Marketers frequently implement scarcity messages in promoting their products. Scarcity due to demand and scarcity due to supply have both been found to influence consumers’ product evaluations positively. However, the differential effects of these two types of scarcity messages have been understudied. Study 1 manipulated scarcity appeals type and need for uniqueness orthogonally and examined their effects on purchase intention. Study 2 manipulated scarcity appeals type and tested its effect on perceived uniqueness. Study 3 manipulated scarcity appeals type and tested the moderated mediation model that perceived uniqueness mediated the interactive effects of scarcity type and need for uniqueness on purchase intention. Across three studies, we find that consumers perceive supply-based scarcity products as more unique than demand-based scarcity products. Consequently, in comparison with demand-based scarcity messages, supply-based scarcity messages increase purchase intention for consumers with high need for uniqueness. In contrast, these messages decrease purchase intention for consumers with low need for uniqueness. Our findings contribute to the research on scarcity appeals, uniqueness perception, and need for uniqueness. Our research also suggests that marketers need to implement different types of scarcity appeals to convey uniqueness information and to attract different consumers.
Scarcity experience occurs when people feel they have less than they need. Previous research indicates that scarcity experience affects individuals' cognitive function, social behavior, and decision-making process. However, it remains unclear whether and how experienced scarcity influences unethical behavior. This paper reports three studies testing the potential relationship and mediational mechanisms. Study 1 assesses the associations between general scarcity experience, desire for money, consideration of future consequences, and unethical behavior. Studies 2 and 3 then manipulate scarcity experience (versus abundant experience and a neutral control condition) through paradigms of recalling (Study 2) and imagining (Study 3), and test the effect on self-reported unethical behavior (Study 2) and actual unethical conduct (Study 3), as well as the mediating effects of desire for money and consideration of future consequences. The results show that individuals experiencing scarcity were more likely to behave unethically, regardless of gender, age, or socioeconomic status. However, consideration of future consequences mediated the effect of scarcity experience on unethical behavior only in Study 1. Further research is needed to uncover the underlying mechanism through which scarcity evokes unethical behavior.
Is cheating intuitive when it serves self-interest? The literature on intuitive honesty versus dishonesty remains controversial. In two studies, we used both betweensubjects (Study 1, N = 90) and within-subjects (Study 2, N = 93) cognitive load manipulations to induce intuition and tested the intuitive dishonesty hypothesis with behavioral cheating paradigms. Results showed that cognitive load increased lying across multiple tasks (Studies 1 and 2). Moreover, the intuitive dishonesty effect occurred only for individuals low in Honesty-Humility (Study 2). The findings are discussed with regard to current debates about intuitive dishonesty.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.