COMBINING EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY AND CONSUMER BEHAVIOR:
THE ROLE OF CHILDHOOD HISTORY IN CONSUMERS’ SUSCEPTIBILITY TO THE PRINCIPLE OF SCARCITY
January 11, 2018
Jelly Wien
Student number 2512203
COMBINING EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY AND CONSUMER BEHAVIOR:
THE ROLE OF CHILDHOOD HISTORY IN CONSUMERS’ SUSCEPTIBILITY TO THE PRINCIPLE OF SCARCITY
Master Thesis, MSc Marketing, specialization Marketing Management University of Groningen
Faculty of Economics and Business Department of Marketing
January 11, 2018
Jelly Wien
Gorechtkade 92A, 9713 CG Groningen, The Netherlands +31 6 39644116
j.wien.1@student.rug.nl Student number 2512203
Supervisor: prof. dr. B.M. (Bob) Fennis, University of Groningen
Second supervisor: S.A.E.G. (Sumaya) Albalooshi, PhD, University of Groningen
Acknowledgement: I would like to show my appreciation to prof. dr. B.M. (Bob) Fennis for giving me great guidance and valuable comments on my Master Thesis.
ABSTRACT
As a consumer, does your childhood history influence how susceptible you are to the principle of scarcity? Addressing and answering this question was the purpose of this research. Up until now, Life History Theory (LHT) has been useful in the field of evolutionary biology to explain human behavior. However, this research is the first to use LHT to explain the differences in consumer behavior that result from (unconsciously) being confronted with one specific marketing technique: the principle of scarcity. Previous research has already found significant positive results for the direct effect of the principle of scarcity on product desirability. This research gives a novel insight into this direct effect, as it hypothesizes that it will be intensified when consumers have adopted a fast Life History Strategy (LHS), compared to a slow LHS. An experiment was conducted to gather the data necessary to answer the hypotheses. First of all, results did not find a significant effect of the principle of scarcity on product desirability, contradicting previous research.
Moreover, this research did not yield significant results that confirmed the hypothesis that individuals with a fast LHS intensified this effect, compared to individuals with a slow LHS. Although insignificant results were found, there is a trend observed in the expected direction. As a result, several feasible courses of action might be taken in further research to make research in this new field more successful, e.g. using larger samples and conducting this research in more diverse contexts in terms of childhood histories.
Key words: principle of scarcity; Life History Strategy; product desirability;
marketing technique; social influence; susceptibility
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1. LITERATURE REVIEW 5
1.1 Principle of Scarcity 6
1.2 Life History Strategy 8
1.3 Conceptual Model 10
CHAPTER 2. METHOD 11
2.1 Participants and Design 11
2.2 Procedure 11
2.3 Independent Variables 12
2.3.1 Principle of Scarcity 12
2.3.2 Life History Strategy 14
2.4 Dependent Variable 14
2.5 Auxiliary Measures 15
CHAPTER 3. RESULTS 16
3.1 Results of Hypotheses 16
3.2 Covariates 17
CHAPTER 4. DISCUSSION 18
4.1 Summary of Results 18
4.2 Implications for Theory 20
4.3 Implications for Practice 20
4.4 Limitations and Further Research Avenues 21
4.5 Conclusion 22
REFERENCES 23
APPENDICES 27
Appendix A: Complete survey for control condition 27
Appendix B: Complete survey for scarcity condition 35 Appendix C: Scale to measure Life History Strategy 43 Appendix D: Scale to measure product desirability 45
Appendix E: Scale to measure socioeconomic status 46
Appendix F: Scale to measure dispositional negativity 47
Appendix G: Scale to measure self-control 48
Words: 6283
CHAPTER 1. LITERATURE REVIEW
Everybody has been in one of those situations: a street vendor approaching you with the question if you would like to have a free magazine. An intuitive response would be to accept the offer. Once you have said ‘yes’, however, the street vendor will add that in order to get a free magazine you need to take a trial subscription. In some cases, you end up complying with this request, even though you might not actually be interested in being subscribed to that magazine. How come that you do not reject the offer then?
Street vendors are known to use effective tactics to influence consumers in their decision-making process. Social influence has been concerned with these overt social forces aimed at consumers that trigger a direct behavioral response (Cialdini and Goldstein, 2004). These behavioral responses are in the form of compliance or conformity, and can be within and without conscious awareness (Cialdini and Goldstein, 2004). However, according to Cialdini (2009) and Fennis, Janssen and Vohs (2009), the processes that underlie these social forces are subtle and outside consumers’ conscious awareness. For this study, the theory on Life History Strategy (LHS) (Mittal and Griskevicius, 2014) will be hypothesized to have an effect on the consumer behavioral response resulting from social influence techniques. Up until now, this theory has been used especially by evolutionary biologists to explain human behavior (Mittal and Griskevicius, 2014), but not yet to explain consumers’
behavioral responses. This indicates that there is currently a gap in the literature that uses this theory to explain consumer behavior triggered by social influence.
The main objective of this research, therefore, is to gain more insight into the role of an individual’s LHS in the direct effect of one specific social influence technique (principle of scarcity) on one specific type of behavioral response (product desirability). This leads to the following research question: How does consumers’
childhood history determine how consumers are influenced by the principle of scarcity?
Answering this research question will contribute to the existing research literature by filling the aforementioned knowledge gap. Moreover, on a social level, consumers can use the results of this study to become more aware of their own susceptibility to marketing tactics. Furthermore, addressing this research question is
meaningful because knowing what influence LHS has on consumer behavior triggered by social influence techniques can create practical opportunities for marketers and managers that might increase their effectiveness.
