I NTRODUCTION
M ETHODOLOGY
Results
Discussion
Risk Preferences under Acute Stress
Lubomı́r Cingl (& Jana Cahlı́ková)
IES FSV UK
CERGE-EI
March 12, 2015
Job talk, KIE VSE Prague
Conclusion
I NTRODUCTION
M ETHODOLOGY
Results
Discussion
R ISK - ATTITUDES
I
Understanding risk important in ...
I
I
I
I
I
Risk-taking at heart of economic research agenda
Assumption of stability of preferences
I
I
I
financial sector
banking sector
everyday life
Building block of theories
Influential in economics and finance
Is this justified?
Conclusion
I NTRODUCTION
M ETHODOLOGY
Results
Discussion
D AILY ACUTE STRESS
I
Decisions often made under stress
I
I
I
No will control
Involve risky alternatives
Examples
I
Stock trading during crash / higher volatility
I
I
I
I
I
I
Coates and Herbert (2008)
Doctors in emergency rooms
Police during strike
Speeding a car when coming late
Costs
Potentially important implications
Does acute stress change risk-preferences?
I
Answer by experiment
Conclusion
I NTRODUCTION
M ETHODOLOGY
Results
Discussion
R ELATED L ITERATURE
I
Change in behavior under stress well documented
I
I
memory, performance, learning and feedback-processing
(see review in Starcke and Brand, 2012)
Risk taking under stress: inconclusive results
I
Increased risk seeking
I
Increased risk seeking for men, decreased for women
I
I
I
I
van den Bos et al. (2009); Lighthall et al. (2009)
Increased risk-aversion for gains, but increased
risk-seeking for loss domains
I
I
Starcke et al. (2008) Putman et al. (2010, for high rewards)
Porcelli and Delgado (2009)
No change (von Dawans et al., 2012)
Methodology issues
I
not stressed, small sample, feedback, only men,
self-selection
Conclusion
I NTRODUCTION
M ETHODOLOGY
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
C ONTRIBUTION
I
Carefully identify causal effect of stress on risk-preferences
I
Efficient stressor (TSST-G)
I
Externally validated one-shot risk-task
I
Sample: both men and women
I
Do best to avoid self-selection
I NTRODUCTION
M ETHODOLOGY
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
P REVIEW OF RESULTS
I
Treated subjects were stressed
I
Acute stress increases risk-aversion in men when
controlling for observables
I
Effect on women: same direction, weaker and insignificant
I NTRODUCTION
M ETHODOLOGY
Results
Methodology
Discussion
Conclusion
I NTRODUCTION
M ETHODOLOGY
Results
Discussion
D ESIGN
I
Between subject design
I
Random assignment
I
Treatments: Stress vs. No stress (control)
I
Programmed in Z-TREE (Fischbacher, 2007)
I
Online recruitment (Greiner, 2004)
I
Stakes in ECU (32ECU=1CZK)
Conclusion
I NTRODUCTION
M ETHODOLOGY
Results
Discussion
R ISK PREFERENCE ELICITATION
I
I
Task of Dohmen et al. (2010)
Repeated choice between lottery and safe payment
I
I
I
I
I
Lottery: 0 or 4000 ECU (50% Chance)
Safe payment gradually increases
Instructions
scale: 0 to 2700 ECU (safe payment)
Externally validated
I
30 countries (Vieider et al., 2014)
I
Incentive compatible
I
Easily comprehensible
I
No feedback processing
Conclusion
I NTRODUCTION
M ETHODOLOGY
R EAL LOOK OF THE TASK
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
I NTRODUCTION
M ETHODOLOGY
Results
Discussion
S TRESS
I
Stress - complex reaction to a threat to an important goal
I
I
I
E.g. maintain physical/social self
Physiological, psychological and behavioral effects
Best psychological stressor qualities
I
I
I
I
(Dickerson and Kemeny, 2004)
Uncontrollable
Social evaluation
No feedback
Conclusion
I NTRODUCTION
M ETHODOLOGY
Results
Discussion
T RIER S OCIAL S TRESS T EST (TSST)
I
Standardized psychological protocol
I
(Kirschbaum et al., 1993)
I
Applicable for groups (von Dawans et al., 2011)
I
1st part - public speaking task
I
2nd part - mental arithmetic task
Treatment group:
I
I
I
I
Control group
I
I
I
White coats, videocameras, no feedback
Mock job interview, 4378-17-17...
