The effect of experiencing gender-identity-based stress on decision-making

We can find substantial evidence that argues for the far-reaching nature of the effects of experiencing stress on physical, mental, and social health. Physically, stress has been linked to cardiovascular reactivity (e.g., Ginty et al., 2017), digestive issues (e.g., Bhatia and Tandon, 2005), and alterations in metabolic and immune responses (e.g., Priyadarshini and Aich, 2012). Mentally, stress, in particular chronic stress, increases vulnerability to mental illnesses (like burnout, depression, PTSD, and anxiety), and it can impair cognitive functioning (memory performance and concentration) (Marin et al., 2011). Socially, stress can elicit a variety of coping responses, ranging from maladaptive responses to resilience, with behavioral consequences that may include social avoidance (Sandi and Haller, 2015) or enhanced social bonding (McNeal et al., 2017). Among the cognitive consequences of stress, it can have both detrimental and beneficial effects on decision-making, partly based on the non-volitional stress reactions (physiological, cognitive, affective) that impact an individual's performance during the decision-making process (Starcke and Brand, 2012). Furthermore, similar to its prior effects on physical, mental, and social health, the impact of stress on decision-making is context-dependent and varies with the type of stress experienced. For instance, acute, academic, or traumatic stressors may lead to different decision-making outcomes. From the plethora of stress types, Steele et al. (2002) described a form of stress based on identity, social identity threat, which arises from the fear of being stigmatized by any form of interpersonal rejection because of a person’s membership to a devalued social group or category. The importance of this stress classification goes beyond a mere theoretical distinction. According to the minority stress model, the stress experienced by stigmatized groups is unique in that it is 1) additive to general stressors, 2) chronic, and 3) socially based (Meyer, 2003). Additionally, social identity threat or identity-based stress can lead to multiple outcomes like variability in self-esteem, differences in performance and academic achievement, and greater risk for mental and physical health problems (Major and O’Brien, 2005). Based on our earlier reflection on the effects of stress on decision-making, we hypothesize that identity-based stress can also have detrimental implications in the decision-making process. Women are one devalued social group that experiences identity-based stressors recurrently. Gender stigmatization or sexism involves socially assigning a blemished, devalued, and discredited marking (Goffman, 1963: Jones et al., 1984) to individuals simply because they are women. Like other types of discrimination, sexism manifests in various ways, ranging from direct actions like physical abuse to more subtle forms such as benevolent sexism (Glick and Fiske, 1996). Among the many stigmatizing hardships that women face due to their gender is the limited or non-existent freedom to choose their education, their professional development, and their future in general. In short, women have fewer empowerment capabilities than men do. According to the Gender Inequality Index (GII) (UNDP, 2023), between 2012 and 2022 worldwide, female participation in the labor face has remained almost static, going from 47.2% to 46.8%, the percentage of seats in parliament or congress occupied by women increased only 6%, and the rate of women with at least some secondary education improved by 7.5%. Moreover, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2024), the gender wage gap in the US decreased by 1.5% over the last 10 years (from 17.9% in 2013 to 16.4% in 2023); in Canada, it was reduced by 3.9%, and Mexico by 0.4%. On average, in 2023, a woman working in North America earned around 84 cents for every dollar a man earns (at median earnings). The literature has identified structural and contextual elements as the main causal explanations for limiting women's empowerment, be it reduced access to education and resources, cultural norms, and uneven legal framework (Bandiera and Natraj, 2013; Jayaweera, 1997; Wekwete, 2014), or more direct forms of discrimination (Akheter and Ward, 2009; Esteve-Volart, 2004; Lowe et al., 2021; Marcus, 2018). However, as we have hypothesized, another plausible causal explanation could be that experiencing a gender identity-based stressor is hindering women's ability to make good, unrestricted, empowerment-oriented decisions. In other words, not only are structural elements limiting women's "capacity to gain control over their own lives" (Luttrell et al., 2007 in Ehrhardt et al., 2009, p. 3), but inter and intrapersonal stigma mechanisms may also be actively and chronically altering women's decisions. Dual process theories establish that making a decision involves the convergence of two processing types: Type I is defined as intuitive, gut, autonomous, fast, and independent from working memory and cognitive ability, while Type II is deliberative, reflective, slow, rule-based, and heavily reliant on working memory and cognitive ability (Evans and Stanovich, 2013). The central assumption by the default-interventionist theories is that the default decision is defined by Type I processing, which may or may not be overridden by Type II processing (Evans, 2011). Based on the latter, we can further specify our hypothesis by stating that experiencing gender identity-based stressors is hindering women’s ability to make good decisions because this type of stressor is limiting the default-interventionist process: the ability of Type II processing to override Type I decisions. Based on the previous brief introduction, our research question is: Do women employ distinct decision-making processing types when facing a gender identity-based stressor vs. a neutral one? As such, the study aims to contrast the cognitive and affective effects of experiencing a gender identity-based stressor and a neutral one, focusing on the differential implications in the judgment processing type that people rely on when making decisions under conditions of uncertainty. We will employ an experimental design with three tasks and two questionnaires to answer the research question. First, we will use a modified version of the TSST elaborated by Townsend et al. (2011) to elicit a robust stress response associated with sexism/gender stigma. Second, we will analyze the type of decisions and the process that people follow after being exposed to a gender-identity-based or a neutral stressor through two tasks: the Cognitive Reflective Test (CRT-2) proposed by Thomson and Oppenheimer (2016) and the Iowa Gambling Task by Bechara et al. (1994). The final methodology for data collection is based on two prior research studies that examined 1) stress responses associated with sexism (Townsend et al., 2011) and 2) the effect of stress on cognitive reflection and risky decision-making (Simonovic et al., 2017). Together with the information collected in the baseline and follow-up questionnaires, we will use the data to conclude the form in which experiencing a gender identity-based stressor may impact a person’s ability to make deliberate/rational decisions compared to a neutral stressful event.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.