While economic inequality continues to rise within countries, efforts to address it have been largely ineffective, particularly those involving behavioral approaches. It is often implied but not tested that choice patterns among low-income individuals may be a factor impeding behavioral interventions aimed at improving upward economic mobility. To test this, we assessed rates of ten cognitive biases across nearly 5000 participants from 27 countries. Our analyses were primarily focused on 1458 individuals that were either low-income adults or individuals who grew up in disadvantaged households but had above-average financial well-being as adults, known as positive deviants. Using discrete and complex models, we find evidence of no differences within or between groups or countries. We therefore conclude that choices impeded by cognitive biases alone cannot explain why some individuals do not experience upward economic mobility. Policies must combine both behavioral and structural interventions to improve financial well-being across populations.

Centre for Business Research Judge Business School University of Cambridge Cambridge CB2 1AG UK

Columbia University 116th and Broadway New York NY 10027 USA

Department of Biological Sciences Columbia University 1212 Amsterdam Avenue New York NY 10027 USA

Department of Clinical Neuroscience Division of Psychology Karolinska Institutet Solna 171 77 Stockholm Sweden

Department of Clinical Psychology Leiden University Wassenaarseweg 52 2333 AK Leiden South Holland The Netherlands

Department of Cognitive Science Columbia University 116th and Broadway New York NY 10027 USA

Department of Computer Science Columbia University 500 W 120th Street New York NY 10027 USA

Department of Developmental Psychology and Socialisation University of Padua Via Venezia 12 35131 Padua PD Italy

Department of Economics Columbia University 420 W 118th Street New York NY 10027 USA

Department of Experimental Psychology University of Oxford Oxford UK

Department of Health Policy and Management Columbia University 722 W 168th Street New York NY 10032 USA

Department of Health Universidad Camilo José Cela Madrid Spain

Department of Life Sciences University of Roehampton Whitelands College London SW15 4JD UK

Department of Political Science Columbia University 420 W 118th Street New York NY 10027 USA

Department of Psychology and Behavioural Sciences Aarhus University Bartholins Allé 11 8000 Aarhus Denmark

Department of Psychology Barnard College Columbia University 3009 Broadway New York NY 10027 USA

Department of Psychology Columbia University 1180 Amsterdam Avenue New York NY 10027 USA

Department of Psychology Faculty of Media and Communications Singidunum University Karadjordjeva 65 Belgrade 11000 Serbia

Department of Psychology Faculty of Social Studies Masaryk University Joštova 218 10 60200 Brno Czech Republic

Department of Psychology Koc University 34349 Istanbul Turkey

Department of Psychology Ludwig Maximilians Universität München Munich Germany

Department of Psychology University of Ljubljana Aškerčeva Cesta 2 1000 Ljubljana Slovenia

Department of Psychology University of Padua Via 8 Febbraio 35122 Padua PD Italy

Department of Psychology University of Stirling Stirling Scotland FK9 4L UK

Department of Public Administration Columbia University 420 West 118th Street New York NY 10027 USA

Department of Social and Organizational Psychology Iscte University Institute of Lisbon Avenida das Forças Armadas 1649 026 Lisbon Portugal

Department of Sociology Columbia University 606 W 122nd Street New York NY 10027 USA

German Center for Addiction Research in Childhood and Adolescence University Medical Center Hamburg Eppendorf Martinistr 52 20246 Hamburg Germany

Lund University Lund Sweden

SWPS University Chodakowska 19 31 Warsaw Poland

University of Cologne Albertus Magnus Platz 50923 Cologne Germany

See more in PubMed

Browman AS, Destin M, Kearney MS, Levine PB. How economic inequality shapes mobility expectations and behaviour in disadvantaged youth. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2019;3:214–220. doi: 10.1038/s41562-018-0523-0. PubMed DOI

Jetten J, et al. Consequences of economic inequality for the social and political vitality of society: A social identity analysis. Polit. Psychol. 2021;42:241–266. doi: 10.1111/pops.12800. DOI

