Effect of scarcity experience on unethical behavior: The mediating role of consideration of future consequences (2024)

Journal List
Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection
PMC9780626

As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsem*nt of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health.
Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice

Curr Psychol. 2022 Dec 23 : 1–10.

doi:10.1007/s12144-022-04166-9 [Epub ahead of print]

PMCID: PMC9780626

PMID: 36575668

Ying Yang, Lin Liu, Kaiyue Mou, Shuhong Kong, and Yan Wang

Author information Article notes Copyright and License information PMC Disclaimer

Associated Data

Data Availability Statement

Abstract

Scarcity experience occurs when people feel they have less than they need. Previous research indicates that scarcity experience affects individuals’ cognitive function, social behavior, and decision-making process. However, it remains unclear whether and how experienced scarcity influences unethical behavior. This paper reports three studies testing the potential relationship and mediational mechanisms. Study 1 assesses the associations between general scarcity experience, desire for money, consideration of future consequences, and unethical behavior. Studies 2 and 3 then manipulate scarcity experience (versus abundant experience and a neutral control condition) through paradigms of recalling (Study 2) and imagining (Study 3), and test the effect on self-reported unethical behavior (Study 2) and actual unethical conduct (Study 3), as well as the mediating effects of desire for money and consideration of future consequences. The results show that individuals experiencing scarcity were more likely to behave unethically, regardless of gender, age, or socioeconomic status. However, consideration of future consequences mediated the effect of scarcity experience on unethical behavior only in Study 1. Further research is needed to uncover the underlying mechanism through which scarcity evokes unethical behavior.

Keywords: Consideration of future consequences, Desire for money, Scarcity experience, Unethical behavior

Introduction

Resource scarcity has become a pervasive challenge around the world. Even people in relatively resource-rich environments often experience scarcity—the perception that one’s resources are not sufficient to meet one’s needs (Mullainathan & Shafir, 2013; Roux et al., 2015). When the scarcity mindset is activated (Cannon et al., 2019; Fan et al., 2019), for instance through perceiving a lack of food, time, or money, an individual’s psychological feelings, cognitive function, social behavior, and decision-making process can all be influenced (Hamilton et al., 2019; Roux et al., 2015; Sommet et al., 2018). One previous study demonstrated that reminders of scarcity may elicit a competitive attitude, leading to selfish rather than generous behavior (Roux et al., 2015). Experiencing scarcity may also elevate the benefits one expects to obtain from risky behaviors, leading to a greater tendency to engage in them (Liang et al., 2021). However, whether and how scarcity experience can affect unethical behavior remains an open question. Behavior is considered unethical if it breaks widely accepted moral rules to serve self-interest (Ruedy et al., 2013). Drawing on previous literature, we propose that scarcity experience might increase the likelihood of unethical behavior. We also investigate motivational and cognitive mechanisms that might explain how scarcity experience affects unethical behavior, respectively testing desire for money and consideration of future consequences as mediators in the relationship.

Scarcity experience and unethical behavior

Scarcity captures individuals’ mindset and directs their attention to lacking resources (Mullainathan & Shafir, 2013). Research has shown that people who feel hungry are more attuned and sensitive to food-related cues (Radel & Clément-Guillotin, 2012), while poorer individuals are more sensitive to the economic dimension of everyday experiences and find it harder to suppress thoughts about money (Shah et al., 2018). Besides shifting attentional focus, the experience of lacking sufficient resources triggers a general sense of scarcity, which regulates people to accommodate the discrepancy between their current and desired states (Cannon et al., 2019). This regulation guides behaviors toward seeking more benefits to adjust the discrepancy and achieve goals (Cannon et al., 2019). For instance, financially deprived or dissatisfied people tend to consume more highly caloric foods because calories provide security (Briers & Laporte, 2013). Moreover, food deprivation increases cravings for not only high-calorie intake but also money (Briers et al., 2006). Based on this line of work, people experiencing scarcity may be more motivated to behave unethically where this can promote self-interest and attenuate or overcome current scarcity.

Academics are increasingly examining whether scarcity affects unethical behavior, but the evidence is mixed (for a recent review, see Elbæk et al., 2021). Experiencing scarcity in a given domain has been found to increase unethical behavior targeting those resources perceived as lacking. For instance, physiological deprivation (i.e., hunger or thirst) makes participants engage more in unethical behavior aimed at obtaining physiological satiation (Yam et al., 2014). Similarly, financial deprivation increases individuals’ likelihood of engaging in dishonest behavior to gain money (Sharma et al., 2014). Yet whether and how scarcity influences unethical behavior across domains remain unresolved. Yam et al. (2014) found that hunger and thirst reduced physiologically unrelated unethical behavior, whereas Williams et al. (2016) found that food and water scarcity did not affect unethical behavior in unrelated domains. Nevertheless, a competitive mindset—activated by resource scarcity—was found to promote selfish behavior (Roux et al., 2015), which is a reliable predictor of unethical behavior (Dubois et al., 2015). In addition, a maximizing mindset (focused on selecting the best option) activates scarcity-related cognition, which also promotes unethical behavior (Goldsmith et al., 2018). Given the above inconsistencies, this research investigates whether a general experience of scarcity might promote unethical behavior and, if so, through what underlying mechanisms.

