A New Method for Experimentally Inducing Feelings of Abundance and Scarcity in Children

• In Event: Poster Session 13
  In Poster Session: PS 13 Topic - Social Cognition

Abstract

A growing body of literature investigates how resource scarcity influences human cognition and behavior. How does having less than what one needs shape one’s thoughts, emotions, and actions? This question is pressing given the extreme level of wealth inequality in the United States, creating many people with less than they need and others with more. Diverse methodological approaches to this topic have been used with adults, often yielding divergent conclusions. Resource scarcity has been operationalized using stable factors such as personal wealth (Piff et al., 2010) or experimentally-induced temporary states via hunger (Briers et al., 2006) or recalling past events (Roux, Goldsmith, & Bonezzi, 2015). However, although children experience resource scarcity themselves, few developmental studies have used scarcity inductions regarding oneself (see Huppert, Shaw, & Decety, 2020, on hunger), and we are aware of none involving scarcity in others.

Our goal for this pre-registered study (https://aspredicted.org/blind.php?x=kf84dv) was to develop and assess a new methodological tool for investigating this topic. We created recall tasks to induce feelings of scarcity or abundance experienced by oneself or others and evaluated their effectiveness. We predicted that children would distinguish such experiences using emotion-based and quantity-based rating scales. Data collection began in Summer 2020 and should conclude by December (67% of the sample is complete). Sessions occurred via moderated video chats with a diverse sample of 8—6-year-olds (M = 90.45 months, SD = 10.30).

Study 1: Block order (Scarcity versus Abundance) and rating task order (emotion vs. quantity) were counter-balanced, creating 4 versions. Version 2, described here, began with the Scarcity Block. Participants were asked to recall and describe a time when they experienced resource scarcity (“… when you had less than what you needed of something”). They rated their emotional experience on a five-point scale ranging from “very sad” to “very happy”. Next, they rated their perceptions of resource quantity on a five-point scale ranging from “almost nothing” to “a whole bunch extra.” After a break, children completed the Abundance Block, which was similar except that the recall prompt was about abundance (“… more than what you needed”). Preliminary results (current n = 20 out of 24) support our predictions. Participants robustly distinguished scarcity and abundance, assigning happier emotional ratings, t(19) = 3.87, p = .001, d = .87, and higher quantity ratings, t(19) = 8.43, p < .001, d = 1.89, in the Abundance Block than the Scarcity Block (Figure 1).

Study 2: The approach was similar except that participants recalled times when someone else they knew experienced scarcity and abundance. Data collection is ongoing (n = 12 out of 24); formal analyses would be premature, but the data thus far (Figure 2) suggests qualitatively similar results to those of Study 1, as we predicted.

Preliminary results indicate that children can indeed recall experiences with scarcity and abundance and distinguish these states. Our method seems amenable for future studies on topics such as scarcity’s effects on risk preferences or generosity and avoids the ethical challenges of inducing scarcity through other means.

Authors

• Richard E Ahl, Boston College
  Presenting Author

• Paloma Garcia, Brown University
  Non-Presenting Author

• Emma Cook, Boston College
  Non-Presenting Author

• Dorsa Amir, Boston College
  Non-Presenting Author

• Katherine McAuliffe, Boston College
  Non-Presenting Author