![]() ![]() But when they examined participants’ choices through the lens of wedding dates, they found scarcity did affect preferences. The researchers found that on average, participants in the scarcity group were not significantly more likely to choose the immediate payout than those in the control group, suggesting that scarcity, on its own, did not cause greater impatience. Next, participants were told they’d be entered into a lottery to win a cash prize: $200 immediately or $300 several months later. A control group was asked to reflect on the part of their wedding they were most excited about. For some, they induced a sense of scarcity by asking whether wedding planning ever made them feel as though they didn’t have enough money, and what part of the wedding cost they were most concerned about. In one experiment, for example, the researchers identified more than 1,000 participants via Facebook ads who were planning a wedding. But when scarcity threatens a longer-term need, such as replacing a run-down car, people experiencing scarcity are no less willing to wait for larger, later rewards-and in some cases are more willing to wait-compared with people not experiencing scarcity. Overall, they found that when people feel that they don’t have enough resources to meet an immediate need, such as food or shelter, they are more likely to make decisions that offer an immediate payout, even if it comes at the expense of receiving a larger payout later. In the current study, the researchers conducted five experiments in which they measured or induced a sense of scarcity in participants, and examined how the choices people made changed depending on whether that scarcity was related to a shorter- or longer-term need. Yet research on scarcity has focused almost exclusively on immediate needs.” ![]() “We often think about immediate needs like food or shelter, but people can experience scarcity related to future needs, too, such as replacing a run-down car before it dies, buying a house or paying for college. “Needs exist across a broad time horizon,” said Tully. To do so, they examined how people’s decisions change depending on the timeline of the needs that they feel they don’t have enough money for. Sharma and co-authors Stephanie Tully, PhD, of the University of Southern California, and Xiang Wang, PhD, of Lingnan University in Hong Kong, wanted to distinguish between two competing ideas: That people’s preference for shorter-term gains reflects impatience and impulsivity, or that it reflects more intentional, deliberate decision-making. The research was published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. ![]() ![]() “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 they’re in.” “This research challenges the predominant view that when people feel poor or live in poverty, they become impatient and shortsighted and can’t or don’t think about the future,” said study co-author Eesha Sharma, PhD, of San Diego State University. But a study published by the American Psychological Association provides support for a different, less widely held view: People experiencing scarcity make reasonable decisions based on their circumstances, and only prioritize short-term benefits over long-term gains when scarcity threatens their more immediate needs. Because of that, researchers have argued that scarcity pushes people to make myopic, impulsive decisions. Washington - When people feel that their resources are scarce-that they don’t have enough money or time to meet their needs-they often make decisions that favor short-term gains over long-term benefits. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |