ArticleRoyal Society open science2022
Individual differences in decision-making: evidence for the scarcity hypothesis from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing.
Article in Royal Society open science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The impact of subjective socioeconomic status and threat cues on intertemporal decision-making.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Genomic structural equation modeling of impulsivity and risk-taking traits reveals three latent factors distinctly associated with brain structure and development.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Negative affectivity drivers of impulsivity in opioid use disorder.Nature reviews. Psychology · 2025Article
- Thinking about neither death nor poverty affects delay discounting, but episodic foresight does: Three replications of the effects of priming on time preferences.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2023Article
- Individual differences in decision-making: evidence for the scarcity hypothesis from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing.Royal Society open science · 2022Article
- Economic and social deprivation predicts impulsive choice in children.Scientific reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We report the results of a pre-registered analysis of data from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing that was designed to test the hypothesis that economic scarcity is associated with individual differences in decision-making. We tested this hypothesis by comparing time preferences for different socio-economic groups and in geographical areas ranging from the most deprived to the least deprived in England using the English indices of multiple deprivation. The data supported this hypothesis: people in the most deprived areas were more likely to prefer smaller-sooner rewards than people from the least deprived areas. Similarly, people in technical or routine occupations tended to prefer smaller-sooner rewards than people in professional or intermediate occupations. In addition, we found that gender, cognitive function and subjective social status also predicted time preferences. We discuss these results in the context of theoretical models of scarcity-based models of choice behaviour and decision-making.
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.