A View from Inside: Insights on Consumer Behavior during a Global Pandemic
2020; University of Chicago Press; Volume: 6; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1086/711896
ISSN2378-1823
AutoresKelly Goldsmith, Angela Y. Lee,
Tópico(s)COVID-19 and Mental Health
ResumoPrevious 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 think that their prevention-related behaviors would have less impact on other people. By highlighting the benefits of prevention behaviors to the self (vs. others), the authors show one way to enhance compliance with precautionary measures among conservatives.Along similar lines, in their article “Collective Health Versus Individual Freedom: Goal Centrality and Political Identity Shape COVID-19 Prevention Behaviors,” Pereira and Stornelli (forthcoming, January 2022) show that conservatives perceive certain behaviors (e.g., mandatory mask wearing) as inconsistent with their value for freedom, and in conflict with their identity; hence, they are less likely to comply. Accordingly, the authors develop interventions that leverage politically aligned messaging and observe that such interventions can be beneficial for increasing compliance among both conservatives and liberals.Also examining the effect of political ideology on compliance, Nowlan and Zane (forthcoming, January 2022) adopt a slightly different perspective to examine compliance strategies. In “Getting Conservatives and Liberals to Agree on the COVID-19 Threat,” instead of focusing on the benefits of the prevention behaviors, the authors focus on magnifying the threat of the virus. In particular, they find that conservatives attribute more responsibility to entities with agentic characteristics than liberals. Further, they perceive the virus as less responsible for its myriad of consequences than other more agential forces (e.g., governments). Thus, when the virus is framed as having its own agency, conservatives find it more threatening and are more likely to engage in prevention behaviors.Related to the notion of power, in the article “It’s Alive! Increasing Protective Action against the Coronavirus through Anthropomorphism and Construal,” Wan, Kulow, and Cowan (forthcoming, January 2022) draw on construal level theory to examine conditions under which the anthropomorphized coronavirus may be perceived as more menacing and in turn increase compliance. They show that when people focus on the present (vs. future), the anthropomorphized coronavirus seems more concrete and hence perceived as more powerful. Further, the threat seems more certain when the hypothetical distance is more proximal. As threat looms larger, people are more willing to comply.While humanizing the virus and affording it agency increases compliance behavior, it is important to note that dehumanizing COVID-19 victims is shown to decrease compliance. Multiple websites (e.g., Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Worldometers.info) provide live updates on the pandemic, allowing people to access the latest information on the number of infections and deaths. In their article “Numbers Not Lives: AI Dehumanization Undermines COVID-19 Preventive Intentions,” Huang, Lu, and Rajagopal (forthcoming, January 2022) suggest that such efficient dissemination of live updates can have deleterious consequences for adopting prevention behaviors. They find that numeric pandemic information generated by artificial intelligence (vs. humans) leads people to consider the data more as numbers than as people. This dehumanization of the information reduces risk perception and lowers people’s intentions to engage in prevention behaviors.By illuminating the psychological antecedents to prevention-related behaviors, these articles contribute to practice by suggesting concrete communications strategies for increasing compliance with recommended health guidelines during a health crisis. Some of the strategies focus on matching the content of the persuasive message with the needs or values of the target. To maximize the efficient executions of these interventions, Bechler and Tormala (in this issue) propose in their article “Misdirecting Persuasive Efforts during the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Targets People Choose May Not Be the Most Likely to Change” that it is important