Thesis
How one-time purchases affect consumer’s preference for
scarce products, while taking account consumer’s need for
uniqueness.
Jordan Semertzidis
Nr. 11817216
Amsterdam Business School
MSc Business Administration (track: Marketing)
Supervisor: Tracy Cheung
2017-2018
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Student Jordan Semertzidis who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document are original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Table of Contents
Abstract
- 1 -
Chapter 1: Introduction
- 2 -
Chapter 2: Literature Review
- 3 -
2.1 Scarcity Conditions
- 3 -
2.2 Consumer’s needs for purchasing scarce products
- 4 -
2.3 One-time purchases
- 9 -
Chapter 3: Experiment
- 10 -
3.1 Method
- 11 -
3.1.1 Participants
- 11 -
3.1.2 Design and Procedure
- 11 -
3.2 Manipulations
- 13 -
3.2.1 Purchase Conditions
- 13 -
3.2.2 Scarcity Conditions
- 13 -
3.3 Measures
- 14 -
3.3.1 NFU scale
- 14 -
Chapter 4: Results
- 14 -
4.1 Data preparation and Assumptions Checks
- 14 -
4.2 Descriptives
- 15 -
4.3 Randomization Check
- 16 -
4.4. Effects of Purchase and Scarcity Conditions
- 16 -
Chapter 5: Discussion
- 22 -
Chapter 6: Conclusion
- 25 -
6.1 Theoretical and Managerial implications
- 26 -
6.2 Limitations and Future Research
- 27 -
References
- 30 -
-1
Abstract
Objective: Marketers use different techniques to enhance the value of the products, in order
to make them more preferable. One way of achieving that, is by presenting the products as scarce. Scarcity is communicated though statements or product descriptions about their availability in stock. Two conditions of scarcity are the supply scarcity condition (‘’Limited
edition’’) and the demand scarcity condition (‘’Only few items left’’ or ‘’Most popular product, only few items’’). However, marketers apply these techniques with no consideration
about the possibility of existence of different kind of purchases. Thus, in this study a new economical term is introduced, this of one-time purchase. One-time purchase is the kind of purchase that happens usually only once in consumer’s lifetime (e.g., wedding dresses). Regularly, consumers desire a product that generates a sense of uniqueness, in this purchase condition. So, in this study the generic term of purchase is divided to two purchase conditions, the regular and the one-time purchases. Moreover, an important consumer characteristic that affect indirectly the consumer behavior in these purchase conditions is consumer’s need for uniqueness. The current research aims to explore the purchase condition of one-time purchase, and to examine the impact on consumer’s preference about scarce products, regarding consumer’s need for uniqueness.
Method: To examine the research goals an experiment was conducted. The design of the
experiment was a between-subjects experiment with two independent variables, with 2 (purchase conditions: regular purchase vs one-time purchase) x 3 (scarcity condition: no scarcity vs. demand scarcity vs. supply scarcity).
Findings: The results show that participants prefer the product under no scarcity condition
in one-time purchases instead of these under supply or demand scarcity. Moreover, the findings show that there can be a distinction between regular and one-time purchases, because consumers perceive them differently.
2
1. Introduction
The main reason which this research was conducted for, was to examine the different effects that one-time purchases versus regular purchases provoke, to consumer’s preferences about scarcity products. Marketers view scarcity appeal as an important marketing strategy (Brannon & Brock, 2001). Psychology literature has examined the principle further (e.g., Lynn 1989, 1992), noting that companies often use scarcity as a promotional tool to make products appear more desirable. Usually, these scarcity strategies would be employed by presenting products as limited-edition products or as “almost out of stock” products. The scarcity principle is frequently used as a marketing tool (e.g. “Limited Time Offer!”; “Selling out fast! Get yours now while supplies last!”) because it upholds the idea that consumers often perceive scarce products as more valuable than products that are abundant (Cialdini, 2008). This means that scarcity principle enhances the perceived value of the products, and thus the scarce products are more desirable than the readily available ones (Cialdini, 1985). One of the strongest motivational forces that impacts consumer’s behavior is the desire to obtain status in order to enhance social standing (Amaldoss and Jain, 2005). There are different reasons why a consumer would purchase a scarce product. For instance, previous research has shown that consumers prefer scarce products when they can be used to communicate with friends or colleagues, because by possessing them could generate feelings such as being highly respected. Another reason is that consumers could use scarcity signals as heuristic cues to assess product’s quality. Nevertheless, what was missing in the research literature, regarding the consumption of scarce products, was the distinction between the purchase conditions; regular purchases versus one-time purchases. Briefly, in the current research the “one-time” purchases were referred as the purchases when there was a need to purchase a product only once in a lifetime for a special occasion (e.g. wedding dresses). That said, the objective of this study was the investigation of consumer’s behavior
3
under the concept of one-time purchases. More specifically, we examined how one-time purchases versus regular purchases affect consumer’s preference for scarce products, taking into account of individual differences, such as the need for uniqueness in particular.
2. Literature Review
Scarcity Conditions
The principle of scarcity makes consumers to value a scarce product more than an abundant one (Cialdini, 2008). It creates a sense of urgency and provoke consumers to act instantly. That is why the principle of scarcity makes a very important marketing tool, because it increases the product’s value and demand. Scarcity is the limited availability of economic resources relative to society's unlimited demand for goods and services. Based on Fromkin (1970) and Lynn (1991) scarcity tends to increase the perceived value of virtually any acquirable good, particularly when that good conveys desirable attributes such as uniqueness, popularity, status, and expensiveness. In this way it affects individuals’ reactions to products. Lynn’s (1991) research showed, that scarcity ‘enhances the value of anything that can be possessed’. Castro (2013) supported that scarcity alone does not have an impact on consumer’s preference, and that it is the consumer’s perception of the cause of the scarcity that affects the preference.
