Impact of perceived scarcity on intertemporal choice: the mediating role of sense of control

Abstract

Individuals experiencing objective scarcity are considered shortsighted, impulsive, and biased in their intertemporal choices; whether the same is true for those experiencing perceived scarcity remains unclear. Thus, through a cross-sectional study and three laboratory studies, this study explores the impact of perceived scarcity on intertemporal choice and its psychological mechanisms. The results indicate that perceived scarcity causes individuals to prefer instant gratification and increases their time discount rate in intertemporal choice. Moreover, sense of control mediates the relationship between perceived scarcity and intertemporal choice preference. Specifically, perceived scarcity leads to a decreased sense of control, which cultivates a preference for immediate smaller gains, and increases the time discount rate in intertemporal choice tasks. Therefore, improving individuals’ sense of control may ameliorate these detrimental effects.

The issue of resource scarcity has become an urgent challenge faced by many countries worldwide. Resource scarcity and its psychological impact have also become a global concern. In this field, distinguishing between objective scarcity and perceived scarcity is particularly crucial: objective scarcity refers to the actual lack of resources, while perceived scarcity is the subjective state of resource deficiency experienced by individuals, which may exist independently of objective conditions [1]. Objective scarcity and perceived scarcity do not completely overlap. Although individuals with objective resource scarcity may experience perceived scarcity due to unmet basic material needs, some individuals with objective resource scarcity may not have high material demands and thus do not strongly perceive scarcity. Conversely, some individuals with relatively superior objective conditions may experience significant scarcity due to social comparisons or unmet higher-level needs [2]. Therefore, both objective and subjective experiences of resource scarcity can trigger specific perceived scarcity. In intertemporal decision-making, individuals who face long-term objective resource scarcity often exhibit tendencies such as short-sightedness and impulsiveness [3, 4]. However, under conditions where objective resource conditions are largely secured, does perceived scarcity also lead to similar decision-making biases? What are the underlying psychological mechanisms? These questions still require further exploration. China’s current stage of socio-economic development (Extreme poverty has been completely eradicated) provides a meaningful research context for distinguishing the impacts of objective scarcity and subjective perceived scarcity [5], which helps to more clearly examine the independent role of perceived scarcity in individual intertemporal choices after controlling for objective poverty factors.

Scarcity and intertemporal choice

Intertemporal choice refers to individuals weighing the costs and benefits that occur at different time points and then making various judgments and choices based on those costs and benefits [6–8]. In economics, a common paradigm of intertemporal choice tasks is that individuals are asked to choose between a small immediate gain (“receive $10 now”) and a large future gain (“receive $15 in one week”). While the ability to plan for the future is generally believed to be a uniquely human ability, a large number of studies have found that, similar to animals (monkeys), humans also prefer options with immediate benefits rather than those with future benefits, even if the immediate benefits are smaller than the future benefits [9]. This phenomenon is called time discounting. Time discounting is used to measure a person’s intertemporal choice preference as a core metric. Such discounting refers to the tendency to give less weight to future returns than current or near-term returns. The smaller the weight given to future benefits, the higher the time discount rate [10]. Mishra et al. supplements this theoretical framework by demonstrating that as the time delay increases, the individual’s time discount rate also increases gradually [11].

In recent years, intertemporal economic choice has attracted the attention of researchers from psychology, economics, and biology-related fields. Psychological researchers believe that the tendency to choose smaller, earlier options in an intertemporal choice task can be considered a measure of impulsiveness. More impulsive individuals discount delayed rewards more steeply and prefer immediate rewards [12]. Previous research has found that living in poverty, even temporarily, can have immediate and widespread effects on motivational, cognitive, and behavioral decision-making [1]. In particular, monetary scarcity (poverty) can lead to behavioral decision-making biases, such as greater focus on the present, being more shortsighted and impulsive, ignoring future larger gains in intertemporal choice, and preferring immediate smaller gains [5, 12]. The poor are also less willing to invest in activities with limited immediate returns, such as education and savings, even if these activities offer substantial future returns [13]. In turn, these consequences further deepen poverty and make the poor fall into the behavioral trap (poverty→behavioral deviation→persistent poverty) [4, 5, 14].

However, the effect of objective scarcity on intertemporal choice is not stable [15]. Because objective scarcity does not necessarily lead to perceived scarcity, some individuals with the former may be satisfied with their economic situation. Similarly, recent studies have established that objective scarcity does not lead to an individual’s intertemporal choice bias in all situations; however, these biases are activated in specific scarcity cues or situations, show higher time discounts, and cause individuals to make irrational decisions [4]. For example, Haushofer et al. (2013) also found that the poor show an increase in the time discount rate and prefer immediate smaller benefits in subsequent decisions when they suffer from financial expenditure difficulties [16]. Similar effects have been observed in non-monetary contexts. Researchers have determined that experimentally induced thoughts about poverty also increase poor farmers’ preference for immediate recreational consumption and delayed work [17]. Zhu et al. (2024) conducted a pseudo-field experiment on consumption decisions among residents in a low-income area of China and found that, compared to high-income individuals, low-income participants spent more on health products and less on tempting goods [18]. This bias appears to be activated primarily by specific scarcity cues or situational primes. Thus, we can infer that the psychological experience of scarcity—the subjective perception of one’s own resource limitations—may be more decisive in decision-making than objective poverty itself. The absence of consistent direct effects highlights a critical research gap: the impact of objective scarcity on decision-making may activate perceived scarcity. If perceived scarcity is not activated, it may not have an impact on decision-making.

Moreover, recent laboratory studies provide some support for the impact of scarcity on intertemporal economic choice. This demonstrates that experimentally induced scarcity directly leads participants to make more impulsive decisions and focus more on the present. Typically conducted with general populations, such research uses priming tasks to simulate specific scarcity situations, which can effectively influence individuals’ intertemporal choice preferences, thereby revealing the causal relationship between the perceived scarcity and decision-making preferences. For example, A series of laboratory studies was published in Science by Shah et al. [19] conducted a series of laboratory studies that manipulated opportunity, time, and economic scarcity through games such as the “Wheel of Fortune” (Scarcity was manipulated by budgeting participants’ chances to guess letters in word puzzles). They found that resource-deprived participants borrowed more without interest during the task, which in turn led to worse performance in the games [19]. Although Shah et al. measured participants’ perceived and objective scarcity, we can speculate that the scarcity situation activates an individual’s perceived scarcity, which leads to a behavioral bias in intertemporal economic choice. Accordingly, we propose the following hypothesis:

• H1: Perceived scarcity will cause individuals to prefer instant gratification, and the time discount rate will increase in intertemporal choice.