Mediating effects of desire for money and consideration of future consequences

We explore two potential mechanisms through which a scarcity mindset might lead to increased unethical behavior: a motivational route, via elevated desire for money; and a cognitive route, via reduced consideration of future consequences. The desire to maintain and acquire money concerns a significant type of resource that individuals need daily to exchange for resources in the market. Money is a resource that provides a broad capability for dealing with problems and conferring benefits (Zhou et al., 2009). Thus, money has special symbolic and psychological value that can buffer against death anxiety (Gasiorowska et al., 2018) and alter reactions to social and physical pain (Zhou et al., 2009). Research has revealed that hunger (i.e., food scarcity) triggers the desire for money and motivates people take action to acquire monetary resources (Briers et al., 2006). Evidence from neuroscience indicates that a scarcity mindset leads to increased orbitofrontal cortex activation, implying greater sensitivity to reward and higher motivation to gain benefits (Huijsmans et al., 2019). Research evidence also suggests that an increased desire for money is associated with more frequent cheating for financial gain (Gino & Pierce, 2009). It has also been consistently shown that love of money is associated with more engagement in unethical behavior (Chen et al., 2014; Nkundabanyanga et al., 2011). Given the above insights, we propose that increased desire for money might mediate the effect of scarcity experience on unethical behavior.

Consideration of future consequences concerns the extent to which one focuses on distant versus near outcomes of possible behaviors (Strathman et al., 1994). It is a cognitive tendency that may influence current behavior and decision making. In line with this reasoning, greater focus on immediate (rather than future) outcomes may lead to more unethical behavior that serve present self-interest but hamper long-term welfare. For instance, research has revealed that people scoring lower on scale of the consideration of future consequences are less likely to perceive improper negotiation tactics as immoral (Hershfield et al., 2012) and are more likely to behave unethically at work (Cohen et al., 2014).

As argued above, a wealth of research suggests that scarcity experience focuses individuals’ attention on the scarce resources, which may lead to impulsive pursuit of current benefits at the expense of future costs. For example, research suggests that individuals exposed to deprivation tend to maintain a short time horizon (Mell et al., 2021). Temporary monetary scarcity has been found to lead to a present bias, such that before-payday low-income people favor taking smaller amount of money immediately when allowed to choose the time of receiving monetary incentives (Carvalho et al., 2016). Moreover, poverty and associated resource scarcity lead to more short-sighted behavior in various domains, as affected individuals have relatively limited control over future outcomes (Pepper & Nettle, 2017). Therefore, we propose that reduced consideration of future consequences is another potential mediator of the relationship between scarcity experience and unethical behavior: people experiencing scarcity tend to focus more on near benefits, rather than distant outcomes, which may provoke unethical behavior.

Overview of the research

Based on the self-regulatory model of resource scarcity, this research tests the effect of scarcity experience on unethical behavior and explores potential psychological explanations. We use three studies to test our hypotheses that scarcity experience increases individuals’ engagement in unethical behavior and that this relationship is mediated in parallel by elevated desire for money and reduced consideration of future consequences. Study 1 examines the relationships between daily experienced scarcity, desire for money, consideration of future consequences, and unethical behavior. All variables are measured using data collected through self-report questionnaires. Next, to provide causal evidence for the proposed model, we manipulate experienced scarcity through recalled events (Study 2) and imagined events (Study 3). The dependent variable is measured by participants’ self-reported unethical behavior in Studies 1 and 2 and their actual unethical behavior in Study 3. The Ethics Committee of the authors’ institution approved this research, which accords with the ethical standards of the American Psychological Association.

Study 1

Method

Participants

A prior power analysis showed that a sample of N = 110 could sufficiently detect a medium-sized correlation (Faul et al., 2007). To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to test the effect of a scarcity mindset on unethical behavior, so we aimed to double the sample size to achieve higher statistical power. A total of 210 working adults (110 females, 100 males; M_age = 31.61, SD_age = 6.56) volunteered to participate; all were recruited from an online participant pool (https://www.wjx.cn/). A sensitivity power analysis indicated that this sample allowed us to detect a correlation of r = .17 at 0.80 power.

Procedure

Participants completed an online questionnaire and reported their age, gender, and socioeconomic status (SES). As SES has previously been found to correlate with unethical behavior (Dubois et al., 2015), we controlled for this variable to ascertain the unique contribution of scarcity experience.

Measures

Experienced scarcity

Participants reported the extent to which they agreed with six items of scarcity experience, adapted from Roux et al. (2015). A sample item is, “I don’t have enough resources.” Answers were given on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). These six items were averaged to create a score for experienced scarcity (Cronbach’s α = 0.77).

Desire for money

Adapting the approach of Xu et al. (2015), we showed participants a series of five objects or experiences: potato chips, apple, binder clip, spa visit, and money. Participants were required to indicate how much they would like to have each one on a 10-point scale (0 = not at all, 10 = very much). The score for money is used to measure desire for money.

Consideration of future consequences

The measure of consideration of future consequences (Strathman et al., 1994) includes 12 statements related to considering near or distant outcomes of behaviors. A sample item is, “I only act to meet immediate needs, thinking the future will attend to itself” (reverse scored). Participants answered each item on a 5-point scale (1 = extremely uncharacteristic of me, 5 = extremely characteristic of me). Higher average score indicates greater consideration of future consequences (Cronbach’s α = 0.77).

Unethical behavior

A set of 12 scenarios adapted from Sheldon and Fishbach (2015) was used to measure unethical behavior. Participants were asked to read each scenario and report to what extent they would engage in each type of behavior using a 6-point scale (1 = not at all likely, 6 = highly likely). Six scenarios presented work-related ethical dilemmas describing a self-interested act or an unethical act that violates accepted moral norms (e.g., taking office supplies home for personal use). The other six scenarios were unrelated to morality. Unethical behavior was assessed by averaging the answers to the six unethical scenarios (Cronbach’s α = 0.64).

