View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The Role of Threat Sensitivity as a Mediator in the Relationship between Cognitive Conflict and Risk-Taking Behavior in Young Adults

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Role of Threat Sensitivity as a Mediator in the Relationship between Cognitive Conflict and Risk-Taking Behavior in Young Adults
Language: English
Authors: Yashasvi Walia, Rajnish Kumar Gupta (ORCID 0000-0001-9354-360X)
Source: Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications. 2025 10.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 8
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, Young Adults, College Students, Interference (Learning), Risk Assessment, Risk, Student Behavior, Cognitive Processes, Psychological Patterns, Decision Making, Intention
Geographic Terms: India
Assessment and Survey Identifiers: Stroop Color Word Test
DOI: 10.1186/s41235-025-00673-y
ISSN: 2365-7464
Abstract: Cognitive conflict and risk-taking behaviors are linked in complex ways. This study examined whether threat sensitivity explains the relationship between conflict monitoring and risk-taking in young adults. A sample of 204 university students (ages 18-25, mean = 20.55, SD = 2.14) completed a computerized Stroop task (cognitive conflict), the RT-18 questionnaire (risk-taking), and the TF-44 Trait Fear Scale (dispositional threat sensitivity). Pearson correlations indicated that greater Stroop interference score (higher conflict) was associated with lower self-reported risk-taking and higher threat sensitivity. In turn, higher threat sensitivity predicted reduced risk-taking. Mediation analysis confirmed that cognitive conflict influenced risk-taking indirectly through threat sensitivity. The direct effect of conflict on risk-taking was non-significant, whereas the indirect path via threat sensitivity was significant, suggesting an indirect-only (complete) mediation. These results suggest that individuals experiencing higher internal conflict become more vigilant toward potential threats, which in turn deters them from risky actions. Understanding this pathway could guide interventions (i.e., cognitive control or anxiety-management training) to reduce maladaptive risk behaviors in young adults.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1484438
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHlVWPgbn6Tiu2DsrW1tiFyAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDJkIXT0B9-ANOPAN6wIBEICBm7F3nvQZcMp6azYijfZRbw7PGE8pZGT5deKVi1FUuqSZUzny7vSoUtTUF2VF4WcugY_CybKrNhxHqhh3rBwKCpO64Oe5S28s8C0PYN5ZcOCjW3l7hAWT0UOKcU4xaOmkCoeMVm4M0pYGv2542ttS116s6QrnBVJqhNUanj8TlgG3Wo7Qr0yAlvqxpXAjeSxGU2YT54VoqIxKOp90
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0188150409;[k1e6]22sep.25;2025Sep25.05:40;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0188150409-1">The role of threat sensitivity as a mediator in the relationship between cognitive conflict and risk-taking behavior in young adults </title> <p>Cognitive conflict and risk-taking behaviors are linked in complex ways. This study examined whether threat sensitivity explains the relationship between conflict monitoring and risk-taking in young adults. A sample of 204 university students (ages 18–25, mean = 20.55, SD = 2.14) completed a computerized Stroop task (cognitive conflict), the RT-18 questionnaire (risk-taking), and the TF-44 Trait Fear Scale (dispositional threat sensitivity). Pearson correlations indicated that greater Stroop interference score (higher conflict) was associated with lower self-reported risk-taking and higher threat sensitivity. In turn, higher threat sensitivity predicted reduced risk-taking. Mediation analysis confirmed that cognitive conflict influenced risk-taking indirectly through threat sensitivity. The direct effect of conflict on risk-taking was non-significant, whereas the indirect path via threat sensitivity was significant, suggesting an indirect-only (complete) mediation. These results suggest that individuals experiencing higher internal conflict become more vigilant toward potential threats, which in turn deters them from risky actions. Understanding this pathway could guide interventions (i.e., cognitive control or anxiety-management training) to reduce maladaptive risk behaviors in young adults.</p> <p>Keywords: Cognitive conflict; Risk-taking behavior; Threat sensitivity; Mediation; Good health and well-being; Psychology and Cognitive Sciences Psychology</p> <hd id="AN0188150409-2">Significance statement</hd> <p>Young adults often engage in risk-taking behaviors, such as substance use, reckless driving, or unsafe social practices, that pose significant public health and personal risks. While much research has focused on personality traits or peer influence, this study explores a deeper, less understood question: How do internal cognitive processes like conflict monitoring influence risk-related decisions, and what psychological mechanisms mediate this relationship? This research examines the role of threat sensitivity, a biologically rooted tendency to perceive and respond to danger, as a key factor linking cognitive conflict to risk-taking. Using a Stroop task to induce cognitive conflict, along with validated measures of risk-taking and threat sensitivity, the study provides empirical evidence that cognitive conflict indirectly decreases risk behavior by increasing vigilance toward threats. These findings improve our understanding of how cognitive control and emotional regulation together influence real-world decisions. They also have practical implications-interventions that enhance cognitive conflict resolution or modify threat appraisal (e.g., through mindfulness, executive training, or anxiety management) may help reduce harmful risk-taking among youth. The work connects psychological theory with societal needs, contributing to "use-inspired basic research." It highlights a cognitive-affective mechanism that could be leveraged to promote safer behavior during a critical developmental stage.