The Scarcity Bias

Abstract

Two experiments provided empirical support for the scarcity bias, that is, when the subjective value of a good increases due to the mere fact that it is scarce. We define scarcity as the presence of limited resources and competition on the demand side (i.e. not enough for two people). In Experiment 1, 180 students were divided into two conditions. The same good was abundant in one condition but scarce in the other one. The scarcity condition involved a partner (competitor) to create scarcity, while the abundant condition did not. Results showed that more participants chose a good when it was scarce than when it was abundant, for two out of four sets of items (ballpoints, snacks, pencils, and key rings). Experiment 2 employed 171 participants and a WTA (willingness to accept) elicitation procedure of the subjective value of the good. Results showed that the scarce good was given a higher WTA price by those participants choosing it, than by those who did not, compared to the WTA of the abundant good, despite the fact that both types of participants assigned a lower market price to the scarce good, as compared to the abundant one.Deux expériences ont confirmé empiriquement le biais de rareté (la valeur subjective d'un bien s'accroît en raison de sa seule rareté). La rareté est définie par une demande conflictuelle car confrontée à des ressources limitées (tout le monde ne pourra pas être satisfait). La première expérience fit appel à 180 étudiants répartis sur deux conditions. Le même bien était abondant dans l'une des conditions et rare dans l'autre. La condition de rareté impliquait la présence d'un concurrent pour créer la pénurie, concurrent inexistant dans la condition d'abondance. Les résultats ont montré que davantage de participants se sont portés sur un bien quand il était rare que lorsqu'il était abondant, cela pour deux des quatre séries d'items (stylos à bille, casse-croûte, crayons, porte-clefs). 171 sujets participèrent à la seconde expérience qui utilisa une procédure de mise en évidence de la valeur subjective du bien (WTA: prix jugé acceptable pour se procurer le bien). Il apparaît que le bien rare bénéficiait de la part de ceux qui le choisissait d'un prix WTA supérieur à celui octroyé par ceux qui le délaissaient, par comparaison au WTA du bien abondant, et cela en dépit du fait que les deux catégories de sujets accordaient un prix de vente inférieur au bien rare par rapport à celui qui était largement disponible.

On the Relationship between Pro-Environmental Behavior, Experienced Monetary Costs, and Psychological Gains

“…Scholars from various disciplines have explored the links between behavior and the scarcity of personal resources. For example, some studies even suggest that confronting people with simple cues of scarcity is enough to make them act more selfishly [19,20] and pace a higher value on things they perceive as lacking than they usually do [21], which is pretty much in line with Hobbes' proposition [12]. Further, it is intuitive that an objective scarcity of material resources can cause psychological reactions such as stress and negative feelings.…”

Dark Patterns at Scale

“…(4) Framing Effect [80]: The tendency of individuals to reach different decisions from the same information depending on how it is presented. (5) Scarcity Bias [64]: The tendency of individuals to place a higher value on things that are scarce. (6) Sunk Cost Fallacy [29]: The tendency of individuals to continue an action if they have invested resources into it, even if that action might make them worse off.…”

Resource Scarcity Perceptions in Supply Chains: The Effect of Buyer Altruism on the Propensity for Collaboration

“…While there are numerous decision biases (see Carter et al, 2007 for a review), one, in particular, pertains to scarcity. The prospect of scarce resources creates “a scarcity mindset” (Shah, Shafir, & Mullainathan, 2015, p. 402), resulting in what has been described as a scarcity bias (Mittone & Savadori, 2009) or scarcity heuristic (Rao, Rabinovich, & Raju, 2014). The scarcity mindset leads individuals to place a higher value on scarce resources (Lynn, 1989, 1992; Shah, Mullainathan, & Shafir, 2012).…”