Mediating role of sense of control

Explanations of the psychological mechanisms behind human behavior are more meaningful in an evolutionary framework [20]. An evolutionary framework, such as Life History Theory (LHT) (a branch of evolutionary biology), allows for a deeper understanding of the psychological mechanisms through which perceived scarcity influences intertemporal decision-making. LHT posits that an individual’s perception of a resource-scarce environment shapes the adoption of different life history strategies, which, in turn, directly determine their preferences in intertemporal choices. LHT argues that all organisms, including humans, face limited resources and that trade-offs exist in how to allocate these resources to various health-enhancing activities. Therefore, which health-enhancing activities to prioritize needs to be weighed [21, 22]. LHT divides individuals’ life strategies into fast and slower strategies [23]. The survival strategy adopted has a significant impact on an individual’s intertemporal choice preferences [24, 25]. The willingness to wait and delay meeting one’s needs is the key issue that distinguishes which survival strategies an individual adopts [26]. Slow strategists tend to focus more on long-term gains, are willing to wait for greater future returns, and to give up immediate gratification. On the other hand, fast strategists pay more attention to short-term benefits and are more willing to enjoy immediate gratification than wait for greater rewards in the future [27, 28]. The core issue of whether to use a fast or slow strategy is based on individuals’ perceived ability to control their own destiny, that is, a sense of control. Having a sense of control refers to the belief in one ‘s ability to shape one’s own life [29] and is a key psychological driver of the life history strategies that an individual employs.

Previous research on socioeconomic status and sense of control has found that individuals with lower socioeconomic status have a lower sense of control. For example, Gurin et al. found that individuals with higher socioeconomic status tend to have a greater sense of control [29]. Lachman et al. revealed that participants with lower incomes reported lower and higher levels of perceived mastery and constraints, respectively [30]. Another study also demonstrated that individuals with lower socioeconomic status generally exhibit a poorer sense of control [31] and also tend to interpret events as extrinsic attributions [32]. The lack of control leads individuals to adopt more quick strategies, such as meeting immediate needs [24, 26]. After all, if individuals feel they cannot control what is going on in their lives, they should choose immediate gratification to ensure the certainty of benefits, rather than risk waiting for uncontrollable future benefits. In addition, a higher sense of control has been associated with the outcome of a slow life history strategy (e.g., higher academic achievement and better health) [30, 33, 34]. The impact of low socioeconomic status on sense of control may be caused by perceived scarcity. In summary, we can speculate that scarcity will lead to a decline in an individual’s sense of control, thus causing them to think that they cannot control their own life and future and lose the motivation to pursue greater benefits in the future. Consequently, they choose smaller immediate payoffs more often in intertemporal choice tasks to ensure payoff certainty, rather than risk waiting for future payoffs that they deem uncontrollable. Although previous studies have mainly focused on objective scarcity, relatively few direct studies examine perceived scarcity. Nonetheless, subjective and perceived scarcity have been shown to affect human cognition, choice, and behavior in remarkably similar ways [1]. Accordingly, we propose the following hypothesis:

• H2: Perceived scarcity decreases individuals’ sense of control, which in turn increases their preference for immediate rewards in intertemporal economic choice.

To comprehensively investigate the role of the sense of control in the relationship between perceived scarcity and intertemporal choice, we designed four studies that followed a logical progression. Study 1 employed a cross-sectional survey to initially test the complete mediation model, thereby examining whether sense of control mediates the relationship between perceived scarcity and intertemporal choice preference. Building on this correlational evidence, Study 2 utilized an experimental priming paradigm to establish the causal effect of perceived scarcity on intertemporal choice. Study 3 and 4 adopt an experimental causal chain design to further analyze the mediating mechanism. Study 3 experimentally tested the first link in the proposed mediation pathway, that is, whether perceived scarcity causally reduces sense of control. Finally, Study 4 provided an experimental test of the second link of whether variations in sense of control causally influence intertemporal choices.

Study 1: mediating model of the effect of perceived scarcity on intertemporal choice

Study 1 employed a cross-sectional correlational design with mediation analysis. The relationship between perceived scarcity and intertemporal choice was directly investigated through a large-scale questionnaire, and the mediating role of sense of control was explored. We hypothesized that perceived scarcity affects intertemporal choice preference: the mediating role of sense of control. Note that causal claims are limited due to the cross-sectional nature of the design.

Participants

We distributed the questionnaire online via “Questionnaire Star,” which is a widely used online survey platform in China with a diverse user base covering nationwide. The platform disseminated the questionnaire through web links. A total of 1102 responses were obtained. During data collection, samples that did not pass the lie detector test were excluded. We eliminated 44 data points during the data analysis process, which resulted in 1058 valid samples (444 males, 614 females, M = 19.81, SD = 1.19). This study has been approved by the academic and ethical committees of relevant universities.

Materials

Delayed gratification scale

Study 1 used the Delayed Gratification Scale as a measure of the time discount rate of the dependent variable, which assessed the ability to resist the temptation of immediate gain and wait for a larger future gain. This scale contains 12 items rated on a 7-point Likert scale “1 = completely disagree, 7 = completely agree). The higher the total average score, the stronger the individual’s ability to delay gratification, the smaller the time discount rate. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of this scale was 0.75 in this study.

Perceived scarcity of money scale

The Perceived Scarcity of Money Scale is adapted from the Resource Availability Perception Scale by Griskevicius et al. (2011) [26]. The 10-item scale was used to measure participants’ perceived scarcity of money rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = completely inconsistent, 7 = completely consistent). The higher the total average score, the higher an individual’s perceived scarcity. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of this scale was 0.85 in this study.

Sense of control scale

The Sense of Control Scale developed by Lachman and Weaver (1998) was used to measure the degree to which individuals perceived whether they are in control of their own lives [30]. The scale uses a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (completely inconsistent) to 7 (completely consistent). The higher the total average score, the higher the individual’s sense of control. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of this scale was 0.61 in this study. Although this value falls within the marginally acceptable range in psychological research, we acknowledge that its reliability is not ideal. This may be attributed to the limited number of items in the scale, as well as certain cultural adaptation issues when applying a scale developed within Western cultural contexts to a Chinese sample. Future research could consider employing a more thoroughly culturally adapted sense of control measurement tool or one that contains more items to obtain higher reliability.

