Changing decisions by changing emotions: Behavioral and physiological evidence of two emotion regulation strategies.

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q2 ECONOMICS Journal of Neuroscience Psychology and Economics Pub Date : 2020-09-01 DOI:10.1037/npe0000130
A. Grecucci, C. Giorgetta, Sara Lorandini, A. Sanfey, N. Bonini
{"title":"Changing decisions by changing emotions: Behavioral and physiological evidence of two emotion regulation strategies.","authors":"A. Grecucci, C. Giorgetta, Sara Lorandini, A. Sanfey, N. Bonini","doi":"10.1037/npe0000130","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Previous studies explored the possibility to use cognitive strategies to bias economic decisions by altering their emotional impact. One emerging question, but yet unsolved, is whether different cognitive strategies impact our decisions in the same or different ways. Another intriguing question is whether these strategies alter our decisions by altering the valence or by affecting the arousal of the emotion associated with the economic exchange. In the present study, we compared the effect of 2 emotion regulation strategies, namely, reappraisal and distancing, and showed that reappraisal is able to increase the valence of the emotions associated with monetary divisions in the dictator game (Experiment 1) and to reduce rejection rates in the ultimatum game (Experiment 2), whereas distancing decreases the arousal of emotions (Experiment 1) but surprisingly increases rejection rates (Experiment 2). Moreover, in the present study, we explored the cognitive effort associated with the usage of regulatory strategies during decision-making, using the galvanic skin response as index, and found an increase in physiological arousal when applying both strategies. These results extend our understanding of how to bias individuals' decisions in a desired direction by using different strategies that alter one aspect or the other of the emotional reaction.","PeriodicalId":45695,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Neuroscience Psychology and Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Neuroscience Psychology and Economics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/npe0000130","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Previous studies explored the possibility to use cognitive strategies to bias economic decisions by altering their emotional impact. One emerging question, but yet unsolved, is whether different cognitive strategies impact our decisions in the same or different ways. Another intriguing question is whether these strategies alter our decisions by altering the valence or by affecting the arousal of the emotion associated with the economic exchange. In the present study, we compared the effect of 2 emotion regulation strategies, namely, reappraisal and distancing, and showed that reappraisal is able to increase the valence of the emotions associated with monetary divisions in the dictator game (Experiment 1) and to reduce rejection rates in the ultimatum game (Experiment 2), whereas distancing decreases the arousal of emotions (Experiment 1) but surprisingly increases rejection rates (Experiment 2). Moreover, in the present study, we explored the cognitive effort associated with the usage of regulatory strategies during decision-making, using the galvanic skin response as index, and found an increase in physiological arousal when applying both strategies. These results extend our understanding of how to bias individuals' decisions in a desired direction by using different strategies that alter one aspect or the other of the emotional reaction.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
通过改变情绪来改变决策:两种情绪调节策略的行为和生理证据。
之前的研究探索了利用认知策略通过改变经济决策的情绪影响来影响经济决策的可能性。一个新出现但尚未解决的问题是,不同的认知策略是否以相同或不同的方式影响我们的决策。另一个有趣的问题是,这些策略是否通过改变效价或通过影响与经济交换相关的情绪的激发来改变我们的决定。在本研究中,我们比较了两种情绪调节策略(即重新评价和疏远)的效果,发现重新评价能够增加独裁者博弈(实验1)中与金钱分配相关的情绪的效价,并降低最后通牒博弈(实验2)中的拒绝率,而距离降低了情绪的唤醒(实验1),但出人意料地增加了拒绝率(实验2)。我们以皮肤电反应为指标,探索了决策过程中与使用调节策略相关的认知努力,发现同时使用这两种策略时,生理唤醒都会增加。这些结果扩展了我们对如何通过使用不同的策略来改变情绪反应的一个方面或另一个方面来使个人的决定偏向于期望的方向的理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
28.60%
发文量
18
期刊最新文献
Self-reported and electroencephalogram responses to evaluate sponsorship congruence efficacy. Is geographical location really dead in the online world? An event-related potentials study. Motivating risky choices increases risk taking. Supplemental Material for From Genes to Performance: Dopaminergic Modulation of Decision Making in a Stock Market Simulation Supplemental Material for Motivating Risky Choices Increases Risk Taking
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1