Pandemics and consumers' mental well ‐being

The authors examined how the joint effect of brand experience type (ordinary vs. extraordinary) and COVID‐19 threat on consumer happiness changed at different stages of the COVID‐19 pandemic. The findings from five studies, with the COVID‐19 threat and lockdown status measured as well as manipulated, suggest that COVID‐19 threat exerts converse moderating influences on the extraordinariness–happiness relationship under no lockdown and lockdown. Under lockdown, threat attenuates the effect of brand extraordinariness on happiness; extraordinary brand experiences bring more happiness than ordinary brand experiences when the perceived threat of COVID‐19 is low, but consumers derive comparable happiness from extraordinary and ordinary experiences when perceived threat is high. Under no lockdown, threat amplifies the positive effect of extraordinariness on happiness. Consumers rarely experience a large‐scale lockdown due to a pandemic, and this research advances understanding of how consumer happiness from a brand experience changes with the trajectory of a pandemic.

Section: Conclusion and General Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deriving happiness through extraordinary or ordinary brand experiences in times of COVID‐19 threat

Jiao

Chen

2022

“…The scope of the COVID‐19 pandemic has had a broad, global impact with extreme health, economic, and social consequences. Due to the recency of the pandemic, important commentaries exist (e.g., Crockett & Grier, 2021; Das & Chaudhuri, 2022; Hamilton, 2021; Hill, 2020; Minton, 2022; Pradhan, 2022; Whitler et al, 2021; see Scott, Martin, et al, 2020a; Scott, Rozin, & Small, 2020b for a longer list of commentaries), but research is scarce. The research that does exist alludes to individual differences potentially playing an important role in affecting consumer behaviors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of response efficacy and risk aversion in promoting compliance during crisis

Thomas

Mirahmad

Kemper

2022

This research examines consumers' compliance with behaviors that focus on preventing the spread of COVID‐19. Drawing on Protection Motivation Theory and research on efficacy, we find that, during a pandemic, consumers who have higher perceptions of response efficacy are less likely to engage in risky consumption behaviors (Study 1) and more likely to engage in protective consumption behaviors (Study 2). This effect is moderated by risk aversion, such that as risk aversion increases, COVID‐compliant behaviors increase even when consumers do not believe in their ability to effectuate change. Further, the relationship between response efficacy and COVID‐compliant behaviors is mediated by anticipated guilt. Importantly, these constructs are relevant beyond the COVID‐19 pandemic. As situations like drought, rising sea levels, and infectious diseases persist, consumers will continually be asked to sacrifice for their own wellbeing and the wellbeing of others. Thus, we discuss implications for policymakers.

“…The repercussions of the Covid‐19 pandemic for consumers' cognitive, emotional, and purchase and consumption behaviors will still be felt and studied in years to come (Minton, 2022 ). This study provides a framework for consumers' attitudinal responses to the pandemic based on the interplay among their cognitive, emotional, social, and behavioral aspects, using a qualitative approach and a sample of Jordanian consumers ( N = 71).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A typology of Jordanian consumers after Covid‐19: The rational, the suspicious, and the cautious consumer

Obeidat

Obeidat²

2022

This study presents a detailed typology of Jordanian consumers that identifies the effects of Covid‐19 on their personal, social, and purchase and consumption patterns following the pandemic. Based on a qualitative approach using a sample of Jordanian consumers ( N = 71), this study identifies three main types of consumers: the rational, suspicious, and cautious. All were distinguished by cognitive, emotional, and behavioral differences: the rational consumers viewed the pandemic as a natural occurrence, were willing to vaccinate, and took the opportunity to improve their lives and consumption behavior; the suspicious consumers viewed the pandemic as a man‐made virus and refused to rationalize their behaviors and follow the social‐distancing rules or vaccinate; and the cautious consumers were generally somewhere in between, and while they improved some aspects of their consumption, social, and personal lives, other aspects either remained the same or worsened. The findings have implications for managers and governmental bodies.