A View from Inside: Insights on Consumer Behavior during a Global Pandemic

Previous articleNext article FreeA View from Inside: Insights on Consumer Behavior during a Global PandemicKelly Goldsmith and Angela Y. LeeKelly Goldsmith Search for more articles by this author and Angela Y. Lee Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreThe current humanitarian crisis related to the COVID-19 outbreak around the world presents unprecedented challenges to the global community that all constituents—governments, companies, nonprofits, and citizens—must grapple with. Since the first case of COVID-19 infection was reported in December 2019, the number of cases worldwide has risen to over 33 million across 213 countries, with more than one million deaths (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/). This special issue was made possible by consumer researchers pitching in and doing their share to document experiences of the different constituents during this pandemic, from perceptions and emotions, to attitudes and behaviors, with an aim to understand and provide insights to potential solutions.The Journal of the Association for Consumer Research issued a call for papers for the Flash COVID-19 research issue on April 1, 2020. The support of the academic research community has been overwhelming. We received 138 submissions from authors around the world for the Flash issue, and we are extremely grateful to the 138 (what a coincidence!) dedicated reviewers who read manuscripts and provided thoughtful comments and guidance to the authors within record turnaround time; some of them even reviewed multiple essays. We are humbled by the enthusiasm and the support of the scholars who contributed to advancing knowledge on the consumer response to the COVID-19 pandemic as authors and as reviewers. Because of the constraints on time and journal pages, we had to turn away many more submissions than we would have liked. We are excited to share the findings of 20 empirical essays by authors hailing from eight different countries, reporting on the experiences, preferences, and decisions of consumers from 18 different countries around the world, including Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, France, Germany, India, Italy, New Zealand, Pakistan, Peru, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Spain, the UK, and the US.These 20 essays will appear in print in two separate issues of JACR—six papers are published in the COVID-19 special section in January 2021 (vol. 6, no. 1), and 14 papers will be published in a dedicated Flash COVID-19 issue in January 2022 (vol. 7, no. 1). These essays cover a wide spectrum of topics. Collectively, they provide a glimpse into a unique moment in time, examining how society has been affected by the pandemic, starting with how people, firms, and governments perceive the threat of the novel coronavirus, and how these constituents respond to the threat: Who takes responsibility, and who should take responsibility? Who is in compliance to help curb the spread of the virus, and who is not? How can politicians and policy makers encourage compliance? How do we connect with others and respect social distancing guidelines? How to allocate scarce medical resources such as ventilators?Taken together, the essays discuss how people live during this pandemic, and how they die during this pandemic. The research examines how COVID-19 changes consumption behaviors, from choice of stocks as a financial investment, to fairness perception of pricing practice, to shifts in preference for “not near me” businesses. This documentation of society’s responses to COVID-19 presents important insights to inform policy makers, managers of for-profit and nonprofit organizations, as well as private citizens on how the pandemic has impacted the lives of everyone.It is undeniable that COVID-19 has brought major disruptions to all aspects of our lives. Understandably, people look to the federal and local governments for information, for accountability and reassurance, and most of all, for solutions. What happens when answers and solutions lag challenges and problems? Aboelenien, Arsel, and Cho (in this issue) examine risk assessments from the perspectives of the government, firms, and consumers in Canada using policy statements; newspaper archives; firms’ communications to consumers via emails, tweets, and websites; as well as consumers’ tweets in response. In “Passing the Buck versus Sharing Responsibility: The Roles of Government, Firms, and Consumers in Marketplace Risks during COVID-19,” the authors find that risk perceptions and mitigation strategies have shifted over the time course of the pandemic. Responsibilities to handle the situation also shifted from the government to firms, and finally to consumers, who are now charged with the responsibility not only to protect themselves but to protect other marketplace actors. The study highlights the interdependency of the actors and suggests that whereas externalization of risk undermines risk mitigation, shared responsibilization by all actors is an important factor for success.In the face of a pandemic, when so much uncertainty is in the air, efficient dissemination of reliable information and guidelines would seem like a critical first step to stabilize society and keep people safe. Yet many in the US have expressed concern about the increasing presence of “fake news” in the mainstream and social media. As COVID-19 spreads across the US, this “infodemic” spreads with it, leaving many consumers questioning whom to trust, and what was real. This concern is exacerbated when public figures such as politicians, celebrities, and government officials—people who typically are viewed as credible sources—provide inconsistent information or offer diverse opinions. Four articles in this special issue directly address this interesting marketplace phenomenon, viewed through the lens of the pandemic, and suggest that some populations may be disproportionately affected by scams and the spreading