what motivates stunt men?

19
Motivation and Emotion, Vol. 11, No. 2, 1987 What Motivates Stunt Men? 1 Susanne Pi~t 2 Amsterdam University If confrontation with danger is related to fear, and fear is considered to be the motivation for avoidance behavior, the question remains why certain people seek confrontations with danger. The present study, part of a larger one, is concerned with confrontation with actual danger, as in dangerous sports or voluntarily ehosen dangerous professions. It reports the results of interviews with six stunt men. These results partly support the hypothesis of Zuckerman on sensation-seeking personality features: The subjects ap- pear to be eagerfor varied experience and relatively unconcerned with negative consequences of their actions. The ability to stand the strains and to concentrate under riskful conditions shows up as a further important characteristic of stunt men. The major reward that constitutes the motivation for engaging in the stunting profession appears to consist of being able to meet the challenges involved, with increased self-esteem, receiving acclaim, and monetary profit as secondary rewards. Ability and motivation thus are inextricably inter- twined. Danger seeking constitutes one of the intriguing problems in motivation theory. What is it that motivates certain individuals to seek situations that involve considerable risk of physical harm? Also, what motivates certain individuals to seek conditions that, for most people, would give rise to fear or anxiety? Danger seeking represents a problem for emotion theory as well *With acknowledgment to Prof. Nico Frijda, without whose support this article would not have been written and would not have acquired its present form. 2Address all correspondence to Susanne Pitt, Subfaculteit Psychologie, Universiteit van Amster- dam, Weesperplein 8, 1018 XA Amsterdam, Netherlands. 195 0146-7239/87/0600-0195505.00/0 © 1987 Plen0m Publishing Corporation

Upload: susanne-piet

Post on 09-Aug-2016

213 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Motivation and Emotion, Vol. 11, No. 2, 1987

What Motivates Stunt Men? 1

S u s a n n e P i~ t 2

Amsterdam University

I f confrontation with danger is related to fear, and fear is considered to be the motivation for avoidance behavior, the question remains why certain people seek confrontations with danger. The present study, part of a larger one, is concerned with confrontation with actual danger, as in dangerous sports or voluntarily ehosen dangerous professions. It reports the results o f interviews with six stunt men. These results partly support the hypothesis o f Zuckerman on sensation-seeking personality features: The subjects ap- pear to be eager for varied experience and relatively unconcerned with negative consequences of their actions. The ability to stand the strains and to concentrate under riskful conditions shows up as a further important characteristic of stunt men. The major reward that constitutes the motivation for engaging in the stunting profession appears to consist of being able to meet the challenges involved, with increased self-esteem, receiving acclaim, and monetary profit as secondary rewards. Ability and motivation thus are inextricably inter- twined.

Danger seeking constitutes one o f the intriguing problems in mot ivat ion theory. What is it that motivates certain individuals to seek situations that involve considerable risk o f physical harm? Also, what motivates certain individuals to seek condit ions that, for most people, would give rise to fear or anxiety? Danger seeking represents a problem for emot ion theory as well

*With acknowledgment to Prof. Nico Frijda, without whose support this article would not have been written and would not have acquired its present form.

2Address all correspondence to Susanne Pitt, Subfaculteit Psychologie, Universiteit van Amster- dam, Weesperplein 8, 1018 XA Amsterdam, Netherlands.

195

0146-7239/87/0600-0195505.00/0 © 1987 Plen0m Publishing Corporation

196 Pi~t

as for motivation theory, in that conditions of danger also tend to elicit fear and, thereby, avoidance rather than approach behavior. The motivational and emotional problems are related in several ways. If the situations sought evoke fear, hypotheses concerning motivation will be different from those to be advanced when they do not.

Hypotheses regarding danger seeking abound and, indeed, carry dif- ferent assumptions with regard to the role of fear or avoidance. One of these hypotheses holds that danger may be sought because anxiety, by its very nature, can be attractive as well as aversive. Berlyne (1971) argued that mild arousal is positively reinforcing; mild anxiety can be considered to be mildy arousing. Zuckerman (1979) argued that sensations, whatever their nature, are rewarding as well as aversive; only the balance varies from one kind of sensation to another. In some individuals-"sensation seekers"-the balance might supposedly be biased so that strong sensations, per se, are hedonically positive. Or, it could be argued, they are hedonically positive up to some optimal point ("optimal arousal theory"). The optimal point may differ from one individual to another (Zuckerman, 1984). The mechanism by which this is so can be viewed in different ways. In one kind of interpretation, the in- dividual feels adequate only when functioning at his optimal level, which, since optimal level is high, usually does not occur; the individual therefore has to seek strong stimulation (Eysenck, 1967). In a different interpretation, certain individuals are relatively indifferent and insensitive to low stimulus levels but can support very high intensities, and at those high levels function maximally; these individuals are said to possess a "strong nervous system" (Strelau, 1983).

Other hypotheses seek the personality background of danger seeking not in the attractiveness of danger or anxiety but, on the contrary, in a relative indifference to risk and painful stimuli. Relative insensitivity to aversive stimuli generally, and relative insensitivity of anxiety response, is advanced as a hypothesis by Hare (1978) and Lykken (1957) to explain the behavior of psychopaths and daredevils.