The remainder of this article will be structured as follows: in the subsequent section, the theoretical concepts and hypotheses on which the research is built will be introduced. Next, a chapter describing the methods used to conduct the study will be presented. In the third chapter, the results that will be derived from the analyses will be shared and briefly interpreted. In the final chapter, these interpretations will be discussed more thoroughly. To conclude, some theoretical and practical implications, and suggestions for future research will be provided.
1.1 Principle of Scarcity
Cialdini (1984) has identified six principles of social influence that describe common techniques used to get the desired effect of a proposed request. These principles are reciprocity, social proof, liking, commitment and consistency, authority, and scarcity. For the purpose of this research, the remaining parts of this paper will focus on the principle of scarcity and its effect on product desirability. Here, product desirability will be equated with product value as defined by Brock (1968) (Lynn, 1991; Lynn, 1992). In his theory, product value is defined as a product’s strength to affect attitudes and behaviors. Lynn (1991) argues that any improvement in a product’s value will simultaneously increase the perceived desirability and have an effect on an individual’s attitude towards that product subsequently.
The first question that most likely arises at this point is what it is exactly that makes the principles of social influence affect us? Langer, Blank and Chanowitz (1978) have shown in their series of studies that a state of mindless, or automatic, behavior is the reason why social influence techniques are as effective as they have proven to be. In a state of mindlessness, individuals use cognitive heuristics in their decision-making (Chaiken, 1980). In the case of scarcity, marketers should, therefore, try to trigger exactly those heuristics that will make the consumer perceive the product as more desirable. But how exactly does the principle of scarcity work in reality?
Everybody has once come across advertisements of products, either on the streets, on TV or online, that contained phrases such as: ‘Today only’, ‘Limited Edition’, or ‘Only available here’. These scarcity messages trigger a heuristic that infers that products that are expressed as being scarce are considered more valuable
and, thus, more desired. As one of the most powerful instruments of influence (Cialdini, 2009), this principle is commonly used by marketers to affect consumers’
attitudes and (unconsciously) persuade them into buying the advertised products.
Scarcity is the central focus of Brock’s (1968) commodity theory, which argues that
“any commodity will be valued to the extent that it is unavailable” (p. 246). In other words, the principle of scarcity assumes that products with limited availability will be considered more valuable and more attractive than abundant products (Fennis and Stroebe, 2016; Lynn, 1991). Past research has shown that the increase in value, liking and attractiveness of a product due to scarcity will, consequently, lead to an increase in product desirability (Gierl, Plantsch and Schweidler, 2008; Worchel, Lee and Adewole, 1975). Looking at the studies of Gierl et al. (2008) and Worchel et al.
(1975), increasing product desirability can be the result of two types of scarcity.
Worchel et al. (1975) presented the effect of scarcity on product desirability as a consequence of excess demand. According to Van Herpen, Pieters and Zeelenberg (2014), when scarcity is driven by demand, consumers infer that the product must be popular. Besides classifying scarcity as demand-driven, the study by Gierl et al.
(2008) also classified the effect of scarcity as a consequence of limited supply. In this case, consumers infer that the product must be exclusive and unique in some way (Van Herpen et al., 2014). For this research, only supply-driven phrases will be used to manipulate the principle of scarcity, as this type of scarcity has proven to be the most successful type in the study of Gierl et al. (2008). Another reason is that it can be speculated that supply-driven scarcity is related more to the feeling of unpredictability than demand-driven scarcity, which is one of the environmental factors that leads to a fast LHS (as will be explained more thoroughly later). This is speculated since exclusive products (e.g. Limited Edition) will not return after supply has run out and, in addition, it cannot be predicted how long it takes before the product will be permanently unavailable. Popular products, on the other hand, will remain available as there is still supply but only in limited (scarce) quantities.
Therefore, these products are not found to be as much unpredictably available as exclusive products. As unpredictability is found to lead to a fast LHS, supply-driven scarcity will be expected to fit this study better.
All in all, the results of these studies support the effect of scarcity on product desirability. Therefore, the first hypothesis will be proposed as follows:
Hypothesis 1: The principle of scarcity will have a significant positive effect on product desirability.
As the extant research literature already found support for this hypothesis, a next step would be to focus on whether consumers are equally susceptible to these techniques or whether certain consumers are more prone to say ‘yes’ to marketing tactics than others. Janssen, Fennis and Pruyn (2010) stated that people who have lower self-control rely more on heuristics (e.g. scarcity) in their decision-making, which makes them more susceptible to marketing techniques in persuasion contexts.
As individuals with a fast LHS are known to have less self-control (Griskevicius, 2013), it is speculated that this group of individuals is more susceptible than individuals with a slow LHS. In the next section, this speculation will be explained more thoroughly.
1.2 Life History Strategy
As has been stated earlier, Life History Theory (LHT) has been used in research to explain human behavior and to explain the differences in behavior among humans as well (Mittal and Griskevicius, 2014). However, it has thus far never been used to explain the differences in susceptibility to social influence techniques. Therefore, this paper uses LHT to explain the consumer behavior triggered by one specific social influence technique, i.e. the principle of scarcity.
