THE BACKGROUND OF CONSUMPTION BEHAVIOR: THE ROLE OF CHILDHOOD HISTORY ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCARCITY AND CONSUMPTION

(1)

THE BACKGROUND OF CONSUMPTION BEHAVIOR:

THE ROLE OF CHILDHOOD HISTORY ON THE

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCARCITY AND CONSUMPTION

May 31st, 2018

Master Thesis, MSc Marketing, specialization Marketing Management University of Groningen

Faculty of Economics and Business

First supervisor: prof. dr. B.M. Fennis, University of Groningen

Second supervisor: S.A.E.G. (Sumaya) Albalooshi, PhD, University of Groningen

Thomas Jelmer Nijhof

Verzetsstrijderlaan 184, 9727 CK Groningen, The Netherlands +31 629299125

t.j.nijhof@student.rug.nl Student number 3266737

(2)

1

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this research is to investigate if the environment of childhood is susceptible to the influence of the principle of scarcity. Studies on the life history theory (LHT) have provided useful biological implications for explaining individual’s behavior, but not have been paired up with the scarcity appeal. At this stage, this research is the first to use different life history strategies (LHS) for explaining differences in consumption behavior while being exposed to the scarcity principle. Previous research has shown that the scarcity principle is a well-known marketing technique for increasing the desirability of products. More desirability leads to higher purchase and consumption behavior. This research provides a useful insight in the LHT implications by stating the main hypotheses as: what is the effect of scarcity on consumption behavior, do different types of LHS have other impacts on the consumption and does the relationship strengthen between scarcity and consumption behavior when individuals are adopting different LHS? An experiment was conducted to gather the information needed for proving the hypothesis. First, the experiment proves that scarcity has a significant effect on increasing the consumption behavior. Second, there was no significant effect to prove that individuals who enacted the fast strategy had a higher consumption behavior than individuals who enacted the slow strategy. Third, there was not enough evidence to infer that the LHS successfully moderates the relationship between scarcity and consumption behavior. This study provides further evidence that exposing an individual to the scarcity appeal has a positive impact on consumers’ consumption behavior. Although not all the effects can be justified, several actions could be considered for future research. For example, the use of a larger sample, doing the manipulation in a lab setting and the use of different resources for simulation of scarcity. These implications can provide the researcher with new results and push the subject and its implications further in the right direction.

Keywords: principle of scarcity, life history theory, life history strategy, fast, slow

(3)

2

INTRODUCTION

According to Fennis & Stroebe (2009), consumers often end up complying with a sales request because of social influence. One of the influence techniques used is called the scarcity appeal (e.g. only a few left). The appeal creates a feeling that people miss out in some way if they fail to hurry up obtaining the product. This results in many people rushing to get the product, because of the depletion of time, quantity or resources. Some people instantly focus on obtaining the resources, while others have the ability to wait. But what are the exact reasons why one person is more influenced by limited availability triggers such as “only a few left” or “last chance” than others, and why do we react differently to specific cues? How come that the desirability of a product increases while we initially not even were bothered with the product and its functions? Is our consumption behavior influenced because of exposure to these tactics? This influence technique is known as the scarcity principle. The scarcity principle is a long-used concept long-used by marketers to drive demand for “unavailable” products, in which value of products is higher due to limited availability. The reason for driving demand is that the lack of availability leads to a higher valuation of the product (Lynn, 1991). When a product is valued higher, its desirability increases (Brock, 1968; Verhaegen, 1982). Higher desirability increases the purchase intention due to the consumer need for uniqueness (Fromkin & Snyder, 1980). The need for uniqueness can be fulfilled by maximizing the number of resources that are present in their environment (Laran & Salerno, 2013) and, thus, eventually purchase and consume more.

Another theory that may explain impacts on consumption behavior is the life history theory. The LHT describes how the experiences in an individual’s childhood facilitate present decision making and behavior. According to Figueredo et al. (2014), every person must make tradeoffs in the division of the available resources. The division of these resources constitutes a plan to achieve all relevant goals in life. The plan to fulfill all relevant goals is called the life history strategy (LHS). There are two types of sub-strategies that stem from the LHS. The slow strategy reflects a more cautious, long-term approach, whereas a fast strategy reflects a more impulsive, short-term approach (Figueredo et al., 2014; Mittal & Griskevicius, 2014). The characteristics of the strategies can vary greatly and, thus, eventually have different effect on behavior and decision making.

