稀缺心态对风险决策的影响：来自行为与ERPs的证据*

丁道群; 邓磊; 孟员; 张湘一

doi:10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20260505

PDF(1678 KB)

心理科学 ›› 2026, Vol. 49 ›› Issue (5) : 1075-1086. DOI: 10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20260505

基础、实验与工效

稀缺心态对风险决策的影响：来自行为与ERPs的证据^*

丁道群 ¹^,²^,³^,^** ,
邓磊 ⁴ ,
孟员 ¹ ,
张湘一 ¹^,²^,³

作者信息 +

The Influence of Scarcity Mindset on Risky Choices: Evidence from Behavior and ERPs

Ding Daoqun ¹^,²^,³^,^** ,
Deng Lei ⁴ ,
Meng Yuan ¹ ,
Zhang Xiangyi ¹^,²^,³

Author information +

文章历史 +

摘要

本研究通过1个行为实验和1个ERPs实验考察稀缺心态对个体风险决策的影响及其神经机制。行为实验结果发现，相比富裕心态，稀缺心态下的个体更倾向于风险规避。奖赏幅度可调节稀缺心态对风险决策的影响：相比低奖赏幅度，高奖赏幅度下的稀缺心态对个体风险规避的影响更为凸显。ERPs实验结果发现，在正反馈条件下，稀缺心态与富裕心态诱发的FRN和P300波幅均不存在显著差异；在负反馈条件下，稀缺心态诱发的FRN和P300波幅均显著正于富裕心态。研究结果表明，稀缺心态可增强个体的风险规避，尤其体现在高奖赏幅度下；与奖赏期待和动机水平相关的FRN和P300成分可能是稀缺心态影响风险决策的潜在神经指标。

Abstract

A scarcity mindset refers to a psychological state triggered by the perception of insufficient resources, such as money or time. It can capture attention, consume cognitive resources, and impair the quality of decision-making. Yet, its influence on risk-taking decisions remains controversial. Some findings suggest that scarcity promotes risk aversion through heightened sensitivity to loss and limited cognitive capacity. Contrastingly, others show reversed effects. These findings demonstrate the necessity to examine potential moderators in the relationship between scarcity and risk decision-making and to further investigate the underlying mechanisms.

The present study combined behavioral paradigms and event-related potential (ERP) measures to investigate how scarcity mindset shapes risky choices and their temporal neurocognitive processes. A modified Stage Game paradigm was used to induce scarcity or abundance mindsets by manipulating participants’ initial endowments. Risk preference was measured using the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART), which requires participants to inflate a virtual balloon that can explode unpredictably and result in the loss of accumulated gains. The task allows continuous learning and adjustment of decisions based on feedback, capturing the dynamic and iterative nature of real-world risk-taking.

Experiment 1 employed a 2 (mindset: scarcity vs. abundance) × 2 (reward magnitude: low vs. high) mixed design. Scarcity was induced by a small endowment, creating a constant sense of resource insufficiency, while abundance was induced by a larger endowment. Risk preference was assessed using the average number of inflations for balloons that did not explode. Results showed a significant main effect of mindset. Participants inflated balloons fewer times under scarcity (M = 36.30, SD = 14.43) than under abundance (M = 39.95, SD = 15.15), F(1, 67) = 8.38, p <.01, η_p² =.11, indicating stronger risk aversion. Reward magnitude had no significant main effect, but the interaction between mindset and reward magnitude was significant, F (1, 67) = 5.34, p <.05, η_p² =.07. Simple effects analysis revealed that scarcity reduced risk-taking under high reward magnitude, F (1, 67) = 13.75, p<.001, η_p² =.17, but not under low reward magnitude, F (1, 67) =.17, p>.05. These findings suggest that scarcity increases loss aversion when potential rewards, and thus potential losses, are substantial.

Experiment 2 examined the neural dynamics of scarcity’s influence on risk evaluation using a 2 (mindset: scarcity vs. abundance) × 2 (feedback type: positive vs. negative) within-subject design. Behavioral results replicated Experiment 1, confirming that scarcity reduced risk-taking. ERP analyses focused on feedback-related negativity (FRN) and P300 components. FRN, measured 200-280ms after feedback at fronto-central electrodes, reflects early evaluation of outcomes and reward prediction errors. P300, measured 300-400ms after feedback at centro-parietal electrodes, reflects attention allocation and motivational significance of feedback. Scarcity produced significantly more positive FRN amplitudes than abundance, F (1, 25) = 6.20, p <.05, η_p² =.20, and significantly more positive P300 amplitudes, F (1, 25) = 6.28, p <.05, η_p² =.20. Both effects were moderated by feedback type. Under negative feedback, scarcity elicited more positive FRN and P300 amplitudes than abundance (FRN: F (1, 25) = 10.02, p <.01, η_p² =.29; P300: F (1, 25) = 7.98, p <.01,η_p² =.24). Under positive feedback, FRN and P300 did not differ significantly between mindsets. These results indicate that scarcity reduces the neural encoding of reward prediction errors while increasing attentional allocation to negative outcomes.

