Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42800799›Full record

ArticleNature communications2026

Revisiting evidence for an attentional tunneling effect caused by scarcity.

Fiona Tho Pesch, Antonia F Langenhoff, Mahesh Srinivasan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. In conversation with Sergey Stavisky.Nature neuroscience · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Fiona Tho PeschDepartment of Psychology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany. fiona@thopesch.de.ORCID 0000-0003-1682-0436
Antonia F LangenhoffDepartment of Psychology, University of California Berkeley, California, USA.
Mahesh SrinivasanDepartment of Psychology, University of California Berkeley, California, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

People in poverty sometimes behave in ways that perpetuate their socioeconomic condition. By one influential account, these behaviors arise from psychological effects of scarcity on attention that create greater focus toward managing scarce resources, at the cost of attention to potentially-beneficial information outside of this 'tunnel'. Although the tunneling hypothesis has been widely discussed in academia and beyond, its direct empirical support derives primarily from a landmark study by Shah et al. (2012) in which participants played games while their access to resources was experimentally manipulated, rendering participants either 'rich' or 'poor'. Here, we present new analyses that contest the original interpretation of the data, showing that the behavioral differences between 'rich' and 'poor' participants are more parsimoniously explained by the game's structure than by an attentional shift caused by the scarcity manipulation-a conclusion we substantiate through an additional experiment. We contextualize our findings within the literature on scarcity and attention, and highlight the need for greater clarity regarding the tunneling hypothesis itself.

Indexed as

AttentionPovertyHumans

Identifiers

PMID42800799
PMCPMC13615970

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.