A pandemic-related affect gap in risky decisions for self and others.

The early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic exposed large portions of the global populations to increased daily stressors. Research on risky choice in medical contexts suggests that affect-rich choice options promote less-advantageous decision strategies compared with affect-poor options, causing an "affect gap" in decision making. The current experiments (total N = 437, age range: 21-82) sought to test whether negative pandemic-related affect would lower expected-value (EV) maximisation within individuals. In Experiment 1, participants indicated how much they would be willing to pay to avoid specific pandemic experiences (e.g. "not being able to gather in groups"), and then chose among pairs of risky prospects that involved pandemic experiences or subjectively-equivalent monetary losses. EV maximising was lower for pandemic experiences than for equivalent monetary losses. Experiment 2 replicated this finding, and further demonstrated a moderating role of decision perspective. EV maximising was greater in decisions made for another person than in decisions made for oneself. These findings highlight potential strategies for boosting decision making under affect-rich real-world conditions.