Socioeconomic status

Participants indicated their educational level on a 7-point scale (1 = illiterate, 2 = primary school graduate, 3 = middle school graduate, 4 = high school graduate, 5 = second/third-year college, 6 = college graduate, and 7 = postgraduate degree). The mean education level was 5.90 (SD = 0.56). Occupation was assessed using seven categories, with a higher score indicating a higher occupational level (1 = unemployed, 2 = blue collar or service, 3 = technician, 4 = office worker, 5 = junior management, 6 = middle management, and 7 = senior management). The mean occupation level was 4.86 (SD = 1.03). Monthly income was coded into seven categories (1 = ¥2,000 or less, 2 = ¥2,001–6,000, 3 = ¥6,001–8,000, 4 = ¥8,001–10,000, 5 = ¥10,001–15,000, 6 = ¥15,001–20,000, and 7 = ¥20,001 or more). The average monthly income level was 3.10 (SD = 1.31). An SES measure was produced as an average of standardized scores for education, income, and occupation (Adler et al., 2000).

Results and discussion

Experienced scarcity was negatively associated with consideration of future consequences but positively associated with desire for money and unethical behavior. Moreover, consideration of future consequences was negatively associated with unethical behavior. However, the correlation between consideration of future consequences and desire for money was nonsignificant, as was the correlation between desire for money and unethical behavior. As shown in Table1, reporting descriptive statistics, the main results remained unchanged after controlling for SES.

Table 1

Descriptive statistics and correlations for key variables in Study 1

	M	SD	1	2	3	4
1. Scarcity experience (1–7 scale)	5.18	0.92	—	−0.236^ (− 0.212^)	0.341^ (0.342^)	0.177^* (0.192^**)
2. Consideration of future consequences (1–5 scale)	3.38	0.54		—	−0.065 (− 0.064)	−0.255^ (− 0.297^)
3. Desire for money (0–10 scale)	9.35	1.15			—	0.026 (0.028)
4. Unethical behavior (1–6 scale)	3.69	0.85				—

Open in a separate window

The numbers in parentheses are partial correlations controlling for SES

We conducted mediation analyses using the PROCESS macro (model 4, with 5,000 bootstrap samples) devised by Preacher and Hayes (2008). Both desire for money and consideration of future consequences were included as possible mediators between experienced scarcity and unethical behavior. The analysis showed that only consideration of future consequences significantly mediated the effect of scarcity experience on unethical behavior (indirect effect = 0.05, SE = 0.02, 95% CI = [0.0125, 0.0992]); the mediation path via desire for money was nonsignificant (indirect effect = − 0.01, SE = 0.02, 95% CI = [− 0.0538, 0.0285]). Figure1 depicts the results. These effects held while controlling for gender, age, and SES.

Effect of scarcity experience on unethical behavior: The mediating role of consideration of future consequences (3)

Open in a separate window

Fig. 1

Parallel mediation model of the impact of scarcity experience on unethical behavior through desire for money and consideration of future consequences (Study 1).Note: ** p < .01, *** p < .001 (standard errors are in parentheses)

These results provide preliminary support for the idea that scarcity experience leads to unethical behavior by reducing consideration of future consequences. However, desire for money was not a significant mediator, which might be explained by measuring the variable with only one item. Although a single-item measure and multi-item measures have similar predictive validity (Bergkvist & Rossiter, 2007), the former may not be ideal and may lead to low validity. To address this issue, we decided to use a multi-item measure of desire for money in Study 2. Another limitation is that the correlational nature of Study 1 constrains the interpretability of results. Therefore, in Studies 2 and 3 we attempt to establish the direction of causality by manipulating scarcity experience and then testing how and through what underlying mechanisms it affects unethical behavior.

Study 2

Method

Participants

A total of 125 students (76 females, 49 males; M_age = 22.07, SD_age = 2.55) were recruited on a university campus; each received ¥10 for participation. They were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: abundance (n = 63) and scarcity (n = 62). Sensitivity analyses (with a power 0.80 and α of 0.05) showed that the sample was sufficiently large to detect an effect size d = 0.45.

Procedure

Experience of scarcity or abundance was manipulated through a social comparison task, after which participants responded to the unethical behavior and filler items. Participants then completed the scales assessing desire for money and consideration of future consequences. The order of the two proposed mediators was counterbalanced between participants.

Materials

Scarcity experience manipulation

Experience of scarcity was induced through a writing task involving social comparison, which had been successfully used to manipulate financial scarcity experience (Sharma & Alter, 2012). Specifically, the participants were instructed to recall a time when they compared their economic situation to that of their counterparts. In the scarcity (abundance) condition, participants were instructed to recall a situation in which they were financially worse off (better off) than their counterparts, and asked to write about what happened and how they felt about being worse off (better off), focusing on the specific facets of their inferior (superior) financial position. The effectiveness of the manipulation was checked by asking participants to answer three questions about their financial position (e.g., “economic situation”) relative to their counterparts on a 12-point scale (1 = much worse, 12 = much better; Cronbach’s α = 0.85).

Unethical behavior

Participants completed a 10-item questionnaire containing four items regarding unethical behavior and six filler items (adapted from Detert et al., 2008). For each item, participants read the scenario and answered how likely they were to engage in the described behavior, using a 7-point scale (0 = not at all likely, 6 = highly likely; Cronbach’s α = 0.56).

Desire for money

This variable was measured with seven items adopted from Lasaleta et al. (2014), each answered on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree; Cronbach’s α was 0.70). A sample item is “Money is important to me.”

