Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2023 Mar 22:1–9. Online ahead of print. doi: 10.1007/s12144-023-04455-x

Impact of perceived scarcity on delay of gratification: meditation effects of self-efficacy and self-control

Liang Yu 1, Jie Gao 2, Yan Kong 3,✉, Long Huang 1,✉
PMCID: PMC10031180  PMID: 37359664

Abstract

Most people worldwide suffer from resource scarcity in their lives. Perceived scarcity plays an important role in cognitive abilities and decision-making. This study employed the perceived scarcity, self-control, self-efficacy, and delayed gratification scales to explore the relationship among perceived scarcity, self-efficacy, self-control, and delayed gratification as well as the mediating role of self-efficacy and self-control between perceived scarcity and delayed gratification. A cross-sectional survey was conducted via an online survey platform with 1,109 Chinese college students. The results showed that perceived scarcity was negatively correlated with individual self-efficacy, self-control, and delayed gratification, while self-efficacy and self-control played a partial parallel-mediated role between perceived scarcity and delayed gratification. The mediation model accounted for 28% of the variance in delayed gratification. Moreover, the results indicated that perceived scarcity can reduce the delay in gratification through its negative impact on individual self-efficacy and self-control. To some extent, this result explains how perceived scarcity delays gratification from the perspective of motivation and cognition and provides support for further research on the intervention of perceived scarcity’s psychological and behavioral consequences.

Keywords: Perceived scarcity, Delay of gratification, Self-efficacy, Self-control, Meditation effects

Introduction

From a global perspective, there is currently a plentiful supply of material resources for human beings when compared with those during historical periods of famine and drought (Chakravarthy & Booth, 2004). However, in poverty-stricken countries and regions, including even some developed countries, people still suffer from long-term resource scarcity. This is also true for wealthy people who complain that the available resources are insufficient to meet their greater needs (Mullainathan & Shafir, 2013). The majority of people worldwide have suffered from some form of scarcity at some point in their lives, such as time, money, or food (Griskevicius et al., 2013). Thus, scarcity, particularly with regard to financial resources, remains a common topic of discussion and concern in daily life (Twist & Barker, 2006). To make matters worse, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has aggravated the scarcity of resources such as money, time, and freedom.

Scarcity refers to when the demand for a resource is greater than its supply (Mullainathan & Shafir, 2013). In the past decade, psychologists and behaviorists have focused on how resource scarcity influences people’s cognition and behaviors (Griskevicius et al., 2013). Research shows that poverty resulting from insufficient financial resources is consistent with a decline in people’s self-evaluation and cognitive abilities and can lead to impulsivity, excessive borrowing, unhealthy lifestyles, and insufficient delay of gratification (DoG) ability (Xu et al., 2020; Mani et al., 2013). However, studies have also found that poverty has a fluctuating influence on individuals’ psychology and behavior. Psychological and behavioral deviations occur not only when poor individuals encounter situations of scarcity (Mani et al., 2013; Spears, 2011) but also when rich individuals are under a simulated scarcity situation. Thus, it can be seen that absolute objective scarcity may not be the only reason for the deviation. Indeed, people’s subjective perceptions of whether money is scarce may be more important, thus offering a new explanation for the psychological and behavioral consequences of poverty and the key role of perceived scarcity. Thus, our study aims to explore whether perceived scarcity influences individuals’ psychology and behaviors and how this mechanism works.

Perceived scarcity and delayed gratification

Evidence from previous studies reveals that people with poor living conditions involving limited resources have a shorter delay of gratification and are reluctant to give up relatively small immediate interests for larger future ones. Cross-cultural consistency in this aspect can be seen across countries such as the U.S., Ethiopia, and Vietnam (Haushofer et al., 2014). (DoG) refers to the act of postponing immediate pleasure in the hope of gaining greater rewards in the future (Mischel, 1974). In daily life, patience and contribution are often required if we aim to realize an objective or overcome challenges. Sometimes, we even have to forgo immediate pleasure and suffer from pain. Empirical research confirms the effects of money scarcity on delayed gratification. For example, Griskevicius et al. (2011) found that people who grew up with a lower socio-economic status (SES) tend to be more present-biased and are unwilling to wait when compared to people who grew up in a higher SES. Brown (2015) discovered that if people have a high income and few limitations on mobility, they prefer larger delayed rewards.

