急性应激与风险倾向：兴奋易感性的调节作用

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.00045

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为探索应激对决策的作用机理及其个体差异, 减少工程作业中因应激导致的决策失误, 本研究采用特里尔社会应激测试和气球模拟风险任务考察应激反应与应激下风险倾向的关系, 并探索兴奋易感性在其中的调节作用。研究结果表明, 应激下个体的皮质醇反应越大, 行为越冒险。且这一作用受到兴奋易感性的调节：兴奋易感性较高的个体, 应激下皮质醇反应越大, 行为越冒险;而兴奋易感性较低的个体, 其皮质醇变化不能预测风险倾向。该发现提示了兴奋易感性在应激影响中的重要作用, 也为高压岗位的人员选拔提供了科学启示。

关键词: 急性应激, 风险倾向, 兴奋易感性, 皮质醇, 心率

Abstract:

Operators will inevitably encounter stressful events such as time pressure, high workload, or emergencies in high-risk and even routine factory work. Numerous psychological and post-accident analyses showed that decision-making error under stress is one of the most common causes of industrial accidents. Previous studies have found that individual factors play an essential role in how we feel and react to stress, moderating stress responses and affecting subsequent decision-making. However, as one of these factors that is closely associated with stress and decision-making, ease of excitation (EOE) has rarely been explored. Therefore, we conducted the present study to investigate the influencing mechanism of stress on risk taking and the moderating effect of ease of excitation. We supposed that stress level (indexed by salivary cortisol and heart rate) was correlated with risk-taking behavior, and ease of excitation played a moderating role in this relationship. Individuals with a high level of ease of excitation might be more susceptible to stress responses.

Forty-three male participants were recruited in the study. We adopted the Trier Social Stress Test (TSST) to induce acute psychological stress and collected participants’ salivary cortisol, heart rate and subjective emotional states during the experiment to evaluate their stress responses. The Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART) was applied to measure their risk-taking behavior under stress. The mean adjusted number of pumps across trials was taken as the primary behavioral index. We used the Highly Sensitive Person Scale (HSPS) to evaluate ease of excitation before the stress task to test the moderating effect on the relationship between stress response and risk-taking behavior.

Repeated measure ANOVA revealed that salivary cortisol, heart rate, and negative mood increased significantly from baseline after the stress task and gradually returned to baseline, confirming that the stress manipulation was efficient. Correlation analysis showed that cortisol response was positively correlated with the mean adjusted number of pumps, while heart rate was unrelated. Furthermore, hierarchical multiple regression found that ease of excitation moderated the relationship between the salivary cortisol level and the mean adjusted number of pumps. To interpret the significant moderator effect of ease of excitation, we conducted a simple slope test. Analysis observed that when ease of excitation was one standard deviation below the mean value, the salivary cortisol level could not predict the mean adjusted number of pumps. However, when ease of excitation was one standard deviation above the mean value, the salivary cortisol level could significantly predict the number of pumps. The more salivary cortisol increased, the more did participants pumped. However, ease of excitation did not moderate the relationship between the heart rate and the mean adjusted number of pumps.

Taken together, the current study demonstrates that increased cortisol level under stress positively associates with risk-taking behavior, and ease of excitation moderates the relationship. For individuals with a high level of ease of excitation, the more cortisol they increase, the riskier they are. It may owe to their hyper-sensitivity to internal and external stimuli. These findings highlight the importance of individual differences in understanding the mechanism of stress and provide scientific implications for selecting and training operators in high-pressure positions.

Key words: acute stress, risk taking, ease of excitation, cortisol, heart rate

中图分类号:

B845

王霈珊, 古若雷, 张亮. (2023). 急性应激与风险倾向：兴奋易感性的调节作用. 心理学报, 55(1), 45-54.

WANG Peishan, GU Ruolei, ZHANG Liang. (2023). The relationship between acute stress and risk taking: The moderating effect of ease of excitation. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 55(1), 45-54.