Consideration of future consequences

We assessed this variable with the same 12-item measure used in Study 1 (1 = extremely uncharacteristic of me, 5 = extremely characteristic of me; Strathman et al., 1994; Cronbach’s α = 0.77).

Results and discussion

Participants in the scarcity condition (M = 6.21, SD = 1.96) felt significantly worse about their financial position than those in the abundance condition (M = 7.74, SD = 1.40; t(123) = 5.01, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 0.89), indicating that the manipulation was successful.

Next, we tested the hypothesis that participants experimentally induced to experience scarcity were more likely to engage in unethical behavior, relative to participants induced to experience abundance. A t-test confirmed that participants in the scarcity condition (M = 2.70, SD = 1.13) were more likely to behave unethically than those in the abundance condition (M = 2.22, SD = 1.06, t(123) = − 2.43, p = .017, Cohen’s d = 0.43).

Regarding the potential mediators, desire for money did not significantly differ between participants in the scarcity condition (M = 4.73, SD = 0.84) and those in the abundance condition (M = 4.62, SD = 0.90, t(123) = − 0.75, p = .457, Cohen’s d = 0.12). Moreover, there was no significant difference in consideration of future consequences between participants in the scarcity condition (M = 3.43, SD = 0.46) and those in the abundance condition (M = 3.51, SD = 0.57, t(123) = 0.90, p = .372, Cohen’s d = 0.16). These results indicate that scarcity did not affect desire for money or consideration of future consequences.

We next performed a mediation analysis (PROCESS model 4, with 5,000 bootstrap samples; Preacher & Hayes, 2008) including desire for money and consideration of future consequences as simultaneous mediators. This analysis revealed that neither desire for money (indirect effect = 0.05, SE = 0.07, 95% CI = [− 0.0835, 0.2119]) nor consideration of future consequences (indirect effect = − 0.0004, SE = 0.03, 95% CI = [− 0.0600, 0.0457]) was a significant mediator. Figure2 depicts the results, which held while controlling for gender, age, and college grade. We thus found that the effect of scarcity experience on unethical behavior was not through either of the proposed mediating variables.

Effect of scarcity experience on unethical behavior: The mediating role of consideration of future consequences (4)

Open in a separate window

Fig. 2

Parallel mediation model of the impact of scarcity experience on unethical behavior through desire for money and consideration of future consequences (Study 2).Note:* p < .05, *** p < .001 (standard errors are in parentheses)

The results of Study 2 replicate the findings in Study 1 but for manipulated scarcity. As participants randomly assigned to the scarcity condition were more prone to acting unethically than those assigned to the abundance condition, the experimental evidence demonstrates a causal association between experienced scarcity and unethical behavior. However, we found no evidence that this effect occurs via desire for money or consideration of future consequences.

Studies 1 and 2 both attempted to uncover the underlying mechanism through which scarcity experience influences unethical behavior. We found no evidence that desire for money mediates this relationship but inconsistent evidence on whether consideration of future consequences has a mediating effect. Specifically, Study 1 found that consideration of future consequences mediated the association between self-reported experienced scarcity and unethical behavior, whereas Study 2 failed to replicate this finding with scarcity experience manipulated using a recalling paradigm. In Study 3, we used another approach to manipulate scarcity experience and examined its effect on actual unethical behavior. Given the inconsistent results in Studies 1 and 2, we again examined the possible mediating effect of consideration of future consequences. Moreover, Study 3 included a control condition to demonstrate that the effect discovered in Study 2 was driven by scarcity rather than abundance.

Study 3

Method

Participants

A total of 100 college students (68 females, 32 males; M_age = 19.90, SD_age = 1.91) were recruited on campus; each received ¥10 for participating. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: control (n = 50) and scarcity (n = 50). Sensitivity analysis (assuming a power of 0.80 and α of 0.05) suggested that the sample was sufficiently large to detect an effect size d = 0.50.

Procedure

We initially manipulated experience of scarcity through an imagining and thought-listing task. Participants then engaged in a task designed to measure unethical behavior, and completed a measure of consideration of future consequences. The order in which this task and measure were undertaken was counterbalanced between participants.

Materials

Scarcity manipulation

To activate scarcity experience, participants in the scarcity condition were given a list of five types of resources (e.g., water) and asked to imagine and record three things they could not do if these resources were unavailable (Roux et al., 2015). Participants in the control condition were given the same list of five resources and asked to imagine and record three things they can do with these resources.

We chose not to conduct a manipulation check with the Study 3 participants as the questions might have led them to infer the research purpose. Instead, we tested the effectiveness of the scarcity manipulation in a pre-test of 56 students recruited from the same population. Pre-test participants completed the manipulation exercise then reported the extent to which they agreed with five items on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). A sample item is, “There are not enough resources for everyone” (Pitesa & Thau, 2018). Answers to these five items were averaged to create an index of perceived scarcity (Cronbach’s α = 0.68). As expected, pre-test participants in the scarcity condition scored higher (M = 5.20, SD = 0.93) than those in the control condition (M = 4.66, SD = 0.99, t(54) = 2.109, p = .040, Cohen’s d = 0.56), thereby confirming that the manipulation was successful.

