1. Consuming less and having
the same: Consumer
responses to scarcity
Dr Iain Black

2. Structure
1.Consuming less and having the same: Consumer
responses to scarcity
 The “Chocolate Experiments”
– ““How full am I? That depends on how much I think I’m
going to get: Consumer adjustment of satiation rates”.
2.Recycling: Yes but caring for my loved ones first!
Exploring Identity Conflicts amongst “Green”
Working Mothers
 Conference paper to be presented at ISDRS Cape Town 2013

3. Sustainable Consumption
Despite the two Earth Summits at Rio and Johannesburg, the publication of
corporate environmental or sustainability strategies becoming commonplace,
and the launch of many innovative greener products, environmental and
economic data demonstrate that the majority of trends continue to move away
from sustainability.” (Peattie and Peattie, 2009, p. 260)
 “much of the responsibility for cutting carbon rests with us as consumers.
Our perception of the climate change problem and willingness to adjust to a
low carbon lifestyle also needs to be researched. Focus on the Future, p14

4. From Consumer abundance

5. Resource and environmental
Scarcity

6. Scarcity and Abundance as
MDG issues

7. Scarcity and SD messages

8. Scarcity as a retail tactic

9. How full am I? That depends on
how much I thought I was going
to get: Consumer adjustment of
satiation rates.
Iain Black
Charles Areni (University of Sydney)

10. Overall Aim of Research Project:
 This research aimed to develop a theory of
how satiation and expectations about
consumption opportunities in the immediate
future, influence the enjoyment of present
consumption experiences.
• We have studied both Scarce and Abundant
consumption opportunities

11. Anticipating future
scarcity

12. Conceptual Development
How do consumers respond to scarcity?
•One of the most basic principles of consumption is satiation (McAlister 1982).
•A number of factors affect the rate at which we satiate:
–Physical Factors:
 Consumption quantity and physical capacity
–Psychological Factors:
 Social norms (Rozin et al. 1998; McFerran et al. 2010)
 Ease of consumption (Wansink, Painter and Lee 2006)
 Perceived variety (Redden 2008; Galak, Redden and Kruger 2009)
 Perceived consumption quantity (Raghubir and Krishna 1999)
 Monitoring of consumption quantity (Polivy et al., 1986; Wansink 2004)

13. Conceptual Development cont..
•Utility of current versus delayed consumption
–Often conflict between maximizing present versus future utility (Hoch
and Loewenstein 1991)
A given factor i.e. variety can affect present and future utility in opposite
directions (Ratner, Kahn and Kahneman 1999)
•Savoring:
–Is a focusing of attention on the sensory input of consumption
experience (Bryant 2003)
 “heightened awareness” that “makes us more fully conscious of the
pleasurable things we see, hear, smell, touch, or taste” (Bryant and Veroff
2007, p. 6)

14. Study One:
Relationship between Scarcity, Savouring and Satiation
 Research Question: Does Scarcity trigger Savouring and
effect satiation?
• Hypothesis
• Compared to those who are told after eating, those who know
before eating that will receive only 2 of 6 pieces will:
• H1: Eat more slowly,
• H2: Will be more satiated and
• H3: Will desire fewer additional pieces
• Independent variable:
• Scarcity signaled or not:
• Dependent Variables:
• Eating time,
• Satiation levels
• Desire for additional pieces
 N=39 (31 female)

15. Procedure
Expect 6 Receive 2
Told
before
or after

16. Results:
Those anticipating scarcity…
DV Sig Means
•Ate more slowly Tasting time: F1,27 = 2.08, n/s
Piece one p < .16
–H1
•Were fuller Tasting time: F1,27 = 9.04, M = 57.50 vs.
–H2 Piece Two p < .01 M = 22.54.
•Had less desire for Capacity for F1,27 = 7.52, M = 5.10 vs.
additional pieces additional pieces: p < .01 M = 6.63.
–H3
Desire to eat more F1,27 = 7.92, M = 2.10 vs.
chocolate: p < .01 M = 4.08.