to choose whom to target wisely. In a world of scarce resources, it is critical that interventions are both effective and efficient. Contrary to most people’s intuition that targeting those with slightly negative attitudes is most impactful, the authors show that targeting those with slightly positive attitudes has the highest return on efforts, and discuss avenues for future research and applications.Finally, two articles that examine two very important aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic round out the Flash special section and forthcoming issue. With over 33 million positive COVID-19 cases worldwide to date, the recovery rate is approximately 96% (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/). Among the most scarce, and most sought-after, medical resources have been ventilators, which are necessary to treat critically ill patients. To the patient, having access to a ventilator could be a matter of life or death. However, when demand surpasses supply, hospitals and doctors are put in the incredibly difficult position of needing to decide who gets access. In “Who Gets the Ventilator? Moral Decision Making regarding Medical Resource Allocation in a Pandemic,” Jin, Huang, Liang, and Zhang (in this issue) used conjoint analysis to examine the preferences of people across 11 different countries on how scarce medical resources should be allocated. They find a universal preference for saving younger patients and others with high survival rates. However, cross-country differences consistent with distinct cultural values and economic developments are also observed, with severity of the pandemic locally moderating the findings.To the one million plus patients who have succumbed to the novel coronavirus, and to their families, this pandemic is a personal tragedy. But how do family members say goodbye to their loved ones when social distancing often eliminates access during the final moments, and even afterward? And how do family members deal with the loss without the physical presence and comfort of friends and family? In “‘Don’t Give Us Death Like This!’ Commemorating Death in the Age of COVID-19,” DeBerry-Spence and Torres (forthcoming, January 2022) examine how consumers commemorate death in the midst of a global pandemic. Their findings highlight the important role that health-care professionals take on when family members have limited access, while digital technologies such as mobile phones, iPads, and laptops may be the only means of sharing information with service providers and commemorating practices and rituals.At the time of this writing, the world is still very much in the midst of the pandemic. Cross-border travel is still limited, and quarantine requirement varies across countries, ranging from none to voluntary, to mandatory 14 days with strict monitoring and severe penalty if violated. In some parts of the world, schools and businesses have reopened; in other parts of the world, another lockdown seems imminent. Several clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines are ongoing, and the general outlook seems to be cautiously optimistic—with appropriate adherence to the recommended behaviors (e.g., mask wearing, social distancing, hand washing), life may resume under a new normal. This collection of essays has provided important insights to researchers, policy makers, and practitioners, which we hope will facilitate greater understanding during these confusing times. We extend our sincerest appreciation to the authors for their contributions, and we express our deepest gratitude to the reviewers for their time and insightful comments. To all our readers: keep safe and be healthy!Thank You to Our ReviewersThank you to all of our amazing colleagues who generously shared their insights as reviewers for the two Flash COVID-19 research publications. We are well aware that over the past several months, time has been a scarce resource for many. We are deeply grateful to those who believed in this work enough to invest their time into helping us bring these findings to a wider audience.Chethana Achar, Northwestern UniversityRashmi Adaval, University of CincinnatiNidhi Agrawal, University of WashingtonZeynep Arsel, Concordia UniversityMichael Barone, University of LouisvilleErnest Baskin, Saint Joseph’s