Past research establishes that there are two influential types of market-related
scarcity appeals, demand-related scarcity appeals and supply-related scarcity appeals. Each appeal produces different product perceptions and motives for product pursuit among consumers (Van Herpen, Pieters, & Zeelenberg, 2009). Demand-related scarcity (DRS) appeals, such as “in popular demand” and “oversold,” signals to consumers that a product’s popularity is producing demand that exceed the product’s available supply (Van Herpen, Pieters, & Zeelenberg, 2009). Product scarcity due to excessive consumer demand is a
4
market-driven phenomenon and outside the marketers’ control because they are unable to predict such a demand beforehand (Aguirre-Rodriguez, 2013). As a result, when consumers are unsure of the product value, they may rely on such indirect information based on popularity and adopt popular consumption behavior similar to the bandwagon effect (Van Herpen, Pieters, & Zeelenberg, 2009). Scarcity based on excessive demand leads consumers to infer that the product might be popular because they see others purchasing the product (Gierl & Huettl, 2010; Van Herpen, Pieters, & Zeelenberg, 2009). This kind of scarcity shows to consumers the quality of the product because of the high amount of product purchases. That behavior is based on the principle of the social proof which explains that individuals determine appropriate behavior for themselves by the observation and examination of others, especially similar to them (Cialdini, 1993). As a consequence, consumers tend to adopt similar behaviors as these of their friends. Supply-related scarcity (SRS) appeals, such as “supplies are limited” and “while supplies last,” communicate a product’s distribution shortage, which can signal product value, quality, or exclusivity to consumers (Van Herpen, Pieters, & Zeelenberg, 2009). It has to be mentioned, that supply scarcity technique is controlled by the vendor (Gierl, 2008). Consumers value highly a product when its scarcity is presented through supply, because of its exclusivity and uniqueness. Fromkin in 1971, stated that SRS appeals come across with consumers motivated by a desire for uniqueness and/or prestige. Consumers may value the exclusivity of possessing such rare products which can emphasize their uniqueness (Gierl & Huettl, 2010; Lynn 1991). For example, Gierl and Huettl (2010) argue that purchasing limited edition products can help consumers to signal good taste and be admired by friends. Additionally, if a person intends to increase her/his uniqueness in comparison to friends or colleagues by possessing a certain product, the product should also be scarce due to limited supply (Amaldoss & Jain, 2005, Fromkin, 1970; Lynn & Harris, 1997). Gierl and Huettl (2010) emphasized in their research that if a product, which has the ability to indicate a high
5
social status and to demonstrate uniqueness, is scarce due to limited supply, the product's evaluation is improved, and it is desired by consumers who are affected by these social needs. Furthermore, the perceived value of products is increased by scarcity, leading to higher product desirability, increased quantities purchased and greater satisfaction from the purchased product (Aggarwal, Yun, and Huh, 2011). Moreover, another study showed that scarcity messages not only enhance the choice for a product, but also increase the consumer’s willingness to pay for the product (Mittone and Savadori, 2009). Also, Byun and Sternquist (2012) stated that product scarcity can have a positive effect on consumers’ desire to purchase the product because they will not get the chance to purchase it later. Since scarce products indicate an item’s uniqueness and perceived difficulty in obtainment, possession also indicates the prestige of the owner (Wu and Hsing 2006).
Consumer’s needs for purchasing scarce products
According to Tian et al. (2001), the perceptions of uniqueness of a product are that customers view the product as different from other products. Additionally, to satisfy a consumer’s pursuit of distinctiveness, scarce products become attractive options to communicate uniqueness (Amaldoss and Jain, 2005). Also, when a product is difficult to obtain, the perception of uniqueness would be a likely explanation for scarcity effects (Wright et al., 2004). In other words, scarce products are perceived to be unique by consumers. Uniqueness theory, addressed for the first time by Snyder and Fromkin (1980), argues that people are motivated to maintain a sense of specialness as they define themselves on various important self-related dimensions relative to others, which is called need for uniqueness (NFU). Tian et al. (2001) defined the need for uniqueness as a situation in which a person pursues brands and products to express uniqueness in order to develop and enhance his/her personal image and social identity. Later, Knight and Kim (2007) stated that NFU is manifested in the individual pursuit of material goods to differentiate oneself from others and enhance one's self-image. Because possessions are often extensions of the self
6
(Belk, 1988), one way that people satisfy their needs for uniqueness is by acquiring and possessing unique consumer products (Brock, 1968; Fromkin, 1970; Snyder & Fromkin, 1980; Snyder, 1992). According to Simonson and Nowlis (2000), one consequence of a high need for uniqueness is the desire to possess unique products, which provide differentiation from other people. Consumers with high need for uniqueness are more drawn to scarce products than consumers with low need for uniqueness, exert more effort to own innovative products (Snyder, 1992), and are more likely to choose options that others do not choose (Worchel, Lee, & Adewole, 1975). Moreover, consumers with high NFU may decrease consumption of a product if it becomes commonplace, in line with a snob or reverse-bandwagon effect (Granovetter & Soong, 1986).
According to a past research from Erica van Herpen, Rik Pieters, and Marcel Zeelenberg (2005), it was examined how need for uniqueness is related with the consumption of a scarce product. Both types of scarcity were investigated (DRS and SRS) and how they were linked with NFU. The findings showed that NFU affects only the relation between scarcity and quality of the product when scarcity is due to supply because it is considered as exclusive and unique. In other words, this means that consumers with high need for uniqueness will value a scarce product more than a product that is abundant, in terms of the quality because it seems unique, due to supply. In contrast, consumer’s need for uniqueness has no effect when is due to demand because the product is considered as popular rather than exclusive, meaning that consumers with high need for uniqueness will not prefer a product which is popular. Additionally, they found that scarcity due to demand leads to inferences of product quality, because of its popularity, and thereby increases product choice. This, past research is important because it shows us the connection between NFU and scarcity and also, emphasizes that in some cases product uniqueness can be advantageous while in other cases can be detrimental.
7
Similarly, other studies examined the relation between scarce products and consumer behavior. For instance, Gokhan Aydin in 2016 examined the individuals’ behavior (purchase intention) toward unique and scarce products. Additionally, this study also evaluated authentic personality’s role in the preference for unique and scarce products. As a result of the analysis, only one component of the tripartite authenticity scale, namely authentic living was found to have a significant effect on purchase intention of unique products through two uniqueness constructs: need for uniqueness and sense of uniqueness. Authentic living means an individual’s degree of expressing emotions and behaving based on conscious awareness. It also indicates being true to oneself. Accepting external influence and self-alienation, the other two components of authenticity construct had no significant effects on individual’s purchase intention of scarce products. The degree to which an individual accepts social influence from others, appeared as an insignificant factor affecting scarce product demand. In other words, whether an individual is affected to a high degree from others in shaping his or her behavior is irrelevant in their intention to prefer scarce products. The main conclusion of this study is that consumers with a higher sense of uniqueness prefer scarce products more than people with low sense of uniqueness, which is related with the goals and constructs of this study.
