William Moulton Marston was a psychologist who contributed to developing the DISC theory, a model used to describe human behavior. The DISC theory consists of four primary behavior types: Dominance, Influence, Steadiness, and Conscientiousness.
Dominance (D): People with high Dominance are assertive, decisive, and driven. They like to take charge and be in control of situations. They are goal-oriented and may be perceived as aggressive or confrontational.
Influence (I): Individuals with high Influence are sociable, talkative, and outgoing. They enjoy interacting with others and have a natural ability to persuade or inspire others. They are often seen as enthusiastic, optimistic, and charismatic.
Steadiness (S): People with high Steadiness are calm, dependable, and patient. They value stability and consistency, preferring to work at a steady pace. They are good listeners, empathetic, and may avoid conflicts.
Conscientiousness (C): Individuals with high Conscientiousness are meticulous, detail-oriented, and organized. They value accuracy and precision and follow the rules and procedures closely. They are often seen as analytical, careful, and systematic.
It's worth noting that the DISC theory does not label any behavior type as inherently "good" or "bad." Instead, it highlights how individuals approach tasks, communicate, and interact with others. Understanding these behavior types can help improve communication, teamwork, and personal development.
The Enneagram is a human personality model based on nine interconnected personality types. It
is a system that combines ancient spiritual wisdom with modern psychology to
provide insights into different individuals' motivations, fears, and desires.
The word
"enneagram" comes from the Greek words "ennea"
(nine) and "gramma" (something written or drawn).
Concepts and Components:
The nine personality
types: The Enneagram identifies nine distinct personality types from 1 to 9.
Each type has a unique set of characteristics, strengths, and weaknesses.
Wings: Each personality
type has two adjacent types called "wings." A person's wing is
thought to influence their core type, creating a more nuanced and unique
personality.
Triads: The nine types are
grouped into three triads based on their primary emotional orientation: Head
(Types 5, 6, 7), Heart (Types 2, 3, 4), and Body (Types 8, 9, 1).
Levels of development:
Within each type, there are nine levels of development, ranging from healthy to
unhealthy expressions of the type's traits.
Integration and
disintegration: Each type has paths of integration and disintegration,
indicating how they behave when growing and under stress, respectively.
Origins and Authors:
The Enneagram has a
complex history, with its origins tracing back to multiple sources, such as the
teachings of the Desert Fathers, the Sufi tradition, and the Kabbalah. The
modern Enneagram we know today was developed in the mid-20th century by
Bolivian-born philosopher Óscar Ichazo and further refined by Chilean
psychiatrist Claudio Naranjo.
Relation with the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI):
While the Enneagram and
the MBTI are personality typology systems, they have different focuses and
approaches. The MBTI is based on Carl Jung's theories of cognitive functions
and categorizes people into 16 types based on their preferences in four
dichotomies: Extraversion/Introversion, Sensing/Intuition, Thinking/Feeling,
and Judging/Perceiving. Conversely, the Enneagram focuses on core motivations
and fears, providing insights into an individual's emotional and psychological
dynamics. Although some correlations between the two systems can be found, they
are not directly related and offer different perspectives on personality.
Professional Reputation
and Results:
The Enneagram has gained
popularity in various fields, such as personal growth, business, counseling,
and spiritual development. Many people find it helpful in understanding
themselves and others, improving communication, and promoting self-awareness.
However, it is essential to remember that the Enneagram is a tool and should be
used alongside other assessments and professional guidance.
Criticisms:
Lack of scientific
validity: Critics
argue that the Enneagram lacks rigorous scientific research to support its
claims and relies heavily on anecdotal evidence and subjective interpretations.
Over-simplification of
human personality:
Some critics contend that dividing people into nine distinct types oversimplifies
the complexity of human personalities.
Potential for
self-limiting beliefs:
Categorizing oneself into a specific type can lead to self-limiting beliefs and
behaviors based on the traits associated with that type, potentially hindering
personal growth and development.
Despite these criticisms,
the Enneagram remains a widespread personal and professional growth tool. It is
essential to approach the Enneagram with an open mind and use it as a starting
point for self-exploration and understanding rather than an absolute measure of
one's personality.
The Enneagram consists of
nine interconnected personality types, each with unique characteristics. Here,
we will describe the nine types and their associated factors, including their
primary motivations, basic fears, and key traits. Additionally, we'll provide
an example of a hypothetical individual's Enneagram results.