A different type of explanation seeks the rewarding effects not in con- frontation with danger or in anxiety, as such, but in their aftereffects. Ac- cording to Berlyne (1960, 1971), the danger-safety sequence generates an "arousal jag": Arousal rises to a high pitch, and falls off thereafter steeply. The decrease after high arousal, anxiety included, supposedly is rewarding. Solomon (1980) advances an "opponent process theory" to explain this. Ac- cording to this theory, any hedonic process generates an opponent process that moderates the former, outlasts it, and in contrast to the former, does

What Motivates Stunt Men? 197

not habituate. On the contrary, habituation of the direct affective outcome of some stimulus event enhances the opponent process both in intensity and in duration. Confrontations with danger that originally elicited anxiety gradually fail to do so with repetition; the "kick" that follows the event, on the other hand, gradually becomes more intense and longer-lasting. It is for that opponent-process-induced kick that dangerous events are sought.

In all these theories the nature of "strong stimulation," as it applies to danger seeking, is not specified: It could be anxiety, awareness of risk, or something else. The assumption is that aversiveness, intensity, or arousing quality, as such, is the major stimulus determinant of danger seeking, as it supposedly also is (but at lower levels) for watching mystery movies and at- tending fun fairs by ordinary people. Whether this is correct is an empirical question.

Quite a different possibility is that dangerous events are sought when the rewards outweigh the punishments of danger and anxiety; the rewards may have nothing to do with the risks as such, or they may be connected to these risks in an indirect fashion, through fame, money, enhanced self- esteem or doing one's duty. Rachman (1978) advanced this piont of view in connection with studies of bravery in bomb-disposal experts. Still, since presumably not everyone is willing to take the same risks for the same rewards, personality variables must complement this point of view; Cox, Hallam, O'Connor, and Rachman (1983) and O'Connor, Hallam, and Rachman (1985) indeed found evidence for such variables in bomb-disposal experts, as did Zuckerman (1979) with regard to subjects scoring high on the Sensation Seek- ing Scale.

Evaluating the above hypotheses is rendered difficult by the relative dearth of information regarding the motivations and experiences of in- dividuals who actually seek voluntary confrontation with danger. As argued above, danger seeking may be considered the joint result of motivational fac- tors and personality variables. Whereas the personality variables can be sub- jects of psychometric research, the motivational factors can be investigated only by biographical methods or by analysis of the sought-for situations. It is therefore useful to report the results of interviews with six individuals who seek or sought confrontations with danger professionally-namely, six stunt men.

The interviews were held as part of a larger study on danger seeking designed to obtain information regarding the motivations for danger seek- ing, the nature of the reward sought and obtained, and the role of anxiety in motivation and reward.

198 Pi~t

METHOD

Subjects

Subjects were six of the world's highest ranking stunt men (we will use the words stunt men for convenience; one of the subjects is a woman). These six stunt men agreed to be interviewed while present at a stunting World Champion Day at Zandvoort, Holland. 3 Five of them participated in that event. The qualification "highest ranking" is given because of their fame in the stunting world, the magnitude of their emoluments, and their participa- tion in world championship competitions in the field. In discussions with the subjects, a high degree of consensus appears to exist on who belongs to the top ranks. The six subjects belong to a population of internationally renowned and requested stunt men, estimated by one of them to number about 150.

Stunt men are usually specialized in one or several fields and perform for television and motion pictures. On occasion, they also perform for live audiences and sometimes meet in competition. World records, registered in the Guinness Book of Records, exist for several specialities. Major stunts, like those performed in efforts to break world records, require extensive preparations that may take months. These major stunts are often not truly rehearsed, though, because of the costs involved. Their execution thus en- tails real risks. To some extent, this also applies to more routine performances. Risks are always present in the possibility of mechanical failures. More im- portant, actual risks during preparation and execution are always at an ac- ceptably low level only because of the stunt man's continuous vigilance and concentration; that is, the relatively low level of actual risk continuously depends upon the subject's own response in actively keeping it so. Risks are thus quite real. This reality of risk, for the subjects in this investigation, was underscored by the fact that one of the present subjects was seriously in- jured in a professional accident 1 week after the interviews were held.

At the Zandvoort racing track, eight subjects in all were approached with the request to participate in a study on the motivation to engage in dangerous activities. Criterion for the selection of these eight subjects was that they included all those who intended to break one of the world records in the area the following day. Seven subjects met that criterion. Two can- didates refused-two brothers who together performed a motorcycle stunt and considered they were too busy with their preparations. One subject was added who fell outside the criterion: a Dutch ex-stunt man who had been

sWorld Record Day is an annual affair where stunt men meet in competition to establish a per- sonal record in a specialized field.

What Motivates Stunt Men? 199

made an invalid by a professional accident 4 years earlier that caused irrever- sible function impairment of his legs. He assisted as an observer at World Record Day.

Subjects will be identified by letters A through F. Ages range from 23 to 54; they were in the profession from 5 to over 30 years. The others actively participated. Four headed, or had headed, a stunting team.

Of course, six subjects is a small sample; however, it means 4070 of the relevant population as estimated.

Procedure

The six subjects, as noted, agreed to be interviewed for a study on motivation to engage in dangerous activities. No mention was made, at that point, of the topic of anxiety or fear. Interviews were held the day before World Record Day, the day of performance. The interviews were conducted as semistructured interviews that were guided by six major questions: (a) the subject's personal background: the social environment he came from, his childhood interests, his contacts with exploits of a vigorous kind; (b) what provided the original motivation for interest in stunting and what does he or she consider stunting's major rewards; (c) the subject's assessment of the risks involved, and how he or she views handling of those risks; (d) what the process of preparing for a major performance consists of, and to which emotions it gives rise; (e) the experiences before, during, and after a major performance, and how one handles these emotions; (f) whether the subject experiences anxiety within or outside his professional setting, and his or her ways of coping with the dangers and emotional impact of stunts.