One similar study which took place in 2010 from Heribert Gierl and Verena Huettl examined the effects of two types of scarcity on the attitudes of consumers toward products. They investigated the two types depending on product’s suitability for conspicuous consumption. Conspicuous consumption can be described as ‘visible consumption of goods as a mechanism to enhance one’s social standing’ (Grace & Griffin, 2009). For instance, an example of conspicuous consumption good is the silverware, which is expensive and does not add a benefit by eating with silver spoons. It is mainly used to show the owner’s status to their guests. They found that signals indicating a product's scarcity due to supply seem to have an interpersonal effect but no quality effect. The interpersonal effect appears when
8
consumers want to demonstrate a high social status, to show uniqueness compared to friends. The quality effect appears when consumers care about the quality of the product, but they have no need to express high social status to others. This means that the interpersonal effect is positive when conspicuous consumption goods are scarce due to limited supply because the results showed that product attitudes were high (products were perceived as exclusive) when a signal of scarcity due to supply was applied. So, by referring to scarcity due to limited supply you can improve product’s evaluations, in terms of its exclusiveness. However, product evaluations deteriorate when scarcity is attributed to high demand. Moreover, for the non-conspicuous consumption products, it was found that scarcity due to demand may be regarded by consumers as a heuristic cue that enables them to infer high product quality, in contrast with limited supply in which the scarcity signal has no impact on the product’s evaluation.
Furthermore, Ariga and Inoue (2015) examined the effects of temporal and social contexts of the scarcity on object value. They found that object value can be altered simply by manipulating the number of objects. People’s attraction to a target object increases based on its scarcity due to a decrease in its number, not by the increase of other objects. Particularly when people are aware of others, the scarcity due to an original low number of objects attracts people. Thus, this research specified the factor by which the scarcity effect is fundamentally elicited (individual, intrapersonal factor: decrease of objects), and the factor that facilitates the occurrence of the scarcity effect in general (social, interpersonal factor: awareness of others). This research gave us more information about consumer’s behavior when it comes to scarce products evaluation. More particularly, it gave us insights about how consumers are being attracted by scarce products due to their number, which is related with the one-time purchases under the supply scarcity condition (limited number of wedding dresses because of exclusivity and uniqueness of the dresses) or under the demand scarcity condition (limited number of wedding dresses because of overselling of the dresses).
9
In another study, conducted by Ku, Kuo, Yang and Chung in 2013, it was examined the factors that explain and predict whether a scarcity appeal can be more effective than the other in influencing consumers’ decisions. In their first experiment they showed that the effectiveness of a message linking scarcity due to supply was enhanced if the product had a hedonic rather than utilitarian nature. Conversely, the impact of demand-related scarcity is greater for a product which offers utilitarian satisfaction rather than hedonism. The first experiment supported that consumers of utilitarian products are motivated to seek information and satisfy their prevention goals, and those who buy hedonic products by a transformational motive and promotion goals. This study was useful for our research because it showed us what motivates consumers’ behavior due to the nature of the product, hedonic or utilitarian.
Although there were lots of research that examined thoroughly the scarcity of products and the relation with NFU, no research had been conducted in order to examine the difference between the purchase conditions, regular versus the one-time purchases.
One-time purchases
In the current research, we investigated the one-time purchases because, to our current knowledge, was a topic which had not been examined before. Actually, the term of one-time purchase was not found in any research paper, so, we defined the one-time purchases as the purchases that consumers do only once in their lives. This kind of purchases refers to specific products that people usually buy for special events and occasions only once in their lifetime. Examples of these products could be wedding-dresses, baptism clothes for kids, wedding suits, wedding rings, etc. Regularly, we expected that consumers, who intend to purchase a product for once in their lifetime, have the desire to find something that is more special and unique. This could be the main reason why they look for scarce products to signify the importance of this one-time life event. One aim of this research was to examine how different purchasing conditions, regular purchase versus one-time
10
purchases, influence consumer’s preferences for scarce products. Moreover, the phenomenon of ‘’one-time purchase’’ has not been investigated in earlier studies greatly, thus it would be unquestionable important to examine it thoroughly.
On one hand, one assumption is that because it is a one-time purchase for a special occasion, consumers would purchase a product that is exclusive and unique to emphasize on the “significance” of this special occasion. This would especially be relevant for individuals with a high need for uniqueness. On the other hand, because it is an one-time purchase, it would be possible that consumers would want to make sure the high quality of the product, and they could deduce this information from demand-related scarcity products. As there was no empirical research examining how the condition of one-time purchase affects consumers’ preference for scarcity products, the theoretical contribution of the current research would not only contribute to this research gap, but also would shed light on the specific subtype of scarce products (i.e., demand vs. supply-scarcity related products) consumers might prefer in one-time purchase condition. The practical contributions would be mainly insights for marketers about consumers behavior and preferences. In other words, this research could provide to marketers, advice and recommendations about how to frame or advertise specific products based on consumers’ preferences. Furthermore, it would have practical contributions for companies that manufacture products for one-time purchases, thus they would have insights about consumers’ needs and preferences which means that they could use these for better product positioning in the market.
3. Experiment
The objective of the experiment was to explore if one-time purchases have an impact on people choices regarding their preferences about scarce products, and to test whether scarcity as a heuristic provoke different consumers’ behaviors between the two purchase
11
conditions. Because the definition of one-time purchase was new, there were no particular hypotheses for the experiment. On the contrary, the main aim was to explore and investigate how one-time purchase affects consumer’s behavior.
Method
Participants.
Participants were 198 individuals recruited through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. The gender of respondents was decided to be particularly only female because of the product-example in the experiment. Specifically, we considered that a dress would be the most convenient product-example for the purchase conditions, because it can be worn both for regular occasions, such as parties or everyday usage and for one-time occasions such as a wedding. The mean age of the 188 participants was 34.27 years (SD=10.39). Regarding their marital status, 38.8 percent of the sample were not married, 54.8 percent were married, 1.1 percent were widowed, and 5.3 percent were divorced. Furthermore, about the employment status, 8 percent of the sample were students, 55.9 percent were full-time employed, 12.2 percent were part-time employed, 10.1 percent were self-employed and with a percentage of 13.8 were the unemployed respondents. Ten of the participants answered in the questions of the experiment under one minute so we rejected their responses, assuming they were not credible, because the experiment included in total more than 40 questions.
Design and Procedure.