Carvalho et al. (2016) conducted a lottery-choice task experiment on low-income participants in the United States and found that they tended to pay more attention to their present circumstances before payday. However, recent studies have shown that the effects of objective scarcity on the DoG are inconsistent as they can only be activated under certain circumstances. In a field experiment, Spears (2011) discovered that low-income participants were more likely to choose unhealthy snacks when they were shopping but poor and rich people consumed unhealthy snacks at a similar frequency when not shopping. The reason may be that poorer people’s perceived money scarcity activates the willpower to resist buying expensive items, thus leading to a depletion in self-control to refrain from purchasing unhealthy snacks. The research of Haushofer et al. (2014) shares a similar result: when facing the economic dilemma of high spending, poor people are more likely to choose smaller immediate profits, which subsequently decreases delayed gratification because economic dilemmas activate individual perceived scarcity. The role of perceived scarcity has also been verified in experiments on the general population, such as the experiments conducted by Laran and Salerno (2013) and Liu (2012) that indicate that individuals exposed to pictures depicting poverty conditions are more likely to choose immediate gratification.

In sum, previous field studies have focused mainly on the objective rather than the subjective perceived scarcity of resources. However, as seen from early studies on the effects of objective scarcity on DoG, recent research on the role of objective scarcity in given situations and experiments on the effects of designed situations of scarcity on DoG suggest that perceived scarcity is likely to play a key role. Furthermore, the study conducted by Mullainathan and Shafir (2013) indicated that objective and subjective perceived scarcity may influence people’s cognition, preferences, and behaviors in similar ways. Thus, It can be inferred that perceived scarcity is negatively correlated with DoG.

Intermediate variables in the relationship between perceived scarcity and delayed gratification

With the increasing number of studies on the mechanism by which scarcity influences cognitive and psychological consequences, researchers have shifted their focus to the internal psychological variables of perceived scarcity that influence DoG. Specifically, scholars have the constructed scarcity theory and poverty trap theory to explain the negative effects of scarcity on individuals’ DoG.

Scarcity theory posits that poor individuals lack not only material but also cognitive resources. Researchers suggest that cognitive resource scarcity will cause poor individuals’ to focus their attention on current problems while neglecting others (Shah et al., 2012). The scarcity mindset of poor individuals may also inhibit focus and cognitive capacities, leading to bandwidth load (a metaphor for cognitive load), which, in turn, can result in deviant behaviors and other downsides of DoG, such as over-borrowing and short-sightedness (Mullainathan & Shafir, 2013).

Evidence found in experiments (Shah et al., 2012) and field studies (Mani et al., 2013) highlights the key roles that attention and cognitive capabilities play in poverty and DoG. Mani et al. (2013) found that farmers had lower cognitive control after harvests. Shah, Mullainathan, and Shafir (2012) manipulated participants’ scarcity in chances, time, and economy in the game of Wheel of Fortune and found that subjects deprived of resources were more fatigued despite spending less time in the game as they spent more time engaged in decision-making. Moreover, in the following tests on attention, subjects were found to have worse performance and borrow larger sums of money, regardless of the interest rate. Depletion of cognitive capabilities resulting from poverty may be the key variable that associates poverty with insufficient DoG capabilities. Carvalho et al. (2016a, b) further distinguished the impact of long- and short-term economic conditions on cognitive control ability and revealed that long-term financial stability is related to the willingness to wait for higher returns and improvement in cognitive control ability. Moreover, under temporary changes in economic conditions before and after payday, subjects showed a shorter delay of gratification for the day before the payday than after the payday.

The ego depletion theory explains this process from the perspective of resource depletion, which states that human cognitive resources are a limited psychological resource (Heatherton & Wagner, 2011; Kurzban et al., 2013; Inzlicht et al., 2015). Perceived scarcity leads individuals to focus their attention and cognitive resources on issues related to scarcity. When thinking about and dealing with these issues, they will inevitably use psychological resources, leading to the depletion of their limited cognitive resources. This, in turn, causes individuals to experience a shortage of cognitive resources and cognitive control correspondingly declines, making it difficult to resist temptations, overcome impulses, and reducing DoG ability to (Tan et al., 2012). Similarly, Dou et al. (2014) found that the high cognitive loss induced by Stroop tasks led to a decline in individuals’ ability to delay gratification in subsequent intertemporal selection tasks and resulted in them electing for more immediate and smaller benefits. What is more, the highly focused attention-capture mechanism caused by scarcity leads to a decline in cognitive ability. When individuals seek to shift their limited attention resources from their urgent needs to remote stimulation, they will lose even more cognitive control ability (Mann & Ward, 2007).

