Prior research in behavioral economics has examined the effects of nudging and the diverse aspects of choice on individuals' decisions and behaviors. Based on this premise, the current research offers a novel and timely view by examining how communication messages in public service advertisements (PSAs) can alter the perception of threat under uncertain situations such as the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus pandemic. This article investigates the role of additional relative statistical information on the perception of threat and stockpiling intention. First, we examine whether there is a reduction in the perceived threat of the coronavirus if information about the potential severity of an alternative threat (car accidents) is activated, when compared to offering only statistics on the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, which is known as COVID-19. Furthermore, we established the mediating role of a perceived threat in consumers' decisions and behavior in times of severe crisis. This suggests that organizations and policymakers can influence individuals by increasing or decreasing their perceived level of threat depending on the desired outcomes (e.g., respecting authorities' recommendations or avoiding stockpiling). This research offers a deeper understanding of how consumers can be "nudged" toward desired behavior in the context of public health and safety.

No abstract

Combining conceptual perspectives from emerging research on COVID-19, safety-seeking motivations, and extremeness aversion in choice (i.e., compromise effects), we examine how and why the perceived threat of COVID-19 affects consumers’ choice and decision making in the hotel and restaurant domains. Across seven studies (two studies from secondary data sets and five experimental studies), we provide novel evidence that the perceived threat or threat salience of COVID-19 amplifies the general tendency to select compromise options, avoiding extreme ones, within a choice set. We highlight the role of safety-seeking motivations as the underlying mechanism in the relationship between perceived threat and extremeness aversion in choice. We further document a boundary condition that the extremeness aversion effect is stronger for leisure travelers than for business travelers.

This study investigates the relationship between the COVID‐19 threat and consumer evaluation of a product with authenticity appeals in advertisements. We propose that threatening situations like COVID‐19 motivate consumers to lower their uncertainty and increase their preference for products with authentic advertising messages. Because individuals react differently to threatening environments according to their early‐life experiences, commonly reflected in childhood socioeconomic status, we examined whether childhood socioeconomic status moderates the relationship between threat and consumer evaluation of authenticity in advertisements. First, secondary data from Google Trends provided empirical support for our predictions. In additional experimental studies, participants evaluated different target products in four studies that either manipulated (Studies 2 and 3) or measured (Studies 4 and 5) COVID‐19 threat. Our results provide converging evidence that consumers positively evaluate products with authentic advertising messages under the COVID‐19 threat. Consumers' motivation to lower their uncertainty underlies the effect of COVID‐19 threat on their evaluation of authentic messages (Study 3). This attempt to reduce uncertainty is more likely to occur for consumers with relatively higher childhood socioeconomic status (Studies 4 and 5). These findings suggest that using authenticity appeals during a pandemic could effectively reduce consumers' perceived uncertainty and generate positive consumer evaluations.

Despite a substantial body of self-congruity (SC) research (cf. Aguirre-Rodriguez, Bosnjak, & Sirgy, 2012) two important questions remain open: First, does the SC effect apply beyond Western countries. Second, does individual level culture moderate the SC effect? This study contributes to SC theory by developing hypotheses on the validity of the four SC effects across East and West and by studying the moderating impact of the individual level cultural variable self-construals on those four effects. This study tests its hypotheses through a survey of over 1,600 consumers in an Eastern (India) and a Western (USA) country. Results show that the overall actual SC effect holds across East and West, while the ideal SC effect holds across contexts yet only for consumers with an independent self-construal. Meanwhile, the social SC effect holds in the Eastern but not in the Western context, while the ideal social SC effect does not hold in either context. Results further show a moderating effect of individual level culture on the SC effect, as the actual SC effect is stronger for interdependent consumers whereas the ideal SC effect is stronger for independent consumers across contexts. Finally, the findings of this study are used to advance managerial implications and to propose a refinement of SC theory.