of fake news.First, in their article “In These Uncertain Times: Fake News Amplifies the Desires to Save and Spend in Response to COVID-19,” Pomerance, Light, and Williams (forthcoming, January 2022) examine how the reality of fake news affects cognitions and consumer behaviors amid a pandemic. They observe that concerns about COVID-19 engender a high level of uncertainty, which gets amplified when the phenomenon of the proliferation of “fake news” is salient. These feelings of heightened uncertainty then carry over to activate conflicting consumer motivations: to engage in compensatory consumption via excess spending on unnecessary things, but also to conserve one’s resources and save money. The authors examine how these conflicting goals play out in consumers’ choices and suggest interesting paths forward for understanding consumer behavior during highly uncertain times.In the article “Truth Distortion: A Process to Explain Polarization over Unsubstantiated Claims Related to COVID-19,” Chaxel and Laporte (in this issue) directly examine how consumers navigate through information that may be real or fake. They find that consumers’ feelings about the information source shape whether or not they perceive the controversial claims made as credible. When a public figure makes a series of COVID-related claims, the extent to which consumers like the figure a priori exerts a powerful influence on their truth judgments. In fact, not only are COVID-related claims judged as more truthful when the source is initially liked, but also these perceptions distort over time and increase linearly with repeated controversial statements. Thus, if one initially favors a public figure, repeated controversial statements are seen as increasingly more true. Interestingly, the opposite is also true: when a public figure is initially disliked, repeated controversial statements are seen as increasingly less true.Unfortunately, some subsets of the population may be particularly susceptible to false claims. In “Social Marginalization Motivates Indiscriminate Sharing of COVID-19 News on Social Media,” Jun and Johar (forthcoming, January 2022), examine how feelings of social marginalization increase people’s tendency to share all news (both real and fake) in an effort to find meaning in one’s world. They show that bolstering one’s feelings of power can help provide a sense of meaning to those who lack it, and in turn attenuate their tendency to spread fake news.Another group that may also be particularly vulnerable to the spread of fake news are those who grew up in economically adverse environments. As Grillo and Ward (forthcoming, January 2022) discuss in “How Childhood Adversity Shapes Susceptibility to COVID-19 Scams,” the pandemic presents scam-operators with a unique opportunity to target US consumers with unsubstantiated, fraudulent scams designed to prey on consumers’ anxiety during a time of high uncertainty (e.g., websites offering vaccines and/or COVID-19 cures, when no such remedies exist). What Grillo and Ward observe is that not all consumers are equally vulnerable to such ploys. The authors draw from life history theory to predict that economic conditions experienced during childhood shape consumers’ likelihood of succumbing to fraudulent offers; while those raised in conditions of relative scarcity are less likely to fall for such scams than those raised in relative abundance during normal times, this phenomenon reverses with evidence of a worsening global pandemic. Across these articles, the authors offer insights to help design interventions to stem the tide of fake news spreading during a health crisis, and to inform communication guidelines to encourage adoption of precautionary measures to curb the spread of COVID-19.One defining characteristic of living during the COVID-19 pandemic is the high level of uncertainty. In countries around the world, governments issue lockdown orders, then reopening directives, and then back to lockdown orders. Schools, restaurants, and stores either close completely or operate at a fraction of their capacity. Unemployment rates escalated, and stock markets plummeted. The media’s focus in this context has not been on which stocks are being bought; rather, the eyes are on which stocks are being sold. In “Fear in the Stock Market: How COVID-19 Affects Preference for High- and Low-Priced Stocks,” Pena-Marin, Adaval, and Shen (forthcoming, January 2022) contend that this narrow perspective obfuscated our ability to detect an important reality in financial decision making during the pandemic: as the market was going down, the preference for high-priced stocks went up. They document this phenomenon through an analysis of stock price data during the COVID-19 crash and elucidate the emotional driver of fear that underlies investors’ preference for stability during times of uncertainty in the form of higher priced stocks.Beyond promoting a general sense of uncertainty, COVID-19 has brought a variety of other changes to the marketplace. For example, the downgrading of product and service quality due to lockdowns and stock-outs and increased costs due to hygiene measures present unusual pricing challenges to firms. Accordingly, firms need to decide whether and how to adjust prices in response to these changes. In “Pricing Fairness in a Pandemic: Navigating Unintended Changes to Value or Cost,” Friedman and Toubia (forthcoming, January 2022) examine how consumers perceive firms’ pricing decisions made in response to a change in quality versus a change in costs. Is charging the same price for a lower quality product more unfair than not lowering prices when costs have come down? And is it more fair to cut prices to match the downgraded quality than to match the lower costs? The findings provide insights to help managers decide when and how to adjust prices during a pandemic, as well as how to communicate the price adjustments.In dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, citizens around the world have been advised to stay