IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/natcom/v13y2022i1d10.1038_s41467-022-28530-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cumulative lifetime stressor exposure assessed by the STRAIN predicts economic ambiguity aversion

Author

Listed:
  • Candace M. Raio

    (New York University Grossman School of Medicine)

  • Benjamin B. Lu

    (Neuroscience Institute, New York University Grossman School of Medicine)

  • Michael Grubb

    (Trinity College)

  • Grant S. Shields

    (University of Arkansas)

  • George M. Slavich

    (Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, University of California)

  • Paul Glimcher

    (Neuroscience Institute, New York University Grossman School of Medicine)

Abstract

Uncertainty is inherent in most decisions humans make. Economists distinguish between two types of decision-making under non-certain conditions: those involving risk (i.e., known outcome probabilities) and those that involve ambiguity (i.e., unknown outcome probabilities). Prior research has identified individual differences that explain risk preferences, but little is known about factors associated with ambiguity aversion. Here, we hypothesized that cumulative exposure to major psychosocial stressors over the lifespan might be one factor that predicts individuals’ ambiguity aversion. Across two studies (Study 1: n = 58, Mage = 25.7; Study 2: n = 188, Mage = 39.81), we used a comprehensive lifetime stressor exposure inventory (i.e., the Stress and Adversity Inventory for Adults, or STRAIN) and a standard economic approach to quantify risk and ambiguity preferences. Greater lifetime stressor exposure as measured by the STRAIN, particularly in early life, was associated with higher aversion to ambiguity but not risk preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • Candace M. Raio & Benjamin B. Lu & Michael Grubb & Grant S. Shields & George M. Slavich & Paul Glimcher, 2022. "Cumulative lifetime stressor exposure assessed by the STRAIN predicts economic ambiguity aversion," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-11, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:nat:natcom:v:13:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1038_s41467-022-28530-2
    DOI: 10.1038/s41467-022-28530-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-28530-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/s41467-022-28530-2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Horton & David Rand & Richard Zeckhauser, 2011. "The online laboratory: conducting experiments in a real labor market," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(3), pages 399-425, September.
    2. Rustichini, Aldo & Dickhaut, John & Ghirardato, Paolo & Smith, Kip & Pardo, Jose V., 2005. "A brain imaging study of the choice procedure," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 257-282, August.
    3. Camerer, Colin & Weber, Martin, 1992. "Recent Developments in Modeling Preferences: Uncertainty and Ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 325-370, October.
    4. Michael A. Grubb & Agnieszka Tymula & Sharon Gilaie-Dotan & Paul W. Glimcher & Ifat Levy, 2016. "Neuroanatomy accounts for age-related changes in risk preferences," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 7(1), pages 1-5, December.
    5. Lex Borghans & Bart H. H. Golsteyn & James J. Heckman & Huub Meijers, 2009. "Gender Differences in Risk Aversion and Ambiguity Aversion," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 7(2-3), pages 649-658, 04-05.
    6. Archy O. de Berker & Robb B. Rutledge & Christoph Mathys & Louise Marshall & Gemma F. Cross & Raymond J. Dolan & Sven Bestmann, 2016. "Computations of uncertainty mediate acute stress responses in humans," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 7(1), pages 1-11, April.
    7. Lex Borghans & Bart H.H. Golsteyn & James J. Heckman & Huub Meijers, 2009. "Gender Differences in Risk Aversion and Ambiguity," Working Papers 200903, Geary Institute, University College Dublin.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Charness, Gary & Grieco, Daniela, 2022. "Creativity and ambiguity tolerance," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 218(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Eszter Czibor & David Jimenez‐Gomez & John A. List, 2019. "The Dozen Things Experimental Economists Should Do (More of)," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 86(2), pages 371-432, October.
    2. Yang, Fanzheng & Yu, Li, 2016. "With or without siblings: Sorting into competition in the experimental labor market," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 284-298.
    3. Ayala Arad & Gabrielle Gayer, 2012. "Imprecise Data Sets as a Source of Ambiguity: A Model and Experimental Evidence," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(1), pages 188-202, January.
    4. Aggarwal, Divya & Damodaran, Uday, 2020. "Ambiguity attitudes and myopic loss aversion: Experimental evidence using carnival games," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 25(C).
    5. Ge Bai & Ranjani Krishnan, 2016. "Effects of Ambiguous Common Uncertainty on Employee Preference for Relative Performance Contracts," The Japanese Accounting Review, Research Institute for Economics & Business Administration, Kobe University, vol. 6, pages 65-93, December.
    6. Zexuan Wang & Ismaël Rafaï & Marc Willinger, 2023. "Does age affect the relation between risk and time preferences? Evidence from a representative sample," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 90(2), pages 341-368, October.
    7. Marco Rojas & Damián Vergara, 2021. "Ambiguity and long-run cooperation in strategic games," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 73(3), pages 1077-1098.
    8. Wu, Nan & Zhang, Xiaomeng & Zhou, Wenyu, 2023. "The impacts of superstition on risk preferences and beliefs: Evidence from the Chinese zodiac year," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    9. Andreas Friedl & Patrick Ring & Ulrich Schmidt, 2017. "Gender differences in ambiguity aversion under different outcome correlation structures," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 82(2), pages 211-219, February.
    10. Prokosheva, Sasha, 2016. "Comparing decisions under compound risk and ambiguity: The importance of cognitive skills," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 94-105.
    11. Watanabe, Masahide & Fujimi, Toshio, 2022. "Ambiguity of scientific probability predictions and willingness-to-pay for climate change mitigation policies," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(4), pages 386-402.
    12. Baillon, Aurélien & Koellinger, Philipp D. & Treffers, Theresa, 2016. "Sadder but wiser: The effects of emotional states on ambiguity attitudes," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 67-82.
    13. Becchetti, Leonardo & Degli Antoni, Giacomo & Ottone, Stefania & Solferino, Nazaria, 2013. "Allocation criteria under task performance: The gendered preference for protection," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 96-111.
    14. Sarah Brown & Mark N Harris & Jake Prendergast & Preety Srivastava, 2015. "Pharmaceutical Drug Misuse, Industry of Employment and Occupation," Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre Working Paper series WP1501, Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre (BCEC), Curtin Business School.
    15. Matteo Migheli, 2017. "The winner’s curse in auctions with losses," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 16(1), pages 113-126, November.
    16. Balafoutas, Loukas & Sutter, Matthias, 2019. "How uncertainty and ambiguity in tournaments affect gender differences in competitive behavior," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 1-13.
    17. Michalis Drouvelis & Julian C. Jamison, 2015. "Selecting public goods institutions: Who likes to punish and reward?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 82(2), pages 501-534, October.
    18. Asmussen, Katherine E. & Mondal, Aupal & Bhat, Chandra R., 2022. "Adoption of partially automated vehicle technology features and impacts on vehicle miles of travel (VMT)," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 156-179.
    19. Borau, Sylvie & Couprie, Hélène & Hopfensitz, Astrid, 2022. "The prosociality of married people: Evidence from a large multinational sample," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    20. O. C. Ferrell & Dimitri Kapelianis & Linda Ferrell & Lynzie Rowland, 2018. "Expectations and Attitudes Toward Gender-Based Price Discrimination," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 152(4), pages 1015-1032, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nat:natcom:v:13:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1038_s41467-022-28530-2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.