</p> <hd id="AN0188150409-3">Introduction</hd> <p>Cognitive conflict is a psychological state that arises when an individual's existing beliefs, ideas, or actions are inconsistent with new information or experiences (Waxer & Morton, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref1">41</reflink>]). Piaget ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref2">27</reflink>]) argued that such conflict drives cognitive development by prompting individuals to adjust their mental schemas. Contemporary studies suggest that conflict can elicit epistemic emotions (i.e., confusion, curiosity) that deepen task engagement. A prototypical example of such a task is the Stroop color-word task, in which participants must name the ink color of a word while ignoring its semantic meaning. Stroop tasks index the conflict involved in overriding a prepotent response and require continuous monitoring of cognitive control (Scarpina & Tagini, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref3">33</reflink>]). Prior work showed that Stroop-induced conflict increases sympathetic arousal, anxiety and frustration (Hoshikawa & Yamamoto, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref4">11</reflink>]). However, the effect of conflict on judgment or performance depends on its intensity; moderate conflict often improves decisions, whereas excessive conflict can impair them. For instance, moderate task conflict can enhance performance, but intense conflict tends to increase stress and hinder outcomes (De Dreu & Weingart, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref5">6</reflink>]; Parayitam & Dooley, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref6">26</reflink>]). In educational contexts, eliciting cognitive conflict can foster conceptual change, but if conflict remains unresolved it may block learning (Limón, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref7">17</reflink>]). Together, these findings indicate that cognitive conflict influences how people adapt their thinking, but its benefits depend on effective conflict management.</p> <p>Adolescence and young adulthood are periods of uneven brain maturation, with subcortical reward or emotion systems developing faster than prefrontal cognitive control regions (Balogh et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref8">1</reflink>]; Steinberg, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref9">37</reflink>]). This imbalance contributes to typical increases in risk-taking behavior (e.g., substance use, reckless driving) during these periods. Nonetheless, higher-order cognitive processes still shape how risks are perceived and evaluated (Frederick, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref10">8</reflink>]). For example, adolescents' ability to resolve emotional conflict (measured by an emotional Stroop task) predicts their real-world risk-taking better than their ability to resolve non-emotional conflict (Botdorf et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref11">2</reflink>]). Similarly, meta-analysis found that lower general cognitive ability often leads to decision errors resembling risk-taking in experiments (Mechera-Ostrovsky et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref12">22</reflink>]). These observations suggest that risk behaviors can arise from decision-making difficulties or lack of cognitive control as well as from true risk preferences.</p> <p>A key factor influencing risk-taking is threat sensitivity, defined as the dispositional tendency to perceive potential danger and respond with fear or vigilance (March et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref13">21</reflink>]). This concept is rooted in Gray's reinforcement sensitivity theory (RST). In RST, the behavioral inhibition system (BIS) regulates responses to conflict and punishment cues by increasing vigilance and behavioral inhibition (Gray & McNaughton, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref14">9</reflink>]). Under threat, the BIS induces caution, risk aversion, and heightened anxiety, aligning closely with the concept of threat sensitivity. Thus, individuals with a highly sensitive BIS are more prone to perceive and react to threatening cues, which can limit their risk-taking. In young adults, BIS activity has been linked to elevated anxiety, hypervigilance, and internal conflict in risky situations (Corr, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref15">4</reflink>]). Understanding BIS, therefore, provides a neurobiological framework for interpreting threat sensitivity and its potential mediating role between cognitive conflict and risk behavior.</p> <p>Although cognitive conflict, risk-taking, and threat sensitivity have been studied extensively individually, their interplay remains unclear. No prior research has directly tested whether threat sensitivity connects these constructs. For example, Schacter et al. ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref16">34</reflink>]) found that social threat sensitivity mediates the association between peer victimization and adolescent anxiety, suggesting a mediating role for threat sensitivity in psychological outcomes. Understanding the role of threat sensitivity in the effect of cognitive conflict on risk behavior is important, as it could reveal mechanisms underlying adaptive versus risky decision-making. The present study thus examined whether threat sensitivity explains the relationship between cognitive conflict (measured by Stroop interference) and risk-taking in young adults. We hypothesized that greater cognitive conflict would be associated with higher threat sensitivity, which in turn would be associated with lower risk-taking. We tested this mediation hypothesis using a simple mediation model. By clarifying this pathway, we aim to inform interventions (i.e., enhancing cognitive control or modulating threat appraisal) to reduce maladaptive risk behaviors in youth.</p> <hd id="AN0188150409-4">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188150409-5">Sample</hd> <p>The study included 204 participants (118 males and 86 females) recruited from a private university in northwestern India. The choice of sample size was based on simulation studies, suggesting that a sample of approximately 150 would have a desired statistical power of 80% to identify small to medium-sized mediation effects (Newar et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref17">25</reflink>]; Schoemann et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref18">35</reflink>]). Participants included Native Asians, aged 18 to 25 (<emph>mean</emph> ± <emph>S.D.