Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 60 (2021) 102455

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

Panic buying: The effect of thinking style and situational ambiguity

Halimin Herjanto a, Muslim Amin b, *, Elizabeth F. Purington c
a
H-E-B School of Business, University of the Incarnate Word, San Antonio, TX, USA
b
School of Management and Marketing, Faculty of Business and Law, Taylor’s University, 47500, Subang Jaya, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia
c
School of Management, Marist College, Poughkeepsie, NY, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper examines the direct effect of thinking style and situational ambiguity on the panic behavior model as
Judicative well as the moderating effect of information overload. A total of 255 responses were collected from QUALTRICS,
Executive but only 139 were found to be useable for further analysis. A Smart-PLS software was used for data analysis.
Legislative
Based on the results, it was found that situational ambiguity and the judicative thinking style increase perceived
Situational ambiguity
Perceived risk
risk. In turn, perceived risk and situational ambiguity were found to be responsible for generating panic buying.
Panic buying and information overload In contrast, executive and legislative thinking styles were found to have no significant effect on perceived risk.
Finally, information overload was found to moderate the relationship between situational ambiguity and panic
buying, but not the relationship between perceived risk and panic buying. This study proposes and tests a model
of panic buying and contributes to the theoretical knowledge as well as offering clear avenues for future research
and suggesting managerial best practices.

1. Introduction
Panic buying refers to a behavior disorder in which consumers
purchase an unusually large number of items to avoid the possibility of
future shortage (Shou et al., 2011). As a result, panic buying has
extensive negative impacts on the supply chain, macroeconomic sys­
tems, retail, and public policy. During the COVID-19 pandemic, in­
dividuals have experienced a 49% increase in anxiety concerning their
safety and livelihood (Evidation, 2020). In response to this uneasiness,
individuals may turn to a coping mechanism in the form of panic
buying Hori and Iwamoto (2013).
The existing literature suggests that panic buying is a complex and
multifaceted phenomenon. It can be linked to or triggered by neuro­
psychological impairment (Grisham et al., 2007), emotional elements
such as anxiety and depression (Frost et al., 2009), social networking
(Kang et al. 2011), and situational stressors such as supply scarcity (Tsao
et al. 2019). Despite this research, Tolin et al. (2015) suggest that the
panic buying phenomenon is still very much a mystery and requires
more investigation. More specifically, Grisham et al. (2007) argued that
analysis of the panic buying phenomenon through a neuropsychological
lens had been limited. Therefore, future studies should examine and
analyze the effect of cognitive function on this phenomenon. Most of the
scholars suggested that cognitive function are directly linked to thinking
style that responsible for specific neural activity (Bendall et al., 2016),
controlling perceived risk (Sternberg, 1999; Leikas et al., 2007),
perceived authenticity (Lechner and Paul, 2019), and panic behavior
(Ma et al., 2018; Sheth, 2020). Although, the previous studies have
provided a significant contribution to the consumer behavior literature.
However, their reviews are more focused on the unilateral concept of
thinking styles. According to Cheng et al. (2011), the unidimensional
idea does not provide a holistic approach to how thinking style affecting
other factors; specifically, the unilateral dimension might partially
explain the distinct a consumer behavior.
Therefore, to provide a holistic concept of consumer thinking styles,
Lun et al. (2010) and Cheng et al. (2011) suggested investigating the
thinking styles from a multidimensional concept. According to Stern­
berg (1999), consumer thinking styles can be categorized into judicative
(evaluation-based), executive (compliance-based), and legislative (cre­
ative-based), and each of these different thinking styles will determine
on how consumers think differently. Following the above theory,
Sternberg (1999) argued that what happens to the individuals in life
depends on how they think and not just on how well they think. Thus, an
individual with a style preference in one condition may indicate a
different choice in another situation (Groza et al., 2016; Park et al.,

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: herjanto@uiwtx.edu (H. Herjanto), tengkumuslim@yahoo.com, muslim.amin@taylors.edu.my (M. Amin), Elizabeth.purinton@marist.edu
(E.F. Purington).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102455
Received 28 June 2020; Received in revised form 8 December 2020; Accepted 16 December 2020
0969-6989/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H. Herjanto et al.
