.31, p = .10, partial η2 = .03 for the seat belt section. Post-hoc pairwise comparisons reveal the participants in the live demonstration con- dition recalling more (44.93%, SD = 22.80) key safety messages than participants in the control group (32.02%, SD = 21.42, p = .008). Likewise, participants in the no demonstration condition recalled more key safety messages (40.60%, SD = 25.77) than participants in the control group (p = .02; Bonferroni adjustment .025). Because both the live demonstration and the no demonstration conditions have only the exposure to the briefing in common, this result highlights the benefit of this recent exposure. Figure 1 displays the one Language × Live Demonstration interaction, which was for exits, F(1, 122) = 4.87, p = .029, partial η2 = .03. Post-hoc pairwise comparisons revealed that with the live demonstration, native English speakers recalled more information about exits than without the live demonstration, t(59) = 2.142, p = .036. In addition, native English speakers, irrespective of live demonstration or not, recalled more information about exits than their nonnative counterparts, t (128) = 6.448, p < .001. No statistically significant differences were present between ESL speakers based on live demonstration or not, t(67) = .99, p = .33. A similar trend was evident for the participants in the control group. Native English speakers recalled more information (90.91%, SD = 30.15) about exits than their non-native counterparts (44.74%, SD = 40.47), t(28) = 3.284, p = .003. Figure 2 displays the one Language × Medium interaction, which was for seat belts, F(1, 122) = 5.14, p = .025, partial η2 = .04. As evident in Figure 2, medium had little effect on recall performance for both native English speakers, t(59) = 1.10, p = .28, and nonnative speakers, t(67) = 1.91, p = .06.

90 80 Live demonstration 70 No demonstration 60 50 40 30

Percentage recalled 20 10 0 Yes No Native English Speaker

Figure 1. Percentage of key safety messages recalled relating to exits distributed across native English and non-native speakers when the safety briefing was supplemented by a live demonstration or not. THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AEROSPACE PSYCHOLOGY 9

50 45 Audio 40 35 Video 30 25 20 15

Percentage recalled 10 5 0 Yes No Native English Speaker

Figure 2. Percentage of key safety messages recalled relating to seat belts distributed across native language and briefing medium (audio and video).

In contrast, native English speakers recalled a higher percentage of safety messages relating to seat belts than non-native speakers when the information was presented in video format, t(61) = 5.47, p < .001, whereas in the audio condition, the result was approaching the predefined significance level (Bonferroni adjustment .025), t(65) = 2.25, p = .03. This result highlights the native language advantage, which is further improved if the target material is presented in video format. In the control group, however, native English speakers recalled more information (34.83%, SD = 20.33) about exits than their non-native counterparts (17.54%, SD = 13.00), t(28) = 2.85, p = .008. There was no three-way interaction among live demonstration, medium, and language for any of the nine sections of the briefing, with the largest F, F(1, 122) = 3.46, p = .07, partial η2 = .03. To investigate the relationship between prior exposure to flight briefings and recall, two separate correlational analyses were performed, one relating to number of flights in the previous 12 months and another for flights in the previous 5 years. The results of two separate Pearson product–moment correlations failed to reveal a relationship between prior exposure to safety briefings (over 1 or 5 years) and recall of key safety messages: largest r, r(29) = .187, p = .332 (previous 12 months and key safety messages). This result indicates recall of the key safety messages was not affected by previous flights flown. Table 1 displays the percentage of key safety messages in each section of the safety briefing recalled by both NS and ESL speakers, distributed across experimental condition (i.e., safety briefing medium). As can be seen in Table 1, most participants were able to accurately recall information pertaining to smoking in the safety briefing, or in the case of the control group from previous briefings (range = 88–100%). Native speakers were able to recall a large number of the safety messages relating to exits (range = 65–91%) and emergency lighting (range = 70–88%), whereas the ESL speakers recalled these to a lesser extent (20–47%). Recall of information relating to seat belts was low along with brace position and safety cards for all participants (14–44%). Overall recall performance across all sections of the briefing was surprisingly poor, averaging 49% of key safety messages for native speakers, whereas ESL speakers only achieved 27%, resulting in a combined total of 34% recall.

