Acute Effects of Exercise on Risk-Taking: Different Responses in Males and Females
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years there has been great interest in the effects of exercise on cognition, but few have investigated whether physical activity influences risk-taking. Purpose: To investigate the effects of acute moderate to vigorous exercise on risky decision-making. Methods: Healthy (free of psychological or neurological conditions), recreationally active males and females (n = 20, 50% females, mean age = 22.4 years, sd = 2.48) performed either a 30-min bout of cycling at 50% to 60% of their maximal power output or watched a neutral film over the course of two laboratory visits (repeated measures, randomized crossover design). Following the interventions, participants completed computerized behavioral tasks: the Balloon-Analogue Risk Task (BART), the Risky Gains Task, and the STOP-IT task and provided saliva samples (pre and post) to measure changes in cortisol. Results: There was a significant interaction between sex and condition (p = .01, ηp2 = .3) for one of the risk-taking outcomes of the BART (number of explosions). Females exploded fewer balloons post-exercise. Performance on the other tasks did not change significantly between conditions (all p > .05). Cortisol increased significantly following exercise and responses did not differ between males and females. Considering cortisol change post-exercise similarly resulted in a significant sex by condition interaction (p = .005, ηp2 = .44), with males exploding more balloons and females exploding fewer post-exercise. Conclusion: Acute exercise appears to have differing effects on males and females. Exercise resulted in risk seeking in males and risk aversion in females as measured by the BART.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".