Similar nature of tasks, no stressful aspects
Text reading, 5-10-15...
No deception, careful debriefing, IRB Approval
Conclusion
I NTRODUCTION
M ETHODOLOGY
Results
Discussion
S TRESS PROCEDURE - SUBJECTS ’ POINT OF VIEW
0
Source: youtube.com
Conclusion
I NTRODUCTION
M ETHODOLOGY
Results
S TRESS PROCEDURE - SCHEME
0
Source: Von Dawans et al.(2011)
Discussion
Conclusion
I NTRODUCTION
M ETHODOLOGY
Results
Discussion
S TRESS PROCEDURE - MEASURES
Cortisol
I Final hormone of major stress-reaction axis
I Highly predictive of psychosocial stress (Foley and
Kirschbaum, 2010)
I Most common physiological measure of stress
I Sampling - plastic tubes Salivette
Conclusion
I NTRODUCTION
M ETHODOLOGY
Results
Discussion
S TRESS PROCEDURE - MEASURES
Heart rate
I
Correlated with endured stress
I
Real-time measure
Supportive measure:
I
I
I
I
Increase due to other factors than stress
Highly individual reaction to stress
Heart-rate monitors Polar
Multidimensional Mood Questionnaire
I
Dimensions: good-bad, awake-tired, calm-nervous
I
Two parts - one before, one after
I
Steyer et al. (1997)
Conclusion
I NTRODUCTION
M ETHODOLOGY
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
C ONTROL VARIABLES
I
Gender
I
I
Gender-specific stress reaction (Taylor et al., 2000)
Gender-specific risk-attitudes
I
I
Age
I
I
Women generally more risk-averse (Charness et al., 2012)
Older adults more risk-averse (Dohmen et al., 2010)
Personality traits
I
I
I
I
Personality can explain risk-attitudes (Borghans et al., 2008;
Heckman, 2011)
We use ”Big-Five” factors (Goldberg, 2010; Costa and
McCrae, 1992)
Risk-preferences most affected by Neuroticism (Anderson
et al., 2011)
Big - 5
I NTRODUCTION
M ETHODOLOGY
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
S AMPLE
I
70 female and 81 male subjects
I
I
I
Mean age 22.5 years (SD=2.6)
Mostly undergrad students of economics and related disc.
Five inconsistent in risk-task thus dropped (results hold)
I
No prior knowledge of stressor, purpose of experiment
I
Instructed to avoid fatty food, nicotine, heavy exercise 2h
prior to experiment (due to cortisol measurement)
I
Signed informed consent form
I
Were free to leave, but none did
I NTRODUCTION
M ETHODOLOGY
Results
Discussion
E XPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
Eleven experimental sessions
I
June 2012 and November 2014
I
all between 4:30 and 7 PM
I
I
duration cca 2.5 h in total
I
I
part of other experiment that we do not report on here
average payment 500CZK
I
I
to control for circadian variation in cortisol
including show-up fee of 150CZK
stratified random assignment to groups
I
women with and without contraceptives evenly in
treatment control
Conclusion
I NTRODUCTION
M ETHODOLOGY
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
I NTRODUCTION
M ETHODOLOGY
Results
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
I NTRODUCTION
M ETHODOLOGY
Results
Discussion
S TRESS RESPONSE - C ORTISOL
Mean cortisol concentration nmol/l
20
15
10
5
0
Before stress procedure
After stress procedure
Stress Treatment
By gender
0
Note: Error bars indicate SE of the mean.
