Berlin Emotional Responses to Risk Instrument (BERRI)

Abstract

The Berlin Emotional Responses to Risk Instrument (BERRI) (Petrova et al., 2023) is a psychometrically validated, ultra-brief measurement tool engineered to assess immediate, anticipatory affective responses to decision-relevant information regarding costs, benefits, probabilities, and hazards. Grounded in behavioral decision research, dual-process theories of cognition, and the affect heuristic, the BERRI quantifies discrete valence dimensions across two orthogonal latent factors: positive anticipatory affect (BERRI-pos) and negative anticipatory affect (BERRI-neg). The instrument was distilled from an initial pool of 14 affect descriptors drawn from landmark risk communication investigations (e.g., Garcia-Retamero & Cokely, 2011, 2012, 2014; Rothman et al., 1999) down to a parsimonious six-item inventory comprising three positive items (Assured, Hopeful, Relieved) and three negative items (Anxious, Afraid, Worried). Psychometric evaluation across seven diverse empirical studies conducted in the United States, Spain, and Poland demonstrated robust structural integrity via exploratory principal component analysis (explaining 67% of total variance) and confirmatory factor analysis substantiating the two-factor orthogonal model. The positive and negative subscales operate independently (r = 0.02, p = .593), demonstrating exceptional divergent validity. Both dimensions exhibit pronounced sensitivity to experimental manipulations of objective risk metrics: variations in outcome severity account for approximately 20% of score variance (partial η² = .18 for BERRI-neg and .20 for BERRI-pos), while statistical probability accounts for roughly 40% of score variance (partial η² = .36 for BERRI-neg and .43 for BERRI-pos). The subscales display acceptable internal consistency across cross-cultural cohorts (Cronbach’s α > .65) and moderate test-retest reliability across a two-week latency period (r = .40–.59), aligning with the theoretical conceptualization of anticipatory affect as a dynamic, context-contingent psychological state. Administration requires approximately 60 seconds, rendering the BERRI an optimal instrument for clinical decision-making audits, public health risk communication experiments, and neuroeconomic protocols.

Keywords

Anticipatory Affective Reactions, Decision Making, Divergent Validity, Negative Emotions, Positive Emotions, Risk Communication, Risk Perception, Risks, Anticipatory Affective Reactions, Negative Affective Reactions, Positive Affective Reactions

Authors

The Berlin Emotional Responses to Risk Instrument was developed by an international consortium of decision scientists, cognitive psychologists, and psychometricians:

• Dafina Petrova, Ph.D. (Corresponding Author) — Instituto de Investigación Biosanitaria ibs.GRANADA, Granada, Spain; Universidad de Granada. ORCID: 0000-0002-0346-6776. Email: [email protected]. Correspondence Address: Cuesta del Observatorio 4, Granada, Spain, 18071.
• Edward T. Cokely, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology and National Institute for Risk & Resilience, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, United States.
• Agata Sobkow, Ph.D. — Center for Research on Improving Decision Making (CRIDM), Faculty of Psychology in Wroclaw, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Wroclaw, Poland. ORCID: 0000-0002-5357-744X.
• Jakub Traczyk, Ph.D. — Center for Research on Improving Decision Making (CRIDM), Faculty of Psychology in Wroclaw, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Wroclaw, Poland. ORCID: 0000-0001-9145-1998.
• Dunia Garrido, Ph.D. — Departamento de Psicología Evolutiva y de la Educación, Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain.
• Rocio Garcia-Retamero, Ph.D. — Department of Experimental Psychology, Mind, Brain, and Behavior Research Center (CIMCYC), Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain. Email: [email protected].

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Berlin Emotional Responses to Risk Instrument (BERRI) is to provide an empirically rigorous, rapid, and theoretically grounded metric for capturing momentary, anticipatory emotional reactions evoked when individuals encounter probabilistic risk messages, therapeutic cost-benefit profiles, or hazard warnings. Human decision making under uncertainty is rarely a purely computational, rational exercise; rather, cognitive evaluations are fundamentally shaped, filtered, and steered by rapid visceral and affective impressions. Despite widespread consensus regarding the potency of emotion in judgment and decision making (JDM), researchers historically faced methodological bottlenecks: extant emotional inventories were either excessively lengthy (e.g., the 60-item PANAS-X), oriented toward stable trait neuroticism/affectivity rather than immediate stimulus-triggered states, or overly generic, failing to capture the targeted emotions salient to medical choices, financial dilemmas, or environmental hazards.