</emph> = <emph>20.55</emph> ± <emph>2.14</emph>). Participation was voluntary and anonymous, and no monetary compensation was provided. The inclusion criteria were an age range of 18–25, an education level of undergraduate or postgraduate, normal or corrected-to-normal hearing and vision, as well as a basic understanding of the English language and computer systems for performing the behavioral assessments. Participants who had a self-reported history of neurological or psychiatric disorders were excluded from the study.</p> <hd id="AN0188150409-6">Measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188150409-7">Stroop task</hd> <p>Cognitive conflict was assessed using a computerized color-word Stroop task using Psytoolkit (Stoet, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref19">38</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref20">39</reflink>]). In line with recent methodological recommendations (Viviani et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref21">40</reflink>]), the task used four color-words (red, green, blue, and yellow), each appearing in four ink colors, with an equal number of congruent and incongruent trials. Trials were randomized to avoid predictable sequences, and practice trials were given to stabilize performance. The stimuli were shown in full-screen mode on a black background at a resolution of 1920 × 1080 pixels. Initially, a fixation stimulus, represented by a plus sign, appeared in the center of the screen for 500 ms. Then task condition stimulus (congruent/ incongruent) was presented until the participant responded or a 2000 ms time-out passed. After each response, feedback was displayed for 500 ms (Fig. 1).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Stroop task. Note. The dimensions in the figure are for representational purposes only and are not to scale</p> <p>In our study, the Stroop interference score was used as the index of cognitive conflict, calculated as the difference in average response time (RT) between incongruent and congruent trials (Bugg et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref22">3</reflink>]). To get the Stroop interference score, we included only correct trials while excluding the inaccurate and timeout trials in each condition, consistent with the standard practice (MacLeod, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref23">20</reflink>]). RT on error trials are typically shorter due to speed–accuracy trade-offs and do not reflect genuine conflict processing. Restricting analyses to correct responses ensures that interference effects capture cognitive control demands rather than attentional lapses or guessing. Larger Stroop interference indicated greater processing conflict.</p> <hd id="AN0188150409-8">RT-18</hd> <p>The RT-18 is a binary response questionnaire with 18 items assessing risk-taking behavior in young adults. It offers characteristic statements (such as "I frequently do things on impulse") that participants can agree or disagree with by responding yes or no. The scale has demonstrated excellent test–retest reliability (<emph>r</emph> = <emph>.94</emph>) and high internal consistency (<emph>Cronbach's alpha</emph> = <emph>.80</emph>–<emph>.89</emph>) (De Haan et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref24">7</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0188150409-9">Trait fear scale (TF-44)</hd> <p>Dispositional threat sensitivity was measured using the TF-44 Scale (Kramer et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref25">14</reflink>]). It is a 44-item scale that uses a 4-point Likert scale ("True," "Somewhat True," "Somewhat False," and "False"). A higher score on the scale indicates heightened threat sensitivity.</p> <hd id="AN0188150409-10">Procedure</hd> <p>After obtaining informed consent, each participant was invited to the laboratory for a detailed briefing about the study. Administration of all tests was conducted in a quiet and well-lit room. Participants first completed demographic and questionnaire measures (RT-18 and TF-44). Next, the Stroop task was administered on a computer. Following instructions and six practice trials, participants completed 96 trials, which were presented randomly and evenly divided between congruent and incongruent conditions.</p> <hd id="AN0188150409-11">Data analysis</hd> <p>Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, version 20). A Pearson correlation was performed to measure the bivariate association between variables. Mediation analyses were performed using the Process Macro v4.2 (Hayes, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref26">10</reflink>]). We used Model 4 with cognitive conflict (Stroop interference) as the independent variable, risk-taking behavior as the dependent variable, and threat sensitivity as the mediator. Bootstrapping (5000 samples) was used to generate bias-corrected 95% confidence intervals for indirect effects. Statistical significance was set at <emph>p</emph> <.05.</p> <hd id="AN0188150409-12">Result</hd> <p>Descriptive statistics and correlations are shown in Table 1. To illustrate the Stroop task performance, Fig. 2 shows mean RT (in milliseconds) and accuracy rates (in percentage) for congruent and incongruent trials. As expected, incongruent trials elicited slower RTs and lower accuracy compared to congruent trials. Correlation analysis revealed that greater cognitive conflict (higher Stroop interference) was significantly associated with lower risk-taking (<emph>r</emph> = −.349, <emph>p</emph> <.001) and higher threat sensitivity (<emph>r</emph> =.915, <emph>p</emph> <.001). Additionally, threat sensitivity was negatively correlated with risk-taking (<emph>r</emph> = −.393, <emph>p</emph> <.001). These patterns suggest that participants experiencing more conflict reported higher vigilance toward threats and less inclination to take risks.