2005) and hold a distinct attitude toward specific behavior (Ma et al.,
2018), and facilitates customers to optimize their abilities to achieve the
best action possible (Kim, 2011). These arguments raise the following
important question: if there are three types of thinking styles, which one
has the most powerful effect on perceived risk and panic buying? To
address this question. This study offers a new perspective on the impact
of three different thinking styles on perceived risk and panic buying. It is
critical because the effect of thinking styles on perceived risk has not
empirically studied in the literature, especially in a pandemic situation.
Secondly, this study attempts to respond to McLain et al. (2015) to
extend the analysis of situational ambiguity by focusing on different
situations. McLain et al. (2015) argued that the sense of uncertainty
increases situational ambiguity. Furthermore, McLain et al. (2015)
emphasize the impact of situational ambiguity is based on
situation-specific and cannot be generalized. COVID-19 as a new
pandemic can be considered situation-specific, and thus, investigating
this unprecedented situation will provide a better picture of the effect of
situational ambiguity. Therefore, this study attempts to examine the
impact of situational ambiguity on perceived risk and panic buying in
the context of the unprecedented case of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Lastly, this study incorporates information overload as a moderating
variable. Researchers indicated that information overload among con­
sumers had facilitated consumers to make an optimal buying decision
(Alalwan, 2018; Naeem, 2021), and the possible quota buying imposi­
tion (Addo et al., 2020) as well as make panic buying even worse (Allon
and Bassamboo, 2017). However, how information overload affects the
relationship between perceived risk and panic buying is still unresolved.
Therefore, studying the moderating effect of information overload on
this relationship may understand the panic buying phenomenon, and it
may help develop communication strategies to counter information
overload. It may also help identify appropriate approaches for
communicating with consumers with different thinking styles to curb
panic buying.
2. Literature review and hypotheses development
2.1. Panic buying
Panic buying is defined as a behavior disorder in which consumers
purchase an abnormal number of items in anticipation of a potential
future shortage (Shou et al., 2011). Scholars have pointed out that panic
buying disrupts established supply chains and production (Shou et al.,
2011), promotes export bans (Blas, 2008), destabilizes the macroeco­
nomic system (Woertz, 2010), and forces retailers to introduce quotas
and price increases (Shou et al., 2011). Tolin et al. (2015) suggest that
panic buying behavior is complex and multifaceted. The concept of
panic buying extends to difficulty in discarding items, clutter, acquisi­
tion, and impairment. In the current pandemic situation, consumers
have focused on accumulating lifesaving possessions such as food items
and fast salable items (i.e., electronic goods and jewelry). When the
pandemic outbreak began, the acquisition level rose, and consumers
became involved in panic buying behavior. Frost and Gross (1992) note
that when panic buying coping mechanism is activated, consumers tend
to experience a higher need for control to maintain their safety and
support their lives. There is also a high-level of uneasiness and uncer­
tainty, which further triggers a high level of impairment or distress
associated with any current negative experience (Frost et al., 2004).
Furthermore, Cleeremans (2004) suggests that consumers’ need for
control is highly dependent on their learning process.
2.2. Perceived risk
Perceived risk refers to consumers’ perceptions about the nature of a
situation and the possible problems that it can produce (Yang et al.,
2015). According to Cu et al. (2016), consumers’ perceived risk can be
categorized into objective or subjective perceived risk. Objective risk
2
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 60 (2021) 102455
refers to the perception of potentially negative situations based on facts
and scientific knowledge. In contrast, subjective risk refers to assump­
tions of negative outcomes based on consumers’ judgment of current
events. Maziriri and Chuchu (2017) note that subjectively perceived risk
is more complex because consumers deal with an intangible factor.