(5)

4 situations later in adulthood. (Ellis, Figueredo, Brumbach & Schlomer, 2009) argue that the degree of unpredictability and the degree of harshness of the environment are the two most influential factors influencing the development of the LHS. A harsher environment leads people to adopt a fast strategy that is impulsive and pursues short-term benefits. In contrast, people that grew up in a more pleasant environment are more likely to adopt a slow strategy that is more reflective and pursues long-term benefit (Chisholm 1999; Daly and Wilson, 2005). Growing up in an environment in which access to resources is relatively uncertain promotes consumption whenever resources are available, regardless of the need. If the availability of resources in the future is uncertain, it motivates the person to consume as much as possible (DeJesus, 2017). Therefore, the degree of harshness and resource scarcity in people’s childhood lead to different strategies and, eventually, can influence consumption behavior later in life.

Since the scarcity appeal also can be perceived as an environmental indicator for the harshness of resources, both effects are comparable. Environmental harshness can form the foundation for an adopted LHS in the childhood, while scarcity can influence this LHS by displaying environmental harshness in the present.

The current paper aims to contribute in two ways. First, this research aims to provide further evidence for the relationship between scarcity and consumption. Second, the theory on the life history strategy will be hypothesized to have an effect on consumption behavior resulting from the scarcity influence technique. Up until now, the LHT have been used to explain human biological behavior, but not yet explains consumers’ consumption behavior. Therefore, this paper can be the first for combining the effects different LHS and scarcity have on consumption behavior and aims to function as a foundation for future implications and research regarding this subject.

(6)

5

1. LITERATURE REVIEW

In chapter one, section 1.1 provides the literature background of the constructs and describes the relations between scarcity, LHS and consumption behavior. This section aims to find the theoretical background of the relationships between. In section 1.2 the conceptual model and the constructs are discussed.

1.1.1 Scarcity

The basic definition of the term scarcity is provided by Cialdini (2006), who describes scarcity as something that has little appeal on its own merits and becomes decidedly more attractive when it will soon become unavailable. Additionally, Verhallen (1982) refers to scarcity as an effective marketing tool for further increasing the preference of customers. This is underlined by the well-known scarcity principle, which describes how products are perceived as more valuable to the consumer when limited (Brock, 1968; Cialdini, 1985; Homer-Dixon, 2010; Kahneman et al., 1991)

The implications for restricted quantities of offerings were researched by van Van Herpen, Pieters & Zeelenberg (2009), who described how scarcity is divided into two types. The first type is scarcity due to excessive demand, in which case the purchase behavior of others can influence a consumer into believing they need the product. The second type is scarcity due to insufficient supply, where the limited availability of offerings leads the consumer to believe that the product is of a high and exclusive value. This study focuses on scarcity due to insufficient supply because it provides the simplest way for simulating the scarcity appeal and is the most feasible means for manipulating scarcity in the experiment.

(7)

6 themselves, obtaining resources of limited availability creates the feeling of uniqueness because many others don’t have the same resources. The need to express uniqueness and distinctiveness translates to an increase of purchase and consumption of the offered product (Brock, 1968; Lynn, 1991). In sum, the theories provide evidence that scarcity is a highly effective method for increasing the consumption behavior. Therefore, the first hypothesis is proposed as follows:

H1: An increase of scarcity leads to an increase of the consumption behavior

1.1.2 The Life History Strategy

The LHT explains how natural selection and evolutionary forces shape persons to optimize survival and reproduction when facing challenges posed by the environment (Roff, 2002). The theory elaborates on how resources in the environment are allocated to various survival tasks such as growth, maintaining healthy (somatic effort) and rearing offspring (reproductive effort) (Charnov, 1993; Roff, 2002; Stearns, 1992). The allocation of resources and decision-making in LHT influences the aim of overcoming the next challenges in life. The chain of resource-allocation decisions reflects the development of life history traits; this collectively constitutes the individual’s life history strategy (Ellis et al., 2009). The division of these resources forms a plan to achieve all relevant goals in life. This plan is called the life history strategy.

LHS can be both fast and slow. Favoring somatic effort is a slow strategy, which results in later physical and sexual development, reflective decision-making, cautiousness, self-reliance, and long-term planning that delays immediate gratification to increase future payoffs (Figueredo et al., 2006). In contrast, the reproductive effort is linked with a fast strategy, which is associated with earlier physical and sexual development, short-term opportunism, taking of benefits with little regard to long-term consequences, quick decision-making, impulsiveness, following the herd, and seeking immediate rewards and gratification (Figueredo et al., 2014). Thus, both strategies have different key characteristics that facilitate behavioral decision making.