Mood Scores The next step was to determine whether participants’ mood was affected by the various media in which the preflight safety briefing was presented. Scores from the POMS–SF (Shacham, 1983) for all participants across the two time conditions (pre-intervention and post-intervention) were analyzed in two separate analyses; the first analysis involved a mixed repeated measures ANOVA, with 10 B. R. C. MOLESWORTH ET AL. medium and live demonstration as the between-group factors for those participants who were exposed to the preflight safety briefing in various forms in this experiment. The second involved a paired samples t test for the participants in the control group. Mood was calculated using Shacham’s (1983) Total Mood Disturbance (TMD) formula: Depression-Dejection + Tension-Anxiety + Anger- Hostility + Fatigue-Inertia + Confusion-Bewilderment + (24 – Vigor-Activity); higher scores reflect a more negative mood. With alpha set at .05 and the ANOVA test assumptions satisfactory, the mixed repeated measures analysis revealed both a main effect for time, F(1, 105) = 5.06, p = .03, partial η2 = .07, as well as a Time × Medium interaction, F(1, 105) = 7.84, p = .006, partial η2 = .07. No other interactions were significant, largest F, F(1, 105) = 2.27, p = .14, partial η2 = .02 (Mood × Crew). Although the main effect for time revealed that exposure to the preflight safety briefing adversely affected participants’ mood (TMD score prebriefing = 25.53, SD = 3.07; TMD score postbriefing = 26.05, SD = 3.17), it was important to investigate the Time × Medium interaction to determine if this result was influenced by one condition in particular. This indeed appeared to be the case. A simple effects analysis involving a series of paired-samples t tests (alpha adjusted to .025 to control for family-wise error and assumptions of normality met) revealed a statistically significant difference between mood scores pre- and post-intervention for the safety briefing in video format only, t(49) = 3.91, p < .001. As can be seen in Figure 3, the total mood disturbance score increased from 25.21 (SD = 2.86) to 26.49 (SD = 3.33). Because an increase in TMD score reflects a more negative mood, these results indicate that exposure to a safety briefing presented in a video format adversely affected participants’ mood (see Table 4). No statistical differences were noted in the audio condition between the two TMD scores, t(49) = .38, p = .71. The sole paired-samples t test comparing TMD scores pre- and postexposure for the control group failed to reveal a statistically significant difference, t(2) = .58, p = .57. These results indicate that being exposed to a preflight safety briefing in video format adversely affects mood, a result that was not present in the control condition or in the audio safety briefing condition.

27 Audio Video 26

25

Total Mood Disturbance score 24 Pre-test Post-test Test Administered

Figure 3. Total Mood Disturbance (TMD) score pre- and post-test distributed across briefing medium (audio and video).

Table 4. Total Mood Disturbance (TMD) score pre- and post-safety briefing, and change between the two scores for each experimental condition (i.e., safety briefing medium). TMD Prior TMD Post Group MSDMSDChange ± Control 26.30 4.50 25.75 2.02 −.55 Audio 25.80 3.22 25.67 2.99 −.13 Video 25.21 2.86 26.49* 3.33 + 1.28 Note. Higher score reflects a more negative mood. *p < .001. THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AEROSPACE PSYCHOLOGY 11

