Objective: We aim to investigate how pilots’ startle and surprise responses affect information-processing performance during simulated in-flight events. Background: Startle and surprise are distinct constructs, each with their own potential effects on pilot’s performance during unexpected in-flight events. Prior research suggests that startle may impair performance through stress-induced cognitive interference, whereas surprise may do so via cognitive demands associated with sensemaking. Thus, we hypothesized that both startle and surprise would negatively affect information-processing performance on a secondary auditory cognitive task. Method: Using a motion-based hexapod simulator and a twin-propeller aircraft model, 26 pilots each performed eight single-pilot flight scenarios, which were designed to elicit varying levels of startle and surprise responses. Linear mixed-effects models were employed to analyse the relationships between self-report startle and surprise with secondary task performance, while controlling for individual differences and differences between the scenarios. Results: The results revealed that higher startle was significantly associated with reduced information-processing speed. For surprise, no significant association was found. Conclusion: The findings suggest that, within the context of the tested scenarios, startle appeared to impose a more pronounced disruptive effect on pilots’ information-processing performance than surprise. Application: The study underscores the need for tailored interventions to enhance pilots’ resilience to startle and calls for further research on ecologically valid methods to induce surprise for research and training purposes.

We investigated the effect of personality traits and flight experience on pilot cognitive and affective responses across seven startling and surprising scenarios performed in motion-based simulators. A dataset of 89 airline pilots from four studies was used. The personality traits measured were trait anxiety, decision-related action orientation (AOD), and failure-related action orientation (AOF). Pilot self-reported responses in scenarios were standardized by obtaining z scores of startle, surprise, stress, and mental workload. Only trait anxiety was found to be significantly positively correlated with stress. No significant effects of AOD, AOF, or flight hours were found on pilots’ responses. The results indicate trait anxiety may affect pilots’ responses to stressful scenarios, even though pilots are selected based on low trait anxiety.

Unexpected in-flight events can trigger startle and surprise, which could impair pilots’ performance but remain difficult to measure. This dissertation addresses this gap by developing and validating self-report instruments to quantify startle and surprise in an aviation context.
Grounded in cognitive models, real-world incident analyses, and robust psychometric methods, the Startle and Surprise Inventories (Startle-I; Surprise-I) and Visual Analogue Scales (Startle-VAS; Surprise-VAS) are introduced and evaluated. Results from multi-phase studies involving field experts and professional pilots, provide strong evidence of validity and reliability.
The findings offer a scientifically validated framework for assessing pilots’ responses to unexpected events, with broad implications for human factors research, evidence-based training, and safety-critical operations.

This manual provides guidance for human factors researchers and applied psychologists, on the standardized and scientifically rigorous use of the instruments. It is structured to include an overview of the instruments, administration guidelines, and a summary of their psychometric properties to support accurate application and interpretation in research and operational contexts.

This paper outlines the three-phase construction of the Startle and Surprise Inventories (Startle-I; Surprise-I) and Visual Analogue Scales for Startle and Surprise (Startle-VAS; Surprise-VAS). In Phase 1, seven experts in the field assessed the content validity of 14 items for surprise, 7 items for startle derived from fundamental and applied literature. Elimination of items was based on a 50% agreement of relevance. In Phase 2, 81 participants completed the retained 19 items nine times, each time immediately after watching a video clip. A multilevel exploratory factor analysis was applied to assess the construct validity of items. In Phase 3, concurrent validity of the Startle-VAS and Surprise-VAS was tested by comparing with the Startle-I and Surprise-I scores, respectively. The first two phases yielded a 11-item two-factor solution, corresponding to the constructs of startle and surprise. These results supported Startle-I and Surprise-I as measures of self-report startle and surprise, with Startle-VAS and Surprise-VAS as efficient alternatives.