Scarcity
People seem to be more motivated by the thought of losing something than the thought of gaining something of equal value. Homeowners told how much money they could lose from inadequate insulation are more likely to insulate their homes than those told how much money they could save (“Increasing the Effectiveness of Energy Auditors,” 1988). Pamphlets urging women to check for breast cancer are significantly more successful if they state their case in terms of what stands to be lost rather than gained (“The Effect of Message Framing on Breast Self-Examination Attitudes, Intentions, and Behavior,” 1987).
One reason for the potency of the scarcity principle is that, by following it, we are usually and efficiently right (“Scarcity Effects on Desirability,” Wm Michael Lynn, 1989).
When increasing scarcity – or anything else – interferes with our prior access to some item we will want and try to possess the item more than before (”Psychological Reactance and the Attractiveness of Unattainable Objects,” Sharon Brehm, 1981).
In one study, boys (averaging 24 months in age) accompanied their mothers into a room containing two equally attractive toys. The toys were always arranged so that one stood next to a transparent Plexiglas barrier and the other stood behind the barrier. For some of the boys, the Plexiglas sheet formed no real barrier to the toy behind it, since the boys could easily reach over the top. For the other boys, the Plexiglas was higher, effectively blocking their access to one toy unless they went around the barrier. When the barrier was too short to restrict access to the toy behind it, the boys showed no special preference for either of the toys; on the average, the toy next to the barrier was touched just as quickly as the one behind it. When the barrier was high enough to be a true obstacle, the boys went directly to the obstructed toy, making contact with it 3 times faster than with the unobstructed toy. (“Physical barriers and psychological reactance,” 1977)
(Girls in the study did not show the same resistant response to the large barrier as did the boys. It appears that girls are primarily reactant to restrictions that come from other people rather than from physical barriers.)
Almost invariably, our response to the banning of information is a greater desire to receive that information and a more favorable attitude toward it than before the ban. (“Censorship as an Attitude Change Induction,” by Richard D. Ashmore; “The Effects of Censorship and Attractiveness of the Censor on Attitude Change,” by Stephen Worchel, etc.; “The Effect of Censorship on Attitude Change”; and “Beyond a Commodity Theory Analysis of Censorship”)
A judge’s declaration of inadmissibility may lead jurors to use the evidence to a greater extent (“The University of Chicago Jury Project”).
We find a piece of information more persuasive if we think we can’t get it elsewhere (”A Commodity Theory Analysis of Persuasion” and “Liberalization of Commodity Theory”).
In an customer-preference study by Stephen Worchel, a cookie apparently in short supply was rated as more desirable to eat in the future, more attractive as a consumer item, and more costly than the identical cookie in abundant supply. By manipulating the number of cookies in the cookie jar, Worchel also showed that a drop from abundance to scarcity produced a decidedly more positive reaction to the cookies than did constant scarcity. (“Effects of supply and demand on ratings of objective value”)
According to James C. Davies, we are most likely to find revolutions where a period of improving economic and social conditions is followed by a short, sharp reversal. From 1940 to the mid-‘50s, the family income of American black families compared to comparably educated white families rose from 56% to 80%. By 1962, however, it had fallen to 62%, and rioting followed. (“The J-Curve of Rising and Declining Satisfaction as a Course of Some Great Revolutions and a Contained Revolution” and “Toward a Theory of Revolution”)
Influence, Robert B. Cialdini, Ph.D.