{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03089887640449438, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011235955056179775, 'mean_word_length': 5.566820276497696, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Decision-making under stress: Executive functions, analytical intelligence, somatic markers, and personality traits in young adults.

The main goal of the study was to scrutinize mediating and moderating mechanisms identified in line with the predictions of Somatic Marker Hypothesis (SMH) and Dual Process Theory of the effect of acute stress on decision making. The sample group of the research comprised of 61 (31 females, 30 males) healthy university students aged between 18 and 23 (x̄ = 21, SD = 1.28). Data measurement tools were Skin Conductance Response Measurement, Iowa Gambling Test, Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, Wechsler Memory Scale-III Spatial Span Subtest, Stroop Test TBAG Form, Wechsler Adult Intelligence Matrix Reasoning Subtest, Stress Rating Scale, The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, Big Five Personality Traits Scale, Ways of Coping Inventory, Beck Depression Inventory. The findings indicated that acute stress gives rise to decision-making failures by suppressing the SCR emphasized in SMH and mental processes defined in System 2. Furthermore, neuroticism had a moderating role in the relationship between stress and decision-making. Accordingly, the abovementioned theories cannot separately be sufficient to explain decision-making under stress; but, the predictions of these theories can complement each other to thoroughly make out the physiological and cognitive mechanisms of decision-making.