The BERRI directly remediates these logistical and methodological hurdles. Requiring approximately one minute to complete, it minimizes respondent burden and cognitive fatigue in complex experimental paradigms, longitudinal randomized controlled trials, and field settings where time constraints are paramount. The scale assesses two concurrent affective streams that arise when people confront uncertain prospects: the positive reassurance that accompanies risk reduction, safety margins, or anticipated benefits, and the visceral apprehension triggered by possible adverse events, physical harm, or financial losses.

In applied and clinical environments, the BERRI serves critical functions across diverse domains:

• Medical and Health Risk Communication: Evaluating how patients emotionally process diagnostic screening options, surgical risks, pharmaceutical side effects, or oncological prognoses. It allows clinicians and health communicators to discern whether graphic risk visualizations or numerical facts elicit functional emotional clarity or dysfunctional panic.
• Financial and Economic Decision Making: Diagnosing investor responses to market volatility, portfolio risk profiles, retirement planning trade-offs, and insurance policy disclosures, thereby uncovering affective biases that drive risk aversion or irrational risk seeking.
• Public Policy and Hazard Warnings: Testing the behavioral efficacy of environmental risk warnings (e.g., climate change emergencies, flood probabilities, toxicological notices) and epidemiological guidance (e.g., vaccine safety versus contagion hazards).
• Basic Psychological and Neuroscientific Research: Facilitating repeated-measures laboratory designs, neuroimaging protocols (such as fMRI or EEG event-related potentials), and computerized reaction-time experiments requiring repeated affective probes across multiple task blocks without inducing participant attrition.

Psychological Construct

The BERRI measures anticipatory affect, defined as the immediate, transient visceral and emotional experience experienced in real time while contemplating a prospective risk, decision alternative, or uncertain future scenario. Anticipatory affect is conceptually distinct from anticipated affect: while anticipated affect represents a cold, cognitive projection of how one might feel after an outcome occurs in the future (e.g., expected regret or hypothetical future rejoicing), anticipatory affect is a hot, gut-level, visceral activation occurring at the exact moment of information exposure.

Crucially, the BERRI conceptualizes positive and negative emotional states not as opposite poles of a single continuous continuum, but as two distinct, functionally independent latent constructs operating concurrently. This conceptualization aligns with bivariate models of affective processing, such as the Evaluative Space Model (Cacioppo & Berntson, 1994) and Watson and Tellegen’s structural models of affect.

Positive Anticipatory Affect (BERRI-pos)

The positive factor reflects an individual’s sense of reassurance, hopefulness, and psychological relief when contemplating risk mitigating factors, protective measures, or potential gains. Rather than assessing generalized exuberance or high-arousal euphoria (e.g., excitement or ecstasy), the BERRI-pos isolates specific emotional states that are theoretically and empirically linked to perceived safety, effective prevention, and therapeutic efficacy:

• Assured: A subjective feeling of psychological security, confidence in an outcome, and perceived mastery or control over an impending event.
• Hopeful: An appetitive, forward-looking affective stance reflecting optimism that favorable outcomes will materialize despite prevailing uncertainties.
• Relieved: A visceral release from psychological tension, often elicited when comparative data reveal that a hazard is less severe or less probable than previously feared, or that viable interventions exist.

Empirical evidence highlights that BERRI-pos serves as the primary cognitive-affective engine driving behavioral intentions, protective compliance, and domain-general risk-taking propensities (Pearson rs > .70 with criterion decision variables).

Negative Anticipatory Affect (BERRI-neg)

The negative factor encapsulates immediate threat appraisal, subjective vulnerability, and visceral distress evoked by hazardous attributes, high failure probabilities, or severe consequences. The BERRI-neg subscale targets three fundamental defensive affective states:

• Anxious: A state of prospective apprehension and tension characterized by uncertainty regarding the controllability of potential harm.
• Afraid: An acute, survival-oriented defensive reaction triggered by imminent threat cues or perceived high-magnitude negative consequences.
• Worried: An emotionally loaded cognitive-affective preoccupation with potential adverse occurrences, driving scrutiny of risk metrics.

