Abstract
The ubiquitous and intense nature of stress responses necessitate that we understand how they affect decision-making. Despite a number of studies examining risky decision-making under stress, it is as yet unclear whether and in what way stress alters the underlying processes that shape our choices. This is in part because previous studies have not separated and quantified dissociable valuation and decision-making processes that can affect choices of risky options, including risk attitudes, loss aversion, and choice consistency, among others. Here, in a large, fully-crossed two-day within-subjects design, we examined how acute stress alters risky decision-making. On each day, 120 participants completed either the cold pressor test or a control manipulation with equal probability, followed by a risky decision-making task. Stress responses were assessed with salivary cortisol. We fit an econometric model to choices that dissociated risk attitudes, loss aversion, and choice consistency using hierarchical Bayesian techniques to both pool data and allow heterogeneity in decision-making. Acute stress was found to have no effect on risk attitudes, loss aversion, or choice consistency, though participants did become more loss averse and more consistent on the second day relative to the first. In the context of an inconsistent previous literature on risk and acute stress, our findings provide strong and specific evidence that acute stress does not affect risk attitudes, loss aversion, or consistency in risky monetary decision-making.
Highlights
Because risky decisions are both ubiquitous and must often be made under stress, it is imperative to understand the interactions between stress and choices under risk
Cortisol levels gradually decreased in the Control condition across the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th timepoints relative to the 1st, and significantly increased in the Stress condition at the 3rd and 4th timepoints
We find no evidence for an effect of acute stress on risk attitudes, loss aversion, or consistency over choices
Summary
Because risky decisions are both ubiquitous and must often be made under stress, it is imperative to understand the interactions between stress and choices under risk. Several studies find evidence for more gambling under acute stress (i.e. riskier choices; less risk aversion; more utility function convexity) (Preston et al, 2007; Starcke et al, 2008; Putman et al, 2010; Pabst et al, 2013b, 2013c), while others find less gambling under stress (i.e. safer choices; more risk aversion; more utility function concavity) (Porcelli and Delgado, 2009; Cingl and Cahlikova, 2013), no changes in gambling (von Dawans et al, 2012; Delaney et al, 2014; Kandasamy et al, 2014), or both more and less gambling depending on factors like gender (Lighthall et al, 2009; van den Bos et al, 2009), time (Pabst et al, 2013a), trait anxiety and depressive symptoms (Robinson et al, 2015), or outcome magnitude (von Helversen and Rieskamp, 2013). Sokol-Hessner et al / Neurobiology of Stress 5 (2016) 19e25 decision-making: a simple probability of gambling This coarse measure is inadequate because choices between more and less risky options reflect the combined contributions of multiple different processes. Depending on the kinds of choices, other factors can influence the probability of gambling, including probability weighting (the subjective, as opposed to objective, probability of an event occurring), ambiguity aversion (the distaste for unknown probabilities in decision options), or even dynamic updating when learning in complex, changing, or experiential settings
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
