The effect of limits in retail advertisements: A reactance theory perspective

Abstract

It is not uncommon for retailers to impose limits (e.g., “limit one per customer”) on advertised products. The attitudinal and behavioral effects of such advertised limits have been largely unexplored. The present research uses psychological reactance theory to generate insight into the effects of advertised limits. It was found that limits are both capable of attracting and repelling consumers depending upon the severity of the limit. In the experimental context that was used, age and income were found to be positively related to the effectiveness of limits.

Just do it! Why committed consumers react negatively to assertive ads

“…Moreover, we identify a new antecedent of pressure to comply: non-compliance guilt. Whereas prior work has focused on tangible, practical consequences of non-compliance as antecedents of pressure to comply (e.g., missing out on a deal; Lessne & Notarantonio, 1988;Kronrod et al, 2012a), we show that reactance can occur even without such tangible consequences. In addition, we extend consumer-brand relationship theory by identifying reactance as a novel outcome of relationship type.…”

Are scarce products always more attractive? The interaction of different types of scarcity signals with products' suitability for conspicuous consumption

“…Therefore, an interesting question is whether there is an optimal degree of perceived scarcity as a function of the type of scarcity and the type of product. Until now, there have been relatively few experiments in which the non-scarce condition is compared to multiple conditions representing different degrees of scarcity (Fromkin, Olson, Dispoye & Barnaby 1971;Lessne & Notarantonio 1988;Szybillo 1975;Verhallen 1982). Furthermore, we only considered comparatively unknown brands.…”

“…The checks for the homogeneity of the experimental groups were the same as in Pre-test 2 without indicating significant effects (all ps N .25 across the experimental groups). To measure the effect of scarcity, we averaged four sevenpoint bipolar scales ("attractive/unattractive"; "appealing/not appealing"; "interesting/not interesting"; "good/bad") in accordance with other studies (e.g., Lessne & Notarantonio 1988;Thakor, Suri & Saleh 2008, Worchel et al 1975). Cronbach's alpha was .897.…”

Customer Reactions to Acquirer-Dominant Mergers and Acquisitions

“…According to reactance theory, as well as empirical applications of this theory, people tend to develop a greater liking for the threatened behavior Hammock & Brehm, 1966;Lessne & Notarantonio, 1988;Mazis, Settle, & Leslie, 1973;Wicklund, 1974). As Brehm (1966, p. 18) states, -If a specific behavioral freedom of a person is eliminated,... [he or she] will experience reactance and consequently will see increased attractiveness in the eliminated behavior.‖ This effect is also in line with empirical investigations and theoretical perspectives that suggest that difficult-to-get goals become more attractive (Cialdini, 1993;Inman, Peter, & Raghubir, 1997;Lynn, 1989;Swami & Khairnar, 2003).…”