Socioeconomic status scale

In Study 1, we used the Family Socioeconomic Status Scale (SES) as the instrument to measure the objective monetary scarcity of college students. The SES of participants was calculated with reference to the method adopted in the 2009 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) [35] and the calculation procedure established by Yuan et al. [36]. Participants were required to report information regarding their parents’ educational attainment, parents’ occupational status, and the number of household possessions. These indicators were then scored following standardized rules below:

Parental educational attainment was scored with reference to the PISA standard [35], based on the actual duration of education corresponding to each academic qualification system in China. The scoring criteria were: 3 points for less than primary school completion, 6 points for primary school graduation, 9 points for junior high school graduation, 12 points for secondary specialized school or high school graduation, 15 points for junior college graduation, and 16 points for bachelor’s degree, postgraduate education or above. Parental occupational status was scored on a 10-point scale (ranging from 1 to 10), with reference to the Occupational Prestige Index developed by Li [37] and adapted to the content of the current survey. Household possessions were measured by asking participants to report whether their family owned 11 types of household assets and resources, including a computer and a private bedroom for the participant. One point was awarded for each asset owned, resulting in a total score ranging from 0 to 11.

A composite SES score was calculated based on the scores of the three variables above, using the formula: SES = E( β education​×Z education​+β occupation​×Z occupation​+β possessions​×Z possessions)​

Where β represents the factor loading of each variable, Z represents the standardized Z-score of each variable, and E represents the eigenvalue of the first extracted factor. A lower SES score indicated a lower family socioeconomic status of the participant.

Data processing

Data were statistically analyzed using IBM SPSS 23.0 software. Pearson product-moment correlation analysis was used to investigate the demographic correlation variables. The level of statistical significance was set to p < 0.05.

Results

Common method bias test

The collected data were subject to a Harman’s single-factor test to examine common method bias. The results revealed seven factors with eigenvalues greater than 1. The first factor accounted for 19.68% of the variance, which is below the critical threshold of 40%. Therefore, no serious common method bias was found in Study 1.

Correlation analysis

After controlling for age, gender, and SES, the correlation analysis results are presented in Table 1. A significant positive correlation exists between sense of control and delayed gratification. Furthermore, a significant negative correlation was observed between perceived scarcity and sense of control. Similarly, a significant negative correlation was observed between perceived scarcity and delayed gratification.

Table 1.

Correlation analysis among perceived scarcity, delayed gratification, and sense of control

	M	SD	Perceived scarcity	Sense of control	Delayed gratification
Perceived scarcity	3.90	0.97	1
Sense of control	3.36	0.53	-0.24***	1
Delayed gratification	4.66	0.74	-0.17***	0.36***	1

^*** p < 0.001

Mediation effect

This study explores the mediating role of perceived scarcity and delayed gratification in controlling for perceived control, with age, gender, and SES as control variables (Table 2). Perceived scarcity can significantly and negatively predict individuals’ delayed gratification (β=-0.17, t=-5.46, p < 0.001). The regression method recommended was used for the mediation analysis in which Model 4 and 5000 bootstrap samples were used. Perceived scarcity can significantly and negatively predict an individual’s sense of control (β=-0.24, t=-8.00, p < 0.001). Perceived scarcity and sense of control were also included as predictors at the same time. The results indicate that perceived scarcity still has a negatively predictive effect on delayed gratification (β=-0.08, t=-2.87, p < 0.01). Sense of control is positive predict delayed gratification (β = 0.34, t = 11.47, p < 0.001). Using the Bootstrap method to sample 5000 times for the mediation effect test, the 95% confidence interval of the mediation effect of self-control between perceived scarcity and delayed gratification was [-0.111, -0.055], excluding 0. The mediation effect value was − 0.081 and the indirect effect was significant. Therefore, sense of control plays a negative partial mediating role between perceived scarcity and delayed gratification.

Table 2.

Regression analysis of delayed gratification

Variable	Delayed gratification		Sense of control		Delayed gratification
	β	t	β	t	β	t
Perceived scarcity	-0.17	-5.46***	-0.24	-8.00***	-0.08	-2.87**
Sense of control					0.34	11.47***
R2	0.030***		0.061***		0.133***
F	8.26***		16.95***		33.74***

^** p < 0.01, ^*** p < 0.001

Discussion

In Study 1, the mediating effect test revealed that sense of control was the mediating variable between perceived scarcity and delayed gratification. That is, perceived scarcity will lead to a decline in an individual’s sense of control, and they will then lose the motivation to pursue greater future benefits, which will eventually lead to a decline in their delayed gratification. This result is consistent with LHT. However, this study has several inherent limitations that should be considered when interpreting the findings. First, owing to the cross-sectional nature of the data, we cannot draw definitive conclusions regarding causal relationships between the variables. Although the theoretical model suggests that perceived scarcity leads to reduced sense of control, the possibility of reverse causality exists; for instance, individuals with a lower sense of control may be more inclined to perceive scarcity cues in their environment. Second, despite controlling for certain variables, other omitted variables (e.g., personality traits or early life experiences) may simultaneously influence perceived scarcity, sense of control, and delayed gratification.

Study 2: effect of perceived scarcity on intertemporal choice

Study 2 employed a mixed experimental design to investigate the impact of perceived scarcity on individuals’ intertemporal choice preferences. We hypothesize that perceived scarcity will cause individuals to prefer the immediate option, and that the time discount rate will increase in the intertemporal choice tasks.

Participants

A total of 100 college students were recruited through open recruitment. We excluded 2 participants who did not answer the questions carefully (with answers less than 100 words), and obtained 98 valid samples (14 males, 84 females, M = 20.21, SD = 1.61). Of these, 48 participants were in scarcity group (9 males, 39 females) and 50 participants were in control group (5 males, 45 females). This study has been approved by the academic and ethical committees of relevant universities.

Design

Study 2 adopted a 2 (Group: scarcity group vs. control group) × 3 (Delay time: 7 days vs. 30 days vs. 120 days) mixed design. Group was a between-participants variable, and participants were divided into a scarcity or control group via a financial expenditure scenario. Delay time was a within-subjects variable; participants had to choose between receiving a smaller amount immediately or a larger amount with a delay of seven, 30, or 120 days in the future. The dependent variable was the time discount rate of participants in the intertemporal choice tasks.

Materials

Priming task

The starting task of perceived scarcity is the financial expenditure situational task, which includes the high financial expenditure scenario and the low financial expenditure scenario. This situational task is adapted from the money association scenario prepared by Shah et al. (2018) and the financial expenditure situational task used in Mani et al. (2013) [4, 5, 19]. Participants need to complete three financial expenditure scenario tasks in turn. In the high financial expenditure scenario, participants face three financial problems of high expenditure of money (with responses no less than 100 words), which are relatively high for college students’ daily consumption. Participants were asked to think about and write down how they would solve this financial dilemma. Participants were also asked whether this financial dilemma would have a negative impact on their future life. In the low financial expenditure scenario, participants were faced with three financial problems that required low financial expenditure. Each financial problem was normal for college students’ daily consumption. The high and low financial expenditure scenarios were completely consistent in terms of words, but only in terms of the amount to be spent. After completing the financial support scenario, participants were asked to rate their feelings on three questions about money scarcity (I think I’m poor now; I think I don’t have enough money; I think I have little money now) to measure their perceived scarcity.

