The Cost of Less: Why the psychology of scarcity matters for agrifood systems transformation

“We policymakers have failed to appreciate the impact and relevance of scarcity on people's lives”. Dr Eldar Shafir, Professor of Psychology and Public Affairs, Princeton University  

Despite the availability of innovative technologies – such as climate-resilient seeds, water-saving irrigation systems and advanced biosecurity protocols – many promising solutions fail to achieve widespread uptake. The challenge is not solely technical; it is also behavioural. Innovations only succeed when people are able and willing to adopt them. 

FAO’s Office of Innovation is pioneering new approaches to transforming agrifood systems by integrating behavioural science into its programming. At the heart of this effort is the FAO Nudge Unit, which leverages behavioural science to understand what shapes decision-making among agrifood system actors – particularly when it comes to creating and adopting innovations. A key focus of this work is the psychology of scarcity. 

Experiencing scarcity firsthand 

During the 2025 Science and Innovation Forum, the FAO Nudge Unit hosted a dynamic session entitled “The Cost of Less: Interactive Workshop on Scarcity, Decision-Making, and Food Security”. Katie Taft, Communications and Engagement Lead at Gates Ag One, opened the session with a reflection on the importance of mindsets in the adoption of innovations. Building on this theme, over 50 participants then engaged in a series of live experiments to illustrate how experiences of scarcity and abundance shape choices and behaviours. 

To begin, participants were randomly assigned one of two experimental groups designed to simulate scarcity or abundance. In the first experiment, the scarcity group was shown a jar with 3 cookies, while the abundance group was shown a jar with 17 cookies. The scarcity group, on average, placed a higher value on a single cookie. 

Next, the two groups were shown two different videos. The scarcity group viewed visual imagery of dry, desert landscapes, and the abundance group saw lush, green forests and fields. When asked to place a dollar amount of the value of water, the scarcity group valued water much more highly than the abundance group.   

In the final experiment, the two groups were tasked with completing a puzzle. The scarcity group had two minutes to finish the puzzle, while the abundance group was allotted eight minutes. The emotional experiences of the two groups differed significantly: the scarcity group immediately felt stressed and anxious, while the abundance group approached the puzzle as a fun activity. However, when time began to run out for the abundance group, they too became anxious about finishing the puzzle. Their focus narrowed, leaving less mental bandwidth for other concerns. 

 Participants complete a puzzle under conditions of time scarcity and time abundance. Photo credit: Ainur Sarsenbekova

Key takeaways for development programming

Through a participative discussion moderated by Dr Neela Saldanha, Executive Director of the Yale Research Initiative on Innovation and Scale, the session revealed a critical insight: scarcity is not just a physical constraint, but a mindset. When individuals feel they have too little – whether it be time, money or food – their attention is consumed by what they lack, making it difficult to prioritize future opportunities or adopt new practices. These findings are not just theoretical in nature; they offer practical guidance for the design of development initiatives.;

With a special contribution from Dr Eldar Shafir, Professor of Psychology and Public Affairs at Princeton University and leading scholar on the psychology of scarcity, three key recommendations for development programming emerged from the session: 

• Time engagement for maximum impact: Schedule outreach and interventions during periods when participants have greater mental bandwidth – such as after a harvest – rather than during times of acute scarcity. 
• Align messaging and incentives with immediate concerns: Tailor communications and incentives to address participants’ current priorities, ensuring they are relevant to their daily lives and deliver rewards in the present or near future.  
• Simplify choices with smart defaults: Minimize complexity in programme design by incorporating default options and straightforward steps, making it easier for individuals to make beneficial decisions even when under stress. 

In her closing remarks, Peijie Yang, Specification and Regulatory Affairs Officer at the United Nations World Food Programme, emphasized the importance of applying these insights to maximize the impact of development programming. This approach pairs scientific and technological innovation with a deep understanding of human behaviour, ensuring that solutions are not only effective, but also widely adopted. By embedding behavioural science into its programmes, FAO aims to empower individuals, communities and governments to accelerate agrifood systems transformation for a more healthy, sustainable and food-secure world.

By Sarah Balistreri, Julia Hammann and Cortney Price