Time scarcity promotions (e.g., “40% off for a limited time”) are mainstays of online retail marketing. Although positive effects of time scarcity promotions on consumer interest have been evidenced in the brick-and-mortar world, should retailers expect similarly robust effects online? The present research suggests the answer may be no. First, the authors report meta-analytic and experimental results suggesting that previously identified positive effects of time scarcity promotions observed offline may not emerge in online shopping contexts. Then, consistent with the prediction that online time scarcity promotions activate more persuasion knowledge than identical control promotions, the authors detail findings suggesting that providing retailer-exogeneous justifications for online time scarcity promotions’ time restriction (e.g., consumers’ birthdays, seasonal changes) can increase the potential of observing positive effects on consumer interest online. Further, results suggest that the positive effects of including exogenous time justification may be more likely when less time remains until the online promotion’s expiration. However, results stop short of suggesting that online time scarcity promotions will consistently yield superior outcomes compared with identical online control promotions. Therefore, the authors highlight the continued need for careful managerial use as well as further research examining the optimal translation of offline tactics to online retail.
AbendrothLisa J.DiehlKristin (2006), “Now or Never: Effects of Limited Purchase Opportunities on Patterns of Regret over Time,” Journal of Consumer Research, 33 (3), 342–51.
2.
AggarwalPraveenJunSung YoulHuhJong Ho (2011), “Scarcity Messages,” Journal of Advertising, 40 (3), 19–30.
3.
AggarwalPraveenVaidyanathanRajiv (2003), “Use It or Lose It: Purchase Acceleration Effects of Time-Limited Promotions,” Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 2 (4), 393–403.
4.
Aguirre-RodriguezAlexandra (2013), “The Effect of Consumer Persuasion Knowledge on Scarcity Appeal Persuasiveness,” Journal of Advertising, 42 (4), 371–79.
5.
BakerRosie (2013), “Daily Deals Market Cannot Stay as It Is,” Marketing Week (March 7), https://www.marketingweek.com/daily-deals-market-cannot-stay-as-it-is/.
6.
BeachDaniel A. (1989), “Identifying the Random Responder,” Journal of Psychology, 123 (1), 101–03.
7.
BrannonLaura A.BrockTimothy C. (2001), “Scarcity Claims Elicit Extreme Responding to Persuasive Messages: Role of Cognitive Elaboration,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27 (3), 365–75.
8.
CampbellMargaret C.KirmaniAmna (2000), “Consumers’ Use of Persuasion Knowledge: The Effects of Accessibility and Cognitive Capacity on Perceptions of an Influence Agent,” Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (1), 69–83.
9.
CannonChristopherGoldsmithKellyRouxCaroline (2019), “A Self-Regulatory Model of Resource Scarcity,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 29 (1), 104–27.
10.
CheemaAmarPatrickVanessa M. (2008), “Anytime Versus Only: Mind-Sets Moderate the Effect of Expansive Versus Restrictive Frames on Promotion Evaluation,” Journal of Marketing Research, 45 (4), 462–72.
11.
ChernevAlexanderBöckenholtUlfGoodmanJoseph (2015), “Choice Overload: A Conceptual Review and Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25 (2), 333–58.
12.
ChowdhuryTilottamaRatneshwarS.MohantyPraggyan (2009), “The Time-Harried Shopper: Exploring the Differences Between Maximizers and Satisficers,” Marketing Letters, 20 (2), 155–67.
13.
CialdiniRobert B. (1984), Influence. William Morrow and Company.
14.
CoulterKeith S.RoggeveenAnne (2012), “Deal or No Deal?” Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 6 (2), 78–95.
15.
DevlinJamesEnnewChristineMcKechnieSallySmithAndrew (2007), “A Study of Time Limited Price Promotions,” Journal of Product & Brand Management, 16 (4), 280–85.
16.
DiehlKristinKornishLaura J.LynchJohn G. (2003), “Smart Agents: When Lower Search Costs for Quality Information Increase Price Sensitivity,” Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (1), 56–71.
17.
Dotcom Distribution (2013), “Facebook Flash Sale Analysis Finds 49 Percent of Negative Comments Relate to Shipping,” Dotcom Distribution (May 16), https://dotcomdist.com/facebook-flash-sale-analysis-finds-49-percent-of-negative-comments-relate-to-shipping/.
18.
EisenbeissMaikWilkenRobertSkieraBerndCornelissenMarkus (2015), “What Makes Deal-of-the-Day Promotions Really Effective? The Interplay of Discount and Time Constraint with Product Type,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 32 (4), 387–97.
19.
EisendMartinTarrahiFarid (2022), “Persuasion Knowledge in the Marketplace: A Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 32 (1), 3–22.
20.
