Negative shocks predict change in cognitive function and preferences: assessing the negative affect and stress hypothesis.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 02 2021
11 02 2021
Historique:
received:
09
06
2020
accepted:
25
01
2021
entrez:
12
2
2021
pubmed:
13
2
2021
medline:
27
2
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In the context of the current COVID-19 pandemic, households throughout the world have to cope with negative shocks. Previous research has shown that negative shocks impair cognitive function and change risk, time and social preferences. In this study, we analyze the results of a longitudinal multi-country survey conducted in Italy (N = 1652), Spain (N = 1660) and the United Kingdom (N = 1578). We measure cognitive function using the Cognitive Reflection Test and preferences traits (risk, time and social preferences) using an experimentally validated set of questions to assess the differences between people exposed to a shock compared to the rest of the sample. We measure four possible types of shocks: labor market shock, health shock, occurrence of stressful events, and mental health shock. Additionally, we randomly assign participants to groups with either a recall of negative events (more specifically, a mild reinforcement of stress or of fear/anxiety), or to a control group (to recall neutral or joyful memories), in order to assess whether or not stress and negative emotions drive a change in preferences. Results show that people affected by shocks performed worse in terms of cognitive functioning, are more risk loving, and are more prone to punish others (negative reciprocity). Data do not support the hypotheses that the result is driven by stress or by negative emotions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33574445
doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-83089-0
pii: 10.1038/s41598-021-83089-0
pmc: PMC7878761
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3546Références
Mem Cognit. 2011 Oct;39(7):1275-89
pubmed: 21541821
Psychol Sci. 2003 Mar;14(2):144-50
pubmed: 12661676
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Nov 8;108(45):18459-64
pubmed: 22032926
Brain Cogn. 2013 Feb;81(1):95-117
pubmed: 23174433
J Health Econ. 2016 Dec;50:156-170
pubmed: 27792902
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1988;537:138-47
pubmed: 3059920
J Econ Perspect. 2018;32(2):135-54
pubmed: 30203933
Am Econ Rev. 2016 Feb;106(2):260-284
pubmed: 28003681
Nature. 2012 Sep 20;489(7416):427-30
pubmed: 22996558
Annu Rev Psychol. 2013;64:135-68
pubmed: 23020641
PLoS One. 2020 Oct 27;15(10):e0240876
pubmed: 33108374
Science. 2014 May 23;344(6186):862-7
pubmed: 24855262
Science. 2005 Aug 12;309(5737):1036-9
pubmed: 16099974
J Neurosci. 2000 Jun 15;20(12):4657-68
pubmed: 10844035
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Aug 8;114(32):8505-8510
pubmed: 28739904
Science. 2013 Aug 30;341(6149):976-80
pubmed: 23990553
Behav Brain Sci. 2007 Feb;30(1):1-16; discussion 16-61
pubmed: 17475022