Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Three experiments investigated the possibility that greed is not just a consequence of scarcity but may also result from abundance of common resources. It was predicted that abundance causes greed not through increasing competition but because it reduces social concerns for the outcomes of others, resulting in resource waste. Consistent with these predictions, we found that people take and waste more from common resources if these resources are more—rather than less—abundant. These findings were robust to different types of resources (chocolates and money). Implications of these findings for attempts at sustainable resource use are discussed.

Keywords

Abundance greed waste commons dilemma resource use sustainability

Scarcity causes greed. It does so as it increases competition for common resources and as a result causes their depletion. This notion can almost be considered as a behavioural law as it is manifested in all scientific disciplines dealing with human behaviour. It inspired early political philosophers (e.g., Hobbes, 1985) and underlies the principle of natural selection (Darwin, 1859). It is central to economic (Grossman & Mendoza, 2003; Hirschleifer, 1995) and game-theoretic (Hardin, 1968; Maynard Smith & Price, 1973) models of behaviour, and it has received empirical support from psychological research on social dilemma’s (e.g., Kopelman et al., 2002), consumer behaviour (Roux et al., 2015) and sociological (Booth, 1984) as well as socio-ecological population studies (Allen et al., 2016; Homer-Dixon, 1999). As a result, many popular (e.g., Kaplan, 1994) and scientific projections (Homer-Dixon, 1999) view the depletion of the earth’s resources to be the most urgent global challenge facing humanity in the 21st century. The core of these arguments is that the depletion of shared resources will evaporate social concerns that are the cement of civilisation. Indeed, political (Hobbes, 1985; Malthus, 1798) and economic theory (Grossman & Mendoza, 2003; Hardin, 1968; Hirschleifer, 1995) predicts that self-interested proclivities will prevail over social concerns if rational actors share scare resources, causing both overconsumption and conflict.

The present manuscript does not challenge this view but aims to draw attention to the previously unexplored possibility that greed is not exclusively a consequence of scarcity but may also result from abundance, albeit for different reasons. The behavioural consequences of abundant resources have received little empirical attention. In line with the central tenets of their discipline (Robbins, 1932), economic models mainly focus on conditions in which there is a deficiency in the supply of resources, such that appropriation directly limits opportunities for others (cf. Grossman & Mendoza, 2003). It is important, however, to realise that resource scarcity is a global problem that does not permeate into the daily experience of most people. For most people living in developed nations, the supply of resources vastly exceeds their demand. They do not have to restrain themselves in their daily activities, such as taking hot showers with clean water, cooking warm meals that are rich in nutrients or moving themselves from one place to another in an expedient fashion. These mundane types of consumption have a profound impact on the depletion of natural resources. Therefore, the present study investigated how resource availability would affect appropriation when resources are abundant rather than scarce. To develop our predictions, we will first consider what we mean by scarcity, abundance and greed.

Scarcity

Scarcity refers to a situation in which the collective needs exceed the availability of resources. Fortunately, the experience that resources are insufficiently available to meet their ‘desires’ is much more common to most people in developed nations than the experience that resources fall short of their ‘needs’ (Fernbach et al., 2015). The distinction between deficient and limited resources is not a trivial one. As living organisms, humans will vigorously compete for deficient resources (Darwin, 1859). As a social species, however, humans are accustomed to the recurrent problem of collectively rationing limited resources. Our ancestral history was set against a backdrop of environments in which resource availability was limited. Therefore, humans (Fehr & Fischbacher, 2003; Henrich et al., 2001) and other social primates (Brosnan & de Waal, 2003) have evolved psychological mechanisms for mitigating the risk that competition for limited resources becomes too costly, such as preferences for equitable distributions (Effron & Miller, 2011; Van Dijk & Wilke, 1995) and prudent resource use (Osés-Eraso & Vildarich-Grau, 2007). So, people tend to adjust their appropriation of common resources to the size of the pool relative to the number of other people, even in anonymous, one-time interactions when there is no concern for social sanctioning or to avoid depletion of resources (Allison et al., 1992; Rutte et al., 1987). At least, for as long as these resources are not perceived to be abundant.

