ArticleFrontiers in psychology2020
Consequences of Poverty on Economic Decision-Making: Assessing the Verisimilitude of the Cognitive Mechanism.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A multinational analysis of how emotions relate to economic decisions regarding time or risk.Nature human behaviour · 2024Pooled it
- Individual corporate reputation and perception of collective corporate reputation regarding stock market investments.PloS one · 2021Article
- Consequences of Poverty on Economic Decision-Making: Assessing the Verisimilitude of the Cognitive Mechanism.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The paper aims to assess the verisimilitude of the hypothesized model of poverty perpetuation which links socioeconomic situation and economic preferences via cognitive load, executive functions, and intuitive/deliberative decision-making styles. In order to test the model against the data, three studies (exploratory, confirmatory, and replication) were conducted with a total sample size of 1182 participants. The results showed that neither the proposed model as a whole found the required support in the data nor the consequent, theoretically justifiable, respecifications improved its fit so that it could be deemed acceptable. Simultaneously, the dyadic relationships between the variables were mainly found to be weak. The sensitivity analysis revealed that the majority of the observed estimates varied substantively depending on the arbitrary analytic decisions of the researcher. In summary, the hypothesized cognitive mechanism does not explain what economic decision-making depends on nor why people fall into poverty traps. The paper discusses several plausible sources of the negative findings and possible directions for future research are suggested.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.