Intertemporal choice tasks

In the intertemporal choice task, participants needed to choose between two alternative benefit scenarios, one of which was a smaller amount available immediately and the other a larger amount available at a future point in time (e.g., “Receive 372 RMB now or 540 RMB in 30 days”). The delay time included three scenarios of seven, 30, and 120 days, and each delay time had nine independent choices. In the intertemporal choice tasks, the delayed amount was between 520 RMB and 990 RMB, the discount rate k was between 0.0005 and 0.2, and immediately obtained amount was between 24 RMB and 907 RMB. These amounts were set according to the time discount rate formula V = A/(1 + k*D) in the hyperbolic decay function. where, A is the amount of delayed income, V is the amount obtained immediately, D is the delay time, and k is the time discount rate. We used the time discount rate k as the measurement indicator for the cross-period selection task as the dependent variable. The higher the value of k, the higher the time discount rate of the subjects, and they preferred to choose immediate options rather than waiting for greater future benefits.

We calculated the time discount rate for each participant at each delay point to obtain a comprehensive time discount rate. We used established techniques (Kirby & Marakovic, 1996) to estimate the participants’ time discount rates [38]. Although the items were presented to the participants in a random order, we sorted them in ascending order according to their k-values during the analysis. We focused on the critical points chosen by the participants for 20 decisions at each delay time. For example, participants may prefer to receive 496 yuan now, rather than 570 yuan in 30 days (k = 0.005), thereby reflecting their preference for immediate benefits. Moreover, participants preferred to receive 860 yuan in 30 days instead of 729 yuan now (k = 0.006), thus reflecting their preference for delayed returns. We considered the average of the two k-values at this critical point as the time discount rate for the subject at this delay time (k = 0.0055).

Socioeconomic status scale

Same study 1.

Procedure

Participants looked at three economic expenditure scenarios in turn. They needed to consider the impact of these expenditures and whether they could cope with them. Moreover, they were required to complete some decision-making tasks while thinking about these problems. After each situation, 20 cross-period selection tasks with a delay time were presented. After completing a group of these tasks, they needed to write their answers to the questions in the previous financial expenditure scenario on paper. Finally, participants were asked to complete a questionnaire on their household socioeconomic status and general demographic information. In addition, the participants were told that their rewards depended on their choices in the intertemporal choice task and that they would be paid in proportion to their choice. The final compensation range was between 8 and 15 RMB.

Data processing

SPSS 23.0 was used for the statistical processing and analysis of the data. The time discount rate (k) was found to have a non-normal distribution problem. Therefore, the natural logarithm of ln(k) was performed on the time discount rate (k), which is denoted as k₀ [38, 39].

Results

Independent sample t-test was conducted on SES of the scarce group and control group participants in Study 2 (Table 3). The results showed that there was no significant difference (t=-0.66, p = 0.513) between the comprehensive score of SES of the scarcity group (M=-0.07, SD = 0.91) and the comprehensive score of SES of the control group (M = 0.05, SD = 1.01). Therefore, the influence of SES on intertemporal preference can be excluded.

Table 3.

Results of descriptive statistical analysis

Variable	Scarcity group	Control group	t
	M ± SD	M ± SD
SES	-0.07 ± 0.91	0.05 ± 1.01	-0.66
Perceived scarcity	3.89 ± 1.01	3.11 ± 1.35	1.35**

**p < 0.001

An independent sample t-test revealed that the money scarcity score in the scarcity group (M = 3.89, SD = 1.38) was significantly higher than that in the control group (M = 3.11, SD = 1.35), t = 1.35, p < 0.01, Cohen’s d = 0.57. The results showed that high financial expenditure successfully triggered a perceived scarcity in individuals.

Using delay time as within-subject variables, SES as the control variable, and scarcity grouping as a between-subject variable, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the natural logarithms of participants’ time discount rates in the intertemporal choice task (Table 4). The results revealed that the main effect of delay time was significant (see Fig. 1), F = 8.40, p < 0.01, η = 0.081. A significant difference exists in the time discount rate of participants with different delay times. Further paired sample t-tests found that in all samples, the time discount rate in the task with a delay time of seven days was significantly lower than that in the task with a delay time of 30 days (t = 3.14, p < 0.01, Cohen’s d = 0.28) and 120 days (t = 3.28, p < 0.01, Cohen’s d = 0.32). No significant difference was observed between the time discount rate of participants in the task with a delay of 30 days and those in the task with a delay of 120 days (t = 0.83, p = 0.408). The main effect of scarcity grouping was significant, F = 7.42, p < 0.01, η = 0.072. The time discount rate of participants in the scarcity group was significantly higher than that of those in the control group. The interaction effect between delay time and scarcity grouping was not significant, F = 0.17, p = 0.805.

Table 4.

Time discount rates of different scarcity group

Delay time	The natural logarithms of time discount rates
	scarcity group (M ± SD)	control group (M ± SD)	Total (M ± SD)
7 days	-5.39 ± 1.70	-6.04 ± 1.33	-5.72 ± 1.55
30 days	-4.91 ± 1.68	-5.67 ± 1.23	-5.30 ± 1.51
120 days	-4.81 ± 1.71	-5.61 ± 1.32	-5.22 ± 1.56
Total	-5.04 ± 1.49	-5.77 ± 1.09	-5.41 ± 1.35

Fig. 1.

Time discount rate of the scarcity and control groups in all tasks. (* * p < 0.01)

Discussion

The results of Study 2 showed that the time discount rate of participants in the subsequent intertemporal selection task under the high financial expenditure scenario was significantly higher than that under the low financial expenditure scenario. The higher sense of money scarcity induced by the high financial expenditure situation will thus significantly affect the individual’s intertemporal choice preference, and the hypothesis is verified. Specifically, in the context of high expenditure, participants have to pay 240 yuan (approx. 34 USD) for meals, 80 yuan (approx. 11 USD) for taxis and 8 yuan (approx. 1 USD) for drinks. These expenses are beyond the daily consumption level and low cost performance for college students with an average monthly living cost of only 1400 yuan (approx. 190 USD). We postulate that in this context, individuals may fall into a predicament involving trade-off dilemmas, depletion of cognitive resources, and a diminished sense of control. This leads participants to allocate less cognitive control in subsequent intertemporal choice tasks to resist the temptation of immediate gratification, thereby demonstrating a higher time discount rate. Notably, this mechanism represents a speculative explanation. In the context of low financial expenditure, participants were faced with 30 yuan for meals, 10 yuan for taxi fares, and 1 yuan for drinks. This is a normal or relatively low consumption level for college students; therefore, it does not induce the perceived scarcity among the participants. Therefore, the time discount rate of the control group was smaller under the low financial expenditure scenario. In summary, we confirmed the causal relationship between scarcity and intertemporal preference in Study 2. This result is consistent with previous objective and scarcity-related research results. People with higher incomes and not subject to liquidity restrictions prefer larger delayed returns [40], whereas low-income individuals prefer immediate smaller returns [4]. However, our research results emphasize the impact of subjective scarcity on intertemporal preference rather than the scarcity of objective resources.

