The Relationships between Economic Scarcity, Concrete Mindset and Risk Behavior: A Study of Nicaraguan Adolescents

Abstract

Background: Nicaragua is one of the poorest countries in Latin America, with an extremely low human development index (HDI). Fifty-two percent of the Nicaraguan population are children and adolescents under 18 years of age. Nicaraguan adolescents present several risk behaviors (such as teenage pregnancies, consumption of alcohol, tobacco, cannabis). Our study examines the links between risk behaviors, fatalism, real economic scarcity, and concrete construal level for adolescents with low and middle-low socioeconomic status in Nicaragua. Methods: Nicaraguan adolescents (N = 834) from schools located in especially vulnerable areas (low economic status) or in neighborhoods with middle-low social class completed several scales and questions to evaluate fatalism (SFC—social fatalism scale), construal level (BIF) and their past and future risk behaviors (smoking cigarettes, smoking cannabis, unsafe sex, and alcohol consumption). Results: We identified that the poorest individuals who maintained a concrete style of thinking had the highest rates of past and future risk behaviors. This vulnerable group also reported the highest levels of fatalism, i.e., negative attitudes and feelings of helplessness. Encouragingly, the adolescents who were able to maintain an abstract mindset reported healthier past and future habits and lower fatalism, even when they belonged to the lowest social status. In the middle-low economic group, the construal level was not as relevant to maintaining healthy habits, as adolescents reported similar rates of past and future risk behavior at both construal levels. Conclusions: All these results support the importance of considering construal level when studying vulnerable populations and designing risk prevention programs.

Does poverty promote a different and harmful way of thinking? The links between economic scarcity, concrete construal level and risk behaviors

“…However, people experiencing severe economic problems who were able to maintain a more abstract style reported fewer risk behavioral intentions. Similar results were found in a sample of adolescents in Nicaragua (see Aguilar et al, 2020).…”

“…These workshops were only offered to people with economic conditions of vulnerability. Based on our previous results, we expected that this sample would present a concrete style of thinking; however, because construal level is a continuous dimension ranging from concrete to abstract style (see Trope & Liberman, 2003;Vallacher & Wegner, 1989, some individuals could maintain a more abstract style even in those difficult economic conditions (see Aguilar et al, 2020). People suffering scarcity who think more concretely will be more prone to carry out risk behaviors, while individuals suffering economic problems, who present a more abstract style, will report healthier behavioral intentions.…”

“…Based on CLT, Fujita and collaborators proposed that an abstract construal facilitates greater self-control by focusing people's attention on the final goals and thus favors healthier and beneficial longterm choices (Belding et al, 2015;Ledgerwood et al, 2010;Libby et al, 2007;Fujita, 2008;Fujita & Han, 2009). A recent study in Nicaragua found that adolescents under severe scarcity who presented a concrete style of thinking reported the highest rates of past and future risk behaviors (Aguilar et al, 2020).…”

The links among relative financial scarcity, thinking style, fatalism, and well‐being

“…Previous studies have shown that perceptions of having less elicit a greater focus on immediate problems while neglecting relevant future outcomes; importantly, this short‐term perspective increases risk taking (Mani et al, 2013 ; Payne et al, 2017 ; Shah et al, 2012 ). Financial scarcity leads to attentional shifts that (1) explain risk behaviors, such as over‐borrowing (Shah et al, 2012 ); (2) reduce the sense of personal control, making individuals more vulnerable to financial stress (Sommet et al, 2018 ); (3) increase the anxiety associated with higher calorie intake (Bratanova et al, 2016a ); and (4) promote a concrete mindset that motivates more unhealthy habits (Aguilar et al, 2020 ).…”

“…The AIT and the CLT, as theoretical frameworks, afford only comparative or relative conclusions related to the concrete–abstract dimension; for this reason, all predictions must be understood from a comparative perspective (see MacGregor et al, 2017 ). Recent research has shown that young individuals under severe economic scarcity in Nicaragua presented a more concrete thinking style than young people in a better economic situation (Aguilar et al, 2020 ). This relationship between economic scarcity and a concrete mindset is coherent with the social cognitive perspective on social class (see Kraus et al, 2012 ), where lower‐class individuals present higher vigilance to situational external threats (Kraus et al, 2011 ).…”