Before risk−task
Control
Conclusion
I NTRODUCTION
M ETHODOLOGY
Results
S TRESS RESPONSE - H EART R ATE
Discussion
Conclusion
I NTRODUCTION
M ETHODOLOGY
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
S TRESS RESPONSE - M OOD S CORES
Before Treatment
After Treatment
Good−Bad Calm−Nervous Awake−Tired
Good−Bad Calm−Nervous Awake−Tired
MDMQ: higher score=good, calm, or awake
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
Stress Treatment
Control
By gender
0
Note: Error bars indicate SE of the mean.
I NTRODUCTION
M ETHODOLOGY
Results
Discussion
C OMPLIANCE
Compliance:= if cortisol increased by 2.5nmol/l (Miller et al.,
2013)
Exposed to stressor
Stressed - Cortisol increased
No
Yes
No
Yes
60
23
11
52
Need to distinguish the effects of:
1. Exposure to stressor
I
Intention-to-treat effect (ITT)
2. Effect of physiological stress
I
I
Being under stress and risk preferences (correlation)
Stress Treatment as an IV for being under stress (ATT)
Conclusion
I NTRODUCTION
M ETHODOLOGY
Results
Discussion
1. E FFECT OF E XPOSURE TO S TRESSOR (ITT)
2000
Certainty equivalent
1900
1800
1700
1600
1500
1400
1300
All
Males
Stress Treatment
0
Note: Error bars indicate SE of the mean.
Females
Control
Conclusion
I NTRODUCTION
M ETHODOLOGY
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
E FFECT OF E XPOSURE TO S TRESSOR (ITT)
(1)
Dependent variable
Sample
Exposed to stressor
All
-136.15
(102.80)
Female
Exposed to stressor*Female
Age
Age squared
(2)
(3)
(4)
Interval regression
Certainty equivalent
All
All
Males
-145.27
(130.38)
-300.30*
(155.23)
28.41
(203.97)
157.54
(122.05)
-2.82
(2.21)
Openness to experience
Conscientiousness
Extroversion
Agreeableness
Neuroticism
Constant
chi2
Observations
1,755.35***
(77.68)
1.75
146
-209.22
(1,637.60)
10.78
146
-215.74*
(126.96)
-203.41
(149.43)
97.69
(177.70)
203.32
(125.51)
-3.74*
(2.25)
-2.26
(11.74)
-3.37
(8.30)
-0.61
(7.76)
-17.07*
(9.61)
16.28**
(7.54)
-450.74
(2,160.63)
19.73
146
(5)
Females
-242.74*
(125.10)
-118.16
(145.08)
399.08**
(157.15)
-7.31***
(2.77)
-0.68
(11.18)
-1.90
(9.76)
-3.69
(8.86)
-1.01
(10.55)
26.15***
(9.73)
-3,890.76
(2,657.66)
15.80
80
-700.54
(483.08)
15.08
(10.51)
-9.43
(20.40)
-7.63
(12.97)
7.01
(11.78)
-46.43***
(15.56)
1.48
(10.54)
11,766.59**
(5,911.69)
10.53
66
I NTRODUCTION
M ETHODOLOGY
Results
Discussion
2. S TRESS AND RISK PREFS – CORRELATIONS
2000
Certainty equivalent
1900
1800
1700
1600
1500
1400
1300
All
Males
Under stress
0
Note: Error bars indicate SE of the mean.
