Abstract
Scarcity acts as a mental burden that disrupts how people process information and make decisions (Mullainathan and Shafir in Scarcity: Why having too little means so much. Macmillan, Basingstoke, 2013; Mani et al. Science 342:976–980, 2013). In this study, we replicated Mani et al.’s (Science 342:976–980, 2013) experimental design to explore whether scarcity also taxes Colombian high school students’ mental bandwidth. In a lab-in-the-field experiment, we tested how 417 high school students from high and low socioeconomic status (SES) in Bogotá, Colombia, responded to different scarcity situations. Students were first presented with hypothetical scenarios of harsh or soft scarcity. Next, participants had to solve a series of tasks that measured higher cognitive functions (i.e. Raven’s Progressive Matrices, Cognitive Reflection Task and questions to assess their Delay Discounting value) and had to explain how they would solve the scarcity situation. As opposed to Mani et al. (Science 342:976–980, 2013), we did not find that scarcity taxed individuals’ mental bandwidth, neither their cognitive nor executive functions. We found that low-SES individuals, under the harsh scarcity condition, displayed more empathic attributes than high-SES individuals. Taken together, the results of this study show the importance of replication in different cultures and environments.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Our data are available at: https://osf.io/uhqdg/ and https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/r39n8sxyzr/7.
Code availability
Our scripts are available at: https://osf.io/uhqdg/ and https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/r39n8sxyzr/7.
Notes
The experimental part of the study was done in 2017 so this percentage is based on the minimum wage from that year.
This methodology is similar to what Harrison and List (2004) call an artefactual field experiment.
For our first hypothesis we conducted 9 tests (low SES vs. low SES between treatment groups for each dependent variable). Additionally, to explore the differences of cognitive performance between high and low SES individuals, we conducted 12 tests (high SES vs. low SES on each dependent variable and high SES vs. low SES on each treatment group for each dependent variable). The critical p value is 0.05 and by adding all of the tests, we have a total of 21. That is why our Bonferroni adjustment is 0.05/21.
For the coefficients of a multiple linear regression, the Bonferroni-type adjustment depends on the number of predictor variables (Mundfrom, et al., 2006). In this case, three.
Our study partially fulfills the “Significant effect in the same direction as in the original study” and the “Correlation between sample size and p-value” criteria of Camerer et al. (2016).
References
Adler, N. E. (1995). Socioeconomic status and health: Do we know what explains the association? Advances, 11(3), 6–9.
Allaire, J.J., Xie, Y., McPherson, J., Luraschi, J., Ushey, K., Atkins, A., Wickham, H., Cheng, J., Chang, W. & Iannone, R. (2020). rmarkdown: Dynamic Documents for R. R package version 2.1. https://rmarkdown.rstudio.com.
Amer, T., Campbell, K. L., & Hasher, L. (2016). Cognitive control as a double-edged sword. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(12), 905–915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.10.002
Armstrong, R. A. (2014). When to use the Bonferroni correction. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics. https://doi.org/10.1111/opo.1213110.1111/opo.12131
Banerjee, A. V., & Duflo, E. (2017). An introduction to the “Handbook of Field Experiments.” In A. V. Banerjee & E. Duflo (Eds.), Handbook of economic field experiments (Vol. 1, pp. 1–24). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.hefe.2016.09.005
Bartoš, V., Bauer, M., Chytilová, J., & Levely, I. (2018). Effects of poverty on impatience: Preferences or inattention?. (CERGE-EI Working Paper Series No. 623). Prague. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3247690
Bicchieri, C. (2017). Norms in the wild. Oxford University Press.
