Trapped in the Rabbit Hole: Life History Strategies Modulate the Impact of Mild Stress on Hedonic Consumption

The current research tests how and when consumer life history strategies (LHS) – short-term, reward-sensitive (fast) vs. long-term, goal-oriented (slow) foci- might drive food related decision making. Previous studies have pointed to the role of presently experienced stress, adversity or scarcity and have shown that under high levels of acute stress and anxiety, fast and slow strategists sometimes diverge in opposing directions –consumers with a fast LHS become more impulsive, reward seeking and less future oriented under severe stress or anxiety, whereas consumers with a slow LHS show the opposite and become more deliberate, less reward seeking and more future oriented (Griskevicius et al. 2011b; Mittal and Griskevicius 2016; Mittal et al.2015). Yet, while illuminating, these studies have typically resorted to relatively “dramatic”, atypical, and impactful sources of stress and anxiety, such as (scenarios about) a severe economic crisis (e.g., featuring home foreclosure signs, unemployment lines, and emptied office spaces) or the salience of violence and death in one’s life and environment (Griskevicius et al. 2011a; Griskevicius et al.2011b; Mittal and Griskevicius 2014). Thus, it is unknown whether, and if so to what extent, the distinction between a fast vs. slow LHS remains a meaningful predictor of health-related decision making under more mild, mundane conditions of stress, as faced by the bulk of consumers on a daily basis. Research suggests that it might –but not for everyone.