(8)

7 among adults to consume even when nourishment is not immediately needed (Hill, Prokosch, DelPriore, Griskevicius & Kramer, 2016). Although such behavior may have been adaptive in older environments, in modern environments it can set the stage for dysfunctional patterns of consumption. Moreover, even when individuals from low SES backgrounds improve their circumstances and transition into more stable environments, their faster LHS may persist, promoting a continued tendency to consume in the absence of resources (Maner et al., 2017). Therefore, the excitement is much more found infrequent consumption of food, even when the resources are limited. In contrast, slow strategists consume less because they do not have the same need as the fast strategist. They are able to postpone their needs and seek consumption that provides a much more long-term benefit. Thus, higher levels of consumption behavior are expected for fast strategies, because of their need for maximizing consumption searching for immediate excitement (Effron & Miller, 2010). Adding it all up, it leads to the following hypothesis:

H2: Individuals who are adopting the fast strategy have higher significant positive effect on consumption behavior than individuals who are adopting the slow strategy

(9)

8 Adding up to this, individuals who grew up in surroundings where resources were more widely available react to sudden resource scarcity by displaying less risky and impulsive behavior. Conversely, people who grew up in an environment with fewer resources available react by displaying more risk-seeking and impulsive behavior. The reason is that when such individuals are faced with immediate cues to uncertainty, their behavior becomes more impulsive. Since the causes of shorter life spans are harsh and unpredictable ecologies, it is evolutionarily adaptive for persons in such environments to enact faster strategies that have shorter-term pay-offs instead of long-term pay-outs (Chisholm et al., 1993; Griskevicius et al. 2013). The conditions associated with low socioeconomic status (SES) include uncertainty and resource scarcity, reflecting the type of harsh and unpredictable conditions that promote the development of fast LHS (DeJesus, 2017). In contrast, Janssen, Fennis & Pruyn (2010) argue that individuals who grew up in a high socioeconomic environment have more self-control will be less affected by heuristic cues when a making decision, and are, thus less sensitive to the scarcity principle.

Therefore, heuristic cues, such as a scarcity appeal, should result in both life history strategies reacting differently. It is expected that the fast strategist has a higher impact on the relationship between scarcity and consumption because their need for immediate consumption, based on childhood history, lines up with the effects of resource scarcity in the present (depletion of resources). Resources scarcity can be viewed as the lack of internal and external resources. In the scarcity principle, the consumer believes that the products have limited availability and, thus, are depleted in a sense as well. Therefore, resource scarcity of the environment and the scarcity principle have the same purpose and effect. Resource scarcity in the childhood is found to result in choosing for immediate gratification. Scarcity in a present situation will most likely result in choosing immediate gratification as well. Thus, exposure in the present environment will most likely trigger the same response and can speed up the strategy adopted. As resource scarcity in people’s childhood leads to adopting a fast strategy, it is expected that scarcity in resources will create a stronger response in terms of consumption behavior. Therefore, the hypothesis is proposed as follows:

H3: The LHS successfully moderates the relationship between scarcity and consumption behavior, whereas compared to a slow LHS strategy, a fast LHS will intensify the positive effect scarcity has on consumption behavior

(10)

9

1.2 Conceptual model

Figure 1. Conceptual model

1.2.1 Constructs

(11)

10

2. METHODOLOGY

In chapter two, section 2.1 describes the design of the experiment. Section 2.2 elaborates on the procedure of the experiment. Section 2.3 describes how the participants are manipulated in the experiment. In section 2.4, the reliability and measurement of the dependent variable, moderator, and covariates is discussed.

2.1 Design

In this study, 100 people between 16 and 59 years old (59 male, 41 female; Mage = 23.20 years, SD = 7.613) were asked to participate in an experiment where they would answer several questions regarding personality traits and consumption. This research is based on an experimental form that measures the level of consumption behavior and makes inferences about scarcity and the participant’s LHS strategy. This study used a 2 (scarcity “yes” vs. scarcity “no”) x 2 (life history strategy “slow” vs. life history strategy “fast”) between subjects’ factorial design. This design compares the effect 4 different combinations of possible conditions have on the consumption behavior of the individual. An overview of all conditions is displayed in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Conditions

(12)

11

2.2 Procedure

The examiner approached different students on the Zernike complex to investigate their personality traits and evaluate their consumption behavior. In this study, participants were approached on different days and over multiple sessions. While approaching, the examiner asked whether participants were interested to help him. Most of the potential participants were interested and willing to participate in the study. In the beginning, the only thing that the examiner mentioned were basic instructions. Those basic instructions explained that the participant had to fill in a questionnaire about their personality traits and consume food. The instructions also explained that this study was for an MSc. thesis at the University of Groningen. No further information was given to avoid bias when answering the questions.