LHT suggests that all people have to deal with tradeoffs regarding how to divide the supply of their limited resources to fitness-enhancing activities (Mittal and Griskevicius, 2014). This fitness consists of two components: somatic effort and reproductive effort (Griskevicius, Tybur, Delton and Robertson, 2011; Olderbak, Gladden, Wolf and Figueredo, 2014). Somatic effort refers to the resources allocated to an individual’s survival and growth. Reproductive effort, on the other hand, refers to the resources allocated to immediate reproduction of one’s own offspring. How each individual resolves the tradeoffs between these two components reflects their Life History Strategy (Griskevicius et al., 2011), which varies on a slow-to-fast continuum (Mittal and Griskevicius, 2014).
Environmental factors early in life determine which LHS an individual adopts on this continuum (Chen, Shi and Sun, 2017) and, in turn, how it deals with current situations in adulthood. Brumbach, Figueredo and Ellis (2009) and Ellis, Figueredo, Brumbach and Schlomer (2009) argue that the degree of unpredictability and the
degree of harshness are the two most fundamental environmental factors that will influence the development of an individual’s LHS. Core indicators of harshness are morbidity and mortality, whereas unpredictability is the degree to which there is continuous inconsistency in an individual’s early-life environment (Brumbach et al., 2009). Besides the level of harshness and unpredictability in childhood, responses to resource scarcity have been found to be a third factor that will influence the type of strategy pursued (Griskevicius et al., 2013). Resource scarcity can be interpreted as the deficiency of resources, including internal and external resources (Ellis et al., 2009). Altogether, it means that primariliy the degree of harshness, unpredictability and resource scarcity in people’s childhoods will lead to different strategies and, ultimately, influence outcomes and (consumer) behaviors later in their life.
These three environmental factors are linked to each LHS as follows:
individuals who have had a predictable childhood with a low mortality rate and an abundance of resources expect their future to be certain and without harm (Chen et al., 2017) and will, therefore, invest mostly in somatic effort and postpone reproduction (Griskevicius et al., 2011). This is linked to a slow LHS. On the other hand, individuals who grew up in an unpredictable, resource-scarce and harsh environment are more uncertain of their future (Chen et al., 2017; White, Li, Griskevicius, Neuberg and Kenrick, 2013) and will most likely pursue a fast strategy, as they mainly invest in reproductive effort and go for immediate gratification (Griskevicius et al., 2011).
With regard to the principle of scarcity, the environmental factor resource scarcity is most relevant. As aforementioned, an abundance of resources leads to a slow LHS and resource scarcity leads to a fast LHS. Resource scarcity is viewed as the depletion of, or lack of, internal and external resources. As marketers use the principle of scarcity to make consumers belief that products have limited availability and, thus, are depleted in a sense as well, resource scarcity and the principle of scarcity can be considered similar in terms of purpose and effect. Resource scarcity in childhood is found to result in choosing for immediate gratification, which suggests that scarcity in present-day will most likely trigger the same response due to their similarity. As resource scarcity in childhood leads to a fast LHS, it is expected that the principle of scarcity will create a stronger response in terms of product desirability for those individuals having a fast LHS, compared to individuals having a slow LHS.
Adding to this, according to Griskevicius et al. (2013), socioeconomic status early in life also has an influence on whether an individual adopts a fast or slow LHS.
Individuals with a lower childhood socioeconomic status are more impulsive, risky and less likely to resist temptations. This will ultimately result in less self-control and contribute to the adoption of a fast LHS. Individuals with a higher childhood socioeconomic status, on the other hand, are less impulsive, less risky and can deal with temptations better. Therefore, they have more self-control and will pursue a slow LHS. Janssen et al. (2010) showed that individuals with less self-control rely more on heuristic cues when making decisions and are, thus, more sensitive to the principle of scarcity than individuals with more self-control. Adding this all up, it leads to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: Compared to a slow LHS, a fast LHS will intensify the significant positive effect of the principle of scarcity on product desirability.
1.3 Conceptual Model
The two aforementioned hypotheses are visualized in a conceptual model to show the relationships between the constructs described above (see Figure 1).
All in all, this paper will give a novel insight into the effectiveness of the principle of scarcity by taking into account the possible influence of an individual’s childhood history.
Figure 1 - Conceptual Model
CHAPTER 2. METHOD
An experiment was conducted to test the two hypotheses. Hypothesis 1 proposed that the principle of scarcity had a significant positive effect on product desirability. Hypothesis 2 proposed that the effect of Hypothesis 1 would be intensified when participants pursued a fast LHS, compared to a slow LHS. The data was collected through an online survey in which all variables were controlled for, except the independent variable.
2.1 Participants and Design
A total of one hundred twelve Dutch respondents (58 female, 54 male; Mage
= 35.85, SD = 16.07) voluntarily participated in an online study. To complete this study, a 2 (principle of scarcity: absent/present) x 2 (LHS: fast/slow) between- subjects factorial design was used. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the conditions, to assure equal representation and sample sizes.
After collecting the data, five respondents were discarded from the final sample as they were assumed not to pay enough attention. This could be assumed as the scale that measured a respondent’s socioeconomic status included the statement ‘I speak fluently Czechoslovak language’ to check if the respondent was completing the survey attentively. If a respondent rated the statement with something other than ‘1 = disagree strongly’, it could be assumed that (s)he was not paying close attention. In total, five respondents rated this statement with a rating different from ‘1 = disagree strongly’. To be sure that these five respondents did not make a lot of difference in the final results, the analyses were conducted both including and excluding those five respondents. As the results differed only slightly, those five respondents were removed from the sample and the results described in the next chapter are based on a sample of one hundred seven respondents (56 female, 51 male; Mage = 36.14 years, SD = 16.33).
