IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumption Self-Control by Rationing Purchase Quantities of Virtue and Vice


  • Klaus Wertenbroch

    (Yale School of Management, Box 208200, New Haven, Connecticut 06520)


Consumers' attempts to control their unwanted consumption impulses influence many everyday purchases with broad implications for marketers' pricing policies. Addressing theoreticians and practitioners alike, this paper uses multiple empirical methods to show that consumers voluntarily and strategically ration their purchase quantities of goods that are likely to be consumed on impulse and that therefore may pose self-control problems. For example, many regular smokers buy their cigarettes by the pack, although they could easily afford to buy 10-pack cartons. These smokers knowingly forgo sizable per-unit savings from quantity discounts, which they could realize if they bought cartons; by rationing their purchase quantities, they also self-impose additional transactions costs on marginal consumption, which makes excessive smoking overly difficult and costly. Such strategic self-imposition of constraints is intuitively appealing yet theoretically problematic. The marketing literature lacks operationalizations and empirical tests of such consumption self-control strategies and of their managerial implications. This paper provides experimental evidence of the operation of consumer self-control and empirically illustrates its direct implications for the pricing of consumer goods. Moreover, the paper develops a conceptual framework for the design of empirical tests of such self-imposed constraints on consumption in consumer goods markets. Within matched pairs of products, we distinguish relative “virtue” and “vice” goods whose preference ordering changes with whether consumers evaluate immediate or delayed consumption consequences. For example, ignoring long-term health effects, many smokers prefer regular (relative vice) to light (relative virtue) cigarettes, because they prefer the taste of the former. However, ignoring these short-term taste differences, the same smokers prefer light to regular cigarettes when they consider the long-term health effects of smoking. These preference orders can lead to dynamically inconsistent consumption choices by consumers whose tradeoffs between the immediate and delayed consequences of consumption depend on the time lag between purchase and consumption. This creates a potential self-control problem, because these consumers will be tempted to overconsume the vices they have in stock at home. Purchase quantity rationing helps them solve the self-control problem by limiting their stock and hence their consumption opportunities. Such rationing implies that, per purchase occasion, vice consumers will be less likely than virtue consumers to buy larger quantities in response to unit price reductions such as quantity discounts. We first test this prediction in two laboratory experiments. We then examine the external validity of the results at the retail level with a field survey of quantity discounts and with a scanner data analysis of chain-wide store-level demand across a variety of different pairs of matched vice (regular) and virtue (reduced fat, calorie, or caffeine, etc.) product categories. The analyses of these experimental, field, and scanner data provide strong convergent evidence of a characteristic crossover in demand schedules for relative vices and virtues for categories as diverse as, among others, potato chips, chocolate chip cookies, cream cheese, beer, soft drinks, ice cream and frozen yogurt, chewing gum, coffee, and beef and turkey bologna. Vice consumers' demand increases less in response to price reductions than virtue consumers' demand, although their preferences are not generally weaker for vices than for virtues. Constraints on vice purchases are self-imposed and strategic rather than driven by simple preferences. We suggest that rationing their vice inventories at the point of purchase allows consumers to limit subsequent consumption. As a result of purchase quantity rationing, however, vice buyers forgo savings from price reductions through quantity discounts, effectively paying price premiums for the opportunity to engage in self-control. Thus, purchase quantity rationing vice consumers are relatively price insensitive. From a managerial and public policy perspective, our findings should offer marketing practitioners in many consumer goods industries new opportunities to increase profits through segmentation and price discrimination based on consumer self-control. They can charge premium prices for small sizes of vices, relative to the corresponding quantity discounts for virtues. Virtue consumers, on the other hand, will buy larger amounts even when quantity discounts are relatively shallow. A key conceptual contribution of this paper lies in showing how marketing researchers can investigate a whole class of strategic self-constraining consumer behaviors empirically. Moreover, this research is the first to extend previous, theoretical work on impulse control by empirically demonstrating its broader implications for marketing decision making.

Suggested Citation

  • Klaus Wertenbroch, 1998. "Consumption Self-Control by Rationing Purchase Quantities of Virtue and Vice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 317-337.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:17:y:1998:i:4:p:317-337
    DOI: 10.1287/mksc.17.4.317

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Hoch, Stephen J & Loewenstein, George F, 1991. "Time-Inconsistent Preferences and Consumer Self-Control," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(4), pages 492-507, March.
    2. Manning, W. G. & Duan, N. & Rogers, W. H., 1987. "Monte Carlo evidence on the choice between sample selection and two-part models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 59-82, May.
    3. Thaler, Richard H & Shefrin, H M, 1981. "An Economic Theory of Self-Control," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 89(2), pages 392-406, April.
    4. Robert J. Dolan, 1987. "Quantity Discounts: Managerial Issues and Research Opportunities," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 1-22.
    5. Levin, Irwin P & Gaeth, Gary J, 1988. "How Consumers Are Affected by the Framing of Attribute Information before and after Consuming the Product," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 15(3), pages 374-378, December.
    6. Richard H. Thaler, 2008. "Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 15-25, 01-02.
    7. Richard H. Thaler & Eric J. Johnson, 1990. "Gambling with the House Money and Trying to Break Even: The Effects of Prior Outcomes on Risky Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(6), pages 643-660, June.
    8. O'Guinn, Thomas C & Faber, Ronald J, 1989. "Compulsive Buying: A Phenomenological Exploration," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(2), pages 147-157, September.
    9. Schelling, Thomas C, 1984. "Self-Command in Practice, in Policy, and in a Theory of Rational Choice," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(2), pages 1-11, May.
    10. Drazen Prelec & George Loewenstein, 1998. "The Red and the Black: Mental Accounting of Savings and Debt," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 4-28.
    11. Uri Benzion & Amnon Rapoport & Joseph Yagil, 1989. "Discount Rates Inferred from Decisions: An Experimental Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(3), pages 270-284, March.
    12. Rook, Dennis W & Fisher, Robert J, 1995. "Normative Influences on Impulsive Buying Behavior," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 22(3), pages 305-313, December.
    13. Folkes, Valerie S & Martin, Ingrid M & Gupta, Kamal, 1993. "When to Say When: Effects of Supply on Usage," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 467-477, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:17:y:1998:i:4:p:317-337. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Matthew Walls). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.