Females
Control
Conclusion
I NTRODUCTION
M ETHODOLOGY
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
C ORRELATION OF STRESS AND RISK PREFS
Dependent variable
Sample
Under stress
(1)
(2)
All
All
-88.77
(102.68)
-354.08***
(126.88)
385.32*
(202.96)
-502.72***
(133.35)
152.59
(123.16)
-2.86
(2.24)
Under stress*Female
Female
Age
Age squared
(3)
(4)
Interval regression
Certainty equivalent
All
Males
Openness to experience
Conscientiousness
Extroversion
Agreeableness
Neuroticism
Constant
chi2
Observations
1,723.58***
(73.48)
0.75
144
56.18
(1,631.64)
17.39
144
-353.13***
(124.58)
415.61**
(199.67)
-375.95***
(138.21)
192.84
(127.45)
-3.67
(2.31)
1.34
(11.88)
-4.92
(8.04)
-2.70
(7.80)
-16.64*
(9.63)
15.34**
(7.38)
-156.51
(2,138.99)
25.06
144
(5)
Females
-338.62***
(119.46)
66.25
(149.32)
366.72**
(157.41)
-6.83**
(2.78)
3.42
(11.45)
-5.07
(9.80)
-5.13
(9.01)
0.61
(10.72)
23.70**
(9.37)
-3,317.33
(2,641.36)
15.99
78
-729.80
(465.41)
15.81
(10.05)
-6.60
(19.93)
-5.68
(12.40)
4.57
(11.67)
-47.32***
(15.39)
1.76
(10.42)
11,918.75**
(5,745.51)
10.69
66
I NTRODUCTION
M ETHODOLOGY
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
C ORRELATION OF STRESS AND RISK PREFS
I
I
Correlation bw Certainty Equivalent and Under stress
significant on 1% for men
Economic importance:
I
I
Stressed men shift to safe payment 1.2 rows earlier than
non-stressed on 10 row scale
Female significant
I
I
Lower certainty equivalent - consistent with literature
Effect on women Female+Under stress*Female insignificant,
p = 0.801
I
But! observed correlation can be driven by both effect of
stress as well as by different underlying preferences of
compliers and noncompliers
I
IV estimation - ATT - confirms ITT result (random
assignment as IV)
I NTRODUCTION
M ETHODOLOGY
Sample
Results
(1)
(2)
All
All
Discussion
(3)
(4)
IV Interval regression
All
Males
Conclusion
(5)
Females
Second stage: Certainty equivalent
Under stress
-247.70
(187.30)
Under stress*Female
Female
Age
Age squared
Big Five Personality Traits:
No
-261.95
(220.79)
25.11
(387.01)
-379.47**
(190.13)
151.74
(121.92)
-2.79
(2.20)
No
-381.49*
(208.95)
148.29
(340.11)
-324.03*
(178.36)
191.46
(127.09)
-3.65
(2.28)
Yes
-414.51**
(203.95)
-229.90
(288.79)
360.69**
(159.32)
-6.79**
(2.79)
Yes
-712.87
(505.68)
15.40
(11.04)
Yes
First stage: Under stress
Exposed to stressor
0.56***
(0.07)
Exposed to stressor*Female
0.59***
(0.09)
-0.10
(0.13)
0.62***
(0.09)
-0.11
(0.13)
0.62***
(0.09)
0.51***
(0.09)
First stage: Under stress*Female
Exposed to stressor
Exposed to stressor*Female
chi2
Observations
76.57
144
0.00
(0.00)
0.50***
(0.09)
0.01
(0.02)
0.49***
(0.09)
474.87
144
560.77
144
283.27
78
61.92
66
I NTRODUCTION
M ETHODOLOGY
Results
Discussion
S UMMARY
I
Participants in treatment group were stressed
I
Stress increases risk-aversion for men, when controlling
for observables
I
Women: same direction, but weaker and not significant
Conclusion
I NTRODUCTION
M ETHODOLOGY
Results
Discussion
Discussion
Conclusion
I NTRODUCTION
M ETHODOLOGY
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
P HYSIOLOGICAL VS . P SYCHOLOGICAL R EACTION
I
Impossible to distinguish - measures correlated
I
I
Suggestive evidence (robustness checks)
I
I
I
Focusing on heart-rate, correlation significant but weaker
Focusing on mood-state change, correlation marginally
significant
Cannot simplify to effect of cortisol only
I
I
I
Using only cortisol (ATT) is a simplification
Compared to Kandasamy et al. (2014)
Example - time preferences
We focus on complex response to psychosocial stress (ITT)
I NTRODUCTION
M ETHODOLOGY
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
G ENDER - SPECIFIC RESPONSE
I
Lower compliance among women (50%)
I
I
I
I
Floor effect
I
I
Normally smaller reaction than men (Kajantie and Phillips,
2006) Reaction
Maybe due to oral contraceptives Table
If cortisol the channel, then smaller effect
Women normally more risk-averse
Gender specific behavioral reaction
I
I
I
I
Men: ”fight-or-flight” (Cannon, 1932)
Women: ”tend-and-befriend” (Taylor et al., 2000)
Increased risk-aversion part of ”fight-or-flight”?