Discussion The results of this study indicate that recall of certain key safety messages is influenced by both crew members and the medium in which the safety material is delivered. Participants recalled more information about the oxygen and its operation when a cabin crew member demonstrated its usage. In terms of life jackets, the results indicated that being exposed to a safety briefing, either with a live demonstration or not, improved recall performance compared to controls. With all other informa- tion in the safety briefing, recall did not vary based on the medium in which it was presented. Not surprisingly, native English speakers recalled more information overall than their non-native coun- terparts, except for the section on smoking, where recall was almost perfect in both groups. Alarmingly, however, recall of key safety information was poor overall. Whereas NS recalled approximately 80% more than their non-native counterparts, they only recalled 49%, whereas ESL speakers recalled 27%. This result is hardly surprising, as previous research has shown that irre- spective of years of spoken English, non-native speakers never quite reach the level of proficiency of a native speaker (Shimizu, Makishima, Yoshida, & Yamagishi, 2002). What is surprising, however, is the little benefit of presenting information visually for nonnative speakers given the challenges with the language. Laughery (2006) advocated the use of pictures or pictograms as a means of addressing language barriers. In this study, presenting key safety messages using the video, or with the aid of a live demonstration, did not improve recall performance. Of course, there could be other factors, such as aircraft noise, at play that offset this effect. Moreover, the effects of broadband noise on memory have been shown to be more significant for non-native speakers (Jang, Molesworth, Burgess, & Estival, 2014; Molesworth et al., 2014) than their native English-speaking counterparts. These results support the presentation of the preflight safety briefing in various languages, as occurs on many international carriers where English is not the native language of the airline. Recall of safety information was also found to be unrelated to the number of briefings participants had been exposed to. Moreover, and as shown in Table 1 (see Grand Total row), passengers in the control group who watched an unrelated video were, based on their previous flying experience, able to accurately recall a similar number of key safety messages (45.62, SD = 27.70) to the participants in any of the four experimental groups (average total recall across four groups = 44.69, SD = 25.16). Although this result is positive, and indicates the lasting effect of preflight safety briefings, recall of key safety messages overall was poor. These results reflect that of previous research (Molesworth, 2014) and hint that airlines and the regulator need to take action to change this. This result occurred even after the participants in the four experimental groups were informed (verbally and in writing through the information sheet) that they would be examined on the material presented, in accor- dance with the ethics committee approval. Nonetheless, these results highlight the native English language advantage and, from an applied perspective, the importance of providing the safety briefing in passengers’ native tongues. A secondary aim of this research was to investigate the relationship among safety briefing medium, live demonstration, and mood. The results revealed that the video briefing medium adversely affected participants’ mood (1.28 increase in TMD score). In contrast, participants’ mood was unaffected by the audio only briefing, as well as the video about health care financial management that served as a foil or control. This finding is new, and hence the precise reason why the video medium adversely affected mood remains unknown. It is possible that participants did not like the video for various reasons (i.e., poorly designed or reminded them of the adverse safety outcome if involved in an accident). It is also possible that the video compels participants to watch, restricting them from looking elsewhere, or engage in a secondary non-auditory task. It is also possible that the presentation of the safety material in video format, with the addition of the aircraft noise, imposes a higher level of cognitive load (i.e., mental effort) than the audio alone. As evident by the lack of differences in recall of key safety messages, participants were able to overcome this effect, but the end result was a reduction in positive affect. 12 B. R. C. MOLESWORTH ET AL.

Limitations and Future Research Although these results provide valuable information about the effectiveness of various preflight safety briefings, they need to be interpreted in context. All the participants in this study were university students under the age of 25. Over half these university students were non-native English speakers who had traveled, in some cases extensively, over their short lifetimes. All participants had also previously flown on a commercial aircraft. Hence, what remains unknown is how mode of presentation affects recall performance with new flyers or older passengers. By including new flyers, it will be possible to determine if certain individuals learn more effectively from one particular briefing style or medium. Participants were also not permitted to use any electronic device or engage in any other task (i.e., read a book or newspaper or talk) during the experiment. It is foreseeable that being engaged in a secondary task would adversely affect performance, especially if it is unrelated to the primary task. However, this remains untested in this context, and hence is an area for future research. Future research should also investigate the relationship among medium, mood, and performance. Moreover, this study only examined recall. How someone acts based on these variables might be different. In addition, recall of information in this research was based on the entire safety message, not fragments of it. Future research could investigate the number of individual words recalled correctly, but such a result should be interpreted with caution, as a missing word or series of words could affect the meaning and hence understanding of the safety message being conveyed. Finally, future research should be directed toward investigating alternative methods of presenting this important information (e.g., briefing and a short quiz during the check-in process) if recall and retention rates are to be improved.

