Opportunity Cost Consideration
Open accessAbstract
Normatively, consumers should incorporate opportunity costs into every decision they make, yet behavioral research suggests that consumers consider them rarely, if at all. This research addresses when consumers consider opportunity costs, who considers opportunity costs, which opportunity costs spontaneously spring to mind, and what the consequences of considering opportunity costs are. Perceived constraints cue consumers to consider opportunity costs, and consumers high in propensity to plan consider opportunity costs even when not cued by immediate constraints. The specific alternatives retrieved and the likelihood of retrieval are functions of category structures in memory. For a given resource, some uses are more typical of the category of possible uses and so are more likely to be considered as opportunity costs. Consumers who consider opportunity costs are less likely to buy focal options than those who do not when opportunity costs are appealing, but no less likely when opportunity costs are unappealing.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
This result contradicts the finding of Spiller (2011) that people are more likely to consider opportunity costs when facing financial constraints.
“Importantly, this result contradicts the finding of Spiller (2011) that people are more likely to consider opportunity costs when facing financial constraints.”
From Poverty and economic decision making: a review of scarcity theory (2022) · cites this paper as Spiller (2011)
Participants with a smaller budget ($10) were more likely to consider opportunity costs when deciding about ordering items from a hypothetical breakfast menu than participants with a larger budget ($40).
“Similarly, participants with a smaller budget ($10) were more likely to consider opportunity costs when deciding about ordering items from a hypothetical breakfast menu than participants with a larger budget ($40).”
From Poverty and economic decision making: a review of scarcity theory (2022) · cites this paper as Spiller (2011)
Findings of Spiller (2011) suggest that trade-off thinking is not the result of pre-existing differences between the rich and the poor.
“Findings of Spiller (2011) suggest that this is not the result of pre-existing differences between the rich and the poor.”
From Poverty and economic decision making: a review of scarcity theory (2022) · cites this paper as Spiller (2011)
In a lab experiment, participants were more likely to pay attention to opportunity costs when randomly assigned to weekly (tighter) compared to monthly (more extensive) budget frames.
“In a lab experiment, participants were more likely to pay attention to opportunity costs in performing a shopping task when randomly assigned to weekly (tighter) compared to monthly (more extensive) budget frames.”
From Poverty and economic decision making: a review of scarcity theory (2022) · cites this paper as Spiller (2011)
Participants under (perceived) resource scarcity were more likely to consider or report opportunity costs than participants under abundance.
“Participants under (perceived) resource scarcity were more likely to consider or report opportunity costs than participants under abundance”
From Poverty and economic decision making: a review of scarcity theory (2022) · cites this paper as Spiller (2011)
Decision-makers routinely ignore opportunity costs unless the decisions involve large resource considerations (more money) and/or limited time.
“decision-makers routinely ignore opportunity costs unless the decisions involve large resource considerations (more money) and/or limited time (Spiller, 2011).”
From How to study democratic backsliding (2024) · cites this paper as Spiller, 2011
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 94 · Cited by 236
- Authors
- Spiller, S. A.
- Affiliations
- Duke University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Spiller, Stephen A.
- ORCID
- Spiller, Stephen A.
- Venue
- Journal of Consumer Research
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2011-12-01
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 595-610
- ISSN
- 0093-5301 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5277
- OpenAlex
- W2115805999
- Cited by
- 236
- References
- 94
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 4.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- papers.ssrn.com
- Locations
- Journal of Consumer Research (publishedVersion)
- SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Consumer Market Behavior and Pricing
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Consumer Behavior and Marketing Influence
- Keywords
- opportunity cost, purchase decision, perceived constraints, category structure, memory retrieval, consumer choice, behavioral economics
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