Unethical behavior

Study 3 participants engaged in a computer-based ostensible visual perception task in which they could gain a greater reward by lying (Gino et al., 2010). In each trial, participants were shown 20 dots in a square, divided by a diagonal line. The dots disappeared after one second, and participants were instructed to report whether there had been more dots to the left or right of the diagonal line. Participants were told that they would be rewarded based on their response. The payoff rules were explained as follows. For each trial in which they answered that more dots were on the left, they would earn ¥0.01; for each trial in which they answered that more dots were on the right, they would earn ¥0.10. Thus, participants had the chance to earn a higher reward by always reporting that more dots were on the right, because the program would reward them based on their clicks regardless of the correct answer. After a few practice trials, participants played formal 100 trials with a financial reward. With 100 trials, participants could maximize their reward by always answering that more dots were on the right side (thereby earning ¥10). The true answer was “left” in 34 trials, “right” in 16 right trials, and ambiguous (i.e., difficult to detect) in 50 trials. The number of times participants reported “right” in ambiguous trials was defined as unethical behavior (Gino & Ariely, 2012).

Consideration of future consequences

This variable was assessed using the same 12-item measure as in Studies 1 and 2 (1 = extremely uncharacteristic of me, 5 = extremely characteristic of me; Strathman et al., 1994; Cronbach’s α = 0.79).

Results and discussion

A t-test confirmed that participants in the scarcity condition (M = 33.32, SD = 11.30) chose “right” more frequently than those in the control condition (M = 28.14, SD = 11.06, t(98) = − 2.316, p = .023, Cohen’s d = 0.46). These results indicate that experienced scarcity increased unethical behavior, specifically dishonesty.

However, consideration of future consequences did not significantly differ between participants in the scarcity condition (M = 3.26, SD = 0.48) and those in the control condition (M = 3.37, SD = 0.57, t(98) = 1.007, p = .317, Cohen’s d = 0.20).

A mediation analysis (PROCESS model 4, with 5,000 bootstrap samples; Preacher & Hayes, 2008) revealed that consideration of future consequences did not significantly mediate the effect of scarcity experience on unethical behavior (indirect effect = − 0.07, SE = 0.03, 95% CI = [− 0.9293, 0.4707]). Figure3 depicts the results, which held while controlling for gender and age. Therefore, the effect of scarcity experience on unethical behavior could not be explained by changes in consideration of future consequences.

Effect of scarcity experience on unethical behavior: The mediating role of consideration of future consequences (5)

Open in a separate window

Fig. 3

Mediation model of the impact of scarcity experience on unethical behavior through consideration of future consequences (Study 3).Note: * p < .05 (standard errors are in parentheses)

The results of Study 3 provide additional support for the predicted relationship using an alternative scarcity manipulation and a measure of actual (rather than intended) unethical behavior. However, the evidence indicates that consideration of future consequences did not serve as a mediator.

Internal meta-analysis

To summarize our findings and provide an additional test of our hypothesis that scarcity experience increases the likelihood of unethical behavior, we performed a random-effects mini meta-analysis of our three studies (k = 3, N = 450; Goh et al., 2016). We used the Hedge’s g effect sizes (calculated from r in Study 1). Overall, participants’ intended or actual engagement in unethical behavior was consistently higher when experiencing scarcity (total: Hedge’s g = 0.402, 95% CI [0.212, 0.593]).

General discussion

Using correlational and experimental designs, this research explored the influence of experienced scarcity on individuals’ negative social behavior, specifically unethical behavior. The results of three studies support the hypothesis that scarcity experience increases unethical behavior. In Study 1, participants’ experienced scarcity was positively related to the likelihood of unethical behavior, and this positive relation was mediated by reduced consideration of future consequences. (Study 1). Studies 2 and 3 then experimentally manipulated scarcity experience through recalling and imagining paradigms, respectively, using participants manipulated to experience abundance (Study 2) or in neutral control condition (Study 3) for comparative analysis. Compared to participants in the other condition, those in the scarcity experience condition had higher self-reported intention to engage in unethical behavior in Study 2 and engaged more in actual unethical behavior in Study 3.

These findings highlight the significant role of scarcity experience in the social behavioral domain. They suggest that the perception one lacks sufficient resources may motivate unethical behavior to boost personal welfare while violating widely accepted social norms. Our research has both theoretical implications for scarcity theory (Cannon et al., 2019) and practical implications for understanding behavioral outcomes of experienced scarcity, of particular relevance to conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic (Hamilton, 2021). Our findings are in line with the self-regulatory model of scarcity, according to which the experience of scarcity motivates individuals to initiate actions to remedy the undesirable discrepancy (Cannon et al., 2019). Behaving unethically serves to reduce the difference between the currently limited level of one’s resources and a higher, more desirable level. Despite this research being a preliminary investigation of whether and how scarcity experience influences unethical behavior, the results are consistent with previous evidence that scarcity experience induces engagement in self-interested behaviors and reduces engagement in altruistic/prosocial behaviors intended to benefit others (Liang et al., 2021; Roux et al., 2015). Our findings may help to understand real-life manifestations of unethical behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic, such as increased unemployment-benefits fraud or academic misconduct.

The main finding in our cross-sectional study was subsequently replicated in experimental studies with scarcity manipulated through recalling and imagining paradigms. In addition, we examined and controlled for several plausible predictors of unethical behavior: age, gender, and SES. After excluding the potential confounding effects of these variables, we still observed a unique contribution of scarcity experience to unethical behavior. These study features increase our confidence in the reliability of the findings.

