Abstract
The Framing Effect (FE) demonstrated that the way two alternatives are displayed affects people’s inclination to make a specific choice, showing a risk aversion when alternatives are displayed on positive frames and risk seeking in negative frames. Risk seeking in negative frames is closely linked to loss aversion. Moreover, classical research and the salience-of-losses hypothesis argues that stress may enhance the FE and loss aversion. Recent studies also suggest that the trait interoception and alexithymia could interact and moderate the framing susceptibility. However, experimental paradigms on stress could ignore variables such as threat perception. In this sense, COVID-19 pandemic has become a powerful real-life stressor in many countries. We aimed to study how real-life stressors influence decision-making under risk. A total of 97 participants were divided into a control (n = 48) and an experimental group (n = 49). The experimental group were exposed to a stressor manipulation, a 5 min COVID-19 lockdown documentary. Our results show that COVID-19-related stressors significantly decreased bet acceptance regardless of the frame, also reducing loss aversion. Moreover, interoception was a significant predictor of loss aversion under stress conditions. Our results do not support classical research on stress and FE.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Daily life situations require decision-making processes. Despite the influence of the rational choice theory (Becker 1968; Bernoulli 1954; Deming, von Neuman and Morgenstern, 1945)—which argues that individuals select the best behaviour in order to maximize their utility regardless of the context—the Prospect Theory proposed by Kahneman and Tversky (1979) demonstrated that changes in the context could lead to a disruption in the risky choice consistency. This disruption can be induced by the Framing Effect (FE), a widely studied cognitive bias that suggest that the way different alternatives are displayed affects people’s inclination to make a specific choice. For example, several studies have shown a reversed risk preference when presenting the same option in different frames (positive vs. negative frames). In addition, it has been reported a risk seeking when the choice involves losses and a risk aversion in choices involving gains (Detweiler et al. 1999; Kühberger et al. 1999; Pinon & Gambara 2005; Tversky & Kahneman 1981). This frame-dependent inconsistency has been observed in hypothetical scenarios involving human lives (the “Asian Disease Problem”; see Tversky & Kahneman 1981) and also in economical risky choice tasks (de Martino et al. 2006).
Together with the FE, stress seems to be an important modulator of decision-making strategies. In fact, many real-life decisions are made under stress, and the decision itself could be a source of pressure. Previous research has shown a link between stress and a performance decrease in decision-making tasks (Starcke & Brand 2012; Wemm & Wulfert 2017). Furthermore, classical research found that higher arousal level leads to magnify the risk seeking on loss-domain choices and risk aversion on gain-domain choices (Porcelli & Delgado 2009; Ring 2015; Yamakawa et al. 2016). In other words, higher arousal increases FE. This could be due to the release of glucocorticoids and noradrenaline, which reduce intracellular signalling along prefrontal-amygdala circuits (Arnsten 2009; Yamakawa et al. 2016). In fact, under psychological stress conditions the amygdala activates hypothalamic and brainstem structures leading to an enhanced noradrenaline and dopamine inputs and impairing the prefrontal function. Since prefrontal cortex structures are involved in higher order decision-making and inhibition of impulsive behaviours, acute stress could lead individuals to perform a biased and non-reflexive strategies, especially in loss frames (Arnsten 2009). This line of evidence is in accordance with the salience-of-losses hypothesis (Metz et al. 2020), which argues that the activation of the salience network in stress conditions should increase the psychological impact of losses. Nonetheless, it is important to emphasise that the effects of acute stress on decision-making can be moderated by other emotional and psychophysiological variables, such as the trait interoception and alexithymia. Interoception—the ability to process and integrate inner body signals (Chen et al. 2021)—has recently become a new topic of investigation even though the Somatic Marker Hypothesis (Damasio 1996) was formulated few decades ago. Some evidence shows that interoceptive awareness could predict decision-making performance under risk (Salvato et al. 2019). In the case of alexithymia, it seems to reduce the FE by blocking the incorporation of emotional feedback into decision-making (Shah et al. 2016a, b). It is known that alexithymia and interoception have opposite directions in both emotional awareness and FE susceptibility (Laloyaux et al. 2015; Shah et al. 2016a, b; Sütterling et al. 2013). Moreover, a recent study by Manzoor et al. (2021) showed that interoception and alexithymia could interact and predict low rates of FE sensitivity.
