No abstract

No abstract

Loss aversion is a well-known behavioral regularity in financial decision making, describing humans' tendency to overweigh losses compared to gains of the same amount. Recent research indicates that stress and associated hormonal changes affect loss aversion, yet the underlying neuroendocrine mechanisms are still poorly understood. Here, we investigated the causal influence of two major stress neuromodulators, cortisol and noradrenaline, on loss aversion during financial decision making. In a double-blind, placebo-controlled between-subject design, we orally administered either the α2-adrenergic antagonist yohimbine (increasing noradrenergic stimulation), hydrocortisone, both substances, or a placebo to healthy young men. We tested the treatments' influence on a financial decision-making task measuring loss aversion and risk attitude. We found that both drugs combined, relative to either drug by itself, reduced loss aversion in the absence of an effect on risk attitude or choice consistency. Our data suggest that concurrent glucocorticoid and noradrenergic activity prompts an alignment of reward- with loss-sensitivity, and thus diminishes loss aversion. Our results have implications for the understanding of the susceptibility to biases in decision making.

No abstract

We live busy, social lives, and meeting the challenges of our complex environments puts strain on our cognitive systems. However, cognitive resources are limited. It is unclear how cognitive load affects social decision making. Previous findings on the effects of cognitive load on other-regarding preferences have been ambiguous, allowing no coherent opinion whether cognitive load increases, decreases or does not affect prosocial considerations. Here, we suggest that social distance between individuals modulates whether generosity towards a recipient increases or decreases under cognitive load conditions. Participants played a financial social discounting task with several recipients at variable social distance levels. In this task, they could choose between generous alternatives, yielding medium financial rewards for the participant and recipient at variable social distances, or between a selfish alternative, yielding larger rewards for the participant alone. We show that the social discount function of male participants was significantly flattened under high cognitive load conditions, suggesting they distinguished less between socially close and socially distant recipients. Unexpectedly, the cognitive-load effect on social discounting was gender-specific: while social discounting was strongly dependent on cognitive load in men, women were nearly unaffected by cognitive load manipulations. We suggest that cognitive load leads men, but not women to simplify the decision problem by neglecting the social distance information. We consider our study a good starting point for further experiments exploring the role of gender in prosocial choice.