This research investigates why people refuse the COVID-19 vaccine despite medical argumentation and dangerousCOVID-19 consequences. As the global pandemic development is beyond each person's control, we predicted that two basic assumptions about the world, namely its order and positivity, would play an important role. Two studies on the Polish population took place in December 2020 and January 2021. The most interesting finding was that in both studies, belief in world orderliness negatively moderated, i.e., hampered, the positive relationship between belief in the world's positivity and willingness to vaccinate. It seems that the COVID-19 vaccination might evoke a feeling of disruption in biological and social natural functioning. If we generalize, any idea undermining our habits and shared beliefs is the more challenged and opposed we have strong faith in the world as an ordered and predictable reality. Believing in the world's positivity may even aggregate this attitude. In discussing these results, we propose how to introduce new ideas or innovative products to consumers.

The paper aims to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and possible future global epidemic events on shopping behavioral patterns. Specifically, the paper investigates consumer pandemic-related isolation behavior (which manifests itself via preference for shopping without leaving home, and avoiding contact with other people while shopping offline) as a consequence of consumer interdependent self-construal, with the mediating role of consumer pandemic-related emotions of disgust, fear for oneself, fear for others, and sadness. The results of two surveys conducted in different stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in Poland (October 2020, and January 2021, respectively) suggest two opposing indirect effects of interdependent self-construal on isolation behavior: a positive effect through disgust, and a negative effect through sadness. Additionally, a positive indirect effect through fear was visible in the second study. Moreover, two dimensions of interdependent self-construal (i.e., vertical and horizontal) are demonstrated to have opposing effects (a positive effect and a negative one, respectively) on pandemic-related disgust, and in turn on isolation behavior. The above results indicate that, in the context of the pandemic, consumer self-construal influences pandemic-related emotions, and in turn consumers’ tendency to isolate themselves. Implications for marketers and society were discussed from the perspective of economic and sustainability goals.

The paper proposes and evidences that a more frequent mentioning of a service issue in an online restaurant review makes the readers blame the restaurant more for the issue. This inside attribution, in turn, may worsen the restaurant evaluation. Two experiments (Study 1 and 2) examine this mechanism using different stimuli. In both experiments, consumers exposed to high (vs. low) mentioning-frequency reviews attributed the issue more inside the restaurant and evaluated the restaurant lower. Additionally, the paper considers the role of consumer analytical processing (Study 1) and perceived review helpfulness (Study 2) in the relationships between mentioning frequency and issue attribution. The paper extends the existing literature by applying the attribution theory to the context of frequency information in online reviews. The results guide marketers dealing with negative online reviews by suggesting the way to deal with high-mentioning-frequency negative reviews.

The public debate over COVID-19 vaccinations tends to focus on vaccine-related arguments, such as their effectiveness and safety. However, the characteristics of a person’s worldview, such as beliefs about the world’s positivity and orderliness, may also shape attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccinations. These relationships were investigated using schema incongruity theory. The degree of the vaccine’s incongruence with the world’s order schema existing in people’s minds was represented by perceived vaccine novelty. Accordingly, the results of an online survey among European young adults (N = 435) indicate that perceived vaccine novelty negatively affects behavioral outcomes (vaccination intent, willingness to pay for vaccinations, and vaccination advocacy). Moreover, there occurred a negative interaction effect of positivity and orderliness beliefs on behavioral outcomes. Specifically, an effect of positivity was more positive when people perceived the world as less ordered. Furthermore, this interaction effect was more negative when perceived vaccine novelty was higher. A mediating role of perceived vaccine effectiveness was demonstrated for the above relationships. The results extend the existing literature on people’s worldviews into the domain of vaccine attitudes, and provide new insights on the role of perceived vaccine novelty. For vaccination policymakers and marketers, the paper suggests how to promote vaccinations with consideration of orderliness/positivity beliefs and vaccine novelty perception.

Background Chatbots are increasingly used to support COVID-19 vaccination programs. Their persuasiveness may depend on the conversation-related context. Objective This study aims to investigate the moderating role of the conversation quality and chatbot expertise cues in the effects of expressing empathy/autonomy support using COVID-19 vaccination chatbots. Methods This experiment with 196 Dutch-speaking adults living in Belgium, who engaged in a conversation with a chatbot providing vaccination information, used a 2 (empathy/autonomy support expression: present vs absent) × 2 (chatbot expertise cues: expert endorser vs layperson endorser) between-subject design. Chatbot conversation quality was assessed through actual conversation logs. Perceived user autonomy (PUA), chatbot patronage intention (CPI), and vaccination intention shift (VIS) were measured after the conversation, coded from 1 to 5 (PUA, CPI) and from –5 to 5 (VIS). Results There was a negative interaction effect of chatbot empathy/autonomy support expression and conversation fallback (CF; the percentage of chatbot answers “I do not understand” in a conversation) on PUA (PROCESS macro, model 1, B=–3.358, SE 1.235, t186=2.718, P=.007). Specifically, empathy/autonomy support expression had a more negative effect on PUA when the CF was higher (conditional effect of empathy/autonomy support expression at the CF level of +1SD: B=–.405, SE 0.158, t186=2.564, P=.011; conditional effects nonsignificant for the mean level: B=–0.103, SE 0.113, t186=0.914, P=.36; conditional effects nonsignificant for the –1SD level: B=0.031, SE=0.123, t186=0.252, P=.80). Moreover, an indirect effect of empathy/autonomy support expression on CPI via PUA was more negative when CF was higher (PROCESS macro, model 7, 5000 bootstrap samples, moderated mediation index=–3.676, BootSE 1.614, 95% CI –6.697 to –0.102; conditional indirect effect at the CF level of +1SD: B=–0.443, BootSE 0.202, 95% CI –0.809 to –0.005; conditional indirect effects nonsignificant for the mean level: B=–0.113, BootSE 0.124, 95% CI –0.346 to 0.137; conditional indirect effects nonsignificant for the –1SD level: B=0.034, BootSE 0.132, 95% CI –0.224 to 0.305). Indirect effects of empathy/autonomy support expression on VIS via PUA were marginally more negative when CF was higher. No effects of chatbot expertise cues were found. Conclusions The findings suggest that expressing empathy/autonomy support using a chatbot may harm its evaluation and persuasiveness when the chatbot fails to answer its users’ questions. The paper adds to the literature on vaccination chatbots by exploring the conditional effects of chatbot empathy/autonomy support expression. The results will guide policy makers and chatbot developers dealing with vaccination promotion in designing the way chatbots express their empathy and support for user autonomy.

Purpose This paper aims to investigate the effect of product-related description abstractness/concreteness on perceived trustworthiness and the role of consumer product expertise and shopping-stage mindset in the persuasiveness of abstract vs concrete product descriptions. Design/methodology/approach Two online experiments were conducted: Study 1 (description abstractness – manipulated between-subject; consumer product expertise, perceived trustworthiness, purchase intent – measured), Study 2 (consumer shopping-stage mindset – manipulated between-subject; description abstractness – manipulated within-subject; consumer product expertise, perceived trustworthiness, abstract/concrete description preference – measured). Findings The negative effect of the abstractness (abstract descriptions vs the ones supplemented with relevant product details) on description trustworthiness was evidenced in Study 1. Trustworthiness was positively related to purchase intent, especially for high product expertise. Study 2 replicated the effect of product description abstractness on its trustworthiness in terms of two other forms of abstractness (abstract descriptions vs the ones supplemented with irrelevant product details and product benefits vs attributes). The goal-oriented (vs comparative) mindset had a positive effect on the benefit (vs attribute) description preference, especially for high product expertise. Practical implications For marketers, the results suggest the positive consequences of presenting concrete information on product attributes and the conditions enhancing the effectiveness of presenting product benefits. Originality/value The paper integrates the existing views on consumer response to abstract vs concrete information (lexical abstractness/concreteness, means-end chain theory) and links them to consumer product expertise and shopping-stage mindset.

No abstract

BACKGROUND Chatbots are increasingly used to support COVID-19 vaccination programs. Their persuasiveness may depend on the conversation-related context. OBJECTIVE This study aims to investigate the moderating role of the conversation quality and chatbot expertise cues in the effects of expressing empathy/autonomy support using COVID-19 vaccination chatbots. METHODS This experiment with 196 Dutch-speaking adults living in Belgium, who engaged in a conversation with a chatbot providing vaccination information, used a 2 (empathy/autonomy support expression: present vs absent) × 2 (chatbot expertise cues: expert endorser vs layperson endorser) between-subject design. Chatbot conversation quality was assessed through actual conversation logs. Perceived user autonomy (PUA), chatbot patronage intention (CPI), and vaccination intention shift (VIS) were measured after the conversation, coded from 1 to 5 (PUA, CPI) and from –5 to 5 (VIS). RESULTS There was a negative interaction effect of chatbot empathy/autonomy support expression and conversation fallback (CF; the percentage of chatbot answers “I do not understand” in a conversation) on PUA (PROCESS macro, model 1, B=–3.358, SE 1.235, <i>t</i>₁₈₆=2.718, <i>P</i>=.007). Specifically, empathy/autonomy support expression had a more negative effect on PUA when the CF was higher (conditional effect of empathy/autonomy support expression at the CF level of +1SD: B=–.405, SE 0.158, <i>t</i>₁₈₆=2.564, <i>P</i>=.011; conditional effects nonsignificant for the mean level: B=–0.103, SE 0.113, <i>t</i>₁₈₆=0.914, <i>P</i>=.36; conditional effects nonsignificant for the –1SD level: B=0.031, SE=0.123, <i>t</i>₁₈₆=0.252, <i>P</i>=.80). Moreover, an indirect effect of empathy/autonomy support expression on CPI via PUA was more negative when CF was higher (PROCESS macro, model 7, 5000 bootstrap samples, moderated mediation index=–3.676, BootSE 1.614, 95% CI –6.697 to –0.102; conditional indirect effect at the CF level of +1SD: B=–0.443, BootSE 0.202, 95% CI –0.809 to –0.005; conditional indirect effects nonsignificant for the mean level: B=–0.113, BootSE 0.124, 95% CI –0.346 to 0.137; conditional indirect effects nonsignificant for the –1SD level: B=0.034, BootSE 0.132, 95% CI –0.224 to 0.305). Indirect effects of empathy/autonomy support expression on VIS via PUA were marginally more negative when CF was higher. No effects of chatbot expertise cues were found. CONCLUSIONS The findings suggest that expressing empathy/autonomy support using a chatbot may harm its evaluation and persuasiveness when the chatbot fails to answer its users’ questions. The paper adds to the literature on vaccination chatbots by exploring the conditional effects of chatbot empathy/autonomy support expression. The results will guide policy makers and chatbot developers dealing with vaccination promotion in designing the way chatbots express their empathy and support for user autonomy.