It is important to notice that most of the research makes use of artificial elements or paradigms to elicit emotional responses rather than real-life-related ones. This can lead to a bias ignoring cognitive variables such as threat perception (Lazarus 1966; Lazarus & Cohen 1977; Lazarus & Folkman 1984). For example, Henze et al. (2017) found that the Trier Social Stress Test (TSST)-induced similar neuroendocrine responses to that of a real-life oral exam, but instead the naturalistic stimuli had a more pronounced psychological impact in the sample. In this context, COVID-19 pandemic has become a powerful stressor since its inception (Lee et al. 2020). Concretely, in Spain, almost 20% of the population suffered high levels of anxiety and severe depressive symptoms during lockdown, being young adults the most affected demographic cluster (Becerra-García 2020; Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 2020). In addition, governments, citizens and health officials had to make decisions where the lives of others were at stake, making the pandemic an opportunity to study the effects of real stressors on risky choice tendency.
Based on all the above, the present study aims to investigate how negative COVID-19-related emotions can modulate decision-making processes and how emotional and psychophysiological variables such as interoception and alexithymia can moderate this relationship. Using the FE paradigm and following the salience-of-losses paradigm, it is expected that the exposure to a COVID-19 emotional stressor would increase FE in a risky choice task. According to previous evidence, we also expected an interaction between interoception and alexithymia mediating the influence of perceived stress in FE scoring.
Method and materials
Participants
A total of 97 participants (women: N = 85; age: M = 21.74, SD = 2.82) were randomly assigned to a control (n = 48) or experimental group (n = 49). Importantly, our sample mainly consisted in students who were recruited from psychology’s faculty in the University of Valencia. Previous experiments (Shah et al. 2016a, b; Starcke et al. 2008) report a large effect sizes between stress and decision-making processes (d = 0.96) and between interoception and FE (d = 1.77). Given our sample size, a sensitivity test revealed a sensitivity of up to d = 0.269 to perform a multiple linear regression model with interoception and alexithymia as predictors (power = 90%, α = 0.05; sensitivity was calculated using pwr package on RStudio). Prior to the experiment, participants gave their informed consent. All procedure was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.
Measures
Framing effect task
An economical framing task adapted from De Martino et al. (2006) was used to evaluate participants’ decision-making under risk. The task consisted of a list of 48 items in which the participants were asked to choose between two economical options. Firstly, a message appeared indicating the initial amount of money (€20, €25, €40, €50, €75, €80 and €100). Next, they had to choose between a “sure” or a “gamble” (risky) option. The “sure” options were set out in a positive (“You keep €50”) and in a negative frame (“You lose €30”). The “gamble” option proposed a probability of winning or losing certain amount of money (20%, 40%, 60% and 80%). For example: “A. You keep/lose €30; B. Gamble, knowing that there is a 60% chance of keeping everything and a 40% chance of losing everything”.
Both frame conditions and probability of win/lose were fully balanced in every starting amount condition. In order to avoid possible bias (Barkan & Busebeyer, 2003; Tversky & Kahneman 1992; Xue et al. 2011) there was no feedback given referring to economic balance after each choice.
Two possible ways to analyse the FE task are available: obtaining the percentage of bet acceptance in each frame and calculating the difference between gambling in loss and gain frames (that is, the size of Framing Effect).
Interoception
The Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness V2 (MAIA-2; Mehling et al. 2018) was used to evaluate interoception. MAIA-2 includes 37 items on eight subscales in which participants must indicate the level of agreement with each statement in a scale ranging from 0 (never) to 5 (always). Cronbach’s Alpha for MAIA-2 in our sample was α = 0.92.
