Response to Comment on “Poverty Impedes Cognitive Function”
Abstract
Wicherts and Scholten criticized our study on statistical and psychometric grounds. We show that (i) using a continuous income variable, the interaction between income, and experimental manipulation remains reliable across our experiments; (ii) our results in the cognitive control task do not appear driven by ceiling effects; and (iii) our observed post-harvest improvement is robust to the presence of learning.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Mani et al. (2013b) responded that using binary income variables is standard when income data is noisy.
“However, Mani et al. (2013b) responded that using binary income variables is standard when income data is noisy.”
From Poverty and economic decision making: a review of scarcity theory (2022) · cites this paper as Mani et al. (2013b)
Mani et al. (2013b) found a significant interaction effect on fluid intelligence when analyzing the data of the three core experiments together.
“Furthermore, they found a significant interaction effect on fluid intelligence when analyzing the data of the three core experiments together.”
From Poverty and economic decision making: a review of scarcity theory (2022) · cites this paper as Mani et al. (2013b)
Cites
Poverty impedes cognitive function.
Mani, A., Mullainathan, S., Shafir, E., & Zhao, J. (2013) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1238041 · Cited by 2,967 · see citing works
Self-citationRecursive Processes in Self-Affirmation: Intervening to Close the Minority Achievement Gap
Cohen, G. L., Garcia, J., Purdie-Vaughns, V., Apfel, N., & Brzustoski, P. (2009) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1170769 · Cited by 800 · see citing works
Comment on “Poverty Impedes Cognitive Function”
Wicherts, J. M., & Scholten, A. Z. (2013) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1246680 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Poverty and economic decision making: a review of scarcity theory
de Bruijn, E.-J., & Antonides, G. (2022) · Theory and Decision · doi:10.1007/s11238-021-09802-7 · Cited by 277 · see citing works
“Because the literature might suffer from a publication bias, we searched for unpublished direct replications among Google references to the original paper of Mani et al. (2013a), last in December, 2020.”
InfluentialOtto, M. W., Eastman, A., Lo, S., Hearon, B. A., Bickel, W. K., Zvolensky, M., Smits, J. A. J., & Doan, S. N. (2016) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2016.07.003 · Cited by 136 · see citing works
- Authors
- Mani, A., Mullainathan, S., Shafir, E., & Zhao, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Warwick (GB)
- Harvard University (US)
- Princeton University (US)
- University of British Columbia (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Zhao, Jiaying
- Venue
- Science
- Published
- 2013-12-06
- Volume
- 342
- Issue
- 6163
- Pages
- 1169-1169
- ISSN
- 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
- 1095-9203
- OpenAlex
- W2078362694
- Cited by
- 35
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3
- FWCI
- 5.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Income, Poverty, and Inequality
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Keywords
- poverty, cognitive function, income, cognitive control, ceiling effect, learning effects, experimental manipulation, statistical robustness
- MeSH terms
- Cognition, Female, Humans, Male, Poverty
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
