The Shared Consumption Paradox: Financial Scarcity Hinders Shared Consumption

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2025.1281

Abstract

Abstract:

On the basis of the self-regulation model of resource scarcity, this paper investigates how financial scarcity affects shared consumption. Through six studies, we identify a phenomenon—the “shared consumption paradox”—in which individuals experiencing financial scarcity are less willing to participate in shared consumption despite its clear economic advantages, such as reduced per-use costs and increased utility diversification. Our findings reveal that financial scarcity triggers a control-restoration route, increasing the need for psychological ownership of products, which subsequently inhibits consumer participation in shared consumption. We further suggest that highlighting product attribution mitigates the negative impact of financial scarcity on shared consumption. Moreover, this negative effect diminishes when the price benefits of shared products are emphasized or when financially constrained individuals serve as providers rather than users of shared items.

Key words: financial scarcity, shared consumption, self-regulation model of resource scarcity, psychological ownership

LIU Xiaomin, WANG Xue, XIANG Hongyu, CHEN Zengxiang, SU Song. (2025). The Shared Consumption Paradox: Financial Scarcity Hinders Shared Consumption. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 57(7), 1281-1294.

Figures/Tables 5

References 66

[1]	Ackermann, L., & Tunn, V. S. C. (2024). Careless product use in access-based services: A rebound effect and how to address it. Journal of Business Research, 177, 114643.
[2]	Ailawadi, K. L., Neslin, S. A., & Gedenk, K. (2001). Pursuing the value-conscious consumer: Store brands versus national brand promotions. Journal of Marketing, 65(1), 71-89.
[3]	Aspara, J., & Wittkowski, K. (2019). Sharing-dominant logic? Quantifying the association between consumer intelligence and choice of social access modes. Journal of Consumer Research, 46(2), 201-222.
[4]	Atasoy, O., & Morewedge, C. K. (2018). Digital goods are valued less than physical goods. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(6), 1343-1357.
[5]	Belk, R. (2014). You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption online. Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1595-1600.
[6]	Blocker, C., Zhang, J. Z., Hill, R. P., Roux, C., Corus, C., Hutton, M., Dorsey, J., & Minton, E. (2023). Rethinking scarcity and poverty: Building bridges for shared insight and impact. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 33(3), 489-509.
[7]	Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2010). What’s mine is yours: The rise of collaborative consumption. New York: Harper Collins.
[8]	Briers, B., & Laporte, S. (2013). A wallet full of calories: The effect of financial dissatisfaction on the desire for food energy. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(6), 767-781.
[9]	Cai, H. B., Han, J. R., & Su, L. F. (2019). Rent or buy? For properly matched marriage——Empirical analysis based on Chinese household financial survey. Economic Theory and Business Management, 3, 105-112.
[10]	Cannon, C., Goldsmith, K., & Roux, C. (2019). A self‐regulatory model of resource scarcity. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 29(1), 104-127.
[11]	Cannon, C., Goldsmith, K., & Roux, C. (2024). An integrative theory of resource discrepancies. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 35(1), 81-97.
[12]	Cheng, H. M., Yang, Y. P., & Wang, C. Y. (2024). Living space and social value of sharing platform. Journal of Management Sciences in China, 27(1), 1-16.
[13]	Chou, E. Y., Parmar, B. L., & Galinsky, A. D. (2016). Economic insecurity increases physical pain. Psychological Science, 27(4), 443-454. doi: 10.1177/0956797615625640 pmid: 26893293
[14]	Costello, J. P., & Malkoc, S. A. (2022). Why are donors more generous with time than money? The role of perceived control over donations on charitable giving. Journal of Consumer Research, 49(4), 678-696.
[15]	Dai, H., Saccardo, S., Han, M. A., Roh, L., Raja, N., Vangala, S., ... Croymans, D. M. (2021). Behavioural nudges increase COVID-19 vaccinations. Nature, 597(7876), 404-409.
[16]	Donnelly, G. E., Wilson, A. V., Whillans, A. V., & Norton, M. I. (2021). Communicating resource scarcity and interpersonal connection. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 31(4), 726-745.
[17]	Fan, L. (Sophie), Li, X. (Shirley), & Jiang, Y. (2019). Room for opportunity: Resource scarcity increases attractiveness of range marketing offers. Journal of Consumer Research, 46(1), 82-98. doi: 10.1093/jcr/ucy059
[18]	Fan, Y. F., & Jiang, J. (2017). The effects of financial constraints on variety-seeking behavior. Journal of Marketing Science, 13(2), 56-70.
