In March 2020, when COVID-19 was labeled a pandemic by the World Health Organization, store shelves were emptied of hand sanitizer, disinfectant wipes, and toilet paper. Newspaper headlines documented shortages of these products and announced closures of nonessential businesses. Restaurants, hotels, department stores, and childcare centers temporarily closed their doors, leaving many hourly workers unemployed. Without regular paychecks coming in, resources became scarce for many families. Within a matter of weeks, COVID-19 had caused widespread scarcity—scarcity of products, scarcity of services, and scarcity of resources—for millions of consumers all over the world. Clearly, the effects of such widespread scarcity of products, services, and resources will be long-lasting and complex. Although the COVID-19 crisis is itself unprecedented, there are several valuable insights we can draw from prior research on scarcity to understand consumers’ reactions to the crisis and potentially inform policy developed in response to the crisis. In the following sections, I highlight findings from prior research, discuss how they inform public policy, and propose ideas for future research. How do consumers react to scarcity, and do their immediate reactions differ from their longer-term reactions? Scarcity of either products or resources quickly attracts our attention (Mullainathan and Shafir 2013). Indeed, scarcity is often used by marketers to make products seem more desirable, as in “exclusive” or “limited time only” offers (Cialdini 1993). Learning about the scarcity of hand sanitizer, disinfectant wipes, and toilet paper further increased demand for these products. Yet, later in the consumer journey, consumers may respond to scarcity by consuming products and resources more thoughtfully and creatively (Hamilton et al. 2019). Consumers forced to cook at home began sharing recipes online. Faced with shortages of N95 masks used by health care workers, people began fashioning their own masks using old T-shirts and sewing masks to donate to first responders. From a marketing perspective, the substitutions prompted by scarcity of products, services, and resources may have longterm effects on consumer habits, behavior, and brand loyalty. Scarcity prompts substitution in both consumption and production processes (Hamilton et al. 2014). Stockout of a favorite brand may prompt a consumer to try a new brand, establishing new loyalties. Closure of a health club may motivate consumers to establish new workout routines. With childcare facilities closed, parents substitute other resources, such as their own time, for the money usually spent on childcare. In all of these cases, substitution erodes loyalty to brands, products, and service providers; this erosion may be more severe due to the other changes in consumers’ daily habits and routines caused by COVID-19. Although many product and service scarcities created by COVID-19 are shared by consumers of high and low socioeconomic status (SES), there are also important differences. While online retailers eliminate the geographic restrictions of offline retail, they still restrict consumers based on access to credit and digital literacy. High-SES consumers may react to scarcity at their local stores by finding items online and stocking up, exacerbating scarcity, while those with less disposable income, less access to credit, and smaller living spaces cannot afford to hoard. Even mental resources are taxed by scarcity (Mullainathan and Shafir 2013). Low-SES consumers, whose resources are already strained, may find it more difficult to evaluate options and make effective substitutions. Scarcity experienced during the current pandemic may have a lasting effect on consumers, especially if it occurs during formative years. Experiencing (vs. not experiencing) chronic scarcity can foster different models of the self, or “socioeconomic cultures,” that continue to shape consumers’ responses (Markus and Conner 2013). Those with high SES tend to interpret agency as exerting control over the environment, whereas those with low SES interpret agency as actively adapting to the environment and bringing themselves into line with environmental forces (Markus and Conner 2013). For example, interviews with survivors of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 who left the area before the storm, who tended to have higher SES, emphasized the degree to which they had exercised independence and control by choosing to leave. In contrast, those who stayed in New Orleans during the storm, who tended to have lower SES, emphasized exerting strength in the face of a challenge and not giving up (Stephens et al. 2009). We may