The design of the experiment was a between-subjects experiment with two independent variables, with 2 (purchase conditions: regular purchase vs one-time purchase) x 3 (scarcity condition: no scarcity vs. demand scarcity vs. supply scarcity). The dependent variables were consumer’s preferences for the product on various aspects. The dependent variable was measured by questions probing for attractiveness of the product, consumers’ preference for the product, intention to buy the product, all of them measured by
Likert-12
scale 1 to 7 (for example: 1= Very much unattractive, 7= Very much attractive). Specifically, we divided the dependent variable product preference into six dependent variables such as attractiveness of the product, willingness to buy, amount of money they were willing to pay for the product, suitability of the product for each occasion, importance of the purchase and the preference about the product. Moreover, one individual difference that was controlled was consumer’s need for uniqueness, which refers to the people who pursue brands and products to express uniqueness in order to develop and enhance their personal image and social identity (Tian et al. 2001).
Respondents were informed that they had to answer to three different unrelated blocks of questions in the experiment to avoid participants making associations between the variables measured and hence guessing the true purpose of the study. Firstly, they were asked for their consent to participate in our experiment. After the acceptance of participation to the experiment, they were asked about their gender, in order to filter out the gender requirements. Next, in the first block they had to complete a product evaluation task. The product evaluation task was presented in a vignette that described one of two purchase
conditions (regular purchase vs. one-time purchase) and one of three scarcity conditions (no
scarcity vs. demand scarcity vs. supply scarcity) (See Manipulations below). In total there were six different purchase conditions. In the product evaluation task participants responded to how they perceived the purchase conditions and how they evaluated the product (see Table 1), which their responses were the dependent variables of the study. In the second block of the experiment, the participants were told that they had to answer in questions about their behavioral characteristics. However, the real reason of this block of questions was to measure the consumer's need for uniqueness. Lastly, the third block was consisted by demographic questions (e.g. age, marital status, etc.). After the completion of the three blocks, participants were thanked, they were debriefed and at the end they received the
13
MTurk code for their payment. The payment for each approved response was 0.20 dollars. The rejected responses were not rewarded or reimbursed.
Manipulations
Purchase conditions.
The first condition consisted of a regular purchase scenario and of a one-time purchase scenario. The regular scenario was introduced to the participants like this: ‘’Imagine that you are invited to a party and you want to purchase a dress for this event. Take consideration of the fact that you want to purchase a dress that you can wear not only for this party, but also for other similar events or in your daily routine. While doing your shopping, you see a nice dress at a shop window’’. The one-time purchasing scenario was introduced like this: ‘’Imagine that you are getting married soon, and you want to purchase your wedding dress. While doing your shopping, you see a nice wedding dress at a shop window’’.
Scarcity conditions.
Scarcity descriptions were applied on the product for each scenario in order to manipulate consumers preference about the product. In the supply scarcity condition, the dress was presented under the tagline of a nice “Limited edition” dress. The demand scarcity was described as a nice dress with the slogan: “Best seller! Only 2 items left!”. In the non-scarce condition, no further information regarding the availability of the dress was given. An initial pretest was conducted in order to examine whether participants perceived the difference between the two purchasing conditions. From the results of the pretest (presented in Table 2), we concluded that the participants assessed one-time purchasing condition as different, more unique and more important compared to the regular condition. Also, the participants supported that they needed more time to decide about the purchase choice and
14
that they considered the product more hedonic in the one-time purchase in contrast with the regular purchase.
Measures
NFU Scale
The NFU Scale (Tian et al. 2001) is composed by 31 statements in which participants had to check on the most representative answers based on their behavior and experience (1= Strongly disagree, 7= Strongly agree). These statements are divided in three parts, the creative choice, the unpopular choice and the avoidance of similarity. The final NFU score was calculated by averaging the scores from all the statements, where a higher score would reflect to higher need for uniqueness. The NFU Cronbach’s alpha= .974, which indicated a high level of internal consistency. A reliability analysis was performed, which showed that the evaluation product scale had high reliability with the Cronbach’s Alpha= .863.
4. Results
Data preparation and Assumptions Checks
The data of the experiment was collected in two days. After excluding 24 people based on the time of response in the experiment (i.e., they completed the experiment under 1 minute) the final dataset in the analysis consisted of 188 participants in total. In the
experiment we desired to have equal sample sizes in each condition in order to avoid
statistical complications and unbalanced designs (Field, 2009). There were 32 participants in the no scarcity, regular purchase condition, 32 participants in the supply scarcity, regular purchase condition and 31 participants in the demand scarcity, regular purchase condition. About the one-time purchase conditions, there were 32 participants in the no scarcity
15
condition, 31 participants in the supply scarcity condition and 30 participants in the demand scarcity condition.
First of all, we had to test the assumptions whether the data could be analyzed with parametric tests, such as ANOVA, so we tested if data was distributed normally. Central limit theory suggests that samples N≥30 tend to be normally distributed regardless the actual shape of sample distribution in histograms (Field 2009). We conducted a visual analysis, the Q-Q plots to ensure that we had a normal distribution. The Q-Q plots and histograms are shown in Appendix 1. In addition to the visual results, we conducted tests of normality and we concluded that there was a significant result with Kolmogorov-Smirnov p<.05 and with Shapiro-Wilk p<.05 which means that it was not normally distributed. However, based on previous research an ANOVA analysis is not sensitive to moderate deviations from normality simulation studies, using a variety of non-normal distributions, have shown that the false positive rate is not affected very much by this violation of the assumption (Lix et al. 1996). Also, later studies provided evidence for the robustness of F-test under a non-normal distribution likely to represent real data (Blanca, M., et al., 2017).
Next, we examined the homogeneity of variance as well. A Levene’s test was conducted, based on the mean, to test our data. The results indicated that all the variances were equal, for attractiveness of the product F(5,188)=.868, p>.05, for willingness to purchase F(5,188)=1.705, p>.05, for amount of money they were willing to pay for the product F(5,188)=.535, p>.05, for suitable product for occasion F(5,188)=1.692, p>.05, for importance of purchase F(5,188)=1.542 , p>.05, and for the preference of the product
F(5,188)=1.136, p>.05. Descriptives
Regarding the descriptives of the dependent variables, the attractiveness of the product had an overall mean of 5.30 (SD=1.32) and the consumer’s willingness to buy the product had an overall mean of 5.18 (SD=1.33). The amount of money consumers were
16
willing to pay for the product had an overall mean of 4.82 (SD=1.25). The overall mean of suitability of the occasion was 5.64 (SD=1.26) and the overall mean of importance of the purchase variable was 5.67 (SD=1.29). Last, the dependent variable of the preference rating about the product had an overall mean of 5.13 (SD=1.27). Finally, the overall mean of NFU was 4.08 (SD=1.38). More specifically, the descriptives of the dependent variables and the need for uniqueness are demonstrated in Table 3, for each scenario and overall.
Randomization Check
Furthermore, we had to conduct a randomization check. ANOVA test was conducted between the variables of age, marital status and employment status to test if there were significant differences between the conditions of the experiment. Regarding the age, the results showed that there were no significant differences between the conditions
F(5,182)=.899 p=.483. Also, there were no significant differences between marital status, F(5,182) =1.378 and employment status F(5,182)=1.061, p=.384. between the six
conditions. In the Table 4 the means and standard deviations of demographics are presented for each condition.
Effects of purchase conditions and scarcity conditions on attractiveness of the product.
In order to test the impact of purchase and scarcity conditions on attractiveness of the product , a 2 (purchase condition: regular purchase vs one-time purchase) x 3 (scarcity condition: no scarcity vs. demand scarcity vs. supply scarcity) between-subjects analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted. The covariate of the analysis was the NFU. The results from ANCOVA showed that the main effect of the purchase condition on the attractiveness of the product was marginally significant F(1,181)=3.689, p=.056, hence the difference between the regular condition (M=5.47, SD=1.09) and the one-time condition (M=5.13, SD=1.50) was marginally significant. Also, the analysis revealed that the main effect of the scarcity condition was not significant on attractiveness of the product
17
F(2,181)=2.226, p=.111, thus the difference between the no scarcity condition (M=5.59, SD=1.24), the supply scarcity condition (M=5.17, SD=1.32) and the demand scarcity
condition (M=5.14, SD=1.37) was not significant. From the analysis we concluded that there was a marginally significant interaction between the two independent variables, the purchase condition and the scarcity condition, on the dependent variable of the attractiveness of the product F(2,181)=2.71, p=.069. NFU was a significant covariate F(1,181)=4.39,
p=.037. Also, through a simple effect analysis we concluded that for the no scarcity
condition there was no significant difference between the regular purchase condition (M=5.5, SD=1.21) and the one-time purchase condition (M=5.68, SD=1.28), F(1,181)=.371,
p=.543. For the supply scarcity condition there was no significant difference between the
regular purchase condition (M=5.34, SD=.90) and the one-time purchase condition (M=5.00,
SD=1.65), F(1,181)=1.553, p=.214. for the demand scarcity condition there was significant
difference between the regular purchase condition (M=5.58, SD=1.17) and the one-time purchase condition (M=4.7, SD=1.44), F(1,181)=7.015, p=.009. Regarding the purchase conditions, for the regular purchase condition there was no significant difference between the no scarcity condition (M=5.5, SD=1.21) the supply scarcity condition (M=5.34, SD=.90) and the demand scarcity condition (M=5.58, SD=1.17), F(2,181)=.15, p=.857. For the one-time purchase condition there was significant difference between the no scarcity condition (M=5.68, SD=1.28) the supply scarcity condition (M=5.00, SD=1.65) and the demand scarcity condition (M=4.7, SD=1.44), F(2,181)=4.76, p=.01.
Effects of purchase conditions and scarcity conditions on willingness to buy the product.
In order to test the impact of purchase and scarcity conditions on willingness to buy the product , a 2 (purchase condition: regular purchase vs one-time purchase) x 3 (scarcity condition: no scarcity vs. demand scarcity vs. supply scarcity) between-subjects analysis of
18
covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted. The covariate of the analysis was the NFU. The results from ANCOVA showed that the main effect of the purchase condition on the willingness to buy the product was marginally significant F(1,181)=3.37, p=.068, hence the difference between the regular condition (M=5.33, SD=1.21) and the one-time condition (M=5.02, SD=1.42) was marginally significant. Also, the analysis revealed that the main effect of the scarcity condition was not significant on willingness to buy the product
F(2,181)=.614, p=.542, thus the difference between the no scarcity condition (M=5.32, SD=1.14), the supply scarcity condition (M=5.03, SD=1.29) and the demand scarcity
condition (M=5.18, SD=1.54) was not significant. The interaction between the independent variables was marginally significant F(2,181)=2.87, p=.059. The NFU covariate was significant F(1,181)=7.89, p=.005. The simple effect analysis showed that for the no scarcity condition there was no significant difference between the regular purchase condition (M=5.25, SD=1.27) and the one-time purchase condition (M=5.40, SD=1.01),
F(1,181)=.269, p=.605. For the supply scarcity condition there was no significant difference
between the regular purchase condition (M=5.12, SD=1.14) and the one-time purchase condition (M=4.93, SD=1.52), F(1,181)=.694, p=.406. For the demand scarcity condition there was significant difference between the regular purchase condition (M=5.64, SD=1.30) and the one-time purchase condition (M=4.7, SD=1.64), F(1,181)=7.967, p=.005. Regarding the purchase conditions, for the regular purchase condition there was no significant difference between the no scarcity condition (M=5.25, SD=1.27) the supply scarcity condition (M=5.12, SD=1.03) and the demand scarcity condition (M=5.64, SD=1.30),
F(2,181)=1.14, p=.320. For the one-time purchase condition there was no significant
difference between the no scarcity condition (M=5.40, SD=1.01) the supply scarcity condition (M=4.93, SD=1.52) and the demand scarcity condition (M=4.7, SD=1.64),
19
Effects of purchase conditions and scarcity conditions on amount of money consumers were willing to pay for the product.
In order to test the impact of purchase and scarcity conditions on amount of money consumers were willing to pay for the product , a 2 (purchase condition: regular purchase vs one-time purchase) x 3 (scarcity condition: no scarcity vs. demand scarcity vs. supply scarcity) between-subjects analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted. The covariate of the analysis was the NFU. The results from ANCOVA showed that the main effect of the purchase condition on amount of money willing to pay for the product was not significant
F(1,181)=.382, p=.537, hence the difference between the regular condition (M=4.75, SD=1.23) and the one-time condition (M=4.90, SD=1.28) was not significant. Furthermore,
the ANCOVA analysis displayed that there was no significant difference in amount of money willing to pay for the product between the no scarcity condition (M=5.03, SD=1.19), the supply scarcity condition (M=4.74, SD=1.28) and the demand scarcity condition (M=4.70, SD=1.29), hence the main effect of scarcity condition was not significant
F(2,181)=1.09, p=.337. There was no significant interaction between the purchase condition
and the scarcity condition on the amount of money willing to pay for the product,
F(2,181)=1.486, p=.229. NFU was a significant covariate F(1,181)=21.09, p<.05.