Type 1 - The Perfectionist
(or The Reformer)
Primary Motivation: To be
good, ethical, and morally upright
Basic Fear: Being corrupt
or imperfect
Key Traits: Responsible,
disciplined, orderly, critical, and principled
Type 2 - The Helper (or
The Giver)
Primary Motivation: To be
loved and appreciated
Basic Fear: Being unloved
or unwanted
Key Traits: Caring,
generous, people-pleasing, empathetic, and possessive
Type 3 - The Achiever (or
The Performer)
Primary Motivation: To be
successful, admired, and respected
Basic Fear: Being
worthless or a failure
Key Traits: Driven,
adaptable, image-conscious, goal-oriented, and competitive
Type 4 - The Individualist
(or The Romantic)
Primary Motivation: To be
unique, authentic, and understood
Basic Fear: Having no
identity or personal significance
Key Traits: Sensitive,
introspective, moody, creative, and self-absorbed
Type 5 - The Investigator
(or The Observer)
Primary Motivation: To be
knowledgeable and competent
Basic Fear: Being helpless
or incapable
Key Traits: Analytical,
detached, private, curious, and independent
Type 6 - The Loyalist (or
The Skeptic)
Primary Motivation: To
have security and support
Basic Fear: Being
abandoned or unsupported
Key Traits: Responsible,
cautious, committed, anxious, and suspicious
Type 7 - The Enthusiast
(or The Adventurer)
Primary Motivation: To be
happy, satisfied, and content
Basic Fear: Being deprived
or trapped in pain
Key Traits: Spontaneous,
fun-loving, versatile, scattered, and impulsive
Type 8 - The Challenger
(or The Protector)
Primary Motivation: To be
powerful and in control
Basic Fear: Being harmed
or controlled by others
Key Traits: Assertive,
decisive, confrontational, protective, and dominating
Type 9 - The Peacemaker
(or The Mediator)
Primary Motivation: To
maintain peace and harmony
Basic Fear: Loss of
connection or fragmentation
Key Traits: Easygoing, supportive,
accommodating, conflict-avoidant, and passive
Example Enneagram result:
In this hypothetical
example, let's consider a person named Sarah. After completing an Enneagram
assessment, she discovers she is a Type 2, The Helper, with a strong 3 wing
(Type 2w3). This means that Sarah's core personality is driven by the desire to
be loved and appreciated, while her adjacent wing, Type 3, adds ambition and
adaptability to her profile.
As a Type 2w3, Sarah will likely be warm, empathetic, and generous in her relationships. She enjoys
helping others and often goes out of her way to support her friends and family.
However, her Type 3 wing makes her more image-conscious and success-driven than
a typical Type 2, as she also seeks admiration and respect from others. In
times of stress, Sarah may move towards the disintegration point of Type 8,
becoming more assertive and confrontational. Conversely, when she experiences
personal growth, Sarah may move towards the integration point of Type 4,
embracing her authentic emotions and developing a stronger sense of identity.
It's important to note
that Enneagram results should be taken as a starting point for self-exploration
and understanding rather than an absolute measure of one's personality. By
learning about her Enneagram type, Sarah can gain insights into her
motivations, fears, and strengths. This knowledge can help her better understand
her behavior patterns, improve relationships, and work on personal growth.
Sarah can also explore the
other aspects of the Enneagram, such as her triad (in her case, the Heart
triad), which can provide further insights into her emotional orientation.
Additionally, she can examine her levels of development within her type to
identify areas where she may need to grow or where she is already thriving.
Enneagram results can
offer valuable insights into an individual's personality, motivations, and
fears. These insights can foster personal growth, improve communication, and
enhance relationships. It's essential to approach the Enneagram with an open
mind and use it as a tool for self-exploration and understanding rather than a
definitive label or categorization of one's personality.
Resources
Riso,
D. R., & Hudson, R. (1996). Personality types: Using the Enneagram for
self-discovery. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
This book provides an
in-depth overview of the nine Enneagram personality types and offers guidance
on using the Enneagram for personal growth and self-discovery.
·Palmer,
H. (1991). The Enneagram: Understanding yourself and the others in your life.
HarperSanFrancisco.
Helen Palmer's book
explores the Enneagram's psychological and spiritual dimensions, offering
insights into the types' motivations, fears, and potential for growth.
·Naranjo,
C. (1994). Character and neurosis: An integrative view of personality through
the Enneagram and psychodynamic theory. Gateways/IDHHB Publishing.
Claudio Naranjo, one of
the key figures in the development of the modern Enneagram, connects the
Enneagram system to psychodynamic theory and explores the neurotic aspects of
each type.
