Skip to main content
Category: Effects
Type: A higher rating of desire when an object is scarce, or has just become scarce. On the liking scale, 1 means “very much” and 9 means “not at all,” so a smaller number is more desire. Taste is a different question. The paper found no significant taste effects
Origin: Stephen Worchel, Jerry Lee, and Akanbi Adewole, “Effects of supply and demand on ratings of object value,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 32(5), 1975, pages 906–914. The journal PDF was read. It does not print a DOI line. The article was received on 23 September 1974. Subjects were women in introductory psychology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Worchel’s byline is the University of Virginia. The work was supported in part by National Science Foundation grant GS37062. Brock (1968), Brehm (1966), and Brehm (1972) were not opened. The page quotes Brock only as this paper quotes him
Also known as: The scarcity effect, the phrase in the discussion for a shortage of quantity. The paper’s frame is commodity theory. It is not Scarcity Mindset, and it is not a ban, which is the Forbidden Fruit Effect
Quick Answer — The Scarcity Effect, as this page uses the name, is a higher rating of how much more of an object a person wants when less of it is on hand, or when the amount has just fallen. Worchel, Lee, and Adewole (1975) do not print the two-word title. Their discussion uses “the scarcity effect” for a shortage in quantity. In the first study, cookies in a jar of 2 were liked more than cookies in a jar of 10, and a jar that fell from 10 to 2 was liked more than a jar that had stayed at 2. Taste did not move.

​
What is Scarcity Effect?

The Scarcity Effect is a higher rating of desire for an object when the object is scarce, or has just become scarce.
any commodity will be valued to the extent that it is unavailable
Worchel, Lee, and Adewole quote that sentence from Brock (1968, p. 246). They then test it with chocolate chip cookies in a glass jar, not with a message and not with a price tag. The person tastes one cookie and rates it. Liking asks whether she would like to eat more. On that 9-point scale, 1 is “very much” and 9 is “not at all.” A 2.25 is more desire than a 4.08. Cost, in cents per pound, runs the other way: a higher number is a higher suggested price. Taste is a third question, and it did not show a significant effect. A useful picture is the jar on the table. Two cookies left is one sentence. Ten cookies that have just become two is another sentence. The reason for the change is a third. None of the three is a taste score, and none of them is a Scarcity Mindset claim about thinking under lack. That page is a different habit. This paper does not measure it. Psychological Reactance is the mechanism the authors suggest for part of the result. They did not collect a reactance score.

​
Scarcity Effect in 3 Depths

  • Beginner: A jar with two cookies can make the next bite look more wanted than a jar with ten. That want is a rating. It is not a taste score.
  • Practitioner: Write the old count, the new count, and the reason the count changed before you copy a “few left” line. A jar that was always at two is a different cell from a jar that fell from ten.
  • Advanced: Liking moved. Taste did not. The cost contrast for a jar that never changed was not significant. A shop that copies one cell mean has left the paper.

​
Origin

The Scarcity Effect, in the words of this paper, is what a shortage of quantity did to ratings of cookies. The authors start from commodity theory. They quote Brock’s claim that a commodity is valued to the extent that it is unavailable. Earlier tests, they write, mostly varied access to a communication, and those tests had not given commodity theory steady support. Yoder (1967) and Fromkin and Brock, as cited in Brock (1968), had not found that demand reliably raised value. This PDF does not reopen those studies. It changes the object. The supply is a number of cookies, and the supply can fall for a stated reason. The authors separate three questions the word “scarce” usually glues together. One is simple scarcity: the jar holds 2 the whole time, against a jar that holds 10. One is relative scarcity: the person first sees 10, then the jar is switched for a jar of 2. One is the reason for that fall. In the demand cell, a second experimenter says his own subjects ate more cookies than he expected. In the accident cell, he says he took the first experimenter’s cookies by mistake. The jars are exchanged either way, so the experimenter does not handle the cookies. A third manipulation, participation, says either that only a few more people are still needed or that a large number are still to be run. The paper does not print those head counts.
The results indicated that a change from abundance to scarcity enhanced the value of the product more than did a constant state of scarcity.
That sentence is the authors’ summary of the liking and attraction pattern. They add that scarcity by itself still enhanced value, and that a change to scarcity did more. They offer two unmeasured readings. One is reactance: as the cookies leave, freedom to have them shrinks, so the remainder rises in value. They cite Brehm (1966) and Worchel (1974) for that idea. Those files were not opened, and this study does not score reactance. The other reading, for the demand cell only, is what they call bandwagon reasoning: “If everyone is trying it, it must be good.” Bandwagon Effect is that other page. Here it is a hypothesis about one cell, not a crowd that was counted.