Alexithymia
To evaluate alexithymia, we applied the 20-item-based Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20; Bagby et al. 1994) in its Spanish version (Martínez-Sánchez 1996). TAS-20 is a self-report questionnaire answered in a 5-point Likert scale (1 meaning “completely disagree” and 5 meaning “completely agree”). Cronbach’s Alpha for TAS-20 in our sample was 0.78.
COVID-19 pandemic psychological impact
In order to explore the psychological effects of COVID-19 pandemic, we used two scales from the Coronavirus Psychological Impact Questionnaire (CIPC; Sandín et al. 2020). Particularly, we selected the Experience with The Coronavirus (ECOVI) and the Distress Scale (ED; α = 0.93, ω = 0.93). The aim of the ECOVI was to obtain data regarding the infection level of the participants and their close relationships (infections, hospitalizations and deaths), whereas ED evaluates negative emotional experiences and sleep problems during the Spanish lockdown.
Emotional variables
To evaluate emotional variables, we assessed the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12; Goldberg & Williams 1988) to explore psychological morbidity in our sample. A 3-item Self-Assessment Manikin questionnaire was also used, asking for perceived levels of happiness, arousal and dominance (Lang et al. 1993). In addition, we designed an ad hoc 1 to 10 Likert scale question for this study asking about subjective stress. This question asked: “What is your current stress level?”
Procedure
Due to COVID-19 restrictions and the cumulative incidence in the moment of the methodological designing—exceeding 1000 per 100.000 cases in 14 days—the experiment was conducted in an online modality. It was divided in two phases. The first phase consisted in two different online questionnaires. The first questionnaire aimed to obtain sociodemographic information about participants, a mental health indicator measured with the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12), interoception and alexithymia punctuations (MAIA-2 & TAS-20) and COVID-19-related information (ED & ECOVI scales). The second questionnaire included the framing task. In order to standardize the procedure as much as possible, a PDF file was sent to the participants with step-by-step instructions on how to proceed. Lighting advices and links to assess the questionnaires were also included.
In the second phase, both control and experimental groups indicated their emotional state with a Self-Assessment Mannequin (SAM)-like questionnaire and their perceived stress levels. Next, they had to watch a video file. The experimental group watched a 4:17 min piece containing shocking images regarding the Spanish lockdown. Silent and empty streets images, collapsed intensive care units and severely ill patients are a few examples (full video file is available at Supplementary Materials). The control group watched a documentary clip (4:56 min) on how to produce marbles. Once they had finished watching the video, participants reported their emotional state and they had to perform the post-test framing task. As in the first phase, participants received a PDF file with step-by-step instructions, links and detailed directions on lighting, comfort, recommended distance from the computer and audio details to adjust the viewing conditions of the audio-visual content. To allow participants to meet the requirements, they were given a time window in which to carry out each phase the experiment.
Importantly, all the procedure including both phases were conducted during March 2021, just one year after the third wave of the pandemic in Spain which was the second most lethal after the first and at the start of vaccination in Spain for older people.
Statistical analyses
Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was conducted to check normal distributions in our variables. To ensure that the video file evoked emotional responses, data regarding perceived stress, happiness, arousal and dominance was analysed performing a repeated measures ANOVA with group as a between-participants factor. To explore decision-making in the FE task, a repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare bet acceptance in each frame. Finally, interoception, alexithymia and its relationship with stress and FE were analysed performing a multiple linear regression model. Regression analysis were performed by each group and frame condition.
All analyses were performed using JASP v0.14.1.0 with α significance level set at 0.05.
Results
Table 1 shows descriptive statistics. Participants who exceeded ± 3 standard deviations were filtered out as outliers. Kolmogorov–Smirnov normality test was performed and variables that did not follow a normal distribution were converted using a log (y + 1) transform.