Consumers cannot easily recognize, define, or fully understand the sit­
uation or problem they are currently dealing with. As a result, con­
sumers experience a high level of uncertainty and unpredictable
consequences (Bruwer et al., 2013). Thus, the higher the level of un­
certainty and negative effects, the higher the perceived risk and vice
versa.
According to Conchar et al. (2004), consumers’ tolerance level of
uncertainty and negative consequences depends on how they process
their perceived risk. Psychologically, consumers process risks through
three important stages. The first stage is the framing of a situation or
problem. In this stage, consumers identify the case through its personal
and situational characteristics. Based on this identification, consumers
classify any perceived risk into financial risk, quality risk, time risk,
privacy risk, after-sales risk, prosecution risk, social risk, psychological
risk, delivery risk, opportunity cost, and safety risk (Herjanto et al.,
2017). The second stage is the screening stage, in which consumers
determine the weight and seriousness of the issues. The last step is the
evaluation stage, in which consumers utilize their cognitive and affec­
tive evaluation process to strategize and determine their outcome
behavior.
Ma and Wang (2009) argue that every time consumers are involved
in decision making, they are potentially experiencing risks. The degree
of such risks is determined by the complexity (Manziriri and Chuchu,
2017), intangibility (Laroche et al., 2004), and newness of the issue
being confronted (Van Schaik et al., 2017). The degree of such charac­
teristics regulates the level of uncertainty (Tallman, 2013). During the
initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, grocery stores experienced
serious shortages. To consumers, empty shelves and long queues outside
grocery stores represented a highly risky situation with the possible
outcome that they would not be able to restock their pantry. To reduce
this scary situation, consumers sought to fill their pantry through panic
buying. Based on this consideration, the study hypothesizes the
following:
H1. The higher the perceived risk, the higher the tendency to panic
buy.
2.3. Thinking style
According to Cleeremans (2004), consumers’ cognitive process is
responsible for determining the level of perceived risk, and the quality of
the mental process may depend on consumers’ thinking style (Ma et al.
(2018). Sternberg and Zhang (2006) explain that consumers’ thinking
style refers to their personal choices in the way they activate their
cognitive abilities. Interestingly, Novak and Hoffman (2009) specify that
thinking style is unique, cognitively independent, stable, and, more
importantly, not easily influenced by individual emotions. This is
perhaps because thinking style relies on rational information processing
(Epstein, 2003). Consumers’ type of information processing system
helps them organize or govern their knowledge and intellect (Zhang and
Sternberg, 2002) to deal with their unique situations (Kim, 2011).
According to mental self-government theory, consumers organize
their knowledge and intellect based on different categories. Abu-Hussain
and Abu-Hussain ( 2018) argue that although consumers may have
multiple types of thinking styles in their repertoire, they utilize the most
dominant and suitable style when dealing with certain information or
situations. Groza et al. (2016) suggest that the function of thinking style
is situationally dependent and domain-specific among these categories.
Furthermore, Groza et al. (2016) identified three types of thinking
styles: judicative (evaluation-based behavior), executive (com­
pliance-based behavior), and legislative (creative-based behavior).
H. Herjanto et al.
These instruments were designed specifically to assess situational
dependent and specific.
