Consumer Research Insights: Scarcity, Bundling & Brand Rejection

Introduction

Certain assumptions about consumer choice seem obvious to a naive observer — namely, that consumers will inevitably prefer cheaper products over more expensive ones, and more products rather than fewer. However, psychological research suggests that common sense does not always hold true when it comes to market research, hence the need for companies to invest in obtaining such findings to improve the use of scarce money and time when seeking to reach the public. This paper presents a review of three peer-reviewed articles in the field of consumer research on human subjects, each of which provides further nuance to the study of consumption habits.

Scarcity and Nonconsumption: How Absence Shapes Desire

According to Dai and Fishbach (2014), although the presence of products can stimulate the desire to consume, so can the absence of such products. If "absence makes the heart grow fonder" in the case of romance, the same can be said of consumer goods. One of the central questions asked in their research was: "When a product becomes temporarily unavailable, does desire for it increase or decrease over time?" (Xianchi & Fishbach, 2014, p. 938). A survey of 105 undergraduate students at the Chinese University of Hong Kong studying abroad, who completed an online study on food consumption, yielded the finding that the length of time spent away from favorite foods — coupled with a lack of acceptable substitutes — increased the salience of the absent items (Xianchi & Fishbach, 2014, p. 939). A study of Jewish people keeping kosher over Passover found that the desire for substitutes increased markedly with the duration of the absence of the forbidden food, and that the presence of salient substitutes decreased the overall desire for forbidden foods (Xianchi & Fishbach, 2014, p. 941).

Another study required participants to abstain from Facebook for the duration of the experiment and determined that desire increased in the face of the absence of acceptable substitutes. Ultimately, the researchers concluded that duration of nonconsumption and the presence of substitutes were the critical factors influencing desire: "In the absence of substitutes, longer nonconsumption increases desire (including missing, liking, and consumption intention), whereas in the presence of salient substitutes, longer nonconsumption decreases desire" (Xianchi & Fishbach, 2014, p. 948). These findings carry critical implications for marketers. For products without substitutes of comparable value, artificially induced scarcity could boost consumption — for example, through seasonal rationing of products. For products with many substitutes, however, a shortage could result in permanently decreased demand due to a shift toward substitute goods.

Bundled vs. Single Offerings and Variety-Seeking Behavior

In another study involving human subjects, Mittleman et al. (2014) found that the presentation of goods in a bundle had a material impact on the items chosen by consumers. Overall, "variety seeking actually increases as choices move from broader brackets (bundled offerings) to narrower brackets (single offerings) … The offer framing effect suggests that the bare arrangement of products, and consequently, whether consumers have to perform one or multiple choice acts when choosing multiple items, impacts the decisions they make" (Mittleman, 2014, p. 958). In a study of 289 participants given a choice between single and bundled soft drinks, participants were much more likely to seek variety when offered a single choice versus when they were presented with the option of choosing a combination of two soft drinks in a bundle (Mittleman, 2014, p. 957). A similar experiment with candy bars yielded the same result: participants were more likely to choose different candy bars when offered the bars singly than when they were bundled.

The researchers also conducted an experiment to determine whether items consumed as a whole versus sequentially had the same influence upon consumer choice. Flowers and candy were used as test stimuli, and the researchers found once again that presentation had a distinct effect on consumption patterns. "Participants preferred a greater variety of flowers when they composed a bouquet than when they chose a preassembled bouquet" (Mittleman, 2014, p. 959). This suggests that when presenting bundled products, marketers should focus less on variety than when presenting single offers. Variety becomes more important when consumers are offered autonomy over their choices — such as when selecting offerings at a salad bar or ice cream counter versus choosing a single pre-packaged item.

Conclusion

All three studies reviewed here demonstrate that psychological research consistently overturns naive assumptions about consumer choice. Whether through the strategic use of product scarcity, the deliberate framing of bundled versus single offerings, or the counterintuitive effect of salesperson aloofness on luxury brand desire, these findings offer marketers actionable insights that common sense alone would fail to predict. Continued investment in consumer research on human subjects remains essential for companies seeking to allocate resources effectively in competitive markets.

References

Middleman, M., Andrade, E. B., Chattopadhyay, A., & Brendl, C. M. (2014). The offer framing effect: Choosing single vs. bundled offerings affects variety seeking. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(4), 953–964. doi:10.1086/678193

Ward, M. K., & Dahl, D. W. (2014). Should the devil sell Prada? Retail rejection increases aspiring consumers' desire for the brand. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(3), 590–609.

Xianchi, D., & Fishbach, A. (2014). How nonconsumption shapes desire. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(4), 936–952. doi:10.1086/678302