Evolutionary reasons?
I NTRODUCTION
M ETHODOLOGY
Results
Discussion
A CUTE VS . C HRONIC STRESS
I
Effect of acute stress
I
Chronic or long-lasting stress - different results
I
I
I
Different physiological effects
Increased risk-seeking after war (Voors et al., 2012)
Increased risk-aversion after 8 days hydrocortisone
administration (Kandasamy et al., 2014)
Conclusion
I NTRODUCTION
M ETHODOLOGY
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
C ONCLUSION
I
Study of effect of acute psychosocial stress on risk-attitudes
I
Main result: stress increases risk-aversion for men
I
First economic study of psychosocial stress on risk
preferences
Helps explain real-life phenomena
I
I
I
I
E.g. in market stress, investors shift to conservative
portfolios
Vicious circle of poverty (Haushofer and Fehr, 2014)
Preferences not that stable (at least for men)
References
T HANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION
Questions, comments?
Contact: [email protected]
References
I NSTRUCTIONS
Back
References
B IG -5 P ERSONALITY FACTORS - ”OCEAN”
I
standard psychometric questionnaire
Battery of 50 questions (Goldberg, 2010)
stable under stress (Kirschbaum et al., 1993)
I
Openness to Experience
I
I
I
I
Conscientiousness
I
I
compassionate, cooperative
Neuroticism
I
Back
tend to be energetic, positively thinking, sociable, talkative
Agreeableness
I
I
tend to show self-discipline, aim for achievement, plan
Extroversion
I
I
reflects degree of intellectual curiosity, creativity and
preference for novelty and variety
degree of emotional stability, impulse control
References
C ORTISOL CHANGE - M EN
Mean cortisol concentration nmol/l
20
15
10
5
0
Before stress procedure
After stress procedure
Stress Treatment
0
Note: Error bars indicate SE of the mean.
Before risk−task
Control
References
C ORTISOL CHANGE - W OMEN
Mean cortisol concentration nmol/l
20
15
10
5
0
Before stress procedure
After stress procedure
Stress Treatment
Before risk−task
Control
Back
Back - GS
0
Note: Error bars indicate SE of the mean.
References
MDMQ: higher score=good, calm, or awake
M OOD CHANGE - M EN
Before Treatment
After Treatment
Good−Bad Calm−Nervous Awake−Tired
Good−Bad Calm−Nervous Awake−Tired
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
Stress Treatment
0
Note: Error bars indicate SE of the mean.
Control
References
MDMQ: higher score=good, calm, or awake
M OOD CHANGE - W OMEN
Before Treatment
After Treatment
Good−Bad Calm−Nervous Awake−Tired
Good−Bad Calm−Nervous Awake−Tired
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
Stress Treatment
Control
Back
0
Note: Error bars indicate SE of the mean.