Zhang and Sternberg (2002) emphasize that the judicative thinking
style motivates consumers to decide on their behavior based on heavy
screening, judgment, and evaluation of their situations, drawing on the
information available. It means that consumers who prefer a judicative
thinking style tend to be more analytical and critical (Sternberg, 1999)
and less creative in their outcome behavior (O’Hara and Sternberg,
2001). For this reason, judicative thinking consumers tend to be more
careful and desire to be safe in their decisions. This thinking style
prompts consumers to investigate the content, structure, and timing of a
situation and match these situational characteristics to available
problem-solving tools (Sternberg, 1999). For example, when dealing
with the current pandemic, judicative thinking consumers may make
comparisons by drawing on the swine flu pandemic based on their
thinking process. This approach allows consumers to evaluate the pros
and cons of previous approaches accordingly. This explanation shows
that consumers who prefer the judicative thinking style base their ac­
tions on data and facts. In the case of COVID-19, judicative thinking
consumers are more likely to analyze a grocery store’s empty shelves by
taking into account how well and how often the grocery store has pre­
viously and currently been able to restock, maintain their stocks or offer
alternative products. When consumers see that a grocery store’s shelves
are consistently empty, this condition is alarming that triggers judicative
thinkers to believe that this situation is highly risky. Based on this
argument, we hypothesize the following:
H2a. The judicative thinking style is positively related to higher
perceived risk.
Consumers who prefer the executive thinking style manage current
situations or problems with a structured approach (Groza et al., 2016).
This style allows consumers to adjust their thinking process based on
existing systems or strategies, and to a small extent to modify such ap­
proaches to fit their unique situations (Sternberg, 1999). Based on these
characteristics, consumers with an executive thinking style do not feel
comfortable stepping outside of pre-determined strategy boundaries.
Therefore, they tend to be loyal, follow the existing rules and in­
structions of authority (Groza et al., 2016), and react in predictable ways
(Kuo, 2016). In other words, consumers who utilize an executive
thinking style are inclined to follow pre-determined solutions or large
crowd solutions without question. According to Groza et al. (2016),
executive thinking consumers are more predictable and more easily
influenced by large crowds opinion. When they view large crowds
involved in panic buying, they tend to mimic this behavior, as they think
it is very risky for them not to restock essential items. Thus, based on this
argument, we hypothesize the following:
H2b. The executive thinking style is positively related to higher
perceived risk.
Legislative thinkers embrace originality, allowing these individuals
to react to problems based on improvised or original ways of doing
things (Zhang and Sternberg, 2002). In other words, this type of con­
sumer views each situation as unique, requiring a unique approach and
different game rules (Groza et al., 2016). Thus, scholars conclude that
legislative thinking behaviors are more creative (O’Hara and Sternberg,
2001), autonomous, eccentric, risky, and less predictable (Groza et al.,
2016). Sternberg (1997) asserts that legislative thinkers do not believe
in a pre-determined approach and tend to believe in the strength of their
cognitive ability to deal with each situation. For example, during the
shortage of hand sanitizer products, legislative thinkers sought to
overcome this situation by finding their solution, such as producing their
hand sanitizer or hoarding it from multiple stores. While they are more
independent, autonomous, and unconventional (Groza et al., 2016),
legislative thinkers are also aware that they need to buy alternative
products. Failure to restock these products can increase their perception
of risk. Thus, it is reasonable to hypothesize the following:
3
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 60 (2021) 102455
H2c. Legislative thinking style is positively related to a higher
perceived risk.
2.4. Situational ambiguity
Situational ambiguity refers to situations in which consumers cannot
understand or predict what is going to happen to them and their envi­
ronment (Jamali et al., 2018). This situation increases consumers’
emotional and psychological instability, making them feel disabled,
powerless, stressed (Duhachek and Kelting, 2009), and incapable of
predicting their future potential risk (Lewis-Evans et al., 2011).
Accordingly, Kahneman and Tvesrsky’s (2013) prospect theory con­
cludes that situational ambiguity disturbs consumers’ mental equilib­
rium and increases their perceived risk. Thus, the more uncertain the
situation, the higher the consumers’ perception of risk (Duhachek and
Kelting, 2009). For example, the COVID-19 pandemic is a new pandemic
that currently has no cure. For consumers, this situation is highly com­
plex, uncertain, and consequently, it increases their level of anxiety and
triggers a higher level of perceived risk. Based on this argument, we
hypothesize the following:
H3a. Situational ambiguity is positively related to perceived risk.
