Distinct impacts of financial scarcity and natural resource scarcity on sustainable choices and motivations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The current study examined how financial scarcity and natural resource scarcity independently and interactively influence sustainable choices and motivations. Participants performed a shopping task where they chose between sustainable and conventional products, and rated their motivations for their choice. We found that financial scarcity reduced sustainable product choices, lowered pro‐environmental motivations, but increased motivations to save financial costs (Experiment 1). In contrast, perceived scarcity of natural resources (i.e., water) increased sustainable choices and pro‐environmental motivations (Experiment 2). By combining financial and water scarcity, we further replicated and highlighted the distinct impacts of financial scarcity and water scarcity on sustainable choices and motivations (Experiment 3). Our results suggest that the abundance of financial resources or perceived natural resource scarcity can increase green consumer choices and motivations. The findings provide implications for environmental initiatives and campaigns to promote sustainable choices for people with different socio‐economic backgrounds and different levels of environmental resources.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it