↓ Skip to main content

Poverty Impedes Cognitive Function

Overview of attention for article published in Science, August 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#18 of 40,489)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Readers on

mendeley
62 Mendeley
citeulike
11 CiteULike
Title
Poverty Impedes Cognitive Function
Published in
Science, August 2013
DOI 10.1126/science.1238041
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anandi Mani, Sendhil Mullainathan, Eldar Shafir, Jiaying Zhao, Mani A, Mullainathan S, Shafir E, Zhao J

Abstract

The poor often behave in less capable ways, which can further perpetuate poverty. We hypothesize that poverty directly impedes cognitive function and present two studies that test this hypothesis. First, we experimentally induced thoughts about finances and found that this reduces cognitive performance among poor but not in well-off participants. Second, we examined the cognitive function of farmers over the planting cycle. We found that the same farmer shows diminished cognitive performance before harvest, when poor, as compared with after harvest, when rich. This cannot be explained by differences in time available, nutrition, or work effort. Nor can it be explained with stress: Although farmers do show more stress before harvest, that does not account for diminished cognitive performance. Instead, it appears that poverty itself reduces cognitive capacity. We suggest that this is because poverty-related concerns consume mental resources, leaving less for other tasks. These data provide a previously unexamined perspective and help explain a spectrum of behaviors among the poor. We discuss some implications for poverty policy.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 1,341 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 60 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 21%
Student > Bachelor 10 16%
Researcher 7 11%
Unspecified 5 8%
Other 11 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 24 39%
Social Sciences 15 24%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 7 11%
Unspecified 5 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 6%
Other 7 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2146. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 June 2017.
All research outputs
#226
of 7,931,561 outputs
Outputs from Science
#18
of 40,489 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6
of 130,818 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science
#2
of 799 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,931,561 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 40,489 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 32.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 130,818 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 799 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.