No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Purpose This research aims to examine the impact of consumers’ anxiety on the three types of consumption activities (sharing, hoarding and regular buying) during the coronavirus pandemic. Further, it aims to investigate the moderating role of materialism on anxiety and how attitude toward the pandemic affects consumers’ consumption behavior. Design/methodology/approach An online survey was conducted to test the proposed research model. The data were analyzed using SmartPLS and PROCESS tools. Findings Higher levels of anxiety lead to less sharing and more hoarding of resources but do not impact consumers’ regular buying intentions. A positive attitude toward an external event such as lockdown and intrinsic materialism can help individuals to cope with the anxiety successfully. Furthermore, consumers are more likely to share and less likely to hoard when they develop a positive attitude toward pandemic. Research limitations/implications Future research can explore the role of health-efficacy and attitude toward health as coping strategy toward pandemic. A longitudinal research can explore the gradual changes in consumers’ attitudes and consumption behavior. Practical implications Governments, marketers and policymakers should focus on reducing consumers’ anxiety and to build a positive attitude toward pandemic to avoid the issues of hoarding and enable sharing of resources with others. Originality/value This study contributes to the literature on terror management theory and crisis management during a pandemic using a consumption context.

Consumers regularly track their expenses and assign them to categories like food, entertainment, and clothing, which is popularly known as mental accounting. In this paper, we show that consumption biases that result from mental accounting—underconsumption or overconsumption—are not prevalent in Easterners due to their holistic thinking style, whereas Westerners exhibit such biases due to their analytic thinking style. In Study 1, we collected data with Easterners (students from the eastern part of India) and show that they do not exhibit mental accounting biases as is seen in Westerners. In Study 2, we show that such differences in mental accounting across cultures result from their thinking styles by manipulating thinking styles within a Western population (American students from the Midwest). We also show that the differences in styles of thinking across cultures motivate two different types of accounting processes—a piecemeal accounting process in the Westerners and a comprehensive accounting process in the Easterners—which in turn influence the differences in mental accounting biases across cultures. This finding adds to the growing literature in cross‐cultural differences in consumer decision making and explores how and why a well‐documented robust effect, mental accounting, varies with the cultural background of the consumers.