Scarcity Flashcards
Principle of Scarcity
When commodities are perceived as rare or not easily attainable, their value is increased
Evidence for Scarcity Principle
- Children prefer toys that are harder to obtain (Brehm & Weinraub, 1977)
- College women believed a scarce pair of nylons should cost more than a readily available pair
- Cookies in short supply rated more positively
- Individuals rated a trait more positively when they were told it was rare compared to when they were told it was common (Brannon & Brock, 2001)
How does scarcity operate?
Scarcity is a peripheral cue (Cialdini, 2001)
• “Rare is good” heuristic
• Works well to simplify complex decision-making
Or
Commodity Theory - Scarcity acts as a signal to attend to properties of item (Brannon & Brock, 1992)
• Attitudes become polarized
Evidence for Commodity Theory
- Individuals felt worse about a rare illness compared to a common illness (Brock & Brannon, 1992)
- When menu options were made scarce, scarcity increased compliance when strong arguments were present, but decreased compliance when weak arguments were present (Brock & Brannon, 2001)
Fast Food Study (Brannon & Brock, 2001)
IV’s: Scarcity, argument strength
DV’s: compliance
Cookie Study (Worschel et al., 1975)
- Asked to take a cookie from a jar and rate quality
- Manipulated scarcity
- Jar contained 10 cookies or 2
- Results?
- Another manipulation: newly scarce or constantly scarce
- Switched jar or jar stayed the same
- One more manipulation:
- Jar was switched because experimenter gave wrong jar or because it had to be given to other raters
Optimizing conditions for scarcity/ commodity theory
- Newly scarce (a possible for revolutions a revolt, “freedoms, once given, will not be relinquished without a fight.”)
- Competition for resources
Psychological Reactance
Brehm’s reactance theory
• We all want the freedom to think, feel and act as we choose
• If we think a freedom is being threatened, we try to restore it
E.g., censorship, love and romance
It emerges at 2 (toy behind Plexiglas study)
Other implications of reactance
• Very strong appeals might boomerang
• The closing time effect
Research on Phantom Alternatives (Pratkanis & Farquhar, 1992)
- College students chose among brands of products
* A very attractive alternative was included, but was unavailable (phantom alternative)
Implications of Phantom Alternatives
The phantom trap
• Try to obtain what cannot be reached
• Phantom fixation: tendency to focus attention on the scarce or unavailable resource, while overlooking the possible
• “consumer Catch-22 carousel”, Snyder (1990)
Paper clip study (Freeman, Pratkanis & Farquhar)
Participants earned money by completing a manual labor task
Money used to purchase office supplies
Some were told they could not purchase the most attractive option (surprise phantom condition)
• ½ told “Next similar clip, it’s your only choice”
• ½ told “You might want to consider the next most similar clip”
People react more strongly to the threat of _______ then to potential __________
Losses
Gains
Scarcity techniques
Limited numbers
Time limits
How Scarcity can help
Sometimes rare is because its better or a good deal
If we don’t act quick we could lose our freedom to
“Romeo and Juliet” effect
An example how parental control can boomerang.
If couples feel more external interference to being together they desire it more.
