1 Introduction

Physical constraints abound in consumers’ daily lives, such as when they are restrained by seat belts, or when they cannot physically move around due to health problems. In recent years, these physical constraints have become increasingly prevalent, particularly during the pandemic, which resulted in lockdowns in many countries across the world. All these confinements limit the physical movements of consumers. Yet, little or no research has studied the impact of physical constraints on consumer behavior.

Drawing from research on fluid compensatory consumption (Mandel et al., 2017; Sobol & Darke, 2014) and embodied cognition (Barsalou, 2008; Labroo & Nielsen, 2010; Hung & Labroo, 2011), we propose and demonstrate that feelings of physical constraints motivate consumers to seek mental expansion as an alternative way to compensate for the constraints that they experience (but cannot address) in the physical domain, and thus elicit an increased preference among consumers for expanding in a different domain (e.g., mental, moral dimensions). Subsequently, physically constrained consumers are more likely to consume products that have mind-expanding benefits, such as content that expands one’s viewpoints and perspectives (e.g., a video about a new yet unapproved theory of multiverse that offers several imaginative possibilities) or content that presents broader moral codes (e.g., an article about open border policies).

2 Conceptual development and hypothesis

2.1 Feelings of physical constraints

We define feelings of physical constraints as cognitive states in which people believe that their situation or environment restricts their freedom of physical movement. For example, commuters stuck in traffic are physically strapped onto their seats during bumper-to-bumper traffic. Similarly, passengers are required to fasten their seat belts when performing activities in their seats on board. In other cases, during the pandemic lockdowns, people were prohibited from leaving their homes to curb the spread of disease. This makes consumers feel physically constrained as they are no longer capable of traveling or living their lives.

Despite the abundant research on other types of constraints such as financial and resource constraints (Mehta & Zhu, 2016; Tully et al., 2015), research on physical constraints is limited, with the majority of studies focusing on consumers being in a physically small area with veridically smaller physical dimensions, such as a room with a low ceiling height, a narrow aisle, or a crowded area (Levav & Zhu, 2009; Meyers-Levy & Zhu, 2007; O’Guinn et al., 2015; Xu and Albarracin 2016). Past research has shown that smaller physical environments cause consumers to increase variety seeking in their product search (Levav & Zhu, 2009) compared to the control condition. Additionally, consumers residing in smaller spaces perform fewer impulse purchases than consumers residing in larger spaces (Xu and Albarracin 2016). These existing findings are different from perceptions of physical constraint from movement (e.g., being strapped into seats) or confinement (e.g., confined to a house), because a seat belt or a lockdown does not change the physical dimensions of the consumer’s room. In other words, the feeling of physical constraint is the subjective feeling of not being able to move freely, regardless of the objective size of the room. The present research focuses on consumers’ psychological feelings of being physically constrained and examines how feelings of being physically constrained influence consumer preferences for mind-expanding products.

2.2 Feelings of physical Constraints and Mental Simulation

In this research, we argue that feelings of physical constraint induce consumers to mentally simulate expanding their mental space (having broader perspectives and viewpoints). In our research context, we define mental simulation as the extent to which consumers imagine about mentally free situations. For example, when consumers are restrained by a seatbelt and cannot change their position, they may fantasize about situations that make them feel that their mental boundaries are expanding. Or, during a pandemic lockdown when physical movement is restricted, consumers may imagine being in a state of boundless mental space. In our research, because consumers are not able to directly resolve a physical constraint (e.g., consumers cannot change their posture or are not allowed to leave their homes for a certain duration), they may seek to dispel this constraint in an indirect way (i.e., consumers choose to consume products that increase one’s mental space). Therefore, fantasizing about mentally expanded situations would result in consumer behavior that attempts to compensate for the restriction in a different domain.