Conclusion The results of this research revealed participants recall more information about the oxygen and its usage when it is presented by a crew member. The results also reveal that certain information is recalled more effectively when presented aurally, such as instruction on the use of life jackets. Native English speakers overall recalled more information than their non-native counterparts. Mood was also affected by the medium (e.g., video) in which the safety briefing was provided, but this did not appear to affect recall. Most important, this research found that recall of key information from the safety briefing was poor, and if high safety standards are to be maintained in the industry, alternate methods of presenting this important information need to be explored.

Acknowledgments

This research directly addresses a question that was discussed by members of the Asia Pacific Cabin Safety Working Group. This is a voluntary group of flight attendants and other personnel with a keen interest in improving aviation safety, and in particular cabin safety. Their dedication to this quest is unsurpassed and should not go unmentioned. More information about this group can be found on their Web site (http://www.asasi.org/apcswg/newindex.html). The authors would also like to thank the participants who volunteered their time to complete this research, as well as Ms. Laura Mitchell, and the personnel who assisted in arranging the live demonstrations.

References

Albarracin, D., & Hart, W. (2011). Positive mood +action = negative mood + inaction: effects of general action and inaction concepts on decisions and performance as a function of affect. Emotion, 11(4), 951–957. doi:10.1037/ a0024130 Appiah, O. (2006). Rich media, poor media: The impact of audio/video vs. text/picture testimonial ads on browsers’ evaluations of commercial web sites and online products. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 28(1), 73–86. doi:10.1080/10641734.2006.10505192 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AEROSPACE PSYCHOLOGY 13

