The effect of financial stress on inhibitory control and economic decisions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Financial scarcity, both real and imagined, is associated with impaired executive functions and present-focused economic decisions. What is the mechanism that connects the lack of financial resources to these cognitive and behavioral effects? The present work will test the hypothesis that the experience of financial stress contributes to these deficits by reducing executive functions related to self-control and causing present-focused, real-world economic decisions. In a preliminary experiment ( N = 215), we found support for the hypothesis that financial stress (as compared to social stress) causes a reduction in inhibitory control performance. In the registered study, we recruited participants ( N = 1014) from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds and assessed inhibitory control before and after a financial stress manipulation, and economic preferences. The results did not support the hypothesis that momentary financial stress reduces inhibitory control or alters time preference. However, chronic financial stress was associated with reduced inhibitory control and VWM, and real-world economic decisions. Several interactions between SES and the effect of conditions highlight the relevance of a person's SES in the association between affective experiences and cognitive and behavioral responses. We discuss the implications of this work for future study of the association between SES, executive function, and economic decisions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".