“共享消费悖论”：财务稀缺心态阻碍共享消费

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2025.1281

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

基于资源稀缺的自我调节模型, 本文探索了财务稀缺心态对共享消费的影响及其内在机制。通过6项研究发现, 尽管共享消费具有单次花费低、效用多样化的优势, 能够为财务稀缺个体带来诸多益处, 但是具有财务稀缺心态的个体更不愿意参与共享消费, 我们将这一现象称为“共享消费悖论”。进一步研究发现, 财务稀缺心态主要激活控制恢复路径, 增强消费者对商品的心理所有权需求, 从而阻碍共享消费。本文还发现“强调产品归属性”可以消除财务稀缺心态对共享消费的负面影响, 以及当共享产品的价格优势凸显或个体作为共享物品的提供者时, 这种负面影响也会被削弱。

关键词: 财务稀缺, 共享消费, 资源稀缺的自我调节模型, 心理所有权需求

Abstract:

Drawing on the self-regulation model of resource scarcity, we propose a novel phenomenon termed the shared consumption paradox. While shared consumption offers advantages such as reduced costs and diverse benefits for financially constrained individuals, our research reveals that these individuals are paradoxically less inclined to engage in shared consumption. Our examination of the mechanisms underlying this paradox reveals that financial scarcity triggers a control restoration route. Individuals experiencing financial scarcity exhibit an increased need for psychological ownership of products, which consequently hinders their participation in shared consumption. We propose that accentuating product attribution can mitigate the adverse effects of financial scarcity on shared consumption. Moreover, this negative impact is diminished when the cost benefits of shared products are prominent or if individuals act as providers of shared items.

Six empirical studies were conducted to validate this theoretical framework. Study 1, analyzing the 2020 China Family Panel Studies (CFPS) data, showed that lower-income households rented housing at lower rates. Study 2 established the causal relationship between financial scarcity and shared consumption, revealing that financial scarcity reduced individuals’ willingness to rent badminton rackets. Study 3 explored the mechanism underlying the shared consumption paradox and showed that financial scarcity decreased shared consumption by heightening the need for psychological ownership. Study 4 validated the mediating mechanism through moderation and revealed that emphasizing product attribution mitigated the inhibitory effect of financial scarcity on shared goods. Finally, Studies 5 and 6 identified the boundary conditions of the shared consumption paradox. The inhibitory effect diminished when either emphasizing the price advantages of shared consumption (Study 5) or positioning individuals as providers of shared goods (Study 6).

This paper makes four major contributions. First, it systematically reveals the shared consumption paradox, thus providing a new perspective for research in the shared consumption field. Second, this work clarifies the mechanisms and boundary conditions of the shared consumption paradox based on the self-regulation model of resource scarcity, thus providing empirical support for this model. Third, it demonstrates that only financial scarcity reduces shared consumption, whereas other types of resource scarcity (e.g., time scarcity or natural resource scarcity) do not show this effect. This finding highlights the uniqueness of financial scarcity and expands resource scarcity theory. Finally, this research proposes effective methods to mitigate the shared consumption paradox, thus providing practical guidance for promoting shared consumption practices.

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

中图分类号:

B849: F713.55

刘晓敏, 王雪, 向虹宇, 陈增祥, 苏凇. (2025). “共享消费悖论”：财务稀缺心态阻碍共享消费. 心理学报, 57(7), 1281-1294.

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.

图/表 12

参考文献 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.
	[蔡宏波, 韩金镕, 苏丽锋. (2019). 门当户对与住房租购选择——基于中国家庭金融调查数据的实证分析. 经济理论与经济管理, 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.
	[陈宏民, 杨云鹏, 王春英. (2024). 共享平台的生存空间和社会价值. 管理科学学报, 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.
	[樊亚凤, 蒋晶. (2017). 财务约束感对消费者多样化寻求行为的影响及心理机制. 营销科学学报, 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
	[雷亮, 王菁煜, 柳武妹. (2020). 稀缺对个体心理和行为的影响:基于一个更加整合视角下的阐释. 心理科学进展, 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
	[国家统计局. (2024). 中华人民共和国2023年国民经济和社会发展统计公报. 国家统计局. 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.
	[庞庆明. (2016). 中国特色共享经济:本质特征与关键路径. 马克思主义研究, 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.
	[孙瑾, 陈晨, 陆娟. (2023). 资源稀缺对消费者绿色产品偏好的影响研究. 外国经济与管理, 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.
	[熊继伟, 卫海英, 陈斯允, 余小敏. (2023). 由远及近: 财务约束感对消费者品牌延伸评价的影响. 营销科学学报, 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.

