The Effect of Control Deprivation on Mysterious Goods Preference and Its Mechanism

Zhong Yingyan; Liang Ruixuan; Wang Yan

doi:10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20250614

PDF(1354 KB)

Journal of Psychological Science ›› 2025, Vol. 48 ›› Issue (6) : 1450-1461. DOI: 10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20250614

Social, Personality & Organizational Psychology

The Effect of Control Deprivation on Mysterious Goods Preference and Its Mechanism

Zhong Yingyan^1,2, Liang Ruixuan¹, Wang Yan¹

Author information +

History +

Abstract

Mystery goods are products whose exact nature is unknown to consumers before they commit to buying them. Previous studies have mainly analyzed the impact of mysterious goods from an economic perspective, based on supply or sales perspective. The psychological reasons for consumers’ preference for mystery goods have not been adequately studied. Therefore, this study focuses on the antecedent variables of consumers’ preferences for mystery goods and their psychological mechanisms from a consumer perspective. Based on the theory of compensatory consumption, the present research examines the effects of control deprivation on preferences for mystery goods and their psychological mechanisms. The purposes of this research are to examine the effects and mechanisms of control deprivation on mystery good preferences, to test the basic hypothesis that control deprivation increases mystery good preferences, and to explore whether consumers’ probability estimates of obtaining a desirable good are the psychological mechanisms at play, as well as how consumers’ own internal and external locus of control may moderate this effect.
This research consisted of a pre-experiment and three formal experiments. First, the mystery goods materials were selected in the pre-experiment. Next, Experiment 1 examined whether control deprivation would increase preferences for mystery goods. Then, the mediating role of likelihood judgment in this effect and the moderating role of locus of control were examined in Experiment 2. Finally, the psychological mechanism of likelihood judgment was tested by manipulating the likelihood judgment in Experiment 3. In Experiments 2 and 3, participants had the opportunity to obtain the goods of their choice, which enhanced the ecological validity of the research. To establish the robustness of the proposed effect and the mechanism, control deprivation was manipulated through a recall task (Experiment 1) and a concept recognition task (Experiments 2 and 3). Mystery goods preference was measured using a simulated shopping paradigm (Experiment 1) and an incentive-compatible choice paradigm (Experiments 2 and 3). The psychological mechanism of likelihood judgment was tested by combining a measurement-of-mediation approach (Experiment 2) and a moderation-of-process approach (Experiment 3).
Results indicate that control deprivation influences mystery goods preferences, and that probability estimation is the psychological mechanism. Specifically, during control deprivation, people overestimate the probability of obtaining a desirable item, which increases their preference for mystery goods. The findings are consistent with the control-defence mechanism and the compensatory consumption behavior model, which suggests that control deprivation prompts individuals to compensate for the sense of control through a variety of behaviors, including changes in consumer preferences and consumption behavior. Moreover, the phenomenon of overestimating the likelihood of obtaining a desirable good caused by control deprivation is consistent with the illusion of control driven by the desire for control. When people lack control, they subjectively increase the probability of winning a chance outcome, thereby increasing their sense of control over low-probability outcomes. Individuals under control deprivation in this research show likelihood overestimation and further manifested this tendency in their consumption behavior by purchasing mystery goods. In addition, an individual’s locus of control moderated the above effects, as evidenced by the fact that individuals with an internal locus of control are more likely to experience likelihood overestimation during control deprivation. Previous research has shown that the internal locus of control amplifies the effects of the desire for control on gambling behavior. This is because the internal locus of control increases an individual’s perceived ability to pick winning numbers, and the combination of perceived ability and control motivation exacerbates betting tendencies. It can be seen that an individual’s locus of control tendency moderates the extent to which people are influenced by probabilistic sales strategies when the perception of control decreases or the desire for control increases. The findings support and extend the theory of compensatory consumption and provide practical insights for marketers and consumers.

Key words

control deprivation / mystery goods / compensatory consumption / likelihood judgment

Cite this article

EndNote

Ris (Procite)

Bibtex

Download Citations

Zhong Yingyan, Liang Ruixuan, Wang Yan. The Effect of Control Deprivation on Mysterious Goods Preference and Its Mechanism[J]. Journal of Psychological Science. 2025, 48(6): 1450-1461 https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20250614

