Political polarization impeded public support for policies to reduce the spread of COVID-19, much as polarization hinders responses to other contemporary challenges. Unlike previous theory and research that focused on the United States, the present research examined the effects of political elite cues and affective polarization on support for policies to manage the COVID-19 pandemic in seven countries (n = 12,955): Brazil, Israel, Italy, South Korea, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Across countries, cues from political elites polarized public attitudes toward COVID-19 policies. Liberal and conservative respondents supported policies proposed by ingroup politicians and parties more than the same policies from outgroup politicians and parties. Respondents disliked, distrusted, and felt cold toward outgroup political elites, whereas they liked, trusted, and felt warm toward both ingroup political elites and nonpartisan experts. This affective polarization was correlated with policy support. These findings imply that policies from bipartisan coalitions and nonpartisan experts would be less polarizing, enjoying broader public support. Indeed, across countries, policies from bipartisan coalitions and experts were more widely supported. A follow-up experiment replicated these findings among US respondents considering international vaccine distribution policies. The polarizing effects of partisan elites and affective polarization emerged across nations that vary in cultures, ideologies, and political systems. Contrary to some propositions, the United States was not exceptionally polarized. Rather, these results suggest that polarizing processes emerged simply from categorizing people into political ingroups and outgroups. Political elites drive polarization globally, but nonpartisan experts can help resolve the conflicts that arise from it.

People often shop when feeling sad, but whether and why shopping reduces residual (lingering) sadness remains an open question. Sadness is strongly associated with a sense that situational forces control the outcomes in one's life, and thus we theorized that the choices inherent in shopping may restore personal control over one's environment and reduce residual sadness. Three experiments provided support for our hypothesis. Making shopping choices helped to alleviate sadness whether they were hypothetical (Experiment 1) or real (Experiment 2). In addition, all experiments found support for the underlying mechanism of personal control restoration. Notably, the benefits of restored personal control over one's environment do not generalize to anger (Experiments 2 and 3), because anger is associated with a sense that other people (rather than situational forces) are likely to cause negative outcomes, and these appraisals are not ameliorated by restoring personal control over one's environment.

In two experimental studies, we tested the effect of COVID‐19 vaccine scarcity on vaccine hesitancy. Based on extensive scarcity literature, we initially predicted that high (vs. low) scarcity would increase demand for vaccines, operationalized as one's willingness to receive a vaccine. Contrary to this prediction, Study 1 showed that scarcity of vaccines reduced participants’ sense of priority which, in turn, also reduced their vaccination intentions. Trust in doctors moderated the effect of perceived vaccination priority on vaccination intentions such that for individuals with high trust in doctors, reduced perceived priority did not reduce their vaccination intentions as much. Study 2 replicated these effects with a more general population sample, which included at‐risk individuals for COVID‐19 complications. At‐risk participants (vs. low‐risk) had higher perceived vaccination priority, but describing vaccine doses as scarce reduced vaccination intentions similarly across both groups. Moreover, Study 2 demonstrated that compassion for others is a boundary condition of the effect of vaccine scarcity on vaccination intentions. For participants with high compassion, scarcity reduces willingness to receive a vaccine; for participants with low compassion, scarcity increases their willingness to be vaccinated. Our results suggest that health policymakers need to deemphasize the scarcity of vaccines to increase vaccine acceptance.

O mercado de consumo é caracterizado por mudanças expressivas, principalmente no que diz respeito ao atendimento mais individualizado, preocupação expressada por esforços em desenvolver novas bases de segmentação para aumentar a eficácia das ações de marketing. Uma base de segmentação ainda pouco utilizada é a por coortes, a qual busca identificar grupos que passaram pelos mesmos eventos externos na passagem para a maioridade. Apesar do forte fator demográfico (idade), a segmentação por coortes é do tipo psicográfica já que visa à identificação de valores. O objetivo deste artigo é explorar o conceito de coorte como forma de segmentação de mercado em marketing e sua aplicação nas decisões de marketing. O método empregado neste ensaio é o levantamento bibliográfico de caráter descritivo e analítico. Conclui-se que o método ainda é pouco utilizado, mas que pode gerar contribuições importantes em marketing se os esforços necessários para sua aplicação forem empreendidos.

for comments on an early draft, and Otavio Bartalotti and Laura Rees for comments on study design and manuscript.

Sharenting (using social media to share content about one's child) is a progressively common phenomenon enabled by society's increased connection to digital technology. Although it can encourage positive connections to others, it also creates concerns related to children's privacy and well-being. In this paper, we establish boundaries and terminology related to sharenting in an evolving digital world. We conceptualize a modern sharenting ecosystem involving key stakeholders (parents, children, community, commercial institutions, and policymakers), by applying consumer L. Lin Ong, Alexa K. Fox and Laurel Aynne Cook are equally contributed and the remaining authors are listed alphabetically.

A lockdown of people has been used as an efficient public health measure to fight against the exponential spread of the coronavirus disease (Covid-19) and allows the health system to manage the number of patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of both perceived stress aroused by Covid-19 and of emotions triggered by the lockdown situation on the individual experience of time. A large sample of the French population responded to a survey on their time experience during the lockdown compared to before the lockdown. The perceived stress resulting from Covid-19 and stress at work and home were also assessed, as were the emotions felt. The results showed that people have experienced a slowing down of time during the lockdown. This time experience was not explained by the levels of perceived stress or anxiety, although these were considerable, but rather by the increase in boredom and sadness felt in the lockdown situation. The increased anger and fear of death only explained a small part of variance in the time judgment. The conscious experience of time therefore reflected the psychological difficulties experienced during lockdown and was not related to their perceived level of stress or anxiety.

People often fail to achieve health goals, which compromises their well‐being. Prior research suggests that seeing events through an observer's eyes (i.e., adopting a third‐person perspective) should facilitate goal pursuit. However, we find that third‐person perspectives discourage goal‐consistent intentions and behavior for health goals when goal centrality is low (i.e., the goal is peripheral to one's self‐concept). In Experiment 1, people who adopted a third‐person perspective chose more sugary foods if they considered a healthy eating goal to be more peripheral to the self. Experiment 2 examines why a third‐person perspective can hinder goal pursuit; it encourages a breakdown in implemental thinking which, in turn, increases negative self‐conscious emotions. While high goal centrality buffers people from negative effects on goal intentions, low centrality does not. Experiment 3 demonstrates that this effect is robust when goal centrality is manipulated. We recommend that consumers pursuing health goals (and individuals who support them) exercise caution when employing perspective‐based strategies, as they may backfire for people at greatest risk of goal abandonment.