Abundance

Abundance refers to a situation in which the availability of resources exceeds the collective desires. Unlike scarcity, abundance is an alien experience in human history. It is not until the last six or seven decades that the majority of people have had the possibility to get accustomed to experiencing abundance (Morris, 2015). The problem with abundance is that our evolved psyche never learnt to deal with it. Experiencing abundance, therefore, may cause greed because there is no need to restrain oneself and to assume responsibility for the welfare of others if the environment apparently offers plenty for all.

Several lines of research already converge on this idea. Financial affluence is associated with self-focused patterns of cognition (Adams et al., 2012; Kraus et al., 2012), independent self-construal (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Oishi & Graham, 2010) and the endorsement of individualism (Bianchi, 2016; Grossmann & Varnum, 2015). Moreover, people from higher social classes tend to behave more selfish (Dubois et al., 2015). Finally, agent-based models attest to the possibility that resource abundance may cause the collapse of cooperation in common-pool resource dilemma’s (Schlüter et al., 2016). It seems then that social concerns only emerge and thrive in conditions where there is a need to adjust collective desires to the availability of resources, whereas they will evaporate under conditions of abundance. Indeed, as the number of guests increases relative to the number of appetisers, there will be a diffusion of entitlement that inhibits rather than promotes people to take more appetisers (cf. Effron & Miller, 2011).

Greed

Greed should not simply be understood as another term for self-interested appropriation. Individual appropriation from common resources inevitably limits the harvesting opportunities for others, but it need not be considered greedy just for that reason. Individual appropriation is greedy if the desire to get more is excessive (Wang & Murnighan, 2011). What makes appropriation ‘excessive’, however, is dependent upon the availability of resources: If common resources become scarcer, appropriation will increase because competition increases. Excessive appropriation then is manifested by ‘depletion’ of the common resource (i.e., by overconsumption). Abundant resources, by definition, cannot be depleted. However, if common resources become more abundant, appropriation will also increase because social concerns diminish. Excessive appropriation is then manifested by resource waste (i.e., by non-consumed resources).

Overview of the Present Studies

In three studies, we tested the predictions that people would appropriate and waste more resources under higher levels of resource abundance compared to lower levels of resource abundance. In all studies, we let participants take a shared and limited resource from a dispenser that was either completely full or one that was nearly empty. Note that our experimental conditions were designed to only convey the impression of a more versus less abundant supply. In all conditions, we made sure that the level of resource availability exceeded the individual desires for appropriation, thus investigating the effects of abundance proper. Furthermore, we made sure not to provide any normative cues for appropriation by preventing participants to infer equitable distribution norms from the pool-size relative to the number of players and/or from witnessing the behaviour of the other participants.

The experiments were approved by the ethics board of the Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences (EC–2016.49). In all studies, participants were undergraduate students. They were recruited through an online recruiting website and participated in exchange for course credit or a financial compensation of €8. The studies were embedded in a one-hour experimental session that was announced in neutral terms providing no information to the content of any of the studies. All participants provided informed consent before the experiment and were fully debriefed upon completion.

Study 1

In Study 1 (and 2), the dispenser contained M&Ms. Apart from comparing the effects of taking from a Full and an Empty Dispenser, Study 1 also included a Blinded dispenser condition in which the contents of the dispenser were obscured (Figure 1). The latter condition served as a reference group to determine the direction of the effect(s).

Figure 1.

Pictures of the Dispenser Containing the Resource (M&Ms in Studies 1 and 2 and Tokens in Study 3) in the Blind (Left = Only in Study 1), Full (Middle) and Empty (Right) Conditions.

Participants and Design

Since this was an initial test of the effects of abundance, we aimed for a total of 51 participants per condition, as this would allow us to detect a medium-sized effect at a power of 0.80 with an alpha of 0.05. We decided to stop collecting data as soon as we met this criterion and/or after one week of running the experiment as we booked the lab for this period. Participants (N = 154, 83% female, M_age = 19.48 years, SD = 1.99, ranging from 17 to 33 years) were assigned to one of three different conditions: an Empty condition (n = 54), in which the dispenser was almost empty (±0.8 kg), a Full condition (n = 51), in which the dispenser was almost full (±3.2 kg) and a Blind condition (n = 49), in which participants could not see how much M&M’s were still in the dispenser (Figure 1).

Because 11 participants were allergic to peanuts and, therefore, could not eat M&Ms, our final sample consisted of 143 participants. All participants in one experimental session were assigned to the same condition, and these groups were quasi-randomly assigned to the conditions, such that groups in different conditions were balanced across different times of the day (to control for differences in appetite) and ensuring that the number of participants across conditions would be roughly the same. This was done because it was unfeasible to empty and refill containers fast enough to guarantee an expedient procedure if we were to change conditions randomly within a single session.