Study 3: influence of perceived scarcity on sense of control

Study 3 explores the causal relationship among the variables in the first half of the path of “perceived scarcity→sense of control→intertemporal choice” [41]. This activates an individual’s perceived scarcity by utilizing a priming task to examine the influence of perceived scarcity on their sense of control.

Participants

A total of 193 college students were recruited through open recruitment. We excluded 27 participants who did not answer the questions carefully (with answers less than 100 words), and obtained 166 valid samples (75 males, 91 females, M = 19.63, SD = 2.49). Of these, 89 participants were in scarcity group (43 males, 46 females) and 77 participants were in control group (32 males, 45 females). None of the participants had previously participated in similar experiments or had any relevant knowledge. This study has been approved by the academic and ethical committees of relevant universities.

Design

Study 3 adopted a single-factor ( scarcity group vs. control group) between-subjects design. The independent variable was a between-subjects variable, and the participants were divided into perceived scarcity and control groups by recalling the priming task. The dependent variable was the participant’s score on the Sense of Control Scale.

Materials

Priming task

Same as Study 2, we employed a financial expenditure scenario task to manipulate the participants’ perceived scarcity. The participants were randomly assigned to either the Scarcity Group (high financial expenditure) or the Control Group (low financial expenditure). Participants in both groups were required to respond to three financial expenditure scenarios in sequence. After completing the financial support scenario, participants were asked to rate their feelings on three questions about money scarcity (I think I’m poor now; I think I don’t have enough money; I think I have little money now) to measure their perceived scarcity.

Sense of control scale

Same as Study 1. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of this scale was 0.60.

Procedure

First, participants were asked to recall experiences of scarcity and imagine how to achieve something they desperately wanted but could not due to lack of money. Their perceived scarcity was then measured, and the Sense of Control Scale was completed. Finally, the participants were required to complete a questionnaire on their general demographic information. As in Study 2, participants received a payment of 8–15 RMB.

Data processing

SPSS 23.0 was used for the statistical processing and analysis of the data.

Results

Grouping operational test

An independent samples t-test was conducted on the monthly living expenses of participants in study 3 (Table 5). The results revealed no significant difference in monthly living expenses between the scarcity group (M = 1598.32, SD = 506.91) and the control group (M = 1529.22, SD = 471.24), t = 0.91, p = 0.367. An operational test was performed on the scarcity grouping in Study 3. After the independent sample t-test analysis, a significant difference was found between the perceived scarcity of money in the perceived scarcity group (M = 5.36, SD = 1.28) and the control group (M = 3.31, SD = 1.54), t = 9.39, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 1.45. Thus, the group manipulation of perceived scarcity was successful.

Table 5.

Results of descriptive statistical analysis

Variable	Scarcity group	Control group	t
	M ± SD	M ± SD
Sense of control	3.15 ± 0.62	3.60 ± 0.48	-5.12***
Monthly living expenses	1598.32 ± 506.91	1529.22 ± 471.24	0.91
Perceived scarcity	5.36 ± 1.28	3.31 ± 1.54	9.39***

***p < 0.001

Sense of control

An independent sample t-test was performed with the individual’s sense of control score as the dependent variable (Fig. 2). The sense of control score in the perceived scarcity and control group after the priming task was M = 3.15 (SD = 0.62) and M = 3.60 (SD = 0.48), respectively. An independent sample t-test analysis revealed that a participant’s sense of control in the perceived scarcity group was significantly lower than that of those in the control group, t=-5.12, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.81. Thus, perceived scarcity significantly affects an individual’s sense of control, thereby resulting in a decline in such sense of control.

Fig. 2.

Sense of control in the perceived scarcity and control groups (*** p < 0.001)

Discussion

By manipulating the participants’ perceived scarcity of monetary resources, Study 3 verified that perceived scarcity can also lead to the loss of an individual’s sense of control. Moreover, the sense of control between the two groups had a large Cohen’s d, thus indicating that scarcity has a significant impact on the sense of control in this study. This result is consistent with the viewpoint of the self-regulation model. When an individual encounters scarcity, feeling the scarcity of resources will prompt them to improve such scarcity. If scarce resources cannot be increased, individuals will experience a decrease in their sense of control and believe that they cannot control their lives and behavioral outcomes. Existing research on scarcity or scarcity perception also supports this conclusion [42, 43]. For example, Griskevicius et al. (2014) found that economic uncertainty can lead to a decrease in control among individuals who experienced childhood poverty [24].

Study 4: effect of sense of control on intertemporal choice

In Study 4, we continue to explore the causal relationship between variables in the second half of the path of “perceived scarcity→sense of control→intertemporal choice.” We hypothesize that a lack of control leads to a greater preference for immediate options and an increased rate of time discounting in intertemporal choice tasks.

Participants

A total of 136 college students were recruited through open recruitment. We excluded 7 participants who did not carefully write down their recall content (recall content fewer than 100 words), and obtained 129 valid samples (85 males, 44 females, M = 18.23, SD = 0.72). Of these, 66 participants were in high sense of control group (48 males, 18 females) and 63 participants were in low sense of control group (37 males, 26 females). Among them, 66 and 63 participants were in the low and high sense of control group, respectively. None of the participants had participated in similar experiments or had any relevant knowledge. This study has been approved by the academic and ethical committees of relevant universities.

Design

Study 4 used a 2 (group: high sense of control group vs. low sense of control group) × 3 (delay time: seven days vs. 30 days vs. 120 days) mixed design. The first independent variable was a between-subjects variable. Participants were divided into the high or low sense of control group via the priming task. The second independent variable was a within-subject variable, where participants had to choose between receiving a smaller amount immediately or a larger amount with a delay of seven, 30, or 120 days in the future. The dependent variable is the time discount rate of the participants in the intertemporal choice task.

