How Starbucks Manipulated Us With Cute

I succumbed to comment fodder in a post that led to this article.

A parent shared that they had taken their child out of school to spend the day driving the Florida coastline in search of the sold-out Starbucks bear cup. Hundreds of people were following similar threads, posting updates, comparing store lists, and mapping routes to track it down.

As I read through the comments, several red flags went off. The urgency. The emotional pull. The amount of attention being given to what was, in essence, an over-priced glass cup.

So I started researching what was really happening. Within minutes, it became clear that this was not simply an enthusiastic product launch. It was a psychological play.

Starbucks had created an artificial shortage, known in behavioral economics as manufactured scarcity, and paired it with a visually disarming design. The cup’s rounded features and soft aesthetic activated what psychologists describe as the baby schema effect, a natural caregiving response that lowers critical thinking and increases emotional attachment (Glocker et al., 2009; Borgi et al., 2014).

The outcome was predictable: emotional urgency, resale markups, and public frustration.

As a mother of two and a marketing psychologist, I found it deeply concerning. People were not responding to a cup. They were responding to a trigger.

It is the third major event in a series of scarcity-driven releases, each one creating public tension and each one more revealing than the last.

Today, I want to unpack what this pattern represents, how scarcity, emotion, and belonging have been intentionally combined to drive behavior, and why repeating this tactic despite its documented harm shifts it from clever marketing into conscious manipulation.

Manufactured Scarcity as Manipulation

The scarcity principle is one of the most studied concepts in consumer psychology. When people believe that something is in short supply, they automatically assign it higher value (Barton et al., 2022). Scarcity activates fear of loss and urgency to act.

Ethical scarcity reflects real limitation, such as seasonal products or small batch production presented with clear quantities and timeframes. Manufactured scarcity creates artificial urgency and suppresses reflection (Huang et al., 2023).

The Bearista Cup rollout fits this description precisely. Stores received as few as one or two cups with no confirmed restock plan (Carroll, 2025). The lack of transparency created anxiety and competition. That anxiety is what behavioral scientists call loss aversion, a state where people act impulsively to avoid regret.

This was a design choice. Scarcity was engineered to generate cortisol rather than clarity, removing agency from the buyer by flooding their system with urgency before they had time to think.

Now before you jump to thinking this is giving them too much credit or connecting dots that don’t fit, remember: this is the third time manufactured scarcity has led to this time of negative human impact. They had the hindsight to know how this type of rollout affects their audience. 

Cuteness as Camouflage

The Bearista’s design looks innocent on the surface, but it is built on a powerful neurological cue known as the baby schema effect. Humans instinctively respond to round faces, small noses, and soft shapes with feelings of care and protection (Glocker et al., 2009).

In marketing, this visual language has long been used to lower defenses and increase approach behavior. The same mechanisms that help us bond with infants also trigger empathy for inanimate objects.

By combining scarcity with a comforting aesthetic, Starbucks created a complete psychological loop: tension, release, reward. Consumers formed an emotional attachment before they consciously understood why.

Delight became a cognitive bypass. When design evokes nurture, it replaces scrutiny with sentiment. In this case, the bear served as a behavioral anchor engineered to convert emotion into profit.

Emotional Contagion and Outrage Distribution

Once scarcity took hold, social media amplified it. Research on emotional contagion shows that strong emotions spread quickly through observation and imitation (Shah et al., 2023).

Every video of a line outside a store or a customer celebrating a purchase reinforced perceived desirability, turning chaos into proof of value (Halttu & Oinas-Kukkonen, 2022).

Starbucks did not need to promote the Bearista Cup directly. The collective anxiety around it did the work. Each repost and frustrated comment strengthened the perception that ownership equaled belonging.

The frenzy became free distribution. The louder the noise, the higher the demand. This is emotional hijacking disguised as engagement.

Turning Ritual into Reactivity

For decades, Starbucks has conditioned its customers through ritual. The daily coffee run is a predictable act of comfort. The smells, sounds, and cup in hand create a sense of belonging and control.

The Bearista launch disrupted that ritual. Customers who expected familiarity encountered scarcity and confrontation.

From a conditioning perspective, this disruption matters. Pavlov’s dogs salivated at the sound of a bell because it consistently signaled a reward. When that pattern changes, the brain experiences stress before recalibrating.

In brand terms, Starbucks replaced safety with unpredictability. The moment a trusted brand begins to induce anxiety rather than reassurance, the emotional contract breaks.

From Pattern to Proof

The Bearista Cup is not an isolated event. It is the third repetition of a tactic that Starbucks knows creates chaos.

In 2019, the Cat Paw Cup in China sold out within seconds and led to physical altercations in stores (South China Morning Post, 2019; Fortune, 2019).

In 2024, the Starbucks and Stanley collaboration produced long lines, resale prices over ten times retail, and reports of disputes (Los Angeles Times, 2024; Sprudge, 2024).