图/表 6

图1 实验总流程注：TSST表示特里尔社会应激测试; BART表示气球模拟风险任务; S1/S2/S3/S4为应激测试前后皮质醇、心率和负性情绪的四次采集点

图2 气球模拟风险实验的流程与界面示意图

图3 应激测试前后的生理和情绪变化：A)唾液皮质醇含量; B)心率; C)负性情绪注：bpm表示心率分钟跳动次数; 误差线表示均值标准误; *表示p < 0.05; ***表示p < 0.001

表1 各变量的描述性统计及相关结果

变量	M	SD	皮质醇峰值变化率		心率峰值变化率		平均打气次数
变量	M	SD	r	95% CI	r	95% CI	r	95% CI
皮质醇峰值变化率	2.07	1.44
心率峰值变化率	0.20	0.13	?0.18	[?0.42, 0.16]
平均打气次数	5.98	1.03	0.31	[?0.06, 0.56]	?0.01	[?0.33, 0.42]
兴奋易感性	46.47	9.85	?0.18	[?0.47, 0.09]	0.34*	[0.05, 0.59]	?0.14	[?0.42, 0.18]

表2 皮质醇预测平均打气次数的分层回归分析

变量	平均打气次数
	模型一				模型二
	B	SE	β	t	B	SE	β	t
第一步
皮质醇峰值变化率	0.21	0.12	0.29	1.80	0.24	0.11	0.34	2.20
兴奋易感性	?0.01	0.02	?0.09	?0.54	0.01	0.018	0.08	0.46
第二步
皮质醇峰值变化率× 兴奋易感性					0.04	0.02	0.39	2.34*
R²	0.10				0.23
ΔR²					0.13
模型F	F(2, 35) = 2.00				F(3, 34) = 3.33^*

图4 在不同兴奋易感性水平上, 应激下的皮质醇变化率与平均打气次数的关系示意图注：EOE为兴奋易感性; EOE M?1SD表示兴奋易感性小于均值一个标准差; EOE M+1SD表示兴奋易感性高于均值一个标准差

