Abstract
AbstractIn the context of the current COVID-19 pandemic, households throughout the world have to cope with negative shocks. 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 = 1652), Spain (N = 1660) and the United Kingdom (N = 1578). We measure cognitive function using the Cognitive Reflection Test and preferences traits (risk, time and social preferences) 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.
Funder
Open Evidence Research and BDI-Sclesinger
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference58 articles.
1. IMF. World Economic Outlook. Chapter 2: Countering Future Recessions in Advanced Economies: Cyclical Policies in an Era of Low Rates and High Debt. en IMF, World Economic Outlook, April 2020: The Great Lockdown. (2020).
2. WEF. A new emerging risks landscape. En COVID-19 Risks Outlook: A Preliminary Mapping and its Implications. available at: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_COVID_19_Risks_Outlook_Special_Edition_Pages.pdf (2020).
3. Baddeley, A. D. & Hitch, G. Working memory. Psychol. Learn. Motivat. 8(47–89), 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60452-1 (1974).
4. Diamond, A. Executive functions. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 64(1), 135–168. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750 (2013).
5. Arrow, K. J. Aspects of the Theory of Risk Bearing. The Theory of Risk Aversion. Helsinki: Yrjo Jahnssonin Saatio. Reprinted in: Essays in the Theory of Risk Bearing, Markham Publ. Co., Chicago, 1971, 90–109. (1965).
Cited by
22 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献