Together, these findings provide robust evidence that a scarcity mindset reduces risk-taking and alters the processing of negative feedback. The moderating effect of reward magnitude suggests that expected outcomes carry heightened significance under scarcity. More positive FRN amplitudes and P300 amplitudes point to a neurocognitive mechanism through which scarcity promotes cautious and loss-averse decisions. This research makes several contributions. It extends scarcity research to dynamic, ecologically valid tasks, addressing limitations of static, one-shot paradigms. It identifies reward magnitude as a key moderator that helps reconcile prior mixed findings. It integrates behavioral and neurophysiological evidence to reveal the temporal stages through which scarcity shapes risk evaluation. The findings enrich the scarcity theory by showing that scarcity reduces the capacity for adaptive reinforcement learning and fosters reliance on rigid, loss-avoidant decision strategies. These results provide theoretical insights and practical implications for interventions that support better decision-making among resource-constrained populations and help mitigate the long-term disadvantages associated with scarcity.

导出引用

丁道群, 邓磊, 孟员, 等. 稀缺心态对风险决策的影响：来自行为与ERPs的证据^*[J]. 心理科学. 2026, 49(5): 1075-1086 https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20260505

Ding Daoqun, Deng Lei, Meng Yuan, et al. The Influence of Scarcity Mindset on Risky Choices: Evidence from Behavior and ERPs[J]. Journal of Psychological Science. 2026, 49(5): 1075-1086 https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20260505

参考文献

列表( 原文顺序 | 文献年度倒序 | 文中引用次数倒序 ) 可视化分析

[1]	陈锡友, 张湘一, 吴志辉, 丁道群. (2023). 经济稀缺对风险偏好的影响: 经济稀缺心态的作用. 中国临床心理学杂志, 31(5), 1052-1056+1041. 本文引用 [1]

[2]	陈星, 郭博文, 闫凯凯, 毛天欣, 饶恒毅. (2026). 睡眠剥夺影响风险决策的大尺度脑网络模型. 心理科学, 49(1), 68-81. 本文引用 [1]

[3]	陈志琴, 马家涛, 张雪婷. (2024). 得不偿失: 序贯决策中的短视风险漠视. 心理科学进展, 32(12), 1980-1989. 本文引用 [1]

[4]	邓尧, 王梦梦, 饶恒毅. (2022). 风险决策研究中的仿真气球冒险任务. 心理科学进展, 30(6), 1377-1392. 本文引用 [1]

[5]	胡小勇, 徐步霄, 杨沈龙, 郭永玉. (2019). 心理贫困: 概念、表现及其干预. 心理科学, 42(5), 1224-1229. 本文引用 [2]

[6]	梁淑静, 杨光勇. (2024). 穷则思变, 富则思安?金钱稀缺与富足感知对个体风险决策的影响. 心理科学进展, 32(8), 1233-1249. 本文引用 [1]

[7]	杨玲, 王斌强, 耿银凤, 姚东伟, 曹华, 张建勋, 许琼英. (2019). 虚拟和真实金钱奖赏幅度对海洛因戒断者风险决策的影响. 心理学报, 51(4), 507-516. 本文引用 [1]

[8]	张克顺, 曹婉郡, 管苡辰, 魏华. (2025). 个体主义与集体主义价值观对风险偏好和框架效应的影响. 心理科学, 48(5), 1172-1184. 本文引用 [1]

[9]	Amir, D., Jordan, M. R., & Rand, D. G. (2018). An uncertainty management perspective on long-run impacts of adversity: The influence of childhood socioeconomic status on risk, time, and social preferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 79, 217-226. 本文引用 [2]

[10]	Carvalho, L. S., Prina, S., & Sydnor, J. (2016). The effect of saving on risk attitudes and intertemporal choices. Journal of Development Economics, 120, 41-52. 本文引用 [2]

[11]	Chandrakumar, D., Feuerriegel, D., Bode, S., Grech, M., & Keage, H. A. D. (2018). Event-related potentials in relation to risk-taking: A systematic review. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 12, Article 111. 本文引用 [3]

[12]	Chang, S. A. A., Jara-Ettinger, J., & Baskin-Sommers, A. (2022). Resource scarcity compromises explore-exploit decision-making. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 98, Article 104254. 本文引用 [1]

