MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2569507431 · doi:10.1167/16.12.1038

Attentional trade-offs driven by resource scarcity

2016· article· en· W2569507431 on OpenAlexaff
Brandon M. Tomm, Jiaying Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScarcityNeglectTask (project management)NoticeResource (disambiguation)Cognitive psychologyPsychologyEconomicsComputer scienceMicroeconomicsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Operating with limited resources induces an attentional focus on the task at hand, allowing efficient performance, but at the same time such focus may come with a cost. Specifically, scarcity may cause a failure to notice useful information in the environment, even if the information can alleviate the condition of scarcity. This neglect may arise as a result of attentional narrowing, and can explain a range of counter-productive behaviors of the poor (e.g., neglecting benefit programs). We propose that scarcity presents urgent demands that hijack attentional resources, inducing a focus on task-relevant information, but at the same time a neglect of other potentially important information. To directly examine how scarcity tunes attention, we presented participants with a restaurant menu including a list of food items, price information, and calorie information for each item. At the bottom of the menu we included a discount to measure neglect of beneficial information. Participants were randomly assigned to place a meal order with a small budget ($20; poor condition) or a large budget ($100; rich condition). Participants were eye-tracked throughout the experiment. Those in the poor condition prioritized the price information over the food items and the calorie information, compared to those in the rich condition. Critically, poor participants neglected the discount information, even though the discount can alleviate the condition of scarcity. In follow-up memory experiments, participants completed a surprise memory task after their meal order, and we found that the poor participants were more accurate in recalling price information than the rich participants, yet they were no different in calorie recall accuracy. The results suggest that scarcity draws attention to task-relevant information, and selectively facilitates memory encoding. This new account reveals the attentional tradeoffs under scarcity, and can help explain why the poor individuals engage in counterproductive behaviors. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2016

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.086
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vision→Same topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies→French-language works237,207→