参考文献 61

[1]	Ahadi B., & Basharpoor S. (2010). Relationship between sensory processing sensitivity, personality dimensions and mental health. Journal of Applied Sciences, 10(7), 570-574. doi: 10.3923/jas.2010.570.574 doi: 10.3923/jas.2010.570.574 URL
[2]	Aron E. N., & Aron A. (1997). Sensory-processing sensitivity and its relation to introversion and emotionality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(2), 345-368. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.73.2.345 doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.73.2.345 pmid: 9248053
[3]	Bechara A. (2004). The role of emotion in decision-making: Evidence from neurological patients with orbitofrontal damage. Brain and Cognition, 55(1), 30-40. doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2003.04.001 doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2003.04.001 pmid: 15134841
[4]	Buchanan T. W., Bagley S. L., Stansfield R. B., & Preston S. D. (2012). The empathic, physiological resonance of stress. Social Neuroscience, 7(2), 191-201. doi: 10.1080/17470919.2011.588723 doi: 10.1080/17470919.2011.588723 pmid: 21777106
[5]	Buchanan T. W., Laures-Gore J. S., & Duff M. C. (2014). Acute stress reduces speech fluency. Biological Psychology, 97, 60-66. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2014.02.005 doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2014.02.005 pmid: 24555989
[6]	Buckert M., Schwieren C., Kudielka B. M., & Fiebach C. J. (2014). Acute stress affects risk taking but not ambiguity aversion. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 8, 1-11. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2014.00082 doi: 10.3389/fnins.2014.00082
[7]	Chang C. H., Bernard T. E., & Logan J. (2017). Effects of heat stress on risk perceptions and risk taking. Applied Ergonomics, 62, 150-157. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2017.02.018 doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2017.02.018 URL
[8]	Damasio A. R., Tranel D., & Damasio H. C. (1991). Somatic markers and the guidance of behavior:Theory and preliminary testing. In H. S. Levin, H. M. Eisenberg, & A. L. Benton (Eds.), Frontal lobe function and dysfunction (pp.217-229). Oxford University Press.
[9]	Dickerson S. S., & Kemeny M. E. (2004). Acute stressors and cortisol responses: A theoretical integration and synthesis of laboratory research. Psychological Bulletin, 130(3), 355-391. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.130.3.355 doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.130.3.355 pmid: 15122924
[10]	Drexler S. M., & Wolf O. T. (2017). Stress disrupts the reconsolidation of fear memories in men. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 77, 95-104. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2016.11.027 doi: S0306-4530(16)30558-3 pmid: 28024275
[11]	Ellis B., Jackson J., & Boyce W. (2006). The stress response systems: Universality and adaptive individual differences. Developmental Review, 26(2), 175-212. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2006.02.004 doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2006.02.004 URL
[12]	Evers A., Rasche J., & Schabracq M. J. (2008). High sensory- processing sensitivity at work. International Journal of Stress Management, 15(2), 189-198. doi: 10.1037/1072-5245.15.2.189 doi: 10.1037/1072-5245.15.2.189 URL
[13]	Faul F., Erdfelder E., Lang A. G., & Buchner A. (2007). GPower 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods*, 39(2), 175-191. doi: 10.3758/BF03193146 doi: 10.3758/bf03193146 pmid: 17695343
[14]	Fein G., & Chang M. (2008). Smaller feedback ERN amplitudes during the BART are associated with a greater family history density of alcohol problems in treatment-naive alcoholics. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 92(1-3), 141-148. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2007.07.017 doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2007.07.017 URL
[15]	Feldman P. J., Cohen S., Lepore S. J., Matthews K. A., Kamarck T. W., & Marsland A. L. (1999). Negative emotions and acute physiological responses to stress. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 21(3), 216-222. doi: 10.1007/BF02884836 doi: 10.1007/BF02884836 pmid: 10626027
[16]	Gray J. A. (1991). The neuropsychology of temperament. In J. Strelau & A. Angleitner (Eds.), Explorations in temperament: International perspectives on theory and measurement (pp. 105-128). New York: Plenum Press.
[17]	Gu R., Zhang D., Luo Y., Wang H., & Broster L. S. (2018). Predicting risk decisions in a modified balloon analogue risk task: Conventional and single-trial ERP analyses. Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 18(1), 99-116. doi: 10.3758/s13415-017-0555-3 doi: 10.3758/s13415-017-0555-3
[18]	Heinrich H. W. (1931). Industrial accident prevention. New'York: McGraw Hill.
[19]	Hucklebridge F., Clow A., Rahman H., & Evans P. (2000). The cortisol response to normal and nocturnal awakening. Journal of Psychophysiology, 14(1), 24-28. doi: 10.1027//0269-8803.14.1.24 doi: 10.1027//0269-8803.14.1.24 URL
[20]	Jiang C., Buchanan T. W., Yao Z., Zhang K., Wu J., & Zhang L. (2017). Acute psychological stress disrupts attentional bias to threat-related stimuli. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 14607. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-14138-w doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-14138-w pmid: 29097660
[21]	Kagan J., & Snidman N. (2004). The long shadow of temperament. Belknap Press/Harvard University Press.
[22]	Kandasamy N., Hardy B., Page L., Schaffner M., Graggaber J., Powlson A. S., … Coates J. (2014). Cortisol shifts financial risk preferences. PNAS, 111(9), 3608-3613. doi:10.1073/pnas.1317908111 doi: 10.1073/pnas.1317908111 pmid: 24550472
