American Psychological Association (APA) challenges long-standing beliefs about how scarcity influences decision-making, reported APA in a press release.
Contrary to the notion that scarcity leads to impulsive, short-term decisions, a new study argues that individuals facing scarcity often make reasonable decisions based on their circumstances.
Dr. Eesha Sharma, co-author of the study from San Diego State University, said, "This research challenges the predominant view that when people feel poor or live in poverty, they become impatient and shortsighted. It provides a framework, instead, for understanding that when people are experiencing financial scarcity, they're trying to make the best decision they can, given the circumstances."
Published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, the study conducted by Dr. Sharma and co-authors Stephanie Tully, PhD, of the University of Southern California, and Xiang Wang, PhD, of Lingnan University in Hong Kong, aims to differentiate between two competing ideas. The first suggests that people's preference for short-term gains reflects impatience and impulsivity, while the second proposes that it indicates intentional, deliberate decision-making.
The researchers conducted five experiments to explore how scarcity affects decision-making. They measured or induced a sense of scarcity in participants and examined how their choices changed based on whether scarcity was related to short- or long-term needs.
The results revealed a nuanced relationship between scarcity and decision-making. When individuals perceive a lack of resources to meet immediate needs, such as food or shelter, they opt for immediate rewards, even if it means sacrificing future gains. However, when scarcity threatens longer-term needs, like replacing a deteriorating car, individuals facing scarcity display no less willingness to wait for larger, delayed rewards compared to those with ample resources. In some cases, they exhibit greater patience.
In an experiment involving over 1,000 participants planning weddings, the researchers induced a sense of scarcity related to wedding expenses in some participants, while others were encouraged to focus on the exciting aspects of their upcoming weddings. These participants were then offered a choice between receiving $200 immediately or $300 several months later. Surprisingly, the scarcity group did not display significantly greater impatience than the control group. Instead, their choices were closely tied to their wedding dates relative to the payout date, with those facing shorter time horizons preferring immediate, smaller rewards, and those with longer horizons favoring larger, delayed payouts.
A follow-up experiment showed that the time horizon effect influenced participants' choices only when the payout was relevant to the threatened need, suggesting that decisions reflected deliberate attempts to address resource deficiencies.
The research has broader implications beyond individuals living in poverty. The experience of feeling resource-scarce is nearly universal, as most individuals encounter financial constraints or time limitations at some point in their lives. This understanding can be invaluable for designing interventions to improve long-term decision-making in various contexts, from personal finances to addressing global issues like climate change.
In a world where factors such as climate change, inflation, and targeted advertising continually trigger perceived scarcity, understanding how individuals navigate scarcity and make decisions becomes crucial. This study provides a fresh perspective, emphasizing that individuals facing scarcity are often making the best decisions possible given their circumstances.
The research sheds light on the complex interplay between scarcity and human decision-making, offering hope for more empathetic and effective approaches to addressing scarcity-related challenges.
Share This Post On
Leave a comment
You need to login to leave a comment. Log-in