Many marketing communications, from verbal conversations to messaging and content sharing via apps such as Snapchat, limit the number of times people can view content. How do such restrictions affect consumers’ information processing? Building on the proposition that people strategically allocate cognitive resources, the authors hypothesize that consumers of content that cannot be viewed repeatedly consider the risk of failing to process it sufficiently and, consequently, allocate more cognitive resources to its processing (e.g., by increasing viewing time). The authors test this hypothesis in ten preregistered online studies (total N = 17,620), an exploratory analysis of eye-tracking data, and a field study on Facebook's advertising platform. Across the studies, they find that making content ephemeral elevates consumers’ perceived risk of missing information; consequently, it increases attention allocation, prolongs voluntary viewing time, and magnifies focus on relevant information. These effects have important downstream consequences, including improved content comprehension and recall, enhanced positive attitudes, and increased efficiency of sponsored content placement on social media. Taken together, the findings indicate that marketers can communicate information more effectively by restricting consumers from viewing it again.
AggarwalPraveenVaidyanathanRajiv (2003), “Use It or Lose It: Purchase Acceleration Effects of Time-Limited Promotions,” Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 2 (4), 393–403.
2.
ArmelCarrie K.BeaumelAurelieRangelAntonio (2008), “Biasing Simple Choices by Manipulating Relative Visual Attention,” Judgment and Decision Making, 3 (5), 396–403.
3.
AtalaySelin A.BodurOnur H.RasolofoarisonDina (2012), “Shining in the Center: Central Gaze Cascade Effect on Product Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (4), 848–66.
4.
AtasoyOzgunMorewedgeCarey K. (2018), “Digital Goods Are Valued Less Than Physical Goods,” Journal of Consumer Research, 44 (6), 1343–57.
5.
BalachanderSubramanianStockAxel (2009), “Limited Edition Products: When and When Not to Offer Them,” Marketing Science, 28 (2), 336–55.
6.
BaraschAlixandraDiehlKristinSilvermanJackieZaubermanGal (2017), “Photographic Memory: The Effects of Volitional Photo Taking on Memory for Visual and Auditory Aspects of an Experience,” Psychological Science, 28 (8), 1056–66.
7.
BayerJoseph B.EllisonNicole B.SchoenebeckSarita Y.FalkEmily B. (2016), “Sharing the Small Moments: Ephemeral Social Interaction on Snapchat,” Information, Communication & Society, 19 (7), 956–77.
8.
BelancheDanielCenjorIsabelPérez-RuedaAlfredo (2019), “Instagram Stories Versus Facebook Wall: An Advertising Effectiveness Analysis,” Spanish Journal of Marketing–ESIC, 23 (1), 69–94.
9.
BottiSimonaBroniarczykSusanHäublGeraldHillRonHuangYanliuKahnBarbaraKopallePraveenLehmannDonaldUrbanyJoeWansinkBrian (2008), “Choice Under Restrictions,” Marketing Letters, 19 (3–4), 183–99.
10.
BozzoloAnita M.BrockTimothy C. (1992), “Unavailability Effects on Message Processing: A Theoretical Analysis an Empirical Test,” Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 13 (1), 93–101.
11.
BrannonLaura A.BrockTimothy C. (2001), “Limiting Time for Responding Enhances Behavior Corresponding to the Merits of Compliance Appeals: Refutations of Heuristic-Cue Theory in Service and Consumer Settings,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 10 (3), 135–46.
12.
BraunMichaelSchwartzEric M. (2022), “The A/B Test Deception: Divergent Delivery, Response Heterogeneity, and Erroneous Inferences in Online Advertising Field Experiments,” SMU Cox School of Business Research Paper No. 21-10.
13.
BrockTimothy C. (1968), “Implications of Commodity Theory for Value Change,” in Psychological Foundations of Attitudes,GreenwaldAnthony G.,BrockTimothy C., and OstromThomas M., eds. Academic Press, 243–75.
14.
BrockTimothy C.BrannonLaura A. (1992), “Liberalization of Commodity Theory,” Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 13 (1), 135–44.
15.
BullensLottieVan HarreveldFrenkFörsterJens (2011), “Keeping One’s Options Open: The Detrimental Consequences of Decision Reversibility,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47 (4), 800–805.
16.
BullensLottieVan HarreveldFrenkFörsterJensHigginsTory E. (2014), “How Decision Reversibility Affects Motivation,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143 (2), 835–49.
17.
CalvertGemma A. (2001), “Crossmodal Processing in the Human Brain: Insights from Functional Neuroimaging Studies,” Cerebral Cortex, 11 (12), 1110–23.