After the instructions, the participants were randomly assigned to either the treatment or control group. In the treatment group, the goal was to expose the participant to food scarcity due to the inclusion of special grapes with limited availability from a specialty store. In contrast, the control group was in a neutral situation that lacked scarcity; the participant received normal grapes from the supermarket.

The study consisted out of two parts. In the first part, the scarcity manipulation was done by description of the product. In the second part, the participant had to fill in the questionnaire regarding the personality traits.

The scarcity manipulation was performed in the first part of the experiment based on the study by Laran & Salerno (2013). This study emphasizes how desirability increases when a product and environment are perceived as scarce by adding words that induce limited availability. The students who volunteered to participate were given a plastic bowl with 10 grapes in it while being simultaneously asked to fill in the questionnaire. Assignment of conditions was randomly determined. After the participants were given the bowl, the participant received a paper with product information about grapes. In the scarcity manipulation, the examiner described scarcity with 4 terms that induced limited availability of resources: small, lacking, specialty store and limited available. In the group with no manipulation, the description of the grapes had no triggers that induced scarcity.

(13)

12 In both conditions, the box of grapes was also displayed near the participant. In the scarcity condition, the box’s label stated, “limited available,” whereas in the no scarcity condition, the box displayed the same label but without the “limited available” term. The goal of displaying the box near the participant was to further strengthen the exposure to scarcity. The description and label could lead the participant to perceive the grapes as scarce. The participants were allowed to eat as many grapes as desired during the fulfillment of all the questions.

After reading the main characteristics of the grapes, the participant received the questionnaire. The questions in the questionnaire described personality traits such as LHS, dispositional attitude measurement, behavior inhibition system/ behavior approach system, socioeconomic status, age, and gender.

Once participants were finished with filling in the questionnaire and felt that they had eaten enough, they were asked to return the bowl of grapes. After the participant completed their forms, they were debriefed and thanked for their participation. Once each participant had left, the consumed grapes were subtracted from the initial amount to measure how much the participant had eaten and to determine the consumption behavior as influenced by the scarcity appeal.

2.3 Manipulation check

A form of the manipulation check for scarcity as proposed by Laran & Salerno (2003) was used to determine whether the effect of resource availability was strong enough to measure further consumption behavior.

Scarcity vs. Neutral condition

(14)

13 1. Treatment group

Figure 4. Treatment group description

2. Control group

Figure 5. Control group description

(15)

14 After the experiment, consumption was checked to see if it was higher when exposed to the scarcity appeal. The independent samples’ t-test produced a result of t(97.778) = -4.890, p < .001. Because the p-value was lower than the threshold value of p = .05, the analysis indicated that the scarcity manipulation was strong enough to measure the effects of further analysis.

2.4 Measurement of the variables

2.4.1 Reliability

For analyzing whether the items were measured at the right scales, a reliability analysis was conducted. The measure used was the Cronbach’s Alpha. For successful validation, an Alpha of at least  = 0.6 was needed to prove the measures were reliable enough for further analysis. The factors scarcity and consumption behavior were not suitable for this analysis because they were measured differently.

2.4.2 Dependent variable, Moderator and Covariates

1. Dependent variable

To measure the consumption behavior of the participant, the examiner counted the difference between the initial number of grapes (10) and the remaining grapes post-experiment. Differences in consumption between the treatment- and control group were noted.

2. Moderator

The moderator was measured by the scale called the Mini-K by Figueredo et al. (2014). These items measured differences among complementary facets of the LHS and further calculated which strategy the participant was adopting. The questions that were asked after the manipulation has been done and were answered on a 7-point Likert scale (1= Disagree strongly, 7= Agree strongly). Statements include: “I can often tell how things will turn out” and “I avoid taking risks”. The full list of items can be found in Appendix A. These indicators measure differences among complementary facets of the LHS and can further indicate whether the participant is a slow or fast strategist.

(16)

15 To determine which type of LHS strategy was adopted, a new variable had to be created before it could be used as a moderator in the ANOVA. By calculating the median for the LHS the variable could be dichotomized. The median value of all the Mini-K scores determined what type of strategy the participant was adopting. The median value was 5.3. Therefore, the participant who had a lower score than 5.3 adopted a fast strategy, while higher than 5.3 meant the participant was adopting a fast strategy. Therefore, respondents with a ≤5.3 were categorized as fast strategist, while ≥5.3 where categorized as slow strategist. After categorization, the variable was ready for further analysis.

