Benoît de Courson, Willem E Frankenhuis, Daniel Nettle
{"title":"Poverty is associated with both risk avoidance and risk taking: empirical evidence for the desperation threshold model from the UK and France.","authors":"Benoît de Courson, Willem E Frankenhuis, Daniel Nettle","doi":"10.1098/rspb.2024.2071","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In situations of poverty, do people take more or less risk? One hypothesis states that poverty makes people avoid risk, because they cannot buffer against losses, while another states that poverty makes people take risks, because they have little to lose. Each hypothesis has some previous empirical support. Here, we test the 'desperation threshold' model, which integrates both hypotheses. We assume that people attempt to stay above a critical level of resources, representing their 'basic needs'. Just above this threshold, people have much to lose and should avoid risk. Below, they have little to lose and should take risks. We conducted preregistered tests of the model using survey data from 472 adults in France and the UK. The predictor variables were subjective and objective measures of current resources. The outcome measure, risk taking, was measured using a series of hypothetical gambles. Risk taking followed a V-shape against subjective resources, first decreasing and then increasing again as resources reduced. This pattern was not observed for the objective resource measure. We also found that risk taking was more variable among people with fewer resources. Our findings synthesize the split literature on poverty and risk taking, with implications for policy and interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":20589,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences","volume":"292 2040","pages":"20242071"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11793957/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2024.2071","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In situations of poverty, do people take more or less risk? One hypothesis states that poverty makes people avoid risk, because they cannot buffer against losses, while another states that poverty makes people take risks, because they have little to lose. Each hypothesis has some previous empirical support. Here, we test the 'desperation threshold' model, which integrates both hypotheses. We assume that people attempt to stay above a critical level of resources, representing their 'basic needs'. Just above this threshold, people have much to lose and should avoid risk. Below, they have little to lose and should take risks. We conducted preregistered tests of the model using survey data from 472 adults in France and the UK. The predictor variables were subjective and objective measures of current resources. The outcome measure, risk taking, was measured using a series of hypothetical gambles. Risk taking followed a V-shape against subjective resources, first decreasing and then increasing again as resources reduced. This pattern was not observed for the objective resource measure. We also found that risk taking was more variable among people with fewer resources. Our findings synthesize the split literature on poverty and risk taking, with implications for policy and interventions.
期刊介绍:
Proceedings B is the Royal Society’s flagship biological research journal, accepting original articles and reviews of outstanding scientific importance and broad general interest. The main criteria for acceptance are that a study is novel, and has general significance to biologists. Articles published cover a wide range of areas within the biological sciences, many have relevance to organisms and the environments in which they live. The scope includes, but is not limited to, ecology, evolution, behavior, health and disease epidemiology, neuroscience and cognition, behavioral genetics, development, biomechanics, paleontology, comparative biology, molecular ecology and evolution, and global change biology.