References

[1] 郑晓莹, 彭泗清. (2014). 补偿性消费行为:概念、类型与心理机制. 心理科学进展, 22(9), 1513-1520.
[2] Aldwin, C. M. (1991). Does age affect the stress and coping process? Implications of age differences in perceived control. Journal of Gerontology, 46(4), 174-180.
[3] Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.
[4] Barnett, T., & Lanier, P. A. (1995). Comparison of alternative response formats for an abbreviated version of Rotter' s locus of control scale. Psychological Reports, 77(1), 259-264.
[5] Buechel, E. C., & Li, R. (2023). Mysterious consumption: Preference for horizontal (vs. Vertical) uncertainty and the role of surprise. Journal of Consumer Research, 49(6), 987-1013.
[6] Brailovskaia J., Stirnberg J., Rozgonjuk D., Margraf J., & Elhai J. D. (2021). From low sense of control to problematic smartphone use severity during Covid-19 outbreak: The mediating role of fear of missing out and the moderating role of repetitive negative thinking. PLoS One, 16(12), e0261023.
[7] Chen C. Y., Lee L., & Yap A. J. (2017). Control deprivation motivates acquisition of utilitarian products. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(6), 1031-1047.
[8] Cramer, P. (2012). The development of defense mechanisms: Theory, research, and assessment. Springer.
[9] Cutright, K. M., & Samper, A. (2014). Doing it the hard way: How low control drives preferences for high-effort products and services. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(3), 730-745.
[10] Ding, W., & Han, S. (2024). Consumer psychology of mysterious consumption: Embracing uncertainty through a perception of control. Behavioral Sciences, 14(5), 411.
[11] Fan, L., & Jiang, Y. (2018). Don' t surprise me: How social relationships shape consumers' attitudes toward probabilistic selling. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 3(3), 440-450.
[12] Fast N. J., Gruenfeld D. H., Sivanathan N., & Galinsky A. D. (2009). Illusory control: A generative force behind power' s far-reaching effects. Psychological Science, 20(4), 502-508.
[13] Faul F., Erdfelder E., Lang A. G., & Buchner A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175-191.
[14] Fong D. K. C., Fong L. H. N., Chark R., & Chui, P. M. W. (2018). The bias of size in gambling decisions: Evidence from a casino game. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 59(1), 78-84.
[15] Friesen J. P., Kay A. C., Eibach R. P., & Galinsky A. D. (2014). Seeking structure in social organization: Compensatory control and the psychological advantages of hierarchy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(4), 590-609.
[16] Gasiorowska, A., & Zaleskiewicz, T. (2021). Trading in search of structure: Market relationships as a compensatory control tool. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(2), 300-334.
[17] Gino F., Sharek Z., & Moore D. A. (2011). Keeping the illusion of control under control: Ceilings, floors, and imperfect calibration. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114(2), 104-114.
[18] Hayes A. F.(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. The Guilford Press.
[19] He, Y., & Rui, H. (2022). Probabilistic selling in vertically differentiated markets: The role of substitution. Production and Operations Management, 31(11), 4191-4204.
[20] Kay A. C., Whitson J. A., Gaucher D., & Galinsky A. D. (2009). Compensatory control: Achieving order through the mind, our institutions, and the heavens. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(5), 264-268.
[21] Keinan, G. (2002). The effects of stress and desire for control on superstitious behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(1), 102-108.
[22] Kovacheva, A., & Nikolova, H. (2024). Uncertainty marketing tactics: An overview and a unifying framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 52(1), 1-22.
[23] Kovacheva A., Nikolova H., & Lamberton C. (2022). Will he buy a surprise? Gender differences in the purchase of surprise offerings. Journal of Retailing, 98(4), 667-684.
[24] Kramer, T., & Block, L. (2011). Nonconscious effects of peculiar beliefs on consumer psychology and choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21(1), 101-111.
[25] Ladouceur, R., & Sévigny, S. (2005). Structural characteristics of video lotteries: Effects of a stopping device on illusion of control and gambling persistence. Journal of Gambling Studies, 21(2), 117-131.
[26] Lambert-Pandraud, R., & Laurent, G. (2010). Why do older consumers buy older brands? The role of attachment and declining innovativeness. Journal of Marketing, 74(5), 104-121.
[27] Lammers, J., & Imhoff, R. (2021). A chronic lack of perceived low personal control increases women and men' s self-reported preference for high-status characteristics when selecting romantic partners in simulated dating situations. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(7), 1345-1357.
[28] Landau M. J., Kay A. C., & Whitson J. A. (2015). Compensatory control and the appeal of a structured world. Psychological Bulletin, 141(3), 694-722.
[29] Ma A., Axt J., & Kay A. C. (2019). A control-based account of stereotyping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 84, 103819.
