On the Psychology of Scarcity: When Reminders of Resource Scarcity Promote Selfish (and Generous) Behavior

Can Everyday Brands Be Threatening? Responses to Brand Primes Depend on Childhood Socioeconomic Status

“…Lastly, our findings have implications for the literature on how consumer behavior is influenced by resource scarcity. Although others have examined the effects of scarcity encountered in the present (i.e., during adulthood; Laran & Salerno, 2013;Roux, Goldsmith, & Bonezzi, 2015;Sharma & Alter, 2012), we demonstrate a novel example of how growing up under conditions of scarcity can influence adult consumer behavior. These distinct approaches point to the importance of investigating the differences between chronic and temporary states of scarcity and raise interesting questions regarding how the two may interact.…”

“…Neither a contextual manipulation modeled off of Schwarz, Hippler, Deutsch, and Strack () nor the established manipulation of current relative social class (Piff, Kraus, Côté, Cheng, & Keltner, ) adapted to childhood social class resulted in significant differences on a manipulation check. Similarly, a manipulation of scarcity (Roux et al., ) also failed to influence perceived childhood SES. Perhaps, low childhood SES can only be primed in people that grew up poor, suggesting that future attempts at priming low childhood SES may necessitate the inclusion of measured childhood SES as a control or moderator variable.…”

The Dark Side of Scarcity Promotions: How Exposure to Limited-Quantity Promotions Can Induce Aggression

“…Shah, Mullainathan and Shafir (2012) found that a scarcity mindset induces an intense present focus and a willingness to sacrifice one's future well-being in order to meet present goals. This present focus, in turn, has been shown to cause consumers to adopt a more agentic and competitive mindset (Roux, Goldsmith and Bonezzi 2015), neglect other situational dimensions (Zwane 2012), and exhibit lower self-control (Laran 2010). Taken together, under certain conditions that highlight competition between consumers, we propose that scarcity cues, such as limited-quantity promotions for non-necessity or luxury items, may foster a specific association with aggression that leads consumers to ignore the significant costs associated with violence, and makes them more likely to engage in competitive, aggressive actions (Campbell 1999;Taylor et al 2000;Wilson and Daly 1985).…”

A Self‐Regulatory Model of Resource Scarcity

“…To understand how consumers respond to discrepancies in resource levels, we draw upon prior research that suggests that people can respond to discrepancies in current and desired states either directly or indirectly. For example, individuals with high self-esteem self-enhance by directly linking Mittal and Griskevicius (2014), Roux et al (2015), Tully et al (2015) Imagining growing up with resource scarcity Briers and Laporte (2013), Mehta and Zhu (2016) Listing what one cannot do without different resources Roux et al (2015) Perceived time scarcity Kurtz (2008) Performing or observing the act of emptying Levontin et al (2015) Induced hunger Aarøe and Petersen (2013), Briers et al (2006) Inman et al (1997), Lynn (1989), Verhallen and Robben (1994), Worchel et al (1975), Zhu and Ratner (2015) Time restrictions Brannon and Brock (2001a), Inman et al (1997), Suri, Kohli, and Monroe (2007) Scarcity appeals Bozzolo and Brock (1992) Laran and Salerno (2013) Lexical decision task Laran and Salerno (2013), Zhu and Ratner (2015) oneself with positive identities, whereas individuals with low self-esteem self-enhance by indirectly linking oneself with other individuals with positive identities (Brown, Collins, & Schmidt, 1988). In addition, guilt-laden individuals remedy their wrongdoings directly by engaging in reparative action, whereas shame-laden individuals respond to their wrongdoing indirectly by regulating their emotional responses (Duhachek, Agrawal, & Han, 2012;Tangney, Stuewig, & Mashek, 2007).…”