​
Key Points

Four splits keep a small jar, a jar that just shrank, a reason, and a taste score from becoming one slogan.
1

The score is desire to eat more, and 1 is the wanting end

Liking is the question, “If given the opportunity, would you like to eat more of this consumer item?” Attraction is “How attractive is this consumer item?”, from 1, extremely attractive, to 9, extremely unattractive. Cost asks how much the item should cost per pound, in cents. Taste asks how good the cookies tasted. The paper prints no taste means and no taste scale endpoints. It prints this result: there were no significant effects whatever for taste. A higher liking for the scarce jar is not a better cookie.
2

A jar that falls from 10 to 2 is not a jar that was always at 2

Commodity theory’s plain contrast did hold for liking. Constant scarcity, the jar of 2, was liked more than constant abundance, the jar of 10, F(1, 122) = 13.45, p < .001. The two change-to-scarcity cells together were liked more than constant scarcity, F(1, 122) = 14.19, p < .001. Attraction followed the same two contrasts, F(1, 122) = 17.84 and F(1, 122) = 18.08, both p < .001. The authors’ reading is that people in the change cells judged two cookies against the ten they had just seen. People in the constant cell judged two against two. Helson (1964) is cited for that baseline. That book was not opened.
3

The reason matters when the jar shrinks, not when it grows

Cookies scarce because other people had eaten them were liked more than cookies scarce because of an accident, F(1, 122) = 6.39, p < .05. Attraction showed the same split, F(1, 122) = 4.26, p < .05. The mirror on the way up failed. A jar that grew from 2 to 10 was liked less than a jar that stayed at 10, F(1, 122) = 15.22, p < .001, and was less attractive, F(1, 122) = 9.19, p < .01. Whether that growth was “nobody wanted them” or an accident did not produce a significant liking difference. The paper prints F = 2.16 for that liking contrast and does not print a p. Attraction was F below 1. The authors had expected the unwanted jar to lose more value. It did not.
4

A future crowd is not prior demand

Inside the jar that stayed at 2, telling the woman that many people were still to take part did not raise liking or attraction. Both tests were F below 1. The paper’s demand cell is prior demand: other subjects had already eaten the cookies, and the jar in front of her then shrank. Participation points at people who might come later, after she has finished. The authors say those two facts may not have been heard as the same kind of demand. Cost did not follow the liking story. Constant scarcity versus constant abundance on cost was F = 2.22, not significant, though the means leaned the predicted way. The participation contrast on cost reversed: the paper says the greatest expense was in the low-participation condition, F(1, 122) = 4.60, p < .05.

​
Applications

These four moves follow splits the 1975 paper actually reports. They are not a claim that a banner, a checkout line, or a household copies F(1, 122) = 13.45.

Write the old count and the new count

The larger liking shift is the jar that fell from 10 to 2, set against the jar that was already at 2. A label that only says “few left” does not say which cell it is. Ask what number was there before. A seminar seat, a shift, or a shelf can use the same question. The answer is still not this F.

Write the reason, or do not claim the demand cell

Demand beat accident on liking and on attraction. The demand script is specific: the other experimenter says his subjects ate more than he expected, then the jars are switched. An accident script uses the same switch and a different sentence. A silent “only two left” has neither sentence. It is not yet the demand cell.

Ask taste apart from wanting another bite

The women tasted the cookie before they rated it. Desire to eat more moved. Rated taste did not. A buyer, a parent, or a student can write the two questions on two lines. “I want more of it” and “it tastes better” were not the same result in this PDF.