Williams KEG, Sng O, Neuberg SL. Ecology-driven stereotypes override race stereotypes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2016;113:310–315. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1519401113. PubMed DOI PMC

Falk A, et al. Global evidence on economic preferences. Q. J. Econ. 2018;133:1645–1692. doi: 10.1093/qje/qjy013. DOI

Calvet LE, Campbell JY, Sodini P. Down or out: Assessing the welfare costs of household investment mistakes. J. Polit. Econ. 2007;115:707–747. doi: 10.1086/524204. DOI

Huberman G. Familiarity breeds investment. Rev. Financ. Stud. 2001;14:659–680. doi: 10.1093/rfs/14.3.659. DOI

Massa M, Simonov A. Hedging, familiarity and portfolio choice. Rev. Financ. Stud. 2006;19:633–685. doi: 10.1093/rfs/hhj013. DOI

Branikas I, Hong H, Xu J. Location choice, portfolio choice. J. Financ. Econ. 2020;138:74–94. doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2019.10.010. DOI

de Bruijn E-J, Antonides G. Poverty and economic decision making: A review of scarcity theory. Theory Decis. 2022;92:5–37. doi: 10.1007/s11238-021-09802-7. DOI

Blank RM, Barr MS. Insufficient Funds: Savings, Assets, Credit, and Banking Among Low-Income Households. Russell Sage Foundation; 2009.

Bertrand M, Mullainathan S, Shafir E. A behavioral-economics view of poverty. Am. Econ. Rev. 2004;94:419–423. doi: 10.1257/0002828041302019. DOI

Ruggeri K, et al. The globalizability of temporal discounting. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2022 doi: 10.1038/s41562-022-01392-w. PubMed DOI PMC

Plantinga A, Krijnen JMT, Zeelenberg M, Breugelmans SM. Evidence for opportunity cost neglect in the poor. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 2018;31:65–73. doi: 10.1002/bdm.2041. PubMed DOI PMC

Shah AK, Shafir E, Mullainathan S. Scarcity frames value. Psychol. Sci. 2015;26:402–412. doi: 10.1177/0956797614563958. PubMed DOI

Vissing-Jorgensen, A. Towards an explanation of household portfolio choice heterogeneity: Nonfinancial income and participation cost structures. Working Paper at 10.3386/w8884 (2002).

Cronqvist H, Thaler RH, Yu F. When nudges are forever: Inertia in the Swedish Premium Pension Plan. AEA Pap. Proc. 2018;108:153–158. doi: 10.1257/pandp.20181096. DOI

Reñosa MDC, et al. Nudging toward vaccination: A systematic review. BMJ Glob. Health. 2021;6:e006237. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2021-006237. PubMed DOI PMC

Haushofer J, Shapiro J. The short-term impact of unconditional cash transfers to the poor: Experimental evidence from Kenya. Q. J. Econ. 2016;131:1973. doi: 10.1093/qje/qjw025. PubMed DOI PMC

Linos E, Prohofsky A, Ramesh A, Rothstein J, Unrath M. Can nudges increase take-up of the EITC?: Evidence from multiple field experiments. Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy. 2022 doi: 10.1257/pol.20200603. DOI

Jaroszewicz, A., Jachimowicz, J., Hauser, O. & Jamison, J. How effective is (more) money? Randomizing unconditional cash transfer amounts in the US. SSRN Scholarly Paper10.2139/ssrn.4154000

Hadna AH, Askar MW. The impact of conditional cash transfers on low-income individuals in Indonesia. Adv. Southeast Asian Stud. 2022;15:23–41.