The wording of the major questions varied with subjects, in order to adapt to the tone of the interview and, in particular, depending on whether or not the probtem area had been spontaneously touched upon earlier in the interview. Topics were broached in the order indicated except when spon- taneously initiated; the interview then followed the subject's lead. Care was taken to avoid suggestive questions with respect to the presence of fear or anxiety or any of the other content issues until the last major question.

Interviews took about an hour and a half. They were conducted by the author, in either English or Dutch, in one of the racing track's offices. The interviews were tape-recorded, typed, and analyzed statement by statement. Statements that were considered relevant to the question under concern were grouped according to the issues touched. Then, all six interviews were, ques- tion by question, rechecked on each issue to determine whether or not it had been mentioned. The analysis of the material presented below lists the oc- currence or nonoccurrence of relevant statements of all six subjects relating to each issue and mentions diverse or conflicting statements, if these occur.

200 Pi~t

Thus, the presentation, for each issue (each subdivision under the subsequent questions), reports on the responses of all six subjects.

RESULTS

Question 1: Personal Background

Early Social Environment..Five of the six interviews suggest an early social environment where physical power and/or competitive achievement was valued. Subject A mentioned how, during World War II, he used to steal food from food trucks, getting into frequent altercations with truck drivers or police; at age 16 he became member of the neighborhood motorcycle gang. Subject C tells how, in his youth, he played with stray WW II am- munition, which included artillery grenades. At 14 he started work at a con- struction job. Subject D was trained, and in his youth worked, as an automobile mechanic. He entertained thoughts of becoming a racing cyclist and did perform bravura feats on his bicycle in front of his neighborhood companions. Subject E worked as a doorman in a 12:00 to 4:00 a.m. under- world bar. Subject F, at age 15, roamed Europe with the advancing American army, aboard trucks or tanks; at 14 he had begun taking boxing lessons. Only Subject B (female) did not provide clues on the kind of social environ- ment in which she grew up.

Facilitating Circumstances. Five of the six subjects mention cir- cumstances facilitating or stimulating interest in performing physical feats. Subject A, as stated was a member of a motorcycle gang: a brother-in-law of his was a (small-scale) stunt man, whom he was asked to replace at a cer- tain show. Subject C's parents took him to films and shows of the then famous Belgian stuntman Gil Delamare. 4 Subject D, the automobile mechanic, was asked to join a stunt team as the team's mechanic; Subject E obtained fighting experience in his job as bar doorman and, in one such experience, caught the attention of members of a visiting film crew. Subject F, as noted, participated in the U.S. army advance: "It was survival there." Again, only Subject B did not mention environmental stimulation. However, she gave a more psychological piece of information: She described herself as having been a tomboy who did not see why only boys should ride motorcycles.

4Gil Delamare, born October 14, 1924, in Paris, was a notorious stunt man who doubled in mot ion pictures for Gerard Philippe, Lino Ventura, and Jean Gabin.

What Motivates Stunt Men? 201

Personality. The subjects' accounts of their background and youth give clear indications of several personality traits common to all or most. These personality traits are achievement orientation, sensitivity to challenge, ac- tivity preference or drive, and lower than average sensitivity to aversive response outcomes.

1. Achievement orientation: Without exception, as young people the six subjects were distinctly achievement-oriented, and were so with respect to achievement that involve risks and that would not leave them unnoticed in a crowd. Subject A participated in a motor gang: "We did eighty inches from the corner, I always a little less, we held hands, we drove through dit- ches and I always wanted it to be a little more thrilling than the rest; to show off, I suppose." Subject B, the tomboy, persuaded her brother to take the television set apart "because it showed lines"; they could not get it together, though, and "were almost killed" by their parents on their return home. At a fire alarm exercise at school she got bored and set fire to the school garbage bin to have a real fire; she reports having been called the "girl with 'why' in her mouth." Subject C, as a child, was distinctly geared toward action: He climb- ed trees, jumped fences, did tricks on his bicycle; "I dared more than my friends" when playing with the ammunition; he did "everything wild": parachuting, skydiving, karate. Subject D did "bravura-like things" and, like C, described childhood exploits such as climbing trees and jumping down, doing bicycle stunts, etc. Subject E engaged in various fighting sports. Sub- ject F's liking for the rough army ambiance has already been mentioned.

2. Sensitivity to challenges: Sensitivity to challenges is explicit in the comments of four of the subjects. Subject A: "I did badly at school, until the headmaster promised jobs in exchange for performance; then I became number one." "When someone asks me, I always say yes; then I start figur- ing out how it can be done." Subject B: "I need challenge; and stunting was challenge. When boys can ride motorcycles, why shouldn't girls?" The fire alarm exercise action may well be regarded as a response to challenge. Sub- ject C, in addition to the ammunition games and risky sports: "Near where we lived there was an island in the water; there was a rapid. I simply had to go in, then." The bravura-like actions of subject D have already been noted.