[19]	Fraiberger, S. P., & Sundararajan, A. (2017). Peer-to-peer rental markets in the sharing economy [Working paper]. http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=2574337
[20]	Goldsmith, K., Roux, C., & Cannon, C. (2021). Understanding the relationship between resource scarcity and object attachment. Current Opinion in Psychology, 39, 26-30. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.07.012 pmid: 32801105
[21]	Guo, Y. J., & Lamberton, C. (2021). When does sharing stigmatize? Saving money (vs. seeking variety) through access-based consumption. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 778290.
[22]	Habibi, M. R., Kim, A., & Laroche, M. (2016). From sharing to exchange: An extended framework of dual modes of collaborative nonownership consumption. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 1(2), 277-294.
[23]	Hamilton, R. W., Mittal, C., Shah, A., Thompson, D. V., & Griskevicius, V. (2019). How financial constraints influence consumer behavior: An integrative framework. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 29(2), 285-305. doi: 10.1002/jcpy.1074
[24]	Hayes, A. F. (2018). Partial, conditional, and moderated moderated mediation: Quantification, inference, and interpretation. Communication Monographs, 85(1), 4-40.
[25]	Hill, R. P. (2020). Does research on scarcity apply to impoverished consumers. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 5(4), 439-443.
[26]	Hmurovic, J., Lamberton, C., & Goldsmith, K. (2023). Examining the Efficacy of Time Scarcity Marketing Promotions in Online Retail. Journal of Marketing Research, 60(2), 299-328.
[27]	Karlsson, N., Garling, T., Dellgran, P., & Klingander, B. (2005). Social comparison and consumer behavior: When feeling richer or poorer than others is more important than being so. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(6), 1206-1222.
[28]	Kim, K., & Jeon, J. S. (2012). Why do households rent while owning houses? Housing sub-tenure choice in South Korea. Habitat International, 36(1), 101-107.
[29]	Kumar, J. (2024). Psychological mechanisms behind access- based luxury brand consumption: Empirical investigation from the lens of new ownership paradigm. Journal of Business Research, 175, 114539.
[30]	Laran, J., & Salerno, A. (2013). Life-history strategy, food choice, and caloric consumption. Psychological Science, 24(2), 167-173. doi: 10.1177/0956797612450033 pmid: 23302296
[31]	Lastovicka, J. L., & Sirianni, N. J. (2011). Truly, madly, deeply: Consumers in the throes of material possession love. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(2), 323-342.
[32]	Lawson, S. J., Gleim, M. R., Perren, R., & Hwang, J. (2016). Freedom from ownership: An exploration of access-based consumption. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 2615-2623.
[33]	Lei, L., Wang, J. Y., & Liu, W. M. (2020). The effect of scarcity on individuals’ psychology and behavior: An explanation from a more integrated perspective. Advances in Psychological Science, 28(5), 833-843. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2020.00833
[34]	Luangrath, A. W., Peck, J., Hedgcock, W., & Xu, Y. (2022). Observing product touch: The vicarious haptic effect in digital marketing and virtual reality. Journal of Marketing Research, 59(2), 306-326.
[35]	MacDonald, T., Trudel, R., & Morewedge, C. (2022). Ownership unwanted: Identity signals and preferences to consume without owning. Advances in Consumer Research, 50, 135-136.
[36]	Morewedge, C. K., Monga, A., Palmatier, R. W., Shu, S. B., & Small, D. A. (2021). Evolution of consumption: A psychological ownership framework. Journal of Marketing, 85(1), 196-218.
[37]	National Bureau of Statistics. (2024). Statistical Communiqué of the People’s Republic of China on the 2023 National Economic and Social Development. National Bureau of Statistics. https://www.stats.gov.cn/sj/zxfb/202402/t20240228_1947915.html
[38]	Netemeyer, R. G., Warmath, D., Fernandes, D., & Lynch, J. G. (2018). How am I doing? Perceived financial well-being, its potential antecedents, and its relation to overall well-being. Journal of Consumer Research, 45(1), 68-89.
[39]	Nie, X., Yang, Z., Zhang, Y., & Janakiraman, N. (2022). How does global-local identity affect consumer preference for access-based consumption? Investigating the mediating role of consumption openness. Journal of Marketing Research, 59(3), 555-577.
[40]	Paley, A., Tully, S. M., & Sharma, E. (2019). Too constrained to converse: The effect of financial constraints on word of mouth. Journal of Consumer Research, 45(5), 889-905. doi: 10.1093/jcr/ucy040
[41]	Pang, Q. (2016). China's distinctive sharing economy: Essential characteristics and key pathways. Marxist Studies, 7, 65-71.