home and practice social distancing. Individuals and organizations have made efforts to foster a sense of community among the large body of people who have found themselves living in unexpected isolation. For example, celebrities have hosted free concerts, free cooking shows, free exercising routines and other events over various online platforms for people to enjoy. However, given that most countries have never before recommended social distancing, much remains to be discovered about the cognitive, affective, and behavioral consequences of these necessary measures.Three articles examine how people respond to the need to socially distance during the pandemic. The first article examines the dilemma people face when they have to decide between engaging in face-to-face interactions or turning down such invitations. Prior to the pandemic, face-to-face social engagements came with benefits (e.g., human connection) and costs (e.g., the opportunity cost of one’s time). Amid the pandemic, the associated costs have escalated to include the potential of contagion. If one believes a given social interaction poses a health risk, how can they respectfully decline? Or should they accept lest they be frowned on? Wilson, Whillans, and Schlager (forthcoming, January 2022) examine the social cost of turning down such invitations in “Rejections Make the Heart Grow Fonder: The Benefits of Articulating Risks When Declining Social Invitations.” They find that people overestimate the potential harsh judgment from others, and underestimate the reputational benefits when they communicate risk concerns. The authors extend this inquiry by examining the implications for brand communications, finding that consumers likewise respond positively to brands that are transparent in their risk communications.While refraining from social interactions significantly minimizes the risk of contagion, it also leaves people’s need to be socially connected unsatisfied. The profound effects of sustained social distancing may manifest in unexpected ways through people’s consumption preferences and behaviors. In particular, consumers in general prefer to patronize stores and businesses that are close by. In fact, Google searches often automatically offer a “near me” category. However, Kwon, Manikas, and Barone (forthcoming, January 2022) find that, during the pandemic, some consumers are willing to go the extra mile—quite literally. In “(Not) Near and Dear: COVID-19 Concerns Increase Consumer Preference for Products That Are Not ‘Near Me,’” the authors examine consumers’ feeling of loneliness and find that those who feel lonely have an enhanced preference for “not near me” offerings during the pandemic, an effect not observed among those who feel socially connected.Further, researchers find that this need to feel socially connected is particularly important for essential workers who have experienced exceptionally high levels of occupational stress during the pandemic. In the article “Together We Stand: The Solidarity Effect of Personized Sellers on Essential Workers,” Kulow, Bentley, and Rajagopal (in this issue) find that essential workers demonstrate an increased preference for products from personized sellers. Specifically, they observe that essential workers (vs. nonessential workers) are drawn to products from personized sellers (e.g., Etsy vendors) versus nonpersonized sellers (e.g., Amazon) as a means to experience social support and solidarity to offset their occupational stress. Together, these findings provide a deeper understanding of the diverse psychological reactions consumers experience during the pandemic, and their consequences for consumption behaviors and decision making, with important implications for firms’ targeting and communication strategies.As businesses grapple with struggles of how to stay solvent and appeal to consumers during these uncertain times, governments face the daunting task of selecting and enforcing measures designed to keep their citizens safe and healthy. Guidelines on precautionary measures include washing hands for 20 seconds with soap and water, avoiding close contact with those who are sick, social distancing, wearing masks, and so on. However, these guidelines are useful only if people follow them. Thus, there is a great deal of interest among academics and policy makers in identifying the psychological antecedents to engaging in specific COVID-19 prevention-related as well as general health-promoting behaviors in the face of the pandemic. In the current special section as well as in the forthcoming January 2022 issue, we present seven articles that directly address this topic.First, in “Personality Matters during a Pandemic: Implicit Theory Beliefs Influence Preparedness and Prevention Behaviors,” Zhang, Mathur, and Block (in this issue) draw from the implicit theories literature to suggest that those who believe that their traits are malleable (i.e., incremental theorists) versus fixed (i.e., entity theorists) are more likely to engage in pandemic preparations sooner, and more likely to comply with recommended prevention behaviors. Interestingly, although entity theorists are less likely to prepare and to comply, they perceive themselves to be more vulnerable to the virus. This suggests an interesting paradox wherein those who felt the most vulnerable were the least likely to take steps to prevent virus acquisition and spread.Second, in “Unleashing Heaven’s Power: How Faith Motivates Consumer Exercise Behavior during a Pandemic,” Minton, Wang, and Anthony (forthcoming, January 2022) examine the relationship between religiosity and exercising during the pandemic. Although most people are mindful that they should maintain a healthy lifestyle, for many the practice of staying home is not conducive to exercising and staying active. The authors draw on terror management theory to show that religiosity (i.e., the strength of one’s religious beliefs) provides people with a sense of power that buffers their anxiety during the pandemic and positively