</p> <p>Table 1 Descriptive statistics and correlation between cognitive conflict, risk-taking behavior, and threat sensitivity (<emph>N</emph> = 204)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Variables</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Scores</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Cognitive conflict</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Risk taking</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Threat sensitivity</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>mean</p></th><th align="left"><p>S.D</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Cognitive Conflict (in milliseconds)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>110.95</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>46.06</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>−.349***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.915***</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Risk taking</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>10.75</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.43</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char"><p>−.393***</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Threat sensitivity</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>55.73</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>20.37</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>***<emph>p</emph> < 0.001</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 Stroop task performance (N = 204). Note. Error bars represent standard deviations</p> <p>We then conducted the mediation analysis to determine whether cognitive conflict influences risk-taking behavior indirectly through threat sensitivity (Fig. 3). Mediation analysis indicated that threat sensitivity fully mediated the relationship between cognitive conflict and risk-taking behavior. First, where cognitive conflict significantly predicted threat <emph>sensitivity </emph>(<emph>path a: B</emph> =.405, <emph>t</emph> = 32.336, <emph>p</emph> <.001). Second, when threat sensitivity was included in the model, cognitive conflict no longer significantly predicted risk-taking (<emph>direct effect c′: B</emph> =.003, <emph>t</emph> =.403, <emph>p</emph> =.687). In contrast, threat sensitivity significantly predicted risk-taking (path B: <emph>p</emph> <.001). The indirect effect of cognitive conflict on risk-taking via threat sensitivity was significant (<emph>B</emph> = −.022, 95% CI [−.036, −.007]). Together, these results indicate a complete (indirect-only) mediation where cognitive conflict influenced risk-taking entirely through its effect on threat sensitivity. Table 2 reports the mediation regression coefficients and confidence intervals.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 3 Conceptual mediation model</p> <p>Table 2 Mediating analysis between cognitive conflict, risk-taking behavior, and threat sensitivity (<emph>N</emph> = 204)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Effect</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Unstandardized Coefficient (B)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Std. Error</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p><italic>t</italic>-value</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p><italic>p</italic> value</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>CI<sub>95</sub></p></th></tr><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Lower limit</p></th><th align="left"><p>Upper limit</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Direct</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.003</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.009</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.403</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.687</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.013</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.02</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Indirect</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.022</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char"><p>−.036</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.007</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Total</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.018</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.003</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 5.3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> <.001</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.025</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.012</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>*Based on 5000 bootstrap samples</p> <hd id="AN0188150409-13">Discussion</hd> <p>The current study examined the role of cognitive conflict in predicting risk-taking behavior among college students, and whether threat sensitivity mediates this relationship. Consistent with our hypotheses, Stroop-based conflict was inversely related to risk-taking behavior; however, this relationship was indirect, mediated through threat sensitivity. Individuals with higher conflict showed greater threat sensitivity, and those with greater threat sensitivity reported lower risk-taking. In mediation terms, any effect of conflict on risk-taking was fully explained by threat sensitivity, indicating complete mediation (MacKinnon et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref27">18</reflink>]).</p> <p>Our findings are supported by existing research on cognitive control and risky behavior. Botdorf et al. ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref28">2</reflink>]) reported that adolescents' risk-taking was predicted by their control over emotional conflict, but not by non-emotional conflict, highlighting that emotional factors mediate the conflict–risk link. Similarly, Romer et al. ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref29">30</reflink>]) found that executive cognitive functions influence risk-taking indirectly through impulsivity rather than exerting a direct effect. These studies imply that neutral conflict resolution alone has a weak direct link to risk behaviors, aligning with our finding that cognitive conflict predicts risk-taking only through an emotional or attentional factor (threat sensitivity). Consistent with this view, Jusyte et al. ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref30">12</reflink>]) reported that convicted offenders experienced less cognitive conflict when breaking rules, indicating a tendency to ignore internal checks on risky behavior. In line with these results, our data showed that lower Stroop interference was associated with higher risk-taking, consistent with the notion that diminished internal conflict facilitates risk engagement.