Bor, W., Najman, J. M., Andersen, M. J., O’Callaghan, M., Williams, G. M., & Behrens, B. C. (1997). The relationship between low family income and psychological disturbance in young children: An Australian longitudinal study. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 31(5), 664–675. https://doi.org/10.3109/00048679709062679
Brooks-Gunn, J., & Duncan, G. J. (1997). The effects of poverty on children. Future of Children, 7(2), 55–71. https://doi.org/10.2307/1602387
Calvo, A., & Bialystok, E. (2014). Independent effects of bilingualism and socioeconomic status on language ability and executive functioning. Cognition, 130(3), 278–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.11.015
Camerer, C. F., Dreber, A., Forsell, E., Ho, T. H., Huber, J., Johannesson, M., et al. (2016). Evaluating replicability of laboratory experiments in economics. Science, 351(6280), 1433–1436. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf091810.1126/science.aaf0918
Carvalho, L. S., Meier, S., & Wang, S. W. (2016). Poverty and economic decision-making: Evidence from changes in financial resources at payday. American Economic Review, 106(2), 260–284. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20140481
Instituto Colombiano para la Evaluación de la Educación (Icfes). (2020). Informe Nacional de Resultados para Colombia—PISA 2018. https://www.icfes.gov.co/documents/20143/1529295/InformenacionalderesultadosPISA2018.pdf. Accessed 6 July 2021
Instituto Colombiano para la Evaluación de la Educación (Icfes). (2010). Metodología de Construcción del índice de nivel socioeconómico de los estudiantes–INSE–y de la clasificación socioeconómica–CSE–de los colegios.
Côté, S., Piff, P. K., & Willer, R. (2013). For whom do the ends justify the means? Social class and utilitarian moral judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(3), 490–503.
Cuartas, J. (2020). Improving the measurement of children’s mental health problems in Colombia with item response theory. Revista Colombiana De Psicología, 29, 87–103. https://doi.org/10.15446/rcp.v29n1.77214
Davidson, M. C., Amso, D., Cruess Anderson, L., & Diamond, A. (2006). Development of cognitive control and executive functions from 4 to 13 years: Evidence from manipulations of memory, inhibition, and task switching. Neuropsychologia, 44, 2037–2078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.02.006
de Bruijn EJ, Antonides G (2021) Poverty and economic decision making: a review of scarcity theory. Theory and Decision. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-021-09802-7
Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135–168. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750
Duflo, E., Glennerster, R., & Kremer, M. (2008). Using randomization in development economics research: A toolkit. In T. P. Schultz & J. Strauss (Eds.), Handbook of development economics (Vol. 4, pp. 3895–3962). Elsevier Science Ltd.
Duncan, G. J., & Magnuson, K. (2012). Socioeconomic status and cognitive functioning: Moving from correlation to causation. Cognitive Science, 3, 377–386. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1176
Duncan, G. J., Magnuson, K., & Votruba-Drzal, E. (2017). Moving beyond correlations in assessing the consequences of poverty. Annual Review of Psychology, 68(1), 413–434. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044224
Eisenthal, S., & Harford, T. (1997). Correlation between the raven progressive matrices scale and the Shipley Institute of Living Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 27(2), 213–215. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.112.005033.)
Ellis, B. J., Bianchi, J. M., Griskevicius, V., & Frankenhuis, W. E. (2017). Beyond risk and protective factors: An adaptation-based approach to resilience. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(4), 561–587. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617693054
Engle, R. W., Laughlin, J. E., Tuholski, S. W., & Conway, A. R. A. (1999). Working memory, short-term memory, and general fluid intelligence: A latent-variable approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 128(3), 309–331. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.128.3.309
Falk, A., Becker, A., Dohmen, T., Enke, B., Huffman, D., & Sunde, U. (2018). Global evidence on economic preferences. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 133(4), 1645–1692. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjy013
Fehr, D., Fink, G., & Jack, K. (2019). Poverty, seasonal scarcity and exchange asymmetries (No. w26357). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Filmer, D. (1999). The structure of social disparities in education: Gender and wealth. Policy Research Report on Gender and Development. (World Bank Working Paper Series, No. 5). https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/617031468739532221/117517322_20041117153036/additional/multi-page.pdf. Accessed 6 July 2021
