The scarcity is pervasive aspect of human life and is a fundamental precondition of economic behavior of consumers. Also, the effect of scarcity message is a power social influence principle used by marketers to increase the subjective desirability of products. Because valuable objects are often scare, consumers tend to infer the scarce objects are valuable. Marketers often do base promotional appeals on the principle of scarcity to increase the subjective desirability their products among consumers. Specially, advertisers and retailers often promote their products using restrictions. These restriction act to constraint consumers' ability th take advantage of the promotion and can assume several forms. For example, some promotions are advertised as limited time offers, while others limit the quantity that can be bought at the deal price by employing the statements such as 'limit one per consumer,' 'limit 5 per customer,' 'limited products for special commemoration celebration,' Some retailers use statements extensively. A recent weekly flyer by a prominent retailer limited purchase quantities on 50% of the specials advertised on front page. When consumers saw these phrase, they often infer value from the product that has limited availability or is promoted as being scarce. But, the past researchers explored a direct relationship between the purchase quantity and time limit on deal purchase intention. They also don't explored that all restriction message are not created equal. Namely, we thought that different restrictions signal deal value in different ways or different mechanism. Consumers appear to perceive that time limits are used to attract consumers to the brand, while quantity limits are necessary to reduce stockpiling. This suggests other possible differences across restrictions. For example, quantity limits could imply product quality (i.e., this product at this price is so good that purchases must be limited). In contrast, purchase preconditions force the consumer to spend a certain amount to qualify for the deal, which suggests that inferences about the absolute quality of the promoted item would decline from purchase limits (highest quality) to time limits to purchase preconditions (lowest quality). This might be expected to be particularly true for unfamiliar brands. However, a critical but elusive issue in scarcity message research is the impacts of a inferred motives on the promoted scarcity message. The past researchers not explored possibility of inferred motives on the scarcity message context. Despite various type to the quantity limits message, they didn't separated scarcity message among the quantity limits. Therefore, we apply a stricter definition of scarcity message(i.e. quantity limits) and consider scarcity message type(general scarcity message vs. special scarcity message), scarcity depth(high vs. low). The purpose of this study is to examine the effect of the scarcity message on the consumer's purchase intension. Specifically, we investigate the effect of general versus special scarcity messages on the consumer's purchase intention using the level of the scarcity depth as moderators. In other words, we postulates that the scarcity message type and scarcity depth play an essential moderating role in the relationship between the inferred motives and purchase intention. In other worlds, different from the past studies, we examine the interplay between the perceived motives and scarcity type, and between the perceived motives and scarcity depth. Both of these constructs have been examined in isolation, but a key question is whether they interact to produce an effect in reaction to the scarcity message type or scarcity depth increase. The perceived motive Inference behind the scarcity message will have important impact on consumers' reactions to the degree of scarcity depth increase. In relation ti this general question, we investigate the following specific issues. First, does consumers' inferred motives weaken the positive relationship between the scarcity depth decrease and the consumers' purchase intention, and if so, how much does it attenuate this relationship? Second, we examine the interplay between the scarcity message type and the consumers' purchase intention in the context of the scarcity depth decrease. Third, we study whether scarcity message type and scarcity depth directly affect the consumers' purchase intention. For the answer of these questions, this research is composed of 2(intention inference: existence vs. nonexistence)${\times}2$(scarcity type: special vs. general)${\times}2$(scarcity depth: high vs. low) between subject designs. The results are summarized as follows. First, intention inference(inferred motive) is not significant on scarcity effect in case of special scarcity message. However, nonexistence of intention inference is more effective than existence of intention inference on purchase intention in case of general scarcity. Second, intention inference(inferred motive) is not significant on scarcity effect in case of low scarcity. However, nonexistence of intention inference is more effective than existence of intention inference on purchase intention in case of high scarcity. The results of this study will help managers to understand the relative importance among the type of the scarcity message and to make decisions in using their scarcity message. Finally, this article have several contribution. First, we have shown that restrictions server to activates a mental resource that is used to render a judgment regarding a promoted product. In the absence of other information, this resource appears to read to an inference of value. In the presence of other value related cue, however, either database(i.e., scarcity depth: high vs. low) or conceptual base(i.e.,, scarcity type special vs. general), the resource is used in conjunction with the other cues as a basis for judgment, leading to different effects across levels of these other value-related cues. Second, our results suggest that a restriction can affect consumer behavior through four possible routes: 1) the affective route, through making consumers feel irritated, 2) the cognitive making route, through making consumers infer motivation or attribution about promoted scarcity message, and 3) the economic route, through making the consumer lose an opportunity to stockpile at a low scarcity depth, or forcing him her to making additional purchases, lastly 4) informative route, through changing what consumer believe about the transaction. Third, as a note already, this results suggest that we should consider consumers' inferences of motives or attributions for the scarcity dept level and cognitive resources available in order to have a complete understanding the effects of quantity restriction message.