📷📷
📷
Contents
Purpose of Review
The following paper is preliminary review into current research regarding the marketing of student organization memberships to students, (student organizations are considered synonymous with student clubs, societies, and student-lead groups, in the context of this review). While much has been written about the benefits of joining student organizations, there is little research into how these clubs can strategically be marketed toward students (Clark & Kemp, 2008). Evidently, almost all sources reviewed relating to student organizations indicated difficulties motivating, and retaining student club members (Clark & Kemp, 2008; Cooper, Schuett, Phillips, 2012; Gage, Thapa, 2012; Munoz, Miller, & Poole, 2016). The purpose of this review is to help develop understanding and direction for the development of a research question relevant to this topic.
The research interest is What is the student perception on the effect scarcity marketing practices would have on their motivations for participating in student organizations? How would scarcity marketing practices influence student participation rates in student organizations? To clarify, consider the following question. If a student is motivated to join a student organization to improve career perspectives, would they perceive a club that implements rigorous joining criteria, or a club that extensively promotes inclusion, as more promising to meet that goal? Would the student see their membership in an exclusive club as a strong addition to their resume, or would they find the club with little barriers to entry improves networking opportunities? Would scarcity tactics increase/decrease this student’s participation despite their perspective?
The indicated research interest was chosen because of the notable gap in current research on the use of relationship marketing tactics toward student organizations (Clark & Kemp, 2008). Scarcity marketing was specifically chosen because of my personal assessment of current prevailing perceptions on scarcity marketing tactics within student organizations. Scarcity marketing has an association to power and exclusivity (Clark & Kemp, 2008). Personal experience has dictated that university student clubs often frown on promotions that may imply exclusive access. While reasoning's are often honorable by intention, the actions maybe harming student motivations, and thus, participation rates. Such was considered in the previous scenario; a lack of criteria in membership joining may have reduced the student’s opportunity to competitively improve their resume.
This literature reviewed five articles. These articles were considered as the most valuable, and recent studies regarding the research of interest. How each article will contribute to a final dissertation is indicated within contribution. How the articles fall short is indicated in limitations. Table 1 displays a summary of the methodologies, and category of Habermas’ scientific approach, used in the reviewed articles.
Literature Review
PSO Participation Motivations
Munoz, L., Miller, R., & Poole, S. M. (2016). Professional student organizations and experiential learning activities: What drives student intentions to participate?. Journal of Education for Business, 91(1), 45-51.
Research Objective
In “professional student organizations and experiential learning activities: What drives student intentions to participate”, Munoz, Miller, & Poole (2016) explore the impact experiential learning activities have on undergraduate’s intentions to participate in professional student organizations (PSO). The object of the study is to empirically determine how to build and sustain collegiate PSO chapters through experiential learning activities (Munoz, Miller, & Poole, 2016). The objective is tested through the following four hypotheses:
H1: Contact with professional activities will positively influence the intention to participate in PSO (Munoz, Miller, & Poole, 2016; Para. 12).
H2: Interpersonal skill activities will positively influence the intention to participate in PSO (Munoz, Miller, & Poole, 2016; Para. 12).
H3: Professional activities will positively influence the intention to participate in PSO (Munoz, Miller, & Poole, 2016; Para. 12).
H4: Networking activities will positively influence the intention to participate in PSO (Munoz, Miller, & Poole, 2016; Para. 12).
H5: entrepreneurial activities will positively influence the intention to participate in PSO (Munoz, Miller, & Poole, 2016; Para. 12).
Contribution
The study provides the variables of motivation through experiential learning theory in the lens of PSO’s. While the research discovered only two of these variables had an influence on student participation, all five variables will be considered because of the limitation in multicollinearity. The variables will be redesigned so that they are easily differentiated.
Methodology
Research Design
The research is designed to develop empirical evidence through quantitative analysis of survey data. The study begins with a review of experiential learning theory, and expectancy theory literature. The literature review is used to develop a conceptual framework for the research moving forward. Following, a survey is produced, and undergraduate participants are acquired. Students complete the survey, return it, and their answers were analysed. The results are then discussed.
