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.

Using a multi-method approach, we investigate whether income volatility is associated with financial impatience—the preference to receive a small sum of money immediately over a larger sum of money later. We find that experiencing more income volatility—including a higher frequency of either income dips or spikes – is associated with greater financial impatience. Using longitudinal data on biannual income, Study 1 demonstrates that this effect operates above and beyond individual differences in income risk preferences and wealth. Study 2 conceptually replicates these correlational findings with recent month-to-month income volatility and finds that this effect occurs primarily among people who report having little control over their finances. Using a longitudinal field experimental with low-income working women, Study 3 tests for a causal effect of an externally-induced spike in monthly income on changes in financial impatience. In a pre-post test experimental design, participants randomly assigned to receive cash transfers amounting to a median monthly income spike of 29% exhibit significantly greater financial impatience compared to a control condition in which participants receive no cash transfers. We conclude by discussing the implications of these findings for employers and policymakers.

It’s true: we have more time for leisure than we did fifty years ago. But leisure has never been less relaxing, mostly because of the disintermediating effects of our screens. Technology saves us time, but it also takes it away. This is known as the autonomy paradox. We adopt mobile technologies to gain autonomy over when and how long we work, yet, ironically, we end up working all the time. Long blocks of free time we used to enjoy are now interrupted constantly by our smart watches, phones, tablets, and laptops. This situation taxes us cognitively, and fragments our leisure time in a way that makes it hard to use this time for something that will relieve stress or make us happy. Researchers call this phenomenon time confetti, which amounts to little bits of seconds and minutes lost to unproductive multitasking. Each bit alone seems not very bad. Collectively, though, all that confetti adds up to something more pernicious than you might expect.

Autonomous products such as robotic vacuum cleaners, lawn mowers, and playmates for our pets are meant to improve people’s lives—but do they actually make consumers happier? The authors share the results of recent research which found that owning autonomous products does in fact increase happiness, but with two important caveats: first, they found that consumers felt less comfortable using products with highly human-like features such as voices or names, and actually reported feeling guilty about relegating their dirty work to these products. Second, they found that if using a robotic product was associated with laziness, that could also decrease consumer happiness. Based on these findings, the authors offer several practical suggestions for how manufacturers can most effectively develop and market these time-saving products to the modern consumer.

Faculty & Research

Communicating Resource Scarcity

Abstract

Citation:

About the Authors

More from these Authors