Behavioral economics researchers have proven the existence of a mechanism of mutual feedback between limitations on external resources and individual behaviors that functions through individual willpower, self-efficacy, and effort level, defined as a behavioral poverty trap (Dalton et al., 2014). They assert that poverty results in the formation of this trap and finally leads to low aspiration, under the influence of which poor individuals will devote less effort, become immersed in a state of constant poverty, and essentially become trapped in this condition. Compared with rich individuals, poor individuals under the influence of internal limitations are more likely to fail in achieving their aspirations (i.e., unable to realize individual objectives), which may lead to low self-evaluation and self-disutility/self-efficacy. They believe that due to their incapacity they cannot gain future rewards regardless of how much effort they expend, and thus become unwilling to spend more effort and lose their motivation for attaining future larger rewards. In an empirical study, Wuepper and Sauer (2016) found that self-efficacy and social capital were the main predictive variables of future performance in farmers in Ghana. Notably, this study indicated that self-efficacy played a more important role in poverty elimination and economic development than farmers’ agricultural expertise. The authors believe that individuals with higher self-efficacy will set higher objectives and devote more effort to realize them (Wuepper & Lybber, 2017). In an intervention study, Bernard et al. (2014) also found that farmers’ self-efficacy generated more savings, less leisure, and more investment in education. Albalooshi et al. (2019) also discovered that self-affirmation enhanced the self-efficacy of poor individuals, making them more willing to wait for greater returns and improving their DoG ability. Ghosal et al. (2016) made Indian sex workers reject fatalism through an 8-week “psychological empowerment” seminar to improve their self-efficacy. The results showed that their psychological status was significantly improved, and they thought more about the future and increased their savings and health-seeking behaviors. Therefore, it can be seen that the depletion in self-efficacy resulting from limited economic resources may be another key intermediate variable that links poverty with insufficient DoG capabilities.

Although many studies center on objective scarcity with regard to finances, research on perceived money scarcity is limited. There is also confusion regarding the use of objective and perceived scarcity. Individuals with objective scarcity are often defaulted as individuals with high perceived scarcity, or the subjective feelings of individuals on scarcity are not discussed. Theoretical models such as the scarcity, depletion, and behavioral poverty trap theories reveal that the internal mechanism of scarcity affects delayed gratification to some extent. However, most existing theoretical models focus only on a certain psychological factor and fail to incorporate multiple key psychological factors from multiple perspectives for systematic research on the psychological mechanism. Moreover, these theoretical models are mainly based on the scarcity of objective resources rather than perceived scarcity. In addition, most theories are in the theoretical stage, and the relevant empirical research to support them remains insufficient.

The present study

Considering that objective and subjective scarcity affect people’s cognition, choice, and behaviors (Mullainathan & Shafir, 2013), we might consider the similar effects of perceived scarcity on DoG as those of objective scarcity. Thus, this study proposes a possible dual mediation model to reveal the impact of perceived scarcity on delayed gratification and its internal mechanism. In this model, self-control and self-efficacy serve as mediating variables between scarcity perception and delayed gratification. Scarcity perception can directly affect delayed gratification, or indirectly affect delayed gratification through self-efficacy or self-control. This model is illustrated in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Estimated mediation model of perceived scarcity and DOG

The current research takes Chinese college students as the research subjects and employs the scarcity, self-control, self-efficacy, and delayed satisfaction scales as measuring tools. We conduct a cross-sectional online survey using the snowball sampling method to verify the following assumptions: (1) perceived scarcity is negatively correlated with DoG; (2) self-efficacy plays an intermediate role between perceived scarcity and DoG; and (3) self-control plays an intermediate role between perceived scarcity and DoG.

Methodology

Subjects and procedure

A total of 1,329 college students from Wannan Medical College in China were enrolled in the survey, all of whom volunteered to participate through the Wenjuanxing application. Participants were informed that their responses to the psychological questionnaire survey would remain anonymous and that they had the right to withdraw at any time during the survey. A total of 220 samples were deleted owing to a short completion time (less than 2 min) and missing or extreme values. Finally, the valid sample include 1,109 college students (Mage=19.81, SDage=1.18), of whom 469 (42.3%) were male.

