Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science

, Volume 35, Issue 1, pp 89–100 | Cite as

The effects of perceived scarcity on consumers’ processing of price information

  • Rajneesh SuriEmail author
  • Chiranjeev Kohli
  • Kent B. Monroe
Original Empirical Research


This research examines how perceived scarcity influences consumers’ processing of price information. To explain the effects of scarcity, a conceptual framework which incorporates both the motivational and the interference effects of scarcity on information processing is developed. The results from two studies show that under scarcity, consumers’ perceptions of quality and monetary sacrifice exhibit different response patterns, depending on the relative price level and consumers’ motivation to process information. We provide insights into how these perceptions of quality and sacrifice are integrated to form perceptions of value. Additional analyses of thought measures provided further understanding of the underlying processes that influenced the evaluation of price information under scarcity.


Price Scarcity Motivation 


  1. Andrews, J. C. (1988). Motivation, ability, and opportunity to process information: Conceptual and experimental manipulation issues. In M. J. Houston (Ed.), Advances in consumer research, vol. 15, (pp. 219–225). Provo UT: Association for Consumer Research.Google Scholar
  2. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182, (December).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Batra, R., & Ray, M. L. (1986). Situational effects of advertising repetition: The moderating influence of motivation, ability, and opportunity to respond. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 432–445, (March).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bozzolo, A. M., & Brock, T. C. (1992). Unavailability effects on message processing: A theoretical analysis and an empirical test. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 13, 93–101, (March).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brannon, L. A., & Brock, T. C. (2001). Limiting time for responding enhances behavior corresponding to the merits of compliance appeals: Refutations of Heuristic-cue theory in service and consumer settings. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 10, 133–146, (May).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brannon, L. A., & McCabe, A. E. (2001). Time-restricted sales appeals: The importance of offering real value. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 42, 47–52, (August–September).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brock, T. C. (1968). Implications of commodity theory for value change. In A. G. Greenwald, T. C. Brock, & T. M. Ostrom (Eds.), Psychological foundations of attitudes (pp. 243–276). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  8. Brock, T. C. & Brannon, L. A. (1992). Liberalization of commodity theory. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 13, 135–144, (March).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic processing and the use of source vs. message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752–766, (November).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cialdini, R. B. (1987). Compliance principles of compliance professionals: Psychologists of necessity. In M. P. Zanna, J. M. Olson, & C. P. Herman (Eds.), Social influence: The ontario symposium, vol. 5, (pp. 165–184). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Cialdini, R. B. (1993). Influence: Science and practice. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  12. Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Harnessing the science of persuasion. Harvard Business Review, 79, 72–79, (October).Google Scholar
  13. Clee, M. A., & Wicklund, R. A. (1980). Consumer behavior and psychological reactance. Journal of Consumer Research, 6, 389–405, (March).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dhar, R., & Nowlis, S. M. (1999). The effects of time pressure on consumer choice deferral. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 369–384, (March).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ditto, P. H., & Jemmott, J. B. (1989). From rarity to evaluative extremity: Effects of prevalence information on evaluations of positive and negative characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 16–26, (July).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  17. Gollwitzer, P. M. (1990). Action phases and mind sets. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition, vol. 2. Foundations of social behavior (pp. 53–92). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  18. Grewal, D., Monroe, K. B., & Krishnan, R. (1998). The effects of price-comparison advertising on buyers’ perceptions of acquisition value, transaction value, and behavioral intentions. Journal of Marketing, 62, 46–59, (April).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Inman, J. J., & McAlister, L. (1994). Do coupon expiration dates affect consumer behavior? Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 423–429, (August).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Inman, J. J., Peter, A. C., & Raghubir, R. P. (1997). Framing the deal: The role of restrictions in accentuating deal value. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 68–79, (June).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kruglanski, A. W., & Freund, T. (1983). The freezing and unfreezing of Lay inferences: Effects of impressional primacy, ethnic stereotyping and numerical anchoring. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 448–468, (September).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lynn, M. (1987). The effects of scarcity on perceived value: Investigation of commodity theory.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  23. Lynn, M. (1991). Scarcity effects on desirability: A quantitative review of the commodity theory literature. Psychology & Marketing, 8, 43–57, (Spring).Google Scholar
  24. Lynn, M., & Harris, J. (1997). The desire for unique consumer products: A new individual difference scale. Psychology & Marketing, 14, 601–616, (September).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Maheswaran, D., & Sternthal, B. (1990). The effects of knowledge, motivation, and type of message on ad processing and product judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 66–73, (June).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mazis, M. B. (1975). Antipollution measures and psychological reactance theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 654–660, (April).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mittal, B. (1989). Measuring purchase-decision involvement. Psychology & Marketing, 6, 147–162, (Summer).Google Scholar
  28. Monroe, K. B. (2003). Pricing: Making profitable decisions (3rd ed.). Burr Ridge, IL: IrwinGoogle Scholar
  29. Ordóñez, L., & Benson, L. (1997). Decisions under time pressure: How time constraints affects risky decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71, 121–140, (August).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Perreault, W. D., Jr., & Leigh, L. E. (1989). Reliability of nominal data based on qualitative judgments. Journal of Marketing Research, 26, 135–148, (May).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Attitude change: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. New York: Springer Berlin Heidelberg New York.Google Scholar
  32. Pham, M. T. (1996). Cue representation and selection effects of arousal on persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 373–387, (March).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rao, A. R., & Monroe, K. B. (1988). The moderating effect of prior knowledge on cue utilizations in product evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 253–264, (September).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rao, A. R., & Sieben, W. A. (1992). The effect of prior knowledge on price acceptability and the type of information examined. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 256–270, (September).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sanbonmatsu, D. M., & Kardes, F. R. (1988). The effects of physiological arousal on information processing and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 379–385, (December).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Simonson, I. (1992). The influence of anticipating regret and responsibility on purchase decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 105–118, (June).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Snyder, C. R., & Fromkin, H. L. (1980). Uniqueness: The human pursuit of difference. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  38. Suri, R., & Monroe, K. B. (2003). The effects of time constraints on consumers’ judgments of prices and products. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 92–104, (June).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Verhallen, T. M. M. (1982). Scarcity and consumer choice behavior. Journal of Economic Psychology, 2, 299–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Verhallen, T. M. M., & Robben, H. S. J. (1994). Scarcity and preference: An experiment on unavailability and product evaluation. Journal of Economic Psychology, 15, 315–331, (June).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Worchel, S., Lee, J., & Adewole, A. (1975). Effects of supply and demand on ratings of object value. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 906–914, (November).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wright, P. (1980). Message—evoked thoughts: Persuasion research using thought verbalizations. Journal of Consumer Research, 7, 151–171, (September).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rajneesh Suri
    • 1
    Email author
  • Chiranjeev Kohli
    • 2
  • Kent B. Monroe
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.LeBow College of BusinessDrexel UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.California State UniversityFullertonUSA
  3. 3.University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUrbanaUSA
  4. 4.Drexel UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA
  5. 5.University of RichmondRichmondUSA

Personalised recommendations