</p> <p>From a theoretical perspective, our findings align with Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory. According to this theory, a highly sensitive BIS (as measured by our threat-sensitivity scale) heightens conflict monitoring and behavioral inhibition under threat. This, in turn, reduces risky actions. Thus, individuals experiencing more cognitive conflict may become more vigilant about potential dangers, leading them to avoid risks. Recent neurocognitive models suggest that BIS activity interacts with executive control systems to regulate decision-making under uncertainty or punishment (Corr & McNaughton, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref31">5</reflink>]), a framework supported by our findings. In effect, the path from cognitive conflict to risk behavior in our data was governed not by conflict load alone but by the BIS-mediated emotional reactivity (threat sensitivity) that conflict induced.</p> <p>The complete mediation suggests two pathways by which cognitive conflict ultimately shapes risk behavior. First, cognitive conflict → threat sensitivity. We observed that participants experiencing greater Stroop interference (more conflict) reported significantly higher threat sensitivity. This may indicate that encountering internal conflict triggers a general state of alertness or uncertainty, making individuals more vigilant toward potential external threats. In other words, dealing with conflicting information might prime the brain's threat detection systems. Second, threat sensitivity → risk-taking behavior: We also found that higher threat sensitivity was associated with lower risk-taking. This implies that individuals who are more sensitive to danger tend to avoid risky choices. Heightened threat awareness acts as a protective factor, controlling impulsive or hazardous behaviors. These findings aligned with previous work, such as Ristvedt ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref32">28</reflink>]), discussed how individuals who underplay threats (low threat sensitivity) often engage in extreme risk-taking, whereas those high in anxiety avoid risks. Similarly, Ristvedt et al. ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref33">29</reflink>]) found that people with low trait anxiety (i.e., low threat sensitivity) were more likely to neglect medical risks. Laycock et al. ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref34">15</reflink>]) showed that under threat, decision-makers made more erratic, short-term-focused choices, illustrating how threat cues alone can disrupt planning. Our results reinforce that those predisposed to ignore threats are freer to take risks, while sensitive individuals are more cautious.</p> <p>An important nuance in our results is the pattern of a suppression effect in the mediation. The total (unmediated) effect of cognitive conflict on risk-taking was significantly negative, but when threat sensitivity was included in the model, the direct effect (c′) became slightly positive (though nonsignificant). Such a reversal in effect sign is characteristic of a suppressor-variable process. In mediation terms, suppression occurs when the indirect effect operates in the opposite direction to the total effect, so that including the mediator strengthens or reverses the apparent direct effect. Here, threat sensitivity acted as a suppressor: when it was accounted for, the negative conflict-risk association was essentially "unmasked" through the indirect path, and the direct conflict-risk path was neutralized. This means that the inverse relationship between conflict and risk-taking only manifests when viewed through the pathway of threat sensitivity. Such suppression effects have been documented in mediation analyses (MacKinnon et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref35">19</reflink>]; Rucker et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref36">31</reflink>]) and underscore the importance of examining indirect pathways even when direct effects seem counterintuitive. In our case, these findings highlight that cognitive conflict influences risk-taking predominantly via emotional and attentional processes, rather than through a direct cognitive effect.</p> <p>It is important to note that conflict does not invariably produce anxiety or negative affect. Some evidence suggests that successfully overcoming conflict can enhance positive emotion and motivation (Schouppe et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref37">36</reflink>]). Thus, conflict may trigger both aversive and rewarding experiences depending on context and coping resources. Our findings highlight one pathway where conflict heightening threat sensitivity, which in turn reduces risk-taking. However, they do not exclude the possibility that in other situations, individuals may cope with anxiety by engaging in risky behaviors (such as drinking alcohol as self-medication). Future work should therefore examine both protective and maladaptive coping responses to conflict-induced affects.</p> <p>We acknowledge a few limitations in this study. First, all measures were self-reported (except the Stroop), which may introduce response biases. Second, our sample was relatively homogeneous (young university students from one region), limiting generalizability. Third, we used a single task to index cognitive conflict. While widely used, this may not capture all facets of real-world conflict processing. Future research should employ multiple conflict paradigms (e.g., go/no-go or flanker tasks) and sample from diverse populations (including community and clinical samples). Incorporating other potential mediators or moderators (e.g., impulsivity, reward sensitivity) and using longitudinal designs could further clarify how these mechanisms evolve and interact over time.