Do not treat a later crowd as people who already took it

Participation was a remark about people still to be run. It did not raise liking inside the always-scarce jar. The demand effect came from cookies already eaten, before this woman tasted one. A line about “others will want this later” is the manipulation that failed here, not the one that moved liking.

​
Case Study

The counted case is Experiment 1, run with women in introductory psychology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The article was received on 23 September 1974 and published in 1975. One hundred forty-six women were assigned at random. Twelve were dropped because they refused to eat the cookies or because they were suspicious. The paper does not split those twelve. The cover story was a study of preferences for consumer articles. On the table, in a glass jar, were either 2 or 10 chocolate chip cookies. A second experimenter then walked in. In the change cells he carried the other jar, and the two jars were switched. If the woman had started with 10, she finished with 2. If she had started with 2, she finished with 10. In the demand version of the shrink, he said his own subjects had eaten more than he expected. In the accident version, he said he had taken the cookies by mistake. In the no-change cells he entered without a jar, checked the supply, and left the 2 or the 10 where it was. The first experimenter did not know which script was coming. The second did not know what the first had done. After that, the woman was told either that only a few more subjects were needed or that many remained. She tasted a cookie and rated it. On liking, 1 means she would very much like to eat more, and 9 means not at all. In the scarce jars, under high participation, the liking means were 2.25 for demand (n = 11), 3.27 for accident (n = 12), and 4.08 for no change (n = 11). Under low participation they were 3.00 (n = 11), 3.75 (n = 12), and 4.40 (n = 10). The order is the same in both rows: demand, then accident, then a jar that had always held 2. In the abundant jars the no-change cells were the more liked ones. High participation: demand 7.17 (n = 12), accident 6.30 (n = 10), no change 5.64 (n = 12). Low participation: 6.82 (n = 11), 6.64 (n = 11), and 5.46 (n = 11). A jar that had just filled up was wanted less than a jar that had stayed full. The constant-scarcity versus constant-abundance liking test is F(1, 122) = 13.45, p < .001. The change-to-scarcity versus constant-scarcity test is F(1, 122) = 14.19, p < .001. Demand versus accident, inside scarcity, is F(1, 122) = 6.39, p < .05. Cost did not copy liking. The constant-scarcity versus constant-abundance cost test was F = 2.22, not significant. Change did move cost. Scarcity-change jars were rated as costing more than abundant-change jars, F(1, 122) = 68.90, p < .001. A jar that had just become scarce was rated as costing more than a jar that had stayed scarce, F(1, 122) = 12.48, p < .001. Demand was rated as costing more than accident inside scarcity, and the paper prints F(1, 122) = 68.90, p < .01, for that different contrast. The same F appears on two cost lines. This page does not replace either one. The high-participation scarce means, in cents per pound, were 71.5 for demand, 60.9 for accident, and 45.8 for no change. The low-participation no-change mean was 56.2 (n = 10), above the high-participation no-change mean of 45.8 (n = 11). That pair sits with the reported cost reversal for participation. The lesson inside this experiment is that a smaller jar raised the wish to eat more, a jar that had just become small raised it further, and a social reason raised it more than an accident. The taste question did not come along. The boundary is the same article. Experiment 2 reran four cells with a suspicion questionnaire, because the authors worried that the second experimenter’s entrance had tipped the hypothesis. That check does not reprint F = 13.45.