3. Covariates

This study controlled for the potential influence on consumption behavior that covariates such as age, gender, behavior inhibition system, behavior attitude system, socioeconomic status, and dispositional attitude measurement may have had. All the items for measuring the covariates can be found in Appendix A.

(17)

16 Likert scale (1 = extremely unfavorable, 7 = extremely favorable). The Cronbach’s alpha was ( = .718, N = 16).

Hence, all the covariates passed the threshold value of at least  = 0.6 and were suitable for measuring the possible effects they had on consumption behavior. The possible effect of the covariates will be discussed in Chapter 3.

3. RESULTS

In chapter 3, section 3.1 describes if the ANOVA have found evidence for proving the hypotheses. Section 3.2 describes ANOVA effect including the covariates. In section 3.3, theoretical and managerial implications are provided. Section 3.4. will discuss the limitations and provide suggestions for future research.

3.1 Main effect

For analysing the main effect of scarcity on consumption behavior, a 2(scarcity vs. no scarcity) x 2(fast vs. slow) between-subjects ANOVA was conducted. The main (Hypothesis 1) effect proved to be significant. The direct (Hypothesis 2) and moderating (Hypothesis 3) effect did not produce enough evidence to infer a relationship.

(18)

17 Figure 7. Results Scarcity/No Scarcity/Fast/Slow on consumption behavior

3.2 Covariates

To check if potential other factors possibly influenced the three relationships discussed, a between-subjects ANCOVA analysis was run five times in order to guarantee that all the effects have been controlled for. In the five ANCOVA’s, each covariate was run separately.

3.2.1. Age

The results revealed that the age (M = 23.20, SD = 7.613) did not have significant effect on the consumption behavior of the individual F(1, 95) = 3.20, p = .077. Therefore, including the covariate age did not have an effect on the outcome of the results.

3.2.2 Gender

The results revealed that the gender (M = 1.41, SD = .494) of the individual did not have a significant effect on the consumption behavior F(1, 95) = .001, p = .974. Therefore, including the covariate gender did not have an effect on the outcome of the results.

3.2.3 Socioeconomic status (SES)

(19)

18 3.2.4 Behavior Inhibition System/ Behavior Approach System (BIS/BAS)

The results revealed that the bis/bas (M = 2.95, SD = .260) of the individual did not have a significant effect on the consumption behavior F(1, 95) = .620, p = .433. Therefore, including the covariate bis/bas did not have an effect on the outcome of the results.

3.2.5 Dispositional Negativity (DAM)

The results revealed that the dam (M = 1.41, SD = .761) of the individual did not have a significant effect on the consumption behavior F(1, 95) = 0.66, p = .798. Therefore, including the covariate dam did not have an effect on the outcome of the results.

3.2.6 Conclusion

Therefore, none of the covariates had a significant influence on the outcome of the results. All the covariates had p-values that were higher than the threshold of p = .05. Since all the covariates were not significant, none of the covariates had to be included for further auxiliary analysis.

3.3 Discussion

(20)

19 Figure 8. Overview of evidence per hypothesis

3.3.1 Theoretical implications

This research confirms that potential losses and gains of resources increase the desirability and positively influence the behavior associated with the effect between scarcity and consumption. As stated in the commodity theory (Brock, 1968), an increase in scarcity leads to an increase of desirability. Additionally, the possibility of individually transferring the good from the one person to another had a positive impact on the consumption behavior. The results of this study scientifically underline and support the main principles of the existing studies on the effects of scarcity on consumption behavior, which results in further evidence for justifying the relationship.

(21)

20 evidence to safely assume that the LHS has a negative influence on the relationship between both scarcity and consumption.

3.3.2 Managerial implications

The research confirms that the most direct effect of scarcity is an increase in the demand for a product. This increases the tendency to purchase and results in a higher willingness to consume (Fuchs, Prandelli & Schneider, 2010). Therefore, the results of this study provide valuable results that can be used in marketing tactics for a product. For example, managers could advertise products with cues that indicate scarcity (“nearly sold out”, “limited available”) as part of their advertising technique. As a result, consumers are most likely unsure of the product’s value, they may rely on information which is presented. This can result in the adoption of popular bandwagon effect of copying others behavior (e.g. purchase and consumption) (Van Herpen et al., 2009)

Another important insight is that the results of this research can be considered as a useful insight for further progressive steps to prove that the childhood history might influence the effect the scarcity principle has on consumption behavior. By creating awareness of the implications different LHS have, consumers might become more resistant to exposure to the scarcity principle.