[23]	Kessler L., Hewig J., Weichold K., Silbereisen R. K., & Miltner W. H. R. (2017). Feedback negativity and decision- making behavior in the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART) in adolescents is modulated by peer presence. Psychophysiology, 54(2), 260-269. doi: 10.1111/psyp.12783 doi: 10.1111/psyp.12783 pmid: 27781281
[24]	Kiat J., Straley E., & Cheadle J. E. (2016). Escalating risk and the moderating effect of resistance to peer influence on the P200 and feedback-related negativity. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 11(3), 377-386. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsv121 doi: 10.1093/scan/nsv121 pmid: 26416785
[25]	Kirschbaum C., Kudielka B. M., Gaab J., Schommer N. C., & Hellhammer D. H. (1999). Impact of gender, menstrual cycle phase, and oral contraceptives on the activity of the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal axis. Psychosomatic Medicine, 61(2), 154-162. doi: 10.1097/00006842-199903000-00006 doi: 10.1097/00006842-199903000-00006 pmid: 10204967
[26]	Kluen L. M., Agorastos A., Wiedemann K., & Schwabe L. (2017). Cortisol boosts risky decision-making behavior in men but not in women. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 84, 181-189. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2017.07.240 doi: S0306-4530(17)30344-X pmid: 28750292
[27]	Kudielka B. M., Hellhammer D. H., & Wüst S. (2009). Why do we respond so differently? Reviewing determinants of human salivary cortisol responses to challenge. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 34(1), 2-18. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2008.10.004 doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2008.10.004 pmid: 19041187
[28]	Kudielka B. M., & Kirschbaum C. (2005). Sex differences in HPA axis responses to stress: A review. Biological Psychology, 69(1), 113-132. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2004.11.009 doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2004.11.009 pmid: 15740829
[29]	Kudielka B. M., & Kirschbaum C. (2007). Biological bases of the stress response. In M. Al'Absi (Ed.), Stress and addiction: biological and psychological mechanisms (pp. 3-19). Elsevier Science & Technology.
[30]	Lejuez C. W., Read J. P., Kahler C. W., Richards J. B., Ramsey S. E., Stuart G. L., … Brown R. A. (2002). Evaluation of a behavioral measure of risk taking: The Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8(2), 75-84. doi: 10.1037/1076-898x.8.2.75 doi: 10.1037/1076-898X.8.2.75 URL
[31]	Lin L., Leung A. W. S., Wu J., & Zhang L. (2020). Individual differences under acute stress: Higher cortisol responders performs better on N-back task in young men. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 150, 20-28. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2020.01.006 doi: S0167-8760(20)30019-2 pmid: 31987870
[32]	Liss M., Mailloux J., & Erchull M. J. (2008). The relationships between sensory processing sensitivity, alexithymia, autism, depression, and anxiety. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(3), 255-259. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2008.04.009 doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2008.04.009 URL
[33]	Luo Y., Gao P., Zhao S., & Zhang Y. (2017). How acute stress affects attentional engagement and attentional disengagement towards threat: A neural mechanism study. Advances in Psychological Science, 25(3), 381. doi: 10.3724/sp.j.1042.2017.00381 doi: 10.3724/sp.j.1042.2017.00381 URL
[34]	McLean M. A., Niknafs N., Scoten O. C., Chau C. M. Y., MacKay M., Weinberg J., … Grunau R. E. (2020). Sensory processing and cortisol at age 4 years: Procedural pain- related stress in children born very preterm. Developmental Psychobiology, 63(5), 915-930. doi:10.1002/dev.22079 doi: 10.1002/dev.22079 URL
[35]	Meyerson J., Gelkopf M., Eli I., & Uziel N. (2020). Burnout and professional quality of life among Israeli dentists: The role of sensory processing sensitivity. International Dental Journal, 70(1), 29-37. doi:10.1111/idj.12523 doi: 10.1111/idj.12523 pmid: 31560417
[36]	Naqvi N., Shiv B., & Bechara A. (2006). The role of emotion in decision making: A cognitive neuroscience perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(5), 260-264. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00448.x URL
[37]	Orasanu J., Martin L., & Davidson J. (2001). Cognitive and contextual factors in aviation accidents:Decision errors. In E. Salas & G. Klein (Eds.), Linking expertise and naturalistic decision making (pp. 209-225). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
[38]	Pabst S., Brand M., & Wolf O. T. (2013). Stress and decision making: A few minutes make all the difference. Behavioural Brain Research, 250, 39-45. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2013.04.046 doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2013.04.046 pmid: 23643690
[39]	Petrowski K., Herold U., Joraschky P., Wittchen H. U., & Kirschbaum C. (2010). A striking pattern of cortisol non- responsiveness to psychosocial stress in patients with panic disorder with concurrent normal cortisol awakening responses. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 35(3), 414-421. doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2009.08.003 doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2009.08.003 pmid: 19913360
[40]	Putman P., Antypa N., Crysovergi P., & van der Does W. A. (2010). Exogenous cortisol acutely influences motivated decision making in healthy young men. Psychopharmacology, 208(2), 257-263. doi: 10.1007/s00213-009-1725-y doi: 10.1007/s00213-009-1725-y pmid: 19953227
[41]	Ramsey J. D., Burford C. L., Beshir M. Y., & Jensen R. C. (1983). Effects of workplace thermal conditions on safe work behavior. Journal of Safety Research, 14(3), 105-114. doi: 10.1016/j.jsr.2013.07.001 doi: 10.1016/j.jsr.2013.07.001 URL
