Cited by 65Olfactory and Sensory Function StudiesNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

No fear no risk! Human risk behavior is affected by chemosensory anxiety signals

Haegler, Katrin, Zernecke, Rebekka, Kleemann, Anna Maria, Albrecht, Jessica, Pollatos, Olga, Brückmann, Hartmut, Wiesmann, Martin·2010·Neuropsychologia

Abstract

An important aspect of cognitive functioning is decision-making, which depends on the correct interpretation of emotional processes. High trait anxiety has been associated with increased risk taking behavior in decision-making tasks. An interesting fact is that anxiety and anxiety-related chemosignals as well as decision-making share similar regions of neuronal activation. In order to ascertain if chemosensory anxiety signals have similar effects on risk taking behavior of healthy participants as high trait anxiety we used a novel computerized decision-making task, called Haegler's Risk Game (HRG). This task measures risk taking behavior based on contingencies and can be played repeatedly without a learning effect. To obtain chemosensory signals the sweat of 21 male donors was collected in a high rope course (anxiety condition). For the chemosensory control condition sweat was collected during an ergometer workout (exercise condition). In a double-blind study, 30 healthy recipients (16 females) had to play HRG while being exposed to sweat samples or empty control samples (control condition) in three sessions of randomized order. Comparison of the risk taking behavior of the three conditions showed significantly higher risk taking behavior in participants for the most risky choices during the anxiety condition compared to the control conditions. Additionally, recipients showed significantly higher latency before making their decision in the most risky choices during the anxiety condition. This experiment gives evidence that chemosensory anxiety signals are communicated between humans thereby increasing participants' risk taking behavior.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.09.019

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 55 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Haegler, K., Zernecke, R., Kleemann, A. M., Albrecht, J., Pollatos, O., Brückmann, H., & Wiesmann, M.
Affiliations
  • Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE)
  • Monell Chemical Senses Center (US)
  • University of Potsdam (DE)
  • RWTH Aachen University (DE)
Corresponding author
Haegler, Katrin
Venue
Neuropsychologia
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-11
Volume
48
Issue
13
Pages
3901-3908
ISSN
0028-3932 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2049064817
Cited by
65
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 5
FWCI
2.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Neuropsychologia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RWTH Publications (RWTH Aachen) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Sensory Systems › Olfactory and Sensory Function Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
sweat, risk-taking, trait anxiety, decision-making, emotional contagion, decision time
MeSH terms
Adult, Analysis of Variance, Anxiety, Attention, Decision Making, Double-Blind Method, Emotions, Female, Games, Experimental, Humans, Male, Odorants, Pilot Projects, Surveys and Questionnaires, Risk-Taking, Sweat, Statistics, Nonparametric, Pheromones, Human

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review