Measures

Delay of gratification scale

To measure individual capacities for DoG, the Deferment of Gratification Scale was employed. It measures the ability to resist instant gratification; that is, the longer people wait, the larger and later rewards they can get (Ray & Najman, 1986). Two factors influence the behavior of choosing to wait for larger rewards in DGS: impulse control and planning and waiting. The scale contains 12 items, of which six are positive (positive scoring) and the remainder are negative (negative scoring). Examples include “I’m good at saving money (Chinese: 我善于存钱, 而不是一下子花光它们)” and “I agree we the statement that we should ‘Eat, drink and have fun, because tomorrow we may all die.‘ (Chinese: 我同意这样的思想: “人生苦短, 及时行乐”)” The six-point Likert scoring method was used for the evaluation, where 0 = completely disagree and 7 = completely agree. Cronbach’s α for the DGS was 0.75.

Scarcity scale

This scale was adapted from Wiepkin and Breezen’s (2012) money perception scale and consists of ten items to measure participants’ perceived scarcity in money scale. Examples include “Now I have enough money to buy what I want (Chinese: 现在, 我有足够的钱买我想要的东西)” and “Daily spending can bring me huge stress (Chinese: 日常消费会给我带来很大压力)”. The seven-point Likert scoring method was used for the evaluation, where 1 = completely disagree and 7 = completely agree. Four items were scored in reverse, while the remainder were scored forward. Higher scores indicate a higher level of perceived scarcity in money. The Cronbach’s α for this scale was 0.85.

General self-efficacy scale

This study employed a general self-efficacy scale (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 2010), which has been culturally validated to possess satisfactory intercultural psychometric properties. It describes individuals’ level of belief in their capabilities to deal with difficulties and challenges within their functioning (Luszczynska et al., 2005) and includes ten items scored using a six-point Likert scale ranging from 0 = never correct to 5 = always correct. An example item is “If I work hard enough, I can always figure out the solution (Chinese: 如果我尽力去做的话,我总是能够解决问题的).” The Cronbach’s α for this scale was 0.88.

Self-control scale

The brief self-control scale, constructed by Tangney et al. (2004), was used to measure self-control. It is a 13-item version focusing on five aspects: impulse control (five questions), performance in work or study (three questions), self-discipline (two questions), healthy habits (two questions), and dependability (one question). Representative examples include “I can resist temptation well (Chinese: 我能很好地抵制诱惑)” and “It’s difficult for me to break a bad habit (Chinese: 对我来说改掉坏习惯是困难的).“ A seven-point Likert scale was used to measure responses, where 0 = completely disagree and 5 = completely agree. The Cronbach’s α for this scale was 0.73.

Statistics processing

The current study deleted samples with missing and extreme values. The entire dataset conforms to a normal distribution. The data were statistically analyzed with IBM SPSS 23.0 software. Pearson product-moment correlation analysis was used to investigate the demographic variables. The regression method recommended by Hayes (2017) was used for mediation analysis using Model 4 and 5,000 bootstrap samples. The statistical significance level was set at p < 0.05 in the current study.

Results

Correlation analysis

Table 1 shows the results of the correlation analysis when grade and family SES are controlled. Except for the significant negative correlation between self-efficacy and gender, there was no significant correlation between the other variables and gender. More importantly, it indicates that there are both significant positive correlations among self-control, self-efficacy, and DoG, while perceived scarcity is both significantly and negatively correlated with self-control, self-efficacy, and DoG.

Table 1.

Correlation Analysis among variables

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5
Gender 0.58 0.49 1
Perceived Scarcity 3.91 0.97 -0.04 1
Self-Efficacy 2.54 0.52 -0.17*** -0.23*** 1
Self-Control 3.14 0.43 0.02 -0.15*** 0.29*** 1
Delay of Gratification 4.66 0.74 -0.04 -0.17*** 0.27*** 0.51*** 1
Open in a new tab

Note. Gender is a dummy variable, male = 0, female = 1; *** p < 0.001

Mediation analysis

As shown in Table 2, the standardized regression coefficient between perceived scarcity and self-efficacy was statistically significant (β=-0.23, t=-8.05, p < 0.001). The standardized regression coefficient between self-efficacy and DoG was statistically significant (β = 0.11, t = 3.91, p < 0.001). A total of 5,000 iterations of repeated sampling using the bootstrap method were used to test the indirect effects (see Table 3). The 95% range of the indirect effect of self-efficacy between perceived scarcity and DoG was [-0.041, -0.011], excluding 0. The indirect effect value was − 0.025, and the indirect effect was significant. Thus, self-efficacy mediates the relationship between perceived scarcity and DoG.