UniversityRuss Belk, York UniversitySilvia Bellezza, Columbia UniversityJames Bettman, Duke UniversityAmit Bhattacharjee, INSEADUlf Bockenholt, Northwestern UniversityLisa Bolton, Penn State UniversitySimona Botti, London Business SchoolLyle Brenner, University of FloridaChristopher Cannon, University of Hawai’i, ManoaDipankar Chakravarti, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversityPierre Chandon, INSEADHannah Chang, Singapore Management UniversityZoey Chen, University of MiamiAlan Cooke, University of FloridaYann Cornil, University of British ColumbiaDavid Crockett, University of South CarolinaKeisha Cutright, Duke UniversityDarren Dahl, University of British ColumbiaAmy Dalton, Hong Kong University of Science and TechnologyJohn Deighton, Harvard UniversityUtpal Dholakia, Rice UniversitySusan Dobscha, Bentley UniversityAdam Duhachek, University of Illinois, ChicagoKristen Duke, University of TorontoGiana Eckhardt, University of LondonAmber M. Epp, University of Wisconsin, MadisonJordan Etkin, Duke UniversityRosellina Ferraro, University of MarylandEileen Fischer, York UniversityRobert Fisher, University of AlbertaGavan Fitzsimons, Duke UniversityElizabeth Friedman, Columbia UniversityDavid Gal, University of Illinois, ChicagoAndy Gershoff, University of Texas, AustinJoseph Goodman, Ohio State UniversityKent Grayson, Northwestern UniversityRebecca Hamilton, Georgetown UniversityRyan Hamilton, Emory UniversityDavid Hardesty, University of KentuckyKelly Haws, Vanderbilt UniversityHal Hershfield, University of California, Los AngelesJiewen Hong, Hong Kong University of Science and TechnologySzu-Chi Huang, Stanford UniversityAshlee Humphreys, Northwestern UniversityChris Hydock, California Polytechnic State UniversityMathew Isaac, Seattle UniversityAta Jami, Northwestern UniversityYuwei Jiang, Hong Kong Polytechnic UniversityGita Johar, Columbia UniversityDeborah John, University of MinnesotaAnat Keinan, Boston UniversityUzma Khan, University of MiamiChristine Kim, Hong Kong University of Science and TechnologySara Kim, University of Hong KongSoo Kim, Cornell UniversityRobert Kozinets, University of Southern CaliforniaKirk Kristofferson, Western UniversityEllie Kyung, Dartmouth CollegeCait Lamberton, University of PennsylvaniaXiuping Li, National University of SingaporeMonika Lisjak, Arizona State UniversityPeggy Liu, University of PittsburghRichard Lutz, University of FloridaMichal Maimaran, Northwestern UniversitySelin Malkoc, Ohio State UniversityErick Mas, Vanderbilt UniversityBrent McFerran, Simon Fraser UniversityBlake McShane, Northwestern UniversityRhiannon Mesler, University of LethbridgeChiraag Mittal, University of VirginiaCassie Mogilner Holmes, University of California, Los AngelesVicki Morwitz, Columbia UniversityAnirban Mukhopadhyay, Hong Kong University of Science and TechnologyGeorge Newman, Yale UniversityChris Olivola, Carnegie Mellon UniversityJenny Olson, University of MichiganNailya Ordabayeva, Boston CollegeJeffrey Parker, Georgia State UniversityVanessa Patrick, University of HoustonSimone Pettigrew, George Institute for Global HealthAnastasiya Pocheptsova Ghosh, University of ArizonaStefano Puntoni, Erasmus UniversityPriya Raghubir, New York UniversityAkshay Rao, University of MinnesotaDan Rice, Louisiana State UniversityRandall Rose, University of TennesseeCaroline Roux, Concordia UniversityAyalla Ruvio, Michigan State UniversityAdriana Samper, Arizona State UniversityShelle Santana, Bentley UniversityJennifer Savary, University of ArizonaHope Schau, University of ArizonaBernd Schmitt, Columbia UniversityJaideep Sengupta, Hong Kong University of Science and TechnologyJulio Sevilla, University of GeorgiaAvni Shah, University of TorontoDavid Stewart, Loyola Marymount UniversityAbigail Sussman, University of ChicagoManoj Thomas, Cornell UniversityDebora Thompson, Georgetown UniversityCarlos Torelli, University of Illinois, Urbana-ChampaignZakary Tormala, Stanford UniversityRima Toure-Tillery, Northwestern UniversityClaire Tsai, University of TorontoYanping Tu, University of FloridaStephanie Tully, Stanford UniversityDarach Turley, Dublin City UniversityGülden Ülkümen, University of Southern CaliforniaRajiv Vaidyanathan, University of Minnesota, DuluthRohit Varman, University of BirminghamEla Veresiu, York