2.2 Procedure
Participants were recruited either directly by an examiner who approached them and asked if they wanted to participate, or indirectly through a link on several social media channels. Before starting with the actual survey, participants were explained that it would take approximately 10 minutes of their time. In addition, the participants were made aware of the fact that their anonymity would be protected
and that they could withdraw from the online study anytime they wanted. After indicating their consent for participation, the survey began.
Each subject was explained that the survey existed of two sections. The first section started with a brief introduction and a scenario about the launch of a new product that the participants had to read. After reading the scenario, they were presented an advertisement of this product and told that they had to rate various statements on the product displayed. These statements would measure the effect of scarcity on product desirability (Hypothesis 1). The second section consisted of four scales with statements concerning the participant’s preferences, opinions and how (s)he looked at life. It started with completing 20 statements of the mini-k scale to determine each individual’s LHS. The participants proceeded with rating seven statements of the socioeconomic scale (which included a statement to check for attentiveness), 16 statements of the dispositional negativity scale and 13 statements of the brief version of the Baumeister self-control scale. These scales were used to measure either the moderating effect of LHS (Hypothesis 2), or the effect of several auxiliary measures. At the end of the second section, the participants were asked to answer two questions regarding their age and gender.
After completing the two sections of the online study, participants were thanked and told that they could be debriefed later if they wished.
2.3 Independent variables
2.3.1 Principle of scarcity Inspired by one of the studies by Jang et al. (2015), this online study used two different scenarios and two different advertisements (corresponding to one of the scenarios) to manipulate the principle of scarcity. These different scenarios helped to test Hypothesis 1 that proposed that the principle of scarcity had a significant positive effect on product desirability.
In the condition where the principle of scarcity was absent (control condition), participants started with reading the following scenario (see Appendix A for the complete survey):
The Dutch jewelry store Moments Jewelry has launched a new product on the market to celebrate its 100th anniversary. They created a new wristwatch – one version for man and one version for women in order to reach all their customers.
Subsequently, they were shown the advertisement of the new wristwatch that did not include any scarcity reference (see Figure 2A). The wristwatch was a fictitious brand to prevent that brand strength would have had an influence on the desirability of this product.
In the condition where the principle of scarcity was present, participants started with reading the following scenario (see Appendix B for the complete survey):
The Dutch jewelry store Moments Jewelry has launched a new product on the market to celebrate its 100th anniversary. They created a new wristwatch – one version for man and one version for women in order to reach all their customers. As it is their 100th anniversary, it will be a Limited Edition wristwatch of which only 1,000 units will be produced in the Netherlands. Furthermore, it will only be available while supplies last during the year of our 100th anniversary.
The third sentence in this scenario was a critical sentence as it implied scarcity due to limited quantity and was supposed to make the product look more desirable.
Subsequently, the participants in this condition were also shown an advertisement of the new wristwatch (see Figure 2B). This time the advertisement included phrases that evoked a feeling of scarcity. In addition, both advertisements also contained the neutral phrase ‘Made of 100% stainless steel’ to make it more realistic. All the participants had unlimited amount of time to look at the advertisement, before turning to the statements regarding the product.
Figure 2A – Advertisement: Scarcity absent Figure 2B – Advertisement: Scarcity present
2.3.2 Life History Strategy To test Hypothesis 2, a short-form of the Arizona Life History Battery, the mini-k 7-point Likert scale (1 = disagree strongly, 7
= agree strongly) (see Appendix C), was used in the second section of the survey to find out which LHS each participant pursued. The mini-k takes a psychometric approach that consists of cognitive and behavioral indicators of human life history primarily (Figueredo et al., 2014). It consisted of 20 statements that measured if an individual had adopted a fast or slow LHS. Examples of the mini-k statements were:
‘I avoid taking risks’, ‘I have a close and warm romantic relationship with my sexual partner’ and ‘I am often in social contact with my friends’. All conditions had to rate the same set of 20 statements. After respondents had answered all the statements, a reliability analysis was performed on LHS by using Cronbach’s alpha. LHS was considered reliable as it passed the threshold of 0.7 (Nunnally, 1978). Therefore, LHS (α = 0.83) could be used to create a new variable based on its mean scores.
After creating a new variable for LHS (M = 5.00, SD = 0.70), this new variable had to be changed from a continuous variable into a categorical variable before it could be used as a moderator in an ANOVA and, in addition, to be able to assign a fast or slow LHS to each respondent. By calculating the value of the median for LHS, the variable could be dichotomized. For this sample, the median value was 5.00. This meant that respondents with a mean score ≤ 5.00 were assigned a fast LHS, while respondents with a mean score > 5.00 were assigned a slow LHS.
Overall, collecting data with this short-from of the ALHB helped to test Hypothesis 2, which proposed that, compared to a slow LHS, a fast LHS intensified the significant positive effect of scarcity on product desirability.
2.4 Dependent variable
In the first section of the survey, product desirability was measured using six statements on a 6-point Likert scale (1 = disagree strongly, 6 = agree strongly; see Appendix D) (Gierl et al., 2008). After viewing the advertisement of the wristwatch, subjects were asked to rate the following statements: ‘I would prefer this product to comparable others’, ‘I could well imagine buying this product’, ‘I would recommend this product to my friends’, ‘I am positive about the product’, ‘I like this product’, and
‘This is an attractive product’. All conditions had to rate the same set of six statements. After performing a reliability analysis on product desirability (α = 0.93), it could be used to create a new variable based on its mean scores. The closer the
mean score was to 6, the more desirable the product was found to be (M = 2.68, SD
= 1.10).
