Skip to main content

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

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Figure 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    Transforming the need for uniqueness measure into two levels—a median split—and then using it as a variable in a MANOVA also showed no significant main and interaction effects for this factor (p > 0.10).

  2. 2.

    The authors thank the reviewers for these suggestions.

References

  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).

    Article  Google 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).

    Article  Google 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).

    Article  Google 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).

    Article  Google 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).

    Article  Google 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).

    Article  Google 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).

    Article  Google 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).

    Article  Google 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).

    Article  Google 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).

    Article  Google 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Inman, J. J., & McAlister, L. (1994). Do coupon expiration dates affect consumer behavior? Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 423–429, (August).

    Article  Google 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).

    Article  Google 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lynn, M. (1987). The effects of scarcity on perceived value: Investigation of commodity theory.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.

  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).

    Article  Google 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mazis, M. B. (1975). Antipollution measures and psychological reactance theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 654–660, (April).

    Article  Google 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: Irwin

    Google 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).

    Article  Google 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).

    Article  Google 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).

    Article  Google 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).

    Article  Google 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).

    Article  Google 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Simonson, I. (1992). The influence of anticipating regret and responsibility on purchase decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 105–118, (June).

    Article  Google 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Verhallen, T. M. M. (1982). Scarcity and consumer choice behavior. Journal of Economic Psychology, 2, 299–322.

    Article  Google 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).

    Article  Google 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Wright, P. (1980). Message—evoked thoughts: Persuasion research using thought verbalizations. Journal of Consumer Research, 7, 151–171, (September).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rajneesh Suri.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Suri, R., Kohli, C. & Monroe, K.B. The effects of perceived scarcity on consumers’ processing of price information. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 35, 89–100 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-006-0008-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Price
  • Scarcity
  • Motivation