Atoum, A. O., & Al-Simadi, F. A. (2000). The effects of presentation modality on judgments of honesty and attractiveness. Social Behavior and Personality, 28, 269–278. doi:10.2224/sbp.2000.28.3.269 Barkow, B., & Rutenberg, U. (2002). Improving the effectiveness of safety briefing. Transportation Development Centre Transport Canada (report # TP 13973E). Montreal, Canada: Transport Canada. Bhullar, N. (2012). Relationship between mood and susceptibility to emotional contagion: Is positive mood more contagious? North American Journal of Psychology, 14, 517–529. Boldizsár, D., Soós, I., Whyte, I., & Hamar, P. (2016). An investigation into the relationship between pre-competition mood states, age, gender and national ranking in artistic gymnastics. Journal of Human Kinetics, 51, 243–252. Chang, Y.-H., & Yang, -H.-H. (2011). Cabin safety and emergency evacuation: Passenger experience of flight CI-120 accident. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 43, 1049–1055. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2010.12.009 Civil Aviation Safety Authority. (2009). Civil Aviation Orders (CAO) 20.11. Canberra, Australia: Author. Federal Aviation Administration. (2014). Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) 14 CFR Section 135.117. Washington DC: Author. Forgas, J. (1991). Affective influences on partner choice: Role of mood in social decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 708–720. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.61.5.708 Friedman, R. S., Forster, J., & Denzle, M. (2007). Interactive effects of mood and task framing on creative generation. Creativity Research Journal, 19, 141–162. doi:10.1080/10400410701397206 Ginns, P. (2005). Meta-analysis of the modality effect. Learning and Instruction, 15, 113–131. doi:10.1016/j. learninstruc.2005.07.001 Jang, R., Molesworth, B. R. C., Burgess, M., & Estival, D. (2014). Improving communication in general aviation through the use of noise-cancelling headphones. Safety Science, 62, 490–504. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2013.09.012 Johnson, D. A. (1979 ). An investigation of factors affecting aircraft passenger attention to safety information presentations (report # ICR-79-1) Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration. Laughery, K. R. (2006). Safety communications: Warnings. Applied Ergonomics, 37, 467–478. doi:10.1016/j. apergo.2006.04.020 Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: University Press. McCracken, G. (1986). Culture and consumption: A theoretical account of the structure and movement of the cultural meaning and consumer goods. Journal of Consumer Research, 13,71–84. doi:10.1086/209048 Molesworth, B. R. C. (2014). Examining the effectiveness of pre-flight cabin safety announcements in . International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 24(4), 300–314. doi:10.1080/10508414.2014.949511 Molesworth, B. R. C., & Burgess, M. (2013). Improving intelligibility at a safety-critical point: In-flight cabin safety. Safety Science, 51,11–16. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2012.06.006 Molesworth, B. R. C., Burgess, M., Gunnell, B., Löffler, D., & Venjakob, A. (2014). The effect on recognition memory of noise-cancelling headphones in a noisy environment with native and non-native speakers. Noise and Health, 16 (71), 240–247. doi:10.4103/1463-1741.137062 Morgan, J. I., Jones, F. A., & Harris, P. R. (2013). Direct and indirect effects of mood on risk decision making in safety- critical workers. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 50, 472–482. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2012.05.026 National Transportation Safety Board – NTSB, (2000). Emergency evacuation of commercial airplanes (Report # NTSB/SS-00/01). Washington, DC. Author. Ozcan, H. K., & Nemlioglu, S. (2006). In-cabin noise levels during commercial aircraft flights. Canadian Acoustics, 34 (4), 31–35. Parker, A. (2006). Public attitudes, perceptions and behaviours towards cabin safety communication (Australian Transport Safety Bureau - ATSB Research and Analysis Report # B2004/0238). Canberra, Australia: ATSB. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). Source factors and the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Consumer Research, 11, 668–672. Pfaff, M. (2012). Negative affect reduces team awareness: The effects of mood and stress on computer-mediated team communication. Human Factors, 54, 560–571. doi:10.1177/0018720811432307 Richards, A., & Whittaker, T. (1990). Effects of anxiety and mood manipulation in autobiographical memory. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 29(2), 145–153. doi:10.1111/bjc.1990.29.issue-2 Russell, J. A. (2003). Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion. Psychological Review, 110(1), 145–172. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.110.1.145 Seneviratne, D., & Molesworth, B. R. C. (2015). Employing humour and celebrities to manipulate passengers’ attention to pre-flight safety briefing videos in commercial aviation. Safety Science, 75, 130–135. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2015.01.006 Shacham, S. (1983). A shortened version of the profile of mood states. Journal of Personality Assessment, 47(3), 305– 306. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4703_14 Shimizu, T., Makishima, K., Yoshida, M., & Yamagishi, H. (2002). Effect of background noise on perception of English speech for Japanese listeners. Auris Nasus Larynx, 29, 121–125. doi:10.1016/S0385-8146(01)00133-X Sy, T., Côté, S., & Saavedra, R. (2005). The contagious leader: Impact of the leader’s mood on the mood of group members, group affective tone, and group processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 295–305. doi:10.1037/0021- 9010.90.2.295 14 B. R. C. MOLESWORTH ET AL.

Tehrani, M., & Molesworth, B. R. C. (2015). Pre-flight safety briefings, mood and Information retention. Applied Ergonomics, 51, 377–382. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2015.06.015 Tehrani, M., & Molesworth, B. R. C. (2016). The effect of mood on performance in a non-normal situation: Unscheduled aircraft evacuation. Aviation Psychology and Applied Human Factors, 6,1–11. doi:10.1027/2192- 0923/a000090 Thomas, L. J. (2003). Passenger attention to safety information. In R. Bor (Ed.), Passenger behaviour (pp. 118–127). Surrey, England: Ashgate. Wogalter, M. S., Shaver, E. F., & Kalsher, M. J. (2014). Effect of presentation modality in direct-to-consumer (DTC) prescription drug television advertisements. Applied Ergonomics, 45, 1330–1336. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2013.12.003