The relationship between stress and decision making : a rapid evidence assessment

Abstract

Decision making is a continuous core function of every human being. It is an indispensable process that enables individuals to lead their lives. Life situations are such that frequently people need to make decisions under stress that is either already present or is created by the decision situation itself. The general perception is that stress impairs decision making and leads to suboptimal or bad decision outcomes. The implications for practice are discussed with regard to everyday workplace decision making situations emphasising the need for organisations to differentiate between distress and eustress in order to exploit potential benefits whilst mitigating negative effects.

The purpose of this study is to summarise what is known in scientific literature about the relationship between stress and decision making. The review takes the form of a Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) that involves the systematic search, identification, appraisal and evaluation of relevant studies that have examined decision making under stress in humans. The included studies were identified through four databases namely ABI / INFORM Global, Business Source Elite, Psychology and Behavioural Sciences, and PsycINFO.

This REA demonstrates that scientific literature strongly supports the notion that there is a bidirectional relationship between stress and decision making. Such relationship is affected by various mediators and moderators that include endocrine and neural pathways, physiological and emotional factors, and gender influence. Importantly, the review also shows that the effect of stress on decision making may be positive or negative, depending on prevailing circumstances including the specific task at hand and the individual’s perception of it, as being either a threat or a challenge.

The results of the review are discussed with respect to the need for future research to continue addressing existing gaps in the literature via empirical studies in laboratory settings. Additionally, the importance of examining naturalistic decision making settings is highlighted enabling the possibility of cross-comparison of results from both areas of research.