Our studies also made several attempts to uncover the motivational and cognitive mechanisms through which scarcity experience increases the likelihood of unethical behavior. Consistent with our expectation, reduced consideration of future consequences mediated the positive association between scarcity experience and unethical behavior in Study 1. Individuals with a higher perception of general scarcity may focus on their limited resources, leading to a higher tendency to prioritize immediate over distant outcomes (Pepper & Nettle, 2017); in turn, this diminished consideration of future consequences triggers unethical behavior (e.g., Hershfield et al., 2012). However, the two experimental studies did not replicate this mediation effect. A plausible explanation is that consideration of future consequences might be a relatively stable trait (Strathman et al., 1994) cultivated by experiencing scarcity for a relatively long-time. If so, it would not be susceptible to change through mere recall or imagination of experienced scarcity, as in Studies 2 and 3. To investigate whether scarcity experience influences consideration of future consequences in the long term, and whether this leads to a mediated effect on unethical behavior, longitudinal studies are needed of developmental associations between these variables. Moreover, future research could use an additional measure of consideration of future consequences, such as elaboration of potential outcomes (Nenkov et al., 2008).

The present research has several limitations. First, the manipulations of scarcity experience in Studies 2 and 3 were based on recalled or imagined events. Future research could elicit an instant experience of scarcity, for instance by giving participants limited resources (e.g., tokens) when introducing them to a game in which success depends on gaining sufficient resources (Huijsmans et al., 2019). Second, we found no evidence supporting the mediation effect of desire for money. This might be because scarcity experience increases desire for resources generally, rather than only the monetary resource. Another possibility is that our measures of desire for money could not capture the temporary change induced by scarcity experience. Implicit measures, such as an implicit-association test or word-completion task should be used in future research.

It is also necessary for future studies to test alternative underlying mechanisms of the association between scarcity experience and unethical behavior. For example, previous research has suggested that coping with scarcity is cognitively demanding, such that scarcity experience may reduce cognitive capacity and hinder cognitive-task performance (Mani et al., 2013). As cognitive resources are necessary for exerting self-control, the diversion of these resources by experienced scarcity may result in self-control depletion, which has been found to increase unethical behavior (Wang et al., 2017; Welsh et al., 2014). Reduced self-control should, therefore, be investigated as a potential mediator between scarcity experience and unethical behavior. Finally, although this research used relatively diverse samples (i.e., working adults and college students), all participants were recruited from China. Future studies could test the generalizability of our findings by studying other cultures.

Despite these limitations, the present research valuably elucidates the robust influence of experienced scarcity on individuals’ unethical behavior, thereby expanding literature on the social consequences of scarcity and enriching understanding of the antecedents of unethical behavior. Given the detrimental outcomes of these behaviors to organizations and society, researchers should focus especially on identifying processes through which this relationship can be mitigated.

Author contributions

Ying Yang, Yan Wang, and Kaiyue Mou designed the studies; Kaiyue Mou collected data; Yan Wang, Kaiyue Mou, Lin Liu, and Shuhong Kong conducted analyses; Ying Yang, Yan Wang, and Lin Liu drafted the original manuscript; all authors approved of the final manuscript.

Funding

This research was financially funded by Shanghai Planning Office of Philosophy and Social Science (Grant Number: 2020BSH006), MOE (Ministry of Education) Youth Project of Humanities and Social Science (Grant Number: 20YJC190026), Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (2022QKT007; 2022ECNU-XWK-XK003), and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Number: 31600915 and 31971011).

Data availability

The data are openly available at Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/cak7x/).

Declarations

Ethics approval

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by the Human Research Ethics committee of the University of East China Normal University (Ethics approval number: HR 234–2018).

Consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest.