·Riso,
D. R., & Hudson, R. (2003). Understanding the Enneagram: The practical
guide to personality types. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
This practical guide
provides detailed descriptions of the nine types, including their wings, levels
of development, and paths of integration and disintegration.
·Chestnut,
B. (2013). The complete Enneagram: 27 paths to greater self-knowledge. She
Writes Press.
Beatrice Chestnut's book extensively explores the Enneagram, including the subtypes, which
are based on the three instinctual drives: self-preservation, social, and
sexual (one-to-one).
These sources comprehensively understand the Enneagram's history, development, and
practical applications. By exploring these books, you can gain a more profound
knowledge of the Enneagram system and how it can be used for personal growth,
self-discovery, and improved relationships.
Locus of control is a
psychological concept that refers to how individuals believe they control
events. Individuals with an internal locus of control believe they can
influence the outcomes of events through their actions. In contrast, those with
an external locus of control attribute the outcomes to external factors, such
as luck or the actions of others. This concept was first introduced by Rotter
(1966).
Origins and Authors:
Julian B. Rotter, a
prominent social learning theorist, developed the locus of control concept in
1966. Rotter's work in social learning theory served as a foundation for developing
the locus of control as a measurable construct (Rotter, 1966).
Applications and Results:
Locus of control has been
widely applied in various fields, such as education, health, and organizational
behavior. For instance, students with an internal locus of control tend to
perform better academically because they believe they have control over their
learning (Gifford et al., 2006). Similarly, employees with an internal locus of
control tend to demonstrate higher job satisfaction and organizational
commitment, as they believe their efforts contribute to their success (Judge
& Bono, 2001). In health psychology, an internal locus of control has been
associated with better health outcomes, as individuals are more likely to
engage in healthy behaviors (Wallston et al., 1978).
Cultural Behavior:
Locus of control has also
been studied in relation to cultural differences. Research has shown that
people from individualistic cultures tend to have a higher internal locus of
control, while those from collectivist cultures exhibit a higher external locus
of control (Spector et al., 2001). Cultural values can explain this;
individualistic cultures emphasize personal autonomy, whereas collectivist
cultures stress the importance of external factors, such as family and social
groups.
Criticisms:
Despite its widespread
use, the locus of control concept has been criticized. One major critique is
the oversimplification of the internal-external dimension, as it does not
account for the complexity of human behavior (Lefcourt, 1982). Another
criticism is the cultural bias present in the initial development of the
concept, as it was primarily based on Western cultures, which may limit its
applicability to non-Western contexts (Spector et al., 2001).
References:
Gifford,
D. D., Briceno-Perriott, J., & Mianzo, F. (2006). Locus of control:
Academic achievement and retention in a sample of university first-year
students. Journal of College Admission, 191, 18-25.
Judge,
T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations
traits—self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional
stability—with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 80-92. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.80
Lefcourt,
H. M. (1982). Locus of control: Current trends in theory and research (2nd
ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rotter,
J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of
reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), 1-28.
doi:10.1037/h0092976
Spector,
P. E., Cooper, C. L., & Sparks, K. (2001). An international study of the
psychometric properties of the Hofstede Values
The Rotter's test and its
evaluation and interpretation
Rotter's Internal-External
Locus of Control Scale (I-E Scale) is a forced-choice test composed of 29
items, 23 are designed to measure locus of control, and 6 are filler items to
reduce response bias.
Examples of Rotter's I-E
Scale questions include:
When you make plans, do
you usually:
a) Plan on things working
out the way you want them to
b) Feel uncertain that
they will work out as planned
Do you believe that:
a) Most people have
control over their own lives
b) What happens to people
is mostly a matter of luck
Each item consists of two
statements, one reflecting an internal locus of control (e.g., "a")
and the other reflecting an external locus of control (e.g., "b").
Participants must choose the statement that best represents their belief.
Evaluation and
Interpretation:
To evaluate the I-E Scale,
the test administrator calculates a total score for each participant based on
the number of internal locus of control responses. The total score ranges from
0 to 23, with higher scores indicating a stronger external locus of control and
lower scores indicating a stronger internal locus of control. No absolute
cutoff score classifies a person as having an internal or external locus of
control; the scores are generally considered on a continuum.
t is essential to consider
the I-E Scale's limitations when interpreting the results. The test does not
provide an in-depth assessment of the specific areas of control beliefs but offers
a general overview of a person's locus of control. Furthermore, cultural
differences, situational factors, and response biases can influence the scores,
so they should not be interpreted in isolation. Instead, it is advised to
combine the test results with other sources of information, such as interviews,
observations, or additional psychological tests, to gain a more comprehensive
understanding of an individual's locus of control.