Firke, S. (2020). janitor: Simple tools for examining and cleaning dirty data. R package version 2.0.1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=janitor. Accessed on: 06 July 2021
Frankenhuis, W. E., & de Weerth, C. (2013). Does early-life exposure to stress shape or impair cognition? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(5), 407–412. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413484324
Frankenhuis, W. E., & Nettle, D. (2019). The strengths of people in poverty. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(1), 16–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721419881154
Frankenhuis, W. E., Vries, S. A., Bianchi, J., & Ellis, B. J. (2019). Hidden-talents in harsh conditions? A preregistered study of memory and reasoning about social dominance. Developmental Science. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12835
Frankenhuis, W. E., Young, E. S., & Ellis, B. J. (2020). The hidden-talents approach: Theoretical and methodological challenges. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.03.007
Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1257/089533005775196732
Gálvez-Nieto, J., Vera-Bachmann, D., Trizano-Hermosilla, Í., Polanco, K., & Salvo, S. (2018). Psychometric properties of the reduced version of the Positive Adolescent Development Value Scale (EVDPA-R) in Chilean students. Revista Colombiana De Psicología, 27(2), 69–84. https://doi.org/10.15446/rcp.v27n2.65500
Gneezy, U., & Imas, A. (2017). Lab in the field: Measuring preferences in the wild. In A. V. Banerjee & E. Duflo (Eds.), Handbook of economic field experiments (Vol. 1, pp. 439–464). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.hefe.2016.08.003
Graves, V. (2015). Does poverty really impede cognitive function? Experimental evidence from Tanzanian Fishers. (Master’s thesis, The University of San Francisco, San Francisco, USA). https://repository.usfca.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1148&context=thes. Accessed 7 July 2021
Hanscombe, K. B., Trzaskowski, M., Haworth, C. M. A., Davis, O. S. P., Dale, P. S., & Plomin, R. (2012). Socioeconomic status (SES) and children’s intelligence (IQ): In a UK-representative sample SES moderates the environmental, not genetic, effect on IQ. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0030320
Harden, K. P., Turkheimer, E., & Loehlin, J. C. (2007). Genotype by environment interaction in adolescents’ cognitive aptitude. Behavior Genetics, 37(2), 273–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-006-9113-4
Harding, D. J. (2003). Counterfactual Models of Neighborhood Effects: The Effect of Neighborhood Poverty on Dropping Out and Teenage Pregnancy. American Journal of Sociology, 109(3), 676–719. https://doi.org/10.1086/379217
Harrison, G. W., & List, J. A. (2004). Field experiments. Journal of Economic Literature, 42(December), 1009–1055. https://doi.org/10.4337/978178811053.00013
Haushofer, J. (2011). Neurobiological poverty traps. Mimeo, 1–77. http://web.mit.edu/joha/www/publications/Haushofer2011NeurobiologicalPovertyTraps.pdf
Haushofer, J. (2013). The psychology of poverty: Evidence from 43 countries* (1974). https://doi.org/10.4102/ve.v34i1.825
Heinzen, E., Sinnwell, J., Atkinson, E., Gunderson, T., & Dougherty, G. (2020). arsenal: An Arsenal of 'R' functions for large-scale statistical summaries. R package version 3.4.0. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=arsenal. Accessed 7 July 2021
Hlavac, M. (2018). stargazer: Well-formatted regression and summary statistics tables. R package version 5.2.1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=stargazer. Accessed 7 July 2021
Johnson, M. W., & Bickel, W. K. (2002). Within-subject comparison of real and hypothetical money rewards in delay discounting. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 77(2), 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2002.77-129
Joumard, I. & Londoño Vélez, J. (2013), “Income inequality and poverty in Colombia–part 1. The Role of Labor Market”, Documentos de trabajo del Departamento de Economía de la OCDE, No. 1036, Publicaciones de la OCDE, París. https://doi.org/10.1787/5k487n74s1f1-en
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2002). The role of prefrontal cortex in working-memory capacity, executive attention, and general fluid intelligence: An individual-differences perspective. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9(4), 637–671. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196323
Kassambara, A. (2020). ggpubr: 'ggplot2' Based Publication Ready Plots. R package version 0.4.0. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ggpubr. Accessed 7 July 2021
Katz, S. J., & Hofer T. P. (1994). Socioeconomic Disparities in Preventive Care Persist Despite Universal Coverage. JAMA 272(7), 530. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1994.03520070050037
Kliegman, R. M. (1992). Perpetual poverty: Child health and the underclass. Pediatrics, 89(4 Pt 2), 710–713.