Effects of purchase conditions and scarcity conditions on suitability of the product for the occasion.
In order to test the impact of purchase and scarcity conditions on suitability of the product for the occasion , a 2 (purchase condition: regular purchase vs one-time purchase) x 3 (scarcity condition: no scarcity vs. demand scarcity vs. supply scarcity) between-subjects analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted. The covariate of the analysis was the NFU. The results from ANCOVA showed that the main effect of the purchase condition on suitability of the product for the occasion was significant F(1,181)=15.71, p<.05, hence the
20
difference between the regular condition (M=5.29, SD=1.31) and the one-time condition (M=6.01, SD=1.10) was significant. Also, the analysis revealed that the main effect of the scarcity condition was not significant on suitability of the product for the occasion
F(2,181)=.019, p=.982, thus the difference between the no scarcity condition (M=5.64, SD=1.47), the supply scarcity condition (M=5.63, SD=1.11) and the demand scarcity
condition (M=5.67, SD=1.27) was not significant. The interaction between the independent variables was marginally significant F(2,181)=2.75, p=.067 on the suitability of the product for the occasion. The NFU covariate was not significant F(1,181)=2.83, p=.094. The simple effect analysis showed that for the no scarcity condition there was significant difference between the regular purchase condition (M=5.09, SD=1.55) and the one-time purchase condition (M=6.18, SD=.99), F(1,181)=13.35, p<.05. For the supply scarcity condition there was significant difference between the regular purchase condition (M=5.18, SD=1.06) and the one-time purchase condition (M=6.09, SD=.97), F(1,181)=8.03, p=.005. For the demand scarcity condition there was significant difference between the regular purchase condition (M=5.61, SD=1.25) and the one-time purchase condition (M=5.73, SD=1.31),
F(1,181)=.171, p=.680. Regarding the purchase conditions, for the regular purchase
condition there was no significant difference between the no scarcity condition (M=5.09,
SD=1.55) the supply scarcity condition (M=5.18, SD=1.06) and the demand scarcity
condition (M=5.61, SD=1.25), F(2,181)=1.60, p=.203. For the one-time purchase condition there was no significant difference between the no scarcity condition (M=6.18, SD=.99) the supply scarcity condition (M=6.09, SD=.97) and the demand scarcity condition (M=5.73,
SD=1.31), F(2,181)=1.16, p=.314.
Effects of purchase conditions and scarcity conditions on importance of the purchase.
In order to test the impact of purchase and scarcity conditions on importance of the purchase , a 2 (purchase condition: regular purchase vs one-time purchase) x 3 (scarcity
21
condition: no scarcity vs. demand scarcity vs. supply scarcity) between-subjects analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted. The covariate of the analysis was the NFU. The results from the ANCOVA analysis showed that the main effect of purchase condition on importance of the purchase was significant F(1,181)=20.69, p<.05, so, the difference between the regular condition (M=5.26, SD=1.21) and the one-time condition (M=6.09,
SD=1.25) was significant. The results that derived from ANCOVA analysis displayed that
the main effect of scarcity condition on importance of the purchase was not significant
F(2,181)=.358, p=.699, hence there was no significant difference between the no scarcity
condition (M=5.75, SD=1.35), the supply scarcity condition (M=5.55, SD=1.4) and the demand scarcity condition (M=5.72, SD=1.12). The interaction between the independent variables was not significant F(2,181)=.745, p=.476. The NFU covariate was not significant
F(1,181)=1.72, p=.191.
Effects of purchase conditions and scarcity conditions on preference about the product.
In order to test the impact of purchase and scarcity conditions on preference about the product , a 2 (purchase condition: regular purchase vs one-time purchase) x 3 (scarcity condition: no scarcity vs. demand scarcity vs. supply scarcity) between-subjects analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted. The covariate of the analysis was the NFU.
The results from the ANCOVA analysis showed that the main effect of purchase condition on preference about the product was not significant F(1,181)=1.38, p=.241, so, the difference between the regular condition (M=5.23, SD=1.15) and the one-time condition (M=5.04, SD=1.39) was not significant. Furthermore, the results from ANCOVA analysis showed that the main effect of scarcity condition on preference about the product was not significant F(2,181)=.326, p=.722, thus there was no significant difference between the no scarcity condition (M=5.25, SD=1.15), the supply scarcity condition (M=5.03, SD=1.28) and the demand scarcity condition (M=5.13, SD=1.39). Finally, the interaction between the
22
purchase and the scarcity conditions was not significant on the preference about the product
F(2,181)=1.746, p=.177. The NFU was a significant covariate F(1,181)=7.28, p=.008.
5. Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of one-time purchases on consumer’s preference about scarce products. Past research had already examined consumer’s preference about scarce products, however, there was no study aiming on one-time purchases and whether they affect the preference for scarce products. Moreover, this study explored one-time purchases under controlling the consumer’s need for uniqueness. Regarding the experiment, six different vignettes were displayed to participants, each one representing a different combination of purchase and scarcity conditions. Participants answered six questions in order to calculate their preference about scarce products. As we mentioned earlier we divided the dependent variable of preference into six variables. Therefore, through the analyses, we wanted to test the impact of the purchase and scarcity conditions on each variable. The outcome of the analyses showed that the purchase and scarcity conditions in some cases affect significantly the consumer’s preference and in other cases they do not.