17. Study two:
–Is effect caused by violating desired number
vs. expected number?
 Manipulations suggest Expectations, theory
suggest Wants.
–Interested to testing key theoretical finding
via Abundance

18. Study Two
 Independent variable:
 Scarcity/Abundance signaled or not:
 Before they start eating vs. After 2nd piece
 Dependent Variables:
 How many of the chocolates do they Desire/Want
(measured before plate of chocs)
 Overall tasting time
 Capacity for additional pieces
 Number of pieces eaten
 N= 151 (109 female)

19. Study Two
Expect 6 Told Receive 2 Receive 6
or
before
or after s
ition
ond
or
c
ityControl condition
S carc
Expect 2 Told Receive 2 Receive 6
before
or after n
o
n diti
l co
or
Abundance conditions
Contro
Measure Desire/Want first before expectations set up

20. Study Two results
 Signaling scarcity before eating group ate more slowly and
became satiated more quickly
 Replicates studies 1.
 Opposite effects occur when participants receive more
pieces of chocolate than expected.
– Signaling abundance before eating group ate more quickly and became satiated more slowly
 Distinguishes between Expectation and Desire:
– Eating time:
 Expectations: Main effect (F1,139 = 4.18, p < .05. Sig)
 Desire: Neither Main effect nor Interaction effect (desired quantity x expected) were
significant (F1,136 < 1)
– Capacity for more:
 Main effect for Expectations (F1,139 = 4.18, p < .05. Sig)
 If you get less than expected you are fuller after having eaten
 Main effect for Desire F1,66 = 9.45, p < .005, Sig, but no interaction between the two
(Expectations and Desires)

21. Discussion and Contribution
–Main Experimental Result:
 Being warned that you will get less than expected leads to
eating more slowly, consuming “more” per unit of consumption
and being more satiated
–Main Theoretical Contribution:
 Present and Future selves co-operate
 Linking research streams in Satiation (Galak, Redden and
Kruger 2009) , Savouring (Bryant and Veroff 2007) and
Consumer trade offs between current and delayed consumption
(Ratner, Kahn and Kahneman 1999)

22. Key Practical SD Contributions
 What portion sizes, packaging and communications
decisions can firms make in order to satisfy the desires of
their consumers whilst simultaneously protecting both the
environment and society (hence to follow a TBL
accounting approach)?
 How to signal reduced sizes
 Scarcity and Quality
 How to sell to your consumers where resources prices
(Oil, Wheat, Water, precious and rare minerals) are
reducing the volumes that can be afforded

23. Questions?

24. Recycling: Yes but caring for
my loved ones first! Exploring
Identity Conflicts amongst
“Green” Working Mothers
Dr Iain Black, The University of Edinburgh
Dr Helene Cherrier, Griffith University

25. Context
• Professional working mothers experience conflicting personal
and social expectations.
– Personal goals (Work, CPD) vs. Evolutionary (Mothering practices)
(Kenrick et al.,2003) and social goals (Thompson 1996)
– Working mothers: “Am I a bad mother”…
• In managing these conflicting expectations, these super-
mothers often opt for unsustainable consumption practices:
– Convenience consumption (Reilly 1982; Reilly and Wallendorf
1987)
– Buying pre-processed foods (Thompson 1996).
– Often do not often have to time and energy to integrate sustainable
waste management in their lifestyle (Godbey et al. 1998).

26. Conceptual Framework Used
 Self : Social and Personal and Extendable (Belk, 1988)
 Relatively stable, Coherent
 More Ahuvia, 2005 and Tian and Belk, 2005) than Belk (1988) and
Kleine and Klein (2000)
 Yet organized as an ever developing, narrative (Atkins 2004;
Ahuvia 2005)
 Narrative is partly dialogical in nature (Taylor (1992, Brison,
1997)
 We learn how to understand ourselves and others via discussion
with others and society.
 Shifting societal expectations create challenges for maintaining
a coherent self
 Voluntary Scarcity

27. Method:
– 17 mothers from Sydney and Toronto
– Recruitment via “Greenhomes” initiative
recruitment agency
– 1.5 - 3hrs, in-home discussions
– Grounded theory analysis techniques used

28. Findings
• High level of knowledge and commitment to
performing a wide range of sustainable behaviours
• General concern and specific understanding about
environmental issues.
– GHG emissions, water, air and food pollution food, rubbish
disposal
– Clearly knowledgeable and intending to act
• Understand consequences of these issues:
– ‘I: Why are you doing all this? R: Well because the Earth is
in need of it I guess, and you know, worrying about your kids
futures and what’s it going to look like for them and the
whole global warming thing.”

29. Findings
– Pro-environmental consumption often practiced through Anti-
consumption in acts of rejection, reduction and reuse, not
purchasing green alternatives.
– Non consumption used to support symbolic, identity narrative
• Change within the consumerist paradigm
• Rejection of “Treehugger”, radical environmentalist,
Conservationist identity
– “Would you call yourself a conservationist? R: “I think like people on
the outside who aren’t into conservation stuff probably would, but
me from being, looking within and looking at the extreme
conservationist people, then I wouldn’t.”