References
C ONTRACEPTIVES AND CORTISOL RESPONSE
(1)
Dependent variable
Sample
Exposed to stressor
(2)
(3)
OLS
Maximum cortisol response
Females
8.94***
(1.79)
8.97***
(1.77)
-3.47**
(1.60)
-1.35***
(0.32)
-0.05
(0.73)
11.75***
(2.65)
0.33
(0.65)
-7.36**
(2.95)
-1.48***
(0.42)
66
0.27
66
0.31
66
0.35
Taking oral contraceptives
Exposed to stressor*Taking oral contraceptives
Constant
Observations
R-squared
Back
References
E CONOMIC RELEVANCE OF STRESS
I
Work-related stress
I
I
I
I
Stress and addictive behavior
I
I
I
I
I
I
Back
(Sinha, 2008)
Poverty
I
I
Lower well-being, emotion exhaustion, burnout
Risk of cardiovascular diseases, depression, type 2 diabetes
(Cohen et al., 2007; Hammen, 2005)
1.5 billion people have less than 1$ a day
poverty causes stress and negative affect
stress causes ”bad” decisions
these cause more poverty
(Haushofer and Fehr, 2014; Haushofer and Shapiro, 2013;
Chemin et al., 2013)
Chronic stress and acute stress may have different effects
References
R EFERENCES I
Anderson, J., Burks, S., DeYoung, C., and Rustichini, A. (2011). Toward the integration of personality theory and
decision theory in the explanation of economic behavior. Unpublished manuscript. Presented at the IZA workshop:
Cognitive and non-cognitive skills.
Borghans, L., Duckworth, A., Heckman, J., and ter Weel, B. (2008). The economics and psychology of personality
traits. Journal of Human Resources, 43(4):972–1059.
Cannon, W. B. (1932). The Wisdom of the Body. The American Journal of the Medical Sciences, 184(6):864.
Charness, G., Gneezy, U., and Kuhn, M. a. (2012). Experimental methods: Between-subject and within-subject
design. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 81(1):1–8.
Chemin, M., Laat, J. D., and Haushofer, J. (2013). Negative Rainfall Shocks Increase Levels of the Stress Hormone
Cortisol Among Poor Farmers in Kenya. mimeo.
Coates, J. M. and Herbert, J. (2008). Endogenous steroids and financial risk taking on a London trading floor.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(16):6167–72.
Cohen, S., Janicki-Deverts, D., and Miller, G. E. (2007). Psychological stress and disease. JAMA : the journal of the
American Medical Association, 298(14):1685–1687.
Cornelisse, S., van Ast, V. A., Haushofer, J., Seinstra, M. S., Kindt, M., and Joëls, M. (2013). Time-dependent effect of
hydrocortisone administration on intertemporal choice. mimeo.
Costa, J. P. T. and McCrae, R. R. (1992). Normal Personality Assessment in Clinical Practice: The NEO Personality
Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4(1):5–13.
Dickerson, S. S. and Kemeny, M. E. (2004). Acute Stressors and Cortisol Responses: A Theoretical Integration and
Synthesis of Laboratory Research. Psychological Bulletin, 130(3):355–391.
Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., and Sunde, U. (2010). Are risk aversion and impatience related to cognitive
ability? The American Economic Review, 100(3):1238–1260.
Fischbacher, U. (2007). Z-TREE: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics,
10(2):171–178.
References
R EFERENCES II
Foley, P. and Kirschbaum, C. (2010). Human hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal axis responses to acute psychosocial
stress in laboratory settings. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 35(1):91–96.
Goldberg, L. R. (2010). International Personality Item Pool: A Scientific Collaboratory for the Development of
Advanced Measures of Personality Traits and Other Individual Differences.
Greiner, B. (2004). An online recruitment system for economic experiments. In Kremer, K. and Macho, V., editors,
Forschung und wissenschaftliches Rechnen GWDG Bericht. Gesellschaft fur Wissenschaftliche Datenverarbeitung,
Göttingen.
Hammen, C. (2005). Stress and depression. Annual review of clinical psychology, 1:293–319.
Haushofer, J., Cornelisse, S., Seinstra, M., Fehr, E., Joëls, M., and Kalenscher, T. (2013). No effects of psychosocial
stress on intertemporal choice. PloS one, 8(11):e78597.
Haushofer, J. and Fehr, E. (2014). On the psychology of poverty. Science, 344(6186):862–867.