The literature on fluid compensatory consumption shows that individuals reduce discrepancies by engaging in an unthreatened dimension that is related to the self (Mandel et al., 2017). For example, when individuals are made to feel uncertain in one domain, they became motivated to seek order and structure in another domain (Rutjens et al., 2013). Similarly, when individuals were made to feel physically unattractive, they become more motivated to improve their intellectual attractiveness (Sobol & Darke, 2014) and to purchase intelligence-enhancing items, such as a language learning product (Hoegg et al., 2014). These examples thus demonstrate that consumers compensate for self-discrepancies in one domain in which they are unable to have more of, with another domain in which they are able to have more of. Thus, we propose that feelings of physical constraints create a need to alleviate these constraints, and hence induce consumers’ mental simulation that increases consumers’ motivation to engage in fluid compensation by improving their standing in another domain (i.e., mental space).

2.3 Feelings of physical constraints and preference for mind-expanding products

Mind-expanding products refer to products that present broader viewpoints and promote the inclusion of a broader set of moral codes, allowing consumers’ minds to explore a larger mental space. For example, a book containing content focused on broadening horizons would help expand a person’s mind, compared to a book containing content focused on sharpening the mind. Similarly, a video about multiverses, which violates norms and is not yet mainstream, is a mind-expanding product because its content broadens perspectives, allowing the mind to go beyond the limits of normative thought, compared to a video that provides general knowledge. Likewise, an article about unusual immigration rules (open borders with no citizenship) is considered mind-expanding because it expands one’s moral codes and knowledge of society rather than providing deep knowledge about a particular issue. Thus, mind-expanding products are products that provide opportunities for broadening perspectives and viewpoints that go beyond narrowly-defined incumbent spaces.

If physically constrained consumers are trying to reduce their feelings of physical constraints (but could not do so in the physical domain), then this should make them become more interested in products that allow them to explore a new mental space. For example, consumers who are strapped to a seat should choose to read an article about unusual immigration rules that contain different moral codes. Supporting this, research showed that exposure to different moral codes has been associated with exploration and travel to different places (Lu et al., 2017). Hence, physically constrained consumers should indicate a greater desire for products that provide mind expansion benefits.

To support our argument of this compensation via cross-modal domains, we also draw on the embodied cognition literature that physical experiences alter people’s psychological experiences (Barsalou, 2008). For example, the physical movement of approaching a product makes consumers like the product more (Labroo & Nielsen, 2010). Physically carrying a heavy shopping bag makes consumers judge certain events or ideological issues to have more importance (Zhang & Li, 2012). Feeling physically cold makes consumers want to watch romantic movies (Hong & Sun, 2012). These findings support the embodied cognition view that experiencing bodily states can impact people’s judgments (spreading activation from physical, concrete stimuli felt by the body to non-physical, abstract stimuli). In our research, we argue that people compensate for an uncomfortable physical state (feeling of bodily/physical constraints) by seeking a mental solution (expansion of the mind/mental space). Therefore, such a shift from the physical to the mental domain is supported by the principles of embodied cognition.

Together, we hypothesize that consumers who are physically constrained will be more likely to reduce those constraints and thus desire situations in which they could enlarge their mental space (perspectives or viewpoints), in contrast to consumers who are not physically constrained. Therefore, physically constrained consumers will prefer products that provide mentally expanding benefits. This is because mind-expanding products allow them to compensate for the physical constraints that they are experiencing, but from which they could not address in the physical domain. Formally,

H1

Feelings of physical constraints (vs. control) increase consumers’ preference for mind-expanding products.

H2

Consumers’ heightened mental simulation mediates the effect of feelings of physical constraints on preference for mind-expanding products.

To test the hypotheses, we conducted three preregistered studies. Study 1 tested the main effect (H1). Study 2 provided evidence for the fluid compensation account. Study 3 tested the mediating effect (H2) and provided further process evidence by ruling out several alternative explanations. All pre-registrations and data can be found at: https://researchbox.org/787&PEER_REVIEW_passcode=PBUEKC.