Procedure

The experiment was presented as a study on consumer preferences, testing if people would prefer M&Ms that were presented in batches of a single or of different colours. This was a cover story intended to obscure the actual purpose of the study. In all conditions, the container was filled with M&Ms of different colours. The experimenter further explained that the study would run until the container was empty, which—fortunately for the participants—was not yet the case. This highlighted that the M&Ms were a common resource that was in limited supply. The experimenter explained that participants could take as much as they liked from the container, but that they could not take M&Ms home, allegedly because hygiene regulations prescribed that unfinished M&Ms had to be thrown away. So, unfinished M&Ms were wasted.

The experimenter accompanied each of the participants individually to a separate room in which we placed the dispenser containing the resource. We took several measures to make sure that the appropriation context was devoid of normative standards. First, participants did not know the total number of other participants with whom they shared the resource, so they had no clue about the equitable distribution norm. Second, participants could not observe the amount of resource taken by other participants, so they could not derive appropriation standards from other people’s behaviour. Third, participants took resources from the dispenser completely in private, and they were not informed that the experimenter would afterwards weigh the resources they took. (The scale was placed in another room to make sure they were not aware thereof while taking from the dispensers.) Fourth, participants received a paper cup that could contain up to 400 grams of M&Ms. This cup could easily fit an excess to the amount of M&Ms that a normal person would consume within an hour and, therefore, provided no cues to the appropriate amount to take from the dispenser either.¹

After the experimenter weighed the M&Ms, participants were taken to individual cubicles, in which they completed another study that was unrelated to the present one. Next, they completed a questionnaire containing items related to the present study. After participants left, the experimenter weighed the amount of M&Ms still left in the cup.

Measures

Behaviour

Appropriation was measured by weighing the amount of M&Ms (in grams) participants took from the dispenser. We also measured the amount of M&Ms (in grams) they left in the cup, and which—according to the instructions—was thrown away. The amount eaten was computed by subtracting the amount wasted from the amount appropriated.

Questionnaire

Participants first indicated their gender and age. To check for between-condition differences in the desirability of M&Ms and general appetite, participants rated how much they liked M&Ms and how hungry they were on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely). To make sure the manipulation worked, participants rated whether they thought the supply of M&Ms was scarce/abundant (1 = very scarce, 7 = very abundant), how many M&Ms they thought were in the dispenser (1 = very little; 7 = a lot) and how full they thought the dispenser was (1 = very empty, 7 = very full). Ratings on all three items were averaged into a single manipulation check of perceived resource availability (α = 0.80). Subsequently, to verify that participants understood that the level of resource availability was determined by, and in turn affected, the appropriation of other participants, they estimated how many people they thought already took M&Ms from the dispenser and how many people they thought could still eat M&Ms from the dispenser.

Results

Control Measures

The averages of the control measures per condition are reported in Table 1. We found significant differences in perceived resource availability. Suggesting that our manipulation was effective, participants in the Full Dispenser condition did perceive the supply of M&Ms as larger than participants in the Empty Dispenser condition (p < .001). Ratings of participants in the Blind Dispenser condition² fell in between those in the Full (p = .051) and those in the Empty Dispenser condition (p < .001).

Table 1.

Averages (SD) of Control Measures Across Conditions in Study 1.

Measure	Blind	Empty	Full	F _{(2, 140)}	P-value
RA	5.28 (0.70)	4.32 (1.15)	5.65 (0.8)	23.34	< .001
M&M liking	5.31 (0.94)	4.96 (0.99)	5.04 (1.03)	1.64	.198
Hunger	4.10 (1.20)	3.58 (1.56)	3.46 (1.28)	3.08	.049
#Already	28.90 (22.65)	25.88 (23.70)	14.83 (14.82)	5.93	.003
#Still	32.41 (37.68)	18.79 (19.65)	32.87 (22.24)	3.94	.022

Note: RA = perceived resource availability; #Already = estimated number op people that already took M&Ms from the dispenser; #Still = estimated number of people that can still take M&Ms from the dispenser.