30. Conceptual Findings
• Conflict is created by the contrasting social positions, values
and behaviour inherent in the different roles played: i.e.
mother, professional worker and green consumer.
• How consumption and disposal practices are integrated into
the daily routines can be understood using a framework of
identity conflicts and strategies used to manage these
conflicts (Swann 1987, Murray 2002, Ahuvia 2005).
– Becoming green necessitates new consumption and
disposal practices that are managed through Assimilation
(Accepting or Modifying) or Rejection strategies.

31. Identity Conflict Strategies
ID’s in
“Conflict” Core
Identity
Periphery
Identity
Strategy Rejection Assimilation
Strategy Strategy
Tactics Accept Modify
Outcome Core
Identity
Periphery
Identity
Rejected Periphery
Identity

32. Accepting:
• Where the new consumption or disposal practice is not felt to
cause conflict between the core and periphery identity, then it
can be readily integrated in to their daily routine.
• All mothers Accepted some form of recycling as a disposal
practice.
– Behaviour from other role/identity was assimilated into Motherhood
• For example: Katherine:
– Now sorts and recycles: glass ,metal plastics, food/yard waste,
paper, used nappies (diapers), tissues and general waste
– She found this a straightforward change and wishes she could do
more!
– Rejected strong chemical household cleaners, using vinegar and
baking soda

33. Modifying
 Some behaviours or values under scrutiny required modification before
it was assimilated into the core identity.
 Without this the behaviour would impinge too greatly on the core identity
and would be rejected.
• Francis:
– Rather than clean the bottles and cans for recycling, she would (sometimes)
give them a quick rinse (if at all) and put them in the appropriate box.
 Conflict between environmental and mother (time poor/juggling)
• Rachael:
– Rather than accept the environmental messages regarding eating
significantly less (or no) meat, she still feeds her daughter hamburgers
– Concern over iron and weight
 Conflict between environmental and mother

34. Rejecting
• Where the conflicting consumption or disposal behaviour would
mean a change in the core identity, it may be rejected
– I.e. practice impinges on some fundamental part of their motherhood
• Francis
– Rejects the use of environmentally friendly cleaners as believes they do
not work as well. Therefore house is not as clean and safe
– Conflicting with very strong (Italian) mother where cleanliness is critical.
 But will make own insecticide, will modify car use
• Regina
– Rejects the reuse of printer paper
 It clogs the printer, false economy
 Mother vs. “corporate shark” vs environmentalist

35. Discussion
• Conflicts between core and other identities, can be negotiated
so that despite (and because of) the adoption of new values and
consumption practices, self image can be maintained.
– “Assimilation” strategy allows change to be avoided even in the
face of considerable change.
• Assimilation occurs because of the hierarchical nature of the
conflicting identities and the central importance of motherhood
to sense of self.
– Properties do not exist in Ahuvia’s examination of loved objects
(2005) or Mick and Fournier’s (1998) technical paradoxes.

36. Discussion
• Disposal, change and loss occurring without disposing
or loss of the meaning of the practice;
– i.e. Katherine's disposal of a un-environmentally friendly
behaviour was not accompanied by the disposal of the
meaning of this behaviour to her motherhood (a good mother
keeps a clean house protecting her children against disease
and illness)
• Instead some of the meaning is transferred on to a
new behavior that does not cause conflict between her
multiple roles.
– So she avoids becoming too environmental or jeopardising her
mothering values.

37. Discussion
– Show that beyond information processing,
intentions based models, identity conflicts
and self interested needs are important
barriers
– Questions the notion of the Sustainable
Consumer
– Develops understanding of voluntary
scarcities

38. Recommendations:
– Incorporate changes into existing identities rather than requiring
the consumer to change the way they see themselves.
– Rather than attempting to “turn people green” frame changes as
being a necessary part of existing core identities such as
mother, father, wife etc.
– Changes want to be made within the dominant consumer
economy discourse.
– This is a concern!

39. Recommendations
 Reinforces requirement for governments to provide
structural support for the individual actions.
 Position sustainable practices along side self
interested notions such as independence, beauty,
quality or value for money.
 Avoid “charity appeal”
 Importance of mundane practices not extraordinary
experiences that might be at the climax of consumer
identity change, transformation or revelation.

40. Tying it all together
 These studies work together to help build
conceptually more holistic understanding of the
fundamental premise underlying marketing
sustainability living with less and the overriding
conclusion is that we make do, we are able to gain
value in other ways, we consume at different rates,
take more utility, use other products or services to
build or maintain self image.
 We can reassure people that by consuming less, they
will not have less
 We can do the same with less.