Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Suboptimal behaviors such as overeating, smoking, and poor financial decision making cause serious problems in society. They are not only responsible for significant health problems, but also for a lower quality of life overall. In many cases, people engage in these behaviors especially when experiencing stress, and even when they understand that detrimental outcomes follow. So, the question arises: How does stress influence people to engage in suboptimal behaviors? By further exploring and understanding the underlying mechanisms of these behaviors, interventions can eventually be created to improve the lives of millions worldwide. Historically, researchers have used a standard dual-process model to explain behavior as either habitual or goal-directed. Moreover, it is traditionally believed that while habitual behavior is automatic in that it can take place when resources are limited, goal-directed behavior is nonautomatic in that it requires ample mental resources to operate. As stress limits the availability of mental resources, researchers have often considered suboptimal behaviors under stress as habitual behaviors. Support for this idea comes from a study by Schwabe and Wolf (2010) who found that stressed participants continued to respond for a liquid that was devalued through selective satiation, suggesting habitual behavior. However, in an alternative dual-process model, behavior is believed to stem from multiple competing goals, and therefore, suboptimal behavior under stress may fulfill the goal of stress regulation. In this current study, we aimed to test this idea indirectly. We conducted a conceptual replication of the study by Schwabe and Wolf (2010) using taste aversion, which is a potentially stronger devaluation method. The rationale was that such a devaluation method would make liquid consumption unsuitable to regulate stress and hence that stressed participants would not continue to respond for the devalued liquid. In our study, participants first learned to respond to different symbols that corresponded with the delivery of different liquids (chocolate milk and orange juice). Then, one of the liquids was devalued with a bad-tasting substance (Tween 20). Afterwards, participants either experienced a control or stress induction by placing their hand in warm or ice-cold water for three minutes, respectively. Then, to test whether participants had represented the outcomes (liquids), they completed the same task, but were tested under extinction in which no liquids were delivered. Finally, in order to test the effectiveness of the devaluation, participants completed the reacquisition test via the same task with the liquids delivered once again. Results showed that both participants in the control and the stress groups responded significantly less for the devalued liquids during extinction testing, suggesting that their behavior was goal-directed. These results indicate that when outcomes are truly aversive, people under stress are still capable of goal-directed behavior. As such, evidence supporting the alternative dual-process model is strengthened. An additional reacquisition phase was added, in which participants responded similarly as in the test phase suggesting that the outcome was indeed aversive.