[42]	Park, H., Lalwani, A. K., & Silvera, D. H. (2020). The impact of resource scarcity on price-quality judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 46(6), 1110-1124.
[43]	Peck, J., Kirk, C. P., Luangrath, A. W., & Shu, S. B. (2021). Caring for the commons: Using psychological ownership to enhance stewardship behavior for public goods. Journal of Marketing, 85(2), 33-49.
[44]	Peck, J., & Shu, S. B. (2009). The effect of mere touch on perceived ownership. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(3), 434-447.
[45]	Pitesa, M., & Thau, S. (2014). A lack of material resources causes harsher moral judgments. Psychological Science, 25(3), 702-710. doi: 10.1177/0956797613514092 pmid: 24434236
[46]	Sarial-Abi, G., Ulqinaku, A., Viglia, G., & Das, G. (2023). The effect of financial scarcity on discretionary spending, borrowing, and investing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 51(6), 1214-1243.
[47]	Schaefers, T., Narayanamurthy, G., Moser, R., & Leban, M. (2021). The sharing economy at the base of the economic pyramid: How access-based services can help overcome ownership risks. Psychology & Marketing, 38(11), 2073-2088.
[48]	Shah, A. K., Mullainathan, S., & Shafir, E. (2012). Some consequences of having too little. Science, 338(6107), 682-685. doi: 10.1126/science.1222426 pmid: 23118192
[49]	Sharma, E., & Alter, A. L. (2012). Financial deprivation prompts consumers to seek scarce goods. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(3), 545-560.
[50]	Sharma, E., Mazar, N., Alter, A. L., & Ariely, D. (2014). Financial deprivation selectively shifts moral standards and compromises moral decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 123(2), 90-100.
[51]	Sharma, E., Tully, S. M., & Wang, X. (2023). Scarcity and intertemporal choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 125(5), 1036-1054. doi: 10.1037/pspa0000353 pmid: 37707481
[52]	Shu, S. B., & Peck, J. (2011). Psychological ownership and affective reaction: Emotional attachment process variables and the endowment effect. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21(4), 439-452.
[53]	Song, J. (Flora), He, D., & Jiang, Y. (2023). The negative handmade effect: How and why control deprivation thwarts desire for handmade products. Psychology & Marketing, 40(7), 1431-1445.
[54]	Spiller, S. A. (2011). Opportunity cost consideration. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(4), 595-610.
[55]	Sun, J., Chen, C., & Lu, J. (2023). Research on the impact of resource scarcity on consumers’ preference for green products. Foreign Economics & Management, 45(2), 82-99.
[56]	Thompson, D. V., Banerji, I., & Hamilton, R. W. (2020). Scarcity of choice: The effects of childhood socioeconomic status on consumers’ responses to substitution. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 5(4), 415-426.
[57]	Tully, S. M., Hershfield, H. E., & Meyvis, T. (2015). Seeking lasting enjoyment with limited money: Financial constraints increase preference for material goods over experiences. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(1), 59-75.
[58]	Tully, S. M., & Sharma, E. (2022). Consumer wealth. Consumer Psychology Review, 5(1), 125-143.
[59]	Wang, L., You, Y., & Yang, C.-M. (2020). Restrained by resources: The effect of scarcity cues and childhood socioeconomic status (SES) on consumer preference for feasibility. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 37(3), 557-571.
[60]	Wei, X., Jung, S., & Choi, T.-M. (2022). Share it or buy it? Exploring the effects of product brand attachment on commercial sharing services. Journal of Business Research, 153, 115-127.
[61]	Wu, Y., Wang, R., Jin, H., & Zhu, M. (2023). Providing assets in the sharing economy: Low childhood socioeconomic status as a barrier. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 40(3), 534-551.
[62]	Xiong, J. W., Wei, H. Y., Chen, S., Y., & Yu, X. M. (2023) From distant to near: The effect of perceived financial constraint on consumer’s brand extension evaluation. Journal of Marketing Science, 3(3), 63-81.
[63]	Yang, H., & Zhang, K. (2022). How resource scarcity influences the preference for counterhedonic consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 48(5), 904-919.
[64]	Zauberman, G., & Lynch, J. G. (2005). Resource slack and propensity to discount delayed investments of time versus money. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134(1), 23.
[65]	Zhang, R., Ma, Q., & Guan, D. (2023). The impact of financial scarcity on green consumption: Sequential mediating effects of anxiety and self-efficacy. Psychology & Marketing, 40(6), 1162-1178.
[66]	Zhao, T., Lu, Y., Lynette Wang, V., Wu, B., Chen, Z., Song, W., & Zhou, L. (2023). Shared but unhappy? Detrimental effects of using shared products on psychological ownership and consumer happiness. Journal of Business Research, 169, 114306.