Here are ten influential
definitions of culture from various sources:
Tylor, E. B. (1871).
Primitive Culture. London: John Murray.
"Culture or
Civilization, taken in its wide ethnographic sense, is that complex whole which
includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other
capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society."
Williams, R. (1983).
Keywords: A vocabulary of culture and society. London: Fontana Press.
"Culture is one of
the two or three most complicated words in the English language."
Geertz, C. (1973). The
Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.
"Man is an animal
suspended in webs of significance he himself has spun; I take culture to be
those webs."
Kroeber, A. L., &
Kluckhohn, C. (1952). Culture: A critical review of concepts and definitions.
Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum.
"Culture consists of
patterns, explicit and implicit, of and for behavior acquired and transmitted
by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievements of human groups,
including their embodiments in artifacts."
Boas, F. (1940). Race,
Language, and Culture. New York: Macmillan.
"Culture embraces all
the manifestations of social habits of a community, the reactions of the
individual as affected by the habits of the group in which he lives, and the
product of human activities as determined by these habits."
Herskovits, M. J. (1948).
Man and his Works: The Science of Cultural Anthropology. New York: A.A. Knopf.
"Culture is the
man-made part of the environment."
Linton, R. (1945). The
Cultural Background of Personality. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
"The culture of a
society is the way of life of its members; the collection of ideas and habits
which they learn, share, and transmit from generation to generation."
White, L. A. (1959). The
Concept of Culture. American Anthropologist, 61(2), 227-251.
"Culture is an
organization of phenomena which includes tools, implements, utensils, customs,
codes, institutions, ideas, and works of art, as well as the modes of behavior
characteristic of a given human society."
Malinowski, B. (1944). A
Scientific Theory of Culture and Other Essays. Chapel Hill: The University of
North Carolina Press.
"Culture is the
integral whole of all socially conditioned and socially generated
phenomena."
Hofstede, G. (1997).
Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.
"Culture is the
collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group
or category of people from others."
The difference between
culture and civilization is that culture refers to the shared beliefs, values, norms,
customs, and practices that define a particular society. In contrast,
civilization refers to a more advanced stage of human social development
characterized by complex social, political, and economic systems and the growth
of cities, arts, and sciences.
Arnold Toynbee (1889-1975) was a British historian
who proposed a history theory in his work "A Study of History." He
identified 21 significant civilizations throughout history and believed civilizations
pass through genesis, growth, breakdown, and disintegration
Toynbee argued that the
rise and fall of civilizations could be attributed to their ability to respond
creatively to challenges posed by their environment, other societies, or
internal factors.
Bernard Lewis (1916-2018) was a British-American
historian specializing in Oriental studies and Islamic history. His work on the
relationship between Western and Islamic civilizations highlighted the
historical, cultural, and religious differences that have shaped their
interactions. Lewis argued that the decline of Islamic civilization was due to
internal factors, such as the failure to modernize and adapt to new challenges,
rather than external pressures from the West.
Francis Fukuyama (born
1952) is
an American political scientist and economist best known for his book "The
End of History and the Last Man." Fukuyama argued that the spread of
liberal democracy and free-market capitalism signaled the endpoint of
humanity's sociocultural evolution and the universalization of Western liberal
democracy as the final form of human government. This perspective has been
criticized for its Western-centric and deterministic outlook.
Samuel Huntington
(1927-2008)
was an American political scientist best known for his book "The Clash of
Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order." Huntington argued that
future conflicts would primarily occur between different civilizations rather
than between nation-states.
Mariano Bernardez analyzes and discusses several culture and civilization models in the following paper -from Toynbee, Huntington, and Fukuyama to Trompenaars and Hofstede. He uses these two last models to compare multiple countries, US states, and US subcultures in a more in-depth paper:
A
nudge, as we will use the term, is any aspect of the choice architecture that
alters people’s behavior in a predictable way without forbidding any options or
significantly changing their economic incentives.
Humans and Econs: Why Nudges Can Help
Those who reject
paternalism often claim that human beings do a terrific job of making choices,
and if not terrific, certainly better than anyone else would do (especially if
that someone else works for the government).