中文翻译：

---

稀缺性和冠状病毒

2020 年 3 月，当 COVID-19 被世界卫生组织标记为大流行时，商店货架上的洗手液、消毒湿巾和卫生纸都被清空了。报纸头条记录了这些产品的短缺，并宣布关闭非必要业务。餐馆、酒店、百货公司和托儿中心暂时关门歇业，导致许多小时工失业。没有定期薪水，许多家庭的资源变得稀缺。在短短几周内，COVID-19 就造成了全球数百万消费者的普遍稀缺——产品稀缺、服务稀缺和资源稀缺。显然，产品、服务和资源如此普遍稀缺的影响将是长期和复杂的。尽管 COVID-19 危机本身是前所未有的，我们可以从先前关于稀缺性的研究中得出一些有价值的见解，以了解消费者对危机的反应，并可能为为应对危机而制定的政策提供信息。在接下来的部分中，我将重点介绍先前研究的发现，讨论它们如何为公共政策提供信息，并为未来的研究提出想法。消费者对稀缺性有何反应，他们的即时反应与长期反应有什么不同？产品或资源的稀缺性很快引起了我们的注意（Mullainathan 和 Shafir 2013）。事实上，营销人员经常利用稀缺性使产品看起来更受欢迎，例如“独家”或“限时”优惠（Cialdini 1993）。了解洗手液、消毒湿巾和卫生纸的稀缺性进一步增加了对这些产品的需求。然而，在消费旅程的后期，消费者可能会通过更周到、更有创意地消费产品和资源来应对稀缺性（Hamilton 等人，2019 年）。被迫在家做饭的消费者开始在网上分享食谱。面对医护人员使用的 N95 口罩短缺，人们开始使用旧 T 恤和缝纫口罩制作自己的口罩，捐赠给急救人员。从营销的角度来看，产品、服务和资源的稀缺性引发的替代可能会对消费者的习惯、行为和品牌忠诚度产生长期影响。稀缺性促使消费和生产过程中的替代（Hamilton 等人，2014 年）。喜爱品牌的缺货可能会促使消费者尝试新品牌，从而建立新的忠诚度。关闭健身俱乐部可能会促使消费者建立新的锻炼计划。随着托儿设施的关闭，父母用其他资源（例如他们自己的时间）代替通常花在托儿上的钱。在所有这些情况下，替代都会侵蚀对品牌、产品和服务提供商的忠诚度；由于 COVID-19 引起的消费者日常习惯和惯例的其他变化，这种侵蚀可能更加严重。尽管 COVID-19 造成的许多产品和服务稀缺性由社会经济地位 (SES) 的高低消费者共享，但也存在重要差异。虽然在线零售商消除了线下零售的地域限制，但他们仍然基于获得信贷和数字素养来限制消费者。高 SES 消费者可能会通过在网上寻找商品并囤积商品来应对当地商店的稀缺性，从而加剧稀缺性，而那些可支配收入较低的消费者，获得信贷的机会较少，居住空间较小，无法囤积。甚至精神资源也会因稀缺而征税（Mullainathan 和 Shafir，2013 年）。资源已经紧张的低 SES 消费者可能会发现更难评估选项并做出有效的替代。当前大流行期间经历的稀缺可能对消费者产生持久影响，特别是如果它发生在成长期。经历（与未经历）长期匮乏可以培养不同的自我模型或“社会经济文化”，这些模型继续影响消费者的反应（Markus 和 Conner 2013）。那些具有高 SES 的人倾向于将代理解释为对环境施加控制，而那些 SES 较低的人则将能动性解释为积极适应环境并使自己与环境力量保持一致（Markus 和 Conner 2013）。例如，对 2005 年卡特里娜飓风的幸存者的采访，他们在风暴前离开了该地区，他们往往具有较高的 SES，强调了他们通过选择离开来行使独立性和控制权的程度。相比之下，风暴期间留在新奥尔良的人往往具有较低的 SES，他们强调在面临挑战时要发挥力量而不是放弃（Stephens 等人，2009 年）。我们可能会 那些在风暴期间留在新奥尔良的人，往往具有较低的 SES，强调在面临挑战时要发挥力量而不是放弃（Stephens 等人，2009 年）。我们可能会 那些在风暴期间留在新奥尔良的人，往往具有较低的 SES，强调在面临挑战时要发挥力量而不是放弃（Stephens 等人，2009 年）。我们可能会