​
Boundaries and Failure Modes

The Scarcity Effect, as this PDF lets us count it, is a set of rating contrasts in one psychology class, not a law of sold-out shelves. Two uses overshoot the article. One exports 2.25, 13.45, 14.19, or 71.5 cents onto a shop, a household, a class waitlist, or another year. The other treats a “few left” banner as if it contained the demand script, the jar switch, and the taste null. The sample is women. The authors say the choice was practical: more women were available. They do not claim a theoretical limit, and they do not report a man’s session. Twelve of 146 were dropped for refusal or suspicion, without a split. The cookies were real, and the women tasted them. Nothing in the procedure is a purchase. Experiment 2 is the paper’s own check on demand characteristics. Sixty-eight women were assigned to four cells: scarce or abundant, crossed with no change or a demand change. Two refused to taste the cookie. Of the 66, raters judged 13 aware of the hypothesis. The raters agreed on all but two questionnaires, and a third rater took those two. Among women judged not aware, the pattern resembled Experiment 1, and the paper says the effects were not always significant. Table 3, df = 1, 58, prints the scarce-versus-abundant no-change liking test as F = 3.09, p < .10, and the scarce-change versus scarce-no-change liking test as F = 2.92, p < .10. Those are not the p < .001 results of Experiment 1. Attraction in the same three rows is F = 1.13, F = 2.00, and F = 1.60, none marked significant. Cost does reach p < .05 for the two scarcity contrasts, F = 4.18 and F = 4.27. The not-aware liking means were 3.29 (scarce, no change, n = 14), 2.42 (scarce, change, n = 12), 4.13 (abundant, no change, n = 15), and 5.50 (abundant, change, n = 12). The not-aware cost means, in cents, were 71.64, 82.17, 61.80, and 54.33 in that same order. Women judged aware went the other way, and none of those comparisons approached significance. The aware cells hold 3 (scarce, no change), 3 (scarce, change), 1 (abundant, no change), and 6 (abundant, change). The paper also says that if the aware women were left in the analysis, no scarcity effects were obtained. It does not print that pooled table. Knowing the trick was not, in these cells, a helpful push in the predicted direction. A last limit is the name. Scarcity Mindset is a claim about thinking when resources feel too small. Mullainathan and Shafir’s book was not opened, and no bandwidth measure is in this PDF. Veblen Effect is a higher price read as status. This cost question is “what should a pound cost,” and the constant-scarcity contrast on that question was not significant. FOMO is a fear of missing a chance. Fear was not the rating. Forbidden Fruit Effect needs a ban. These jars were offered, then tasted.

​
Common Misconceptions

Three readings turn a smaller jar, a cent estimate, or a guessed hypothesis into a different study.
Subjects rated how good the cookies tasted. The paper says there were no significant effects whatever for taste. It prints no taste means. Liking, the wish to eat more, did move. A 2.25 and a 4.08 are answers to “would you like to eat more,” on a scale where 1 is very much. They are not a taste ranking. A shopper who likes the scarce jar more has not, on this evidence, tasted a better cookie.
The plain commodity prediction for cost, constant scarcity against constant abundance, was F = 2.22 and not significant. Means leaned toward a higher price for the scarce jar. That is not the liking result, which was significant. Cost did move when the jar changed: scarcity-change against abundant-change is F(1, 122) = 68.90, p < .001, and the paper prints that same F, at p < .01, for demand against accident inside scarcity. Two tests, one printed F. Neither test is the constant-jar contrast. A price rating and a desire rating are not interchangeable in this table.
Scarcity Mindset is not a cookie rating after a jar switch. This PDF does not measure attention, memory, or a feeling of not having enough in life. The mindset book was not opened. The second half of the claim fails inside Experiment 2. Women who reported the hypothesis produced a pattern opposite to Experiment 1, and those comparisons were not significant. The paper reads them as uncooperative, not as helpers of the prediction. A person who spots a “few left” line is not thereby shown to want the item more.
These six pages sit beside the Scarcity Effect. Each one asks a different question.

Psychological Reactance

The authors suggest reactance when a shrinking jar threatens freedom to have the cookies. They cite Brehm and do not score reactance in this PDF.

Forbidden Fruit Effect

Value after a ban. These women were asked to taste the cookie. The jar was not forbidden.

Bandwagon Effect

Movement with a crowd. The paper’s “if everyone is trying it” line is a hypothesis about the demand cell, not a counted crowd.

Scarcity Mindset

A stance toward not having enough. This page rates a cookie. It does not measure that stance.

Veblen Effect

A high price read as status. The cost item here is a suggested cents-per-pound, and the constant-jar contrast was not significant.

FOMO (Fear of Missing Out)

Distress at missing a chance. The score here is a wish to eat more, an attractiveness rating, or a price guess.

​
One-Line Takeaway

Before you treat “only two left” as a reason to want it more, write the old count, the reason it changed, and whether you are rating desire or taste. The 2.25 is 11 women in one demand cell, not a shop.