A Self‐Regulatory Model of Resource Scarcity

Abstract

Academics have shown a growing interest in the effects of resource scarcity—a discrepancy between one's current resource levels and a higher, more desirable reference point. However, the existing literature lacks an overarching theory to explain the breadth of findings across different types of resources. To address this, we introduce a self‐regulatory model of resource scarcity. In it, we propose that consumers respond to resource scarcity through two distinct psychological pathways: a scarcity‐reduction route aimed at reducing the discrepancy in resources and a control‐restoration route aimed at reestablishing diminished personal control by attaining security in other domains. We explain how a key determinant of which route the consumer will pursue is the perceived mutability of the resource discrepancy. We also specify moderators, based on our proposed model, to identify when each of the two routes is pursued. This model is assessed in the context of alternative theoretical perspectives, including commodity theory, life history theory, and models of compensatory behavior. Finally, we provide a research agenda for those interested in studying the psychology of resource scarcity from a self‐regulatory perspective.

How Financial Constraints Influence Consumer Behavior: An Integrative Framework

“…Although consumers' immediate reactions to resource scarcity are associated with negative consequences, consumers often find ways to cope with resource scarcity. After searching for ways to eliminate a resource constraint, consumers seek out ways to limit its effects (Cannon et al, 2018). For instance, consumers facing scarcity can "stretch" their resources and use them more efficiently (Fernbach, Kan, & Lynch, 2015;Shah et al, 2012).…”

“…Even if consumers themselves do not explicitly recognize that they are employing these coping strategies, such silver linings can be found across all four types of financial constraints. For example, consumers cope with resource scarcity by becoming more efficient with their resources (Mullainathan & Shafir, 2013) and attempting to reestablish control (Cannon et al, 2018). Consumers cope with choice restrictions by becoming more creative in their use of the options that are available (Mehta & Zhu, 2016).…”

“…In part, this may be because the effects of financial constraints on behavior have been examined in several different ways across several different literatures. These literatures include research on resource scarcity (Cannon, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2018;Shah, Mullainathan, & Shafir, 2012), choice restriction (Botti et al, 2008), social comparison (Kraus, Piff, & Keltner, 2009) and environmental uncertainty (Chen & Miller, 2012). To illustrate the diversity of methodologies employed, some studies experimentally induce financial constraints, whereas others measure chronic constraints; some studies operationalize financial constraints as absolute income, whereas others focus on relative standing; some focus on financial constraints in childhood, whereas others focus only on adulthood.…”

Scarce Foods are Perceived as Having More Calories

“…A resource is “any quantifiable entity that offers utility to the individual and has the potential to be depleted or consumed” (Cannon, Goldsmith, & Roux, ). In consumer contexts, products are resources that can be naturally or artificially limited in availability, including food (Parker & Lehmann, ; Van Herpen, Pieters, & Zeelenberg, ).…”

“…One possible response to scarce products and their cognitive associations with value and cost is that consumers’ own resource constraints become more salient (Kristofferson, McFerran, Morales, & Dahl, ). When this occurs, consumers experience resource deprivation, which is a “discrepancy between one's current level of resources and a higher, more desirable reference point” (Cannon et al., ). Although resource deprivation can refer to a specific domain (e.g., wanting water when thirsty; Dai & Hsee, ), it can also be a general feeling of wanting more that spans across domains (Levontin, Ein‐Gar, & Lee, ; Roux, Goldsmith, & Bonezzi, ).…”