Footnotes

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

Adler NE, Epel ES, Castellazzo G, Ickovics JR. Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: preliminary data in healthy, white women. Health Psychology. 2000;19(6):586–592. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.19.6.586. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Bergkvist L, Rossiter JR. The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item measures of the same constructs. Journal of Marketing Research. 2007;44(2):175–184. doi:10.1509/jmkr.44.2.175. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Briers B, Laporte S. A wallet full of calories: the effect of financial dissatisfaction on the desire for food energy. Journal of Marketing Research. 2013;50(6):767–781. doi:10.1509/jmr.10.0513. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Briers B, Pandelaere M, Dewitte S, Warlop L. Hungry for money: the desire for caloric resources increases the desire for financial resources and vice versa. Psychological Science. 2006;17(11):939–943. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01808.x. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Cannon C, Goldsmith K, Roux C. A self-regulatory model of resource scarcity. Journal of Consumer Psychology. 2019;29(1):104–127. doi:10.1002/jcpy.1035. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Carvalho LS, Meier S, Wang SW. Poverty and economic decision-making: evidence from changes in financial resources at payday. American Economic Review. 2016;106(2):260–284. doi:10.1257/aer.20140481. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Chen J, Tang TLP, Tang N. Temptation, monetary intelligence (love of money), and environmental context on unethical intentions and cheating. Journal of Business Ethics. 2014;123(2):197–219. doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1783-2. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Cohen TR, Panter AT, Turan N, Morse L, Kim Y. Moral character in the workplace. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2014;107(5):943–963. doi:10.1037/a0037245. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Detert JR, Treviño LK, Sweitzer VL. Moral disengagement in ethical decision making: a study of antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2008;93(2):374–391. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.374. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Dubois D, Rucker DD, Galinsky AD. Social class, power, and selfishness: when and why upper and lower class individuals behave unethically. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2015;108(3):436–449. doi:10.1037/pspi0000008. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Elbæk, C., Mitkidis, P., Aarøe, L., & Otterbring, T. (2021). Material scarcity and unethical economic behavior: A systematic review and meta-analysis [Preprint]. In Review. 10.21203/rs.3.rs-800481/v1
Fan L, Li X, Jiang Y. Room for opportunity: resource scarcity increases attractiveness of range marketing offers. Journal of Consumer Research. 2019;46(1):82–98. doi:10.1093/jcr/ucy059. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G∗Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods. 2007;39(2):175–191. doi:10.3758/BF03193146. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Gasiorowska A, Zaleskiewicz T, Kesebir P. Money as an existential anxiety buffer: exposure to money prevents mortality reminders from leading to increased death thoughts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2018;79:394–409. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2018.09.004. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Gino F, Ariely D. The dark side of creativity: original thinkers can be more dishonest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2012;102(3):445–459. doi:10.1037/a0026406. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Gino F, Norton MI, Ariely D. The counterfeit self: the deceptive costs of faking it. Psychological Scisence. 2010;21(5):712–720. doi:10.1177/0956797610366545. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Gino F, Pierce L. The abundance effect: unethical behavior in the presence of wealth. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 2009;109(2):142–155. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.03.003. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Goh JX, Hall JA, Rosenthal R. Mini meta-analysis of your own studies: some arguments on why and a primer on how. Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 2016;10(10):535–549. doi:10.1111/spc3.12267. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Goldsmith K, Roux C, Ma J. When seeking the best brings out the worst in consumers: understanding the relationship between a maximizing mindset and immoral behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology. 2018;28(2):293–309. doi:10.1002/jcpy.1017. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Hamilton, R. (2021). Scarcity and Coronavirus. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 40(1), 99–100. 10.1177/0743915620928110
Hamilton R, Thompson D, Bone S, et al. The effects of scarcity on consumer decision journeys. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 2019;47(3):532–550. doi:10.1007/s11747-018-0604-7. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Hershfield HE, Cohen TR, Thompson L. Short horizons and tempting situations: lack of continuity to our future selves leads to unethical decision making and behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 2012;117(2):298–310. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.11.002. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Huijsmans, I., Ma, I., Micheli, L., Civai, C., Stallen, M., & Sanfey, A. (2019). A scarcity mindset alters neural processing underlying consumer decision making. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(24), 11699–11704. 10.1073/pnas.1818572116 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Lasaleta J, Sedikides C, Vohs K. Nostalgia weakens the desire for money. Journal of Consumer Research. 2014;41(3):713–729. doi:10.1086/677227. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Liang S, Ye D, Liu Y. The effect of perceived scarcity: experiencing scarcity increases risk taking. The Journal of Psychology. 2021;155(1):59–89. doi:10.1080/00223980.2020.1822770. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Mani A, Mullainathan S, Shafir E, Zhao J. Poverty impedes cognitive function. Science. 2013;341(6149):976–980. doi:10.1126/science.1238041. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Mell H, Baumard N, André JB. Time is money. Waiting costs explain why selection favors steeper time discounting in deprived environments. Evolution and Human Behavior. 2021;42(4):379–387. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2021.02.003. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Mullainathan S, Shafir E. Scarcity: why having too little means so much. Times Books; 2013. [Google Scholar]
Nenkov GY, Inman JJ, Hulland J. Considering the future: the conceptualization and measurement of elaboration on potential outcomes. Journal of Consumer Research. 2008;35(1):126–141. doi:10.1086/525504. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Nkundabanyanga SK, Omagor C, Mpamizo B, Ntayi JM. The love of money, pressure to perform and unethical marketing behavior in the cosmetic industry in Uganda. International Journal of Marketing Studies. 2011;3(4):40–49. doi:10.5539/ijms.v3n4p40. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Pepper GV, Nettle D. The behavioural constellation of deprivation: causes and consequences. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2017;40:1–72. doi:10.1017/S0140525X1600234X. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Pitesa M, Thau S. Resource scarcity, effort, and performance in physically demanding jobs: an evolutionary explanation. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2018;103(3):237–248. doi:10.1037/apl0000257. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Preacher KJ, Hayes AF. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods. 2008;40(3):879–891. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.3.879. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Radel R, Clément-Guillotin C. Evidence of motivational influences in early visual perception: Hunger modulates conscious access. Psychological Science. 2012;23(3):232–234. doi:10.1177/0956797611427920. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Roux C, Goldsmith K, Bonezzi A. On the psychology of scarcity: when reminders of resource scarcity promote selfish (and generous) behavior. Journal of Consumer Research. 2015;42(4):615–631. doi:10.1093/jcr/ucv048. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Ruedy NE, Moore C, Gino F, Schweitzer ME. The cheater’s high: the unexpected affective benefits of unethical behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2013;105(4):531–548. doi:10.1037/a0034231. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Shah AK, Zhao J, Mullainathan S, Shafir E. Money in the mental lives of the poor. Social Cognition. 2018;36(1):4–19. doi:10.1521/soco.2018.36.1.4. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Sharma E, Alter AL. Financial deprivation prompts consumers to seek scarce goods. Journal of Consumer Research. 2012;39(3):545–560. doi:10.1086/664038. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Sharma E, Mazar N, Alter AL, Ariely D. Financial deprivation selectively shifts moral standards and compromises moral decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 2014;123(2):90–100. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.09.001. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Sheldon OJ, Fishbach A. Anticipating and resisting the temptation to behave unethically. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2015;41(7):965–975. doi:10.1177/0146167215586196. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Sommet N, Morselli D, Spini D. Income inequality affects the psychological health of only the people facing scarcity. Psychological Science. 2018;29(12):1911–1921. doi:10.1177/0956797618798620. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Strathman A, Gleicher F, Boninger DS, Edwards CS. The consideration of future consequences: weighing immediate and distant outcomes of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1994;66(4):742–752. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.66.4.742. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Wang Y, Wang G, Chen Q, Li L. Depletion, moral identity, and unethical behavior: why people behave unethically after self-control exertion. Consciousness and Cognition. 2017;56:188–198. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2017.09.007. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Welsh DT, Ellis APJ, Christian MS, Mai KM. Building a self-regulatory model of sleep deprivation and deception: the role of caffeine and social influence. The Journal of Applied Psychology. 2014;99(6):1268–1277. doi:10.1037/a0036202. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Williams EF, Pizarro D, Ariely D, Weinberg JD. The Valjean effect: visceral states and cheating. Emotion. 2016;16(6):897–902. doi:10.1037/emo0000158. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Xu AJ, Schwarz N, Wyer RS. Hunger promotes acquisition of nonfood objects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2015;112(9):2688–2692. doi:10.1073/pnas.1417712112. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Yam KC, Reynolds SJ, Hirsh JB. The hungry thief: physiological deprivation and its effects on unethical behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 2014;125(2):123–133. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.07.002. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Zhou X, Vohs KD, Baumeister RF. The symbolic power of money: reminders of money alter social distress and physical pain. Psychological Science. 2009;20(6):700–706. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02353.x. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Current Psychology (New Brunswick, N.j.) are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

