IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/qhkf9_v1.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Negative shocks predict change in cognitive function and preferences: Assessing the negative affect and stress hypothesis

Author

Listed:
  • Bogliacino, Francesco

    (Universidad Nacional de Colombia)

  • codagnone, cristiano
  • Montealegre, Felipe

    (Universidad Nacional de Colombia)

  • Folkvord, F.
  • Gómez, Camilo Ernesto

    (Centro de Investigaciones para el Desarrollo)

  • Charris, Rafael Alberto

    (Universidad Nacional de Colombia)

  • Liva, Giovanni
  • Villanueva, Francisco Lupiañez
  • Veltri, Giuseppe Alessandro

    (University of Trento)

Abstract

In the context of the current COVID-19 pandemic, households throughout the world have to cope with negative shocks, either because of the disease or the various mitigation strategies that have caused massive unemployment and financial insecurity. 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=1,652), Spain (N=1,660) and the United Kingdom (N=1,578). We measure cognitive function using the Cognitive Reflection Test and preferences traits 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.

Suggested Citation

  • Bogliacino, Francesco & codagnone, cristiano & Montealegre, Felipe & Folkvord, F. & Gómez, Camilo Ernesto & Charris, Rafael Alberto & Liva, Giovanni & Villanueva, Francisco Lupiañez & Veltri, Giuseppe, 2020. "Negative shocks predict change in cognitive function and preferences: Assessing the negative affect and stress hypothesis," SocArXiv qhkf9_v1, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:qhkf9_v1
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/qhkf9_v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/5ed59e4daeeb6d043b08c3f7/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/qhkf9_v1?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. Smith, Vernon L, 1982. "Microeconomic Systems as an Experimental Science," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(5), pages 923-955, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Samuel D. Bell & Nadia A. Streletskaya, 2019. "The Random Quantity Mechanism: Laboratory and Field Tests of a Novel Cost-Revealing Procurement Mechanism," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(3), pages 899-921, July.
    2. Lange, Andreas & Ross, Johannes, 2024. "Internalizing match-dependent externalities," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 218(C), pages 356-378.
    3. Jason Shachat & Anand Srinivasan, 2022. "Informational Price Cascades and Non-Aggregation of Asymmetric Information in Experimental Asset Markets," Journal of Behavioral Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(4), pages 388-407, November.
    4. Janie M. Chermak & Kate Krause & David S. Brookshire & H. Stu Burness, 2013. "Moving Forward By Looking Back: Comparing Laboratory Results With Ex Ante Market Data," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 51(1), pages 1035-1049, January.
    5. Simon Gächter & Lingbo Huang & Martin Sefton, 2016. "Combining “real effort” with induced effort costs: the ball-catching task," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(4), pages 687-712, December.
    6. Don Coursey, 1987. "Markets and the measurement of value," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 55(3), pages 291-297, October.
    7. Schilirò, Daniele & Graziano, Mario, 2011. "Scelte e razionalità nei modelli economici: un'analisi multidisciplinare [Choices and rationality in economic models: a multidisciplinary analysis]," MPRA Paper 31910, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. James C. Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj, 2018. "Incentives," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2018-01, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    9. Menkhaus, Dale J. & Bastian, Christopher T. & Yakunina, Alla V. & Esipov, Victor E., 1997. "Helping Russian Students See the Invisible Hand," 1997 Annual Meeting, July 13-16, 1997, Reno\ Sparks, Nevada 35755, Western Agricultural Economics Association.
    10. Christopher M. Anderson & Daniel S. Holland, 2006. "Auctions for Initial Sale of Annual Catch Entitlement," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(3), pages 333-352.
    11. Uri Gneezy & Aldo Rustichini, 2000. "Pay Enough or Don't Pay at All," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 115(3), pages 791-810.
    12. Bertocco Giancarlo & Fanelli Luca & Paruolo Paolo, 2002. "On the determinants of inflation in Italy: evidence of cost-push effects before the European Monetary Union," Economics and Quantitative Methods qf0223, Department of Economics, University of Insubria.
    13. Yoichi Hizen & Kengo Kurosaka, 2021. "Monetary Costs Versus Opportunity Costs in a Voting Experiment," Working Papers SDES-2021-1, Kochi University of Technology, School of Economics and Management, revised Feb 2021.
    14. Sjur Didrik Flåm, 2013. "Reaching Market Equilibrium Merely by Bilateral Barters," CESifo Working Paper Series 4504, CESifo.
    15. Zhang, Meng & Kong, Zhaojun, 2022. "A multi-attribute double auction and bargaining model for emergency material procurement," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 254(C).
    16. Daniel Rondeau & Christian A. Vossler, 2024. "Incentive compatibility and respondent beliefs: Consequentiality and game form," Working Papers 2024-02, University of Tennessee, Department of Economics.
    17. Leitner, Johannes & Leopold-Wildburger, Ulrike, 2011. "Experiments on forecasting behavior with several sources of information - A review of the literature," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 213(3), pages 459-469, September.
    18. James Alm & James C. Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj, 2020. "Audit State Dependent Taxpayer Compliance: Theory And Evidence From Colombia," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 58(2), pages 819-833, April.
    19. Takeuchi, Ai & Veszteg, Róbert F. & Kamijo, Yoshio & Funaki, Yukihiko, 2022. "Bargaining over a jointly produced pie: The effect of the production function on bargaining outcomes," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 169-198.
    20. Murphy, James J. & Stranlund, John K., 2007. "A laboratory investigation of compliance behavior under tradable emissions rights: Implications for targeted enforcement," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 196-212, March.

    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:osf:socarx:qhkf9_v1. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arabixiv.org .

    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.