Research School Network: Scarcity

Scarcity – The Devastating Consequences of Want

Scarcity is about what happens to our minds when we feel we have too little and how that then shapes our subsequent choices and behaviours. Mullainathan and Shafir define scarcity as the state of having less than you need – whether that be time, human company or money. They explore the common threads (or logic) to scarcity across these very diverse fields. The results are startling.

The most compelling aspects of the argument relate to the way in which scarcity captures the mind. Details from different experiments – including one fascinating study of the effects on attention of starvation during WW2 – are used to illustrate how when we experience scarcity of any kind, we become completely absorbed by it. We find it hard to think about anything else!

Mullainathan and Shafir use the metaphor of computer bandwidth to explain how we think and act differently under these conditions of scarcity. Our focus is so singly on that which we are missing, we don’t have the bandwidth left to properly attend to all the other important things that require our attention. They call this a bandwidth tax, because of what it takes away from us.

Thus there are accounts of a firefighter rushing to a blaze who forgets to wear his seatbelt and suffers a tragic accident; a time-pressured executive who neglects the needs of his family to work on his forthcoming presentation; a student who can no longer properly concentrate on his studies when his scholarship is withdrawn.

In each of these examples of bandwidth tax, where the mind’s attention is in the grip of want, there are considerable consequences for the individuals concerned. Indeed, in one illuminating passage Mullainathan and Shafir explain how scarcity can have an even greater impact on our ability to attend to things than sleep deprivation.

But the impact of scarcity on cognitive functioning runs deeper than just reducing our ability to focus properly. Bandwidth also encompasses executive function, and since it is executive control which not only helps direct attention but also controls impulses, any attack on bandwidth through scarcity also affects self control. A double negative whammy.

The writers point out how scarcity can affect us all. They run a study on the effects of scarcity on fluid intelligence using shoppers in a New Jersey mall. Subjects are split into two groups, comprising an equal number of rich and poor. Each group of rich and poor subjects is then given a short scenario, before completing the Raven’s Progressive Matrice test, a non-verbal assessment that uses abstract reasoning to assess fluid intelligence.

In each case a simple hypothetical scenario is presented, which asks subjects to imagine a situation where their car is in need of a service. Subjects must decide whether to get their car fixed or wait it out in the hope it can last a while longer. The only difference between the two scenarios presented to the first and second groups of rich and poor is in the size of the service bill: $300 and $3000 respectively. All things considered, the groups are equal.

When the size of the service bill is $300 there is no discernible difference in performance between the two groups on the Raven’s Matrice. This changes considerably when the amount to be imagined is $3000. The performance of the well-off subjects was just as strong with the higher figure, but the performance of the less well-off reduced dramatically. By simply being asked to imagine scarcity the poorer subjects led to lower fluid intelligence scores and therefore made the poorer subjects appear less intelligent.

This is the significant impact of scarcity in our lives. Our minds become enthralled by that which we lack and we suffer accordingly through the double-edged nature of the bandwidth tax. Whilst Mullainathan and Shafir consider scarcity in broad terms, it is hard to not read their book through the prism of education and, in particular, what it means for the most disadvantaged students that we teach.

A lot of recent thinking has focused on the fundamental role of attention in learning, with lots of schools looking at ways to ensure students’ attention is on the right things in class. Becky Allen’s superb series on the failings of the Pupil Premium suggests that strategies like getting all students to face the front and removing the distraction of mobile phones might be the best way to tackle social inequalities in attention and inhibitory control in our classrooms.

It seems the central thesis of Scarcity – that profound lack inhibits cognitive functioning and lowers intelligence – represents both an opportunity and a challenge, particularly in relation to how we best address disadvantage, which may or may not be best expressed by the catch-all term Pupil Premium. It’s an opportunity because it provides us with a greater understanding of the potential issues around underachievement, but it also represents a challenge because it seems to suggest that these factors may ultimately be beyond our control.

Either way, after reading Scarcity what is clear is that lacking any of the basic ingredients of what we need to thrive as human beings – time, money, love or friendship – has distressing consequences. For those for whom scarcity is a daily reality, it’s clear why Mullainathan and Shafir believe the term is more than just a metaphor. It’s their entire existence.