Regarding the attractiveness of the product, participants perceived the purchase conditions differently, scoring, in average, higher in the regular purchase than in one-time purchase. The scarcity conditions had no significant effect on the perceived attractiveness, although the interaction of purchase and scarcity conditions had a marginally significant effect on participants’ perception about the attractiveness of the product. More specifically, participants in the demand scarcity condition scored higher in the regular purchase than in the one-time purchase, which was expected, because as Van Herpen, Pieters and Zeelenberg (2009) said when consumers are unsure for the product value, they rely on information about
23
the popularity of the product and they tend to adopt popular consumption behavior similar to bandwagon effect. Additionally, because the products in the one-time purchases should express uniqueness they will not be very attractive under demand scarcity. In the other scarcity conditions the interaction effects were not significant. Regarding the one-time purchase condition participants perceived more attractive the product in the no scarcity condition than in the supply or the demand scarcity condition, and in the regular purchase condition there was no significant effect. We assumed that participants perceived the product in one-time purchase, under the no scarcity condition, as more attractive because they perceived the other two scarcity methods as marketing techniques to raise the number of sales. Also, NFU was a significant covariate. The willingness of the participants to buy the product, was affected by the purchase conditions, specifically participants were willing more to buy the product in the regular than in the one-time purchases. An assumption, to support this reaction of the participants, could be the great difficulty to decide a product for the one-time purchase, that is why they were less willing to buy. Furthermore, the scarcity conditions did not play important role on willingness to buy the product, although the interaction between the independent variables affected the willingness of participants to buy the product. Specifically, the participants were willing more to buy the product in the regular purchase than in the one-time purchase, when the product was under the demand scarcity condition. Similarly, we believed that participants reacted that way because of the bandwagon effect. In the other scarcity conditions the interaction effects were not significant. In the purchase conditions the interaction effects were not significant. According the results from the analysis about the amount of money participants were willing to pay for the product, there were no significant difference neither in the purchase conditions nor in the scarcity conditions. We assumed that the amount of money is a subjective matter to every participant, based on their preferences and income. Also, the interaction between the purchase and scarcity conditions did not cause any significant effect on the dependent
24
variable. The NFU was a significant covariate. Furthermore, participants perceived more suitable the product in the one-time purchase than in the regular purchase. We believed that participants perceived the wedding dress as more suitable for a wedding (one-time purchase) instead of the regular dress in a party (regular purchase) because they have more options to wear for the occasion of the regular purchase. Scarcity conditions did not affect significantly the suitability of the product. However, their interaction with the purchase conditions affected participants perception. Specifically, participants rated as more suitable the product of one-time purchase, under the no scarcity and the supply scarcity condition, than in the regular purchases. We assumed that they behaved that way, because a product of one-time purchase, under the demand scarcity, can not be perceived as unique or exclusive as in the other two scarcity conditions. The results showed that participants’ perception about the importance of the purchase was affected significantly by the purchase conditions, by rating more important the one-time purchase than the regular purchase. This behavior was expected, as the example of one-time purchase (wedding) is a very important purchase for the females. The scarcity conditions did not affect significantly the dependent variable, and also, the interaction between the purchase and scarcity conditions was not significant. Participants’ preference about the product was not affected significantly by the purchase conditions which means that they did not perceive significant difference between the two purchase conditions. Similarly, participants did not rate their preference for the product differently neither between the scarcity conditions, nor the interaction between the purchase and scarcity conditions. role.
Finally, we could conclude that purchase conditions affected the perceived attractiveness of the product, the perceived suitability of the product for the occasion and the perception of the importance of the purchase. The scarcity conditions did not affect significantly the dependent variables, however, they provoked effects when they were
25
interacting with the purchase conditions. Also, NFU in most cases was an important covariate which affected indirectly the participants’ preferences.
6. Conclusion
This research was conducted in order to explore the phenomenon ‘’one-time purchases’’ and to examine whether and how they affect the consumer’s preference about scarce products. The results of this study showed that regarding the regular purchase condition participants showed higher preference for the product which was under the demand scarcity condition (bandwagon effect) compared to other scarcity conditions. In the supply scarcity condition, the participants’ preference was fractionally lower than the no scarcity condition. However, the average NFU was lower too, which could be the explanation of the lower preference (see Table 3). An interesting finding from this research was that participants preferred the product of one-time purchase that was under no scarcity condition more than the other scarcity conditions. Between supply and demand scarcity conditions, participants preferred more the product under the supply scarcity condition (see Table 3). We expected that the product in the supply scarcity condition would be more preferable than in the demand scarcity condition because past research showed that consumers value highly a product when its scarcity is presented through supply, because of its exclusivity and uniqueness (Van Herpen, Pieters, & Zeelenberg, 2009).
Overall, this research showed that participants perceived differently the two purchase conditions. Specifically, the findings demonstrated that one-time purchases affect consumers’ preference about scarce products differently than in the regular purchases. On one hand, in regular purchase, participants preferred the products under demand scarcity. On the other hand, in one-time purchases, participants preferred the products which are under no scarcity condition. This research shed light on aspects that had never been explored before,
26
since it was conducted to examine the consumer’s behavior from the perspective of a newly defined economical term, the one-time purchase. Moreover, this study contributed theoretically by enhancing the literature background of the discussed topics, especially for one-time purchases. Furthermore, managerial implications are suggested below, and also, the limitations of this study and the possibilities for future research are discussed.
Theoretical and managerial implications
First of all, based on our current literature knowledge, the first, and possibly the most important theoretical contribution is the definition of the one-time purchases. By defining a new term, such as one-time purchase, it gives to researchers the opportunity to explore consumer behavior topics from different perspectives. Additionally, another important implication was the division of the generic term of purchase to two conditions, the regular and the one-time purchases. Thus, this study provides a foundation for researchers to make clearer divisions based on purchase conditions when testing consumers’ responses to scarcity presence. Furthermore, except the contribution in the gap about how one-time purchases affect consumer’s preference about scarcity products, this research explored which are the specific scarce products (no scarce vs demand scarce vs supply scarce products) that consumer’s desire more in one-time purchases. Also, this study gave more insights in current literature regarding the association of scarcity conditions, purchase conditions and need for uniqueness. Moreover, this research contributes to the theoretical understanding of marketing practices (scarcity presence) that may be used to attract consumers. Finally, this research suggests that researchers should be more critical about the effects of consumer’s needs and characteristics on reactions to scarce products.
In a managerial point of view, this study contributes to knowledge on how to best consider the needs of consumers for a more successful marketing strategy. First, the results identify opportunities for marketers to positively affect the preference of consumers about a
27
product by marketing it under a scarcity condition. Insights about consumer’s behaviors and preferences in one-time purchases have been given to the marketers through the results of the research. Specifically, this research sheds light on how marketers can frame and advertise the products more properly, regarding the one-time purchases and the scarcity conditions. Additionally, firms which manufacture products particularly for one-time purchases, obtain benefits too. Specifically, manufacturers get more insights on consumer’s needs, which means that they could focus more efficiently on the right market segments. Also, the product positioning from these firms could be improved. For example, based on the findings of this research, we could suggest to marketers to advertise the one-time purchase products under no scarcity condition, because we believe that the selection of this product is very important for consumers and they will perceive scarcity presence as a technique to increase sales. Also, with hesitation, we could recommend that one-time purchase products, under supply scarcity condition, could be preferred from consumers in some cases, although marketers should avoid presenting these products under demand scarcity, because they will lack of uniqueness and exclusiveness.