Haushofer, J. and Shapiro, J. (2013). Household Response to Income Changes : Evidence from an Unconditional
Cash Transfer Program in Kenya. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Heckman, J. (2011). Integrating personality psychology into economics. National Bureau of Economic Research
Working Paper Series, No. 17378.
Kajantie, E. and Phillips, D. I. W. (2006). The effects of sex and hormonal status on the physiological response to
acute psychosocial stress. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 31(2):151–178.
Kandasamy, N., Hardy, B., Page, L., Schaffner, M., Graggaber, J., Powlson, A. S., Fletcher, P. C., Gurnell, M., and
Coates, J. (2014). Cortisol shifts financial risk preferences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America, 111(9):3608–13.
Kirschbaum, C., Pirke, K. M., and Hellhammer, D. H. (1993). The ”Trier Social Stress Test” - A Tool for Investigating
Psychobiological Stress Responses in a Laboratory Setting. Neuropsychobiology, 28(1-2):76–81.
Lighthall, N. R., Mather, M., and Gorlick, M. a. (2009). Acute stress increases sex differences in risk seeking in the
balloon analogue risk task. PLoS One, 4(7):e6002.
References
R EFERENCES III
Miller, R., Plessow, F., Kirschbaum, C., and Stalder, T. (2013). Classification criteria for distinguishing cortisol
responders from nonresponders to psychosocial stress: evaluation of salivary cortisol pulse detection in panel
designs. Psychosomatic medicine, 75(10):832–40.
Porcelli, A. J. and Delgado, M. R. (2009). Acute Stress Modulates Risk Taking in Financial Decision Making.
Psychological Science, 20(3):278–283.
Putman, P., Antypa, N., and Crysovergi, P. (2010). Exogenous cortisol acutely influences motivated decision making
in healthy young men. Psychopharmacology, 208(2):257–263.
Sinha, R. (2008). Chronic Stress, Drug Use, and Vulnerability to Addiction. Annals of the New York Academy of
Sciences, 1141:105–130.
Starcke, K. and Brand, M. (2012). Decision making under stress: a selective review. Neuroscience and biobehavioral
reviews, 36(4):1228–48.
Starcke, K., Wolf, O. T., Markowitsch, H. J., and Brand, M. (2008). Anticipatory stress influences decision making
under explicit risk conditions. Behavioral Neuroscience, 122(6):1352–1360.
Steyer, R., Schwenkmezger, P., Notz, P., and Eid, M. (1997). MDBF-Mehrdimensionaler Befindlichkeitsfragebogen.
Hogrefe, Göttingen.
Taylor, S. E., Klein, L. C., Lewis, B. P., Gruenewald, T. L., Gurung, R. A. R., and Updegraff, J. A. (2000). Biobehavioral
responses to stress in females: tend-and-befriend, not fight-or-flight. Psychological review, 107(3):411.
van den Bos, R., Harteveld, M., and Stoop, H. (2009). Stress and decision-making in humans: performance is related
to cortisol reactivity, albeit differently in men and women. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 34(10):1449–58.
Vieider, F. M., Lefebvre, M., Bouchouicha, R., Chmura, T., Hakimov, R., Krawczyk, M., and Martinsson, P. (2014).
Common components of risk and uncertainty attitudes across contexts and domains: Evidence from 30
countries. Journal of the European Economic Association, pages 1–32.
von Dawans, B., Fischbacher, U., Kirschbaum, C., Fehr, E., and Heinrichs, M. (2012). The social dimension of stress
reactivity: acute stress increases prosocial behavior in humans. Psychological science, 23(6):651–60.
von Dawans, B., Kirschbaum, C., and Heinrichs, M. (2011). The Trier Social Stress Test for Groups (TSST-G): A new
research tool for controlled simultaneous social stress exposure in a group format. Psychoneuroendocrinology,
36(4):514–22.
Voors, M. J., Nillesen, E. E. M., Verwimp, P., Bulte, E. H., Lensink, R., and Soest, D. P. V. (2012). Violent Conflict and
Behavior: A Field Experiment in Burundi. The American Economic Review, 102(2):941–964.