IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2603.21874.html

Does Anxiety Improve Economic Decision-Making?

Author

Listed:
  • Ian Crawford
  • Carl-Emil Pless

Abstract

We study the associations between everyday economic decision-making quality and people's emotional states. Using high-frequency, highly disaggregated consumer "scanner" data, we show that the cost of poor decision-making is substantial, on average equal to around half of day-to-day consumption budgets. While material circumstances help explain decision-making quality, how people feel about those circumstances is equally important. Contrary to evidence that stress and worry impair performance in settings where distraction is costly, we find these same feelings are associated with improved decision-making for frequently made consumption choices. This is consistent with worry increasing attentiveness to decisions within households' locus of control.

Suggested Citation

  • Ian Crawford & Carl-Emil Pless, 2026. "Does Anxiety Improve Economic Decision-Making?," Papers 2603.21874, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2603.21874
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2603.21874
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ernst-Jan Bruijn & Gerrit Antonides, 2022. "Poverty and economic decision making: a review of scarcity theory," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 92(1), pages 5-37, February.
    2. Mariacristina De Nardi & Eric French & John Bailey Jones, 2016. "Savings After Retirement: A Survey," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 8(1), pages 177-204, October.
    3. Acemoglu, Daron & Scott, Andrew, 1994. "Consumer Confidence and Rational Expectations: Are Agents' Beliefs Consistent with the Theory?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 104(422), pages 1-19, January.
    4. Mark Dean & Daniel Martin, 2016. "Measuring Rationality with the Minimum Cost of Revealed Preference Violations," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 98(3), pages 524-534, July.
    5. Loomes, Graham & Starmer, Chris & Sugden, Robert, 1991. "Observing Violations of Transitivity by Experimental Methods," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(2), pages 425-439, March.
    6. Frank Schilbach & Heather Schofield & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2016. "The Psychological Lives of the Poor," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(5), pages 435-440, May.
    7. Alain Cohn & Jan Engelmann & Ernst Fehr & Michel André Maréchal, 2015. "Evidence for Countercyclical Risk Aversion: An Experiment with Financial Professionals," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(2), pages 860-885, February.
    8. W. E. Diewert, 1973. "Afriat and Revealed Preference Theory," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 40(3), pages 419-425.
    9. Loomes, Graham & Starmer, Chris & Sugden, Robert, 1989. "Preference Reversal: Information-Processing Effect or Rational Non-transitive Choice?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(395), pages 140-151, Supplemen.
    10. Souleles, Nicholas S, 2004. "Expectations, Heterogeneous Forecast Errors, and Consumption: Micro Evidence from the Michigan Consumer Sentiment Surveys," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 36(1), pages 39-72, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jens Hougaard & Tue Tjur & Lars Østerdal, 2012. "On the meaningfulness of testing preference axioms in stated preference discrete choice experiments," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(4), pages 409-417, August.
    2. Erik Kole & Liesbeth Noordegraaf-Eelens & Bas Vringer, 2019. "Cognitive Biases and Consumer Sentiment," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 19-031/I, Tinbergen Institute, revised 21 Mar 2023.
    3. Thomas Demuynck & John Rehbeck, 2023. "Computing revealed preference goodness-of-fit measures with integer programming," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 76(4), pages 1175-1195, November.
    4. Berg, Nathan & Biele, Guido & Gigerenzer, Gerd, 2010. "Does consistency predict accuracy of beliefs?: Economists surveyed about PSA," MPRA Paper 26590, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Ute Rink & Theresa Rollwage, 2022. "Household disability and time preferences: Evidence from incentivized experiments in Vietnam," TVSEP Working Papers wp-027, Leibniz Universitaet Hannover, Institute for Environmental Economics and World Trade, Project TVSEP.
    6. Kobi Kriesler & Shmuel Nitzan, 2009. "Framing-based Choice: A Model of Decision-making Under Risk," Korean Economic Review, Korean Economic Association, vol. 25, pages 65-89.
    7. Axel Eizmendi Larrinaga & Germ'an Reyes, 2025. "Cash and Cognition: The Impact of Transfer Timing on Standardized Test Performance and Human Capital," Papers 2507.21393, arXiv.org.
    8. Yujian Chen & Joshua Lanier & John K. -H. Quah, 2024. "Goodness-of-fit and utility estimation: what's possible and what's not," Papers 2405.08464, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2026.
    9. Kajal Lahiri & Yongchen Zhao, 2016. "Determinants of Consumer Sentiment Over Business Cycles: Evidence from the US Surveys of Consumers," Journal of Business Cycle Research, Springer;Centre for International Research on Economic Tendency Surveys (CIRET), vol. 12(2), pages 187-215, December.
    10. Michael Birnbaum & Ulrich Schmidt, 2008. "An experimental investigation of violations of transitivity in choice under uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 77-91, August.
    11. Joshua Lanier & Matthew Polisson & John K. -H. Quah, 2024. "Revealed preference with optimal transport: money pumps, bounded rationality, and preference recovery," Papers 2404.04843, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2026.
    12. Liu Shi & Jianying Qiu & Jiangyan Li & Frank Bohn, 2024. "Consciously stochastic in preference reversals," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 68(3), pages 255-297, June.
    13. Chris Starmer, 1999. "Cycling with Rules of Thumb: An Experimental Test for a new form of Non-Transitive Behaviour," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 139-157, April.
    14. Pawe{l} Dziewulski & Joshua Lanier & John K. -H. Quah, 2024. "Revealed preference and revealed preference cycles: a survey," Papers 2405.08459, arXiv.org.
    15. Humphrey, Steven J., 2004. "Feedback-conditional regret theory and testing regret-aversion in risky choice," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 839-857, December.
    16. Birnbaum, Michael H. & Gutierrez, Roman J., 2007. "Testing for intransitivity of preferences predicted by a lexicographic semi-order," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 104(1), pages 96-112, September.
    17. Massenot, Baptiste & Pettinicchi, Yuri, 2019. "Can households see into the future? Survey evidence from the Netherlands," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 77-90.
    18. Jin, Shan & Liu, Tiancheng & Sun, Zepeng & Zhang, Xiaomeng, 2026. "Social isolation induced negative emotions affect economic behavior: A natural experiment study," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    19. Ulrich Schmidt & Chris Starmer & Robert Sugden, 2008. "Third-generation prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 203-223, June.
    20. Sam Cosaert, 2019. "What Types are There?," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 53(2), pages 533-554, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2603.21874. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.