Korndörfer, M., Egloff, B., & Schmukle, S. C. (2015). A large scale test of the effect of social class on prosocial behavior. PLoS ONE, 10(7), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0133193
Kraus, M. W., Côté, S., & Keltner, D. (2010). Social class, contextualism, and empathic accuracy. Psychological Science, 21(11), 1716–1723.
Kraus, M. W., Piff, P. K., & Keltner, D. (2011). Social class as culture: The convergence of resources and rank in the social realm. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(4), 246–250.
Kraus, M. W., Piff, P. K., Mendoza-Denton, R., Rheinschmidt, M. L., & Keltner, D. (2012). Social class, solipsism, and contextualism: How the rich are different from the poor. Psychological Review, 119(3), 546–572. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028756
Lewis, C. C. (1981). How adolescents approach decisions: Changes over grades seven to twelve and policy implications. Child Development, 52(2), 538–544.
Loesche, P., Wiley, J., & Hasselhorn, M. (2015). How knowing the rules affects solving the Raven Advanced Progressive Matrices Test. Intelligence, 48, 58–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2014.10.004
Madden, G. J., & Bickel, W. K. (2010). Impulsivity: The behavioral and neurological science of discounting. https://www.apa.org/pubs/books/4318058. Accessed 7 July 2021
Mani, A., Mullainathan, S., Shafir, E., & Zhao, J. (2013). Poverty impedes cognitive function. Science, 342(6163), 976–980. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1246799
McHugh, M. L. (2012). Lessons in biostatistics interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochemica Medica, 22(3), 276–282.
McKenzie, D. (2015). Tools of the Trade: A joint test of orthogonality when testing for balance. [Blog post]. https://blogs.worldbank.org/impactevaluations/tools-trade-joint-test-orthogonality-when-testing-balance. Accessed 3 June 2021
McLoyd, V. C. (1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. The American Psychologist, 53(2), 185–204. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.53.2.185
Merino-Soto, C., López-Fernández, V., & Grimaldo-Muchotrigo, M. (2019). Invarianza de medición y estructural de la Escala Básica de Empatía Breve (bes-b) en niños y adolescentes peruanos. Revista Colombiana De Psicología, 28, 15–32. https://doi.org/10.15446/rcp.v28n2.69478
Meyer, D., Zeileis, A., & Hornik, K. (2020). vcd: Visualizing categorical data. R package version 1.4-7. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vcd. Accessed 6 July 2021
Mullainathan, S., & Shafir, E. (2013). Scarcity: Why having too little means so much. Macmillan.
Mundfrom, D. J., Perrett, J. J., Schaffer, J., Piccone, A., & Roozeboom, M. (2006). Bonferroni adjustments in tests for regression coefficients. Multiple Linear Regression Viewpoints, 32(1), 1–6.
Muscatell, K. A., Morelli, S. A., Falk, E. B., Way, B. M., Pfeifer, J. H., Galinsky, A. D., et al. (2012). Social status modulates neural activity in the mentalizing network. NeuroImage, 60(3), 1771–1777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.01.080
Myerson, J., Green, L., & Warusawitharana, M. (2001). Area under the curve as a measure of discounting. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 76(2), 235–243. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2001.76-235
Oldrati, V., Patricelli, J., Colombo, B., & Antonietti, A. (2016). The role of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in inhibition mechanism: A study on cognitive reflection test and similar tasks through neuromodulation. Neuropsychologia, 91, 499–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.09.010
Otto, A. (2013). Saving in childhood and adolescence: Insights from developmental psychology. Economics of Education Review, 33, 8–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2012.09.005
Petry, N. M., & Madden, G. J. (2010). Discounting and pathological gambling. In G. J. Madden and W. K. Bickel (Eds.), Impulsivity: The behavioral and neurological science of discounting (pp. 273–294). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Piff, P. K., Kraus, M. W., Côté, S., Cheng, B. H., & Keltner, D. (2010). Having less, giving more: The influence of social class on prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(5), 771.
