Impact of Scarcity on Behavioral Conditions

Taking a look into one of the three articles “Some Consequences of Having too Little,” written and studied by Anuj K. Shah, Sendhil Mullainathan, and Eldar Shafir, people often faced with too little tend to borrow excessively and focus on the present rather than the future (Shah, Mullainathan and Shafir 682). In order to test this hypothesis, the writers have conducted 5 experiments to show how scarcity affects behavioral, environmental and psychological conditions that re-inforce poverty (Shah, Mullainathan and Shafir 682). These studies also prove that having less requires more attention on tasks at hand while neglecting other tasks that seem not so pressing (Shah, Mullainathan and Shafir 682). For example, I know a lady named Marci. Marci depends on her food stamps each month to feed

her family.

Every month she goes to the store and stocks up on perishable items such as fruits, veggies and meats to accommodate her nonperishables she already has at home. Focused on groceries for her household Marci neglects her light bill, which results in the refrigerator turning off. Inevitably all the meats and other perishable items spoil and go bad. All the months’ food she just bought at the store are now gone. Marci’s main concern to feed her family rose above the light bill that she neglected from having scarce resources, resulting in poor decision making.

To scientifically support this example, the writers conducted 2 experiments that created an increase of focus on a particular task (Shah, Mullainathan and Shafir 683). In experiment 1, they rounded 60 individuals to play the well-known game of “Wheel of Fortune” (Shah, Mullainathan and Shafir 683). The “poor” participants had

a budget of 84 total guesses to solve the word puzzle and the “rich” had 280 total guesses (Shah, Mullainathan and Shafir 682). During the experiment the researchers noticed the poor were more engaged in the game than the rich (Shah, Mullainathan and Shafir 683). Given less opportunities to solve the puzzle, the poor had to focus more (Shah, Mullainathan and Shafir 683). In experiment 2, they took this hypothesis one step further (Shah, Mullainathan and Shafir 683). 68 participants played a game similar to angry birds (Shah, Mullainathan and Shafir 683). “Poor” participants had 30 total shots to clear targets and the “rich” had 150 (Shah, Mullainathan and Shafir 683). In order to test that scarcity increased focus they timed the playing level of each participant (Shah, Mullainathan and Shafir 683). They came to the conclusion that poor participants took longer time to sling the first shot than the rich (Shah, Mullainathan and Shafir 683). Although the rich were engaged, they did not seem to focus more than the poor, resulting in worse scores (Shah, Mullainathan and Shafir 683). “If the rich had played as if they were poor, they would have performed better” (Shah, Mullainathan and Shafir 683). With experiments 1 and 2 combined, they came to an understanding that indeed scarcity does require more focus on tasks at hand (Shah, Mullainathan and Shafir 684).
In experiment 3 to 5 they showed how and why having too little makes people want to borrow (Shah, Mullainathan and Shafir 684). In each of these experiments participants got a chance to borrow in addition to their budgets (Shah, Mullainathan and Shafir 684). Together, they collected data that proved poor participants borrowed time way beyond rich participants (Shah, Mullainathan and Shafir 684). Experiment 5 was different. In this round, they introduced previews into the next round (Shah, Mullainathan and Shafir 684). The experiment showed that poor people borrowed more time focusing on the current playing round and did not focus on any previews (Shah, Mullainathan and Shafir 684). Together, these experiments helped prove their hypothesis correct (Shah, Mullainathan and Shafir 685). Scarcity does in fact show that having too little causes more focus on what’s at hand than what’s to come (Shah, Mullainathan and Shafir 685). With understanding scarcity one must also understand abundance; in this case the rich and poor. The next article elaborates on who should get what and why.