Reviewed Literature
Experiential Learning theory
Munoz, Miller, & Poole (2016) review experiential learning theory to develop a conceptual framework for the study. Experiential theory is identified as the development of knowledge through experience in this paper (Munoz, Miller, & Poole, 2016). Using the tools provided by experiential theory, the authors identify potential experiential activities that PSO’s can utilize to motivate students (Munoz, Miller, & Poole, 2016). The motives are used as independent variables within the study.
Expectancy Theory
Expectancy theory states that individuals will allocate their limited resources toward the actions they expect will produce a positive outcome (Vroom, 1964). Of all outcomes, the one with the highest motivational force will be chosen (Vroom, 1964). The amount of motivational force an option has is determined by expectancy, instrumentality, and valence (Vroom, 1964). Expectancy theory was used by Munoz, Miller, & Poole (2016) to assess their findings.
Unit of Analysis
· University Students.
Sampling
242 participants were chosen across various business disciplines including accounting, marketing, management, and finance (Munoz, Miller, & Poole, 2016). The sampling method was not identified. The participants were 51% male; 48.3% Caucasian, 43% Hispanic, 4.2 African American, 2.9 % Asian, and 1.7% other; 50.2% worked part-time, 27.2% worked full-time; 93.8% were between the ages of 18-29, and 6.2% between the age of 30-34; and 30.9% were first generation college students (Munoz, Miller, & Poole, 2016).
Variables
· Dependent Variable: Student intention to participate in PSO (Munoz, Miller, & Poole, 2016).
· Independent Variables: Interpersonal skill development, professional development activities, networking activities, entrepreneurial activities (Munoz, Miller, & Poole, 2016).
· Control variables: PSO membership, ethnicity, Major type, 1st generation student, and age (Munoz, Miller, & Poole, 2016).
The variables are measured using a 1-5 Likert scale (Munoz, Miller, & Poole, 2016).
Analysis Techniques
The variables are analysed using linear regression analysis, and a multicollinearity analysis (Munoz, Miller, & Poole, 2016).
Findings
The analysis determined that previously being a PSO member, and economic and marketing majors have a significantly higher likelihood of participating in PSO activities (Munoz, Miller, & Poole, 2016). Age was a negative indicator: older students were less likely to participate (Munoz, Miller, & Poole, 2016). The authors suggest the negative indication maybe due to older individuals having additional responsibilities (Munoz, Miller, & Poole, 2016). No other control variable had a significant influence (Munoz, Miller, & Poole, 2016).
Contact with professionals and PSO development activities were significant indicators toward a student’s likelihood to participate (Munoz, Miller, & Poole, 2016). Contact with professionals was the leading variable (Munoz, Miller, & Poole, 2016). The other three independent variables did not show a significant association toward participation (Munoz, Miller, & Poole, 2016).
The results imply that students are motivated to join PSO’s if they provide regular scheduled business speakers, access to mentors and job shadowing opportunities, and professional Q&A sessions (Munoz, Miller, & Poole, 2016). The second leading factor, (the last of influence), is professional development (Munoz, Miller, & Poole, 2016). The implication is that students have a strong preference to join clubs that offer opportunities to interact with faculty members, career exploration, and training activities; to which, they can put on their resume (Munoz, Miller, & Poole, 2016).
Limitations and Suggested Future Research
There was high multicollinearity between variables despite CFA confirmation of scale structures of questions (Munoz, Miller, & Poole, 2016). It is, therefore, necessary to better distinguish each activity from one another to students. The authors recommend qualitative inquiry through interviews or focus groups to magnify the understanding of student motivations (Munoz, Miller, & Poole, 2016).
Student Volunteering Motivations
Gage III, R. L., & Thapa, B. (2012). Volunteer motivations and constraints among college students: Analysis of the volunteer function inventory and leisure constraints models. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(3), 405-430.