[13]	Cosenza, M., Griffiths, M. D., Nigro, G., & Ciccarelli, M. (2017). Risk-taking, delay discounting, and time perspective in adolescent gamblers: An experimental study. Journal of Gambling Studies, 33(2), 383-395. 本文引用 [1]

[14]	Dalton, P. S., Nhung, N., & Rüschenpöhler, J. (2020). Worries of the poor: The impact of financial burden on the risk attitudes of micro-entrepreneurs. Journal of Economic Psychology, 79, Article 102198. 本文引用 [1]

[15]	De Bruijn, E. J., & Antonides, G. (2022). Poverty and economic decision making: A review of scarcity theory. Theory and Decision, 92(1), 5-37. 本文引用 [1]

[16]	Deck, C., & Jahedi, S. (2015). The effect of cognitive load on economic decision making: A survey and new experiments. European Economic Review, 78, 97-119. 本文引用 [1]

[17]

Fan,

L. J.

, Kong,

X. Y.

, Zhang,

P. W.

, Lin,

, Zhao,

J. H.

, Ji,

, Fang,

S. L.

, Wang,

X. S.

, Yao,

S. Q

, & Wang,

(2021). Hypersensitivity to negative feedback during dynamic risky-decision making in major depressive disorder: An event-related potential study. Journal of Affective Disorders, 295, 1421-1431.

本文引用 [1]

[18]	Gneezy, A., Imas, A., & Jaroszewicz, A. (2020). The impact of agency on time and risk preferences. Nature Communications, 11(1), Article 2665. 本文引用 [1]

[19]	Hajcak, G., & Foti, D. (2020). Significance?... Significance! Empirical, methodological, and theoretical connections between the late positive potential and P300 as neural responses to stimulus significance: An integrative review. Psychophysiology, 57(7), Article e13570. 本文引用 [3]

[20]	Haushofer, J., & Fehr, E. (2014). On the psychology of poverty. Science, 344(6186), 862-867. 本文引用 [4]

[21]	Holroyd, C. B., & Coles, M. G. H. (2002). The neural basis of human error processing: Reinforcement learning, dopamine, and the error-related negativity. Psychological Review, 109(4), 679-709. 本文引用 [4]

[22]	Huang, L., Li, X. J., Xu, F. M., & Li, F. H. (2023). Consequences of scarcity: The impact of perceived scarcity on executive functioning and its neural basis. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 17, Article 1158544. 本文引用 [4]

[23]	Huijsmans, I., Ma, I., Micheli, L., Civai, C., Stallen, M., & Sanfey, A. G. (2019). A scarcity mindset alters neural processing underlying consumer decision making. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(24), 11699-11704. 本文引用 [5]

[24]	Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291. 本文引用 [3]

[25]	Kraft, P., Kraft, B., Hagen, T., & Espeseth, T. (2022). Subjective socioeconomic status, cognitive abilities, and personal control: Associations with health behaviours. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 784758. 本文引用 [1]

[26]	Kuhnen, C. M., & Knutson, B. (2005). The neural basis of financial risk taking. Neuron, 47(5), 763-770. 本文引用 [1]

[27]	Lei, Y., Wang, L. B., Chen, P. H., Li, Y. Y., Han, W., Ge, M. M., Yang, L., Chen, S. S., Hu, W. D., & Yang, Z. (2017). Neural correlates of increased risk-taking propensity in sleep-deprived people along with a changing risk level. Brain Imaging and Behavior, 11(6), 1910-1921. 本文引用 [1]

[28]	Lejuez, C. W., Read, J. P., Kahler, C. W., Richards, J. B., Ramsey, S. E., Stuart, G. L., Strong, D. R., & Brown, R. A. (2002). Evaluation of a behavioral measure of risk taking: The Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8(2), 75-84. 本文引用 [2]

[29]	Leng, Y., & Zhou, X. L. (2014). Interpersonal relationship modulates brain responses to outcome evaluation when gambling for/against others: An electrophysiological analysis. Neuropsychologia, 63, 205-214. 本文引用 [2]

[30]	Li, X., Pan, Y., Fang, Z., Lei, H., Zhang, X. C., Shi, H., Ma, N., Raine, P., Wetherill, R., & Rao, H. Y. (2020). Test-retest reliability of brain responses to risk-taking during the balloon analogue risk task. NeuroImage, 209, Article 116495. 本文引用 [1]

[31]	Li, Z. R., Duan, R., Guo, Y. M., Li, P., & Warren, C. M. (2023). Distinct influence of inter- versus intra-trial feedback on the brain response to subsequent feedback: Evidence from event-related potentials. Biological Psychology, 181, Article 108596. 本文引用 [2]

[32]	Liang, S. J., Fan, P., & Yang, G. Y. (2023). To take a risk or not? The effect of perceived scarcity on risky choices. Behavioral Sciences, 13(9), Article 743. 本文引用 [3]