Study	Independent Variable	Dependent Variable	Main Purpose
S1	Annual household income	Housing rental status	Test H1: Financial scarcity inhibits shared consumption
S2	Financial scarcity	Willingness to rent badminton rackets	Test H1: Financial scarcity inhibits shared consumption
S3	Financial scarcity	Rent vs. purchase decisions for camping equipment	Test H2: Mediating effect of psychological ownership
S4	Financial scarcity	Willingness to rent camping equipment	Test H2: Testing mediation through moderation
S5	Financial scarcity	Rent vs. purchase decisions for camping equipment	Test H3: Moderating role of price advantage salience
S6	Financial scarcity	Willingness to rent out idle vehicles	Test H4: Moderating role of role switching

Study	Independent Variable	Dependent Variable	Main Purpose
S1	Annual household income	Housing rental status	Test H1: Financial scarcity inhibits shared consumption
S2	Financial scarcity	Willingness to rent badminton rackets	Test H1: Financial scarcity inhibits shared consumption
S3	Financial scarcity	Rent vs. purchase decisions for camping equipment	Test H2: Mediating effect of psychological ownership
S4	Financial scarcity	Willingness to rent camping equipment	Test H2: Testing mediation through moderation
S5	Financial scarcity	Rent vs. purchase decisions for camping equipment	Test H3: Moderating role of price advantage salience
S6	Financial scarcity	Willingness to rent out idle vehicles	Test H4: Moderating role of role switching

Variables	(1) Whole Sample	(2) High-Income	(3) Low-Income	(4) Difference in means
Rental housing percentage (%)	5.79(23.36)	8.46(27.83)	3.77(19.04)	?4.69^***[0.01]
Urban percentage (%)	53.15(49.91)	74.45(43.62)	36.95(48.28)	?37.50^***[0.01]
Household net assets (ln-transformed)	12.55(1.43)	13.59(1.09)	11.77 (1.12)	?1.82^***[0.03]
Number of household properties	0.28(0.61)	0.53(0.78)	0.10(0.33)	?0.43^***[0.02]
Family size	3.44 (1.78)	3.83(1.76)	3.16(1.74)	?0.67^***[0.05]
Childhood economic status	3.28(1.15)	3.19(1.06)	3.34(1.21)	0.15^***[0.03]
Age (years)	51.41(14.28)	47.23(13.79)	54.58(13.83)	7.35^***[0.38]
Male percentage (%)	72.25 (44.78)	75.15(43.22)	70.04(45.81)	?0.05^***[0.01]

Variables	(1) Whole Sample	(2) High-Income	(3) Low-Income	(4) Difference in means
Rental housing percentage (%)	5.79(23.36)	8.46(27.83)	3.77(19.04)	?4.69^***[0.01]
Urban percentage (%)	53.15(49.91)	74.45(43.62)	36.95(48.28)	?37.50^***[0.01]
Household net assets (ln-transformed)	12.55(1.43)	13.59(1.09)	11.77 (1.12)	?1.82^***[0.03]
Number of household properties	0.28(0.61)	0.53(0.78)	0.10(0.33)	?0.43^***[0.02]
Family size	3.44 (1.78)	3.83(1.76)	3.16(1.74)	?0.67^***[0.05]
Childhood economic status	3.28(1.15)	3.19(1.06)	3.34(1.21)	0.15^***[0.03]
Age (years)	51.41(14.28)	47.23(13.79)	54.58(13.83)	7.35^***[0.38]
Male percentage (%)	72.25 (44.78)	75.15(43.22)	70.04(45.81)	?0.05^***[0.01]

Variables	Model 1 (Unmatched sample)		Model 2 (Matched sample)
Variables	Coef.	Robust SE	Coef.	Robust SE
Annual household income (ln-transformed)	0.68^***	0.09	1.52^***	0.22
Region type (urban = 1)	1.13^***	0.15	1.16^***	0.19
Household net assets (ln-transformed)	?0.87^***	0.06	?0.96^***	0.08
Number of household properties	0.74^***	0.11	1.15^***	0.16
Family size	?0.30^***	0.04	?0.24^***	0.06
Childhood economic status	0.09	0.06	0.06	0.07
Age (years)	?0.05^***	0.06	?0.06^***	0.01
Gender (male = 1)	0.41^**	0.13	0.45^*	0.18
Constant	3.28^**	0.97	11.42^***	0.98
Province fixed effects	Yes		Yes
Observations	7,537		4,648
Model fit (Wald χ²)	869.11		520.82
Pseudo R²	0.36		0.40
Log likelihood	?1125.90		?649.60