Materials

Sense of control initiates the task

The recall task of Lerner and Keltner (2001) and Song et al. (2021) was used as an induction method for the sense of control [44, 45]. In the recall task, the high (low) sense of control group was first asked to recall three (un)controllable things about themselves. Then, participants needed to choose the two most (un)controllable things from among them and describe them in detail in words.

Sense of control assessment questionnaire

We referred to Lerner and Keltner (2001) for the sense of control assessment questionnaire [44]. Participants were asked to rate how controllable the questions were for them, and how in control they feel about most things in life (1 = not at all controllable, 7 = completely controllable). These questions have been tested and can be used as a manipulation check for control deprivation [44, 45]).

Intertemporal choice tasks

Same as the intertemporal choice tasks in the post-test of Study 2.

Procedure

The participants came to the laboratory and began the initiation task of the sense of control grouping after signing an informed consent form. Participants were randomly divided into high and low sense of control groups. They were required to spend five to eight minutes recalling and writing in detail about an experience they felt was (un)controllable. Following this, participants sequentially completed 27 intertemporal choice tasks at three delay times. As in Study 2, participants received a payment of 8–15 RMB.

Data processing

SPSS 23.0 was used for the statistical processing and analysis of the data. The time discount rate (k) had a non-normal distribution problem. Therefore, the natural logarithm of ln(k) was performed on the time discount rate (k), which is denoted as k₀ [38, 39].

Results

Grouping operational test

An independent samples t-test was conducted on the monthly living expenses of participants in study 3 (Table 6). The results revealed no significant difference in monthly living expenses between the scarcity group (M = 1585.61, SD = 441.31) and the control group (M = 1567.46, SD = 504.43), t = 0.22, p = 0.828. An operational test was performed on the sense of control grouping. The independent samples t-test revealed a significant difference in the scores on the sense of control assessment questionnaire between the two groups (M_high=5.85, SD_high=0.76; M_low=3.27, SD_low=1.23), t = 14.41, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 2.52. Thus, the group manipulation was successful in Study 4.

Table 6.

Results of descriptive statistical analysis

Variable	High sense of control group	Low sense of control group	t
	M ± SD	M ± SD
Sense of control	3.27 ± 1.23	5.85 ± 0.76	-14.26***
Monthly living expenses	1585.61 ± 441.31	1567.46 ± 504.43	0.22

***p < 0.001

Intertemporal choice

Using delay time as within-subject variables, monthly living expenses as the control variable, and sense of control grouping as a between-subject variable, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the natural logarithms of participants’ time discount rates in the intertemporal choice task (Table 7). The main effect of sense of control grouping was significant, F = 4.30, p < 0.05, η = 0.033. The time discount rate of participants in the low sense of control group (M=-5.45, SD = 1.21) was significantly greater than that of participants in the high sense of control group (M=-5.84, SD = 1.00) (Fig. 3). The main effect of delay time was marginally significant, F = 2.89, p = 0.072. The interaction effect of sense of control grouping and delay time was also not significant, F = 1.50, p = 0.228.

Table 7.

Time discount rates of different sense of control groups

Delay time	The natural logarithms of time discount rates
	High sense of control group (M ± SD)	Low sense of control group (M ± SD)	Total (M ± SD)
7 days	-5.28 ± 1.27	-5.77 ± 1.23	-5.52 ± 1.27
30 days	-5.40 ± 1.34	-5.88 ± 1.16	-5.63 ± 1.27
120 days	-5.68 ± 1.49	-5.87 ± 1.27	-5.77 ± 1.39
Total	-5.45 ± 1.21	-5.84 ± 1.00	-5.64 ± 1.13

Fig. 3.

Time discount rate of low and high sense of control (* p < 0.05)

Discussion

The results confirmed the influence of sense of control on individuals’ intertemporal choice preferences in Study 4. Lack of control is associated with a greater preference for immediate options and an increased time discount rate. This indicates that, compared to individuals with a higher sense of control, those with a lower sense of control do indeed exhibit a greater tendency to choose immediate options and exhibit a higher time discount rate; however, differences in sense of control explain only approximately 3% of the total variance in intertemporal choice preferences. This finding demonstrates that although sense of control is a statistically significant influencing factor, the proportion of variance it explains is relatively small. This suggests that individual intertemporal decision-making is likely co-driven by a complex system comprising multiple psychological and situational factors.

This study found that intertemporal decision-making exerts a significant marginal effect on delay time, which is consistent with existing research results. Cross-temporal consistency exists in the delay time of inter temporal decision-making, but excessively long delay times exceed the individual’s delay satisfaction threshold, thereby resulting in no significant decision preference between delayed satisfaction and immediate satisfaction.

General discussion

Effect of perceived scarcity on intertemporal choice

In Study 1, we preliminarily verified the relationship between scarcity and intertemporal choice preference through a cross-sectional large-scale questionnaire. A significant negative correlation was observed between an individual’s perceived scarcity and delayed gratification (Delayed gratification, conversely, is the behavioral manifestation of a lower time discount rate, representing the ability to forgo an immediate smaller reward in favor of a larger later one). That is, the higher an individual’s perceived scarcity, the weaker their delay gratification, and the less willing they are to wait. Following this, through a laboratory priming task, Study 2 provides evidence consistent with a potential causal influence of perceived scarcity on intertemporal choice preferences. The results indicate that individuals with high perceived scarcity have a higher time discount rate (Time discount rate refers to the quantitative degree to which future rewards are devalued, where a higher rate indicates a stronger preference for immediate over delayed rewards). This result validates that subjective experiences of resource scarcity, as well as objective experiences, are more likely to cause individuals to perceive differences between their resource levels and higher reference points, thereby resulting in perceived scarcity [1, 5, 46, 47]. Partial results from previous studies also support this conclusion [5, 19]. For example, Laran and Salerno (2013) found that the harshness of an individual’s current environment can lead to perceptions of resource scarcity, thereby increasing the consumption of high-calorie foods [48]. While their outcome variable (consumption) differs from ours, their study similarly demonstrates how a scarcity-laden environment can trigger a shift toward more immediately gratifying choices, which is a pattern consistent with the increased time discounting that we observed. Liu et al. (2013) also found that by allowing participants to view pictures of poverty, the time discount rate of individuals increased in intertemporal choice tasks [49]. This may be because viewing of poverty pictures may activate an individual’s perceived scarcity, thereby increasing the time discount rate, which conceptually replicates our core result that activating perceived scarcity heightens preference for immediate rewards. Zhang (2019) also determined that an individual’s perceived scarcity can be activated by asking them to recall past poverty experiences, which leads to an increase of the time discount rate in subsequent intertemporal choice tasks [50]. They argued that this is because the recall task activates an individual’s poverty mentality, which causes individuals to use intuitive thinking to make unfavorable decisions. Recalling past poverty experiences creates a scarcity scenario. After activating participants’ perception of scarcity, their time discount rate increases in subsequent intertemporal choice tasks. This aligns with our perspective that an individual’s subjective perception of scarcity is the key factor leading to biases in decision-making. Note that deeper psychological constructs such as “poverty mentality” and “intuitive thinking” were not directly measured in the present studies; they are inferred mechanisms proposed to explain the findings and require direct testing in future research.

