Psychological Entitlement Shapes Preferences for Efficacy-Price Tradeoffs in Healthcare Choices

Consumers often evaluate products based on efficacy, especially in domains such as healthcare, cosmeceuticals, and well-being, where more effective options typically come at a higher price. This research investigates how consumers’ psychological entitlement predicts their preferences for such efficacy-price trade-offs. Across six studies, we show that consumers with a low sense of entitlement pick products that are lower in efficacy and price, as low entitlement constrains their ability to justify the price of more effective products. Study 1 shows that experimentally reducing entitlement lowers both the choice of and the ability to justify a more efficacious skin diagnosis product. Studies 2 and 3 demonstrate that this effect emerges only in self-relevant decisions and when a tradeoff is present. An incentive-compatible design (Study 4) reveals that, despite identical endowments, low-entitlement consumers spend less money to obtain a more effective product. This generalizes across different health behaviors (Study 5) and extends to another self-relevant decision, where low-entitlement caregivers select less effective options for their child (Study 6). These findings advance the theoretical understanding of justification of utilitarian consumption choices, psychological entitlement, and product efficacy, and offer insights for marketers and policymakers seeking to encourage uptake of efficacious healthcare options.