3 Study 1

Study 1 tested the main effect of feelings of physical constraints on consumers’ preference for mind-expanding products (H1).

3.1 Method

As preregistered, 250 U.K.-based participants from Prolific (50% females; Mage = 41.58, SD = 15.69) were recruited and paid a nominal compensation. The study had a two-cell (feelings of physical constraints; N = 126 vs. control; N = 124), between-subjects design.

After random assignment, participants read a scenario that we used to manipulate our independent variable. In the feelings of physical constraints condition, participants imagined that they were under home confinement and were not allowed to leave their place for one month. In the control condition, participants imagined living in their house for a month during which they could go to work and study normally. See Appendix 1 for full descriptions.

Next, we presented participants with two book covers on the same screen, but with different titles: (a) “7 Ways to Sharpen Your Mind You Wish You Knew” or (b) “Expand Your Mind: 7 Simple Ways to Broaden Your Horizons.” The first book was a control condition product, while the latter was a mind-expanding product. Both books featured the best-selling author’s logo and were designed to follow the books’ titles. See Appendix 1 for stimuli.

After choosing their preferred product, participants reported how much the manipulation made them feel physically constrained (“How physically confined/inhibited/constrained did you feel?” 1 = not at all, 7 = very much; α = .95). Participants then rated the two books on the extent to which they provided mind-expanding benefits (“The content of this book might broaden your perspectives and viewpoints;” “[…] might expand your mental space;” “[…] might help you break free from limits in your mind.” 1 = not at all, 7 = very much; α = .89 for a control book and α = .94 for a mind-expanding book).

4 Results

The results indicated that the manipulation of feelings of physical constraints was successful (F(1, 248) = 249.69, p < .001, ηp2 = .502). Participants who imagined being under home confinement reported a greater sense of physical constraints (M = 5.07, SD = 1.38) than participants who imagined living in their home (M = 2.38, SD = 1.32).

The results of the pairwise comparison was significant (t(249) = 8.76, p < .001). Participants felt that the mind-expanding book (M = 4.73, SD = 1.26) provided greater mind-expanding benefits than the control book (M = 4.13, SD = 1.24), indicating a comparable product choice.

As preregistered, the results of a binary logistic regression showed a significant effect (B = .62, SE = .27, Wald χ2 = 5.42, p = .020, Exp(b) = 1.87). Consistent with H1, 71.4% of participants in the feelings of physical constraints condition significantly selected the mind-expanding book, compared to 57.3% of participants in the control condition.

In summary, Study 1 provides initial evidence for the effect of feelings of physical constraints on preference for mind-expanding products.

5 Study 2

Study 2 examined the effect of feelings of physical constraints on preference for a mind-expanding product over a control product (i.e., a video) using an actual physical constraint manipulation and actual product consumption in a laboratory setting. We expected that physically constrained participants would choose to watch a mind-expanding video more than control participants would. We also expected that physically constrained participants would report less feelings of physical constraint after watching the mind-expanding video, whereas physically constrained participants would report similar levels of feelings of physical constraint after watching the control video.

6 Method

Study 2 used a one-factor (feelings of physical constraints vs. control) between-subjects design. As preregistered, 125 university students and staff (62% females; Mage = 25.65, SD = 7.75) participated in this experiment and were compensated. Three participants were excluded for not following the procedures or for inattention, resulting in a final sample of 122 (physical constraints; N = 62 vs. control; N = 60).

Participants were invited to a lab to participate in a commuter behavior study that lasted approximately 20 min. Upon arrival, participants were greeted by a research assistant, were led to their seats next to their computer station in the lab, and were then randomly assigned to one of two conditions. In the physical constraints condition, participants were required to tie two seat belts around their body to a chair (i.e., one around the upper waist and another around the ankles) for the entire duration of the study. In this way, manipulation of the belts inhibited the participants’ physical movements when they responded to the survey via a computer. In the control condition, participants were instructed to tie a belt loosely around their waist and remove it after one minute. See Appendix 2 for images of manipulation. To make the story believable, we asked participants to report their opinion of the belt around their waist.