Whether or not they
have ever studied economics, many people seem at least implicitly committed to
the idea of homo economicus, or economic man— the notion that each of us thinks
and chooses unfailingly well, and thus fits within the textbook picture of
human beings offered by economists.
If you look at
economics textbooks, you will learn that homo
economicus can think like Albert Einstein, store as much memory as IBM’s
Big Blue, and exercise the willpower of Mahatma Gandhi. Really.
But the folks that we
know are not like that.
Real people have
trouble with long division if they don’t have a calculator, sometimes forget
their spouse’s birthday, and have a hangover on New Year’s Day. They are not
homo economicus; they are homo sapiens.
To keep our Latin
usage to a minimum we will hereafter refer to these imaginary and real species
as Econs and Humans.
Consider the issue of
obesity.
Rates of obesity in
the United States are now approaching 20 percent, and more than 60 percent of
Americans are considered either obese or overweight.
There is overwhelming
evidence that obesity increases risks of heart disease and diabetes, frequently
leading to premature death. It would be quite fantastic to suggest that
everyone is choosing the right diet, or a diet that is preferable to what might
be produced with a few nudges.
Of course, sensible
people care about the taste of food, not simply about health, and eating is a
source of pleasure in and of itself.
We do not claim that
everyone who is overweight is necessarily failing to act rationally, but we do
reject the claim that all or almost all Americans are choosing their diet
optimally.
What is true for diets
is true for other risk- related behavior, including smoking and drinking, which
produce more than five hundred thousand premature deaths each year.
With respect to diet,
smoking, and drinking, people’s current choices cannot reasonably be claimed to
be the best means of promoting their well- being. Indeed, many smokers,
drinkers, and overeaters are willing to pay third parties to help them make
better decisions.
But our basic source
of information here is the emerging science of choice, consisting of careful
research by social scientists over the past four decades.
That research has
raised serious questions about the rationality of many judgments and decisions
that people make.
To qualify as Econs, people are not required to make
perfect forecasts (that would require omniscience), but they are required to
make unbiased forecasts.
That is, the forecasts
can be wrong, but they can’t be systematically wrong in a predictable
direction.
Unlike Econs, Humans predictably err.
Take, for example, the
“planning fallacy”— the systematic tendency toward unrealistic optimism about
the time it takes to complete projects.
It will come as no
surprise to anyone who has ever hired a contractor to learn that everything
takes longer than you think, even if you know about the planning fallacy.
Hundreds of studies confirm that human forecasts are flawed and biased. Human
decision making is not so great either.
Again, to take just
one example, consider what is called the “status quo bias,” a fancy name for
inertia. For a host of reasons, which we shall explore, people have a strong
tendency to go along with the status quo or default option.
When you get a new
cell phone, for example, you have a series of choices to make.
The fancier the phone, the more of these
choices you face, from the background to the ring sound to the number of times
the phone rings before the caller is sent to voice mail.
The manufacturer has
picked one option as the default for each of these choices. Research shows that
whatever the default choices are, many people stick with them, even when the
stakes are much higher than choosing the noise your phone makes when it rings.
Two important lessons can be drawn from this research.
First, never
underestimate the power of inertia.
Second, that power can
be harnessed.
Libertarian Paternalism
If, all things
considered, you think that Carolyn should take the opportunity to nudge the
kids toward food that is better for them, Option 1, then we welcome you to our
new movement: libertarian paternalism.
We are keenly aware that this term is not one
that readers will find immediately endearing.
Both words are
somewhat off-putting, weighted down by stereotypes from popular culture and
politics that make them unappealing to many. Even worse, the concepts seem to
be contradictory.
Why combine two
reviled and contradictory concepts?
We argue that if the
terms are properly understood, both concepts reflect common sense—and they are
far more attractive together than alone.
The problem with the
terms is that they have been captured by dogmatists.
The libertarian aspect
of our strategies lies in the straightforward insistence that, in general,
people should be free to do what they like—and to opt out of undesirable
arrangements if they want to do so.
To borrow a phrase
from the late Milton Friedman, libertarian paternalists urge that people should
be “free to choose.”
We strive to design
policies that maintain or increase freedom of choice.
When we use the term libertarian to modify the word
paternalism, we simply mean liberty-preserving. And when we say
liberty-preserving, we really mean it.
Libertarian
paternalists want to make it easy for people to go their own way; they do not
want to burden those who want to exercise their freedom.
The paternalistic aspect lies in the claim
that it is legitimate for choice architects to try to influence people’s
behavior in order to make their lives longer, healthier, and better. In other
words, we argue for self-conscious efforts, by institutions in the private sector
and also by government, to steer people’s choices in directions that will
improve their lives.