3.4 Limitations and future research

3.4.1 Limitations

(22)

21 in the description and the label of the grapes as being of limited availability to a scarcity situation. The analysis was conducted on the assumption that the participant perceived the cues as scarcity. Third, the control question was not filled in correctly, because the participants interpreted the question to be an error in the questionnaire. This was discovered in the later stages of the experiment. Therefore, in the future, the question should be “In order to determine if you still pay attention, please fill in Very True.”

3.4.2 Future research

As discussed, this study has several limitations. However, considering the implications of these limitations and overcoming these, could help making future research turn around the insignificant results due to limitations into more significant results.

First, the results can differ and may be improved by increasing the number of participants. This sample only contained 100 participants, which may not be representative for measuring the effects. In future research, more participants may provide enough evidence to infer the LHS and consumption behavior. Second, the validity of the manipulation would be more assured if the research is conducted in a lab setting. In the setting used in this experiment, the participant would be less exposed to priming for food-related actions and behavior. Most of the experiment was conducted in places where food was widely available. This could lead that the scarcity cue of the experiment was not experienced as a trigger and had no significant influence on consumption behavior as supposed to. Third, although the effect proved not to be significant enough, an unexpected finding of this study was the fact that fast and slow strategist consumed nearly the same when confronted with scarcity. Future research should use unhealthy food as trigger for consumption because unhealthy food is more consumed by individuals who are adopting the fast strategy. This could lead to differences in consumption behavior when confronted with scarcity, whereas it can be expected that consumption behavior for slow strategist is higher due to the inclusion of healthy products as trigger. In contrast, if unhealthy food is used for manipulation, it can be expected that consumption for fast strategist is higher.

3.4.3 Conclusion

(23)

(24)

23

REFERENCES

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). New York: Academic Press.

Brumbach, B. H., Figueredo, A. J., & Ellis, B. J. (2009). Effects of harsh and unpredictable environments in adolescence on development of life history strategies. Human Nature, 20(1), 25-51.

Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 319-333.

Charnov, E. L. (1993). Life history invariants: Some explorations of symmetry in evolutionary ecology. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Chen, E., & Miller, G. E. (2012). “Shift-and-persist” strategies: Why low socioeconomic status isn’t always bad for health. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(2), 135-158.

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.

Chisholm, J. S., Ellison, P. T., Evans, J., Lee, P. C., Lieberman, L. S., Pavlik, Z., ... & Worthman, C. M. (1993). Death, hope, and sex: Life-history theory and the development of reproductive strategies [and comments and reply]. Current anthropology, 34(1), 1-24.

Chisholm , J. S. 1999 . Attachment and time preference: Relations between early stress and sexual behaviour in a sample of American university women. Human Nature 10 : 51 – 83 . Cialdini, R. B. (1985). Influence: Science and practice. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Cialdini, R. B. (2006), Influence (rev): The Psychology of Persuasion, New York, NY: HarperCollins.

(25)

24 DeJesus, J. M. (2017). Implicit attitudes, eating behavior, and the development of obesity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40.

Effron, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (2011). Diffusion of entitlement: an inhibitory effect of scarcity on consumption. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(2), 378-383.

Ellis, B. J., Figueredo, A. J., Brumbach, B. H., & Schlomer, G. L. (2009). The impact of harsh versus unpredictable environments on the evolution and development of life history strategies. Human Nature, 20(2), 204-268.

Fennis, B., & Stroebe, W. 2016. The psychology of advertising. London: Routledge.

Figueredo, A. J., Wolf, P. S. A., Olderbak, S. G., Gladden, P. R., Fernandes, H. B. F., Wenner, C., ... & Hohman, Z. J. (2014). The psychometric assessment of human life history strategy: A meta-analytic construct validation. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 8(3), 148. Fromkin, H. L., & Snyder, C. R. (1980). The search for uniqueness and valuation of scarcity. In Social exchange (pp. 57-75). Springer, Boston, MA.

Fuchs, C., Prandelli, E., & Schreier, M. (2010). The psychological effects of empowerment strategies on consumers' product demand. Journal of Marketing, 74(1), 65-79.

Griskevicius, V., Tyber, J.M. & Robertson, T.E. (2011): Environmental contingency in Life History Strategies: The influence of mortality and Socioeconomic status on Reproductive timing

Griskevicius, V., Ackerman, J. M., Cantú, S. M., Delton, A. W., Robertson, T. E., Simpson, J. A., ... 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. DOI: 10.1177/0956797612451471

Hepler, J., Albarracin, D. (2013) Attitudes without objects: Evidence for a dispositional attitude, its measurement, and its consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 104(6), pp1060-1076

Hill, S. E., Prokosch, M. L., DelPriore, D. J., Griskevicius, V., & Kramer, A. (2016). Low childhood socioeconomic status promotes eating in the absence of energy need. Psychological Science, 27(3), 354-364.

