IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/qhkf9.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Negative shocks predict change in cognitive function and preferences: Assessing the negative affect and stress hypothesis in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and the lockdown mitigation strategy

Author

Listed:
  • Bogliacino, Francesco

    (Universidad Nacional de Colombia)

  • codagnone, cristiano
  • Montealegre, Felipe

    (Universidad Nacional de Colombia)

  • Folkvord, F.
  • Gómez, Camilo Ernesto

    (Centro de Investigaciones para el Desarrollo)

  • Charris, Rafael Alberto

    (Universidad Nacional de Colombia)

  • Liva, Giovanni
  • Villanueva, Francisco Lupiañez
  • Veltri, Giuseppe Alessandro Prof

    (University of Trento)

Abstract

In the context of the current COVID-19 pandemic, households throughout the world have to cope with negative shocks, either because of the disease or the various mitigation strategies that have caused massive unemployment and financial insecurity. Previous research has shown that negative shocks impair cognitive function and change risk, time and social preferences. In this study, we analyze the results of a longitudinal multi-country survey conducted in Italy (N=1,652), Spain (N=1,660) and the United Kingdom (N=1,578). We measure cognitive function using the Cognitive Reflection Test and preferences traits using an experimentally validated set of questions to assess the differences between people exposed to a shock compared to the rest of the sample. We measure four possible types of shocks: labor market shock, health shock, occurrence of stressful events, and mental health shock. Additionally, we randomly assign participants to groups with either a recall of negative events (more specifically, a mild reinforcement of stress or of fear/anxiety), or to a control group (to recall neutral or joyful memories), in order to assess whether or not stress and negative emotions drive a change in preferences. Results show that people affected by shocks performed worse in terms of cognitive functioning, are more risk loving, and are more prone to punish others (negative reciprocity). Data do not support the hypotheses that the result is driven by stress or by negative emotions.

Suggested Citation

  • Bogliacino, Francesco & codagnone, cristiano & Montealegre, Felipe & Folkvord, F. & Gómez, Camilo Ernesto & Charris, Rafael Alberto & Liva, Giovanni & Villanueva, Francisco Lupiañez & Veltri, Giuseppe, 2020. "Negative shocks predict change in cognitive function and preferences: Assessing the negative affect and stress hypothesis in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and the lockdown mitigation strategy," SocArXiv qhkf9, Center for Open Science.
  • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:qhkf9
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/qhkf9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/5ed59e4daeeb6d043b08c3f7/
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/qhkf9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Smith, Vernon L, 1982. "Microeconomic Systems as an Experimental Science," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(5), pages 923-955, December.
    2. Guiso, Luigi & Sapienza, Paola & Zingales, Luigi, 2018. "Time varying risk aversion," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(3), pages 403-421.
    3. Smith, Vernon L, 1976. "Experimental Economics: Induced Value Theory," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 66(2), pages 274-279, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Abel Brodeur & David Gray & Anik Islam & Suraiya Bhuiyan, 2021. "A literature review of the economics of COVID‐19," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(4), pages 1007-1044, September.
    2. Heap, Shaun Hargreaves & Koop, Christel & Matakos, Konstantinos & Unan, Asli & Weber, Nina Sophie, 2021. "Never waste a “good” crisis! Priming the economic aspect of crises fosters social capital build-up and prosociality," OSF Preprints evzbn, Center for Open Science.

    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. James C. Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj, 2018. "Incentives," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2018-01, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    2. Takeuchi, Ai & Veszteg, Róbert F. & Kamijo, Yoshio & Funaki, Yukihiko, 2022. "Bargaining over a jointly produced pie: The effect of the production function on bargaining outcomes," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 169-198.
    3. Kimbrough, Erik O. & Smyth, Andrew, 2018. "Testing the boundaries of the double auction: The effects of complete information and market power," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 372-396.
    4. Bodo Sturm & Joachim Weimann, 2006. "Experiments in Environmental Economics and Some Close Relatives," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(3), pages 419-457, July.
    5. Veszteg, Róbert F. & Funaki, Yukihiko, 2018. "Monetary payoffs and utility in laboratory experiments," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 108-121.
    6. Bogliacino, Francesco & Codagnone, Cristiano, 2021. "Microfoundations, behaviour, and evolution: Evidence from experiments," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 372-385.
    7. Sven Grüner & Mira Lehberger & Norbert Hirschauer & Oliver Mußhoff, 2022. "How (un)informative are experiments with students for other social groups? A study of agricultural students and farmers," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 66(3), pages 471-504, July.
    8. Steven Gjerstad, 2013. "Price dynamics in an exchange economy," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 52(2), pages 461-500, March.
    9. Deck, Cary A. & Thomas, Charles J., 2020. "Using experiments to compare the predictive power of models of multilateral negotiations," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    10. Andrea Morone & Francesco Nemore & Simone Nuzzo, 2018. "Experimental evidence on tax salience and tax incidence," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 20(4), pages 582-612, August.
    11. Flåm, S.D. & Godal, O., 2008. "Market clearing and price formation," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 956-977, March.
    12. Fehr, Ernst & Kirchsteiger, Georg & Riedl, Arno, 1998. "Gift exchange and reciprocity in competitive experimental markets," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 1-34, January.
    13. Andreas Ortmann, 2009. ""The Way in which an Experiment is Conducted is Unbelievably Important": On the Experimentation Practices of Economists and Psychologists," CESifo Working Paper Series 2887, CESifo.
    14. Hellerstein, Daniel & Higgins, Nathaniel & Roberts, Michael, 2015. "Options for Improving Conservation Programs: Insights From Auction Theory and Economic Experiments," Amber Waves:The Economics of Food, Farming, Natural Resources, and Rural America, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, issue 01, pages 1-1, February.
    15. Jan Hanousek & Evžen Kočenda, 2011. "Learning by investing," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 19(1), pages 125-149, January.
    16. Rydval, Ondrej & Ortmann, Andreas, 2004. "How financial incentives and cognitive abilities affect task performance in laboratory settings: an illustration," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 85(3), pages 315-320, December.
    17. Navarro, Noemí & Veszteg, Róbert F., 2020. "On the empirical validity of axioms in unstructured bargaining," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 117-145.
    18. Bogliacino, Francesco & Charris, Rafael & Codagnone, Cristiano & Folkvord, Frans & Gaskell, George & Gómez, Camilo & Liva, Giovanni & Montealegre, Felipe, 2023. "Less is more: Information overload in the labelling of fish and aquaculture products," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    19. Baboo M Nowbutsing, 2012. "Experiments in International Economics," Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, AMH International, vol. 4(2), pages 75-86.
    20. Fiore, Annamaria, 2009. "Experimental Economics: Some Methodological Notes," MPRA Paper 12498, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:osf:socarx:qhkf9. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arabixiv.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.