3. Activity preferences, low boredom threshold." Subject A got bored with his motorcycling and started crossing; Subject B described herself as having been driven by a restless exploratory urge, of which the TV set inci- dent is an example. Subject C quit school early because he got bored, and was interested only in arithmetic and gymnastics. Subject D loved "action films" and read articles on stunting in newspapers and magazines, admired Gil Delamare, was fascinated by h im-"Isn ' t everyone?"-wanted to do his kind of thing himself. Subject E, as noted, engaged in fighting sports. Sub- ject F had early boxing lessons, also mentioned.

202 Pi~t

4. Low sensitivity to aversive response outcomes: Several subjects gave early evidence of not unduly bothering about negative consequences of their own actions. Subject A described how he took the place of his stunting brother-in-law, as his first stunting performance; his brother-in-taw had, at the last moment, withdrawn from the act. "Because I had introduced him, people held me responsible, and then I did the stunt. I drove a motorcycle through a shop window. I was thrilled! I had not a single thought on whether I could be hurt or not. I only thought: it must be possible." Subject B's in- nocence with respect to consequences is clear from the TV set and the fire alarm exercise stories. Playing with grenades shows the same indifference for Subject C. In the three others, indifference to consequences would seem to be implicit in their risk-taking activities: the doorman job, the army story.

Question 2: Motivation for Stunting

The relevant question was: What brought you to stunting and what do you get out of it? The question produced statements or anecdotes, practical- ly all of which fall into one of four interlocking categories: Stunting (a) satisfies an urge to seek challenges and an ability to respond to them; (b) represents fulfillment of a desire to stand out, to confirm self-esteem, to be better than others; (c) provides the subject with a sense of meaningful func- tioning; and (d) represents ef fec tance , -engaging in doing something that one can do well.

Searching and Handling Challenges. It is explicit in spontaneous remarks of four of the six subjects. Subject B: "We need the challenge. We have to stimulate the brain. I can't bear when it sleeps." Subject C: "I like this work. The more difficult it is, the more I like it. I love the unknown. I am an- tiroutine." After discussing external rewards, the interviewer asked: "If you leave out money and audience acclaim, what remains?" The subject answered: "The competition. The challenge between stunt men to reach the limits." Sub- ject D: "What it gives? Personal satisfaction. I always wanted to break the record for high jumps, right from the start. I broke it and have never given it a thought. I did not want to repeat it; I wanted something else. For me it was the satisfaction to have succeeded in something you have planned." Subject F: "Ordinary things, that is too simple for me, too stale, I need a challenge, it just is a kick, I want to show what I can do, I also want to be respected. I once overheard someone who said the boss could become the biggest crook. That did it."

Standing Out and Self-Esteem. All six mention it in some form or other. Subject A: "I think there is some need to show off. I don't think it is to pro- ve myself because I am the best anyway." Subject B: "Formerly I thought, they look at me because I am fat and ugly. Now I think, they look at me

What Motivates Stunt Men? 203

because I hold the world record jumping"; and "That you can do something unusual, something others would not do so readily or cannot do, that is fulfill- ment." Subject C: "The public is a drug. The public is worse than cocaine or heroin"; "You can do something and you know that nobody in the world is able to do that. That is nice"; and "The world has five billion inhabitants. Three hundred of those are stunt men. One hundred and fifty of these work regularly and ten of them are famous. I am among them." Subject D: The remark quoted above on "personal satisfaction" may also be read as reflec- ting the value for self-esteem. Subject E: "There are very few who do that." Subject E had abandoned the profession for several years, after the fatal accident of his partner: "When you do nothing, at once you are nothing." Subject F: the "biggest crook" remark just quoted.

Several subjects mention the financial profits of their work; the sub- jecs are, in fact, paid quite large sums for their performances. However, the aspect of self-esteem or self-affirmation appears to be as important in that reward, as the profit per se. Such is the ring of a passage like "It also has to do with the life I live, my house, my second house in St. Tropez, so you cannot declare me mad. I walk by the showcases of Yves St. Laurent. I buy in such shops because I see something I like. And I can pay for it. That is my satisfaction. If I see a Cartier watch, I buy it; a Dupont lighter, I buy it" (Subject C).

Sense o f Meaningful Functioning. Subject A: "I think that when you look at the word entertainer in my passport giving my profession, that is what it exactly is. I think what I need is to entertain, that is my contribution to the world . . . . It is not much that I contribute, there is almost nothing I do well, but I can turn over cars, and people cheer when I do so. I enter- tain." Subject E, when asked why he does it: "I suppose it is my place in the world."

Effectance. The responses of all six subjects contain expressions of distinct satisfaction in doing what one can do well. Note that these subjects indeed do very well in their profession. The sense of effectance is, of course, closely linked to the sensitivity to challenge and ability to respond to it, and to the satisfaction of self-esteem just mentioned. In the comments of Sub- ject A, sense of effectance is present in the proud ring of the "entertaiment" passage, combined with the simply statement "I am the best of the world anyway" quoted earlier. Subject B describes a heightened sense of awareness and feeling of being "out of this world" during top pe r fo rmances - an ac- count of true peak experience. In Subject C the distinction between pride in achievement, fame, and the good life obtained is less clear. Still, the various aspects appear combined in the following statement: "You do something of which you know that nobody in the world can do it. That is nice. Moreover, if that would not be so, I would be paid much worse. Don't forget that money is therefore quite important." Subject D talked about his loss of interest once

204 Pii~t

a record is obtained, the major goal being the breaking of the previous record. Subjects E and F both had not been working for several years, one because his partner died in an accident, the other because of the accident fatal to his professional functioning. Both expressed their deep dissatisfaction dur- ing that period, their restlessness, their feeling of being worth nothing and being nothing.

Question 3: Assessment o f Risks

To the question of how they see and handle the risks of their job, the responses of all six subjects were ambiguous. On the one hand, all subjects em- phasized that the hazards of ordinary life-crossing the street, drunken drivers- are as large as, or larger than, those of their work. Also, they all emphasized that the risks of their job are relatively small because of their skill and effort. On the other hand, they all showed appreciation that the risks are "relatively small" only because of their skill and e f f o r t - t h a t is, that the stakes are high. The ambiguity comes clearly to the fore in a statement by Subject A: "We call ourselves risk eliminators, not stunt artists. That is our job. Our job is to perform for the public, to excite it as much as we can, and to survive. And the only way to do so is to eliminate as many risks as possible."

The difference they see between the hazards of ordinary life and those of stunting is an interesting one. Hazards of stunting are hazards that one can and does control, by careful preparation, by skill and by actual concen- tration. Hazards of ordinary life one cannot control; they are caused by other people. Subject D, for instance: "I am more afraid on the road than during a stunt. Fellow drivers act strangely and most of the time you cannot foretell it." Such hazards may penetrate into the job: "There is always the risk, for instance, of some maniac sabotaging your car" (Subject A).

Appreciation of the magnitude of the hazards involved is implicit in the subjects' statements concerning risk elimination, technical preparation, careful consideration of problems involved. Interviewer to Subject C: What is the risk for a stunt man? For you, for instance: You must drive your car through four autobuses, that is some 48 meters? Subject C: "A stunt man is first of all someone who reduces risks as much as possible . . . . A good stunt man takes care that everything involved is technically in top condition." Still, the subjects fully realized the dangers involved, but these dangers are realized in some detached, intellectualizing manner. There are statements of five of the six subjects to that effect. Subject A: "The possibility of something go- ing wrong grows statistically. I am quite conscious of that, of course." Sub- ject C immediately after the above quote: "But, of course, some risk always remains." Subject D: "There always is some five, ten, sometimes twenty per-

What Motivates Stunt Men? 205

cent of the risk which you cannot foresee." Subject E: "How dangerous it is what I will be doing now? Very dangerous. Fifty percent risk . . . . The big- gest risk is that the car turns over. Than you can scratch me out." Subject F: "One can limit the risks by technical tricks, but a portion of risk remains, even if timing is the major thing. How you handle it? In some way or other you count it out. By not thinking of it and yet to be aware of it somehow."

One subject (E) described the thrill of setting out to do something that may miscarry. "That tickle is fantastically good, the adrenalin, that animal." Considering what was reported earlier, concerning responsiveness to challenge, this thrill of the possibility of failure may well apply to all subjects.

Question 4: Preparing for a Stunt

Preparatory Phases. Most stunt assignments require solving given prob- lems and making technical preparations. When these preparations are be- ing made, the subjects, step by step, "grow" toward the performance. Quite often there is a first phase of uncertainy about how the stunt is to be handl- ed, and insecurity with regard to success. Two subjects reported personal ten- sions and quarrels during this phase, which ends with settling upon a strategy. A second phase involves operational preparation, technically and personal- ly. Five of the six subjects stressed the importance of physical condition train- ing; the sixth claimed that keeping busy in the profession is the best way to remain in condition. A third phase involves the actual preparatory work on location. A fourth phase consists of being set for the act, preparations having been completed. This phase is described as strongly emotional: an explicit state of happiness, security, and self-confidence; the description is given spontaneously by four of the subjects. The emotional state results from the sense of everything involved being under control.

Commitment. Three out of the six subjects indicated the importance of commitment, from the first phase onward. They cannot afford to reconsider their willingness to perform the agreed-to stunt, or to withdraw. Commit- ment is with respect to contractual partners as well as to one's standing in the trade and one's self-condfidence and self-esteem.

Control. Preparation for a stunt appears to consist of gradually achiev- ing control over relevant aspects of the problem under concern and of the various details of the actual setup. The word control keeps recurring in the subjects' statements, particularly at this point of the interview. "We wanted to see the motorcycle and the scaffold. These two items were not yet there . . . . But as more and more things were gotten under control, we kept becoming happier and happier" (Subject B). "Control" applies not merely to equip- ment and setup but also to details of the stunt as a whole. Subjects voice a strong sense that every problem admits of a solution, that every risk can

206 Pi&

be successfully dealt with, and that a rational approach to every relevant pro- blem is possible and should be adopted. "When self-control is absent, say to yourself: "Stop, strip it down, analyze what is wrong" (Subject C).

Of course, this emphasis upon control in the present subjects is largely realistic. That is to say, success and survival depend upon controlling every detail of equipment and arrangement, and such control is in fact largely achieved. Still, endeavours toward control extend beyond what is technical- ly needed. Three of the subjects voiced opinions concerning health foods not uncommon among sportsmen. One subject always dresses meticulously for his stunt performances, pleating a fold even in his underpants. The emphasis upon physical condition training, too, appears to serve a general sense of be- ing in control as much as true physical fitness.

Question 5: Experience Before, During, and After the Stunt

Concentration. All subjects but one explicitly mentioned a state of ex- treme concentration preceding the actual execution of the stunt, and inner preparation for achieving such concentration. One subject referred to "emp- tying his mind" and then being unable to answer even simple questions if unrelated to the job at hand; another mentioned breathing evenly and deep- ly, in order to relax, the evening before the stunt. The feeling of concentra- tion itself was described as one of being on edge, or as acuteness of all senses.

Concentration has an aspect of strong activation. Three of the subjects mentioned it. Subject A: "With me, adrenalin does play a role." Subject B: "I get an adrenalin shot, t then have to do it. If I do not do it, I keep that feeling for three days or more." Subject C: "I am in a state of alarm." Two others do not mention enhanced activation but do describe a recovery of several days after each major performance.

Concentration and activation in part appear to be aspects of the inner preparation for a major performance as such, but they also seem to be pro- ducts of an awareness of the temendous stakes involved- tha t is, an awareness of the dramatic consequences of failure. This is to say that concentration seems to serve a "defensive" function as well as an instrumental one. A remark like "I think I drove my fears out of my brain and concentrated upon suc- ceeding with what I did" (Subject B) illustrates what is meant, as well as the kind of relevant evidence.

Altered Consciousness. Several of the subjects described changes in awareness during or immediately after the performance. Some of these changes resemble states of depersonalization: unreality of events, not notic- ing events, not noticing wounds; need to touch oneself to get convinced of

What Motivates Stunt Men? 207

still being alive or real; or having a depersonalized, detached sense of "I have done it again."

Subject B described peak experiences: "Some stunts give a feeling not from this world . . . . When everything is over, tiredness too, I feel better than ever, as if purified . . . . When you do a really big stunt, a big crash, then you think: I can feel myself. That is good, because you cannot know how it feels to be dead, so you might as well be dead. Then you notice: I 'm still alive. It is as if you are in a completely different world. You're not on earth when you do this."

Recovery. Five subjects explicitly described a recovery period of several days after a major stunt, or they otherwise mentioned the need for "discharge" of accumulated tension. Recovery includes a gradual return of sense of reality, and return of emotions. One of the subjects told how lighting his first cigarette goes without problem; a few hours later, trembling prevents him from do- ing so. "My mind very slowly returns" (Subject C). Subject D: "It may sound stupid, but sometimes when I see that playback, I think: This is impossible, that I did that . . . . It sometimes frightens me"; interestingly, Subject D was one of the subjects who did not mention concentration or activation prior to the act. Postperformance resurge of emotions of course resembles increase in emotional arousal of experienced parachutists after their jump (Fenz & Epstein, 1967; Ursin, Baade, & Levine, 1978).

Satisfaction. Very intense feeling of satisfaction after the feat were mentioned by five of six subjects; examples have already been given. Some of the statements reflect the satisfaction received from the public admira- tion; most, however, also have an "intrinsic" ring: "I have done it."

Question 6: Anxiety and the Handling of Danger Awareness

Fear and Anxiety Generally. All subjects admitted knowing fear: of fires, of being locked up somewhere, of getting into accidents as children or they mentioned anticipatory anxiety about the stunt succeeding or the car not being fast enough. All this, as mentioned, involves uncontrollable events or event features, as distinct from the controllable risks of the job.

Fear on the job. The subjects were unanimous in asserting that one can- not afford anxiety, and fear just can't compete with the job's enticing challenges. One subject (B) mentioned having been afraid of fire, therefore wanting to do a stunt of driving her car through fire (like the others in her team), and having lost her fear after having accomplished it. The same sub- ject was still afraid of heights when she participated in the world champion- ship of jumping cars from scaffolds, and did so by jumping for 80 feet. Thus, the anxieties were not products of the job risks per se; rather, overcoming

208 Pii~t

them constituted one major challenge. There is no evidence in the data that overcoming such fears was a factor in the motivation of all subjects, nor that it was the major factor in Subject B.

Anxiety with respect to the job risks appears not to be entirely absent. It is present for some subjects as a potential, as something to be kept under control. Subject B: "I was afraid of nothing. I think I just drove my fears out of my brain and concentrated upon succeeding in what I did, which solved the fear problem." Two subjects denied that anxiety plays a role in their pro- fessional work, either negatively or positively. Three subjects considered anx- iety in making one evalute risks and take preparatory measures accordingly.

Handling Danger Awareness. All subjects are well aware of the dangers of their job; they know and realize the grave results of failures in perform- ing their stunts adequately. They all know of accidents in which they themselves, or close colleagues, were involved. All of them were explicit in ascribing these accidents to mistakes by the people involved. The accidents were avoidable, and would have been avoided if the persons concerned had used their better judgment, or had engaged in adequate preparation. The accidents of the trade, in other words, are, in principle, controllable. Sub- ject A had recently witnessed someone else's accident: "That drag racer had to take a life-and-death decision. He took the wrong decision." Subject B: "Oh, yes, a few weeks ago we witnessed someone being literally skinned. He stood for a moment before the choice to speed up or to brake and he ac- celerated. That was the wrong decision . . . . It made me sick because, you think, damn it, if only he had made the right choice." Subject C once had an accident himself: "At that time I did not have enough money to buy the right materials. It was caused by a technical error. I was too young, too im- pulsive" (the latter addition to explain his use of inadequate materials). Sub- ject D, too, was once in an accident: "It was not my fault. Someone from my team had not correctly prepared my car. The wheels could not stand what I did." Subject E: "When you get careless, a bit easy, then you incur damage." Subject F: "Accidents? Yes . . . . It was someone else's technical error."

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

From the six interviews a fairly consistent picture arises with respect to background of, and motivation for, seeking confrontation with danger in professional stunting. The main features of this picture are as follows.