[33]	Liang, S. J., Ye, D. J., & Liu, Y. J. (2021). The effect of perceived scarcity: Experiencing scarcity increases risk taking. The Journal of Psychology, 155(1), 59-89. 本文引用 [1]

[34]	Mani, A., Mullainathan, S., Shafir, E., & Zhao, J. Y. (2013). Poverty impedes cognitive function. Science, 341(6149), 976-980. 本文引用 [2]

[35]	Mullainathan, S., & Shafir, E. (2013). Scarcity: Why having too little means so much. Henry Holt. 本文引用 [4]

[36]	Ong, Q., Theseira, W., & Ng, I. Y. H. (2019). Reducing debt improves psychological functioning and changes decision-making in the poor. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(15), 7244-7249. 本文引用 [2]

[37]	Petropoulos Petalas, D., Bos, S., Hendriks Vettehen, P., & van Schie, H. T. (2020). Event-related brain potentials reflect predictive coding of anticipated economic change. Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience, 20(5), 961-982. 本文引用 [1]

[38]	Plöchl, M., Ossandón, J. P., & König, P. (2012). Combining EEG and eye tracking: Identification, characterization, and correction of eye movement artifacts in electroencephalographic data. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, Article 278. 本文引用 [1]

[39]	Polich, J. (2007). UpdatingP300: An integrative theory of P3a and P3b. Clinical Neurophysiology, 118(10), 2128-2148. 本文引用 [3]

[40]	Ronzani, P., Savadori, L., Folloni, G., & Mittone, L. (2018). Selective insensitivity for losses but not gains in decision making under risk among the poor. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 77, 96-106. 本文引用 [1]

[41]	Schuermann, B., Endrass, T., & Kathmann, N. (2012). Neural correlates of feedback processing in decision-making under risk. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, Article 204. 本文引用 [1]

[42]	Sebri, V., Triberti, S., Granic, G. D., & Pravettoni, G. (2023). Reward-dependent dynamics and changes in risk taking in the Balloon Analogue Risk Task. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 35(3), 340-354. 本文引用 [1]

[43]	Shah, A. K., Mullainathan, S., & Shafir, E. (2012). Some consequences of having too little. Science, 338(6107), 682-685. 本文引用 [3]

[44]	Tao, R. W., Zhang, C., Zhao, H. X., Xu, Y., Han, T. Q., Dai, M. G., Zhang, K. X., Zhang, N. F., & Xu, S. H. (2023). A negative emotional context disrupts the framing effect on outcome evaluation in decision making under uncertainty: An ERP study. Psychophysiology, 60(4), Article e14207. 本文引用 [3]

[45]	Thomas, R., Galizzi, M. M., Moorhouse, L., Nyamukapa, C., & Hallett, T. B. (2024). Do risk, time and prosocial preferences predict risky sexual behaviour of youths in a low-income, high-risk setting? Journal of Health Economics, 93, Article 102845. 本文引用 [1]

[46]	Wang, M. M., Chen, Z. Y., Zhang, S. M., Xu, T., Zhang, R., Suo, T., & Feng, T. Y. (2019). High self-control reduces risk preference: The role of connectivity between right orbitofrontal cortex and right anterior cingulate cortex. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 13, Article 194. 本文引用 [1]

[47]	Wang, Z. J., Kuang, Y., Tang, H. Y., Gao, C., Chen, A., & Chan, K. Q. (2018). Are decisions made by group representatives more risk averse? The effect of sense of responsibility. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 31(3), 311-323. 本文引用 [1]

[48]	Xu, S. H., Pan, Y., Qu, Z., Fang, Z., Yang, Z. J., Yang, F., Wang, F. H., & Rao, H. Y. (2018). Differential effects of real versus hypothetical monetary reward magnitude on risk-taking behavior and brain activity. Scientific Reports, 8(1), Article 3712. 本文引用 [3]

[49]	Yang, Q. W., Zhao, D., Wu, Y., Tang, P., Gu, R. L., & Luo, Y. J. (2018). Differentiating the influence of incidental anger and fear on risk decision-making. Physiology and Behavior, 184, 179-188. 本文引用 [1]

[50]	Zhang, K. Y., Ma, S. S., Yang, Z. Y., Zhu, S. H., & Yang, Y. (2025). No time to slow down: Time poverty predicts fast life history strategy via dissatisfaction of basic psychological needs. Personality and Individual Differences, 233, Article 112939. 本文引用 [1]

[51]	Zhang, Y. F., Chen, Z. J., & Ni, S. G. (2020). The security of being grateful: Gratitude promotes risk aversion in decision-making. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 15(3), 285-291. 本文引用 [1]