Collecting data on product desirability helped quantify the direct effect of scarcity as well as the moderating effect of LHS.
2.5 Auxiliary measures
For exploratory reasons, several auxiliary measures were added in the second section of the online survey. First of all, a participant’s socioeconomic status was measured (see Appendix E). This variable is an indicator of the amount of resources available to an individual in childhood and adulthood (Griskevicius et al., 2013). It consisted of seven statements on a 9-point Likert scale (1 = disagree strongly, 9 = agree strongly), e.g. ‘I have enough money to buy things I want’. All conditions had to rate the same set of seven statements. After performing a reliability analysis on socioeconomic status (α = 0.75), it could be used to create a new variable based on its mean scores. The closer the mean score was to 9, the more resources were available in an individual’s childhood and, currently, in adulthood (M = 5.47, SD = 1.15).
The second control variable that was added was dispositional negativity (see Appendix F). Dispositional negativity measures the propensity to express and experience more enduring and intense negative affect (Shackman et al., 2016). It consisted of 16 statements on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = disagree strongly, 7 = agree strongly), e.g. ‘architecture’ and ‘Japan’. All conditions had to rate the same set of 16 statements. After performing a reliability analysis on dispositional negativity (α = 0.73), it could be used to create a new variable based on its mean scores. The closer the mean score was to 1, the higher the propensity to express negative affect (M = 4.30, SD = 0.66).
The third, and final, control variable that was included was the brief version of the Baumeister self-control scale (see Appendix G). This scale measures the extent to which an individual is able to alter its own responses (Baumeister, Vohs and Tice, 2007). It consisted of 13 statements on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = disagree strongly, 5 = agree strongly), e.g. ‘I am lazy’ and ‘I can resist temptations very well’.
All conditions had to rate the same set of 13 statements. After performing a reliability analysis on self-control (α = 0.79), it could be used to create a new variable based on its mean scores. The closer the mean score was to 5, the more self-control an individual has (M = 3.01, SD = 0.57).
As there were no a priori expectations, the (possible) effects of the three auxiliary measures will be discussed later.
CHAPTER 3. RESULTS
The data from 112 respondents was transferred to an SPSS data file to be able to run the analyses. The results mentioned in this chapter are judged based on a significance level of 10%.
3.1 Results of Hypotheses
A 2 (scarcity: absent/present) x 2 (LHS: fast/slow) ANOVA on product desirability demonstrated that the results of the analyses were not in line with predictions. That is, the main effect of scarcity did not align with previous findings as it did not reach significance (F(1,107) = 0.02, NS). Thus, Hypothesis 1 is rejected.
This indicates that the advertisement that used scarcity did not make the respondent desire the product more (M = 2.68, SD = 1.19) than the control advertisement (M = 2.68, SD = 1.03). Furthermore, although there was not an a priori expectation for the main effect of LHS, the analysis did not yield a significant result (F(1,107) = 0.62, NS).
In addition to the two main effects, the results showed that the interaction effect of scarcity and LHS did not reach significance (F(1, 107) = 0.37, NS). Thus, Hypothesis 2 is rejected. This indicates that there is not a significant difference between individuals with a fast LHS and slow LHS on how they react to scarcity in terms of product desirability. However, the mean scores of product desirability show a trend in the expected direction. In the cases where respondents have a fast LHS, the difference in the mean scores between respondents in the scarcity condition (M
= 2.67, SD = 1.17) and respondents in the control condition (M = 2.51, SD = 1.02) is larger than in the cases where respondents have a slow LHS (M = 2.71, SD = 1.24; M = 2.81, SD = 1.02, respectively). This is a similar trend as proposed in Hypothesis 2 as it stated that a fast LHS intensifies the effect of scarcity on product desirability, when compared to a slow LHS (see Figure 3). All in all, both main effects and the interaction effect did not reach significance. More specifically, Hypothesis 1 and 2 were rejected.
3.2 Covariates
The previously created variables of the three covariates based on their mean scores were included separately in a two-way ANCOVA. The results did not show a significant effect for socioeconomic status and dispositional negativity on the dependent variable, nor did the main effect of scarcity, the main effect of LHS and its interaction effect reach significance when including these two covariates separately. When including the covariate self-control, the effect of self-control on product desirability reached significance (F(1, 107) = 8.08, p = 0.005). When looking at the scatter plot (see Figure 4), it shows that more self-control is associated with lower levels of product desirability. However, the main effects of scarcity, the main effect of LHS and its interaction effect remained insignificant when controlling for self-control (F(1, 107) = 0.00), NS; F(1, 107) = 2.41, NS; F(1, 107) = 0.26, NS, respectively).
Figure 3. Plot of interaction effect
CHAPTER 4. DISCUSSION
4.1 Summary of Results
The purpose of this research was to answer the question of how consumers’
childhood history influences their susceptibility to the principle of scarcity. It aimed to extend previous findings on the effect of the principle of scarcity on product desirability by assessing the role of an individual’s LHS. To be more specific, Hypothesis 1 proposed that using the principle of scarcity would have a significant positive effect on product desirability. Hypothesis 2 added a moderating effect of LHS on the effect of Hypothesis 1. In other words, this hypothesis proposed that the effect of the principle of scarcity on product desirability would be intensified when individuals have a fast LHS, compared to a slow LHS. A summary of the findings on Hypothesis 1 and 2 will be discussed next.