Table 2.

The analysis of mediation model

Variables Self-efficacy Self-control DoG
β t β t β t
Gender -0.18 -6.39*** -0.01 0.39 -0.04 -1.30
Perceived scarcity -0.23 -8.05*** -0.15 -5.13*** -0.08 -2.98**
Self-efficacy 0.11 3.91***
self-control 0.46 17.14***
R 2 0.08 0.02 0.28
F 51.17*** 13.29*** 106.13***
Open in a new tab

Note. Gender is a dummy variable, male = 0, female = 1; ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001

Table 3.

Bootstrap verification of indirect effects and effect values

Two Paths of Indirect Effects Effect Value Confidence Interval(95%)
Perceived scarcity→self efficacy→DoG -0.025 [-0.041, -0.011]
Perceived scarcity→self control→DoG -0.070 [-0.101, -0.040]
Open in a new tab

The standardized regression coefficient between perceived scarcity and self-control was statistically significant (β=-0.15, t=-5.13, p < 0.001). The standardized regression coefficient between self-control and DoG was statistically significant (β = 0.46, t = 17.14, p < 0.001). Using the bootstrap method to sample 5,000 times for the mediation effect test revealed that the 95% interval of the mediation effect of self-control between perceived scarcity and DoG was [-0.101, -0.040], excluding 0. The mediation effect value was − 0.070 and the indirect effect was significant. Thus, self-control mediates the relationship between perceived scarcity and DoG. The post-test of the reverse model found that self-control had no significant predictive effect on perceived scarcity (β=-0.04, t=-1.22, p = 0.22), so the reverse model is not tenable.

In addition, it should be noted that the standardized regression coefficient between perceived scarcity and DoG remained statistically significant (β=-0.08, t=-2.98, p < 0.001). Thus, self-efficacy and self-control play a partial parallel-mediated role between perceived scarcity and DoG (see Fig. 2). Overall, the whole mediation model accounted for 28% of the variance in DoG [R2 = 0.28, F (4, 1104) = 106.13, p < 0 0.001].

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Relationship model of perceived scarcity and DoG

Discussion

The results showed that perceived scarcity, self-control, self-efficacy, and DoG were significantly associated with each other when controlling for variables such as family SES, and there was a negative association between perceived scarcity and DoG, meaning that when individuals face scarcity, they will have lower DoG capabilities and prefer immediate satisfaction over waiting for future larger rewards. The results remained the same when variables such as family SES were controlled, which explains why the relationship between perceived scarcity and DoG can overcome the limitation of objective economic conditions. Thus, it can be seen that individuals’ subjective perceptions of economic conditions is a crucial factor that influences individuals’ willingness to refrain from instant satisfaction or wait for future larger rewards. Notably,shorter DoG caused by perceived scarcity may bring greater harm, resulting in individuals’ being involved in objective scarcity and further trapped in the vicious cycle of subjective scarcity→depletion in DoG→short-sighted behaviors→objective scarcity→subjective scarcity. Although there are few experimental studies that measure participants’ perceived scarcity directly, some have found that scarcity circumstances designed in laboratories also have significant effects on DoG. For example, Bartoš, Bauer, Chytilová, and Levely (2021) showed that considering poverty problems increases the preference of Uganda farmers to consume entertainment first and to postpone work. Liu et al. discovered that the perception of poverty pictures may induce poor individuals to choose short-term and smaller rewards over later and larger rewards. Zhang (2019) also found that recalling life experiences in poverty activated individuals’ perceived scarcity and caused them to pursue smaller instant benefits rather than larger long-term benefits.