[30] Mandel N., Rucker D. D., Levav J., & Galinsky A. D. (2017). The compensatory consumer behavior model: How self-discrepancies drive consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27(1), 133-146.
[31] Min, B., & Schwarz, N. (2022). Novelty as opportunity and risk: A situated cognition analysis of psychological control and novelty seeking. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 32(3), 425-444.
[32] Moore, S. M., & Ohtsuka, K. (1999). Beliefs about control over gambling among young people, and their relation to problem gambling. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 13(4), 339-347.
[33] Moschis, G. P. (2012). Consumer behavior in later life: Current knowledge, issues, and new directions for research. Psychology and Marketing, 29(2), 57-75.
[34] Mvondo G. F. N., Jing F., & Hussain K. (2023). What' s in the box? Investigating the benefits and risks of the blind box selling strategy. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 71, 103189.
[35] Neuberg, S. L., & Newsom, J. T. (1993). Personal need for structure: Individual differences in the desire for simpler structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(1), 113-131.
[36] Raghunathan, R., & Pham, M. T. (1999). All negative moods are not equal: Motivational influences of anxiety and sadness on decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79(1), 56-77.
[37] Roehrich, G. (2004). Consumer innovativeness: Concepts and measurements. Journal of Business Research, 57(6), 671-677.
[38] Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), 1-28.
[39] Ruan B., Hsee C. K., & Lu Z. Y. (2018). The teasing effect: An underappreciated benefit of creating and resolving an uncertainty. Journal of Marketing Research, 55(4), 556-570.
[40] Rustagi, N. & Shrum, L. J. (2019). Undermining the restorative potential of compensatory consumption: A product' s explicit identity connection impedes self-repair. Journal of Consumer Research, 46(1), 119-139.
[41] Sauer, T. D. M. (2023). Unwrapping the mystery: Exploring the effects of revealing surprise purchases (Unpublished Master' s thesis). Universidade Catolica Portuguesa.
[42] Sevilla, J., & Meyer, R. J. (2020). Leaving something for the imagination: The effect of visual concealment on preferences. Journal of Marketing, 84(4), 109-126.
[43] Sharot, T. (2011). The optimism bias. Current Biology, 21(23), R941-R945.
[44] Shen L., Hsee C. K., & Talloen J. H. (2019). The fun and function of uncertainty: Uncertain incentives reinforce repetition decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 46(1), 69-81.
[45] Sierra J. J., Hyman M. R., & Turri A. M. (2018). Determinants and outcomes of superstitious beliefs: A multi-study approach. Journal of Marketing Management, 34(15-16), 1397-1417.
[46] Soral W., Kofta M., & Bukowski M. (2021). Helplessness experience and intentional (un-)binding: Control deprivation disrupts the implicit sense of agency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 150(2), 289-305.
[47] Spencer S. J., Zanna M. P., & Fong G. T. (2005). Establishing a causal chain: Why experiments are often more effective than mediational analyses in examining psychological processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 845-851.
[48] Sprott D. E., Brumbaugh A. M., & Miyazaki A. D. (2001). Motivation and ability as predictors of play behavior in state-sponsored lotteries: An empirical assessment of psychological control. Psychology and Marketing, 18(9), 973-983.
[49] Steinberg, L. (2008). A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-taking. Developmental Review, 28(1), 78-106.
[50] Taylor N., Noseworthy T., & Pancer E. (2018). Supersize my chances: Promotional lotteries impact product size choices. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 29(1), 79-88.
[51] Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103(2), 193-210.
[52] Verplanken, B., & Herabadi, A. (2001). Individual differences in impulse buying tendency: Feeling and no thinking. European Journal of Personality, 15(1), S71-S83.
[53] Yan H., Wang L., Xiong H. (2024). Would the blind box be more effective? The role of uncertainty in consumers' post-recovery satisfaction. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 59, 86-101.
[54] Zhang Y., Zhou H., & Qin J., (2022). Research on the effect of uncertain rewards on impulsive purchase intention of blind box products. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 16, Article 946337.
[55] Zhou X., He L., Yang Q., Lao J., & Baumeister R. F. (2012). Control deprivation and styles of thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(3), 460-478.
[56] Zhu G., He Y., Zhen R., & Gong J. (2023). A research on the "mystery box economy" from the perspective of the play theory of mass communication--A case study of Pop Mart. In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on information economy, Data Modeling and Cloud Computing, ICIDC 2023., Nanchang.
[57] Zilker V., Hertwig R., & Pachur T. (2020). Age differences in risk attitude are shaped by option complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149(9), 1644-1683.