First of all, the findings showed that, despite multiple published articles on the significant positive effect of scarcity on product desirability, this research could not find a significant result for Hypothesis 1. An explanation for this insignificant finding might be that a sample of 107 respondents is too small. More respondents will most likely increase the chances of finding significant results. Furthermore, the
Figure 4. Scatterplot of self-control on product desirability
concept of publication bias might be important to take into consideration when interpreting this insignificant finding. Publication bias is the tendency to publish articles that found a significant result and to not publish articles that found insignificant results (Dickersin, 1990). In this case, it can mean that even though multiple published articles found a significant positive relationship between scarcity and product desirability, it could well be that even more articles did not find such a significant effect but were not published. Taking this into account, the insignificant finding of the main effect of scarcity can be considered less unsatisfactory than thought at first.
Adding to these results, there were not any significant findings that confirmed that a fast LHS intensifies the positive effect between scarcity and product desirability, compared to a slow LHS. A reason for this might be that there is not a lot of diversity in the Dutch population with regard to childhood history, especially in the sample used for this research. The Netherlands has been known to be a wealthy country with little uncertainty and a relatively small gap between poor and rich for a long time. Hence, it might be that the differences were too small to be able to find support for Hypothesis 2. However, as the trend of the results does move in the same direction as expected in this hypothesis, some courses of action can be taken to overcome this limitation.
Contrary to the insignificant results aforementioned, the covariate self-control was found to have a significant effect on product desirability. To be more specific, more self-control leads to lower levels of product desirability. This most likely implies that the more (less) an individual is able to control its responses towards e.g.
temptations on its own, the less (more) (s)he will desire products in general.
Important to note is that this increase or decrease in product desirability is regardless of whether a marketing technique is used. At the same time, the main effect of LHS almost reaches significance at the 10% level. Due to more precise measures when removing the confounding effect of self-control, LHS seems to have a stronger effect on product desirability than thought when self-control was not controlled for. The main effect of scarcity and the interaction effect of scarcity and LHS, on the other hand, yield less significant results. This means that these effects are even less probable when controlling for the effect of self-control.
Overall, after more thoroughly discussing the results of this research the answer to the research question is that a consumer’s childhood history does not significantly influence their susceptibility to the principle of scarcity. However, there
are several suggestions for further research that can make research in this new field more successful. These suggestions will be discussed later.
4.2 Implications for Theory
This research has some implications for theory that are relevant to mention.
First of all, for the knowledge on the principle of scarcity, this research reveals that this marketing technique does not turn out to be effective in every situation as it contradicts previous research. Therefore, it remains interesting and worthwhile to continue doing research on this marketing technique and find out exactly when the technique is effective and when it is not. It might be that the two types of scarcity – supply-driven and demand-driven – are useful in different contexts or on different types of consumers, and that each type of scarcity gives different outcomes as a result. Further research might help tracking down the boundaries of this marketing technique.
More importantly, present research is an extension of previous research as it moves into a completely new research field by combining the field of marketing with the field of evolutionary biology. Up until now, LHT has been used multiple times to explain human behavior. However, this research is the first to use LHT to explain consumer behavior. To be more specific, this is the first research to explain the differences in susceptibility to the principle of scarcity as a result of different LHS.
Therefore, this study contributes to previous research in two ways. First of all, it extends the knowledge on the role of LHS in human behavior to include consumer behavior. Secondly, it adds to the literature in the field of marketing and psychology as it helps to explain the differences in consumer behavior as a result of marketing techniques in a different way than has been done thus far. Although the results did not support the hypotheses proposed in this research, there was a trend observed in the expected direction that makes further research worthwhile. Therefore, this research should be considered a first step into successfully using LHT to explain consumer behavior in the future.
4.3 Implications for Practice
The insignificant results aforementioned create several insights for marketing practices that are relevant to mention. The insignificance of Hypothesis 1 was striking, as quite some researches in the past have found this relationship to be significant. The fact that it did not turn out to be the case in this research might
show that the use of elements to create a feeling of scarcity in marketing is exaggerated. Although the principle of scarcity is considered to be one of the most powerful instruments of influence (Cialdini 2009), its power should not be taken for granted. In fact, marketers should question its power as this research shows that it may not hold in every situation and context. Hopefully, further research will give better guidelines for marketers and managers to enable them to use this marketing technique in the most effective way possible.
Another implication that is worth mentioning is that marketers and managers might have to start brainstorming about how they can aim marketing techniques, the principle of scarcity in particular, at precisely those consumers that are found to be most susceptible. As there is a trend observed that is in the expected direction, it could imply that the hypotheses of this research will be confirmed in the future after applying the suggestions for further research. Therefore, marketers might already start to think about ways to determine and, subsequently, how to specifically address consumers with a fast LHS.
A final important insight is that the results of this research can be considered a first sign towards consumers that their childhood history might influence their responses to marketing techniques, the principle of scarcity in particular. Although this research has not found significant results yet, this is likely to change soon. By already being aware of the possible influence of LHS, consumers might be able to better protect themselves against these tactics.
4.4 Limitations and Further Research Avenues
As has been noted throughout this chapter, this research has several limitations. However, taking into account these limitations and overcoming them can hopefully make future research into this field more successful. The following opportunities for further research might help to turn the insignificant results that are due to those limitations into significant results.
First of all, it was noted that the sample is possibly too small to find significant results at all. To overcome this limitation and increase the likelihood of finding significant results, it might be helpful to use a larger sample in further research.
