ArticleLearning and motivation2020
Food shopping under risk and uncertainty.
Article in Learning and motivation, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- "We Could Hold Our Own Here at Home": Longitudinal Experience of COVID-19 Lockdowns in Parents With Children Affected With Interstitial Lung Disease.Pediatric pulmonology · 2025Article
- Grocery Shopping Under Simplified Marginal Value Theorem Predictions.Human nature (Hawthorne, N.Y.) · 2024Article
- Anticipated scarcity and stockpiling during the COVID-19 pandemic: The role of perceived threat, childhood SES and materialism.PloS one · 2024Article
- Modelling retail inventory pricing policies under service level and promotional efforts during COVID-19.Journal of cleaner production · 2022Article
- A Biopsychosocial Approach to Understanding Panic Buying: Integrating Neurobiological, Attachment-Based, and Social-Anthropological Perspectives.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2021Review
- Delivering the Multisensory Experience of Dining-Out, for Those Dining-In, During the Covid Pandemic.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
During the 2020 Covid-19 pandemic panic buying of food was reported by the media. Panic buying has received little attention within behavioural science. In this paper we suggest that optimality models of foraging under risk and uncertainty would be a fruitful place to begin developing useful and testable hypotheses about this behaviour. In making this case we relate panic buying to a general increase in foraging effort, which we characterize as an increase in purchasing and spending. We note two risks during the pandemic - that of food security and that of predation, where predation is understood as a perceived threat to life due to infection risk. Food security was effectively solved early on in the pandemic, whilst perceived threat to life has remained but diminished to some limited extent. We relate panic buying to food caching as a method of buffering risk and make six predictions about how this behaviour should present under food insecurity and perceived threat to life.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.