Next, participants were told to imagine that they are now commuting with the belt on and cannot change their posture freely (vs. without the belt and can change their posture freely). Participants then reported their feelings of physical constraints (“How physically confined/inhibited do you currently feel?” r = .85), perceptions of having free time (“To what extent do you feel that you have a lot of free time?”), perceived curiosity (“To what extent do you feel curious about things around you?”), positive mood (“How happy/excited/lighthearted do you currently feel?” α = .78), and negative mood (“How sad/distressed/downbeat do you currently feel?” α = .85). All measures were collected on a 7-point scale (1 = not at all, 7 = very much/ a lot).

Afterwards, participants chose a video to watch while they remained in their seat with belts (vs. without a belt around the body). We presented two video descriptions and informed participants that both videos were new this month: (a) “Video A has interesting and engaging content. It could give you more general knowledge than Video B;” or (b) “Video B has mind-expanding content and broadens perspectives. It could be less engaging than Video A.” These descriptions were developed based on our definition of mind-expanding products.

Participants then watched the video that they chose. If they chose video A (a control video), we showed them a video about current events. If they chose video B (a mind-expanding video), we showed them a video about the Multiverse. The videos were edited to be approximately six minutes long. The research assistant helped the participants with regards to wearing the headphones.

After participants watched the video, they reported their feelings of physical constraints using the same scale as they previously did (r = .89). Finally, participants were debriefed.

6.1 Results

Results showed that participants in the physical constraints condition (M = 5.15, SD = 1.24) reported greater feelings of physical restrictions compared to those in the control condition (M = 2.60, SD = 1.62; F(1, 120) = 95.72, p < .001, ηp2 = .444), indicating that the manipulation was successful.

As predicted, the results of the binary logistic regression (0 = chose a control video, 1 = chose a mind-expanding video) were significant (B = .83, SE = .38, Wald χ2 = 4.91, p = .027, Exp(b) = 2.30). In support of H1, physical constraints significantly elevated participants’ preference for the mind-expanding product (51.6%) when compared to the control condition (31.7%). Also note that participants in the control condition preferred the control video (68.3%) more than the mind-expanding video (31.7%). Given those baseline measures, physical constraints significantly increased participants’ preference for the mind-expanding products, which made our study a conservative test.

To provide a direct test of the fluid compensation account, we compared participants’ feelings of physical constraints before and after watching the video (a control video vs. a mind-expanding video) among those in the physical constraints condition. The results of repeated-measures ANOVA were marginally significant (F(1, 60) = 3.35, p = .072, ηp2 = .053). Supporting our account, physically constrained participants felt less physically constrained after watching the mind-expanding video (M = 4.59, SD = 1.56) compared to before (M = 5.06, SD = 1.28; F(1, 60) = 4.71, p = .034, ηp2 = 0.073). In contrast, physically constrained participants felt just as constrained after watching the control video (M = 5.35, SD = 1.30) as before (M = 5.25, SD = 1.22; F(1, 60) = .20, p = .66). See Appendix 3 for means in the control condition.

Control variables. It could be argued that physically constrained participants prefer mind-expanding products because they are more curious about the environment around them, or because they perceive that they have a lot of free time and therefore can learn something new. Similarly, it could be argued that participants under physical constraints prefer mind-expanding products to escape the negative mood that they are experiencing. We performed analyses on these variables. The analysis was not significant for perceptions of having free time (F(1, 120) = 1.11, p = .29), but was significant for curiosity (Mconstraint = 4.58, SD = 1.98 vs. Mcontrol = 5.47, SD = 1.51; F(1, 120) = 7.68, p = .006) yet in the opposite direction, thus ruling out this alternative account. The analyses showed significant effects for positive mood (Mconstraint = 3.28, SD = 1.27 vs. Mcontrol = 4.75, SD = 1.09; F(1, 120) = 47.04, p < .001) and negative mood (Mconstraint = 3.10, SD = 1.65 vs. Mcontrol = 2.13, SD = 1.27; F(1, 120) = 13.24, p < .001), yet these means were below the midpoint of the scales. Furthermore, the mediation analyses revealed nonsignificant effects as CIs included zeroes (curiosity (CI [-.37, .11]), positive mood (CI [-.55, .45]), or negative mood (CI [-.30, 0.24]). In the next study, we continue to measure these variables as well as our mediating variable and conduct a parallel mediation analysis.

Study 2 shows that our main effect is robust with an actual physical constraint manipulation and a different product category. It also provides support for our fluid compensation account.

7 Study 3

Study 3 aimed to replicate Study 2 using a different product category (e.g., a news article). It also directly measured mental simulation and examined its mediating role as well as ruled out several alternative accounts.

7.1 Method

In a laboratory, Study 3 used a one-factor (feelings of physical constraints vs. control) between-subjects design. As preregistered, 65 university students and staff (66% females; Mage = 23.53, SD = 4.00) participated in this experiment for compensation. Four participants were excluded for not following the procedures or for inattention, resulting in a final sample of 61 participants (physical constraints; N = 29 vs. control; N = 32).

After random assignment into one of the two conditions, participants underwent the same manipulation and then reported their feelings of physical constraints using the same scale (r = .80) as in Study 2.

Next, we presented two content descriptions to participants and informed them that both content had the same topic and about the same length: (a) “This content keeps you engaged. It contains simple facts and useful information,” or (b) “This content expands your mind. It contains different perspectives that go beyond traditional viewpoints.” Like Study 2, these descriptions were developed to follow our definition of the mind-expanding product.

After participants chose their preferred content, they read the content on a computer. If participants selected the control content, we presented an article about immigration statistics and facts. If participants selected the mind-expanding content, we presented an article on open borders and immigration. The reading task was about five to ten minutes, depending on the participant’s reading speed. See Appendix 5 for the pretest and materials.

Following the reading task, participants completed a measure of mental simulation induced by a need for compensation. Participants answered items adapted from Elder and Krishna (2012) in randomized order: “When deciding on which content to read, how much did you want to increase your imagination of being mentally free?” “[…], how much did you want to expand your mental space?” “[…], how much did you desire to be mentally free in your imagination?” “[…], how much did you desire to break free from limits in your imagination?” (1 = not at all, 7 = a great deal; α = 0.91).

Participants completed measures of perceptions of having free time, perceived curiosity, positive mood (α = .82), negative mood (α = 0.70), and feelings of physical constraints after product consumption (r = .89). Finally, participants were debriefed.

7.2 Results

The results indicated that participants in the physical constraints condition reported greater feelings of being physically restrained (M = 5.52. SD = 1.20) than did participants in the control condition (M = 2.34, SD = 1.42; F(1, 59) = 88.23, p < .001, ηp2 = .599), indicating a successful manipulation.

As preregistered, the results of the binary logistic regression were significant (B = 1.14, SE = .54, Wald χ2 = 4.49, p = .034, Exp(b) = 3.12). Replicating results of Studies 1 and 2, participants in the physical constraints condition (58.6%) chose the mind-expanding content more frequently compared to participants in the control condition (31.3%). Also, participants in the control condition preferred the control content (68.8%) more than the mind-expanding video (31.3%).

A mediation analysis of mental simulation (5,000 samples, model 4, Hayes, 2017) showed that the indirect effect of feelings of physical constraints on preference for mind-expanding product was significant (B = .39, SE = .35), with a 95% CI excluding zero [.01, 1.32]; see Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

The mediation effect of mental simulation in Study 3

Full size image

Control variables. The analyses were not significant (see Appendix 4 for means). The parallel mediation analysis showed that the indirect effect was significant via mental simulation (CI [.04, 2.06]), but not perceptions of having free time (CI [-.23, 0.54]), curiosity (CI [-.25, 0.63]), positive mood (CI [-.55, 0.36]), or negative mood (CI [-1.43, 0.06]).