In conclusion, combining the results of existing research and this study, we can speculate that the impact of scarcity on individuals’ behavioral decisions may not be limited to objective resource scarcity, but that perceived scarcity may be a more critical factor. Perceived scarcity caused by a brief experience of scarcity can also exert a considerable negative impact on an individual’s behavioral decisions. More seriously, a vicious feedback loop may be in play. Thus, perceived scarcity can lead to shortsighted behavior and irrational decision-making. The consequences of such shortsighted decision-making may make individuals more likely to fall into the scarcity of objective resources, thereby further deepening their perceived scarcity and creating a vicious circle. Through questionnaire surveys and laboratory experiments, this study revealed the significant roles of perceived scarcity and sense of control in intertemporal decision-making, thereby providing potential entry points for designing behavioral interventions by targeting these psychological mechanisms. The findings of this study in China provide recommendations for researchers and policymakers worldwide to pay more attention to the study of relative and subjective perceived scarcity. Such attention should aim to avoid biased behavior caused by subjective perceived scarcity and falling into objective scarcity.

Intermediary mechanism

Study 1 initially found the mediating effect of sense of control between perceived scarcity and intertemporal choice preference using a cross-sectional questionnaire survey. Through separate experiments, Studies 3 and 4 provided evidence for different links in the proposed mediation model. These findings collectively provide coherent experimental support for the hypothesized mediation pathway. Specifically, the path analysis revealed a clear negative mediation pathway: perceived scarcity significantly reduces an individual’s sense of control, and this diminished sense of control in turn leads to a greater preference for immediate smaller rewards and manifests as higher temporal discount rates in intertemporal choice tasks. Furthermore, this is consistent with existing research results. First, a substantial body of evidence confirms the initial link from economic hardship to diminished sense of control. For example, Choi et al. (2020) found that sense of control was significantly correlated with an individual’s subjective economic status. In South Korea, the lower the individual’s subjective economic status, the lower the sense of control [51]. Griskevicius et al. (2014) determined that economic uncertainty can lead to a decreased sense of control in individuals who experience childhood poverty [52]. Chou et al. (2016) also established that individuals who knew that they lived in an area with high unemployment (i.e., high economic insecurity) felt less in control than those who were unaware of the unemployment rate in their area [53]. Our experimental findings in Study 3 align with this body of research and extend them causally by demonstrating that even a transient, laboratory-induced perception of financial scarcity is sufficient to trigger a reduction in an individual’s sense of control. Second, Song et al. (2021) revealed that a lower sense of control would cause individuals to prefer instant gratification options and increase the time discount rate in intertemporal choice tasks [45]. Their research confirms the subsequent link from low sense of control to myopic decision-making, and our Study 4 provides a clear and independent replication of this key finding, thereby strengthening the empirical foundation for this crucial component of the mediation pathway. By integrating these independent research strands, our study not only receives strong support from existing literature but also provides a theoretical framework—the “perceived scarcity → sense of control → intertemporal choice” model to explain how economic conditions translate into specific decision-making biases through the core psychological mechanism of sense of control. Note that the measurement of sense of control in Studies 3 and 4 used the same scale as in Study 1, which demonstrated marginal reliability (α = 0.61) in our sample. Insufficient measurement reliability may lead to an underestimation of the true relationships between variables, therefore meaning that the effects we observed may be more conservative than the actual effects. Nonetheless, the consistent pattern of conclusions across all three studies using the same instrument enhances the robustness of the findings to some extent.

LHT, the self-regulation model, and behavioral poverty trap theory also support the mediating role of sense of control between perceived scarcity and intertemporal choice preference from different perspectives.

LHT supports the mediating role of sense of control between perceived scarcity and intertemporal choice from an evolutionary perspective. LHT argues that when individuals experience scarcity, they feel they have no control over their future; then, they will choose immediate and controllable gains rather than risk waiting for future gains they consider uncontrollable [24, 26]. While this may be detrimental to long-term future interests, such approach is indeed the most beneficial and adaptive option for them. After all, the belief is that if they do not prioritize solving the current scarcity dilemma, they may not be able to survive the current difficulties at all. Our findings provide empirical support for this theoretical mechanism. Results from three studies indicate that perceived scarcity significantly reduces sense of control (Studies 1 and 3), and this diminished sense of control indeed leads to a stronger preference for immediate rewards (Studies 1 and 4), which aligns with the core assumptions of LHT.

The behavioral poverty trap theory explains our findings from a motivational standpoint. The theory can explain our results from the perspective of motivation. This theory holds that a low sense of control caused by poverty will cause individuals to lose their motivation and ambition to pursue greater benefits in the future and that individuals may be unwilling to devote more effort and time to an uncontrollable future. This study validates this motivational pathway through an experimental design: Study 4 found that a low sense of control state indeed weakens individuals’ motivation to wait for future rewards, manifesting as higher temporal discount rates.

The self-regulation model accounts for our results from the perspective of resource variability. The self-regulation model can explain our results from the perspective of resource variability. According to the model, when individuals cannot directly increase scarce resources (low variability, such as having a fixed income source that is difficult to increase), this will lead to a decline in the sense of control, and then behaviors that can restore the sense of control will be sought, such as choosing immediate benefits in intertemporal choice tasks. Furthermore, when individuals have the opportunity to increase the scarce resource (high variability, such as having viable pathways to obtain additional income or resources), they will choose to increase that resource immediately. Therefore, in the intertemporal choice tasks, they prefer to choose immediate benefits to change their scarcity status [47]. Although our experimental setup did not directly manipulate resource variability, the pattern observed in Studies 2 and 3, where perceived scarcity triggers a decline in sense of control, subsequently increasing immediate choices, closely corresponds with the predictions of the self-regulation model.