Research Objective
The studies research objective is to determine what factors motivate undergraduate students to volunteer, and in what capacity (Gage, Thapa, 2012). The authors hope is that the implications of their research can be used by volunteer managers to devise effective strategies for recruiting and retaining volunteers (Gage, Thapa, 2012). The research objective was investigated through four questions: “What are the volunteering characteristics of college students?... What motivates college students to volunteer?... What constrains volunteerism among college students?... What is the association between volunteer motivations and constraints?”, (Gage, Thapa, 2012; Pg. 412).
Contribution
The study provides evidence to what variables influence student participation in volunteering. All five variables of motivation contributed were identified as being a significant reason for student participation. They will, therefore, all be considered in the dissertation. Interestingly, the study determined value and understanding (the highest motivation) to be negatively correlated to structural and interpersonal constraints, while career motivation (the second highest) was unaffected (Gage, Thapa, 2012). The finding provides a similar insight to the findings of scarcity, were, individuals may pursue seemingly generous behaviors for their own benefit when they are presented with resource scarcity (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015). Scarcity, in this context, being employment.
Methodology
Design Strategy
The study develops empirical evidence through quantitative analysis techniques. The study begins with the development of a conceptual framework through the review of literature on the Motivation Model and the constraints of leisure (Gage, Thapa, 2012). A survey was then developed, and participants acquired. Participants filled out the survey and returned it to the researchers (Gage, Thapa, 2012). Participant responses were analysed, and conclusions made.
Conceptual Framework
The authors reviewed motivation models and its four components: needs of motivations, behavior of activities, goal satisfaction, and feedback (Gage, Thapa, 2012). They also review the literature on the constraint to leisure; intrapersonal, interpersonal, and structural (Gage, Thapa, 2012). From their review, the authors determine that there is a hierarchical relationship between constraints with structural, interpersonal, and intrapersonal being the most difficult to overcome, respectively (Gage, Thapa, 2012). The models are used to measure the variables that determine the research question (Gage, Thapa, 2012).
The authors also review the current context of student involvement in volunteering (Gage, Thapa, 2012). Their inquiry leads to the discovery that undergraduates show a significantly high volunteer rate (Gage, Thapa, 2012). An interesting find as the age range undergraduate students fall into, by mean, has the lowest participation rate according to the researcher’s inquiries (Gage, Thapa, 2012).
Unit of Analysis
The unit of analysis is undergraduate students within a large, southeastern, USA, university (Gage, Thapa, 2012).
Sampling
From three introductory level undergraduate courses, one hundred students were selected from each (Gage, Thapa, 2012). The courses consisted of students from each year of program (Gage, Thapa, 2012). 270 of the total distributed 305 surveys were collected (Gage, Thapa, 2012). The exact sampling methodology was not indicated in the article.
Variables
Volunteerism: Determine volunteering through three measurements: scope of volunteerism (range, amount, and length of previous volunteering), volunteer segment, and type of contribution (Gage, Thapa, 2012).
Motivation: Volunteer motivations are measured using the volunteer function inventory (VFI) (Clary et al., 1996). The VFI consists of five dimensions: understanding and value, social, protective, career, and enhancement (Gage, Thapa, 2012). They are measured using a 7-point Likert scale (Gage, Thapa, 2012).
Constraint: The constraint variable consists of three dimensions: interpersonal, intrapersonal, and structural (Gage, Thapa, 2012). They are measured using a 5-point Likert scale (Gage, Thapa, 2012).
Analysis Method
· Descriptive analyses are made to determine respondent and volunteering characteristics (Gage, Thapa, 2012).
· Mean scores are calculated to determine motivation dimensions, and constraint items value (Gage, Thapa, 2012).
· Exploratory principal component analysis using a varimax rotation are employed to test reliability of the motivation dimension scores (Gage, Thapa, 2012).
· Factorial analysis was conducted on each dimension to check for internal consistencies (Gage, Thapa, 2012).
· Bivariate linear correlation analysis was used to examine the association between volunteer motivations and constraints (Gage, Thapa, 2012).
Findings
Out of a 7-point scale, all motivations ranked higher than four (Gage, Thapa, 2012). They are all, therefore, identified as significant motives for students to volunteer. The authors found that the student’s motive for volunteering ranked as thus: value and understanding (M=5.45), career (4.72), enhancement (4.70), social (4.07), and protection (4.01), (Gage, Thapa, 2012). The highest dimensions (value and understandings) ranking indicates that students are highly committed to helping others and serving their community, (Gage, Thapa, 2012).
Students ranked second highest in the career dimension. Career motivations are insignificant to most population segments regarding volunteering (Gage, Thapa, 2012). The authors suggest that the unique career motivation maybe due to student motivations to build on their resumes (Gage, Thapa, 2012).
The bivariate linear correlation determined five significant relationships between constraints and motivations (Gage, Thapa, 2012). They found intrapersonal constraints positively correlated with social, protection and enhancement motivations (Gage, Thapa, 2012). The value and understanding motivation were negatively correlated with interpersonal and structural constraints (Gage, Thapa, 2012). Finally, they found there was no statistical relationship between career motivation and constraints (Gage, Thapa, 2012). The indication is that when interpersonal and structural constraints increase, one is less likely to be motivated to volunteer through value and understanding (Gage, Thapa, 2012). Furthermore, college students are unlikely to be persuaded from constraints, “only”, if they are motivated by career intentions (Gage, Thapa, 2012).
Limitations and suggested Future Research
The authors do not declare any significant limitations. From the perspective of my own inquiry, the study is limited in its consideration of student volunteering as a whole and not to student volunteering clubs only. The authors suggest further research should be conducted to verify results (Gage, Thapa, 2012). They also propose the inclusion of socioeconomic variables in further research (Gage, Thapa, 2012).
Intramural Participation Motivations
Cooper, N., Schuett, P. A., & Phillips, H. M. (2012). Examining intrinsic motivations in campus intramural sports. Recreational Sports Journal, 36(1), 25-36.
Research Objective
The objective of the study is to investigate what motivational factors influence student participation in university intramural sports (Cooper, Schuett, Phillips, 2012). Furthermore, the paper compares these motives against different student demographics (Cooper, Schuett, Phillips, 2012). The authors motivation for their study is to determine strategies that increase student participation in on-campus intramurals (Cooper, Schuett, Phillips, 2012). The study was run because current research on the topic is limited (Cooper, Schuett, Phillips, 2012).
Contribution
The study provides insight into variable motives for participating in on-campus intramural sports through MFAM (Cooper, Schuett, Phillips, 2012). Furthermore, it provides interesting insight into the use of self determination theory as conceptual framework for identifying motivational appeals.
Methodology
Research Design
The paper is a quantitative study that begins with a short literature review on previous work conducted on the motivations of student involvement in campus sports (Cooper, Schuett, Phillips, 2012). Discovering the literature was limited, the authors follow with the development of a conceptual framework. Their framework reviews self-determination theory and the Motives of Physical Activity Measure (MFAM) (Cooper, Schuett, Phillips, 2012). Based off the framework, a survey was produced. Sport team captains were emailed for the acquirement of participation (Cooper, Schuett, Phillips, 2012). Teams that agreed to participate arrived 30 minutes before a scheduled game (Cooper, Schuett, Phillips, 2012). The team members filled out the survey. The surveys were collected, and the answers analysed.
Literature review
Previous work conducted on the topic of student motivation to participate in intramural activities was conducted (Cooper, Schuett, Phillips, 2012). The authors concluded that current research on the subject was lacking (Cooper, Schuett, Phillips, 2012).
Self Determination Theory
The authors followed with a review of self determination theory. The theory is based on the idea individuals are motivated by the need to satisfy three psychological requirements: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Motivation is divided into three categories: amotivation, extrinsic, and intrinsic motivation (Cooper, Schuett, Phillips, 2012). Amotivation refers to not being motivated (Cooper, Schuett, Phillips, 2012). Extrinsic motivation is defined as being motivated by an outside influence, and intrinsic motivation is defined as being motivated from internal origins (Cooper, Schuett, Phillips, 2012).
Motives for Physical Activities Measure
The authors finished with a review into the Motives for Activities Measure (MFAM). The MFAM is a questionnaire designed to measure one’s motivation for participation in physical activities (Fredrick & Ryan, 1993). From the investigation, the authors determine five motives for physical participation: competence, appearance, fitness, social, and enjoy/interest (Fredrick & Ryan, 1993). Cooper, Schuett, & Phillips (2012) categorizes these motives through the lens of self determination theory. Competence, appearance, and fitness motives are a latter extrinsic motive for participation (Cooper, Schuett, Phillips, 2012). Interest/enjoyment, and social motivations are considered intrinsic motives (Cooper, Schuett, Phillips, 2012).
Unit of Analysis
· Undergraduate Students involved in intramural sports (Cooper, Schuett, Phillips, 2012).
Sampling
Participants were sampled from a university with a population of 28,000, of which, 4000 were involved in intramural sports (Cooper, Schuett, Phillips, 2012). Participants were chosen from three different sports; five-on-five basketball, indoor soccer, and bowling (Cooper, Schuett, Phillips, 2012). 320 participants were acquired from convenience sampling (Cooper, Schuett, Phillips, 2012).
Variables
· Independent variables: Gender, class rank, and age (Cooper, Schuett, Phillips, 2012).
· Dependent variables: Interest/enjoyment, competence, appearance, fitness, and social motivations (Cooper, Schuett, Phillips, 2012).
Analysis Method
Descriptive analysis was used to determine motivation scores and demographic scores (Cooper, Schuett, Phillips, 2012). Manova analysis was performed between independent variables and the dependent variables (Cooper, Schuett, Phillips, 2012).
Findings
Only one cross analysis provided results. Women showed a significantly higher motivation to participate because of social, and appearance motives, than men (Cooper, Schuett, Phillips, 2012). Overall, however, these two variables were determined as the lowest motivation for involvement in intramurals (Cooper, Schuett, Phillips, 2012). The authors found the highest to be interest/enjoyment (Cooper, Schuett, Phillips, 2012). Interest/enjoyment are considered an intrinsic motivation within the SDT framework, while social and appearance are considered extrinsic (Cooper, Schuett, Phillips, 2012). The implication is that intramurals should market their intrinsic benefits over extrinsic ones (Cooper, Schuett, Phillips, 2012). The implication is significant, because social motivations often prevail as the main advertised point of benefit for intramural participation (Cooper, Schuett, Phillips, 2012).
Limitations and Suggested Future Research
The authors identify limitations in their research by the amount of sports chosen and the implementation of convenience sampling (Cooper, Schuett, Phillips, 2012). It is limited for my dissertation in its consideration of only individuals whom are already participating in intramurals.
Marketing, the principles of Influence, and Student Organizations
Clark, W. R., & Kemp, K. J. (2008). USING THE SIX PRINCIPLES OF INFLUENCE TO INCREASE STUDENT INVOLVEMENT IN PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS: A RELATIONSHIP MARKETING APPROACH. Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, 12.
Research Objective
The motivation for the study was to address the prevalent issue of PSO recruitment, and retention difficulties, (Clark & Kemp, 2008). From a review of previous literature regarding this issue, Clark & Kemp (2008) discovered a significant lack of research in the use of marketing theory to increase student participation in PSO’s. The objective of their paper was to develop a theoretical strategic framework that PSO’s could implement to increase participation numbers (Clark & Kemp, 2008).
Contribution
The article provides the theoretical concept of utilizing the six principles of influence for marketing student organizations. Specifically, Clark & Kemp’s (2008) concept provides the fundamental groundwork for the exploration into the effect scarcity has on student motivations for joining clubs. Furthermore, the article provides the to-be tested scarcity marketing strategies for student organization marketing.
Methodology
Research Design
The study is strictly theoretical: no further qualitative, or quantitative research investigation is added to the concept. The authors begin with an examination of relationship marketing, the six principles of influence, and their relationship (Clark & Kemp, 2008). Using relationship marketing theories with assumptions acquired through personal experience, the authors develop recruitment and participation strategies in accordance to the six principles of influence (Clark & Kemp, 2008).
Literature Review
The authors review Cialdini’s (2001) six principles of influence, as well as relationship marketing concepts and persuasion techniques (Clark & Kemp, 2008). They use the literature as groundwork for developing their theorized strategies for persuading and retaining student membership in PSO’s (Clark & Kemp, 2008).
Unit of Analysis
· University Students
Findings
Recruitment examples consist of the following:
· Reciprocity: membership nominations, free sampling through invitation only events (Clark & Kemp, 2008).
· Commitment & consistency: recruitment speeches (Clark & Kemp, 2008).
· Social Proof: Have members recruit friends, hold member-get-a member contests, appropriately dress recruitment tables (Clark & Kemp, 2008).
· Liking: introduce clothing with organizational emblems or have members wear professional attire, use recruitment speeches to facilitate association, provide travel opportunities (Clark & Kemp, 2008).
· Authority: acquire faculty promotion for organization, involve alumni (Clark & Kemp, 2008).
· Scarcity: introduce membership criteria, introduce a difficult joining process (Clark & Kemp, 2008).
Participation examples consist of the following:
· Reciprocity: increased member recognition, buddy programs (Clark & Kemp, 2008).
· Commitment & consistency: involve members in planning, have members set individual goals (Clark & Kemp, 2008).
· Social proof: acquire public praise, exchange ideas and develop relations with other clubs (Clark & Kemp, 2008).
· Liking: impose team building activities, member retreats, and member notebooks (Clark & Kemp, 2008).
· Authority: enforce proper attire, introduce requirements for executive positions, provide executive training programs (Clark & Kemp, 2008).
· Scarcity: introduce the opportunity to acquire coveted awards, acquire exclusive access to known speakers, provide unique activities and programs (Clark & Kemp, 2008).
Limitations and Suggested Further Research
The research is theoretical and provides no empirical evidence for the effectiveness of these strategies (Clark & Kemp, 2008). The authors suggest further research looks to mitigate this shortcoming (Clark & Kemp, 2008). Furthermore, the theory only considers professional student organizations. There maybe other scarcity tactics more effective for different types of student organizations: i.e. volunteering, intramural, etc.
Scarcity and Behavior
Roux, C., Goldsmith, K., & Bonezzi, A. (2015). On the psychology of scarcity: When reminders of resource scarcity promote selfish (and generous) behavior. Journal of consumer research, 42(4), 615-631.
Research Objective
Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux (2015) build on the previous work done on competition and scarcity in “On the psychology of scarcity: When reminders of resource scarcity promote selfish (and generous) behaviour” by exploring the influence that cues of scarcity have on individual’s decision making. The work also looks to determine an explanation for a prevalent contradiction found in previous works of scarcity effects on behavior (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015). Some research has found scarcity to influence generous behaviours, while other work has found evidence that scarcity influences people to be more selfish (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015). The authors suggest that individuals are increasingly influenced to embedder their own welfare when presented with cues of resource scarcity (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015). Subsequently, competitive orientated behaviours that may be satisfied through selfish or generous actions, increase (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015). The actions that seem generous provide some sort of sought-after indirect benefit (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015).
Tested Hypothesis:
H1: A learned association exists between competition and scarcity that causes people to become competitive when presented with reminders of scarcity (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015).
H2: Reminders of scarcity cause people to become more concerned with their own welfare than that of others (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015).
H3: Resource scarcity can compel people to become generous when generosity provides indirect benefits to the individual (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015).
Contribution
The study provides an understanding on scarcity, and peoples behaviours when presented with scarcity. This work may contribute to a more in-depth understanding of the “why” in the dissertation findings.
Methodology:
Research Design
The authors begin with a literature review into prior research on the influence of perceived scarcity on decision making. The literature review is followed with a linear series of five experiments.
Experiment one: The objective of experiment one is to provide evidence for the cognitive association between scarcity and competition using a Lexical Decision Task (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015). Participants were acquired for a laboratory session. The participants were assigned to either a manipulated, or controlled experimental design (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015). Participants of the manipulated design completed an episodic recall task (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015). The recall task asked various questions related to limitation and scarcity (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015). Participants then completed a Lexical Decision Task: participants were shown a series of letters that form a word and told to determine what that word was as fast as possible (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015). The sample contained 10 competitive words, 10 neutral words, and 20 non-word trails. The experiment ended with a mood test, and demographic questions (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015).
Experiment two: the experiment was conducted to observe whether reminders of scarcity increases competitive orientation and causes an increase in decision making that imbedders one’s welfare (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015). Participants were acquired and given a monetary compensation of 6 dollars USD (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015). They were then randomly assigned to the manipulated or controlled experiment (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015). The manipulated experiment was given the episodic recall task (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015). The participants were then reminded about the amount of compensation that they would receive and offered an opportunity to donate one dollar of it by leaving it in an envelope when they left (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015). Participants then completed a filler scale to measure their attitude toward charity (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015).
Experiment three: The third experiments objective was to determine if reminders of scarcity increased one’s preference to increase their own welfare over that of another (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015). Participants completed the episodic recall task. They then completed a 9-item triple-dominance measure: a series of games were participants allocate points between themselves and an anonymous “other” (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015). Data was then analysed.
Experiment four: The objective of experiment four was to unify theoretical accounts. The experiment began by acquiring participants through Amazon Mechanical Turk (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015). All participants were show five pictures of resources (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015). The manipulated group was asked to state three things that they would be unable to do if they did not have the resource (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015). The control group was asked to list three things you can do with the resource (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015). Participants then played a simulated dictator game in which they allocated five dollars between themselves and an anonymous player (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015). After, the participants completed an unrelated study and followed with the completion of the Social Value Orientation Slide Measure (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015). Data was then analysed.
Experiment five: The final experiment tested whether scarcity cues can produce both selfish, and generous behaviours, depending on the condition (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015). Again, participants were split into manipulated and controlled groups. The manipulated group was exposed to the episodic recall task. Participants then read a scenario about charitable giving. Half of the participants were exposed to a situation in which their donations would be exposed, the other half was exposed to a scenario were their donations would be anonymous (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015). Participants then answered various questions related to their likelihood to donate (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015). Data was analysed and conclusions made.
Literature Review
The authors examined previous work regarding resource scarcity and competition (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015). Examining the work, the authors found contradicting results in people’s behaviour when exposed to scarcity (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015). Some showed evidence that people became more generous, some showed that they became more selfish (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015). Research also demonstrated that resource scarcity increased competition for resources in people regardless if a consumer had need of it or not (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015).
Unit of Analysis
Experiment 1: undergraduate students (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015).
Experiment 2: undergraduate students (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015).
Experiment 3: undergraduate students (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015).
Experiment 4: individuals recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015).
Experiment 5: undergraduate students (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015).
Sampling
Experiment 1: 71 undergraduate students, 26.8% male, average age was 20 (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015).
Experiment 2: 52 undergraduate students, 32.7% male, average age was 20 (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015).
Experiment 3: 69 undergraduate students, 30.4% male, average age 19 (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015).
Experiment 4: 175 individuals, 41.4% male, average age 34 (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015).
Experiment 5: 360 students, 28.3% male, average age of 23 (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015).
Variables
· Experiment one: speed at which words were completed (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015).
· Experiment two: Retention of money is dependent (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015). Scarcity conditioning was an independent variable for chi-square analysis (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015).
· scarcity condition was independent and competitive orientation was dependent for analysis of variance (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015).
· Experiment three: Independent variable is the exposure to resource scarcity (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015). Dependent variable is the point allocation to joint outcome maximization, absolute outcome maximization or relative point maximization (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015).
· Experiment four: SVO score, scarcity cue exposure, and allocation of money (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015).
· Experiment five: Dependent variable is the likelihood of donating; scarcity exposure; and the control variables, baseline charitable donation preference, Private vs. public exposure: dichotomous (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015).
Analysis Method
Experiment 1:
· Natural log on reaction speeds to reduce the effect of outliers (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015).
· Analysis of variance, pair wise comparisons (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015).
Experiment 2:
· Chi-square analysis to determine the relationship between retaining money and scarcity conditioning (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015).
· Analysis of variance to determine relationship between scarcity and competition (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015).
· mediation analysis to determine if competitive orientation mediated the effect of the scarcity manipulation on donation. 5000 bootstrap samples (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015).
Experiment 3
· hierarchical multinomial logistic regression to determine if scarcity effected one’s allocation of points toward joint outcome maximization (generous point allocation), or absolute or relative outcome maximization (self serving point allocation) (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015).
Experiment 4
· analysis of variance tested the effect of the scarcity manipulation on allocation behaviour (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015).
· SVO scores were determined by the tests appropriate proceeding (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015).
Experiment 5
· ANCOVA analysis with baseline charitability used as a covariate (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015).
Findings
· Experiment one determined that reminders of resource scarcity activate concepts related to competition providing evidence for the cognitive association between scarcity and competition (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015).
· Experiment two determined that competitive orientation mediated the relationship between exposure to resource scarcity and behaviour (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015). In other words, it provided evidence that resource scarcity cues influence psychological processes and behaviour (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015).
· Experiment three determined that am increase in one’s competitive orientation due to reminders of resource scarcity motivated the individual to pursue the betterment of their own welfare over others (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015).
· Experiment four determined that reminders of scarcity generally increased selfishness, reiterating the conclusion that scarcity generally promotes one’s desire to advance their own welfare (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015).
· Experiment five discovered that exposure to scarcity significantly influenced an individual’s decision to be charitable or not (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015). Furthermore, they discovered that individuals exposed to scarcity are likely to be charitable when the act of charity benefits them indirectly, and selfish if the act of charity provides no apparent benefit to the individual (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015).
Overall, the research concludes that individuals will develop a competitive orientation from mere reminders of scarcity (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015). Individual’s competitive orientation is motivated by the desire to increase their own wellbeing (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015). The behaviours taken in order to benefit their own well-being may appear generous or selfish depending on the context (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015).
Limitations and Suggested Future Research
The authors to not indicate any notable limitations within the article. The authors suggest extending the research into marketing to determine what implications generalized cues of scarcity can have on consumer behaviour (Bonezzi, Goldsmith, & Roux, 2015). Currently, scarcity marketing concerns the specified attachment of scarcity to a determined object. Generalized scarcity cues may provide more appropriate tactics for marketing generalized, and perhaps not actually scarce, services i.e. student organization memberships.
References
Clark, W. R., & Kemp, K. J. (2008). USING THE SIX PRINCIPLES OF INFLUENCE TO INCREASE STUDENT INVOLVEMENT IN PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS: A RELATIONSHIP MARKETING APPROACH. Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, 12.
Clary, E. G., Snyder, M., & Stukas, A. A. (1996). Volunteers’ motivations: Findings from a national survey. Non-profit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 25, 485-505.
Cooper, N., Schuett, P. A., & Phillips, H. M. (2012). Examining intrinsic motivations in campus intramural sports. Recreational Sports Journal, 36(1), 25-36.
Gage III, R. L., & Thapa, B. (2012). Volunteer motivations and constraints among college students: Analysis of the volunteer function inventory and leisure constraints models. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(3), 405-430.
Munoz, L., Miller, R., & Poole, S. M. (2016). Professional student organizations and experiential learning activities: What drives student intentions to participate?. Journal of Education for Business, 91(1), 45-51.
Roux, C., Goldsmith, K., & Bonezzi, A. (2015). On the psychology of scarcity: When reminders of resource scarcity promote selfish (and generous) behavior. Journal of consumer research, 42(4), 615-631.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation (Vol. 54). New York: Wiley.
Frederick, C. M., & Ryan, R. M. (1993). Differences in motivation for sport and exercise and their relations with participation and mental health. Journal of sport behavior, 16(3), 124.
Appendix
📷 Table 1. Summary of methodology, and Habermas’ scientific approach used, in reviewed articles.