Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41315734›Full record

ArticleCommunications psychology2025

Acute stress impairs decision-making at varying levels of decision complexity.

Karlo Doroc, Nitin Yadav, Carsten Murawski

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Communications psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

Karlo DorocCentre for Brain, Mind and Markets, Faculty of Business and Economics, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0736-7131
Nitin YadavCentre for Brain, Mind and Markets, Faculty of Business and Economics, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Carsten MurawskiCentre for Brain, Mind and Markets, Faculty of Business and Economics, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. carstenm@unimelb.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1237-9535

Funding

University of Melbourne (Melbourne University) n/a
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Acute stress triggers a cascade of physiological and psychological changes, including heightened perspiration, cortisol levels, and anxiety. Currently, little is known about the effects of acute stress on the quality of higher-order decision-making, with existing studies unable to disentangle decision-making capacity from subjective preferences. To address this gap, we conducted a within-participants laboratory experiment in which university students (n = 42) made objective decisions of varying complexity (computational hardness) under both acutely stressful and control conditions. We find that higher cortisol levels, induced via the Trier Social Stress Test, leads to lower decision quality and a higher incidence of experienced time pressure. Among cortisol responders, the deterioration in decision quality was independent of the level of computational hardness, whilst among the full sample it was concentrated among trials with higher levels of computational hardness. Post-hoc, we find that the most substantial deficits in decision quality occurred when acute stress was accompanied by time pressure, with gaze-tracking analyses offering tentative evidence that changes in attention allocation may be one mechanism for this effect. Our results demonstrate that acute stress impairs the capacity to decide correctly, and highlights the importance of computational hardness and time pressure as potential moderators of this effect.

Identifiers

PMID41315734
PMCPMC12663459

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.