In our understanding,
a policy is “paternalistic” if it tries to influence choices in a way that will
make choosers better off, as judged by themselves.
Drawing on some
well-established findings in social science, we show that in many cases,
individuals make pretty bad decisions—decisions they would not have made if
they had paid full attention and possessed complete information, unlimited
cognitive abilities, and complete self- control.
Libertarian
paternalism is a relatively weak, soft, and nonintrusive type of paternalism
because choices are not blocked, fenced off, or significantly burdened.
If people want to
smoke cigarettes, to eat a lot of candy, to choose an unsuitable health care
plan, or to fail to save for retirement, libertarian paternalists will not
force them to do otherwise— or even make things hard for them.
Still, the approach we
recommend does count as paternalistic, because private and public choice
architects are not merely trying to track or to implement people’s anticipated
choices. Rather, they are self- consciously attempting to move people in
directions that will make their lives better.
The distinction between fast and slow thinking has been explored
by many psychologists over the last twenty-five years. For reasons that I
explain more fully in the next chapter, I describe mental life by the metaphor
of two agents, called System 1 and System 2, which respectively produce fast
and slow thinking.
It emerges from recent research, the intuitive System 1 is more
influential than your experience tells you, and it is the secret author of many
of the choices and judgments you make.
System 1 operates automatically and quickly, with little or no
effort and no sense of voluntary control.
System 2 allocates attention to the
effortful mental activities that demand it, including complex computations.
The
operations of System 2 are often associated with the subjective experience of
agency, choice, and concentration.
The labels of System 1 and System 2 are
widely used in psychology, but I go further than most in this book, which you
can read as a psychodrama with two characters. When we think of ourselves, we identify
with System 2, the conscious, reasoning self that has beliefs, makes choices,
and decides what to think about and what to do.
Although System 2 believes
itself to be where the action is, the automatic System 1 is the hero of the
book. I describe System 1 as effortlessly originating impressions and feelings
that are the main sources of the explicit beliefs and deliberate choices of
System 2.
The highly diverse operations of System 2 have
one feature in common: they require attention and are disrupted when attention
is drawn away. System 2 has some ability to change the way
System 1 works, by programming the normally automatic functions of attention
and memory.
When we told an economist colleague that we were studying
scarcity, he remarked, “There is already a science of scarcity. You might have
heard of it. It’s called economics.”
Our approach to scarcity is different.
In economics, scarcity is ubiquitous. All of us have a limited
amount of money; even the richest people cannot buy everything. But we suggest
that while physical scarcity is ubiquitous, the feeling of scarcity is not.
Imagine a day at work where your calendar is sprinkled with a few meetings and
your to- do list is manageable. You spend the unscheduled time by lingering at
lunch or at a meeting or calling a colleague to catch up.
Now, imagine another day at work where your calendar is chock-
full of meetings. What little free time you have must be sunk into a project
that is overdue. In both cases time was physically scarce. You had the same
number of hours at work and you had more than enough activities to fill them.
Yet in one case you were acutely aware of scarcity, of the finiteness of time;
in the other it was a distant reality, if you felt it at all.
The feeling of
scarcity is distinct from its physical reality. Scarcity is not just a physical
constraint. It is also a mindset. When scarcity captures our attention, it
changes how we think—whether it is at the level of milliseconds, hours, or days
and weeks. By staying top of mind, it affects what we notice, how we weigh our choices,
how we deliberate, and ultimately what we decide and how we behave.
When scarcity
captures the mind, we become more attentive and efficient.
We can directly measure mental capacity or, as we call it, bandwidth.
We can measure fluid intelligence, a key resource
that affects how we process information and make decisions.
We can measure executive control, a key resource
that affects how impulsively we behave.
And we find that scarcity reduces all these components of
bandwidth— it makes us less insightful, less forward- thinking, less controlled.
And the effects are large. Being poor, for example, reduces a
person’s cognitive capacity more than going one full night without sleep.
It is not that the
poor have less bandwidth as individuals. Rather, it is that the experience of
poverty reduces anyone’s bandwidth.
When we think of the poor, we naturally think of a shortage of
money. When we think of the busy, or the lonely, we think of a shortage of
time, or of friends. But our results suggest that scarcity of all varieties
also leads to a shortage of bandwidth. And because bandwidth affects all
aspects of behavior, this shortage has consequences. We saw this with Sendhil
and Shawn.
