Under Threat, Weaker Evidence Is Required to Reach Undesirable Conclusions

Abstract

Critical decisions, such as in domains ranging from medicine to finance, are often made under threatening circumstances that elicit stress and anxiety. The negative effects of such reactions on learning and decision-making have been repeatedly underscored. In contrast, here we show that perceived threat alters the process by which evidence is accumulated in a way that may be adaptive. Participants ( n = 91) completed a sequential evidence sampling task in which they were incentivized to accurately judge whether they were in a desirable state, which was associated with greater rewards than losses, or an undesirable state, which was associated with greater losses than rewards. Before the task participants in the “threat group” experienced a social-threat manipulation. Results show that perceived threat led to a reduction in the strength of evidence required to reach an undesirable judgment. Computational modeling revealed this was because of an increase in the relative rate by which negative information was accumulated. The effect of the threat manipulation was global, as the alteration to evidence accumulation was observed for information which was not directly related to the cause of the threat. Requiring weaker evidence to reach undesirable conclusions in threatening environments may be adaptive as it can lead to increased precautionary action. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT To make good judgments, people gather information. As information is often unlimited, a decision has to be made as to when the data are sufficiently strong to reach a conclusion. Here, we show that this decision is significantly influenced by perceived threat. In particular, under threat, the rate of negative information accumulation increased, such that weaker evidence was required to reach an undesirable conclusion. Such modulation could be adaptive as it can result in enhanced cautious behavior in dangerous environments.

Anxiety increases information-seeking in response to large changes

“…Before the task, participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups: induced anxiety group and control group. The induced anxiety group was administered a modified version of the Trier Social Stress Test (TSST) 22,[33][34][35] . Specifically, they were told that at the end of the task, they would have to give a 5-min presentation on a surprise topic in front of a panel of senior academics and that they would be videotaped and judged during that presentation.…”

Improved Perception of Aggression Under (un)Related Threat of Shock

“…In addition, and as with our previously discussed findings, a connection between the threat and the target action (Block A) bared no influence over this drift rate. It is hard to establish if these findings are expected, considering that studies measuring drift rates during anxiety states are both scarce and focused on the perception of reward (Globig, Witte, Feng, & Sharot, 2021; Yamamori & Robinson, 2023). We believe that future studies assessing perceptual decision‐making and anxiety would benefit immensely from exploring these processes with this more encompassing modeling technique.…”

Doxing, political affiliation, and type of information: Effects on suspicion, perceived similarity, and hiring-related judgments.

“…Similar results are found in the neuropsychology literature, suggesting that negative information, as opposed to neutral information, increases both arousal and threat perceptions (Krasowski et al, 2021). Such effects were particularly powerful when participants were under stress, even when that stress was unrelated to the task at hand (Globig et al, 2021). Under stress, individuals needed less evidence to reach a negative conclusion than a positive conclusion and tended to err on the side of caution to mitigate possible threats from negative information (Globig et al, 2021).…”

“…Such effects were particularly powerful when participants were under stress, even when that stress was unrelated to the task at hand (Globig et al, 2021). Under stress, individuals needed less evidence to reach a negative conclusion than a positive conclusion and tended to err on the side of caution to mitigate possible threats from negative information (Globig et al, 2021). From a cognitive perspective, individuals have a tendency to focus on negative information, which leads to an intensification of negative emotions that may cause them to exaggerate the negative outcomes of an event (Yang et al, 2022).…”