Replication of ‘Does poverty promote a different and harmful way of thinking? The links between economic scarcity, concrete construal level and risk behaviors’ experiment 2 by Caballero et al. (2021, Current Psychology)

Author

Pilar Carrera (pilar.carrera@uam.es); Amparo Caballero (amparo.caballero@uam.es); Itziar Fernández (ifernandez@psi.uned.es); Pilar Aguilar (mpaguilar@uloyola.es); Dolores Muñoz (lola.munnoz@uam.es)

Published

Invalid Date

Introduction

Justification

I chose Caballero et al. (2023) Study 2 because it experimentally manipulates perceived economic scarcity to test how it shifts people’s construal level, or their tendency to think in concrete versus abstract terms. This focus on cognitive style and self-control under scarcity directly connects to my interests in the psychology of poverty, dignity, and institutional precarity. I am interested in how experiences of resource insecurity shape short-term versus long-term decision-making, and how interventions might target these different mindsets to help break individuals out of poverty cycles.

Caballero et al. (2023) build on Construal Level Theory (Trope & Liberman, 2003), which proposes that psychological distance influences whether people think concretely or abstractly. In their Study 2, participants were randomly assigned to a “scarcity” or “non-scarcity” condition within a fictional society called Bimboola, and the researchers measured how this manipulation changed participants’ thinking styles using the Behavioral Identification Form (BIF). They found that those in the scarcity condition thought more concretely about actions and goals, confirming that perceived financial limitation causally narrows one’s cognitive focus to the immediate present.

Stimuli & Procedures

This replication will follow Caballero et al. (2023) Study 2. The original sample included 120 undergraduate participants (102 women) who were randomly assigned to a scarcity or non-scarcity condition. All data were collected individually in lab cubicles via Qualtrics.

The procedure consisted of: 1. BIF (Pre-test): 12 items from the Behavioral Identification Form, where each action (e.g., “locking a door”) is described at two levels: 1. a concrete “how” description (“putting the key in the lock”) and 2. an abstract “why” description (“securing the house”). Participants select which feels more natural.

  1. Economic-scarcity manipulation (fictional society): Participants imagined living in a fictional society (Bimboola) organized by five income groups.

    • Scarcity condition: assigned to the lowest income tier (≤ 400 Bimboolean per month) and required to choose items such as housing, transportation, and leisure from unattractive, low-resource options while viewing the better alternatives available to wealthier groups.
    • Non-scarcity condition: assigned to a comfortable middle-income tier (1,201–3,000 Bimboolean) and made similar choices among adequate options.

  2. BIF (Post-test): A second 12-item subset of the BIF (non-overlapping with the pre-test) measured change in abstraction.

  3. Manipulation checks: “My group is poor” and “My group is rich” on 7-point scales, plus an estimated group-income question.

  4. Basic demographic collection & debrief.

Challenges:
One challenge in replicating this study include adapting the materials to an English-speaking Prolific population rather than the original Spanish-speaking undergraduate sample. Another challenge involves maintaining participant attention across both the pre and post-manipulation Behavioral Identification Form (BIF) scales, which may induce some fatigue, especially in the second half. Finally, ensuring that the scarcity manipulation feels psychologically real in an online environment without the presence of an experimenter (as was the case in the original study) will be important for preserving the strength of the original effect that was does individually in cubicles. —