influences exercise behaviors.The next three articles examine the moderating role of political ideology in consumers’ tendency to adopt prevention-related behaviors to combat COVID-19. In “Political Ideology and the Perceived Impact of Coronavirus Prevention Behaviors for the Self and Others,” Cakanlar, Trudel, and White (forthcoming, January 2022) identify an intervention that helps to bridge the gap between conservatives and liberals in their adoption of prevention-related behaviors. Conservatives value agency and believe that individuals should take responsibility for their own lives and not rely on others to solve their problems. Hence, they tend to that their prevention-related behaviors would have less on other the benefits of prevention behaviors to the (vs. the authors show one to compliance with precautionary measures among in their article and COVID-19 Prevention Behaviors,” and (forthcoming, January 2022) show that conservatives perceive behaviors (e.g., as inconsistent with their value for and in with their they are less likely to Accordingly, the authors interventions that and observe that such interventions can be for increasing compliance among conservatives and examining the effect of political ideology on and (forthcoming, January 2022) adopt a different perspective to examine compliance In Conservatives and to on the COVID-19 of on the benefits of the prevention behaviors, the authors focus on the threat of the virus. In particular, they find that conservatives more responsibility to with than they perceive the virus as less for of consequences than other more (e.g., Thus, when the virus is as own conservatives find it more and are more likely to engage in prevention to the of in the article the Coronavirus through and Kulow, and (forthcoming, January 2022) draw on level theory to examine conditions which the may be as more and in turn increase They show that when people focus on the present (vs. the more and as more the threat more when the distance is more As threat people are more willing to the virus and it agency compliance it is important to that COVID-19 is to websites (e.g., for provide live on the pandemic, people to the information on the number of and In their article Not COVID-19 and Rajagopal (forthcoming, January 2022) suggest that such efficient dissemination of live can have consequences for prevention behaviors. They find that pandemic information by (vs. people to the data more as than as This of the information risk perception and people’s to engage in prevention the psychological antecedents to prevention-related behaviors, these articles to practice by communications strategies for increasing compliance with recommended health guidelines during a health of the strategies focus on the of the with the or of the the efficient of these and (in this issue) in their article during the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Not the to that it is important to whom to target In a world of scarce it is critical that interventions are and to most people’s that targeting those with attitudes is most the authors show that targeting those with attitudes has the on and discuss for research and two articles that examine two important aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic out the Flash special section and forthcoming over 33 million COVID-19 cases worldwide to the is (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/). the most and most medical resources have been which are necessary to the to a be a of life or However, when and are in the of to decide who gets In the in a Pandemic,” and (in this issue) analysis to examine the preferences of people across different countries on how scarce medical resources should be They find a preference for and others with high However, with and economic are also with of the pandemic moderating the the one million who have to the novel coronavirus, and to their this pandemic is a how do to their when social distancing often during the and even And how do deal with the the presence and of and In in the of COVID-19,” and (forthcoming, January 2022) examine how consumers in the of a global pandemic. findings the important role that take on when have while such as and may be the only means of information with service and and the time of this the world is much in the of the pandemic. is and across countries, from to to 14 with and if In some of the world, and businesses have in other of the world, lockdown of COVID-19 vaccines are and the general to be to the recommended behaviors (e.g., social distancing, life may a This of essays has provided important insights to policy makers, and which we will understanding during these We extend our to the authors for their and we our to the reviewers for their time and all our keep safe and be to to all of our who shared their insights as reviewers for the two Flash COVID-19 research We are well that over the time has been a scarce for We are grateful to those who in this to their time into these findings to a Adaval, of of Arsel, of of of and of of of of South of of and of of of of of of of of of of of and of of of and of of of of of of of of of of and of of for Global of New of of of of of and of of of of of of of of of of Wang, of Wang, of of of of of of of of South in of of Zhang, of Previous articleNext article by Journal of the Association for Consumer Research 6, and by the Association for Consumer Research online January 2021 2021 the Association for Consumer the articles this and Consumer with the Journal of the Association for Consumer Research A to and Social Social across The of Theory to on A of between and the and Goldsmith to the and Journal of the Association for Consumer Research 7, behavior at the of the Journal of the of the in consumer perceptions and Y. Lee and Goldsmith and Consumer Insights in a of Journal of the Association for Consumer Research 7, Research for A of for Consumer Journal of Consumer Zhang, When should increase prices during a A inquiry during the pandemic, Journal of Consumer