ArticlePsychology & marketing2021
The closer I am, the safer I feel: The "distance proximity effect" of COVID-19 pandemic on individuals' risk assessment and irrational consumption.
Article in Psychology & marketing, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Gender Differences in Emotional Valence and Social Media Content Engagement Behaviors in Pandemic Diaries: An Analysis Based on Microblog Texts.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- COVID-19 research in management: An updated bibliometric analysis.Journal of business research · 2022Article
- Irrational Consumption during the COVID-19 Period.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- COVID-19 vaccines and anti-consumption: Understanding anti-vaxxers hesitancy.Psychology & marketing · 2022Article
- The closer I am, the safer I feel: The "distance proximity effect" of COVID-19 pandemic on individuals' risk assessment and irrational consumption.Psychology & marketing · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The unprecedented crisis of COVID-19 posed severe negative consequences for consumers, marketers, and society at large. By investigating the effect of individuals' distance from the COVID-19 epicenter (i.e., the geographical area in which COVID-19 pandemic is currently most severe) on consumers' risk perception and subsequent behaviors, this research provides novel empirical findings that can offer practical insights for marketers. While intuitively, people expect individuals closer to the COVID-19 epicenter to generate a greater risk perception of the pandemic, empirical evidence from four studies provides consistent results for the opposite effect. We find that a closer (vs. farther) distance to the epicenter associates with lower (vs. higher) perceived risk of the pandemic, leading to less (vs. more) irrational consumption behaviors. We refer to this phenomenon as the "distance proximity effect," which holds for both physical and psychological distances. We further demonstrated that this effect is mediated by consumers' perception of uncertainty and moderated by individuals' risk aversion tendency. The current research contributes to the literature of consumers' risk perception and irrational consumption by highlighting a novel factor of distance proximity. It also offers some timely insights into managing and intervening COVID-19 related issues inside and outside an epicenter.
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.