18.
CampbellMargaret C.KellerKevin L. (2003), “Brand Familiarity and Advertising Repetition Effects,” Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (2), 292–304.
19.
CannonChristopherGoldsmithKellyRouxCaroline (2019), “A Self-Regulatory Model of Resource Scarcity,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 29 (1), 104–27.
20.
CaplinAndrewDeanMark (2015), “Revealed Preference, Rational Inattention, and Costly Information Acquisition,” American Economic Review, 105 (7), 2183–203.
21.
CelsiRichard L.OlsonJerry C. (1988), “The Role of Involvement in Attention and Comprehension Processes,” Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (2), 210–24.
22.
ChaikenShelly (1979), “Communicator Physical Attractiveness and Persuasion,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 (8), 1387–97.
23.
ChandonPierre J.HutchinsonWesleyBradlowEric T.YoungScott H. (2009), “Does In-Store Marketing Work? Effects of the Number and Position of Shelf Facings on Brand Attention and Evaluation at the Point of Purchase,” Journal of Marketing, 73 (6), 1–17.
24.
CialdiniRobert B. (2007), Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. HarperCollins.
25.
ClarkJason K.WegenerDuane T.FabrigarLeandre R. (2008), “Attitudinal Ambivalence and Message-Based Persuasion: Motivated Processing of Proattitudinal Information and Avoidance of Counterattitudinal Information,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34 (4), 565–77.
26.
ConnorCharles E.EgethHoward E.YantisSteven (2004), “Visual Attention: Bottom-Up Versus Top-Down,” Current Biology, 14 (19), R850–R852.
27.
De DreuCarsten K.W. (2003), “Time Pressure and Closing of the Mind in Negotiation,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91 (2), 280–95.
28.
Denes-RajVeronikaEpsteinSeymour (1994), “Conflict Between Intuitive and Rational Processing: When People Behave Against Their Better Judgment,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66 (5), 819–29.
29.
DonkinChrisLittleDaniel R.HouptJoseph W. (2014), “Assessing the Speed-Accuracy Trade-Off Effect on the Capacity of Information Processing,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40 (3), 1183–1202.
30.
EysenckMichael W.DerakshanNazaninSantosRitaCalvoManuel G. (2007), “Anxiety and Cognitive Performance: Attentional Control Theory,” Emotion, 7 (2), 336–53.
31.
FritzJonathan B.ElhilaliMounyaDavidStephen V.ShammaShihab A. (2007), “Auditory Attention—Focusing the Searchlight on Sound,” Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 17 (4), 437–55.
32.
GoldbergJoseph H.KotvalXerxes P. (1999), “Computer Interface Evaluation Using Eye Movements: Methods and Constructs,” International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 24 (6), 631–45.
33.
GordonBrett R.ZettelmeyerFlorianBhargavaNehaChapskyDan (2019), “A Comparison of Approaches to Advertising Measurement: Evidence from Big Field Experiments at Facebook,” Marketing Science, 38 (2), 193–225.
34.
HamiltonRebeccaThompsonDeboraBoneSterlingChaplinLan NguyenGriskeviciusVladasGoldsmithKellyHillRonaldRoedder JohnDeborahMittalChiraagO’GuinnThomasPiffPaulRouxCarolineShahAnujZhuMeng (2019), “The Effects of Scarcity on Consumer Decision Journeys,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47 (3), 532–50.
35.
HayesAndrew F. (2017), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. Guilford Press.
36.
HeDanielKivetzRan (2016), “Blink and You’ll Miss It: The Consequences of Ephemeral Messaging,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 44, MoreauPagePuntoniStefano, eds. Association for Consumer Research, 470–71.
37.
HickmanLynnsayFirestoneAllen R.BeckF. MichaelSpeerShari (2010), “Eye Fixations When Viewing Faces,” The Journal of the American Dental Association, 141 (1), 40–46.
38.
HmurovicJillianGoldsmithKellyLambertonCait (2016), “When Exploding Deals Create Competitive Customers: Understanding the Psychological Consequences of Scarcity Marketing Tactics,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 44, MoreauPagePuntoniStefano, eds. Association for Consumer Research, 476–77.
39.
HmurovicJillianLambertonCaitGoldsmithKelly (2022), “Examining the Efficacy of Time Scarcity Marketing Promotions in Online Retail,” Journal of Marketing Research (published online July 26), https://doi.org/10.1177/00222437221118856.
40.