(26)

25 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.

Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1991). Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic perspectives, 5(1), 193-206.

Laran, J., & Salerno, A. (2013). Life-history strategy, food choice, and caloric consumption. Psychological Science, 24(2), 167-173.

Lynn, M. (1991). Scarcity effects on value: A quantitative review of the commodity theory literature. Psychology & Marketing, 8(1), 43-57

Maner, J. K., Dittmann, A., Meltzer, A. L., & McNulty, J. K. (2017). Implications of life-history strategies for obesity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(32), 8517-8522. Mittal, C., & 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.

Neleman, T. (ter perse). The effect of scarcity and stress on consumption MSc Thesis, 8-12 Retrieved from http://scripties.feb.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/MScMA/2018/jwien/Thesis_2 512203.pdf

Roff, D. A. (2002). Life history evolution. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.

Roy, R., & Sharma, P. (2015). Scarcity appeal in advertising: exploring the moderating roles of need for uniqueness and message framing. Journal of Advertising, 44(4), 349-359.

Stearns, S. C. (1992). The evolution of life histories. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Van Herpen, E., Pieters, R., & Zeelenberg, M. (2009). When demand accelerates demand: Trailing the bandwagon. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(3), 302-312.

Verhallen, T. M. (1982). Scarcity and consumer choice behavior. Journal of Economic Psychology, 2(4), 299-322.

(27)

(28)

27

APPENDICES

A. Details of the experiment

I. Participants, Setting and Time

Participants:

• Minimum age of 16 • Fluent in English

• Availability of time and willingness for conducting the experiment

Setting:

• Duisenberg building, Zernike Complex, Groningen • Van Olst tower, Zernike Complex, Groningen

Time

• Weekdays, between 9am – 4pm

II. Cover story

The participants were told that they were part of a study for the University of Groningen. They were instructed that they would fill in a series of question and, in the meanwhile, consume.

III. Manipulation

1. The independent variable: Scarcity

The scarcity manipulation was performed based on a study by Laran & Salerno (2013). This study emphasizes how desirability increases when a product is perceived as scarce by adding words that induce limited availability. The students who volunteered to participate were given a plastic bowl with 10 grapes. After giving them the bowl, they received a form with product information. This product information described a text with scarcity, or not. Once done with reading, they received the questionnaire and may fill in the questionnaire. Assignment of conditions were randomly determined. After the participants were given the bowl, they received a separate form with the characteristics of the grapes.

2. Scarcity condition

(29)

28 the specialty store. The description mentioned 4 terms that induced scarcity: small periods, lacking, specialty stores and limited available. These words should lead the participant to perceive the grapes as scarce. The form in the non-scarcity condition explained that the grapes were normal and from the supermarket. In both conditions, a box of the grapes was also displayed near the participant. In the scarcity condition, the box’s label had a “limited available,” term on it. The box forms an extra trigger for making the distinction between scarcity and no scarcity.

3. Neutral condition

The form in the neutral condition explained that the grapes were widely available and retrieved from a supermarket. The description mentioned 4 terms that induced widely available resources. In the neutral condition, the box displayed the same label but without the “limited available” phrase.

4. Moderator: Life history strategy

The participant had to fill in 20 items in order to successfully determine the strategy. These indicators measure differences among complementary facets of the LHS and can further indicate whether the participant is a slow or fast strategist. These questions were asked after the experiment had been conducted and were answered on a 7-point Likert scale. All the items combined calculated a score, which indicated if the participant was adopting a fast or slow strategy.

5. The dependent variable: Consumption behavior

The measurement of the consumption behavior was done by the examiner counted the difference between the initial number of grapes (10) and the remaining grapes post-experiment. Differences in consumption between the treatment- and control group were noted.

6. Covariates

- Age - Gender

- Socioeconomic status (Chen & Miller, 2012)

(30)

29 7. Manipulation description & Labels

(31)

(32)

31

B. Measurement variables

INDEPENDENT & DEPENDENT VARIABLE

(33)

(34)

(35)

34 Introduction text:

Dear participant,

Thank you for participating in this research! In this study, a few questions will be asked about getting an indication of your personality traits regarding different psychological subjects. This survey should take 5 - 10 minutes. In total, the survey is used for one study, whereas the results will be processed in a MSc thesis of the University of Groningen, Faculty Economics and Business. Your personal info will not be shared, and all of your responses are anonymous. Keep in mind: There are no right or wrong answers!