There were no differences between experimental conditions in how much participants liked M&Ms. However, we observed small differences in terms of how hungry participants were (Table 1). As hunger was related to the behavioural measures, we also ran the analyses on the key dependent variables with hunger as a covariate. This is not the outcome of the results. Differences between conditions in terms of the amount of M&Ms taken and left after the experiment, therefore, are not dependent upon differences in appetite.

Suggesting that participants understood that the level of resource availability was determined by, and in turn affected, the appropriation of other participants, perceptions of resource availability were positively correlated with their estimation of the number of other people that would still be able to take M&Ms, r(143) = 0.33, p < .001, and negatively correlated with their estimation of the number of other people that already took M&Ms, r(143) = –0.26, p < .001. In sum, participants understood that the availability of the resource was determined by—and in turn determined the possibility for—the appropriation by other participants.

Appropriation

Appropriation differed significantly between the experimental conditions, F(2, 140) = 3.23, p = .042, η²_adj = 0.044 (Figure 2). In line with our predictions, participants took more M&Ms from a Full Dispenser than from an Empty Dispenser, M_dif = 12.89, 95% CI [2.55, 23.23], p = .015. Participants did not take less from the Empty Dispenser than from the Blinded Dispenser, M_dif = 3.51, 95% CI [–13.69, 6.67], p = .496, but took more from the Full Dispenser than from the Blinded Dispenser, even though that difference was only marginally significant, M_dif = 9.38, 95% CI [-.91, 19.67], p = .074.

Figure 2.

Average Amount of M&Ms (gram) Taken from the Dispenser and Left in the Cup by Participants in Study 1 in the Blind, Empty and Full Dispenser Conditions. (Error bars Denote SE 's.)

Waste

The amount of M&Ms that was wasted also differed between conditions, F(2, 140) = 4.79, p = .010, η²_adj = 0.064 (Figure 2). Participants who took from a Full Dispenser left almost twice as much as participants who took from an Empty Dispenser, M_dif = –11.95, 95% CI [3.59, 20.31], p = .005, or a Blinded Dispenser, M_dif = 10.67, 95% CI [2.35, 19.98], p = .012. Participants did not waste fewer in the Empty Dispenser than they did in the Blinded Dispenser condition, M_dif = –1.28, 95% CI [–9.51, 6.95], p = .759. We did not find any differences in the amount of M&Ms consumed, F(2, 140) = 0.11, p = .900, η²_adj = .001.

Study 2

Study 2 was designed to replicate the effects of Study 1 and to obtain support for the idea that abundance triggers greed because it reduces social concerns. Participants again took M&Ms from an Empty Dispenser and a Full Dispenser, but half the participants were told that the supply was limited (as in Study 1), whereas the other half was told that the supply could be replenished if depleted. Since personal appropriation does not affect the outcome for subsequent participants if the resource can be replenished, the difference between the Full Dispenser and the Empty Dispenser conditions should disappear if social concerns do in fact influence people’s appropriation decisions.

Participants and Design

Like in Study 1, we aimed for 50 participants per condition, but we terminated the experiment after one week, which yielded a smaller than intended sample. Participants (N = 124, 81% female, M_age = 19.63 years, SD = 1.92, ranging from 17 to 28 years) were assigned to one of four conditions in a 2 (Resource Availability: Empty versus Full) × 2 (Replenishment: No versus Yes) between-subjects design.

Procedure

There was only one exception to the procedures as reported in Study 1. In the Replenishment condition, participants were told that the dispenser would be refilled when empty.

Measures

All measures were identical to those reported in Study 1, except for the fact that the ratings were made on 5-point instead of 7-point scales. The only other exception was that we measured perceived interdependence directly by asking participants to indicate if they agreed (yes or no) with the statement ‘The more M&M’s I take, the fewer will be left for the other participants’.

Results

Control Measures

Averages of the control measures per condition are reported in Table 2. A 2 × 2 ANOVA testing for differences in perceived resource availability only revealed a significant main effect of Resource Availability, F(1, 113) = 183.68, p < .001, η²_adj = 0.619, indicating that participants did perceive the amount of M&M’s to be more abundant in the Full Dispenser condition (M = 4.32, SD = 0.48) than in the Empty Dispenser condition (M = 2.97, SD = 0.58). A binary logistic regression analysis revealed only a marginally significant main effect of Replenishment, B = 1.22, SE B = 0.63, Wald = 3.70, p = .054, indicating that participants were more likely to agree that their appropriation limited the opportunity for appropriation if the dispenser was not replenished (N = 54, 81.1%) than when the dispenser was replenished (N = 29, 56.9%). These results suggested that our manipulations of resource availability and social concern were successful. There were no differences between experimental conditions in how much participants liked M&Ms or in how hungry they were. Behavioural differences between conditions, therefore, are not dependent upon differences in appetite and liking.

