Explaining the paradoxical effects of poverty on risk taking: The Desperation Threshold Model.

IF 13.7 1区 心理学 Q1 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Benoît de Courson, Willem E Frankenhuis, Daniel Nettle
{"title":"Explaining the paradoxical effects of poverty on risk taking: The Desperation Threshold Model.","authors":"Benoît de Courson, Willem E Frankenhuis, Daniel Nettle","doi":"10.1017/S0140525X26104567","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The impacts of poverty and material scarcity on human decision making appear paradoxical. One set of findings associates poverty with risk aversion, whilst another set associates it with risk taking. We present an idealised rational-choice model, the Desperation Threshold Model (DTM), that explains how both these accounts can be correct. The DTM assumes that there are basic needs whose satisfaction is not fully divisible. This generates an S-shaped utility function for material resources. The value of gaining a dollar is at first small (because even with the extra dollar, basic needs still cannot be met); then large (because the extra dollar enables basic needs to be met); and then small again. Just above the basic needs threshold, people's main concern is not falling below, and they are predicted to avoid risk especially strongly. Below the threshold, their most important concern is jumping above, and they are predicted to take risks that would otherwise be avoided. Versions of the DTM have been proposed under various names across biology, anthropology, economics and psychology. We review a broad range of relevant empirical evidence from a variety of societal contexts. Though the model primarily concerns individual decision making, it connects to a range of population-scale and societal issues such as: the consequences of economic inequality; the deterrence of crime; and the optimal design and behavioural consequences of the welfare state. We discuss interpretative issues, and suggest areas for future DTM research that bridges disciplines.</p>","PeriodicalId":8698,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral and Brain Sciences","volume":" ","pages":"1-51"},"PeriodicalIF":13.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavioral and Brain Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X26104567","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The impacts of poverty and material scarcity on human decision making appear paradoxical. One set of findings associates poverty with risk aversion, whilst another set associates it with risk taking. We present an idealised rational-choice model, the Desperation Threshold Model (DTM), that explains how both these accounts can be correct. The DTM assumes that there are basic needs whose satisfaction is not fully divisible. This generates an S-shaped utility function for material resources. The value of gaining a dollar is at first small (because even with the extra dollar, basic needs still cannot be met); then large (because the extra dollar enables basic needs to be met); and then small again. Just above the basic needs threshold, people's main concern is not falling below, and they are predicted to avoid risk especially strongly. Below the threshold, their most important concern is jumping above, and they are predicted to take risks that would otherwise be avoided. Versions of the DTM have been proposed under various names across biology, anthropology, economics and psychology. We review a broad range of relevant empirical evidence from a variety of societal contexts. Though the model primarily concerns individual decision making, it connects to a range of population-scale and societal issues such as: the consequences of economic inequality; the deterrence of crime; and the optimal design and behavioural consequences of the welfare state. We discuss interpretative issues, and suggest areas for future DTM research that bridges disciplines.

解释贫困对风险承担的矛盾影响:绝望阈值模型。
贫穷和物质匮乏对人类决策的影响似乎是矛盾的。一组研究结果将贫穷与风险厌恶联系起来,而另一组则将贫穷与风险承担联系起来。我们提出了一个理想化的理性选择模型,即绝望阈值模型(DTM),它解释了这两种说法是如何正确的。DTM假设存在一些基本需求,其满足是不能完全分割的。这生成了一个s形的物质资源效用函数。一开始,获得一美元的价值很小(因为即使有了额外的美元,基本需求仍然无法满足);然后是大的(因为额外的美元可以满足基本需求);然后再变小。略高于基本需求的门槛,人们主要担心的是不会低于,预计他们会特别强烈地避免风险。低于这个阈值,他们最担心的就是跳上这个阈值,预计他们会承担原本可以避免的风险。DTM的不同版本在生物学、人类学、经济学和心理学领域都有不同的名称。我们回顾了来自各种社会背景的广泛的相关经验证据。虽然该模型主要关注个人决策,但它与一系列人口规模和社会问题有关,例如:经济不平等的后果;对犯罪的威慑;以及福利国家的最优设计和行为后果。我们讨论了解释性问题,并提出了未来DTM研究的领域。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Behavioral and Brain Sciences
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 医学-行为科学
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
1.70%
发文量
353
期刊介绍: Behavioral and Brain Sciences (BBS) is a highly respected journal that employs an innovative approach called Open Peer Commentary. This format allows for the publication of noteworthy and contentious research from various fields including psychology, neuroscience, behavioral biology, and cognitive science. Each article is accompanied by 20-40 commentaries from experts across these disciplines, as well as a response from the author themselves. This unique setup creates a captivating forum for the exchange of ideas, critical analysis, and the integration of research within the behavioral and brain sciences, spanning topics from molecular neurobiology and artificial intelligence to the philosophy of the mind.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书