Kind regards,

Thomas Nijhof

(36)

35 1. Moderator 1. Items of the LHS Disagree strongly Disagree somewhat Disagree slightly Don’t know/ Not applicable Agree slightly Agree somewhat Agree strongly

1. I can often tell how things will turn out.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. I try to understand how I got into a situation to figure out how to handle it

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3. I often find the bright side to a bad situation.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4. I don’t give up until I solve my problems.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5. I often make plans in advance.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6. I avoid taking risks. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7. While growing up, I had a close and warm relationship with my biological mother.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8. While growing up, I had a close and warm relationship with my biological father.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9. I have a close and warm relationship with my own children.

(37)

36 10. I have a close and

romantic relationship with my sexual partner.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

11. I would rather have one than several sexual relationships at the time. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12. I must be closely attached to someone before I am

comfortable having sex with them.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

13. I am often in social contact with my blood relatives.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

14. I often get

emotional support and practical help from my blood relatives.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

15. I often give

emotional support and practical help to my blood relatives. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16. I am often in social contact with my friends. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 17. I often get

emotional support and practical help from my friends.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

18. I often give

emotional support and

(38)

37 practical help to my friends. 19. I am closely connected to and involved in my community. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 20. I am closely connected to and involved in my region. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. Items of the DAM

(39)

38

14. Japan 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

15. Taxes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

16. Taxidermy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3. Items of the BIS/BAS

Very false Somewhat false for me

Somewhat true for me

Very true

1. A person's family is the most important thing in life.

1 2 3 4

2. Even if something bad is about to happen to me, I rarely experience fear or nervousness.

1 2 3 4

3.I go out of my way to get things I want.

1 2 3 4

4.When I'm doing well at something I love to keep at it.

1 2 3 4

Please fill in: "Very true" 1 2 3 4

5. I'm always willing to try something new if I think it will be fun.

1 2 3 4

6. How I dress is important to me.

(40)

39 7. When I get something I

want, I feel excited and energized.

1 2 3 4

8. Criticism or scolding hurts me quite a bit.

1 2 3 4

9. When I want something I usually go all-out to get it.

1 2 3 4

10. I will often do things for no other reason than that they might be fun.

1 2 3 4

11. It's hard for me to find the time to do things such as get a haircut.

1 2 3 4

12. If I see a chance to get something I want I move on it right away.

1 2 3 4

13. I feel pretty worried or upset when I think or know somebody is angry at me.

1 2 3 4

14. When I see an

opportunity for something I like I get excited right away.

1 2 3 4

15. I often act on the spur of the moment.

1 2 3 4

16. If I think something unpleasant is going to

(41)

40 happen I usually get pretty

"worked up."

17. I often wonder why people act the way they do.

1 2 3 4

18. When good things happen to me, it affects me strongly.

1 2 3 4

19. I feel worried when I think I have done poorly at something important.

1 2 3 4

20. I crave excitement and new sensations.

1 2 3 4

21. When I go after something I use a "no holds barred" approach.

1 2 3 4

22. I have very few fears compared to my friends.

1 2 3 4

23. It would excite me to win a contest.

1 2 3 4

24. I worry about making mistakes.

(42)

41 4. Items of the SES

Disagree strongly Disagree somewhat Disagree slightly Don’t know/Not applicable Agree slightly Agree somewhat Agree strongly 1. When I was young, my family usually had enough money. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. I grew up in a relatively wealthy neighbourhood. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. I felt more enlightened than most children with me at school.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4. I have enough money to buy what I want.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5. I do not have to worry too much about paying bills.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6. I speak fluent Dutch.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7. I probably do not have to worry about money in the future.

(43)

42 5. Items of the Age

What is your age?

………

6. Items of the Gender

What is your gender? O Male

O Female

O Other

Outro text

Dear participant,

Thank you for filling in the survey! Again, your answers will be processed anonymously. If you are interested in the results of the survey; please fill in your mail and the results will be sent when the research is finished. Your mail will not be used for other purposes than this study.

Kind regards,

Thomas Nijhof

Mail:

(44)

43

C. Sample questionnaires

(45)

(46)

(47)

(48)

(49)

(50)

(51)

(52)

(53)

(54)

(55)

(56)

(57)

THE BACKGROUND OF CONSUMPTION BEHAVIOR: THE ROLE OF CHILDHOOD HISTORY ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCARCITY AND CONSUMPTION