Table 2.

Averages (SD) of Control Measures Across Conditions in Study 2.

Measure	Not Replenished		Replenished
Measure	Empty	Full	Empty	Full
RA	3.01 (0.57)	4.31 (0.39)	2.92 (0.62)	4.35 (0.58)
M&M liking	4.21 (0.95)	4.19 (0.74)	4.12 (0.97)	3.73 (1.34)
Hunger	2.74 (1.11)	2.81 (1.36)	2.76 (1.45)	2.38 (1.17)
PI	1.48 (0.51)	1.38 (0.50)	1.21 (0.41)	1.16 (0.37)

Note: RA = perceived resource availability; PI = perceived interdependence.

Appropriation

In line with our predictions, we observed a significant Resource Availability × Replenishment interaction effect, F(1, 116) = 5.50, p = .021, η²_adj = 0.045, indicating that participants took more M&Ms from a Full Dispenser than form an Empty Dispenser one when the supply was limited, M_dif = 16.40, 95% CI [2.66, 30.13], p = .020, but not if the resource was replenished, M_dif = –8.05, 95% CI [–23.48, 7.37], p = .303 (Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Average Amount of M&Ms (gram) Taken from the Dispenser and Left in the Cup by Participants in Study 2 in the Empty and the Full Dispenser and Under Different Replenishment Conditions. (Error Bars denote SE' s.)

Waste

Similar effects were obtained for the M&MS that were wasted. A significant Resource Availability × Replenishment interaction effect, F(1, 116) = 6.18, p = .014, η²_adj = 0. 051, suggested that participants wasted more M&Ms in the Full Dispenser than in the Empty Dispenser condition when the supply was limited, M_dif = 13.21, 95% CI [2.40, 24.02], p = .017, but not if it was replenished, M_dif = –7.20, 95% CI [–19.34, 4.94], p = .243 (Figure 3). We did not find a difference in the amount of M&M’s consumed (all F’s < 1).

Study 3

In Study 3, we wanted to see if the effects of resource availability replicated if we used money as a resource. To that end, we filled the dispensers with tokens with an (unknown) monetary value. These tokens could be exchanged for money or be used for gambling in a game of roulette. The latter option was taken as an instance of waste as gambling—although occasionally beneficial for some—inevitably reduces the collective utility of the resource.

Participants and Design

Like in the previous studies, we aimed for 50 participants per cell and decided to stop data collection after one week. Participants (N = 160, 49% female, M_age = 24.31 years, SD = 3.95, ranging from 18 to 46 years) were assigned to one of two conditions: an Empty Dispenser and a Full Dispenser condition. Because one participant refused to take tokens from the dispenser, our final sample consisted of 159 participants.

Procedure

The experiment was presented as a study on gambling, and participants were going to play a game of roulette at the end of the experimental session. Before starting the studies, they collected the tokens they could use for playing the roulette game. It was explained to participants that the tokens they took represented an actual monetary value that would be revealed at the end of the study, at which point they would also receive payment to the amount represented by the tokens they had collected. The conversion rate (1 cent per token) was written down in a note that was put in a sealed envelope and given to the participants to hold onto until the end of the study. The procedure for collecting and measuring the tokens was identical to that of the previous studies. After the experimenter weighed the tokens, participants were taken to individual cubicles and completed some questionnaires. At the end of the study, they stepped out of the cubicle, bringing their tokens, and played a game of roulette. Participants did not have to bet in which case they would be paid the monetary equivalent of the number of tokens they took. Alternatively, they could decide to bet all their tokens in the roulette game. Only bets with a 50/50 chance of winning (e.g., red or black) were allowed. We recorded if participants gambled or not. The roulette game was played, and the tokens were doubled if the outcome was in line with the participants’ bet. Finally, participants checked the conversion rate of the tokens and got paid.

Measures

Behaviour

Appropriation was measured by weighing the amount of tokens (in grams) participants took from the dispenser. We also recorded if participants gambled or not.

