Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35791419›Full record

ArticleAffective science2022

Neither Threat of Shock nor Acute Psychosocial Stress Affects Ambiguity Attitudes.

Deshawn Chatman Sambrano, Arlene Lormestoire, Candace Raio, Paul Glimcher, Elizabeth A Phelps

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Affective science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Understanding anxiety through uncertainty quantification.British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953) · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Human factors in triaging forensic items: Casework pressures and ambiguity aversion.Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Deshawn Chatman SambranoDepartment of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA USA.
Arlene LormestoireDepartment of Psychology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ USA.
Candace RaioNeuroscience Institute, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY USA.
Paul GlimcherNeuroscience Institute, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY USA.
Elizabeth A PhelpsDepartment of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6215-8159

Funding

Stress, Arousal and Mood: Affective Influences on Decisions under UncertaintyR01DA042855 · NIDA · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY · PI PHELPS, ELIZABETH ANYA · 2017 to 2021
$2.6M
NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA042855
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Decisions under uncertainty can be differentiated into two classes: risky, which has known probabilistic outcomes, and ambiguous, which has unknown probabilistic outcomes. Across a variety of types of decisions, people find ambiguity extremely aversive, subjectively more aversive than risk. It has been shown that the transient sympathetic arousal response to a choice predicts decisions under ambiguity but not risk, and that lifetime stress uniquely predicts attitudes toward ambiguity. Building on these findings, this study explored whether we could bias ambiguity and risk preferences with an arousal or acute stress manipulation that is incidental to the choice in two independent experiments. One experiment induced sympathetic arousal with an anticipatory threat paradigm, and the other manipulated incidental acute stress via a psychosocial stressor. The efficacy of the manipulations was confirmed via pupil dilation and salivary cortisol, respectively. Participants made choices between a guaranteed $5 option and a lottery with either a known (risky) or unknown (ambiguous) probabilistic outcome. Consistent with previous findings, participants were more averse to a given level of ambiguity than to a numerically equal level of risk. However, in contrast to our hypothesis, we found no evidence that transient arousal or acute stress that is incidental to the choice biases ambiguity preferences.

Indexed as

Ambiguity aversionEmotion and decision makingUncertainty

Identifiers

PMID35791419
PMCPMC9249716

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.