FAQs

Effect of scarcity experience on unethical behavior: The mediating role of consideration of future consequences? ›

Experienced scarcity was negatively associated with consideration of future consequences but positively associated with desire for money and unethical behavior. Moreover, consideration of future consequences was negatively associated with unethical behavior.

Read On ›

What is the effect of scarcity experience on unethical behavior the mediating role of consideration of future consequences? ›

The results of three studies support the hypothesis that scarcity experience increases unethical behavior. In Study 1, participants' experienced scarcity was positively related to the likelihood of unethical behavior, and this positive relation was mediated by reduced consideration of future consequences.

Discover More Details ›

How does scarcity affect behavior? ›

It also affects your brain's decision-making process. A scarcity mindset limits your ability to plan, focus, and start a project or task. Your brain is too busy thinking about something you don't have. It makes impulse control harder.

What are the consequences of scarcity? ›

Scarcity limits the choices of consumers in an economy. Scarcity can affect a country's money supply, natural resources, available labor, and means of production.

See Details ›

What are the consequences of unethical behavior to the society? ›

Generally speaking, Behavior that is unethical has negative effects on both people and organisations. You could lose your job and reputation, organisations might lose their credibility, general morale and productivity might suffer, or the behaviour might lead to hefty fines and/or substantial financial loss.

Find Out More ›

What is an example of the scarcity effect? ›

Natural resources like gold, oil, silver and other fossil fuels are naturally rare. When demand exceeds the supply, these resources become scarce and prices can go up. Other commodities, like diamonds, command a high price because of their limited availability and control of their market.

Tell Me More ›

In what ways does scarcity play a role in your daily life and decision-making? ›

Lack of time or the money scarce, either of the two produces anxiety that ends in a poor decision. The scarcity of time leads to procrastination, wherein people tend to do things which are pressing more demand on them at the priority while holding up to do things which may become worse due to delay.

Show Me More ›

How will scarcity affect the future? ›

Heightened consumption and unsustainable production are depleting natural sources of these life-supporting essentials. Resource scarcity will continue to cause critical and, to a certain extent, irreversible environmental damage. But it will also impact the economy by causing market prices to rise.

Explore More ›

How can scarcity affect someone's life? ›

This scarcity mindset consumes what Shafir calls "mental bandwidth" — brainpower that would otherwise go to less pressing concerns, planning ahead and problem-solving. This deprivation can lead to a life absorbed by preoccupations that impose ongoing cognitive deficits and reinforce self-defeating actions.

What is scarcity and its causes and effects? ›

Scarcity in economics refers to the demand for a product or resource being greater than its supply. Natural disasters, international relations or consumer demand can cause particular products to become scarce.

Show Me More ›

What are three possible consequences of behaving unethically? ›

The consequences of unethical behaviour can manifest through the following:

Damages reputation and credibility. ...
Low employee engagement. ...
High employee turnover and loss of valuable talent. ...
Drain on resources. ...
Disrupt employee relations.

Read The Full Story ›

What is one of the worst effects of unethical behavior? ›

Loss of Trust and Credibility

When unethical behavior occurs, it erodes the trust and credibility that a company has built with its stakeholders, including customers, employees, and investors.

See Details ›

What are the legal consequences of unethical behavior? ›

The range of penalties includes censure, removal from office, permanent disqualification from holding any state position, restitution, decades in prison, and fines up into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Not all ethics violations are treated equally.

Get More Info Here ›

How does scarcity affect people's decisions? ›

Washington — When people feel that their resources are scarce—that they don't have enough money or time to meet their needs—they often make decisions that favor short-term gains over long-term benefits. Because of that, researchers have argued that scarcity pushes people to make myopic, impulsive decisions.

How does scarcity affect consumer behavior? ›

Scarcity creates a sense of urgency and fear of missing out, compelling consumers to make immediate purchasing decisions to secure a limited or time-sensitive offer.

What are the effects of a scarcity mindset? ›

People in a scarcity mindset tend to experience negative emotions such as stress and lack of confidence (Haushofer and Fehr, 2014; Huijsmans et al., 2019) and shift their attention to short-term needs (Shah et al., 2012, 2015).

View Details ›

How does scarcity lead to conflict? ›

The exploitation of high-value natural resources, including oil, gas, minerals and timber has often been cited as a key factor in triggering, escalating or sustaining violent conflicts around the globe.