Like Study 2, we compared physically constrained participants’ feelings of constraints before and after reading the content. Results of repeated-measures analysis were significant (F(1, 27) = 5.84, p = .023, ηp2 = .178). Supporting our account, physically constrained participants felt less physically constrained after reading the mind-expanding content (M = 4.71, SD = 1.49) compared to before (M = 5.35, SD = 1.34; F(1, 27) = 5.22, p = .030, ηp2 = .162). In contrast, physically constrained participants did not feel less physically constrained after reading the control content (M = 6.17, SD = .75) as before (M = 5.75, SD = .97; F(1, 27) = 1.53, p = .23). See Appendix 3 for means in the control condition.

Study 3 provided further evidence for the effect of feelings of physical constraints on consumers’ preference for mind-expanding products (H1). It also provided evidence for mental simulation as our underlying process (H2) within the context of the fluid compensation account.

8 General discussion

Across one online experiment and two actual product consumption experiments in laboratories, we demonstrate that feelings of physical constraints induce consumers to consume products with mind-expanding benefits. Importantly, we identified that mental simulation, driven by a desire for fluid compensation, served as the underlying mechanism for reducing feelings of physical constraint.

Our research provides new insight into the nature of physical constraints and how they motivate consumers to consume mind-expanding products. In three studies, we manipulated physical constraints (movement restriction) while controlling the size of the space (e.g., size of the experimental room and cubicles). Our findings thus expand on research in space constraints, revealing that consumers go beyond seeking arbitrary product variety to reduce perceived threats to personal freedom (e.g., by making more varied choices, “mere variety;” Levav and Zhu, 2009). Our research suggests more specific predictions: consumers sometimes prefer products that promote mind expansion, allowing the exploration of new mental and moral space. This effect goes beyond mere variety and highlights the significance of consumer’s situational feelings of physical constraints in driving their product preference.

This research also contributes to a growing body of work suggesting that consumers compensate for perceived threats in psychological states through the consumption of products that provide functional benefits in an unrelated domain. Specifically, this research adds to fluid compensatory consumption by identifying a novel antecedent of feelings of physical constraints other than variables that have been documented, such as feelings of uncertainty (Rutjens et al., 2013), feelings of being physically unattractive (Hoegg et al., 2014; Sobol & Darke, 2014), and different types of thinking style (Wang et al., 2022).

Managerially, we suggest that marketers of mind-expanding products focus on specific consumer segments and locations. For example, in addition to passengers, sick and wheelchair-bound consumers or pregnant women might be a good segment to target because they cannot move their bodies freely. In terms of location, marketers could focus on areas where consumers face earthquakes or floods in addition to lockdowns, which prevent them from leaving their homes. These consumers might be interested in consuming mind-expanding products to reduce their feelings of physical constraints.

Future research could also tease apart whether manipulations of physical constraints impact preferences for expanding with regards to geographical (or other physical dimensions) versus expanding with regards to moral codes (e.g., adding new product lines on non-binary genders). Product options can include “expand your geography” versus “expand your moral codes” to measure the specific dimension that is increased.

Our research provides opportunities for future research to examine the effect of physical constraints on consumers’ creativity and curiosity. Researchers have found that constraints can enhance creativity (Chua & Iyengar, 2008; Moreau & Dahl, 2005). Physical constraints may potentially trigger a norm-violation state that fosters creativity. Similarly, physically constrained consumers may exhibit a general curiosity in seeking new knowledge. This type of curiosity differs from the curiosity about the physical environment measured in our study. Future research could test this interesting idea.