## 4 Results
### Self-Reported Valence and Arousal Data  
Through the self-reported VA data, we found that there were significant changes in participants' emotions according to the risk level and information provision level. We analyzed the self-reported VA data in the 10 s before and after the event in eight cases. The maximum, minimum, and mean values of the VA data were obtained, and analysis was conducted through repeated measures ANOVA. Figures 7 and 8 show that, according to the risk level, significant differences were observed for Arousal Max, Arousal Mean, Valence Min, and Valence Mean: Max Arousal, F(3, 132) = 41.043, \(p<0.001\); Mean Arousal, F(3, 132) = 20.057, \(p<0.001\); Min Valence, F(3, 132) = 29.555, \(p<0.001\); Mean Valence, F(3, 132) = 14.482, \(p<0.001\). A post-hoc analysis was conducted on the risk level and whether or not the information was provisioned through HUD. In the case of Max Arousal, the high-risk condition was significantly higher than the medium-risk condition (\(p<0.001\)), low-risk condition (\(p<0.001\)), and no-risk condition (\(p<0.001\)), and the medium-risk condition was significantly higher than the no-risk condition (\(p<0.001\)). In addition, when information was provided to HUD, the value of Arousal Max was significantly lower than when the information was not provided (\(p=0.004\)). In the case of Mean Arousal, the high-risk condition was significantly higher than the low-risk (\(p<0.001\)), and no-risk conditions (\(p<0.001\)); and the medium-risk condition was significantly higher than the low-risk condition (\(p<0.001\)) and the no-risk condition (\(p<0.001\)). In addition, when information was provided, the value of Mean Arousal was slightly lower than when the information was not provided (\(p=0.018\)). In the case of valence min, the high-risk condition was significantly lower than the medium-risk condition (\(p<0.001\)), low-risk condition (\(p<0.001\)), and no-risk condition (\(p<0.001\)); and the medium-risk condition was significantly lower than the no-risk condition (\(p<0.001\)). In addition, when information was provided, the value of Min Valence was significantly higher than when information was not provided (\(p=0.031\)). In the case of Mean Valence, the high-risk condition was significantly lower than the no-risk condition (\(p<0.001\)) and the no-risk condition (\(p<0.001\)), and the medium-risk condition was significantly lower than the no-risk condition (\(p<0.001\)). In addition, when information was significantly higher than when information was not provided (\(p=0.031\)). In the case of Mean Valence, the high-risk condition was significantly lower than the no-risk condition (\(p<0.001\)) and the no-risk condition (\(p<0.001\)), and the medium-risk condition was significantly lower than the no-risk condition (\(p<0.001\)) and the no-risk condition (\(p<0.001\)), and the medium-risk condition was significantly lower than the no-risk condition (\(p<0.001\)). When information was provided, the value of the Mean Valence was slightly higher than when the information was not provided (\(p=0.074\)). As we intended from our scenario design, the valence score decreased and the arousal score increased as the risk level increased. This indicates that the subjects had negative emotions that were physiologically activated as the intensity of risk increased. In the case of high-risk conditions, the maximum value of arousal was significantly higher and the minimum value of valence was significantly lower than in medium-risk, low-risk, and no-risk conditions. In other words, we could find that the subjects actually had a sudden  
Figure 6: Left: Average values across all subjects for GSR phasic data from 10 s before and after the event for the eight scenarios. Right: A graph comparing GSR phasic data before and after the event. The use of asterisks in the figure indicates statistical significance. A single asterisk (*) denotes a \(p\)-value less than 0.05, while three (***) asterisks denote \(p\)-values less than 0.001, respectively.