Piff, P. K., Kraus, M. W., & Keltner, D. (2018). Unpacking the inequality paradox: The psychological roots of inequality and social class. Advances in experimental social psychology, vol 57 (1st ed.). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2017.10.002
Pollak, S. D., Messner, M., Kistler, D. J., & Cohn, J. F. (2009). Development of perceptual expertise in emotion recognition. Cognition, 110(2), 242–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.10.010
R Core Team (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/. Accessed 7 July 2021
Raven, J. (2000). The Raven’s progressive matrices: Change and stability over culture and time. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0735
Revelle, W. (2020). psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA, version = 2.1.3. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych. Accessed 7 July 2021
Richard, B. A., & Dodge, K. A. (1982). Social maladjustment and problem solving in school-aged children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50(2), 226–233. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.50.2.226
Roca, M., Parr, A., Thompson, R., Woolgar, A., Torralva, T., Antoun, N., et al. (2010). Executive function and fluid intelligence after frontal lobe lesions. Brain, 133(1), 234–247. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awp269
Sarsour, K., Sheridan, M., Jutte, D., Nuru-Jeter, A., Hinshaw, S., & Boyce, W. T. (2010). Family socioeconomic status and child executive functions: The roles of language, home environment, and single parenthood. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 17(1), 120–132. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617710001335
Schilbach, F., Schofield, H., & Mullainathan, S. (2016). The psychological lives of the poor. American Economic Review, 106(5), 435–440.
Shah, A. K., Mullainathan, S., & Shafir, E. (2012). Some consequences of having too little. Science, 338(6107), 682–685.
Shah, A. K., Mullainathan, S., & Shafir, E. (2019). An exercise in self-replication: Replicating Shah, Mullainathan, and Shafir (2012). Journal of Economic Psychology, 75, 102127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2018.12.001
Shah, A. K., Shafir, E., & Mullainathan, S. (2015). Scarcity frames value. Psychological Science, 26(4), 402–412.
Shah, A. K., Zhao, J., Mullainathan, S., & Shafir, E. (2018). Money in the mental lives of the poor. Social Cognition, 36(1), 4–19.
Sheehy-Skeffington, J. (2020). The effects of low socioeconomic status on decision-making processes. Current Opinion in Psychology, 33, 183–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.07.043
Smith, E. B., Menon, T., & Thompson, L. (2012). Status differences in the cognitive activation of social networks. Organization Science, 23(1), 67–82.
Solís-Calcina, G. L., & Manzanares-Medina, E. (2019). Parental psychological control and internalized and externalized problems of adolescents in Metropolitan Lima. Revista Colombiana De Psicología, 28, 29–47. https://doi.org/10.15446/rcp.v28n1.66288
Stephens, N. M., Fryberg, S. A., Markus, H. R., Johnson, C. S., & Covarrubias, R. (2012). Unseen disadvantage: How American universities’ focus on independence undermines the academic performance of first-generation college students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(6), 1178–1197.
Stephens, N. M., Markus, H. R., & Phillips, L. T. (2014). Social class culture cycles: How three gateway contexts shape selves and fuel inequality. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 611–634.
Thomson, K. S., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2016). Investigating an alternate form of the cognitive reflection test. Judgment and Decision Making, 11(1), 99–113.
Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2011). The Cognitive Reflection Test as a predictor of performance on heuristics-and-biases tasks. Memory and Cognition, 39(7), 1275–1289. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-011-0104-1
Turkheimer, E., Haley, A., Waldron, M., D’Onofrio, B., & Gottesman, I. I. (2003). Socioeconomic status modifies heritability of IQ in young children. Psychological Science, 14(6), 623–628. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0956-7976.2003.psci
Véliz, M. (2004). Procesamiento de estructuras sintácticas complejas en adultos mayores y adultos jóvenes. Estudios Filológicos. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0071-17132004003900004
Vohs, K. D. (2013). The poor’s poor mental power. Science, 341(August), 969–970. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1244172
Vohs, K. D., & Faber, R. J. (2007). Spent resources: Self-regulatory resource availability affects impulse buying. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(4), 537–547. https://doi.org/10.1086/510228
Weatherly, J. N., & Derenne, A. (2011). Comparing delay discounting rates when using the fill-in-the-blank and multiple-choice methods. The Journal of General Psychology, 138(4), 300–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.2011.606442
Wicherts, J. M., & Scholten, A. Z. (2013). Comment on “Poverty Impedes Cognitive Function.” Science, 342(6163), 1169. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1246680
Wickham, H., et al. (2019). Welcome to the tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(43), 1686. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686
Wickham, H. & Bryan, J. (2019). readxl: Read Excel Files. R package version 1.3.1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=readxl. Accessed 7 July 2021
Yi, R., Mitchell, S. H., & Bickel, W. K. (2010). Delay discounting and substance abusedependence. In G.J. Madden and W.K. Bickel (Eds.), Impulsivity: The behavioral and neurological science of discounting (pp. 191–211). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Yoshikawa, H., Aber, J. L., & Beardslee, W. R. (2012). The effects of poverty on the mental, emotional, and behavioral health of children and youth: Implications for prevention. American Psychologist, 67(4), 272.
Zhu A. Y. (2019) Links between family poverty and the financial behaviors of adolescents: parental roles. Child Indicators Research, 12(4), 1259–1273 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-018-9588-6
Acknowledgements
We thank Daniela Rojas Hinojoza for her ideas and profound discussions. We thank all the students, the schools’ principals and teachers for allowing us to conduct the experiment. We thank, the members of the research group “Cognición, Medios y Eduación” at the National University of Colombia for their help, advice and implementation of the experiment. We thank Alejandro and Nicolás González for their comments and revision. We thank, finally, our anonymous reviewers for their insightful suggestions.
Funding
Not applicable.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
We have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix A
Harsh condition hypothetical situation
Please focus and imagine that this situation happened earlier today.
A friend of yours just bought an expensive cellphone he has not used yet. At lunchtime, you ask him to lend you the cellphone to browse its functionalities. While looking at it, because of your carelessness, the cellphone falls to the ground. All your friends, including the owner, see the situation. When you pick up the cellphone, the screen is broken and the phone does not turn on. Your friend tells you that you must bring him the cellphone fixed within 2 days. You keep the cellphone, and when consulting the price of its repair, they tell you it costs $300.000 COP.
Remember this happened earlier today and you must get the money within 2 days. While you are answering the test, think of how you are going to get $300.000 COP in 2 days. Think about ways to do it using your real resources.
Appendix B
Soft condition hypothetical situation
Please focus and imagine that this situation happened earlier today.
A friend of yours just bought a notebook he has not used yet. At lunchtime, you ask him to lend you the notebook to see the cover design. While looking at it, because of your carelessness, the notebook falls into a puddle. All your friends, including the owner, see the situation. When you pick up the notebook, all the sheets are wet. Your friend tells you that you must bring him a new notebook within 2 days. You keep the notebook, and when you ask for a new one in a stationery, they tell you it costs $1.000 COP.
Remember this happened earlier today and you must get the money within 2 days. While you are answering the test, think of how you are going to get $1.000 COP in 2 days. Think about ways to do it using your real resources.
Appendix C
Cognitive reflective task (CRT) questions
-
1.
If it takes 5 machines 5 min to make 5 widgets, how long would it take 100 machines to make 100 widgets? _____ min.
-
2.
How many cubic feet of dirt are there in a hole that is 3’ deep × 3’ wide × 3’ long?
-
3.
A farmer had 15 sheep and all but 8 died. How many are left?
Appendix D
Discounting coefficient questions
Mark with an (X) or circle your answer.
-
1.
A travel agency will give you a 30-day trip all included to the destination of your choice in 2 weeks. Then, they offer you the possibility of giving you the tickets today but with fewer travel days. How many travel days are you willing to accept today, instead of waiting 2 weeks for the 30-day travel?