HodkinsonChris (2019), “‘Fear of Missing Out’ (FOMO) Marketing Appeals: A Conceptual Model,” Journal of Marketing Communications, 25 (1), 65–88.
41.
HofstetterRetoRüppellRolandJohnLeslie K. (2017), “Temporary Sharing Prompts Unrestrained Disclosures That Leave Lasting Negative Impressions,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114 (45), 11902–07.
42.
HolmqvistKennethNyströmMarcusAnderssonRichardDewhurstRichardJarodzkaHalszkaVan De WeijerJoost (2011), Eye Tracking: A Comprehensive Guide to Methods and Measures. Oxford University Press.
43.
JacobRobert J.KarnKeith S. (2003), “Eye Tracking in Human-Computer Interaction and Usability Research: Ready to Deliver the Promises,” in The Mind’s Eye,RadachRalph,HyönäJukka, andDeubelHeiner, eds. North-Holland, 573–605.
JaniszewskiChrisKuoAndrewTavassoliNader T. (2013), “The Influence of Selective Attention and Inattention to Products on Subsequent Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (6), 1258–74.
KahnemanDaniel (1973), Attention and Effort. Prentice Hall.
48.
KimBettySeligmanDarrylKableJoseph W. (2012), “Preference Reversals in Decision Making Under Risk Are Accompanied by Changes in Attention to Different Attributes,” Frontiers in Neuroscience, 6, 109.
49.
KrajbichIanArmelCarrieRangelAntonio (2010), “Visual Fixations and the Computation and Comparison of Value in Simple Choice,” Nature Neuroscience, 13 (10), 1292–98.
50.
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.
51.
KroschAmy R.AmodioDavid M. (2014), “Economic Scarcity Alters the Perception of Race,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111 (25), 9079–84.
52.
KuporDaniellaLaurinKristin (2020), “Probable Cause: The Influence of Prior Probabilities on Forecasts and Perceptions of Magnitude,” Journal of Consumer Research, 46 (5), 833–52.
53.
KurzbanRobertDuckworthAngelaKableJoseph W.MyersJustus (2013), “An Opportunity Cost Model of Subjective Effort and Task Performance,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36 (6), 661–79.
54.
LibermanNiraTropeYaacov (1998), “The Role of Feasibility and Desirability Considerations in Near and Distant Future Decisions: A Test of Temporal Construal Theory,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75 (1), 5–18.
55.
LynnMichael (1991), “Scarcity Effects on Value: A Quantitative Review of the Commodity Theory Literature,” Psychology and Marketing, 8 (1), 43–57.
56.
MachleitKaren A.WilsonRobert D. (1988), “Emotional Feelings and Attitude Toward the Advertisement: The Roles of Brand Familiarity and Repetition,” Journal of Advertising, 17 (3), 27–35.
57.
MargittaiZsofiaNaveGideonStrombachTinaVan WingerdenMarijnSchwabeLarsKalenscherTobias (2016), “Exogenous Cortisol Causes a Shift from Deliberative to Intuitive Thinking,” Psychoneuroendocrinology, 64, 131–35.
58.
MatzSandra C.KosinskiMichalNaveGideonStillwellDavid J. (2017), “Psychological Targeting as an Effective Approach to Digital Mass Persuasion,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114 (48), 12714–49.
59.
MehtaAbhilashaPurvisScott C. (2006), “Reconsidering Recall and Emotion in Advertising,” Journal of Advertising Research, 46 (1), 49–56.
60.
MilosavljevicMilicaNavalpakkamVidhyaKochChristofRangelAntonio (2012), “Relative Visual Saliency Differences Induce Sizable Bias in Consumer Choice,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22 (1), 67–74.
61.
O’DwyerRachel (2020), “Limited Edition: Producing Artificial Scarcity for Digital Art on the Blockchain and Its Implications for the Cultural Industries,” Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 26 (4), 874–94.
62.
OraziDavide C.JohnstonAllen C. (2020), “Running Field Experiments Using Facebook Split Test,” Journal of Business Research, 118, 189–98.
63.
OrquinJacob L.AshbyNathaniel J.S.ClarkeAlasdair D.F. (2016), “Areas of Interest as a Signal Detection Problem in Behavioral Eye-Tracking Research,” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 29 (2–3), 103–15.
64.
ParkerJeffrey R.LehmannDonald R. (2011), “When Shelf-Based Scarcity Impacts Consumer Preferences,” Journal of Retailing, 87 (2), 142–55.
65.
PayneJohn W.BettmanJames R.JohnsonEric J. (1993), The Adaptive Decision Maker. Cambridge University Press.