Control and experimental groups were equally distributed in age, gender and socio-economical variables. No differences were also found in their experience regarding COVID-19 pandemic.
Going further on their COVID-19 experience, most of the participants reported not having received a diagnosis nor experiencing compatible symptoms (87.7%), while none of those who received a diagnosis or experienced symptoms needed to be hospitalised. 61.3% of our sample reported having a close friend or familiar with COVID-19 diagnosis of which 32.3% needed health care assistance. Finally, 9.4% of our sample informed having a close friend or familiar who died because of the infection.
Effects of the stressor on psychological variables
Group effects were found between pre and post-test in perceived stress (F(1, 84) = 44.318, p < 0.001, d = 0.565), happiness (F(1,84) = 77.197, p < 0.001, d = 0.824) and dominance (F(1, 84) = 15.597, p < 0.001, d = 0.523) performing a two-way repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni correction. Perceived stress increased in the experimental group after watching the video file (p < 0.001) whereas it decreased in the control group (p < 0.001) (see Fig. 1a). On the other hand, happiness and dominance levels significantly decreased in the experimental group (p < 0.001).
Framing effect
No between group differences were found at pretest in any frame. In general, participants tended to take more risks in the loss frames than in the win frames (F(1, 84) = 50.786, p < 0.001, d = 1.546), confirming that FE was present in our sample. Repeated measures ANOVA showed a group effect within subjects between tests in both frames (F(1, 84) = 21.682, p < 0.001, d = 0.500 and F(1, 84) = 32.470, p < 0.001, d = 0.505 for gain and loss frame, respectively). More specifically, Bonferroni correction indicated that the experimental group increased their risk aversion after being exposed to the stressor since their bet acceptance decreased in win frames (p < 0.05) as well as in the loss frames (p < 0.001). Conversely, control group increased their bet acceptance in both win (p < 0.05) and loss frames (p < 0.01) (see Fig. 1b and c).
Interoception and alexithymia
Four multiple linear regressions were performed to explore how interoception and alexithymia predict bet acceptance in each frame and condition. In the case of control group neither alexithymia nor interoception explained significantly decision-making under both frames (Gain Frame: F(2, 47) = 0.102, p = 0.904; R2 = 0.004; Loss Frame: F(2, 47) = 0.858, p = 0.431; R2 = 0.037). In the case of experimental group, a significant regression equation was found at loss frame (F(2, 46) = 4.803, p = 0.013; R2 = 0.173) (see Fig. 2). Nonetheless, only interoception was a significant predictor of bet acceptance (B = 0.430, p < 0.01). Bet acceptance in loss frames under stress conditions were 13.37% higher for each interoception mean unit increase. Alexithymia was not significant (B = 0.069, p = 0.83). In the case of gain frame, neither interoception nor alexithymia emerged as significant predictors (F(2, 48) = 2.001, p = 0.147; R2 = 0.080).
Discussion
The results obtained in the present research shown that a COVID-19-related emotional stressor can modulate decision-making on risky choices. Classical theories about the effect of stress on FE argues that higher levels of stress could increase risk aversion in gain frames and risk tendency in loss frames. Our data do not support this. Instead, our results reject the salience-of-losses hypothesis and suggest a decreased risk seeking in both frames after being exposed to a stressor making individuals more conservative in any type of risky choices. In other words, stress and higher arousal may reduce loss aversion.
