While scarcity often enhances product desire, we introduce and examine synthetic scarcity, a demand-side deception where firms falsely imply excess demand despite sufficient supply. Six studies demonstrate that synthetic (vs. authentic) scarcity elicits greater resentment, but this effect is critically moderated by consumer Machiavellianism. For low Machs, synthetic scarcity triggers feelings of betrayal, driving heightened resentment. High Machs, in contrast, report equally high resentment towards both scarcity types, as their response is driven by a perceived loss of control rather than betrayal. We provide indirect process evidence for this mechanism by identifying structural power as a boundary condition: the interactive effect of scarcity type and Machiavellianism emerges only under high power, where high Machs’ need for control is activated; under low power, the interaction dissipates. These findings illuminate the distinct psychological pathways through which consumers respond to deceptive scarcity tactics.
Aguirre-RodriguezA. (2013). The effect of consumer persuasion knowledge on scarcity appeal persuasiveness. Journal of Advertising, 42, 371–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2013.803186.
2.
AndersonC.GalinskyA. D. (2006). Power, optimism, and risk-taking. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36(4), 511–536.
3.
ArliD.van EschP.TrittenbachM. (2018). Investigating the mediating effect of Uber’s sexual harassment case on its brand: Does it matter?Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 43, 111–118.
4.
BelkR. W.DasG.JainS. P. (2023). The ubiquity of scarcity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 51(6), 1191–1196.
5.
BereczkeiT.DeakA.PappP.PerlakiG.OrsiG. (2013). Neural correlates of Machiavellian strategies in a social dilemma task. Brain and Cognition, 82(1), 108–116.
6.
BrewerG.AbellL. (2017). Machiavellianism, relationship satisfaction, and romantic relationship quality. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 13(3), 491.
7.
CampbellM. C.KirmaniA. (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.
8.
ChristieR.GeisF. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. Academic Press.
CremerS.LoebbeckeC. (2021). Selling goods on e-commerce platforms: The impact of scarcity messages. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 47, Article 101039.
11.
DahlingJ. J.WhitakerB. G.LevyP. E. (2009). The development and validation of a new Machiavellianism scale. Journal of Management, 35(2), 219–257.
12.
DasG.SpenceM. T.AgarwalJ. (2021). Social selling cues: The dynamics of posting numbers viewed and bought on customers’ purchase intentions. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 38(4), 994–1016.
13.
DuganR.RouziouM.HochsteinB. (2019). It is better to be loved than feared: Machiavellianism and the dark side of internal networking. Marketing Letters, 30(3), 261–274.
14.
ElangovanA. R.ShapiroD. L. (1998). Betrayal of trust in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 547–566.
GrégoireY.FisherR. J. (2008). Customer betrayal and retaliation: When your best customers become your worst enemies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(2), 247–261.
18.
HamiltonR.ThompsonD.BoneS.ChaplinL. N.GriskeviciusV.GoldsmithK.HillR.JohnD. R.MittalC.O'GuinnT.PiffP.RouxC.ShahA.ZhuM. (2019). The effects of scarcity on consumer decision journeys. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47(3), 532–550.
19.
HayesA. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
20.
HmurovicJ.LambertonC.GoldsmithK. (2023). Examining the efficacy of time scarcity marketing promotions in online retail. Journal of Marketing Research, 60(2), 299–328.
21.
HofstedeG. (2001). Culture’s recent consequences: Using dimension scores in theory and research. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 1(1), 11–17.
22.
InáncsiT.LángA.BereczkeiT. (2015). Machiavellianism and adult attachment in general interpersonal relationships and close relationships. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 11(1), 139.
23.
JonasonP. K.LyonsM.BaughmanH. M.VernonP. A. (2014). What a tangled web we weave: The Dark Triad traits and deception. Personality and Individual Differences, 70, 117–119.
KilduffG. J.GalinskyA. D. (2017). The spark that ignites: Mere exposure to rivals increases Machiavellianism and unethical behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 69, 156–162.
26.
KimmelA. J. (2001). Deception in marketing research and practice: An introduction. Psychology & Marketing, 18(7), 657.
27.
KristoffersonK.McFerranB.MoralesA. C.DahlD. 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.
28.
KroschA. R.TylerT. R.AmodioD. M. (2017). Race and recession: Effects of economic scarcity on racial discrimination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(6), 892.
29.
Monica GeorgeA. (2025). Swipe, click, regret: An opinion on persuasive e-commerce and consumer autonomy. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 8, Article 1684841.
30.
MukherjeeA.LeeS. Y. (2016). Scarcity appeals in advertising: The moderating role of expectation of scarcity. Journal of Advertising, 45(2), 256–268.
PalA.BanerjeeS.KapetanakiA. B.KarapanagiotidisT.SamaddarS. (2025). Understanding the captivating power of online scarcity messages: An eye-tracking study. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 128, Article 104197.
33.
PalomäkiJ.YanJ.LaakasuoM. (2016). Machiavelli as a poker mate—A naturalistic behavioural study on strategic deception. Personality and Individual Differences, 98, 266–271.
34.
ParkerJ. R.LehmannD. R. (2011). When shelf-based scarcity impacts consumer preferences. Journal of Retailing, 87(2), 142–155.
RimS.MinK. E.LiuP. J.ChartrandT. L.TropeY. (2019). The gift of psychological closeness: How feasible versus desirable gifts reduce psychological distance to the giver. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(3), 360–371.
37.
RouxC.GoldsmithK.CannonC. (2023). On the role of scarcity in marketing: Identifying research opportunities across the 5Ps. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 51, 1197–1202.
38.
RuckerD. D.GalinskyA. D.DuboisD. (2012). Power and consumer behavior: How power shapes who and what consumers value. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(3), 352–368.
39.
SakalakiM.RichardsonC.ThépautY. (2007). Machiavellianism and economic opportunism. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(6), 1181–1190.
40.
SchilkeO.ReimannM.CookK. S. (2015). Power decreases trust in social exchange. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 112(42), 12950–12955.
41.
SerotaK. B. (2019). Deceptive marketing outcomes: A model for marketing communications. In Docan-MorganT. (Ed.), The Palgrave handbook of deceptive communication (pp. 813–837). Palgrave Macmillan.
42.
ShenP.NieX.TongC. (2025). Does disclosing commercial intention benefit brands? Mediating role of perceived manipulative intent and perceived authenticity in influencer hidden advertising. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 19(4), 673–693.
43.
ShiX.LiF.ChumnumpanP. (2020). The use of product scarcity in marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 54(2), 380–418.
44.
SilalahiA. D. K.TedjakusumaA. P.EunikeI. J.RiantamaD. (2025). How does time pressure shape impulsive buying behavior? Hedonic vs. utilitarian values emerges as a key driver on E-commerce platforms. Digital Business, 5, Article 100138.
45.
SmithP. K.TropeY. (2006). You focus on the forest when you're in charge of the trees: Power priming and abstract information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(4), 578.
46.
SongR.KimH.LeeG. M.JangS. (2019). Does deceptive marketing pay? The evolution of consumer sentiment surrounding a pseudo-product-harm crisis. Journal of Business Ethics, 158(3), 743–761.
47.
SpillerS. A.FitzsimonsG. J.Lynch JrJ. G.McClellandG. H. (2013). Spotlights, floodlights, and the magic number zero: Simple effects tests in moderated regression. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(2), 277–288.
48.
TeubnerT.GraulA. (2020). Only one room left! How scarcity cues affect booking intentions on hospitality platforms. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 39, Article 100910.
49.
ThoroughgoodC. N.LeeK.SawyerK. B.ZagenczykT. J. (2022). Change is coming, time to undermine? Examining the countervailing effects of anticipated organizational change and coworker exchange quality on the relationship between machiavellianism and social undermining at work. Journal of Business Ethics, 181(3), 701–720.
50.
TuncerR.SergeevaA.Bongard-BlanchyK.DistlerV.DoubletS.KoenigV. (2024). Running out of time (rs): Effects of scarcity cues on perceived task load, perceived benevolence and user experience on e-commerce sites. Behaviour & Information Technology, 43(11), 2281–2299.
51.
Van EschP.CuiY.JainS. P. (2021). Self-efficacy and callousness in consumer judgments of AI-enabled checkouts. Psychology and Marketing, 38, 1081–1100.
52.
VerhallenT. M. (1982) Scarcity and consumer choice behavior. Journal of Economic Psychology, 2(4), 299–322.
53.
VerhallenT. M.RobbenH. S. (1994) Scarcity and preference: An experiment on unavailability and product evaluation. Journal of Economic Psychology, 15(2), 315–331.
54.
VermaS.GuhaA.BiswasA. (2016). Investigating the pleasures of sin: The contingent role of arousal-seeking disposition in consumers’ evaluations of vice and virtue product offerings. Psychology & Marketing, 33(8), 620–628.
55.
WilsonD. S.NearD.MillerR. R. (1996). Machiavellianism: A synthesis of the evolutionary and psychological literatures. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 285.
56.
WojdynskiB. W.EvansN. J. (2016). Going native: Effects of disclosure position and language on the recognition and evaluation of online native advertising. Journal of Advertising, 45(2), 157–168.
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.