Now, in 2025, the Bearista Cup follows the same pattern: thin allocation, ambiguous restock, and predictable disorder (Carroll, 2025; CT Insider, 2025).

After three nearly identical outcomes, claiming surprise is no longer credible. Starbucks has studied these responses, refined the tactic, and deployed it again.

Repetition transforms manipulation into intent (Kristofferson et al., 2017; Barton et al., 2022). This is not marketing driven by demand. It is behavior design driven by control.

The Psychological Cost of Chaos

Scarcity marketing activates the brain’s threat response. When people feel excluded or at risk of missing out, their bodies release stress hormones that narrow focus and heighten impulsivity (Kahneman, 2011).

That physiological stress contradicts Starbucks’ brand promise of comfort and belonging.

Each time a scarcity event escalates, it erodes the sense of safety the brand once represented. Consumers may still buy, but trust begins to deteriorate. Over time, the brand’s emotional equity declines even if its revenue spikes.

Ethical Branding and Accountability

Ethical branding depends on consent, clarity, and psychological safety (Barton et al., 2022). Starbucks failed on all three.

Customers lacked informed consent because they did not know how limited the product was or when it might return. They lacked clarity about inventory and purchase limits. In at least one location, physical conflict compromised safety (CT Insider, 2025).

After three scarcity-driven launches with the same results, this is not coincidence. It is a consistent marketing pattern that prioritizes visibility over ethics.

When a company knowingly leverages psychological triggers that produce distress, it crosses from influence into manipulation.

Ethical marketing requires awareness, responsibility, and restraint. Starbucks has demonstrated none of these in its approach to limited releases.

From Scarcity to Safety

There are ethical alternatives. Limited releases can be managed through transparency and fairness. Brands can publish inventory ranges, use digital lotteries, and schedule structured restocks. Each of these methods maintains excitement without exploitation.

Scarcity can be meaningful when it respects autonomy. It becomes coercive when it relies on confusion.

Starbucks has the scale and influence to model ethical exclusivity. Continuing to use scarcity as an attention strategy undermines the very trust its brand was built on.

The Real Lesson

The Bearista Cup was never about a cup. It revealed how easily trust can be converted into control.

Starbucks has the knowledge and resources to design marketing that aligns with its values of comfort and community. Instead, it continues to choose manipulation over meaning.

Cuteness and scarcity are powerful tools. Their ethical use depends on intention.

When a company understands the harm its tactics cause and continues to use them, it stops marketing to people and begins to manipulate them.

Ethical marketing asks a different question: How can we help people choose with clarity?

That is the foundation of trust, and it is the line Starbucks continues to cross.

References

Anello, D. (2025, November 10). Starbucks reveals when new holiday merchandise is coming amid Bearista Cup frenzy. People. https://people.com/starbucks-bearista-cold-cups-holiday-merchandise-date-11846814

Barton, B., et al. (2022). Scarcity tactics in marketing: A meta-analysis of product scarcity effects. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 32(2), 219-236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2021.11.003

Borgi, M., Cirulli, F., Carnier, P., Caso, F., Bentes, R. N., Luzi, D., & Viggiano, M. P. (2014). Baby schema in human and animal faces induces cuteness perception and gaze allocation. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 411. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00411

Carroll, S. (2025, November 10). Starbucks made a $30 glass bear cup. Chaos ensued. Quartz. https://qz.com/starbucks-bearista-cold-cup-resale-apology

Gibbs, A. (2025, November 11). Walmart is selling a dupe for viral Starbucks “Bearista” Cup. Newsweek. https://www.newsweek.com/walmart-dupe-viral-starbucks-bearista-cup-11027617

Glocker, M. L., Langleben, D. D., Ruparel, K., Loughead, J. W., Gur, R. C., & Sachser, N. (2009). Baby schema in infant faces induces cuteness perception and motivation for caretaking in adults. Ethology, 115(3), 257-263. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.2008.01603.x

Halttu, K., & Oinas-Kukkonen, H. (2022). Susceptibility to social influence strategies and persuasive systems design. Behaviour & Information Technology, 41(5), 1046-1061. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2021.1945685

Huang, L., et al. (2023). The impact of perceived scarcity on executive functioning: Scarcity theory and cognitive load. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2023.1158544

Kristofferson, K., White, K., & Peloza, J. (2017). The dark side of scarcity promotions: How exposure to limited quantities prompts competitive threat perceptions. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(5), 683-701. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucx104

Palmer, K. (2025, November 10). Starbucks’ viral cup has coffee fanatics in Calif. losing their minds. SFGate. https://www.sfgate.com/food/article/starbucks-bearista-holiday-competition-21152883.html

Shah, S. S., et al. (2023). Dynamics of social influence on consumption choices. Frontiers in Psychology, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.10300328

Starbucks apologizes after “bearista” cups sell out at stores, sparking fights among customers. (2025, November 7). CT Insider. https://www.ctinsider.com/news/article/starbucks-bear-cup-sell-out-fights-bearista-21145153.php