intent on a visit. I was forced to admit that, no, I had never been inclined
toward the idea of a temple tour before, that I had no questions about
the Mormon religion I wanted answered, that I had no general interest
in the architecture of houses of worship, and that I expected to find
nothing more spectacular or stirring than I might see at a number of
other temples, churches, or cathedrals in the area. It became clear as I
spoke that the special lure of the temple had a sole cause: If I did not
experience the restricted sector shortly, I would never again have the
chance. Something that, on its own merits, held little appeal for me had
become decidedly more attractive merely because it would soon become
unavailable.
Since that encounter with the scarcity principle—that opportunities
seem more valuable to us when their availability is limited—I have
begun to notice its influence over a whole range of my actions. For in-
stance, I routinely will interrupt an interesting face-to-face conversation
to answer the ring of an unknown caller. In such a situation, the caller
has a compelling feature that my face-to-face partner does not: potential
unavailability. If I don’t take the call, I might miss it (and the information
it carries) for good. Never mind that the ongoing conversation may be
highly engaging or important—much more than I could reasonably
expect an average phone call to be. With each unanswered ring, the
phone interaction becomes less retrievable. For that reason and for that
moment, I want it more than the other.
The idea of potential loss plays a large role in human decision making.
In fact, people seem to be more motivated by the thought of losing
something than by the thought of gaining something of equal value.
For instance, homeowners told how much money they could lose from
inadequate insulation are more likely to insulate their homes than those
told how much money they could save. Similar results have been ob-
tained by health researchers: Pamphlets urging young women to check
for breast cancer through self-examinations are significantly more suc-
cessful if they state their case in terms of what stands to be lost (e.g.,
“You can lose several potential health benefits by failing to spend only
five minutes each month doing breast self-examination”) rather than
gained (e.g., “You can gain several potential health benefits by spending
only five minutes each month doing breast self-examination”).^1
Collectors of everything from baseball cards to antiques are keenly
aware of the influence of the scarcity principle in determining the worth
of an item. As a rule, if it is rare or becoming rare, it is more valuable.
Especially enlightening as to the importance of scarcity in the collectibles
market is the phenomenon of the “precious mistake.” Flawed items—a
blurred stamp or a double-struck coin—are sometimes the most valued
Robert B. Cialdini Ph.D / 179