However, most of the aforementioned theories are based on objective resource scarcity rather than on subjective perceived scarcity. Our findings extend their application to the domain of subjective perceived scarcity, which holds significant theoretical importance. First, our study reveals the universality of the psychological effects of scarcity. Objective scarcity involves actual resource constraints, while perceived scarcity stems from an individual’s subjective feeling of the gap between the resources they possess and their own needs. This feeling can be influenced by various non-material factors such as social comparison and relative deprivation. This study found that even in the absence of objective resource constraints, mere perceived scarcity is sufficient to trigger decision-making biases, which is consistent with the predictions of traditional theories. This suggests that the psychological and behavioral patterns described by these theories may be rooted more deeply in an individual’s “perception” of the environment, rather than solely in the “objective reality” of the environment itself. Second, our research promotes theoretical integration and refinement. Applying theories based on objective scarcity to the subjective perceptual level helps build a unified theoretical framework to explain why similar scarcity-related decision patterns are observed across individuals from different socioeconomic backgrounds (from absolute poverty to relative deprivation) more comprehensively. This indicates that future scarcity research needs to consider both subjective and objective dimensions, and that interventions targeting the “scarcity mindset” could potentially benefit populations far beyond those in absolute poverty. Our results further extend the application of these theories (from objective to subjective perceived scarcity), thereby validating the applicability of these theories in the field of perceived scarcity.

Scarcity theory argues that perceived scarcity causes individuals to overfocus on issues related to scarcity, subsequently leading to the neglect of other issues that are more important. Excessive attention to scarcity-related issues can also lead to increased cognitive load, which in turn leads to the depletion of individuals’ limited cognitive resources and the decline of cognitive abilities and executive control [1]. Self-control theory holds that individuals who delay meeting their own needs and wait for greater future benefits are individuals with higher self-control abilities in intertemporal choice tasks [54]. The immediate gain option is a temptation for individuals to obtain greater future gains, which will induce them to give up greater future gains. However, individuals with strong self-control can resist this temptation and wait for greater gains in the future. Once an individual’s cognitive control resources are depleted and cognitive control ability declines, they may be unable to suppress the temptation of instant gratification and exhibit a higher time discount rate in intertemporal choice tasks [55]. Our findings differ from certain predictions of scarcity and self-control theories, but a consensus remains regarding the crucial role of cognitive resources. The current study concludes that perceived scarcity may be caused by a reduction in an individual’s sense of control, consequently making them think that they have no control over their own life and future. As a result, individuals develop a preference for controllable immediate gains and thus lose the incentive to invoke cognitive resources to resist the temptation of instant gratification. This conclusion is supported by the process model,. in which impulsive behavior and decision-making bias are due to a change in an individual’s motivational orientation, which leads to their reluctance to mobilize sufficient cognitive resources to suppress impulses and correct biases [56]. Therefore, from this perspective, perceived scarcity may not deplete an individual’s cognitive resources and control, or individuals may still have sufficient cognitive resources. The lack of an individual’s sense of control caused by perceived scarcity causes them to lose the motivation to invoke sufficient cognitive resources and control to resist the temptation of instant gratification in subsequent tasks. This provides a new explanation for the psychological mechanism through which perceived scarcity affects intertemporal choice preference.

This study found that sense of control plays a key mediating role between perceived scarcity and intertemporal choice preference. Improvement or intervention of an individual’s sense of control may ameliorate the detrimental effect of perceived scarcity on intertemporal choice preference to a certain extent. Therefore, the intervention research on the sense of control should be further strengthened to block the adverse effects of perceived scarcity on individuals’ intertemporal choice. For instance, cognitive-behavioral skills training could help individuals identify and alter negative thought patterns regarding their ability to control resources, while designing supportive environments and systems (e.g., providing predictable resources and opportunities for choice) can externally enhance an individual’s experience of control. Goal-setting and step-by-step planning training could help individuals gradually rebuild a sense of mastery by achieving small, controllable goals. Given that the sense of control is a malleable psychological factor, interventions targeting it often hold potential for relatively low cost, scalability, and broad positive impacts across various domains such as poverty alleviation, education, and health. Therefore, prioritizing and strengthening intervention research on sense of control holds significant practical importance for developing effective public policies and social practices aimed at mitigating the negative consequences of perceived scarcity. Consequently, such interventions are not only relevant to the specific context of our study, but also hold potential for application to diverse groups across various socioeconomic backgrounds and cultural environments, thereby providing a scientific basis for public policies and social programs aimed at mitigating the negative effects of a scarcity mindset on a global scale.

However, one limitation of this study is the generalizability of our findings. Our studies relied exclusively on samples of Chinese university students, who represent a specific demographic group characterized by a narrow age range (M = 19.81 years) and a homogeneous educational background. Although this sample has a certain representativeness, different ages and educational backgrounds may affect the stability of the results. To establish broader validity and boundary conditions of the proposed model, future research should therefore prioritize replicating these findings in more demographically heterogeneous samples, including different age cohorts (e.g., working adults, retirees), individuals from diverse socioeconomic strata, and cross-cultural populations. It should be noted that in future studies employing adult samples, objective economic indicators should be included as control variables to further improve the robustness of research results. Second, we manipulated participants’ state scarcity mindset using a validated scarcity priming paradigm, and established the causal effect of state scarcity mindset on intertemporal decision-making. However, we did not directly assess the bivariate correlation between trait scarcity mindset and intertemporal decision-making outcomes in the current work. Future investigations could employ large-sample questionnaire surveys to systematically delineate the stable association between trait scarcity mindset and intertemporal decision-making. Finally, considering that the effect duration of the priming task may be relatively short, measuring another mediating variable (sense of control) simultaneously in the experiment may affect the priming effect of scarcity. Therefore, in Experiments 3 and 4, based on the suggestions of Spencer et al. (2005), we adopted an experimental causal chain design to explore the causal relationship of the mediating mechanism. That is, we attempted to establish a causal chain of “A→B→C” through two steps (A→B and B→C). The argumentative strength of this design is indeed lower than that of a design that measures all three variables simultaneously in the same study. Future researchers can design more sophisticated experiments to conduct more reliable research on this mediating relationship in the same experiment.

Abbreviations

ANOVAP

Analysis of Variance

LHT

Life History Theory

Authors’ contributions

Long Huang: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing-original draft. Zijian Yao, Xinyue Wei and Mengting Chen: Data collection, Formal analysis. Fuming Xu and Tingting Rao: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - review & editing.

Funding

This study was supported by National Social Science Fund (25BSH108), Education Department of Anhui Province young and middle-aged teachers training action project (JNFX2024040), and Doctoral research start-up project of Wannan Medical College (WYRCQD2022030).

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed in the current study have been uploaded to a public data repository and are available for download via the following URL (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19415453).

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Academic Ethics Committee of Wannan Medical University. Following the Declaration of Helsinki, the purpose, content and confdentiality of the study were fully explained to the participants, who had the free choice to voluntarily agree or refuse to participate in the study. All participants gave their written informed consent.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.