[42]	Rimmele U., Seiler R., Marti B., Wirtz P. H., Ehlert U., & Heinrichs M. (2009). The level of physical activity affects adrenal and cardiovascular reactivity to psychosocial stress. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 34(2), 190-198. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2008.08.023 doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2008.08.023 pmid: 18922645
[43]	Rizzo-Sierra C. V. (2012). The human sensory processing sensitivity:Biological implications for introversion, submission and creativity. In M. M. Shoja, R. S. Tubbs, M. Ghanei, P. S. Agutter & K. Ghabili (Eds.), Hypotheses in clinical medicine (pp. 275-298). Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated.
[44]	Rosalky D. S., Hostler D., & Webb H. E. (2017). Work duration does not affect cortisol output in experienced firefighters performing live burn drills. Applied Ergonomics, 58, 583-591. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2016.04.008 doi: S0003-6870(16)30072-2 pmid: 27146634
[45]	Singer N., Sommer M., Dohnel K., Zankert S., Wust S., & Kudielka B. M. (2017). Acute psychosocial stress and everyday moral decision-making in young healthy men: The impact of cortisol. Hormones and Behavior, 93, 72-81. doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2017.05.002 doi: S0018-506X(16)30504-9 pmid: 28495558
[46]	Smolewska K. A., McCabe S. B., & Woody E. Z. (2006). A psychometric evaluation of the Highly Sensitive Person Scale: The components of sensory-processing sensitivity and their relation to the BIS/BAS and “Big Five”. Personality and Individual Differences, 40(6), 1269-1279. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2005.09.022 doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2005.09.022 URL
[47]	Starcke K., & Brand M. (2016). Effects of stress on decisions under uncertainty: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 142(9), 909-933. doi: 10.1037/bul0000060 doi: 10.1037/bul0000060 pmid: 27213236
[48]	Starcke K., Wolf O. T., Markowitsch H. J., & Brand M. (2008). Anticipatory stress influences decision making under explicit risk conditions. Behavioral Neuroscience, 122(6), 1352-1360. doi: 10.1037/a0013281 pmid: 19045954
[49]	Svenson O., & Benson L. (1993). Time pressure and stress in human judgment and decision making. Springer US.
[50]	Takahashi T., Kawashima I., Nitta Y., & Kumano H. (2020). Dispositional mindfulness mediates the relationship between sensory-processing sensitivity and trait anxiety, well-being, and psychosomatic symptoms. Psychological Reports, 123(4), 1083-1098. doi:10.1177/0033294119841848 doi: 10.1177/0033294119841848 pmid: 31046626
[51]	van den Bos R., Harteveld M., & Stoop H. (2009). Stress and decision-making in humans: Performance is related to cortisol reactivity, albeit differently in men and women. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 34(10), 1449-1458. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2009.04.016 doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2009.04.016 pmid: 19497677
[52]	Vander Elst T., Sercu M., van den Broeck A., van Hoof E., Baillien E., & Godderis L. (2019). Who is more susceptible to job stressors and resources? Sensory-processing sensitivity as a personal resource and vulnerability factor. PLoS One, 14(11), e0225103. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0225103 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225103 URL
[53]	Watson D., Clark L. A., & Tellegen A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063-1070. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063 doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063 pmid: 3397865
[54]	Wemm S. E., & Wulfert E. (2017). Effects of acute stress on decision making. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 42(1), 1-12. doi:10.1007/s10484-016-9347-8 doi: 10.1007/s10484-016-9347-8 pmid: 28083720
[55]	White T. L., Lejuez C. W., & de Wit H. (2008). Test-retest characteristics of the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). Experimental & Clinical Psychopharmacology, 16(6), 565-570. doi: 10.1037/a0014083 doi: 10.1037/a0014083
[56]	Wise R. J., Phung A. L., Labuschagne I., & Stout J. C. (2014). Differential effects of social stress on laboratory- based decision-making are related to both impulsive personality traits and gender. Cognition and Emotion, 29(8), 1475-1485. doi: 10.1080/02699931.2014.989815 doi: 10.1080/02699931.2014.989815 URL
[57]	Wu J., Sun X., Wang L., Zhang L., Fernandez G., & Yao Z. (2017). Error consciousness predicts physiological response to an acute psychosocial stressor in men. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 83, 84-90. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2017.05.029 doi: S0306-4530(17)30184-1 pmid: 28601751
[58]	Wu X., Zhang R., Li X., Feng T., & Yan N. (2021). The moderating role of sensory processing sensitivity in the link between stress and depression: A VBM study. Neuropsychologia, 150, 107704. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2020.107704 doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2020.107704 URL
[59]	Yamakawa K., Ohira H., Matsunaga M., & Isowa T. (2016). Prolonged effects of acute stress on decision-making under risk: A human psychophysiological study. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10(82), 444. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00444 doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00444
[60]	Yano K., & Oishi K. (2018). The relationships among daily exercise, sensory-processing sensitivity, and depressive tendency in Japanese university students. Personality and Individual Differences, 127, 49-53. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2018.01.047 doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2018.01.047 URL
[61]	Zhang L., Duan H., Qin S., Yuan Y., Buchanan T. W., Zhang K., & Wu J. (2015). High cortisol awakening response is associated with impaired error monitoring and decreased post-error adjustment. Stress, 18(5), 561-568. doi: 10.3109/10253890.2015.1058356 doi: 10.3109/10253890.2015.1058356 pmid: 26181101