</p> <p>In summary, our study identifies threat sensitivity as a key mechanism linking cognitive conflict to risk-taking behavior in young adults. When people experience high cognitive conflict, they tend to become more sensitive to potential threats, which in turn suppresses their willingness to take risks. These findings highlight that cognitive challenges influence risk-taking behavior primarily through emotional and motivational pathways. For instance, anxiety and threat-related vigilance engage conflict-monitoring regions i.e., anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and insula, that bias risky decision-making (Nash et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref38">24</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref39">23</reflink>]), while approach-motivated individuals may take more risks under anxiety to regulate affect (Leota et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref40">16</reflink>]). Similarly, executive control has been shown to moderate the influence of reward sensitivity on adolescent risk-taking (Kim-Spoon et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref41">13</reflink>]), and reduced error-monitoring signals are linked to higher sensation-seeking and risky choices (Santesso & Segalowitz, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref42">32</reflink>]). From a practical standpoint, interventions aiming to reduce maladaptive risk-taking could benefit from targeting both cognitive control and threat appraisal. For example, training programs that improve conflict monitoring or instruct strategies for managing anxiety may help at-risk youth make safer decisions. In educational and clinical contexts, assessing individuals' threat sensitivity could inform personalized support, those with low threat sensitivity might benefit from heightened awareness of consequences, whereas highly sensitive individuals might need help coping with anxiety and uncertainty. Overall, integrating cognitive control and emotional appraisal perspectives may yield the most effective approaches to promoting adaptive decision-making in adolescents and young adults.</p> <hd id="AN0188150409-14">Author contributions</hd> <p>Conceptualization: RKG and YW; Data collection and analysis: YW and RKG; Writing: RKG and YW; Supervision: RKG.</p> <hd id="AN0188150409-15">Funding</hd> <p>Open access funding provided by Manipal University Jaipur. None.</p> <hd id="AN0188150409-16">Data availability</hd> <p>The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on a reasonable request.</p> <hd id="AN0188150409-17">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188150409-18">Ethical approval</hd> <p>The institutional ethics committee approved the study (<emph>Ref. No. MUJ/SHSS/PSY/2023/077, dated August 3, 2023</emph>). All participants provided a written informed consent form.</p> <hd id="AN0188150409-19">Consent for publication</hd> <p>Not Applicable.</p> <hd id="AN0188150409-20">Competing interests</hd> <p>The authors declare that they have no competing interests.</p> <hd id="AN0188150409-21">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0188150409-22"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref8" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Balogh KN, Mayes LC, Potenza MN. Risk-taking and decision-making in youth: Relationships to addiction vulnerability. Journal of Behavioral Addictions. 2013; 2; 1: 1-9. 10.1556/jba.2.2013.1.1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref11" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Botdorf M, Rosenbaum GM, Patrianakos J, Steinberg L, Chein JM. Adolescent risk-taking is predicted by individual differences in cognitive control over emotional, but not non-emotional, response conflict. Cognition and Emotion. 2017; 31; 5: 972-979. 10.1080/02699931.2016.1168285. 27050317</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref22" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bugg JM, Jacoby LL, Toth JP. Multiple levels of control in the Stroop task. Memory & Cognition. 2008; 36; 8: 1484-1494. 10.3758/MC.36.8.1484</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref15" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Corr PJ. Approach and avoidance behaviour: Multiple systems and their interactions. Emotion Review. 2013; 5; 3: 285-290. 10.1177/1754073913477507</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref31" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Corr PJ, McNaughton N. Neuroscience and approach/avoidance personality traits: A two stage (valuation-motivation) approach. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews. 2012; 36; 10: 2339-2354. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.09.013. 23041073</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref5" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> De Dreu CK, Weingart LR. Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2003; 88; 4: 741-749. 10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741. 12940412</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref24" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> De Haan L, Kuipers E, Kuerten Y, van Laar M, Olivier B, Verster JC. The RT-18: A new screening tool to assess young adult risk-taking behavior. International Journal of General Medicine. 2011. 10.2147/IJGM.S23603. 21887111. 3160867</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref10" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Frederick S. Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 2005; 19; 4: 25-42. 10.1257/089533005775196732</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref14" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Gray JA, McNaughton N. The Neuropsychology of Anxiety: An enquiry into the function of the septo-hippocampal system. 20032; Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198522713.001.0001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hayes AF. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. 20173; Guilford publications</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoshikawa Y, Yamamoto Y. Effects of stroop color-word conflict test on the autonomic nervous system responses. American Journal of Physiology. 1997; 272; 3 Pt 2: H1113-1121. 10.1152/ajpheart.1997.272.3.H1113. 9087583</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jusyte A, Pfister R, Mayer SV, Schwarz KA, Wirth R, Kunde W, Schonenberg M. Smooth criminal: Convicted rule-breakers show reduced cognitive conflict during deliberate rule violations. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung. 2017; 81; 5: 939-946. 10.1007/s00426-016-0798-6. 27568309</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim-Spoon J, Deater-Deckard K, Holmes C, Lee J, Chiu P, King-Casas B. Behavioral and neural inhibitory control moderates the effects of reward sensitivity on adolescent substance use. Neuropsychologia. 