Limitations and future research
This study except of theoretical and managerial contributions, had limitations too. First of all, because of the absence of literature background about the one-time purchases, the nature of the study was more explorative, instead of basing our research on particular hypotheses. Another important limitation of our study was that there were gender constraints. Particularly, the sample of our research was consisted of females, which limited our research in one-sided examination of the consumer’s behavior, regarding the gender. Additionally, the usage of one specific product as example (dress - wedding dress) in the scenarios, was a limitation because with more or different products participants could have been perceived differently each scenario. One limitation of our research was that the size of
28
our sample was small, which means that with a bigger one may the results be different. Furthermore, the presentation of vignettes to participants, and not real scenarios, is also a limitation. The experiment was consisted only from questions to the participants and there were no specific prices on the products, which could be included as a limitation. Moreover, the sample was collected through MTurk engine which was a limitation about a more careful selection of the sample. Also, for data cleaning purposes we used only one parameter, the response time of participants to complete the experiment. In addition, in this study, we did not check on cultural or nationality differences between the participants, which could mean that the derived results could be different between different countries or cultures. One more limitation was that only one consumer characteristic (NFU) was taken into consideration, so there were more characteristics to be taken into account. Finally, regarding NFU, we only control it as a covariate, and we did not examine the possible impact that could provoke on participants’ preference.
Future studies should investigate the impact of one-time purchases on males’ preferences too, in order to receive a more rounded perception about consumer behavior. Also, it would be interesting to examine how different products would affect consumer’s perceptions. Furthermore, future studies should investigate whether there are differences in consumer behavior, regarding one-time purchases, between different cultures, such as Europeans vs Africans, or between different countries. Additionally, it would be fascinating to check if there are differences in consumer’s behavior, when there will be presented real scenarios (real products with prices) to them. Further, future research could be conducted in order to examine how consumers would perceive different prices about ‘’one-time purchase’’ products, which are the limits where they become sensitive to product price (regarding that it is very important purchase), and what factors affect them (e.g., employment status). Also, an important gap that should be explored in the future is the relationship of NFU and the one-time purchases. In other words, how consumers with high
29
or low uniqueness perceive the one-time purchases and under which scarcity conditions could their preferences, about the products, be enhanced. Finally, another possible contribution of a future study could be the examination of different consumer characteristics (except NFU), and how do they interact with the one-time purchase condition. For example, a future study could examine how consumer’s loyalty for specific brands can affect their choices in one-time purchases, which will explore the one-time purchase from a different scope. Moreover, another interesting topic that could investigated, would be how WOM affect consumers’ preferences in one-time purchases.
30
References:
Ariga, A., and Inoue, A. (2015), “How scarce objects attract people: The effects of temporal and social contexts of the scarcity on object value,” Proceedings International
Marketing Trends Conference.
Aggarwal, P., Jun, S.Y., and Huh, J.H. (2011). “Scarcity messages: A consumer competition perspective. Journal of Advertising, 40(3), pp. 19–30.
Aguirre-Rodriguez, A. (2013). The effect of consumer persuasion knowledge on scarcity appeal persuasiveness. Journal of Advertising, 42(4), 371-379.
Amaldoss, W., & Jain, S. (2005). Pricing of conspicuous goods: A competitive analysis of social effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(1), 30-42.
Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 139-168.
Blanca, M., Alarcón, R., Arnau, J., Bono, R., & Bendayan, R. (2017). Non-normal data: Is ANOVA still a valid option? Psicothema, 29(4), 552-557.
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(3), 135-146.
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. 243-275)
31
Byun, S. E., & Sternquist, B. (2012). Here today, gone tomorrow: Consumer reactions to perceived limited availability. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 20(2), 223-234.
Castro, I. A., Morales, A. C., and Nowlis, S. M. (2013). “The influence of disorganized shelf displays and limited product quantity on consumer purchase,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 77, pp. 118-133
Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence: Science and practice (Vol. 4). Boston, MA: Pearson
education.
Dee K. Knight, Eun Young Kim, (2007) "Japanese consumers' need for uniqueness: Effects on brand perceptions and purchase intention", Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 11 Issue: 2, pp.270-280.
Field, A. (2009). “Discovering statistics using SPSS (and sex and drug and rock 'n' roll),” 3th ed. London: Sage.
Fromkin, H. L. (1970). Effects of experimentally aroused feelings of undistinctiveness upon valuation of scarce and novel experiences. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 16, 521-529.
Fromkin, H. L., Olson, J. C., Dipboye, R. L., & Barnaby, D. (1971). A commodity theory analysis of consumer preferences for scarce products. In Proceedings of the Annual
Convention of the American Psychological Association.
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.
Gierl H., Michael Plantsch & Janine Schweidler (2008) Scarcity effects on sales volume in retail, The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 18:1, 45-61.
32
Gokhan Aydin (2016). Authenticity, Uniqueness and Intention to Buy Scarce Products.
International Journal of Marketing Studies; Vol. 8, No. 2; 2016
Hsuan-Hsuan Ku, Chien-Chih Kuo, Yi-Ting Yang, Tzu-Shao Chung, (2013) "Decision-contextual and individual influences on scarcity effects", European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 47 Issue: 8, pp.1314-1332.
Kelly Tepper Tian, William O. Bearden, Gary L. Hunter (2001), Consumers' Need for Uniqueness: Scale Development and Validation, Journal of Consumer Research, Volume 28, Issue 1, Pages 50–66.
Kelly Tepper Tian, Karyn McKenzie, 2001, The Long-Term Predictive Validity of the Consumers’ Need for Uniqueness Scale, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Volume 10, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 171-193.
Lix, L. M., Keselman, J. C., & Keselman, H. J. (1996). Consequences of assumption violations revisited: A quantitative review of alternatives to the one-way analysis of variance F test. Review of educational research, 66(4), 579-619.
Lynn, M. (1991). Scarcity effects on value: A quantitative review of the commodity theory literature. Psychology & Marketing, 8, 43-57.
Mark Granovetter, Roland Soong, (1986), Threshold models of interpersonal effects in consumer demand, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Pages 83-99.
Michael Lynn, Judy Harris. (1997) The Desire for Unique Consumer Products: A New Individual Differences Scale.
Mittone, L., & Savadori, L. (2009). The scarcity bias. Applied Psychology, 58(3), 453-468. Ruvio, A., Shoham, A., & Brenčič, M. M. (2008). Consumers' need for uniqueness:
Short-form scale development and cross-cultural validation. International Marketing Review, 25(1), 33-53
Snyder & Fromkin, (1980) The Search for Uniqueness and Valuation of Scarcity, Journal of