Two different neural systems are reported to be related with risk tendency and risk aversion—closely linked to loss aversion (Kahneman et al. 1991). The first one, the appetitive system, involves striatal structures and frontal regions such as the ventromedial, ventrolateral or dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (Sokol-Hessner et al. 2013; Tom et al. 2007). These structures are associated with reward seeking and could explain how individuals tend to make more conservative choices on gain frames. The second neural circuit, the aversive system, involves structures such as the amygdala or the posterior insular cortex (LeDoux 2012). In this sense, the aversive system has become a key feature providing the neural basis of loss aversion and explaining how classical research on FE found an increased risk tendency in loss frames under stress conditions. However, the influence of both systems does not seem to be as simple. It is known that the amygdala can also be activated by potential gains and that higher rewards or incomes can be processed as a potential loses (Molins & Serrano 2019). Moreover, we cannot define the role of these neural circuits only in terms of “appetitive” or “aversive” stimuli. Decision-making results from computing processes where a particular alternative is valuated regarding its cost–benefit subjective balance (Croxson et al. 2009). Thus, it should not be contradictory that different sources of stress affect decision-making differently. In fact, our results are in-line with recent previous evidence and provides further evidence on how emotional stress reduces risk seeking and loss aversion, being in accordance with a new body of evidence (Molins et al. 2021; Margittai et al. 2018). It is also important to notice that we used a real-life-related source of stress in our experiment. That is, our audio-visual stimulus is not a real-life stressor per se but it can potentially prime participant’s personal experiences regarding the pandemic. In this sense, in a COVID-19-related context a particular amount of loss may be processed as a potential gain compared to the risk of lose a higher amount of resources. Furthermore, the reduction in loss aversion supports the reward-alignment hypothesis (Metz et al. 2020), whereby the reduction in loss aversion could be induced by an activation of the reward system. The reward-alignment hypothesis has an empirical evidence since Mather and Lightball (2012) found an enhanced dopamine activity under stress conditions in reward-related central structures. Decision-making, ultimately, would be determined by the balance of the activation of these different neural circuits and the posterior cost–benefit computation in the prefrontal cortex. Both the nature of the stressor and the alignment hypothesis provide a coherent explanation for the results obtained in our study.
In addition, the observed relationship between interoception and decision-making is in accordance with the above. Linear regression showed that interoception is a significant predictor of bet acceptance in loss frames after being exposed to the stressor. The more interoception rate, the more bet acceptance in loss frames. Insular and cingulate cortices—also involved in the aversive system—are a central hubs for processing and integrating inner body signals (Chen et al. 2021). Consequently, we hypothesise that higher interoceptive awareness could break the loss aversion reduction in balancing the individual cost–benefit valuation towards the aversive system. Based on previous evidence (Manzoor et al. 2021), we expected higher rates of alexithymia to be related to less framing susceptibility. We have not found this effect, but subsequent studies should inquire in this concern.
Nevertheless, we cannot forget to mention a few limitations of our study. Firstly, our sample was small, considering test performed, and mainly composed by women (N = 85). There is evidence that risk taking may differ between men and women (Mather & Lightball 2012) and between different hormonal responses during acute stress (Alacreu-Crespo et al. 2019). In this regard, it might be interesting to replicate our results with a sex-balanced sample and controlling endocrine responses. Secondly, our control group did not behave as a real control group. Although our control group stimulus was previously used in prior research and did not produce changes in electrodermal activity and emotional stress (Molins et al. 2021), our sample reported a significant reduction in perceived stress levels with respect to the pretest. This should be considered as a limitation, but it is importance to notice that their change in bet acceptance had the opposite directionality to that observed in the experimental group. Furthermore, it is possible that some cognitive biases influenced the control group. Despite the limitation, the results observed are consistent with our purposes. Finally, we must mention some methodological issues. Due to COVID-19 restrictions and the high cumulative incidence, we had to opt for an online methodology to carry out our experiment. As described in Methods, we provided a step-by-step instructions to our participants trying to standardise as much as possible the procedure. We encouraged our sample to control their environment (e.g. controlling the lighting and reducing the presence of potential stressors) and choose a moment of the day when they felt most relaxed. However, we cannot not assure all procedural instructions were followed as we wanted. Thus, it would have been preferable to obtain complementary psychophysiological measures such as heart rate or electrodermal activity to strengthen our data, but it was not possible and would probably have been a source of stress given the sanitary situation. Further research should solve this.
Even so, our study provides substantial evidence of how emotional stress could affect decision-making under risk and puts the focus on how different sources of stressors may trigger different risky decisions. These results could be also relevant in the field of public health and clinical intervention. COVID-19 has become a drastic source of stress in general population over a long period of time. For its part, interoception seems to be an important modulating variable. The practical applications derived from this line of research can help general population as well as patients with impaired interoceptive processing—i.e. autism spectrum disorders—to make better decisions under emotional stress and uncertainty conditions.
Data availability
The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Alacreu-Crespo A, Costa R, Abad-Tortosa D, Hidalgo V, Salvador A, Serrano MÁ (2019) Hormonal changes after competition predict sex-differentiated decision-making. J Behav Decis Mak 32(5):550–563. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2128
Arnsten AFT (2009) Stress signalling pathways that impair prefrontal cortex structure and function. Nat Rev Neurosci 10(6):410–422. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2648
Bagby RM, Parker JDA, Taylor GJ (1994) The twenty-item Toronto alexithymia scale-I. Item selection and cross-validation of the factor structure. J Psychosom Res 38(1):23–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3999(94)90005-1
Barkan R, Busemeyer JR (2003) Modeling dynamic inconsistency with a changing reference point. J Behav Decis Mak 16(4):235–255. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.444
Becerra-García JA, Giménez Ballesta G, Sánchez-Gutiérrez T, Resa SB, & Calvo AC (2020) Síntomas psicopatológicos durante la cuarentena por covid-19 en población general española: un análisis preliminar en función de variables sociodemográficas y ambientales-ocupacionales. Rev Esp Salud Pública, 94
Becker GS (1968) Crime and punishment: an economic approach. J Polit Econ 78(2):169–217
Bernoulli D (1954) Exposition of a new theory on the measurement of risk. Econometrica 22(1):23. https://doi.org/10.2307/1909829
Bradley MM, Lang PJ (1994) Measuring emotion: the self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry 25(1):49–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7916(94)90063-9
Chen WG, Schloesser D, Arensdorf AM, Simmons JM, Cui C, Valentino R, Gnadt JW, Nielsen L, Hillaire-Clarke CS, Spruance V, Horowitz TS, Vallejo YF, Langevin HM (2021) The emerging science of interoception: sensing, integrating, interpreting, and regulating signals within the self. Trends Neurosci 44(1):3–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2020.10.007
Croxson PL, Walton ME, O’Reilly JX, Behrens TEJ, Rushworth MFS (2009) Effort-based cost-benefit valuation and the human brain. J Neurosci 29(14):4531–4541. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4515-08.2009
Damasio AR (1996) The somatic marker hypothesis and the possible functions of the prefrontal cortex. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 351(1346):1413–1420. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1996.0125
De Martino B, Kumaran D, Seymour B, Dolan RJ (2006) Frames, biases and rational decision-making in the human brain. Science 313(5787):684–687. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1128356
Deming WE, von Neumann J, Morgenstern O (1945) Theory of games and economic behavior. J Am Stat Assoc 40(230):263. https://doi.org/10.2307/2280142
Detweiler JB, Bedell BT, Salovey P, Pronin E, Rothman AJ (1999) Message framing and sunscreen use: gain-framed messages motivate beach-goers. Health Psychol 18(2):189–196. https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-6133.18.2.189
Dias-Ferreira E, Sousa JC, Melo I, Morgado P, Mesquita AR, Cerqueira JJ, Costa RM, Sousa N (2009) Chronic stress causes frontostriatal reorganization and affects decision-making. Science 325(5940):621–625. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1171203
Goldberg D, Williams P (1988) A user’s guide to the general health questionnaire. NFER-Nelson, Windsor, UK
Henze GI, Zänkert S, Urschler DF, Hiltl TJ, Kudielka BM, Pruessner JC, Wüst S (2017) Testing the ecological validity of the trier social stress test: association with real-life exam stress. Psychoneuroendocrinology 75:52–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2016.10.002