66.
Payzan-LeNestourElisePradierLionnelDoranJamesNaveGideonBalleineBernard (2021), “Impact of Ambient Sound on Risk Perception in Humans: Neuroeconomic Investigations,” Scientific Reports, 11 (1), 1–13.
67.
PechmannCorneliaStewartDavid W. (1988), “Advertising Repetition: A Critical Review of Wearin and Wearout,” Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 11 (1–2), 285–329.
68.
PettyRichard E.CacioppoJohn T. (1986), “The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion,” in Communication and Persuasion. Springer, 1–24.
69.
PettyRichard E.CacioppoJohn T.HeesackerMartin (1981), “Effects of Rhetorical Questions on Persuasion: A Cognitive Response Analysis,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40 (3), 432–40.
70.
PhillipsDiane M. (1996), “Anticipating the Future: The Role of Consumption Visions in Consumer Behavior,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 23, CorfmanKim P.LynchJohn G.Jr., eds. Association for Consumer Research, 70–75.
71.
PietersRikWarlopLuk (1999), “Visual Attention During Brand Choice: The Impact of Time Pressure and Task Motivation,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 16 (1), 1–16.
72.
PietersRikWarlopLukWedelMichel (2002), “Breaking Through the Clutter: Benefits of Advertisement Originality and Familiarity for Brand Attention and Memory,” Management Science, 48 (6), 765–81.
73.
PrzybylskiAndrew K.MurayamaKouDeHaanCody R.GladwellValerie (2013), “Motivational, Emotional, and Behavioral Correlates of Fear of Missing Out,” Computers in Human Behavior, 29 (4), 1841–48.
74.
ReutskajaElenaNagelRosemarieCamererColin F.RangelAntonio (2011), “Search Dynamics in Consumer Choice Under Time Pressure: An Eye-Tracking Study,” American Economic Review, 101 (2), 900–926.
75.
RodehefferChristopher D.HillSarah E.LordCharles G. (2012), “Does This Recession Make Me Look Black? The Effect of Resource Scarcity on the Categorization of Biracial Faces,” Psychological Science, 23 (12), 1476–78.
76.
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.
77.
SanbonmatsuDavid M.KardesFrank R. (1988), “The Effects of Physiological Arousal on Information Processing and Persuasion,” Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (3), 379–85.
SlovicPaulPetersEllen (2006), “Risk Perception and Affect,” Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15 (6), 322–25.
80.
SmithStephanie M.KrajbichIan (2019), “Gaze Amplifies Value in Decision Making,” Psychological Science, 30 (1), 116–28.
81.
SrnaShalenaSchriftRom Y.ZaubermanGal (2018), “The Illusion of Multitasking and Its Positive Effect on Performance,” Psychological Science, 29 (12), 1942–55.
82.
SvensonOlaMauleA. John, eds. (1993), Time Pressure and Stress in Human Judgment and Decision Making. Springer Science & Business Media.
83.
SyamNiladriKrishnamurthyParthaHessJames D. (2008), “That’s What I Thought I Wanted? Miswanting and Regret for a Standard Good in a Mass-Customized World,” Marketing Science, 27 (3), 379–97.
84.
TeubnerTimmGraulAntje (2020), “Only One Room Left! How Scarcity Cues Affect Booking Intentions on Hospitality Platforms,” Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 39, 100910.
Van HerpenEricaPietersRikZeelenbergMarcel (2009), “When Demand Accelerates Demand: Trailing the Bandwagon,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19 (3), 302–12.
87.
Van HooffJohanna C.CrawfordHelenVan VugtMark (2011), “The Wandering Mind of Men: ERP Evidence for Gender Differences in Attention Bias Towards Attractive Opposite Sex Faces,” Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 6 (4), 477–85.
88.
Von Der MalsburgTitusAngeleBernhard (2017), “False Positives and Other Statistical Errors in Standard Analyses of Eye Movements in Reading,” Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 119–33.
89.
WedelMichelPietersRik (2008), “A Review of Eye-Tracking Research in Marketing,” in Review of Marketing Research, Vol. 4. M.E. Sharpe, 123–47.
ZajoncRobert B. (1968), “Attitudinal Effects of Mere Exposure,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9 (2, Pt. 2), 1–27.
92.
ZeelenbergMarcel (1999), “Anticipated Regret, Expected Feedback and Behavioral Decision Making,” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12 (2), 93–106.
93.
ZhaoJiayingTommBrandon M. (2018), “Psychological Responses to Scarcity,” in Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Psychology, https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.41.
94.
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.
95.
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.
