Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The impact of retail out-of-stock options on preferences: The role of consumers’ desire for assimilation versus differentiation

  • Published:
Marketing Letters Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study tested the hypothesis that retail customers’ drive to assimilation or differentiation moderates the effect on their initial preference for a particular product of their discovery in the store of a previously unconsidered comparable alternative, which happens to be presently out of stock. The results revealed that new awareness of alternative options has an impact on customers’ preferences, even if they are unavailable when the choice is being made. Participants who were more concerned with differentiation exhibited a stronger preference for the option originally under consideration if they were told that the alternative was out of stock due to heavy demand rather than short supply. By comparison, those more concerned with assimilation had a weaker preference for the initial product when they learnt that its unavailability was said to be due to heavy demand, not supply shortfall. The article concludes with theoretical implications and areas for future research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. To be sure that the hypothesized effect was independent of the particular attributes of the out-of-stock option, two different experimental conditions were introduced. In one, the unavailable option featured a smaller screen but superior resolution of the camera image; in the other, the screen was larger but the resolution was inferior. Because the results of analysis obtained in the latter scenario were nearly identical to the former, those data are not presented in the “Results” sub-section.

  2. We also included a three-item measure of intention to purchase. The presentation of results covers only the perceived attractiveness measure because results for the purchase-intention measure essentially mirrored those for product attractiveness.

  3. Following the lead of Irwin and McClelland (2001) and Fitzsimons (2008), we also ran the analysis reported for this study using a continuous index of the degree of independence relative to interdependent for each individual (Escalas and Bettman 2005). Spotlight analysis yields the same results as those reported in the paper.

  4. It was found that no significant difference, in the control condition, between the mean attractiveness scores of the initial option and the alternative among both participants primed as independent and interdependent, which confirms that there was indeed no difference in terms of attractiveness between the initial option and the alternative.

  5. We conducted additional analyses with the measures of difference in attractiveness scores between the alternative and the initial option. The interaction between out-of-stock condition and primed self-concept significantly affected the difference between the scores (p < .0001). Among participants primed as independent, compared with the difference between the scores when the alternative was in stock, it increased in a positive direction in the case of scenario depicted supply-generated (p < .01) rather than demand-generated (p < .1) unavailability of the unconsidered option. By comparison, among participants primed as interdependent, the differences between the scores in the in-stock and supply-based out-of-stock scenarios did not differ significantly, whereas it increased positively in the case of scenario that depicted demand-generated unavailability of the previously unconsidered option (p < .01).

  6. In line with the notion that uniqueness is a mirror image of assimilation and conformity (Tian et al. 2001), we also employed consumers’ propensity to conform (Bearden and Rose 1990) as an alternative operationalization of concern for assimilation. The results provide further support for our theoretical framework. Details of the full study are available from the authors.

  7. No significant difference was found, in the control condition, between the mean attractiveness scores of the initial option and the alternative among both low-uniqueness participants and high-uniqueness participants.

  8. We further treated the need for uniqueness as continuous. Spotlight analysis yields nearly the same results as those reported in the paper.

  9. The interaction between out-of-stock condition and need for uniqueness influenced the difference between the scores significantly (p < .0001). Among high-uniqueness participants, compared with the difference between the scores when the alternative was in stock, it became more positive in the case of scenario depicted supply-generated (p < .001) rather than demand-generated (p < .1) unavailability of the unconsidered option. By comparison, among low-uniqueness participants, the differences between the scores in the in-stock and supply-based out-of-stock scenarios did not differ significantly, whereas it increased positively in the case of scenario that depicted demand-generated unavailability of the previously unconsidered option (p < .01).