BERRI-neg functions as an early warning system that signals threat magnitude. In the BERRI’s psychometric architecture, BERRI-pos and BERRI-neg correlate at virtually zero (r = .02), demonstrating that individuals can simultaneously experience profound worry alongside genuine hope when reviewing complex risk trade-offs (such as aggressive chemotherapy that carries severe toxicities but meaningful curative potential).

Theoretical Framework

The architecture of the BERRI is grounded in several convergent theories in cognitive psychology, behavioral economics, and neuroscience:

1. The Risk-as-Feelings Hypothesis

Formulated by Loewenstein, Weber, Hsee, and Welch (2001), the risk-as-feelings hypothesis posits that emotional reactions to risky situations often diverge systematically from cognitive evaluations. While cognitive evaluations are driven primarily by deliberative computations of probabilities and severities, visceral emotional reactions respond rapidly to vivid mental imagery, temporal proximity, and personal salience. Loewenstein and colleagues argued that when cognitive assessments and emotional reactions clash, behavior is overwhelmingly dictated by immediate affective impulses. The BERRI directly measures these visceral feelings, enabling researchers to quantify the exact affective inputs that govern choices independently of pure statistical numeracy.

2. The Affect Heuristic and Dual-Process Architectures

Slovic, Finucane, Peters, and MacGregor (2002, 2007) introduced the affect heuristic, suggesting that individuals rely on an experiential “affect pool” containing all positive and negative mental tags associated with an object or event. When forming judgments under cognitive load or time pressure, individuals consult this intuitive affective ledger as a mental shortcut, substituting the difficult question “What do the statistical odds indicate?” with the simpler affective inquiry “How do I feel about it?” In dual-process models (such as Kahneman’s System 1 and System 2 framework), the BERRI taps into the fast, automatic, experiential outputs of System 1, allowing investigators to track how System 2 deliberation (e.g., parsing statistical risk tables) either tempers or amplifies initial emotional impressions.

3. The Evaluative Space Model

Classical unidimensional views of affect postulated that positivity and negativity reside on opposite sides of a single bipolar axis. In contrast, Cacioppo and Berntson’s (1994) Evaluative Space Model (ESM) demonstrates that positive and negative appetitive-defensive neural subsystems are physically and functionally separable. Positivity and negativity can be activated independently, co-activated (yielding ambivalence), or simultaneously inhibited (yielding indifference). The empirical independence demonstrated by the BERRI subscales (r = .02) provides strong psychometric corroboration for the ESM in risk contexts, confirming that risk communication can simultaneously stimulate protective optimism (BERRI-pos) without automatically neutralizing vigilance toward potential hazards (BERRI-neg).

Validity

The construct validity of the BERRI was established across seven rigorous empirical studies encompassing cross-national adult cohorts from the United States, Spain, and Poland. Validation protocols examined test sensitivity to objective risk features, predictive validity, and convergent and discriminant validity.

Experimental Test Sensitivity

A central psychometric requirement for any risk-perception instrument is sensitivity to fundamental risk parameters: outcome probability and outcome severity. In systematic factorial experiments manipulating these dimensions:

• Sensitivity to Statistical Probability: Variations in event probability exerted a massive effect on both subscales, accounting for approximately 40% of the total variance in emotional responses. Specifically, probability manipulations yielded a partial η² of .36 for the BERRI-neg subscale and a partial η² of .43 for the BERRI-pos subscale, verifying that respondents’ affective states dynamically adjust to probabilistic evidence.
• Sensitivity to Outcome Severity: Manipulations of the objective gravity or clinical severity of adverse outcomes accounted for roughly 20% of the variance across both factors, yielding a partial η² of .18 for BERRI-neg and .20 for BERRI-pos.

These findings substantiate that the BERRI is finely calibrated to capture emotional modulations driven by changes in substantive risk parameters.

Predictive Validity

The BERRI demonstrated robust capacity to forecast actual decision criteria and behavioral intentions. Notably, the positive affective subscale (BERRI-pos) emerged as a potent positive predictor of criterion decision outcomes, displaying substantial correlations (Pearson rs > .70) with ultimate risk choices, treatment adherence intentions, and engagement in protective measures. Conversely, the negative subscale (BERRI-neg) exhibited weaker direct predictive associations with final choice outcomes, suggesting that while negative affect creates heightened vigilance, positive anticipatory emotions often serve as the proximal motivational catalyst triggering definitive action.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Evidence for discriminant validity is demonstrated by the near-zero correlation observed between the two subscales across participant samples (r = .02, p = .593). This orthogonality confirms that the BERRI does not merely reflect a broad, single-dimensional bipolar spectrum, but captures distinct affective mechanisms. Convergent validity was established against standardized measures of risk-taking propensity across various real-world domains (e.g., DOSPERT scale dimensions). Consistent with theoretical models, BERRI-pos systematically tracked domain-specific risk appetite, whereas BERRI-neg tracked risk aversion and threat avoidance.

Reliability

The reliability of the BERRI was evaluated across seven distinct empirical studies through assessments of internal consistency and temporal stability (test-retest reliability).

Internal Consistency

Across diverse international samples spanning the United States, Spain, and Poland, the Cronbach’s α coefficients for both the 3-item BERRI-pos subscale and the 3-item BERRI-neg subscale consistently exceeded the .65 threshold across all validation studies. Considering that Cronbach’s α is mathematically constrained by scale length (subscales with only three items inherently yield lower α coefficients than extended inventories), internal consistency values above .65 to .75 reflect strong inter-item covariance and construct homogeneity without psychometrically redundant phrasing.

Test-Retest Temporal Stability

Temporal stability was evaluated by re-administering the BERRI after a two-week latency period. Test-retest correlation coefficients across the subscales ranged from r = .40 to r = .59. In the psychometric assessment of dynamic affective states, these moderate stability coefficients are considered ideal. Unlike stable personality traits (which should ideally exhibit test-retest coefficients > .80), anticipatory affect is theoretically designed to be state-responsive and sensitive to fluctuating contextual cues, biological homeostatic shifts, and environmental inputs. A reliability coefficient in the .40–.59 range confirms that the instrument possesses sufficient trait-like structural consistency while preserving the state-like plasticity necessary to reflect changing environmental scenarios.

Factor Analysis

The underlying factor structure of the BERRI was established through sequential exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses during scale development.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Scale construction commenced with an initial candidate pool of 14 emotional descriptors (seven positive, seven negative) derived from risk communication research (Garcia-Retamero & Cokely, 2011, 2012, 2014; Rothman et al., 1999). An exploratory Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was conducted to delineate the latent structure. The PCA yielded an unambiguous two-component solution according to Kaiser’s criterion (eigenvalues > 1.0) and scree plot inspection:

• Component 1 (Positive Affect): Initial eigenvalue of 5.6.
• Component 2 (Negative Affect): Initial eigenvalue of 3.8.

Together, these two latent components accounted for 67% of the total cumulative variance in item responses. Based on theoretical clarity, high primary factor loadings (> .70), and minimal cross-loadings (< .20), six core items were retained: three positive items (Assured, Hopeful, Relieved) and three negative items (Anxious, Afraid, Worried).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

