Income shock increases preferences for smaller immediate rewards and reduces alcohol demand among a sample of crowd-sourced adults.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
= 140). The sample was predominantly middle-aged, male, and White (mean age = 38.81; 37.1% female; 77.1% White). Participants were randomly assigned to one of three income shock narratives (negative, neutral, positive). They completed two versions of the 5-choice delay discounting task for $100 and $1,000 and an alcohol purchase task (APT) before and after the income shock narrative. Following negative income shock, preferences for smaller immediate rewards increased in the $100 version of the discounting task and decreased the price at which alcohol consumption was suppressed to zero (i.e., break point). Sensitivity to price changes in the APT decreased following neutral and positive income shock but not the negative condition. Results replicate and extend prior findings examining the impact of income shock on delay discounting. Furthermore, this is the first study to study income shock effects on alcohol demand. Findings suggest that primary commodity manipulation (i.e., money) can potentially impact decision-making regarding secondary commodities (i.e., alcohol). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".