UniversityLuca Visconti, Universita della Svizzera ItalianaKathleen Vohs, University of MinnesotaRebecca Walker Reczek, Ohio State UniversityJing Wang, University of IowaYanwen Wang, University of British ColumbiaMorgan Ward, Emory UniversityMichelle Weinberger, Northwestern UniversityLiad Weiss, University of Wisconsin, MadisonKatherine White, University of British ColumbiaElanor Williams, Indiana UniversityPatti Williams, University of PennsylvaniaNancy Wong, University of Wisconsin, MadisonEugenia Wu, University of PittsburghAlison Xu, University of MinnesotaXiaojing Yang, University of South CarolinaYang Yang, Carnegie Mellon UniversitySong Yao, Washington University in St. LouisCatherine Yeung, Chinese University of Hong KongYael Zemack-Rugar, University of Central FloridaYinlong Zhang, University of Texas, San AntonioMeng Zhu, Johns Hopkins University Previous articleNext article DetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Journal of the Association for Consumer Research Volume 6, Number 1January 2021Behavioral PricingGuest Editors: Haipeng (Allan) Chen, David Hardesty, Akshay Rao, and Lisa Bolton Sponsored by the Association for Consumer Research Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/711896 HistoryPublished online January 14, 2021 © 2021 the Association for Consumer Research. All rights reserved.PDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Xiaoyan Deng, Xiaojing Yang, Yuwei Jiang, and Selin A. Malkoc Reflection, Resilience, Rebound: Consumer Coping with the Pandemic, Journal of the Association for Consumer Research 0, no.00 (Mar 2023): 000–000.https://doi.org/10.1086/724545Augusto Bargoni, Chiara Giachino, Ciro Troise, Gazi Mahabubul Alam, Roberto Quaglia A digital family affair: Do family firms' characteristics enhance consumers' willingness to pay?, Technological Forecasting and Social Change 188 (Mar 2023): 122289.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122289Sarah Schwarz, Christiane Aufschnaiter, Andrea Hemetsberger Social linking practices across physical distance: The material constitution of sociality, Marketing Theory 49 (Nov 2022): 147059312211377.https://doi.org/10.1177/14705931221137732Ateeq Abdul Rauf An Islamic Revivalist Group’s Unsuccessful Attempt to Find Meaning on WhatsApp: A Case Study of Understanding Unsustainable Asymmetrical Logics between Traditional Religion and the Digital Realm, Religions 13, no.99 (Sep 2022): 823.https://doi.org/10.3390/rel13090823Erick M. Mas, Kelly L. Haws, and Kelly Goldsmith Bringing Our Values to the Table: Political Ideology, Food Waste, and Overconsumption, Journal of the Association for Consumer Research 7, no.33 (May 2022): 350–359.https://doi.org/10.1086/719583Cristiane Pizzutti, Renata Gonçalves, Maura Ferreira Information search behavior at the post-purchase stage of the customer journey, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 47 (May 2022).https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-022-00864-9Kelly Goldsmith, Caroline Roux, Ali Tezer, Christopher Cannon De-stigmatizing the “Win-win:” Making Sustainable Consumption Sustainable, Current Opinion in Psychology 62 (Mar 2022): 101336.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101336Julia Helena Galante Amaral, Dr Eduardo Eugênio Spers Brazilian consumer perceptions towards second-hand clothes regarding Covid-19, Cleaner and Responsible Consumption 71 (Mar 2022): 100058.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clrc.2022.100058Angela Y. Lee and Kelly Goldsmith Looking Back and Looking Forward: (Re)Interpreting Consumer Insights in a Time of Transition, Journal of the Association for Consumer Research 7, no.11 (Dec 2021): 1–7.https://doi.org/10.1086/718146Julie L. Ozanne, Brennan Davis, Akon E. Ekpo Research Pathways for Societal Impact: A Typology of Relational Engagements for Consumer Psychology Research, Journal of Consumer Psychology 32, no.11 (Oct 2021): 127–144.https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1269Haeyoung Jeong, Hongjun Ye, Siddharth Bhatt, Jintao Zhang, Rajneesh Suri When should retailers increase prices during a crisis? A longitudinal inquiry during the COVID ‐19 pandemic, Journal of Consumer Behaviour 20, no.55 (Mar 2021): 1269–1276.https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1934
Referência(s)