In order to cope with high levels of stress from situational ambiguity,
consumers are motivated to adjust their behavior and act differently,
attempting to select the best available action to maintain their self-
interest and situation (Lee and Holyoak, 2020). The degree of con­
sumers’ willingness to tailor or alter their behavior is determined by the
seriousness or intensity of the situation (Sagan et al., 1981) and its
complexity or newness (Debusschere and Van Avernmaet, 1984). The
more serious, intense, complex, and new the situation, the higher the
situational ambiguity and the higher the willingness to change behavior.
In this situation, consumers experience a high level of doubt and cannot
identify positive solutions to their situational ambiguity (Isiksal and
Karaosmanoglu, 2018). A high level of ambiguity is viewed as a
threatening situation that drives consumers to urgently solve their un­
certainty by becoming involved in disordered behavior such as panic
behavior (Grenier et al., 2005; Isiksal and Karaosmanogulu, 2018;
Sperling et al., 2008). Based on this argument, we hypothesize the
following:
H3b. Situational ambiguity is positively related to panic buying.
2.5. Information overload
Information overload refers to a situation when consumers receive
more information than they can process (Yin et al., 2018). When con­
sumers have too much information beyond their ability to process, it
may affect their evaluation process (Autio et al., 2013) and decision
making (Han et al., 2014). The combination of the quantity and quality
of the information received determines consumers’ information pro­
cessing (Ozkan and Tolon 2015; Cheng et al. 2019). Scholars argue that
when consumers receive a different quantity and quality of information,
they prioritize and process it differently (Gomez-Rodriguez et al., 2014).
It will create an inconsistent information process that leads to a high
level of cognitive noise, such as a high degree of confusion and a lower
level of confidence, and results in poor choices that guide consumers in
the wrong direction, and consequently increase perceived risks (Han
et al., 2014; Ji et al., 2014; Jin and Rhee, 2015; Lee and Lee, 2004).
Maziriri and Chuchu (2017) noted that when consumers experience a
high uncertainty level, they view a situation as unpredictable and
potentially dangerous. Ultimately, consumers experience a high level of
perceived risk in response to this situation, and to manage it, they view
panic buying as the only solution. Based on this argument, we hypoth­
esize the following:
H4a. Information overload moderates the relationship between
perceived risk and panic buying.
H. Herjanto et al.
According to Sicilia and Ruiz (2010), when processing information,
consumers need to understand how to navigate and evaluate this in­
formation; that is, they need to determine the credibility of the infor­
mation source, the story recency, and its quality the information
content. Failure to do so increases consumers’ uncertainty in interacting
with the information and the situation in question (Bowles et al., 2005).
For example, COVID-19 pandemic is an unprecedented situation with no
clear treatment solutions. Consumers who experience information
overload do not know what to expect or respond to this situation
correctly. Accordingly, this unpleasant position leads consumers to
perceive the COVID-19 situation as far from clear and full of ambiguity.
Thus, to reduce such ambiguity and improve their peace of mind, con­
sumers are likely to become involved in panic buying (Fig. 1). Therefore,
we hypothesize the following:
H4b. Information overload moderates the relationship between situ­
ational ambiguity and panic buying.
3. Methodology
3.1. Questionnaire design
All the scales employed in this study were borrowed from existing
scales and modified for this study. Multiple items for measuring thinking
styles (judicative, executive, and legislative) were adapted from Groza
et al. (2016). Perceived risk was measured using three items adapted
from Laroche et al. (2004). Four items from Frost et al. (2004) were
utilized and adjusted to measure panic buying. Finally, the eight items to
measure information overload were borrowed and modified from Ozkan
and Tolon (2015). A seven-point Likert scale anchored from 1 – strongly
disagree to 7 – strongly agree was used to measure all constructs.