3 days 6 days 9 days 12 days 15 days 18 days 21 days 24 days 27 days 30 days
-
2.
A travel agency will give you a 30-day trip all included to the destination of your choice in 1 month. Then, they offer you the possibility of giving you the tickets today but with fewer travel days. How many travel days are you willing to accept today, instead of waiting 1 month for the 30-day travel?
3 days 6 days 9 days 12 days 15 days 18 days 21 days 24 days 27 days 30 days
-
3.
A travel agency will give you a 30-day trip all included to the destination of your choice in 3 months. Then, they offer you the possibility of giving you the tickets today but with fewer travel days. How many travel days are you willing to accept today, instead of waiting 3 months for the 30-day travel?
3 days 6 days 9 days 12 days 15 days 18 days 21 days 24 days 27 days 30 days
-
4.
A travel agency will give you a 30-day trip all included to the destination of your choice in 6 months. Then, they offer you the possibility of giving you the tickets today but with fewer travel days. How many travel days are you willing to accept today, instead of waiting 6 months for the 30-day travel?
3 days 6 days 9 days 12 days 15 days 18 days 21 days 24 days 27 days 30 days
-
5.
A travel agency will give you a 30-day trip all included to the destination of your choice in 1 year. Then, they offer you the possibility of giving you the tickets today but with fewer travel days. How many travel days are you willing to accept today, instead of waiting 1 year for the 30-day travel?
3 days 6 days 9 days 12 days 15 days 18 days 21 days 24 days 27 days 30 days
Appendix E
Qualitative response and their category assignment examples
Subject with ID 256 responded:
“After breaking accidently the cellphone, I would get home, tell the situation to my mother and grandma, I would bear the scolding and
the possible ground. I would get the money from my savings and in case these are not sufficient I would talk with my grandma so that she could lend me the money and I would go ahead and fix the cellphone.”
This response has the following codification.
Category | Number of solutions to the problem | Effectiveness of the solution to the problem | Network support in the solution to the problem | Read other’s affective or mental state |
---|---|---|---|---|
Codification | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Explanation | The subject reports only one way to get the money (by taking money from his savings and if necessary with his grandmothers money) | The response is plausible and realistic | To get the money he gets support from his reference network (in this case his grandmother) | While mentioning they could scold and ground him, he acknowledges the reactions and emotions of his mother and grandmother |
Subject with ID 50 responded:
“With the money that my parents give me for recess, I would save 500COP one day and I would buy something else with the leftover money. At the next day I would save another 500COP and, like that, I would pay for mi friend’s notebook”.
This response has the following codification.
Category | Number of solutions to the problem | Effectiveness of the solution to the problem | Network support in the solution to the problem | Read other’s affective or mental state |
---|---|---|---|---|
Codification | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
Explanation | The subject reports only one way to get the money (by saving 500COP per day) | The response is plausible and realistic | To get the money he gets support from his reference network (in this case his parents) | He does not acknowledge the reactions, emotions or thoughts of others |
Subject with ID 294 responded:
“I would obviously be working and as I am a person who saves money I would have it available to fix the cellphone that same day and give it to him on time”.
This response has the following codification.
Category | Number of solutions to the problem | Effectiveness of the solution to the problem | Network support in the solution to the problem | Read other’s affective or mental state |
---|---|---|---|---|
Codification | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Explanation | The subject reports only one way to get the money (getting money from his savings) | The response is plausible and realistic | To get the money he does not support himself with his reference network to get the money | He does not acknowledge the reactions, emotions or thoughts of others |
Appendix F
Experimenter protocol
7.1 Computer-based application
7.1.1 Materials
-
Cards with number 1 and number 2 (× 30 each, respectively).
-
Application protocol and basic data format (for the researcher).
-
Stopwatch (can be the cell phone).
7.1.2 Procedure
Before proceeding, they must verify that the internet connection is sufficient (results are uploaded to the cloud and the images are uploaded). If so, proceed to open the trial link found in your email.