Joëls M, Karst H, Krugers HJ, Lucassen PJ (2007) Chronic stress: implications for neuronal morphology, function and neurogenesis. Front Neuroendocrinol 28(2–3):72–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yfrne.2007.04.001
Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–292. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
Kahneman D, Knetsch JL, Thaler RH (1991) Anomalies: the endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. J Econ Perspect 5(1):193–206. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.5.1.193
Kühberger A, Schulte-Mecklenbeck M, Perner J (1999) The effects of framing, reflection, probability, and payoff on risk preference in choice tasks. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 78(3):204–231. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1999.2830
Laloyaux J, Fantini C, Lemaire M, Luminet O, Larøi F (2015) Evidence of contrasting patterns for suppression and reappraisal emotion regulation strategies in alexithymia. J Nerv Mental Dis 203(9):709–717. https://doi.org/10.1097/NMD.0000000000000353
Lang PJ, Greenwald MK, Bradley MM, Hamm AO (1993) Looking at pictures: affective, facial, visceral, and behavioral reactions. Psychophysiology 30(3):261–273. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1993.tb03352.x
Lazarus RS (1966) Psychological stress and the coping process. McGraw Hill, New York
Lazarus RS, Cohen JB (1977) Environmental stress. In: Altman I, Wohlwill JF (eds) Human behavior and environment. Springer, Boston, MA
Lazarus RS, Folkman S (1984) Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer, New York
LeDoux J (2012) Rethinking the emotional brain. Neuron 73(4):653–676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.02.004
Lee SA, Jobe MC, Mathis AA (2020) Mental health characteristics associated with dysfunctional coronavirus anxiety. Psychol Med. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003329172000121X
Manzoor N, Molins F, Serrano MÁ (2021) Interoception moderates the relation between alexithymia and risky-choices in a framing task: a proposal of two-stage model of decision-making. Int J Psychophysiol 162:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2021.01.002
Margittai Z, Nave G, Van Wingerden M, Schnitzler A, Schwabe L, Kalenscher T (2018) Combined effects of glucocorticoid and noradrenergic activity on loss aversion. Neuropsychopharmacology 43(2):334–341. https://doi.org/10.1038/npp.2017.75
Martínez Sánchez F (1996) Adaptación española de la escala de Alexitimia de Toronto (TAS-20). Clín Salud Investig Empír Psicol 7(1):19–32
Mather M, Lighthall NR (2012) Risk and reward are processed differently in decisions made under stress. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 21(1):36–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411429452
Mehling WE, Acree M, Stewart A, Silas J, Jones A (2018) The multidimensional assessment of interoceptive awareness, version 2 (MAIA-2). PLOS ONE 13(12):e0208034. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0208034
Metz S, Waiblinger-Grigull T, Schulreich S, Chae WR, Otte C, Heekeren HR, Wingenfeld K (2020) Effects of hydrocortisone and yohimbine on decision-making under risk. Psychoneuroendocrinology 114:104589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2020.104589
Molins F, Serrano MÁ (2019) The neural bases of loss aversion in economic contexts: a systematic review according to the PRISMA guidelines. Rev Neurol 68(2):47–58. https://doi.org/10.33588/rn.6802.2018276
Molins F, Ayuso C, Serrano MÁ (2021) Emotional stress & decision-making: an emotional stressor significantly reduces loss aversion. Stress. https://doi.org/10.1080/10253890.2021.1919617
Molins F, Serrano MÁ, Alacreu-Crespo A (2021) Early stages of the acute physical stress response increase loss aversion and learning on decision making: a Bayesian approach. Physiol Behav 237:113459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2021.113459
Pabst S, Brand M, Wolf OT (2013) Stress and decision making: a few minutes make all the difference. Behav Brain Res 250:39–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2013.04.046
Pinon A, Gambara H (2005) A meta-analytic review of framing effect: risky, attribute, and goal framing. Psicothema 17:325–331
Porcelli AJ, Delgado MR (2009) Acute stress modulates risk taking in financial decision making. Psychol Sci 20(3):278–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02288.x
Reimann M, Bechara A (2010) The somatic marker framework as a neurological theory of decision-making: review, conceptual comparisons, and future neuroeconomics research. J Econ Psychol 31(5):767–776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2010.03.002
Ring P (2015) The framing effect and skin conductance responses. Front Behav Neurosci 9:188. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00188
Salvato G, De Maio G, Bottini G (2019) Interoceptive sensibility tunes risk-taking behaviour when body-related stimuli come into play. Sci Rep 9(1):1–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-39061-0
Sandín B, Valiente RM, García-Escalera J, Chorot P (2020) Impacto psicológico de la pandemia de COVID-19: efectos negativos y positivos en población española asociados al periodo de confinamiento nacional. Rev Psicopatol Psicolog Clín 25(1):1. https://doi.org/10.5944/rppc.27569
Shah P, Catmur C, Bird G (2016a) Emotional decision-making in autism spectrum disorder: the roles of interoception and alexithymia. Mol Autism 7:43. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13229-016-0104-x
Shah P, Hall R, Catmur C, Bird G (2016b) Alexithymia, not autism, is associated with impaired interoception. Cortex 81:215–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2016.03.021
Sokol-Hessner P, Camerer CF, Phelps EA (2013) Emotion regulation reduces loss aversion and decreases amygdala responses to losses. Soc Cognit Affect Neurosci 8(3):341–350. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nss002
Starcke K, Brand M (2012) Decision making under stress: a selective review. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 36(4):1228–1248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.02.003
Starcke K, Wolf OT, Markowitsch HJ, Brand M (2008) Anticipatory stress influences decision making under explicit risk conditions. Behav Neurosci 122(6):1352–1360. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013281
Sütterlin S, Schulz SM, Stumpf T, Pauli P, Vögele C (2013) Enhanced cardiac perception is associated with increased susceptibility to framing effects. Cogn Sci 37(5):922–935. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12036
Tom SM, Fox CR, Trepel C, Poldrack RA (2007) The neural basis of loss aversion in decision-making under risk. Science 315(5811):515–518. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1134239
Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211(4481):453–458. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683
Tversky A, Kahneman D (1992) Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. J Risk Uncertain 5(4):297–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00122574
Universidad Complutense de Madrid (2020). Síntomas de ansiedad, depresión y estrés postraumático ante el COVID-19: prevalencia y predictores. Recovered in: https://www.ucm.es/inventap/file/vida-covid19--informe-ejecutivomalestar3520-final-1
Wemm SE, Wulfert E (2017) Effects of acute stress on decision making. Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10484-016-9347-8
Xue G, Lu Z, Levin IP, Bechara A (2011) An fMRI study of risk-taking following wins and losses: implications for the gambler’s fallacy. Hum Brain Mapp 32(2):271–281. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.21015
Yamakawa K, Ohira H, Matsunaga M, Isowa T (2016) Prolonged effects of acute stress on decision-making under risk: a human psychophysiological study. Front Hum Neurosci 10:444. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00444
Funding
Open Access funding provided thanks to the CRUE-CSIC agreement with Springer Nature. No funding was perceived supporting this work.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors report no conflict of interest that may affect the objectivity of this manuscript.
Ethical approval
Approval was obtained from the ethics committee of University of Valencia. The procedures used in this study adhere to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. The participant has consented to the submission of the case report to the journal.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Editors: Don Ross (University of Cape Town), John Monterosso (University of Southern California); Reviewers: Benjamin Smith (University of Oregon) and a second researcher who prefers to remain anonymous.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Supplementary file1 (MP4 23512 kb)
Supplementary file2 (MP4 310153 kb)
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Belhouk-Herrero, M.O., Molins, F. & Serrano, M.Á. COVID-19 stressor reduces risk taking: the role of trait interoception. Cogn Process 24, 353–360 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-023-01134-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-023-01134-4