Communicating Resource Scarcity

Grant E. Donnelly; Anne  Wilson; A.V.  Whillans; Michael I. Norton

Working Paper | HBS Working Paper Series | 2019

Communicating Resource Scarcity

by Grant E. Donnelly, Anne Wilson, A.V. Whillans and Michael I. Norton

Abstract

The development and maintenance of interpersonal relationships require investments of both money and time—resources that are often limited in supply, but in great demand. Indeed, consumers are regularly asked to dedicate their money and time to social engagements, and need to manage these resources efficiently. Therefore, consumers often choose to cite insufficient time or money as an excuse for rejecting social invitations. But how does using the excuse of financial versus time scarcity influence interpersonal relationships? Across eight experiments, we demonstrate that using financial scarcity as an excuse (e.g., “I don’t have money”) increases perceptions of interpersonal closeness and helping behavior compared to using time scarcity as an excuse (e.g., “I don’t have time”). This effect is explained by the fact that time is perceived as a more personally controllable resource than money, resulting in consumers who cite financial (vs. temporal) constraints as being perceived as more trustworthy. However, excuse-givers do not correctly predict this difference in interpersonal outcomes. These findings advance our theoretical understanding of how excuses revolving around resource constraints affect interpersonal perceptions and behaviors and provides practical insights for consumers desiring to minimize social repercussions when turning down social invitations.

Keywords: interpersonal relationships; time; Communication; Relationships; Money; Perception;

Language: English

Format: Print

87 pages

Read Now

Citation:

Donnelly, Grant E., Anne Wilson, A.V. Whillans, and Michael I. Norton. "Communicating Resource Scarcity." Harvard Business School Working Paper, No. 19-066, January 2019.

Across five field experiments with employees of a large organization (N=68, 915), we examined whether standard behavioral science interventions (i.e., ‘nudges’) successfully reduced single occupancy vehicle commutes. In Study 1-2, we sent letters and emails that included standard nudges to increase carpooling. These interventions failed to meaningfully increase carpool sign-up or usage. In Studies 3-5, we examined the efficacy of two other well-established behaviorally-informed interventions: non-cash incentives and personalized travel plans. Again, we found no meaningful effects. Across studies the effect sizes were d=[-0.01, 0.05], with a meta-analytic effect size of d = 0.02, 95CI [-0.02, 0.06]. Equivalence testing reveals that the effect size of four of the studies is statistically equivalent to zero (p < 0.0001). Our paper presents the first set of highly powered behaviorally informed experiments on these outcomes and highlights the importance of publishing null results to build cumulative knowledge about how to encourage sustainable travel.

Faculty & Research

Communicating Resource Scarcity

Abstract

Citation:

About the Authors

More from these Authors