2016; 91: 318-326. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.08.028. 27580969. 5075251</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kramer MD, Patrick CJ, Hettema JM, Moore AA, Sawyers CK, Yancey JR. Quantifying dispositional fear as threat sensitivity: Development and initial validation of a model-based scale measure. Assessment. 2020; 27; 3: 533-546. 10.1177/1073191119837613. 30947514</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Laycock A, Schofield G, McCall C. The effects of threat on complex decision-making: Evidence from a virtual environment. Scientific Reports. 2024; 14; 1: 22637. 10.1038/s41598-024-72812-2. 39349575. 11442743</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leota J, Nash K, McGregor I. Reactive risk-taking: Anxiety regulation via approach motivation increases risk-taking behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2023; 49; 1: 81-96. 10.1177/01461672211059689. 34906003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Limón M. On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: A critical appraisal. Learning and Instruction. 2001; 11; 4–5: 357-380. 10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00037-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacKinnon DP, Fairchild AJ, Fritz MS. Mediation analysis. Annual Review of Psychology. 2007; 58: 593-614. 10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085542. 16968208. 2819368</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacKinnon DP, Krull JL, Lockwood CM. Equivalence of the mediation, confounding and suppression effect. Prevention Science. 2000; 1; 4: 173-181. 10.1023/a:1026595011371. 11523746. 2819361</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacLeod CM. Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin. 1991; 109; 2: 163-203. 10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.163. 2034749</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> March DS, Hasty C, Olivett V. The threat sensitivity scale: A brief self-report measure of dispositional sensitivity toward perceiving threats to physical harm. Scientific Reports. 2024; 14; 1: 11304. 10.1038/s41598-024-61476-7. 38760426. 11101408</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mechera-Ostrovsky T, Heinke S, Andraszewicz S, Rieskamp J. Cognitive abilities affect decision errors but not risk preferences: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 2022; 29; 5: 1719-1750. 10.3758/s13423-021-02053-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nash K, Leota J, Tran A. Neural processes in antecedent anxiety modulate risk-taking behavior. Scientific Reports. 2021; 11; 1: 2637. 10.1038/s41598-021-82229-w. 33514841. 7846834</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nash K, Tran A, Leota J, Scott A. Economic threat heightens conflict detection: SLORETA evidence. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. 2020; 15; 9: 981-990. 10.1093/scan/nsaa139. 33027506. 7647378</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Newar R, Gupta RK, Krishnan RG, Shekhawat K, Walia Y. Self-esteem as a mediator of the relationship between imposter phenomenon and academic performance among college students. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth. 2025; 30; 1: 2496449. 10.1080/02673843.2025.2496449</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parayitam S, Dooley RS. Is too much cognitive conflict in strategic decision-making teams too bad?. International Journal of Conflict Management. 2011; 22; 4: 342-357. 10.1108/10444061111171350</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Piaget, J. (1977). The development of thought: Equilibration of cognitive structures. (Trans A. Rosin). Viking.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ristvedt SL. The risks of unconcern: Low sensitivity to threat can have unfortunate consequences. Frontiers in Psychology. 2024; 15: 1390968. 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1390968. 39606192. 11598515</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ristvedt S, Trinkaus K, Waters E, James A. Threat sensitivity is associated with the healthcare source used most often: Doctor's office, emergency room, or none at all. Heliyon. 2019; 5; 5. 10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01685. 31193963. 6545329e01685</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Romer D, Betancourt L, Giannetta JM, Brodsky NL, Farah M, Hurt H. Executive cognitive functions and impulsivity as correlates of risk taking and problem behavior in preadolescents. Neuropsychologia. 2009; 47; 13: 2916-2926. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.06.019. 19560477. 2780004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rucker DD, Preacher KJ, Tormala ZL, Petty RE. Mediation analysis in social psychology: Current practices and new recommendations. Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 2011; 5; 6: 359-371. 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00355.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Santesso DL, Segalowitz SJ. The error-related negativity is related to risk taking and empathy in young men. Psychophysiology. 2009; 46; 1: 143-152. 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2008.00714.x. 18803599</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scarpina F, Tagini S. The stroop color and word test. Frontiers in Psychology. 2017; 8. 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00557. 28446889. 5388755557</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schacter HL, Marusak HA, Borg BA, Jovanovic T. Facing ambiguity: Social threat sensitivity mediates the association between peer victimization and adolescent anxiety. Development and Psychopathology. 2024; 36; 1: 112-120. 10.1017/S0954579422001018. 36200351</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schoemann AM, Boulton AJ, Short SD. Determining power and sample size for simple and complex mediation models. Social Psychological and Personality Science. 2017; 8; 4: 379-386. 10.1177/1948550617715068</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schouppe N, Braem S, De Houwer J, Silvetti M, Verguts T, Ridderinkhof KR, Notebaert W. No pain, no gain: The affective valence of congruency conditions changes following a successful response. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience. 2015; 15; 1: 251-261. 10.3758/s13415-014-0318-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Steinberg L. A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-taking. Developmental Review. 2008; 28; 1: 78-106. 10.1016/j.dr.2007.08.002. 18509515</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stoet G. PsyToolkit: A software package for programming psychological experiments using Linux. Behavior Research Methods. 2010; 42: 1096-1104. 10.3758/BRM.42.4.1096. 21139177</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stoet G. PsyToolkit: A novel web-based method for running online questionnaires and reaction-time experiments. Teaching of Psychology. 2017; 44; 1: 24-31. 10.1177/0098628316677643</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Viviani G, Visalli A, Montefinese M, Vallesi A, Ambrosini E. The stroop legacy: A cautionary tale on methodological issues and a proposed spatial solution. Behavior Research Methods. 2024; 56; 5: 4758-4785. 10.3758/s13428-023-02215-0. 37620747</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Waxer M, Morton JBSeel NM. Cognitive conflict and learning. Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning. 2012; Springer: 585-587. 10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_280</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Yashasvi Walia and Rajnish Kumar Gupta</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref42"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1484438
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Role of Threat Sensitivity as a Mediator in the Relationship between Cognitive Conflict and Risk-Taking Behavior in Young Adults
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Yashasvi+Walia%22">Yashasvi Walia</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rajnish+Kumar+Gupta%22">Rajnish Kumar Gupta</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9354-360X">0000-0001-9354-360X</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Cognitive+Research%3A+Principles+and+Implications%22"><i>Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications</i></searchLink>. 2025 10.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 8
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Young+Adults%22">Young Adults</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Students%22">College Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interference+%28Learning%29%22">Interference (Learning)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Risk+Assessment%22">Risk Assessment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Risk%22">Risk</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Behavior%22">Student Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cognitive+Processes%22">Cognitive Processes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychological+Patterns%22">Psychological Patterns</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Decision+Making%22">Decision Making</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intention%22">Intention</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22India%22">India</searchLink>
– Name: SubjectThesaurus
  Label: Assessment and Survey Identifiers
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Stroop+Color+Word+Test%22">Stroop Color Word Test</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1186/s41235-025-00673-y
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 2365-7464
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Cognitive conflict and risk-taking behaviors are linked in complex ways. This study examined whether threat sensitivity explains the relationship between conflict monitoring and risk-taking in young adults. A sample of 204 university students (ages 18-25, mean = 20.55, SD = 2.14) completed a computerized Stroop task (cognitive conflict), the RT-18 questionnaire (risk-taking), and the TF-44 Trait Fear Scale (dispositional threat sensitivity). Pearson correlations indicated that greater Stroop interference score (higher conflict) was associated with lower self-reported risk-taking and higher threat sensitivity. In turn, higher threat sensitivity predicted reduced risk-taking. Mediation analysis confirmed that cognitive conflict influenced risk-taking indirectly through threat sensitivity. The direct effect of conflict on risk-taking was non-significant, whereas the indirect path via threat sensitivity was significant, suggesting an indirect-only (complete) mediation. These results suggest that individuals experiencing higher internal conflict become more vigilant toward potential threats, which in turn deters them from risky actions. Understanding this pathway could guide interventions (i.e., cognitive control or anxiety-management training) to reduce maladaptive risk behaviors in young adults.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1484438
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1484438
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1186/s41235-025-00673-y
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 8
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Young Adults
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interference (Learning)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Risk Assessment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Risk
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cognitive Processes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Psychological Patterns
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Decision Making
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: India
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Stroop Color Word Test
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Role of Threat Sensitivity as a Mediator in the Relationship between Cognitive Conflict and Risk-Taking Behavior in Young Adults
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Yashasvi Walia
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Rajnish Kumar Gupta
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 12
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 2365-7464
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 10
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
              Type: main
ResultId 1