FriestadMarianWrightPeter (1994), “The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How People Cope with Persuasion Attempts,” Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (1), 1–31.
21.
GoldsmithKellyRouxCarolineWilsonAnne V. (2020), “Can Thoughts of Having Less Ever Promote Prosocial Preferences? The Relationship Between Scarcity, Construal Level, and Sustainable Product Adoption,” Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 5 (1), 70–82.
22.
GreenblottElliott (2019), “Too Good to be True? Avoid ‘Limited Time Offer’ Scam,” The Berkshire Eagle (June 7), https://www.berkshireeagle.com/business/too-good-to-be-true-avoid-limited-time-offer-scam/article_749e89e0-0ad7-569c-ae14-1daa93ddc094.html.
23.
GrewalDhruvPuccinelliNancyMonroeKent B. (2018), “Meta-Analysis: Integrating Accumulated Knowledge,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46 (1), 9–30.
24.
HamiltonRebeccaThompsonDeboraBoneSterlingChaplinLan NguyenGriskeviciusVladasGoldsmithKelly, et al. (2019), “The Effects of Scarcity on Consumer Decision Journeys,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47 (3), 532–50.
25.
HayesAndrew F. (2018), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. The Guilford Press.
HowardDaniel J.KerinRoger A. (2006), “Broadening the Scope of Reference Price Advertising Research: A Field Study of Consumer Shopping Involvement,” Journal of Marketing, 70 (4), 185–204.
InmanJ. JeffreyPeterAnil C.RaghubirPriya (1997), “Framing the Deal: The Role of Restrictions in Accentuating Deal Value,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (1), 68–79.
JaniszewskiChrisvan OsselaerStijn M.J. (2022), “Abductive Theory Construction,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 32 (1), 175–93.
32.
KahnemanDanielSibonyOliverSunsteinCass R. (2021), Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment. Little, Brown Spark.
33.
KimHyuksooChungJee YoungLeeMichael (2020), “Consumer’s Response to Time Restrictions: Role of Construal Level,” Journal of Marketing Communications, 26 (2), 207–28.
34.
KrishnanBalaji C.DuttaSujayJhaSubhash (2013), “Effectiveness of Exaggerated Advertised Reference Prices: The Role of Decision Time Pressure,” Journal of Retailing, 89 (1), 105–13.
35.
KristoffersonKirkMcFerranBrentMoralesAndrea C.DahlDarren W. (2017), “The Dark Side of Scarcity Promotions: How Exposure to Limited-Quantity Promotions Can Induce Aggression,” Journal of Consumer Research, 43 (5), 683–706.
36.
KuppensPeterTuerlinckxFrancisRussellJames A.BarrettLisa Feldman (2013), “The Relation Between Valence and Arousal in Subjective Experience,” Psychological Bulletin, 139 (4), 917–40.
37.
LeeSeung YunOhSangdoJungSunho (2018), “Influence of Scarcity Claims on Product Evaluation: The Role of Reversibility of Decision,” Social Behavior and Personality, 46 (2), 281–92.
38.
LynnMichael (1992), “Scarcity’s Enhancement of Desirability: The Role of Naive Economic Theories,” Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 13 (1), 67–78.
39.
McQuilkenLisaRobertsonNicholaPolonskyMichaelHarrisonPaul (2015), “Consumer Perceptions of Bundles and Time-Limited Promotion Deals: Do Contracts Matter?” Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 14 (3), 145–57.
40.
McShaneBlakeley B.BöckenholtUlf (2018), “Multilevel Multivariate Meta-Analysis with Application to Choice Overload,” Psychometrika, 83 (1), 255–71.
41.
McShaneBlakeley B.BöckenholtUlf (2019), “Meta-Analysis,” in Handbook of Research Methods in Consumer Psychology, KardesF.R.HerrP.M.SchwarzN., eds. Routledge, 403–16.
42.
McShaneBlakeley B.BöckenholtUlf (2020), “Enriching Meta-Analytic Models of Summary Data: A Thought Experiment and Case Study,” Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 3 (1), 81–93.
43.
McShaneBlakeley B.BöckenholtUlf (2022), “Meta-Analysis of Studies with Multiple Contrasts and Differences in Measurement Scales,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 32 (1), 23–40.
44.
McShaneBlakeley B.BöckenholtUlfHansenKarsten T. (2016), “Adjusting for Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis: An Evaluation of Selection Methods and Some Cautionary Notes,” Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11 (5), 730–49.
45.
MeentsSelmarVerhagenTibertMerikiviJaniWeltevredenJesse (2020), “Persuasive Location-Based Messaging to Increase Store Visits: An Exploratory Study of Fashion Shoppers,” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 57, 102174.
46.