When students approach the application room: (1) they receive the informed consents signed by their guardian (without this they will not be able to solve the test); (2) give each a letter, making sure they are interleaved (the first will receive letter 1, the second letter 2, the third letter 3 and so on and (3) assign the computers (make sure that there will only be one person per computer). When they are settled, do not allow them to answer the test before you tell them to.
When everyone is settled say the following instruction: “Hi guys. Before beginning, you cannot have cell phones available (please put them on silence), and cannot communicate with other colleagues or consult other internet pages. Please read carefully what is on the screen and answer the questions. Any doubts raise your hand and I will go over to where you are. At one point in the test you will find the instruction “WAIT for the experimenter’s signal to continue with the test.”. Please do not move anything and wait for my signalling. Any questions you have about what you see on the screen or about the procedure do not hesitate to ask me. Questions?” If no one asks or fully answers all the previous inquiries, you can say “Start”.
In the application, be careful that they comply with the instructions and be in an open disposition to solve all the doubts they have.
When everyone gets to the Raven quiz, make sure they’re in the same window, ready to start it. When this is the case, tell them “In the next part you will find a series of images with a cut section, you must select from the options given the one that fits the image. They will have 15 min from my order”. When the time is up, tell the students to scroll down to the bottom of the page to continue with the test.
Make sure they complete the rest of the tests. When they finish it and they call you, you can thank them and tell them to come back to your classroom. When the computer is idle and you are no longer going to apply any tests, continue to close the page and your email session, leave the computer as you received it.
NOTE: You cannot leave the room until all students have completed everything.
NOTE 2: Fill in the basic data format.
7.2 Paper application
7.2.1 Materials
-
Application protocol and basic data format (for the researcher).
-
Stopwatch (can be the cell phone).
-
Shortage format tests.
-
Testing without the question of scarcity.
-
Neutral format tests.
-
App of raven matrices.
-
Raven matrices answer sheet.
When you get to the room, explain to the participants what their participation consists of, make it clear that cell phones, iPods, etc. are not allowed, and that they need to be silent during the application. Once everyone has it clear, proceed to distribute the material. Each participant must have a test, an application of the raven matrices and an answer sheet, that is, three formats in total. Make sure one third of the course has a test with the harsh scarcity format, another third has a test with the soft scarcity format, and the other third has the test without the scarcity question. When you deliver the Raven matrix application, emphasize that it cannot be scratched, and that it must be delivered in the condition in which it was received. (For greater clarity, refer to the instruction of the virtual application).
Once the conditions are clear, give the instruction to begin. When they begin, tell the participants that they must wait for their instruction to start the Raven matrix application, once all the participants have read the scarcity question (and those who do not have it must wait), give the instruction to start the test of Raven and time 15 min, once the 15 min have passed, tell the participants that they should stop and continue with the original test, make sure everyone stops, if necessary collect the answer sheets.
After the raven matrices, all the participants can take the time necessary to answer the entire test, those who finish can leave the room, if it is not possible, ensure that the place is silent, once you collect all the tests thank them for their time and leave the room.
Appendix G
Mani et al. (2013) in their supplementary materials, report some analysis of responses to scenarios in their first experiment. They coded the number of options considered if the participant showed tradeoff thinking and the number of words in the response. As showed in Table 3, we also coded the number of solutions and we also counted the number of words of our participants’ responses. Table 5 shows the average of these values (standard deviations in parenthesis).
Appendix H
See Table 6
.
Appendix I
Following McKenzie’s (2015, February 04) argument, we decided to run a complementary analysis. We tested for joint orthogonality by running a linear probability model where the dependent variable is pertaining, or not, to a primed group. In other words, we wanted to see if any observable variable was significant in the probability of being assigned to the harsh or soft condition. As seen in Table 7, we can see that the variables are jointly unrelated (F(7,273) = 1.037, p = 0.41) to the probability of belonging to any of the primed treatment groups.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
González-Arango, F., Corredor, J., López-Ardila, M.A. et al. The duality of poverty: a replication of Mani et al. (2013) in Colombia. Theory Decis 92, 39–73 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-021-09836-x
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-021-09836-x