The six-item two-factor configuration was subsequently validated using Confirmatory Factor Analysis across independent testing samples. Competing structural models were evaluated: a unidimensional single-factor model (positivity and negativity collapsing onto opposite ends of one continuum) versus a two-factor orthogonal model (independent positive and negative dimensions). The CFA demonstrated that the two-factor model provided superior fit to the data across standard structural equation modeling indices (CFI > .95, TLI > .95, RMSEA < .06, SRMR < .05), confirming the structural validity of the two distinct anticipatory emotional channels.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Test Name: Berlin Emotional Responses to Risk Instrument (BERRI)
• Alternative Title: BERRI Risk Emotion Inventory
• Authors: Dafina Petrova, Edward T. Cokely, Agata Sobkow, Jakub Traczyk, Dunia Garrido, and Rocio Garcia-Retamero
• Year of Publication: 2023
• Test Type: Original Self-Report Inventory / Questionnaire
• Constructs Measured: Anticipatory Positive Affect (BERRI-pos) and Anticipatory Negative Affect (BERRI-neg) evoked by risk and decision information
• Item Count: 6 items total (3 positive, 3 negative)
• Subscales:
  • BERRI-pos: Assured, Hopeful, Relieved
  • BERRI-neg: Anxious, Afraid, Worried
• Response Scale & Scoring Format: Items are rated on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = Not at all to 7 = Extremely. For the Polish version, participants responded using a nine-point scale from 1 (not at all) to 9 (extremely). Studies 1, 2, 4, and 5 were not conducted for the sole purpose of validating the scale, and therefore contained experimental manipulations and additional measures.
• Scoring Procedure:
  • BERRI-pos Score: Calculated by computing the arithmetic mean (or sum) of items 1, 2, and 3 (Assured, Hopeful, Relieved). Higher scores indicate greater positive anticipatory reassurance, hope, and relief.
  • BERRI-neg Score: Calculated by computing the arithmetic mean (or sum) of items 4, 5, and 6 (Anxious, Afraid, Worried). Higher scores indicate greater negative anticipatory threat appraisal, apprehension, and fear.
  • Note: The two subscales should be maintained as independent scores and not aggregated into an arbitrary single composite score, given their empirical orthogonality (r = .02).
• Administration Time: Approximately 1 minute (ultra-brief protocol).
• Administration Format: Electronic/digital (computer, tablet, mobile device) or paper-and-pencil self-administration.
• Available Validated Languages: English, Polish, and Spanish.
• Target Population: General adult population (18 years and older), including young adulthood (18–29), thirties (30–39), middle age (40–64), older adults (65–84), and very old age (85+).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Berlin Emotional Responses to Risk Instrument (BERRI) was published in 2023. The instrument is non-commercial and is made accessible for academic research, educational use, and clinical investigations without licensing fees. Researchers and clinicians wishing to utilize or adapt the BERRI in empirical investigations are directed to contact the corresponding author for permissions, documentation, and original language adaptations:

• Corresponding Author: Dafina Petrova, Ph.D.
• Institutional Affiliation: Instituto de Investigación Biosanitaria ibs.GRANADA, Granada, Spain
• Email: [email protected]
• Institutional Address: Cuesta del Observatorio 4, Granada, Spain, 18071
• Commercial Status: Non-commercial; free for scientific research purposes.

References

• Cacioppo, J. T., & Berntson, G. G. (1994). Relationship between attitudes and evaluative space: A critical review, with emphasis on the separability of positive and negative substrates. Psychological Bulletin, 115(3), 401–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.115.3.401
• Garcia-Retamero, R., & Cokely, E. T. (2011). Effective communication of risks to young adults: Using message framing and visual aids to increase condom use and STI screening. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17(3), 270–287. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023677
• Garcia-Retamero, R., & Cokely, E. T. (2012). Communicating health risks with visual aids. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(5), 392–399. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413491570
• Garcia-Retamero, R., & Cokely, E. T. (2014). The influence of health literacy and numeracy on risk perception and decision making. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(1), 178–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732214550404
• Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welch, N. (2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), 267–286. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.267
• Petrova, D., Cokely, E. T., Sobkow, A., Traczyk, J., Garrido, D., & Garcia-Retamero, R. (2023). The Berlin Emotional Responses to Risk Instrument (BERRI): Development and validation of a brief measure of anticipatory affect. Risk Analysis, Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.14187
• Rothman, A. J., Martino, S. C., Bedell, B. T., Detweiler, J. B., & Salovey, P. (1999). The systematic influence of gain- and loss-framed messages on interest in and use of different types of health-behavior recommendations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(11), 1355–1369. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299259003
• Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2002). Rational actors or rational fools: Implications of the affect heuristic for behavioral economics. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 31(4), 329–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-5357(02)00174-9
• Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2007). The affect heuristic. European Journal of Operational Research, 177(3), 1333–1352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2005.04.006

Items of the Scale