Ruggeri K, Folke T. Unstandard deviation: The untapped value of positive peviance for reducing inequalities. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2022;17:711–731. doi: 10.1177/17456916211017865. PubMed DOI

Marsh DR, Schroeder DG, Dearden KA, Sternin J, Sternin M. The power of positive deviance. BMJ. 2004;329:1177–1179. doi: 10.1136/bmj.329.7475.1177. PubMed DOI PMC

Sussman AB, O’Brien RL. Knowing when to spend: Unintended financial consequences of earmarking to encourage savings. J. Mark. Res. 2016;53:790–803. doi: 10.1509/jmr.14.0455. DOI

Mackintosh UAT, Marsh DR, Schroeder DG. Sustained positive deviant child care practices and their effects on child growth in Viet Nam. Food Nutr. Bull. 2002;23:18–27. doi: 10.1177/15648265020234S104. PubMed DOI

Sripaipan T, et al. Effect of an integrated nutrition program on child morbidity due to respiratory infection and diarrhea in Northern Viet Nam. Food Nutr. Bull. 2002;23:67–74. doi: 10.1177/15648265020234S110. PubMed DOI

Chavez A, Martinez C. Growing up in a Developing Community: A Bio-ecologic Study of the Development of Children from Poor Peasant Families in Mexico. Instituto Nacional de la Nutrición; 1982.

Roche ML, et al. A community-based positive deviance/hearth infant and young child nutrition intervention in Ecuador improved diet and reduced underweight. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 2017;49:196–203.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jneb.2016.10.007. PubMed DOI

Yarkoni T. The generalizability crisis. Behav. Brain Sci. 2020 doi: 10.1017/S0140525X20001685. PubMed DOI PMC

Ghai S. It’s time to reimagine sample diversity and retire the WEIRD dichotomy. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2021;5:971–972. doi: 10.1038/s41562-021-01175-9. PubMed DOI

Costa DF, de Melo Carvalho F, de Melo Moreira BC, do Prado JW. Bibliometric analysis on the association between behavioral finance and decision making with cognitive biases such as overconfidence, anchoring effect and confirmation bias. Scientometrics. 2017;111:1775–1799. doi: 10.1007/s11192-017-2371-5. DOI

Hilbert LP, Noordewier MK, van Dijk WW. Financial scarcity increases discounting of gains and losses: Experimental evidence from a household task. J. Econ. Psychol. 2022;92:102546. doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2022.102546. DOI

Ruggeri K, et al. Nudging New York: Adaptive models and the limits of behavioral interventions to reduce no-shows and health inequalities. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2020;20:363. doi: 10.1186/s12913-020-05097-6. PubMed DOI PMC

Hagger MS, Weed M. DEBATE: Do interventions based on behavioral theory work in the real world? Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2019;16:36. doi: 10.1186/s12966-019-0795-4. PubMed DOI PMC

Chater N, Loewenstein G. The i-frame and the s-frame: How focusing on individual-level solutions has led behavioral public policy astray. Behav. Brain Sci. 2022 doi: 10.1017/S0140525X22002023. PubMed DOI

Ellsberg D. Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms. Q. J. Econ. 1961;75:643–669. doi: 10.2307/1884324. DOI

Bar-Hillel M. The base-rate fallacy in probability judgments. Acta Psychol. (Amst.) 1980;44:211–233. doi: 10.1016/0001-6918(80)90046-3. DOI

Isaac, M. S. & Brough, A. R. The Category size bias and consumers’ perceptions of risk. ACR North Am. Adv.NA-40, (2012).

Simonson I, Tversky A. Choice in context: Tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. J. Market. Res. 1992;29:281–295. doi: 10.1177/002224379202900301. DOI

Weber M, Camerer CF. The disposition effect in securities trading: An experimental analysis. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 1998;33:167–184. doi: 10.1016/S0167-2681(97)00089-9. DOI

Moore DA, Healy PJ. The trouble with overconfidence. Psychol. Rev. 2008;115:502–517. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.502. PubMed DOI

Prims JP, Moore DA. Overconfidence over the lifespan. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 2017;12:29–41. doi: 10.1017/S1930297500005222. PubMed DOI PMC

Kühberger A, Schulte-Mecklenbeck M, Perner J. Framing decisions: Hypothetical and real. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2002;89:1162–1175. doi: 10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00021-3. DOI

Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science. 1981;211:453–458. doi: 10.1126/science.7455683. PubMed DOI