References

  • Bearden, W. O., & Rose, R. L. (1990). Attention to social comparison information: An individual difference factor affecting consumer conformity. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(4), 461–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bettman, J. R., Luce, M. F., & Payne, J. W. (1998). Constructive consumer choice processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(3), 187–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, J., & Heath, C. (2007). Where consumers diverge from others: Identity signaling and product domains. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(2), 121–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campo, K., Gijsbrechts, E., & Nisol, P. (2000). Towards understanding consumer response to stock-outs. Journal of Retailing, 76(2), 219–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campo, K., Gijsbrechts, E., & Nisol, P. (2003). The impact of retailer stock-outs on whether, how much, and what to buy. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 20(3), 273–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, C. C. (2010). Making unique choices or being like others: How priming self-concepts influences advertising effectiveness. Psychology and Marketing, 27(4), 399–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheema, A., & Kaikati, A. M. (2010). The effect of need for uniqueness on word of mouth. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(3), 553–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhar, R., & Simonson, I. (2003). The effect of forced choice on choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(2), 146–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emmelhainz, M. A., Stock, J. R., & Emmelhainz, L. W. (1991). Consumer responses to retail stock-outs. Journal of Retailing, 67(2), 138–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2005). Self-construal, reference groups, and brand meaning. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(3), 378–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzsimons, G. J. (2000). Consumer response to stock-outs. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(2), 249–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzsimons, G. J. (2008). Death to dichotomizing. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(1), 5–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ge, X., Messinger, P. R., & Li, J. (2009). Influence of soldout products on consumer choice. Journal of Retailing, 85(3), 274–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gierl, H., & Huettl, V. (2010). Are scarce products always more attractive? The interaction of different types of scarcity signals with products’ suitability for conspicuous consumption. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27(3), 225–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. S., & Soong, R. (1986). Threshold models of interpersonal effects in consumer demand. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 7(1), 83–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, R. W. (2003). Why do people suggest what they do not want? Using context effects to influence others’ choices. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(4), 492–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1999). Is there a universal need for positive self-regard? Psychological Review, 106(4), 766–794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houston, D. A., Sherman, S. J., & Baker, S. M. (1991). Feature matching, unique features, and the dynamics of the choice process: Predecision conflict and postdecision satisfaction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27(5), 411–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, J., Payne, J. W., & Puto, C. (1982). Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: Violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(1), 90–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, J. R., & McClelland, G. H. (2001). Misleading heuristics for moderated multiple regression models. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(1), 100–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, T., & Carroll, R. (2009). The effect of incidental out-of-stock options on preferences. Marketing Letters, 20(2), 197–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lascu, D. N., & Zinkhan, G. (1999). Consumer conformity: Review and applications for marketing theory and practice. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 7(3), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, A. Y., Aaker, J. L., & Gardner, W. L. (2000). The pleasures and pains of distinct self-construals: The role of interdependence in regulatory focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(6), 1122–1134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynn, M., & Harris, J. (1997). The desire for unique consumer products: A new individual differences scale. Psychology and Marketing, 14(6), 601–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackie, D. M. (1987). Systematic and nonsystematic processing of majority and minority persuasive communications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(1), 41–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maheswaran, D., & Chaiken, S. (1991). Promoting systematic processing in low-motivation settings: Effect of incongruent information on processing and judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(1), 13–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pan, Y., & Lehmann, D. R. (1993). The influence of new brand entry on subjective brand judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(1), 76–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, J., & Kim, J. K. (2005). The effects of decoys on preference shifts: The role of attractiveness and providing justification. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(2), 94–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, J. R., & Lehmann, D. R. (2011). When shelf-based scarcity impacts customer preferences. Journal of Retailing, 87(2), 142–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1992). Behavioral decision research: A constructive processing perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 43(1), 87–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pratkanis, A. R., & Farquhar, P. H. (1992). A brief history of research on phantom alternatives: Evidence for seven empirical generalizations about phantoms. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 13(1), 103–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruvio, A. (2008). Unique like everybody else? The dual role of consumers’ need for uniqueness. Psychology & Marketing, 25(5), 444–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simonson, I., & Nowlis, S. M. (2000). The role of explanations and need for uniqueness in consumer decision making: Unconventional choices based on reasons. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(1), 49–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 580–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P. (1995). The construction of preferences. The American Psychologist, 50(5), 364–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, C. R. (1992). Product scarcity by need for uniqueness interaction: A consumer catch-22 carousel. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 13(1), 9–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sung, Y., & Choi, S. M. (2011). Increasing power and preventing pain: The moderating role of self-construal in advertising message framing. Journal of Advertising, 40(1), 71–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tian, K. T., Bearden, W. O., & Hunter, G. L. (2001). Consumers’ need for uniqueness: Scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 50–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torelli, C. J. (2006). Individuality or conformity? The effect of independent and interdependent self-concepts on public judgments. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(3), 240–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Herpen, E., Pieters, R., & Zeelenberg, M. (2005). How product scarcity impacts on choice: Snob and bandwagon effects. In G. Menon & A. R. Rao (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 32, pp. 623–624). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Herpen, E., Pieters, R., & Zeelenberg, M. (2009). When demand accelerates demand: Trailing the bandwagon. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(3), 302–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Woensel, T., van Donselaar, K., Broekmeulen, R., & Fransoo, J. (2007). Consumer responses to shelf out-of-stocks of perishable products. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 37(9), 704–718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verbeke, W., Farris, P., & Thurik, R. (1998). Consumer response to the preferred brand out-of-stock situation. European Journal of Marketing, 32(11/12), 1008–1028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, K., & Argo, J. J. (2011). When imitation doesn’t flatter: The role of consumer distinctiveness in responses to mimicry. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(4), 667–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Y., & Buda, R. (1999). Moderating effects of need for cognition on responses to positively versus negatively framed advertising messages. Journal of Advertising, 28(2), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zinn, W., & Liu, P. C. (2001). Consumer response to retail stock-outs. Journal of Business Logistics, 22(1), 49–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of International Business, Soochow University, 56, Kueiyang Street, Section 1, 10048, Taipei, Taiwan

    Hsuan-Hsuan Ku

  2. Department of Psychology, National Chengchi University, 64, Zhinan Road, Section 2, Wenshan, 11065, Taipei, Taiwan

    Chien-Chih Kuo

  3. Soochow University, 56, Kueiyang Street, Section 1, 10048, Taipei, Taiwan

    Wei-Luen Fang & Ya-Wen Yu

Authors
  1. Hsuan-Hsuan Ku
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chien-Chih Kuo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wei-Luen Fang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ya-Wen Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hsuan-Hsuan Ku.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ku, HH., Kuo, CC., Fang, WL. et al. The impact of retail out-of-stock options on preferences: The role of consumers’ desire for assimilation versus differentiation. Mark Lett 25, 53–66 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-013-9241-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-013-9241-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation