Cited by 0Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsExperimental Behavioral Economics StudiesEconomic and Environmental Valuation

Scarcity, cognition, and health decision-making: evidence from a lab-in-the-field experiment in rural China

Open access
Zhu, Haiou, You, Fangzhou, Liu, E., Gruber, Thorsten, Dong, Hua, De Bont, Cees·2026·Scientific Reports

Abstract

Understanding how financial scarcity impacts health-related decision-making is vital for designing interventions to break the cycle between poverty and poor health. We conducted a lab-in-the-field experiment with 479 rural adults in two low-income regions of China, Yunnan and Shaanxi, to examine the cognitive and behavioural consequences for health-related preferences and choices. Participants were randomly assigned to an acute financial scarcity intervention consisting of three hypothetical scenarios featuring either a heavy financial burden (the Hard prime, e.g., raising 20,000 yuan within a week) or a minimal cost (the Easy control, 1,000 yuan). We measured cognitive function using a 12-item Raven’s Progressive Matrices task, time and risk preferences across monetary and health domains using multiple price lists and ordered lottery menus, and spending decisions using a 100-yuan budget allocation task. In the moderately poor region of Yunnan, the scarcity prime significantly reduced cognitive performance by 8.4% points and increased health-related risk aversion, driving individuals toward safer vaccine options. In contrast, no cognitive or behavioural preference shifts were observed in the more severely impoverished region of Shaanxi. Intertemporal time preferences remained stable across both regions and choice domains. Budget allocations showed limited overall shifts, though specific resource-scarce subgroups reallocated spending more toward health items. These findings demonstrate that the cognitive and behavioural consequences of scarcity are not universal but highly context-dependent, shifting with the chronic depth of underlying deprivation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41598-026-71861-z

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Zhu, H., You, F., Liu, E., Gruber, T., Dong, H., & De Bont, C.
Affiliations
  • Royal Holloway University of London (GB)
  • University of York (GB)
  • Loughborough University (GB)
  • Royal College of Art (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Zhu, Haiou
  • Liu, E.
Venue
Scientific Reports
Published
2026-10-28
Volume
16
Issue
1
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7224487760
Cited by
0
References
6
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Loughborough University
  • UK Research and Innovation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic and Environmental Valuation
Keywords
financial scarcity, health decision-making, cognitive function, poverty and health, risk aversion, time preference, budget allocation, vaccine selection, poverty trap, rural China, health spending

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review