Secondly, as it was argued that the difference in childhood histories in the Netherlands might be relatively small, it is recommended to do the same research in a context where the difference in childhood histories is expected to be larger. Third
world countries might be a context where this difference is more diverse. However, another way to overcome this limitation might be by splitting the sample in three equal groups instead of two, as was the result of the median split procedure. When dividing it into three groups and deleting the second group from your sample, the other two groups represent more extreme cases of fast and slow LHS. This might result in a more identifiable difference between fast and slow LHS respondents and, in turn, more likely lead to significant results. To overcome the loss of respondents as a result of deleting the second group, using a larger sample is becoming even more important.
Thirdly, it might be interesting to do this research with the other principles of influence as identified by Cialdini (1984) to see whether or not Hypothesis 2 will be confirmed when using another principle of influence.
A final suggestion for further research is that, as this research has solely focused on supply-driven scarcity, it might be worthwhile to find out if the results will be different if solely demand-driven scarcity are used to infer scarcity.
4.5 Conclusion
Evolutionary biology, and in particular LHS, has not been found useful in explaining consumer behavior yet. However, it seems like there are multiple feasible courses of action that can be taken to turn this around in the near future.
Researchers might use demand-driven phrases to infer scarcity, larger samples, different principles of influence and more extreme contexts in terms of childhood histories to be more successful.
REFERENCES
Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D. and Tice, D. M. (2007). The strength model of self- control. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(6), 351-355.
Brock, T. C. (1968). Implications of commodity theory for value change. In A. G.
Greenwald, T. C. Brock, and T. M. Ostrom (Eds.), Psychological foundations of attitudes (pp. 243-275). New York: Academic Press.
Brumbach, B. H., Figueredo, A. J., and Ellis, B. J. (2009). Effects of harsh and unpredictable environments in adolescence on development of life history strategies. Human Nature, 20, 25-51.
Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 752-766.
Chen, B., Shi, Z. and Sun, S. (2017). Life History Strategy as a mediator between childhood environmental unpredictability and adulthood personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 111, 215-219.
Cialdini, R. B. (1984). Influence: The psychology of persuasion. New York: Quill.
—— (2009). Influence: Science and practice (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
—— and Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity.
Annual Review of Psychology, 55(1), 591-621.
Dickersin, K. (1990). The Existence of Publication Bias and Risk Factors for its Occurrence. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263(10), p. 1385- 1389.
Ellis, B. J., Figueredo, A. J., Brumbach, B. H. and Schlomer, G. L. (2009).
Fundamental dimensions of environmental risk: The impact of harsh versus
unpredictable environments on the evolution and development of life history strategies. Human Nature, 20, 204-268.
Fennis, B. M., Janssen, L. and Vohs, K. D. (2009). Acts of benevolence: A limited- resource account of compliance with charitable requests. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 906-924.
—— and Stroebe, W. (2016). The psychology of advertising (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Figueredo, A. J., Wolf, P. S. A., Olderbak, S. G., Gladden, P. R., Fernandes, H. B. F., Wenner, C., Hill, D., Andrzejczak, J., Sisco, M. M., Jacobs, W. J., Hohman, Z.
J., Sefcek, J. A., Kruger, D., Howrigan, D. P., MacDonald, K. and Rushton, J. P.
(2014). The psychometric assessment of human Life History Strategy: A meta- analytic construct validation. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 8(3), 148-185.
Gierl, H., Plantsch, M. and Schweidler, J. (2008). Scarcity effects on sales volume in retail. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 18(1), 45-61.
Griskevicius, V., Ackerman, J. M., Cantú, S. M., Delton, A. W., Robertson, T. E., Simpson, J. A., Thompson, M. E. and Tybur, J. M. (2013). When the economy falters, do people spend or save? Responses to resource scarcity depend on childhood environments. Psychological Science, 24(2), 197-205.
——, Tybur, J. M., Delton, A. W. and Robertson T. E. (2011). The influence of mortality and socioeconomic status on risk and delayed Rewards: A Life History Theory approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(6), 1015- 1026.
Herpen, E. van, Pieters, R. and Zeelenberg, M. (2014). When less sells more or less:
The scarcity principle in wine choice. Food Quality and Preference, 36, 153- 160.
Jang, W., Ko, Y. J., Morris, J. D. and Chang, Y. Scarcity message effects on consumption behavior: Limited Edition product considerations. Psychology and Marketing, 32(10), 989-1001.
Janssen, L., Fennis, B. M. and Pruyn, A. T. H. (2010). Forewarned is forearmed:
Conserving self-control strength to resist social influence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(6), 911-921.
Langer, E., Blank, A. and Chanowitz, B. (1978). The mindlessness of ostensibly thoughtful action: The role of “placebic” information in interpersonal interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(6), 635-642.
Lynn, M. (1991). Scarcity effects on value: A quantitative review of the commodity theory literature. Psychology and Marketing, 8(1), 43-57.
—— (1992). Scarcity's enhancement of desirability: The role of naive economic theories. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 13(1), 67-78.
Mittal, C. and Griskevicius, V. (2014). Sense of control under uncertainty depends on people’s childhood environment: A Life History Theory approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(4), 621-637.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2 ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Olderbak, S., Gladden, P., Wolf, P. S. A., and Figueredo, A. J. (2014). Comparison of life history strategy measures. Personality and Individual Differences, 58, 82- 88.
Shackman, A. J., Tromp, D. P. M., Stockbridge, M. D., Kaplan, C. M., Tillman, R. M.
and Fox, A. S. (2016). Dispositional negativity: An integrative psychological neurobiological perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 142(12), 1275-1314.