Questionnaire

Participants first indicated their gender and age. To make sure the manipulation worked, participants rated how empty/full they thought the dispenser was (1 = very empty, 5 = very full), whether they though the supply was scarce/abundant (1 = very scarce, 5 = very abundant) and how few/many tokens they thought were in the dispenser (1 = very few; 5 = a lot). Ratings on all three items were averaged into a single manipulation check of perceived resource availability (α = 0.95).

Results

Manipulation Check

Suggesting that the manipulation was successful, participants perceived the resource availability to be higher in the Full Dispenser condition (M = 4.56, SD = 0.53) than in the Empty Dispenser condition (M = 2.87, SD = 0.70), t(151) = –16.86, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 2.72.

Appropriation

In line with our predictions, participants took more Tokens from a full than from an Empty Dispenser, t(157) = –4.01, p < .001, Cohen’sd = 0.63 (Figure 4).

Waste

Participants in the Full Dispenser condition were more likely to gamble than participants in the Empty Dispenser condition, χ²(159) = 4.54, p = .030 (Figure 4). Consistent with the interpretation that this is indicative of waste, average earnings were higher for participants that did not gamble (M = 57.12 cents, SD = 48.67) than for participants that did gamble (M = 24.45 cents, SD = 40.15), t(156) = 4.63, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 0.74. So, abundance reduces the collective utility of resources, even though some individuals increased their earnings by gambling.

Figure 4.

Average Amount of Tokens (gram) Taken from the Dispenser and Percentage of Participants That Gambled in the Empty and the Full Dispenser Conditions in Study 3.

Discussion

In three studies, we found that more abundant resources elicited more appropriation and also yielded more waste than less abundant resources. The results from Study 2 suggest that these effects at least partly result from the inhibition of social concerns under conditions where resources are more abundant. We acknowledge, however, that this can only be indirectly inferred from the predicted effects of the manipulation. Still, when the need to take the outcomes of others into account is relaxed, that is, when the resource is replenished, more and less abundant resources resulted in equal levels of appropriation and waste. The results from Study 3 suggest that these effects seem robust for different types of resources.

Alternative Explanations

The effect of resource availability on appropriation from common resources may resemble findings showing that people eat more from larger portions (Brienza et al., 2010). There are two key differences, however. First, portion size effects are the result of a failure to execute cognitive agency when monitoring and regulating food intake (Brienza et al., 2010). It is unlikely that a similar mechanism also drives the present findings on appropriation. Appropriation is a one-time decision to collect a certain amount of resource. In fact, the findings of Studies 1 and 2 actually failed to show that higher levels of resource availability made people ‘eat’ more M&Ms, suggesting that resource availability effects on consumption and on appropriation are likely to be different process altogether. Second, the effects of portion sizes on consumption occur in a private rather than in a social decision context. The effects of portion sizes, therefore, are mute about the possible effects of resource availability on the importance of social concerns. Indeed, the observed interaction between resource availability and replenishment in Study 2 is not consistent with a ‘regular’ portion size effect.

In addition to the dissipation of social concerns under conditions of higher abundance, another reason why abundance may cause greed is that people may misperceive their preferences when facing an abundant resource. This may also happen when perceiving an abundant resource, which may cause appropriation beyond one’s preferences, as often happens when consuming from an all-you-can eat buffet. This, in turn, may also cause resource waste.

Limitations and Implications

Even though the results consistently supported the prediction that people take and waste more if resources are more abundant than when they are less abundant, the comparison with a Blinded Dispenser condition that provided no information about the level of available resources is less clear.² It seems then that appropriation levels may fluctuate when participants have no way to tell the amount of available resources relative to when they can. Some studies suggest that uncertainty about the availability of resources can lead to overestimation or to self-serving biases of the amount of available resources and as a result makes people more self-interested (e.g., Budescu et al., 1990; Ostrom et al., 1999). Other studies, however, suggest that the effects of uncertainty about the level of available resources may depend upon individual differences (for instance in social value orientation) and as such may be dependent upon the composition of the sample (for an overview see Kopelman et al., 2002), which might also explain the divergence we observed in our studies. Any independent effect of uncertainty about the level of resources, however, limits the use of a Blind Dispenser condition as a comparison standard to determine the direction of the effect of available resources on appropriation decisions. Still, we feel safe to conclude from the present findings that more abundant resources cause more appropriation and waste than less abundant resources.

The present findings are most likely to be conditional upon certain features of the experimental paradigm. For one, we took care to remove any normative cues for appropriation from the decision context. Introducing more salient focal points on equal-division standards would have likely reduced the current effects. Furthermore, the present experimental paradigm involved a resource dilemma without immediate competition. Individual outcomes were not affected by other participants’ decisions. Introducing more direct competition, for instance, by making decisions simultaneously within a confined group of people, would have also likely reduced the effects of resource availability as competitive motives are more prominent. Still, most contemporary problems associated with the consumption of common resources concern global problems with intangible social groups. In such cases, distribution norms and other social concerns may be less prominent (Kopelman et al., 2002; Ostrom et al., 1999). In fact, the present findings may have implications for sustainable resource use. Attempts at persuading people to limit their consumption may change their approach from highlighting the scarcity of natural resources (which could even prove counterproductive, cf. Roux et al., 2015) to designing interventions that help to reinstall social concerns in decision contexts that are now void of any.

Conclusion

Popular (e.g., Kaplan, 1994) and scientific projections (e.g., Homer-Dixon, 1999) view the depletion of the earth’s resources to be the most urgent challenge facing humanity in the 21st century. The core of these arguments is that the depletion of shared resources will not only ruin the natural environment but will also erode social concerns that cement human civilisation. The present findings suggest that something similar may happen when resources are abundant, not because of increased competition but rather due to the neglect of social concerns when there are plenty of resources. Resource abundance may therefore cause its own commons dilemma, one that is not about the depletion of resources but about the accumulation of waste.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Adams

, Bruckmüller

, & Decker

(2012). Self and agency in context: Ecologies of abundance and scarcity. International Perspectives in Psychology: Research, Practice, Consultation , 1, 141–153.

Allen

M. W.

, Bettinger

R. L.

, Codding

B. F.

, Jones

T. L.

, & Schwitalla

A. W.

(2016). Resource scarcity drives lethal aggression among prehistoric hunter-gatherers in central California. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 113, 12120–12125.

Allison

S. T.

, McQueen

L. R.

, & Schaerfl

L. M.

(1992). Social decision-making processes and the equal partitionment of shared resources. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 28, 23–42.

Bianchi

(2016). American individualism rises and falls with the economy: Cross-temporal evidence that individualism declines when the economy falters. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 111, 567–584.

Booth

(1984). Responses to scarcity. The Sociological Quarterly , 25, 113–124.

Brienza

, Elserafi

, & Herman

(2010). The portion size effect: A review. Journal of Undergraduate Life Sciences , 4, 78–80.

Brosnan

S. F.

, de Waal

F. B. M.

(2003). Monkeys reject unequal pay. Nature , 425, 297–299.

Budescu

D. V.

, Rapoport

, & Suleiman

(1990). Resource dilemmas with environmental uncertainty and asymmetric players. European Journal of Social Psychology , 20, 475–487.

Darwin

(1859). The origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life . John Murray.

10.

Dubois

, Rucker

D. D.

, & Galinsky

A. D.

(2015). Social class, power, and selfishness: When and why upper and lower class individuals behave unethically. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 108, 436–449.

11.

Effron

D. A.

, & Miller

D. T.

(2011). Diffusion of entitlement: An inhibitory effect of scarcity on consumption. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 47, 378–383.

12.

Fehr

, & Fischbacher

(2003). The nature of human altruism. Nature , 425, 785–791.

13.

Fernbach

P. M.

, Kan

, & Lynch

J. G.

(2015). Squeezed: Coping with constraint through efficiency and prioritization. Journal of Consumer Research , 41, 1204–1227.

14.

Grossman

H. I.

, & Mendoza

(2003). Scarcity and appropriative competition. European Journal of Political Economy , 19, 747–758.

15.

Grossmann

, & Varnum

M. E. W.

(2015). Social structure, infectious diseases, disasters, secularism, and cultural change in America. Psychological Science , 26, 311–324.

16.

Hardin

(1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science , 162, 1243–1248.

17.

Henrich

, Boyd

, Bowles

, Camerer

, Fehr

, Gintis

, & McElreath

(2001). In search of homo-economicus: Behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. American Economic Review , 91, 73–78.

18.

Hirschleifer

(1995). Anarchy and its breakdown. Journal of Political Economy , 103, 26–52.