研究	自变量	因变量测量	主要研究目的
研究1	客观家庭年收入	是否租赁住房	验证H1：财务稀缺心态抑制共享消费
研究2	财务稀缺心态	羽毛球拍租赁意愿	验证H1：财务稀缺心态抑制共享消费
研究3	财务稀缺心态	租赁(vs.购买)露营装备	验证H2：心理所有权的中介效应
研究4	财务稀缺心态	露营装备租赁意愿	验证H2：调节方式检验中介效应
研究5	财务稀缺心态	租赁(vs.购买)露营装备	验证H3：价格优势凸显的调节作用
研究6	财务稀缺心态	出租闲置汽车意愿	验证H4：角色转换的调节作用

研究	自变量	因变量测量	主要研究目的
研究1	客观家庭年收入	是否租赁住房	验证H1：财务稀缺心态抑制共享消费
研究2	财务稀缺心态	羽毛球拍租赁意愿	验证H1：财务稀缺心态抑制共享消费
研究3	财务稀缺心态	租赁(vs.购买)露营装备	验证H2：心理所有权的中介效应
研究4	财务稀缺心态	露营装备租赁意愿	验证H2：调节方式检验中介效应
研究5	财务稀缺心态	租赁(vs.购买)露营装备	验证H3：价格优势凸显的调节作用
研究6	财务稀缺心态	出租闲置汽车意愿	验证H4：角色转换的调节作用

变量	(1) 总体样本	(2) 高收入组	(3) 低收入组	(4) 均值差异
租赁住房占比(%)	5.79(23.36)	8.46(27.83)	3.77(19.04)	−4.69^***[0.01]
城镇占比(%)	53.15(49.91)	74.45(43.62)	36.95(48.28)	−37.50^***[0.01]
家庭净资产(对数值)	12.55(1.43)	13.59(1.09)	11.77 (1.12)	−1.82^***[0.03]
家庭房产数量(套)	0.28(0.61)	0.53(0.78)	0.10(0.33)	−0.43^***[0.02]
家庭规模(人)	3.44 (1.78)	3.83(1.76)	3.16(1.74)	−0.67^***[0.05]
童年经济地位	3.28(1.15)	3.19(1.06)	3.34(1.21)	0.15^***[0.03]
年龄(岁)	51.41(14.28)	47.23(13.79)	54.58(13.83)	7.35^***[0.38]
男性占比(%)	72.25 (44.78)	75.15(43.22)	70.04(45.81)	−0.05^***[0.01]

变量	(1) 总体样本	(2) 高收入组	(3) 低收入组	(4) 均值差异
租赁住房占比(%)	5.79(23.36)	8.46(27.83)	3.77(19.04)	−4.69^***[0.01]
城镇占比(%)	53.15(49.91)	74.45(43.62)	36.95(48.28)	−37.50^***[0.01]
家庭净资产(对数值)	12.55(1.43)	13.59(1.09)	11.77 (1.12)	−1.82^***[0.03]
家庭房产数量(套)	0.28(0.61)	0.53(0.78)	0.10(0.33)	−0.43^***[0.02]
家庭规模(人)	3.44 (1.78)	3.83(1.76)	3.16(1.74)	−0.67^***[0.05]
童年经济地位	3.28(1.15)	3.19(1.06)	3.34(1.21)	0.15^***[0.03]
年龄(岁)	51.41(14.28)	47.23(13.79)	54.58(13.83)	7.35^***[0.38]
男性占比(%)	72.25 (44.78)	75.15(43.22)	70.04(45.81)	−0.05^***[0.01]

变量	Model 1 (Unmatched sample)		Model 2 (Matched sample)
变量	Coef.	Robust SE	Coef.	Robust SE
家庭年收入(对数值)	0.68^***	0.09	1.52^***	0.22
地区类型(城镇 = 1)	1.13^***	0.15	1.16^***	0.19
家庭净资产(对数值)	−0.87^***	0.06	−0.96^***	0.08
家庭房产数量	0.74^***	0.11	1.15^***	0.16
家庭规模(人)	−0.30^***	0.04	−0.24^***	0.06
童年经济地位	0.09	0.06	0.06	0.07
年龄(岁)	−0.05^***	0.06	−0.06^***	0.01
性别(男 = 1)	0.41^**	0.13	0.45^*	0.18
常数项	3.28^**	0.97	11.42^***	0.98
省份固定效应	是		是
观测值	7, 537		4, 648
Model fit (Wald χ²)	869.11		520.82
Pseudo R²	0.36		0.40
Log likelihood	−1125.90		−649.60