PurposePsychology and social science research offer some promising work in the field of decision-making science. However, given the qualitative nature of much of this research, understanding some physiological bases of decision-making may assist by providing more objectivity. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to explore hormonal and neurophysiological biomarkers of stress relative to strategic decision making, with and without an accompanying exercise stress.MethodsTwenty-one competitive male chess players were recruited to this study. On two separate occasions prefrontal cortex (a brain region involved in executive decision making which is sensitive to stress) hemodynamics were measured while participants played a standardized game of chess against a computer bot, once after exposure to a physical stressor (experimental condition) and once without (control condition). Participant’s stress hormones (testosterone and cortisol) were also measured in the morning of each test and immediately prior to the game of chess.ResultsParticipants were more likely to win under experimental conditions. Interestingly, there was no difference between conditions for baseline testosterone and cortisol concentrations, and the exercise protocol did not elicit a hormonal change. However, significant differences were observed for prefrontal cortex hemodynamics following the physical stressor (vs. control condition), and changes in prefrontal cortex hemodynamics were observed as games progressed (p ≤ 0.034).ConclusionOur results speculatively suggest several independent pathways exist to explain how stress affects decision making. This work opens several vistas for future research exploring decision making using neurohormonal/physiological biomarkers.

PurposeInfectious diseases have posed an existential threat to humans throughout history, resulting in a complex system of evolved psychological and behavioral mechanisms designed to help mitigate infection. Given that food consumption represents a significant route through which humans can be exposed to illness-causing pathogens, further research into the relationship between disease avoidance motivations and novel food avoidance (i.e., food neophobia) is warranted.MethodsAcross three studies (total N = 736), we investigated the relationship between trait disease avoidance motivation (assessed by the Perceived Vulnerability to Disease scale) and food neophobia.Results and ConclusionsResults from each of the three studies indicated that greater dispositional germ aversion significantly predicted greater food neophobia, whereas the relationship between dispositional perceived infectability and food neophobia was positive but more variable across the studies. Additionally, Study 3 revealed that while greater dispositional food neophobia predicted greater likelihood of avoiding foreign foods, experimentally priming disease threat was not associated with food choice. Lastly, an internal meta-analysis revealed that both germ aversion and perceived infectability were both uniquely positively associated with food neophobia. Limitations, conceptual issues, and avenues for future research are discussed.