cookies had to be given away to other raters to supply the demand for
cookies in the study. To another set of participants, it was explained
that their number of cookies had to be reduced because the researcher
had simply made a mistake and given them the wrong jar initially. The
results showed that those whose cookies became scarce through the
process of social demand liked them significantly more than those
whose cookies became scarce by mistake. In fact, the cookies made less
available through social demand were rated the most desirable of any
in the study.
This finding highlights the importance of competition in the pursuit
of limited resources. Not only do we want the same item more when
it is scarce, we want it most when we are in competition for it. Advert-
isers often try to exploit this tendency in us. In their ads, we learn that
“popular demand” for an item is so great that we must “hurry to buy,”
or we see a crowd pressing against the doors of a store before the start
of a sale, or we watch a flock of hands quickly deplete a supermarket
shelf of a product. There is more to such images than the idea of ordin-
ary social proof. The message is not just that the product is good because
other people think so, but also that we are in direct competition with
those people for it.
The feeling of being in competition for scarce resources has powerfully
motivating properties. The ardor of an indifferent lover surges with the
appearance of a rival. It is often for reasons of strategy, therefore, that
romantic partners reveal (or invent) the attentions of a new admirer.
Salespeople are taught to play the same game with indecisive customers.
For example, a realtor who is trying to sell a house to a “fence-sitting”
prospect will sometimes call the prospect with news of another potential
buyer who has seen the house, liked it, and is scheduled to return the
following day to talk about terms. When wholly fabricated, the new
bidder is commonly described as an outsider with plenty of money:
“an out-of-state investor buying for tax purposes” and “a physician
and his wife moving into town” are favorites. The tactic, called in some
circles “goosing ’em off the fence,” can work devastatingly well. The
thought of losing out to a rival frequently turns a buyer from hesitant
to zealous.
There is something almost physical about the desire to have a con-
tested item. Shoppers at big close-out or bargain sales report being
caught up emotionally in the event. Charged by the crush of competitors,
they swarm and struggle to claim merchandise they would otherwise
disdain. Such behavior brings to mind the “feeding frenzy” of wild,
indiscriminate eating among animal groups. Commercial fishermen
exploit this phenomenon by throwing a quantity of loose bait to large
schools of certain fish. Soon the water is a roiling expanse of thrashing
Robert B. Cialdini Ph.D / 197