19.

Hobbes

(1985). Leviathan . Penguin. (Original work published 1651)

20.

Homer-Dixon

T. F.

(1999). Environment, scarcity, and violence . Princeton University Press.

21.

Kaplan

R. D.

(1994). The coming anarchy. The Atlantic . http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1994/02/the-coming-anarchy/304670/

22.

Kopelman

, Weber

J. M.

, & Messick

D. M.

(2002). Factors influencing cooperation in commons dilemmas: A review of experimental psychological research. In E. Ostrom, T. Dietz, N. Dolsak, P. C. Stern, S. Stonich, & E. U. Weber (Eds.), The drama of the commons (pp. 113–156). National Academy Press.

23.

Kraus

M. W.

, Piff

P. K

, Mendoza-Denton

, Rheinschmidt

M. L.

, & Keltner

(2012). Social class, solipsism, and contextualism: How the rich are different from the poor. Psychological Review , 119, 546–572.

24.

Malthus

T. R.

(1798). An essay on the principle of population . Johnson.

25.

Markus

H. R.

, & Kitayama

(1991). Culture and self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review , 98, 224–253.

26.

Maynard Smith

, & Price

G. R.

(1973). The logic of animal conflict. Nature , 246, 15–18.

27.

Morris

(2015). Foragers, farmers, and fossil fuels: How human values evolve . Princeton University Press.

28.

Oishi

, & Graham

(2010). Social ecology: Lost and found in psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science , 5, 356–377.

29.

Osés-Eraso

, & Vildarich-Grau

(2007). Appropriation and concern for resource scarcity in the commons: An experimental study. Ecological Economics , 63, 435–445.

30.

Ostrom

, Burger

, Field

C. B.

, Norgaard

R. B.

, & Polycansky

(1999). Revisiting the commons: Local lessons, global challenges. Science , 248, 278–282.

31.

Robbins

(1932). An essay on the nature and significance of economic science . Macmillan.

32.

Roux

, Goldsmith

, & Bonezzi

(2015). On the psychology of scarcity: When reminders of resource scarcity promote selfish (and generous) behavior. Journal of Consumer Research , 42, 615–631.

33.

Rutte

C. G.

, Wilke

H. A.

, & Messick

D. M.

(1987). Scarcity or abundance caused by people or the environment as determinants of behavior in the resource dilemma. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 23, 208–216.

34.

Schlüter

, Tavoni

, & Levin

(2016). Robustness of norm-driven cooperation in the commons. Proceedings of the Royal Academy of Sciences B , 283, 2015243.

35.

Van Dijk

, & Wilke

(1995). Coordination rules in asymmetric social dilemmas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 31, 1–27.

36.

Wang

, & Murnighan

J. K.

(2011). On greed. The Academy of Management Annals , 5, 279–316.

Abundance Causes Greed in Appropriation from Common Resources

Abstract

Keywords

Scarcity

Abundance

Greed

Overview of the Present Studies

Study 1

Pictures of the Dispenser Containing the Resource (M&Ms in Studies 1 and 2 and Tokens in Study 3) in the Blind (Left = Only in Study 1), Full (Middle) and Empty (Right) Conditions.

Participants and Design

Procedure

Measures

Behaviour

Questionnaire

Results

Control Measures

Averages (SD) of Control Measures Across Conditions in Study 1.

Appropriation

Average Amount of M&Ms (gram) Taken from the Dispenser and Left in the Cup by Participants in Study 1 in the Blind, Empty and Full Dispenser Conditions. (Error bars Denote SE 's.)

Waste

Study 2

Participants and Design

Procedure

Measures

Results

Control Measures

Averages (SD) of Control Measures Across Conditions in Study 2.

Appropriation

Average Amount of M&Ms (gram) Taken from the Dispenser and Left in the Cup by Participants in Study 2 in the Empty and the Full Dispenser and Under Different Replenishment Conditions. (Error Bars denote SE' s.)

Waste

Study 3

Participants and Design

Procedure

Measures

Behaviour

Questionnaire

Results

Manipulation Check

Appropriation

Waste

Average Amount of Tokens (gram) Taken from the Dispenser and Percentage of Participants That Gambled in the Empty and the Full Dispenser Conditions in Study 3.

Discussion

Alternative Explanations

Limitations and Implications

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Notes

References