Cited by 175Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesBehavioral Health and Interventions

Decisions Under Distress: Stress Profiles Influence Anchoring and Adjustment

Open access
Kassam, Karim S., Koslov, Katrina, Mendes, Wendy Berry·2009·Psychological Science

Abstract

People frequently make decisions under stress. Understanding how stress affects decision making is complicated by the fact that not all stress responses are created equal. Challenge states, for example, occur when individuals appraise a stressful situation as demanding, but believe they have the personal resources to cope, and are characterized by efficient cardiovascular reactivity and approach motivation. Threat states, in contrast, occur when situational demands are perceived to outweigh resources and are characterized by less efficient cardiovascular reactivity and withdrawal motivation. We randomly assigned participants to social-feedback conditions (i.e., positive or negative feedback) designed to engender challenge or threat, or a no-stress condition. Participants then completed an anchoring-and-adjustment questionnaire. Those assigned to the challenge condition adjusted more from self-generated anchors than those assigned to the threat condition. Cardiovascular responses mediated the relationship between condition and adjustment. This study demonstrates the importance of considering profiles of cardiovascular reactivity when examining the influence of stress on decision making.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02455.x

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Challenge, relative to threat, states have been associated with better decision-making, higher perceived social standing, more approach-oriented behavior, and increased positive affect.

    “For example, challenge, relative to threat, states have been associated with better decision-making (Kassam et al., 2009), higher perceived social standing (Scheepers et al., 2012), more approach-oriented behavior, and increased positive affect (Mendes et al., 2008).”

    From More than a feeling: A unified view of stress measurement for population science (2018) · cites this paper as Kassam et al., 2009

  • Men and women do not reliably show differences in patterning of physiologic responses during acute stress.

    “Further, men and women do not reliably show differences in patterning of physiologic responses during acute stress, so there is little evidence that there are sex differences in general approach versus avoidant (challenge versus threat) physiologic patterns (Mendes et al., 2008; Kassam et al., 2009; Jamieson et al., 2012).”

    From More than a feeling: A unified view of stress measurement for population science (2018) · cites this paper as Kassam et al., 2009

    The Method section reports that the sample included 71 women and 32 men, and the Results discuss cardiovascular responses by feedback condition. Neither section reports a comparison of men's and women's physiological response patterns. Searches for sex or gender differences in challenge and threat responses found no such analysis in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.73)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kassam, K. S., Koslov, K., & Mendes, W. B.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Mendes, Wendy Berry
Venue
Psychological Science
Published
2009-11
Volume
20
Issue
11
Pages
1394-1399
ISSN
  • 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9280
OpenAlex
W2132965657
Cited by
175
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 11
FWCI
5.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL079383)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
Keywords
stress, decision-making, cardiovascular reactivity, anchoring and adjustment, social feedback, approach motivation, mediation
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Arousal, Cardiac Output, Decision Making, Electrocardiography, Female, Heart Rate, Humans, Male, Motivation, Parasympathetic Nervous System, Problem Solving, Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted, Speech, Sympathetic Nervous System, Intuition, Self Efficacy, Feedback, Psychological, Young Adult

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