NeissRob (1988), “Reconceptualizing Arousal: Psychobiological States in Motor Performance,” Psychological Bulletin, 103 (3), 345–66.
47.
NooneBreffni M.LinMichael S. (2020), “Scarcity-Based Price Promotions: How Effective are They in a Revenue Management Environment?” Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 44 (6), 883–907.
48.
O’DonnellMichaelDevAmelia S.AntonoplisStephenBaumStephen M.BenedettiArianna H.Derek BrownN., et al. (2021), “Empirical Audit and Review and an Assessment of Evidentiary Value in Research on the Psychological Consequences of Scarcity,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118 (44), e2103313118.
49.
RaiDipankarLinChien-Wei (Wilson)JirapornNapatsorn (2021), “The Impact of Scheduling Styles on Time-Limited Promotions: The Moderating Role of Redemption Frames,” Journal of Business Research, 135, 774–86.
50.
RosenbloomStephanie (2011), “Bargain Hunters, Hold That Click,” The New York Times (October 28), https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/fashion/bargain-hunters-hold-that-click.html.
51.
RouxCarolineGoldsmithKellyBonezziAndrea (2015), “On the Psychology of Scarcity: When Reminders of Resource Scarcity Promote Selfish (and Generous) Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (4), 615–31.
52.
SanciElissa (2020), “Early Black Friday Deals Have Moved Online, but They’re Still Not Worth the Stress,” The New York Times (October 23), https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/money/are-early-black-friday-deals-worth-stress-2020/.
53.
ShalevEdithMorwitzVicki G. (2013), “Does Time Fly When You’re Counting Down? The Effect of Counting Direction on Subjective Time Judgment,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23 (2), 220–27.
54.
SharmaArunStaffordThomas F. (2000), “The Effect of Retail Atmospherics on Customers’ Perceptions of Salespeople and Customer Persuasion: An Empirical Investigation,” Journal of Business Research, 49 (2), 183–91.
55.
ShenFeng (2016), “Information Congruity in Scarcity Appeal: A Structural Equation Modeling Study of Time-Limited Promotions,” Journal of Marketing Communications, 22 (2), 135–54.
56.
ShivBabaFedorikhinAlexander (1999), “Heart and Mind in Conflict: The Interplay of Affect and Cognition in Consumer Decision Making,” Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (3), 278–92.
57.
SongMyungkeunChoiSungwooMoonJoonho (2021), “Limited Time or Limited Quantity? The Impact of Other Consumer Existence and Perceived Competition on the Scarcity Messaging–Purchase Intention Relation,” Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 47, 167–75.
58.
SpangenbergEric A.CrowleyAyn E.HendersonPamela W. (1996), “Improving the Store Environment: Do Olfactory Cues Affect Evaluations and Behaviors?” Journal of Marketing, 60 (2), 67–80.
59.
SuriRajneeshKohliChiranjeevMonroeKent B. (2007), “The Effects of Perceived Scarcity on Consumers’ Processing of Price Information,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35 (1), 89–100.
60.
VallacherRobin R.WegnerDaniel (1989), “Levels of Personal Agency: Indiviudal Variation in Action Identification,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57 (4), 660–71.
61.
VerhallenTheo M.M.RobbenHenry S.J. (1994), “Scarcity and Preference: An Experiment on Unavailability and Product Evaluation,” Journal of Economic Psychology, 15 (2), 315–31.
62.
WangLiliYouYanfenYangChun-Ming (2020), “Restrained by Resources: The Effect of Scarcity Cues and Childhood Socioeconomic Status (SES) on Consumer Preference for Feasibility,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 37 (3), 557–71.
63.
WeathersDannySwainScott D.MakienkoIgor (2015), “When and How Should Retailers Rationalize the Size and Duration of Price Discounts?” Journal of Business Research, 68 (12), 2610–18.
64.
YalchRichard F.SpangenbergEric R (2000), “The Effects of Music in a Retail Setting on Real and Perceived Shopping Times,” Journal of Business Research, 49 (2), 139–47.
65.
ZhaoXinshuLynchJohn G.Jr.ChenQimei (2010), “Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and Truths about Mediation Analysis,” Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (2), 197–206.
66.
ZhaoMinXieJinhong (2011), “Effects of Social and Temporal Distance on Consumers’ Responses to Peer Recommendations,” Journal of Marketing Research, 48 (3), 486–96.
67.
ZhuMengRatnerRebecca K. (2015), “Scarcity Polarizes Preferences: The Impact on Choice Among Multiple Items in a Product Class,” Journal of Marketing Research, 52 (1), 13–26.
68.
ZhuMengYangYangHseeChristopher K. (2018), “The Mere Urgency Effect,” Journal of Consumer Research, 45 (3), 673–90.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