Related analyses suggest that perceived scarcity is negatively associated with self-efficacy and self-control, self-efficacy is positively associated with self-control and DoG, and self-control has a positive relationship with DoG. The hypothesis of the parallel mediation effects of self-efficacy and self-control on perceived scarcity and DoG was verified in a further study of the mediating effects. Scarcity theory contends that individuals’ perception of money scarcity leads to overconcern and worries about money, resulting in a bandwidth load that consumes individual limited cognitive resources and leads to depleted self-control. Some researchers believe that the adverse influence of concerns about economic conditions on cognitive manipulation is comparable to the side effects of insomnia (Linde & Bergström, 1992; Mani et al., 2013). This result is supported by empirical scientific research (Shah et al., 2012), indicating that individuals become more fatigued and less attentive when facing laboratory-designed scarcity in chances, time, and economy and borrow large sums of money regardless of the interest rate. Studies by Spears (2011) and Zhang (2019) found that compared with non scarcity circumstances, people exhibit worse performance in tasks requiring self-control under manipulated scarcity circumstances. In addition, people generally focus on their urgent needs and neglect remote aims (Soyoun et al., 2008). However, humans possess the ability to plan and manage the future. When current behaviors concentrated on the present no longer suit the optimal aims, people overcome them through cognitive control (Mann & Ward, 2007). Whether individuals succeed in planning and managing the future depends on their level of willpower. Self-control theory suggests that delaying personal satisfaction for future larger benefits indicates a high degree of self-control (Ainslie, 1975). Immediate rewards are temptations that prevent individuals from pursuing larger future rewards. However, individuals with high self-control can resist temptation and wait for larger rewards. On the other hand, those with low self-control are less likely to resist the temptation of immediate satisfaction, which suggests that they have low DoG and are more likely to exhibit impulsive and instinctive behaviors (Vohs, 2013).

Scarcity theory is constructed based on the limited cognitive resources model in which limited cognitive resources are believed to be limited psychological resources (Inzlicht et al., 2015). When scarcity triggers cognitive load and leads to the depletion of individuals’ cognitive resources, individuals’ ability to process information and exercise cognitive control decreases, which may cause deviations in DoG behaviors. In contrast to the limited cognitive resources model, the process model asserts that the reason people fail to resist temptation is not insufficient cognitive abilities but rather shifts in motivation (Inzlicht & Schmeichel, 2012). When people are uncertain about the future and think that they cannot insist until they can obtain larger future benefits, they feel unmotivated to resist the immediate gratification and wait for the unknown. The results of this study support this model. Perceived scarcity depletes self-efficacy, willpower and self-control. This, in turn, may lead to a loss of confidence in resisting immediate temptation because it seems more reasonable and appropriate to satisfy immediate needs as the future is beyond control and cannot be immediately realized. This is consistent with the life history theory in evolutionary biology, which states that people adopt two life history strategies in different living environments: slow and fast. People who adopt the former focus on long-term benefits and prefer future larger rewards to smaller instant ones, while those choosing the latter pay more attention to short-term benefits and enjoy immediate satisfaction rather than future larger rewards (Daly & Wilson, 2005).

The environment in which people live determines the strategies people choose (Ellis et al., 2009). When individuals have high levels of perceived scarcity, they may believe they face uncontrollable and dismal conditions where larger rewards are out of reach. Consequently, they choose a fast strategy to benefit their individual development and immediately satisfy their needs. Although this may have detrimental effects on achieving long-term benefits, it is currently the most advantageous and adaptive choice. After all, if they miss the immediate benefit, they may not overcome the difficulty of scarcity now, allowing for a better life in the future. In short, depletion of self-efficacy resulting from perceived scarcity may be the result of adaptation to a severe environment rather than a completely negative choice.

Our study had several limitations. First, participants’ self-assessment scores on the self-control scale might not be an accurate index to show their self-control capabilities because the scores reflect subjective states that might differ from individuals’ actual capabilities. Further studies should be conducted to examine personal cognition in self-control to verify these findings. Second, the current study focused on the transverse section based on questionnaires, which might be insufficient to demonstrate a causal relationship. The current study further conducted a post hoc analysis of the reverse model, and the results show that the reverse model is not tenable, which to some extent confirms the correctness of the model built in this study in the direction of causality. However, considering the lack of time series in cross-sectional studies, it is necessary to carry out laboratory experiments to verify the causal relationship between variables in this study in the future. Finally, the study participants were college students. Further research should be conducted on other populations to increase the generalizability of the results.

In conclusion, this cohort study employed questionnaires to conduct a transverse analysis of the relationship between perceived scarcity, DoG, self-control, and self-efficacy. Our findings show a significantly positive relationship between perceived scarcity and personal DoG. Additionally, self-efficacy and self-control act as parallel mediators between perceived scarcity and DoG. To a certain extent, the results of the current study can explain how perceived scarcity delays gratification from the perspective of motivation and cognition and provide preliminary support for further intervention research on perceived scarcity’s psychological and behavioral consequences in the future.

Funding

This study was supported by the Philosophy and Social Science Planning Project of Anhui Provincial (Grants Nos. AHSKF2021D21).

Declarations

Competing interests

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Ethical approval

The procedures performed in our study involved human participants and they agreed the ethical standards of the institutional research committee, and also with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Footnotes

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Yan Kong, Email: kongyan@ustc.edu.cn.

Long Huang, Email: longhuang19@126.com.

References

  1. Ainslie, G. (1975). Specious reward: a behavioral theory of impulsiveness and impulse control. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 463–496. 10.1037/h0076860 [DOI] [PubMed]
  2. Albalooshi, S., Moeini–Jazani, M., Fennis, B. M., & Warlop, L. (2019). Reinstating the resourceful self: when and how self–affirmations improve executive performance of the powerless. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(2), 1–15. 10.1177/0146167219853840 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  3. Bartoš, V., Bauer, M., Chytilová, J., & Levely, I. (2021). Psychological effects of poverty on time preferences. The Economic Journal, 131(638), 2357–2382. 10.1093/ej/ueab007
  4. Bernard, T., Dercon, S., Orkin, K., & Taffesse, A. S. (2014). The future in mind: aspirations and forward-looking behaviour in rural Ethiopia. Presented at conf. Cent. Study afr. Oxford, UK: Econ., Econ. Dev. Afr
  5. Brown, J. R., Ivkovic, Z., & Weisbenner, S. (2015). Empirical determinants of intertemporal choice. Journal of Financial Economics, 116, 473–486. 10.1016/j.jfineco.2015.04.004
  6. Carvalho, L. S., Meier, S., & Wang, S. W. (2016a). Poverty and economic decision–making: evidence from changes in financial resources at payday. American Economic Review, 106, 260–284. 10.1257/aer.20140481 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  7. Carvalho, L. S., Prina, S., & Sydnor, J. (2016b). The effect of saving on risk attitudes and intertemporal choices. Journal of Development Economics, 120, 41–52. 10.1016/j.jdeveco.2016.01.001
  8. Chakravarthy, M. V., & Frank, W. B. (2004). Eating, Exercise, and “Thrifty” genotypes: connecting the dots toward an Evolutionary understanding of Modern Chronic Diseases. Journal of Applied Physiology, 96(1), 3–10. 10.1152/japplphysiol.00757.2003 [DOI] [PubMed]
  9. Dalton, P. S., Ghosal, S., & Mani, A. (2014). Poverty and aspirations failure. Economic Journal, 126, 67–80. 10.1111/ecoj.12210
  10. Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (2005). Carpe diem: adaptation and devaluing the future. Quarterly Review of Biology, 80, 55–60. 10.1086/431025 [DOI] [PubMed]
  11. Dou, K., Nie, Y. G., Wang, Y. J., Li, J. B., & Shen, W. B. (2014). Self depletion promotes impulsive decision-making: evidence from behavior and ERPs. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 46(10), 1564–1579. 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2014.01564
  12. Ellis, B. J., Figueredo, A. J., Brumbach, B. H., & Schlomer, G. L. (2009). Fundamental dimensions of environmental risk. Human Nature, 20, 204–268. 10.1007/s12110-009-9063-7 [DOI] [PubMed]
  13. Ghosal, S., Jana, S., Mani, A., Mitra, S., & Roy, S. (2016). Sex workers, self–image and stigma: evidence from Kolkata brothels.Work. Paper. 302, University. Warwick, UK
  14. Griskevicius, V., Ackerman, J. M., Cantu, S. M., Delton, A. W., Robertson, T. E., Simpson, J. A., et al. (2013). When the economy falters, do people spend or save? Responses to resource scarcity depend on Childhood environments. Psychological Science, 24(2), 197–205. 10.1177/0956797612451471 [DOI] [PubMed]
  15. Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Delton, A. W., & Robertson, T. E. (2011). The influence of mortality and socioeconomic status on risk and delayed rewards: a life history theory approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(6), 1015–1026. 10.1037/a0022403 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  16. Haushofer, J., & Fehr, E. (2014). On the psychology of poverty. Science, 344(6186), 862–867. 10.1126/science.1232491 [DOI] [PubMed]
  17. Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. Guilford publications
  18. Heatherton, T. F., & Wagner, D. D. (2011). Cognitive neuroscience of self–regulation failure. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15, 132–139. 10.1016/j.tics.2010.12.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  19. Inzlicht, M., & Berkman, E. (2015). Six questions for the resource model of control (and some answers). Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 9(10), 511–524. 10.1111/spc3.12200 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  20. Inzlicht, M., & Schmeichel, B. J. (2012). What is ego depletion? Toward a mechanistic revision of the resource model of self-control. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(5), 450–463. 10.1177/1745691612454134 [DOI] [PubMed]
  21. Kurzban, R., Duckworth, A., Kable, J. W., & Myers, J. (2013). An opportunity cost model of subjective effort and task performance. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36, 661–679. 10.1017/s0140525x12003196 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  22. Laran, J., & Salerno, A. (2013). Life-history strategy, food choice, and caloric consumption. Psychological Science, 24, 167–173. 10.1177/0956797612450033 [DOI] [PubMed]
  23. Linde, L., & Bergström, M. (1992). The effect of one night without sleep on problem-solving and immediate recall. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 54(2), 127–136. 10.1007/BF00937141 [DOI] [PubMed]
  24. Liu, L., Feng, T. Y., Suo, T., Lee, K., & Li, H. (2012). Adapting to the destitute situations: poverty cues lead to short-term choice. Plos One, 7(4), e33950. 10.1371/journal.pone.0033950 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  25. Luszczynska, A., Scholz, U., & Schwarzer, R. (2005). The general self-efficacy scale: multicultural validation studies. The Journal of Psychology, 139(5), 439–457. 10.3200/JRLP.139.5.439-457 [DOI] [PubMed]
  26. Mani, A., Mullainathan, S., Shafir, E., & Zhao, J. (2013). Poverty impedes cognitive function. Science, 341(6149), 976–980. 10.1126/science.1238041 [DOI] [PubMed]
  27. Mann, T., & Ward, A. (2007). Attention, self-control, and health behaviors. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 280–283. 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00520.x
  28. Mischel, W. (1974). Processes in delay of gratification. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 7, 249–292. 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60039-8
  29. Mullainathan, S., & Shafir, E. (2013). Scarcity: why having too little means so much. New York: Henry Holt
  30. Ray, J. J., & Najman, J. M. (1986). The generalizability of deferment of gratification. Journal of Social Psychology, 126(1), 117–119. 10.1080/00224545.1986.9713578
  31. Schwarzer, R. & Jerusalem, M. (2010). The general self-efficacy scale (GSE). Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 12, 329–345
  32. Shah, A. K., Mullainathan, S., & Shafir, E. (2012). Some consequences of having too little. Science, 338(6107), 682–685. 10.1126/science.1222426 [DOI] [PubMed]
  33. Soyoun, K., Jaewon, H., & Daeyeol, L. (2008). Prefrontal coding of temporally discounted values during Intertemporal Choice. Neuron, 59(3), 161–172. 10.1016/j.neuron.2008.05.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  34. Spears, D. (2011). Economic decision-making in poverty depletes behavioral control. The B E Journal of economic analysis & policy, 11(1), 1–42. 10.2202/1935-1682.2973
  35. Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72(2), 271–324. 10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00263.x [DOI] [PubMed]
  36. Tan, S. H., Xu, Y., Wang, F., Song, J. (2012). Self-loss: theory, influencing factors and research. Trend Progress in Psychological Science, 20(5), 715–725. 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2012.00715
  37. Twist, L., & Barker, T. (2006). The soul of money: reclaiming the wealth of our Inner Resources. New York, NY: W. W. Norton amp; Compa
  38. Vohs, K. D. (2013). The poor’s poor mental power. Science, 341, 969–970. 10.1126/science.1244172 [DOI] [PubMed]
  39. Wuepper, D., & Lybbert, T. J. (2017). Perceived self-efficacy, poverty and economic development. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 9(1), 383–404. 10.1146/annurev-resource-100516-053709
  40. Wuepper, D., & Sauer, J. (2016). Explaining the performance of contract farming in ghana: the role of self-efficacy and social capital. Food Policy, 62, 11–27. 10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.05.003
  41. Xu, F. M., Huang, L., Zhang, H., Xiang, P., Liu, T. F., & Li, Y. H. (2020). The psychological mechanism and management countermeasures of behavioral poverty trap: based on dual perspectives of Cognition and Motivation. Advances in Psychological Science, 28(05), 681–691. 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2020.00681
  42. Zhang, Y. C. (2019). The influence of poverty mentality on economic decision-making and its psychological mechanism (PhD dissertation). Central China Normal University, Wuhan

Articles from Current Psychology (New Brunswick, N.j.) are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES