Economic studies have shown that living in poverty may produce a subjective feeling of scarcity, which affects people's cognitive functions and decision-making. Understanding this mechanism could inform healthcare designers on designing inclusive health interventions by considering the psychological scarcity and limited cognitive resources of impoverished individuals. We conducted a psychological experiment to test the impact of psychological scarcity on cognitive function and health decisions of rural residents in China. We randomly assign participants to two financial scenarios (hard vs. easy) with the technique of priming to induce their immediate financial worries. Then we measure cognitive function using Raven’s Progressive Matrices and uncover their decision-making priorities with a budget allocation task. 301 participants finished the study and 264 were included in the main analysis. The results show that both immediate financial worries and cumulative poverty have negative effects on participants’ cognitive performance. Responses to scarcity could lead to attentional focus on limited resources, thereby neglecting long-term health consequences, particularly for the lower income group. Based on the findings, we suggest a number of human factors design considerations that are critical to successful healthcare design.

@en

Concerns about threats to human autonomy feature prominently in the field of AI ethics. One aspect of this concern relates to the use of AI systems for problematically manipulative influence. In response to this, the European Union's draft AI Act (AIA) includes a prohibition on AI systems deploying subliminal techniques that alter people's behavior in ways that are reasonably likely to cause harm (Article 5(1)(a)). Critics have argued that the term ‘subliminal techniques’ is too narrow to capture the target cases of AI-based manipulation. We propose a definition of ‘subliminal techniques’ that (a) is grounded on a plausible interpretation of the legal text; (b) addresses all or most of the underlying ethical concerns motivating the prohibition; (c) is defensible from a scientific and philosophical perspective; and (d) does not over-reach in ways that impose excessive administrative and regulatory burdens. The definition provides guidance for design teams seeking to pursue responsible and ethically aligned AI innovation.@en