The influence of incidental emotions on decision-making under risk and uncertainty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental evidence

Bartholomeyczik, Karen; Gusenbauer, Michael; Treffers, Theresa

doi:10.1080/02699931.2022.2099349

Cited by 12 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 82 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The random-effects meta-analysis finds an overall effect size of À0.044 (95% confidence interval: À0.121, 0.033), with low variability across studies (I 2 ¼ 26:3%; τ 2 ¼ 0:040). The dataset we metaanalyze is characterized by effect sizes which differ in sign but are substantively of modest magnitude, in line with other reviews (Bartholomeyczik et al, 2022;Lane, 2017;Wake et al, 2020). Indeed, a remarkable portion (38.6%) of the effects in our dataset are null or small, while the interval [À0.500, 0.500] encompasses 77.2% of the observations.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 79%

“…In an attempt to better interpret these results, we respond to the appeal of Wake et al (2020) and Bartholomeyczik et al (2022) and further examine the role of methodological moderators. It turns out that the use of monetary incentives interacts with country-level individualism: when studies provide financial incentives, individualism moderates the relationship between emotions and risk-taking by increasing risk propensity, this effect being robust to the inclusion of several cultural variables as controls.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In line with previous meta-analyses, we also code a number of methodological moderators capturing differences in practices to induce emotions and measure risk-taking in the lab. Concerning the role of these protocols, which are extensively discussed in the next section, there is limited and inconclusive evidence (Bartholomeyczik et al, 2022;Wake et al, 2020) and accordingly, we have no prior belief.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…Indeed, according to a rule of thumb, it is recommendable to have at least 10 datapoints per covariate in order to perform a meta-regression (Borenstein et al, 2011). Accordingly, it seems appropriate to devise broader categories, and in line with the classification proposed by Bartholomeyczik et al (2022), we distinguish between active and passive EIPs. While active methods involve elaborating on an emotion (e.g., by writing about it), passive methods indicate the consumption of emotional content, for instance, by watching film clips.…”

Section: Active Versus Passive Emotion Induction Procedures (Eips)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The latter paper also offers evidence that anger results in greater risk tolerance, although Ferrer et al (2017) suggest that this conclusion might be mediated by gender. Relatedly, the meta-study by Bartholomeyczik et al (2022) represents valuable complement to our work; nevertheless, we implement more powerful analyses thanks to the use of meta-regressions and additionally evaluate cross-cultural variation in risk-seeking. Wake et al (2020) perform a meta-analysis which centers around the effect of fear and discovers a negative correlation with risk-taking.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Emotions and financial risk‐taking in the lab: A meta‐analysis

Marini

2023

Behavioral Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper is a meta‐analysis of experimental studies dealing with the impact of incidental emotions (happiness, sadness, fear, and anger) on financial risk‐taking, so as to explain traditional heterogeneity of outcomes in the literature. After devising a standard search strategy and including studies that comply with a list of eligibility criteria, we code 114 effect sizes at the treatment level from 26 selected articles, and a battery of moderator variables representing design and sample characteristics. Meta‐regressions with adjusted predictions find causal impact of fear on risk aversion, albeit to a small extent. On the contrary, average null effects characterize happiness, sadness, and anger. It also turns out that when studies provide financial incentives, country‐level individualism moderates the relationship between emotions and risk‐taking by increasing risk propensity. We discuss possible interpretations of our findings.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 79%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Active Versus Passive Emotion Induction Procedures (Eips)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Emotions and financial risk‐taking in the lab: A meta‐analysis

Marini

2023

Behavioral Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Self‐Distancing Regulates the Effect of Incidental Anger (vs. Fear) on Affective Decision‐Making Under Uncertainty

Mayiwar,

Hærem,

Løhre

2024

Behavioral Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Emotions integral to a task are often adaptive, particularly in situations where outcomes and probabilities are not known. However, decisions are also influenced by emotions that arise from situations unrelated to the task. This is especially the case with negative emotions like fear and anger, which also tend to be accompanied by ruminative thinking that might divert decision‐makers' attention from the task at hand. In two preregistered experiments, we show how self‐distancing regulates the influence of incidental anger (vs. fear) on decision‐making under uncertainty. Participants recalled and reflected on a fear‐related or anger‐related event from either a self‐immersed or self‐distanced perspective. Next, they completed a task that is commonly used to measure affective decision‐making under uncertainty, the Iowa Gambling Task. The results in both experiments indicated that self‐immersed angry (vs. fearful) decision‐makers were significantly slower to avoid the risky, disadvantageous decks. These findings demonstrate how the ways in which we process negative emotional events shape their carryover effects in decision‐making under uncertainty and point to self‐distancing as a potential tool to control incidental emotional influences.

show abstract