To begin with, no support could be found, in the answers to the various questions, for the hypothesis that stunt men seek danger because of some attractive component of the experiences of anxiety or fear, as such. Anxiety or fear on the job is considered harmful, or else constitutes a stimulus for being careful and taking measures to avoid its occurrence. Anxiety, or its

What Motivates Stunt Men? 209

possible lure, appears to play at most a minor role in stunting because, on the one hand, events are not as risky as they seem to an outsider, owing to the stunt man's high degree of professional skill and his careful preparations, and, on the other hand, the risky events are perceived as challenges rather than as threats. Anxiety is considered a consequence of threat appraisal and not of the appraisal of challenge (Lazarus, Kanner, & Folkman, 1980). As clearly appears from the interviews, professional skill and careful prepara- tion, in addition to serving to reduce actual risk, serve to enhance a sense of control and reduction of uncertainty. Frijda (1986) and Smith and Ellsworth (1985) have demonstrated that subjects rate fear situations as low on controllability and high on uncertainly, whereas the reverse holds for situa- tions appraised as challenging.

Self-reports on early environment and behavior indicate the presence of some of the personality traits that characterize "sensation seekers" accord- ing to Zuckerman (1979) and others. All subjects evidence an early search for varied and risky experience and for vigorous activity, a low boredom threshold, and weak inhibitory effects of possible aversive consequences of one's own actions. The two former traits distincly suggest propensity for high optimal stimulation levels. The latter trait is perhaps better interpreted as an aspect of low anxiety-proneness, as phrased by Gray (1971): weak sen- sitivity for the inhibitory effects of conditioned punishment. In that latter sense (but only in that sense) the subjects show low appreciation of risk: They do not stop to appreciate it, or are not restrained by it when they do ap- preciate it. They are in no way insensitive to fears, however, neurotic fear included; Hare's (1978) and Lykken's (1957) theories do not find support in the present data.

The description of preparation for, and experiences during, performance suggest an additional personality feature: that of ability to tolerate high degrees of stress and extreme levels of concentration. Stunt men, presumably, share it with other top sportsmen. It certainly suggests the "strong nervous system" (Strelau, 1983) interpretation of sensation seeking. Whether a biologically based trait or not, the ability to tolerate stress may well corres- pond specifically to those particular abilities for emotion handling manifest in heart rate decrement under severe stress found in courageous bomb-disposal experts (Cox et al., 1983; O'Connor et al., 1985).

Perhaps even more pronounced than the previous traits is the very strong sensitivity to challenge with respect to confronting danger or performing other difficult feats. This sensitivity does not seem to follow from, or be included in, the personality variables mentioned. Sensitivity to challenge, as several of the comments suggest, extends beyond challenge with respect to coping with danger. There are distinct indications that it also covers sensitivity to challenges to self-esteem and/or to obtaining the admiration of others. In

2 ! 0 PilOt

addition, it appears to embody challenge with respect to some "intrinsic" satisfaction, namely, effectance (White; 1959)-being able to do well what one in fact can do well, when this requires effort. Success, when response to challenge implied a measure of effort, thus can be attributed to one's own credit, as Weiner (1985) has sketched the relevant structure.

Concerning the sources of sensitivity to challenge, in terms of personality theory, the interviews give no clue; psychodynamic hypotheses related to need for recognition or indentity enhancement come readily to mind, though. Whatever its ultimate background, sensitivity to challenge may be assumed to operate by way of a predominant cognitive orientation to perceive events in terms of challenges rather than threats. This orientation, in turn, appears to be based upon a more or less generalized sense of the controllability of events, or upon a tendency in the subjects to make it be or appear controllable. Sense of controllability, as it is operative in our subjects, represents an at- titude that guides action as much as it determines emotions. The psychological structure of "sensitivilty to challenge," we may suggest, is that events that are just indifferent to someone else, are considered as controllable and mangeable and, for that reason, are actively being taken on as goals for ac- tion. The attitude concerned appears not to be confined to the professional domain, considering some of the subjects' childhood exploits and previous occupations.

Sense of controllability itself is obviously related to actual ability to exert c o n t r o l - t h a t is, to effectance or competence. That competence derives not only from skill and physical prowess but equally, it would seem, from the ability to tolerate stress. This latter ability may be the most important condition for danger-seeking motivation, since it can be assumed to have preceded performance competence in the individual's history.

As to the actual motivation for stunting, being able to respond to the challenges involved appears to constitute the major reward of the danger- seeking activity. "Being able" has three aspects: technical, physical, and mental (with respect to marshaling concentration and tolerating stress). Reward is manifestly tied to the personality variables suggested in the preceding discus- sion, the various ability components and the sensitivity to challenge. One might perhaps conclude that the motivation consists of using, testing, and extending the particular abilities one happens to have.

The reward of danger seeking is thus to be found in the sense of mastery and compe tence - in the successful completion of a "suspense-mastery" se- quence (Rothbart, 1973). The reward does not seem to reside in confronta- tion with danger for its own sake, or in the thrills of excitement per se, but in what facing and handling those confrontations and thrills entail. Of course, the grave risks and their anxiety-provoking potential are an essential com- ponent of the satisfaction: The higher the stakes, the larger the mastery.