White, A. E., Li, Y. J., Griskevicius, V., Neuberg, S. L. and Kenrick, D. T. (2013).
Putting all your eggs in one basket: Life History Strategies, bet-hedging, and diversification. Psychological Science, 24(5), 715-722.
Worchel, S., Lee, J. and Adewole, A. (1975). Effects of supply and demand on ratings of object value. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(5), 906-914.
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Complete survey for control condition
Beste respondenten,
Bedankt voor het meewerken aan deze enquête! Deze enquête wordt afgenomen in het kader van een onderzoeksproject van de afdeling Marketing, die onderdeel is van de Faculteit Economie en Bedrijfskunde van de Rijkuniversiteit Groningen. De enquête zal bestaan uit twee op zichzelf staande onderdelen en zal ongeveer 10 minuten van uw tijd in beslag nemen.
Voor u kunt beginnen wil ik nog benadrukken dat uw anonimiteit uiteraard gewaarborgd wordt en dat u op elk moment tijdens te enquête mag stoppen.
De enquête zal bestaan uit twee onderdelen. Als u nu wilt beginnen met de enquête, klik dan op ‘JA’. Wilt u toch niet verder, klik dan op ‘NEE’.
• JA
• NEE
Onderdeel 1: Uw mening
In dit onderdeel ben ik benieuwd naar uw mening over een bepaald product. U krijgt allereerst een scenario geschetst en daarna een advertentie van een horloge te zien.
U heeft onbeperkt de tijd om het scenario te lezen en de advertentie te bekijken.
Nadat u de advertentie heeft bekeken, zult u zes stellingen krijgen over het product.
Scenario
De Nederlandse juwelier Moments Jewelry heeft een nieuw product gelanceerd om hun 100-jarig bestaan te vieren. Ze hebben een nieuw horloge op de markt gebracht: één uitvoering voor mannen en één uitvoering voor vrouwen om zo al hun klanten te kunnen bereiken.
Hieronder vindt u de advertentie die bij het nieuwe horloge hoort. U heeft onbeperkt de tijd om de advertentie te bekijken. Daarna zult u zes stellingen krijgen met betrekking tot het nieuwe horloge.
Hieronder staan zes stellingen met betrekking tot het product op de advertentie. Klik op het cijfer dat bij uw antwoord hoort.
Vul alles in en geef maar één antwoord per stelling.
Totaal mee oneens
Compleet mee eens 1. Ik kan me goed voorstellen
dat ik het product zou kopen 1 2 3 4 5 6
2. Ik zou dit product aanraden aan mijn vrienden
1 2 3 4 5 6
3. Ik ben positief over het
product 1 2 3 4 5 6
4. Ik vind dit een leuk product 1 2 3 4 5 6
5. Ik vind dit een aanlokkelijk
product 1 2 3 4 5 6
6. Ik zou dit product liever hebben dan een vergelijkbaar ander product
1 2 3 4 5 6
Onderdeel 2: Achtergrondinformatie
Welkom bij het tweede, en laatste, onderdeel van deze enquête. In dit onderdeel zullen er een aantal vragen worden gesteld om meer te weten te komen over uw persoonlijke voorkeuren, uw opinies, hoe u in het leven staat en hoe u tegen dingen aankijkt. Houd er rekening mee dat er geen foute antwoorden zijn in dit onderdeel!
Probeer daarom zo eerlijk mogelijk antwoord te geven.
Geef aan in hoeverre u het eens of oneens bent met de volgende beweringen. Klik op het cijfer dat bij uw antwoord hoort.
Vul alles in en geef maar één antwoord per stelling.
Helema al mee oneens (1)
(2)
(3)
Weet ik niet/Niet van
toepassing (4)
(5)
(6)
Helemaal mee eens (7) 1. Vaak weet ik hoe
dingen aflopen
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Ik probeer te
begrijpen hoe ik in een situatie terecht ben gekomen om uit te vinden hoe daarmee om te gaan
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. Ik zie vaak wel een positieve kant in een moeilijke situatie
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. Ik geef niet eerder op dan dat ik mijn problemen heb opgelost
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. Ik maak vaak van tevoren een plan
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. Ik vermijd het
nemen van risico’s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. Toen ik opgroeide had ik een nauwe en warme band met mijn biologische moeder
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. Toen ik opgroeide had ik een nauwe en warme band met mijn biologische vader
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9. Ik heb een nauwe en warme band met mijn eigen kinderen
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10. Ik heb een nauwe
en warme romantische 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
relatie met mijn sekspartner
11. Ik heb liever één dan meerdere seksuele relaties op hetzelfde moment
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12. Ik moet eerst een hele goede relatie met iemand hebben
alvorens daarmee seks te hebben
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
13. Ik heb vaak sociaal contact met mijn familieleden
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
14. Ik krijg vaak emotionele steun en praktische hulp van mijn familieleden
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
15. Ik geef vaak emotionele steun en praktische hulp aan mijn familieleden
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
16. Ik heb vaak sociaal contact met mijn vrienden
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
17. Ik krijg vaak emotionele steun en praktische hulp van mijn vrienden
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
18. Ik geef vaak emotionele steun en praktische hulp aan mijn vrienden
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
19. Ik ben nauw verbonden met en betrokken bij mijn leefgemeenschap
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
20. Ik ben nauw verbonden met en betrokken bij mijn geloof(sgemeenschap)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