What Molivates Stunt Men? 211

The intrinsic rewards are complemented by extrinsic rewards: enhanc- ed self-esteem and the admiration of others, and money. Running and facing grave risks, in stunting, certainly is to some extent a liability the stunt men have to face to receive these rewards that they can reap because of the abili- ties they happen to have. To the extent that this applies, Rachman's (1978) formulation-that anxiety is a by-product in the search for other objectives- certainly applies. However, most of the subjects were engaged in stunting or similar exploits long before the prospects of high renown and high pay were visible. Such rewards may thus be considered merely a secondary motiva- tional factor. The data are insufficient to further disentangle the various aspects of reward. The aspects themselves are sufficiently clear, however, to discern their personal significance, as opposed to the satisfactions of mere thrill, suspense, or variety.

This distinct feature, of personal significance of mastery and the ex- trinsic rewards, constitutes the major argument, in the present evidence, against applying either Berlyne's (I 960) arousal jag theory or Solomon's (1980) opponent process theory to the motivations and satisfactions of danger seek- ing. Sense of mastery, in particular, impresses as something quite different from mel"e arousal decrease, it is need-related satisfaction. Also, it cannot readily be considered an'*'opponent process," generated as a moderator of the initial suspense, as opponent process theory would argue. It is true that the aftereffects described by opponent process theory are conspicuous in the experience of stunt men: exhilaration after the performance, and a sense of being out of this world. However, these aftereffects are sometimes accom- panied by a return of negative emotions- trembling, amazement about what one has d o n e - that suggest abandonment of previous emotion control when such control is no longer needed, rather than an opponent withdrawal ef- fect. Also, exhilaration and other-worldliness seem to be emotional responses, in their own right, to the stimulus of having succeeded marvelously.

Separate mention should be made of the alterations of consciousness occurring during or after performance: peak experience and depersonaliza- tion. Peak experience is generally assumed to indicate felt correspondence between acts and ultimate potential (Maslow, 1970); that formulation clear- ly applies here. Defensive dissociation states have been described as occurr- ing after trauma (Horowitz, 1976) and during acute suffering, such as torture (Frijda, 1986); their occurrence as an effect of stress handling under volun- tary conditions is noteworthy and should be taken into account by theories of dissociation states.

Combining the various findings, one may conclude that individuals become stunt men because, on the one hand, they possess certain personality features, those underlying "sensation seeking" or corresponding to "impulsiveness," of which the major ones are low boredom threshold, eagerness for strong ex-

212 Pii~t

perience,and low sensitivity to punishing response consequences. More impor- tant, perhaps, is the ability to stand the strains of confrontation with grave risk and to concentrate under highly stressful conditions, perhaps to be identified with "strong nervous system" personality variables. In addition to these per- sonality variables, a contribution is made by an early social environment where physical daring is valued and by early experiences in responding to that value, and, not to be overlooked, chance contacts with the world of stunting.

On the other hand, stunt men are motivated toward that profession because of the rewards of meeting the challenges involved. These rewards are obtained because the abilities are present for successfully meeting those challenges. Ability and motivation are thus inextricably intertwined. The rewards of enhancement of self-esteem and the admiration of others, and of monetary profit, play important additional roles that may be connected to further aspects of the motivation concerned, and to the stunt men's per- sonality backgrounds.

REFERENCES

Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal and curiosity. New York: McGraw-HitI. Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Appleton-Cemury-Crofts. Cox, D., Hallam, R , O'Connor, D., & Rachman, S. (1983). An experimental analysis of

fearlessness and courage. British Journal of Psychology, 74, 107-117. Eysenck, H. J. (1967). The biological basis of personality. Springfield, Illinois: Thomas. Fenz, W. D., & Epstein, S. (1967). Gradients of physiological arousal in parachutists.

Psychosomatic Medicine, 29, 33-51. Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. New York: Cambridge University Press. Gray, J. A. (1971). The psychology of fear and stress. London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson. Hare, R. D. (1978). Electrodermal and cardiovascular correlates of psychopathy. In R. D. Hare

& D. Schalling (Eds.), P~ychopathic behavior: Approaches to research. Chichester: Wiley. Horowitz, M. J. (1976). Stress: Response syndromes. New York: I. Aronson. Lazarus, R. S., Kanner, A. D., & Folkman, S. (1980). Emotions: A cognitive-phenomenological

analysis. In R. Plutchik & H. Kellerman (Eds.), Emotion: Theory, research and experience. New York: Academic Press.

Lykken, D. T. (1957). A study of anxiety in the sociopathic personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 55, 6-10.

Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row. O'Connor, K., Hallam, R., & Rachman, S. (1985). Fearlessness and courage: A replication ex-

periment. British Journal of Psychology, 76, 187-197. Rachman, S. (1978). Fear and courage. San Francisco: Freeman~ Rothbart, M. K. (1973). Laughter in young children. Psychological Bulletin, 80, 247-256. Smith, C. A., & Ellsworth, P. C, (1985). Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion. Journal

of personality and social Psychology, 48, 813-838. Solomon, R. L. (1980). The opponent-process theory of acquired motivation. American

Psychologist, 35, 691-712 Strelau, J. (1983). Temperament, personality, activity, London: Academic Press. Ursin, H., Baade, E., & Levine, S. (1978). Psychobiology of stress: A study of coping men.

New York: Academic Press. Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological

Review, 92, 548-573.

What Motivates Stunt Men? 213

White. R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. PsychologicalReview, 66, 297-333.

Zuckerman, M. (1979). Sensation-seeking. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum. Zuckerman, M. (1984). Sensation-seeking: A comparative approach to a human trait. Behaviorial

and Brain Sciences, 7, 413-434.