3.2. Data collection process
A pilot study was conducted with 30 participants. These participants
were recruited exclusively among graduate students at a Mid-Atlantic
private college. In total, 65% were female, and 35% were male and
ranged in age from 25 to 40. Based on this pilot study feedback, the
slight revisions and improvements to the research instruments were
made. The QUALTRICS online survey platform was employed to collect
the data from a wide population. The QUALTRICS online survey link was
distributed through a college mailing system to staff and faculty at a
medium-sized Mid-Atlantic private college. The rationale, procedure,
and definition of panic buying were described to participants at the
beginning of the invitation letter. A screening question, “Have you been
Fig. 1. The panic buying model.
4
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 60 (2021) 102455
involved in panic buying at least once in the past few weeks?” was
presented to respondents, and QUALTRICS automatically terminated
who answering ‘no’.
Further, the study only included individuals who were at least 18 and
proficient in the English language. Participants were asked for their
demographic details such as participants’ gender, age, ethnicity, and
occupation. A total of 255 responses were collected from QUALTRICS;
however 116 of these responses had to be discarded due to incomplete
answers. Two possible reasons for this first were that participants had
not been involved in panic buying and could not continue participating
in the survey. However, their participation was recorded automatically
by QUALTRICS. Second, some of these participants may have lost in­
terest while filling out the survey. As a result, only 139 responses were
useable for further analysis and matched Smart-PLS criteria. Table 1
shows the demographic profiles.
4. Data analysis
Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) was
performed using Smart-PLS software 3.0 (Ringle et al., 2005). PLS-SEM
is a variance-based method to test the relationships between constructs
concurrently (Hair et al., 2017). It is a causal-predictive method that
highlights prediction in estimating statistical models (Hair et al., 2019).
According to Hair et al. (2019), there are several reasons for selecting a
PLS-SEM approach containing a recommended sample size in selected
contexts, distributional assumptions, and statistical power. Based on
Hair et al. (2019 ) and Herjanto and Amin (2020) recommendation, two
systematic methods were conducted in this study: the measurement
model and the structural model.
4.1. Measurement model
Hair et al. (2019) and Amin et al (2017) recommend calculating
internal consistency reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant
validity in the measurement model. For consistency reliability, Cron­
bach’s alpha was calculated, with a range of 0.902–0.978. Cronbach’s
alpha is apply to reflective measurement models and is sensitive to the
number of items in the scale (Hair et al., 2017). Most of scholars which
theoretically ranges the Cronbach’s alpha greater than 0.9 are consid­
ered reliable (Bonett and Wright, 2015; Churchill and Peter, 1984;
Leontitsis and Pagge, 2007; Nunnally, 1978; Peterson, 1994; Taber,
2018). However, an acceptable reliability value depends on the type of
application, and therefore, the focus should be on the population reli­
ability value and not on the sample reliability value (Bonett and Wright,
2015. Due to Cronbach’s alpha’s limitation, Hair et al. (2017) suggested
H. Herjanto et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 60 (2021) 102455

Table 1
Participants profile.
Demographic Categories Frequency Demographic Categories Frequency

Age 18–25 17 (12%) Gender Male 40 (29%)

26–35 25 (19%) Female 94 (71%)
36–45 28 (21%)
46–55 32 (24%) Marital Status Single no children 37 (27%)
56–65 19 (14%) Single with children 10 (7%)
66-older 13 (10%) Married no children 21 (16%)
Married with children 66 (49%)
Occupation White collar 94 (70%)
Blue collar 5 (4%) Ethnicity White 87 (65%)
Student 12 (9%) Black 8 (6%)
Housewife/husband 7 (5%) Native American 1 (1%)
Retire 5 (4%) Asian 29 (22%)
Unemployed 4 (3%) Hawaiian/Polynesian 0 (0%)
Self-Employed 7 (5%) Other 9 (6%)

to refer to the composite reliability. all values of HTMT were lower than the recommended level of 0.85, thus
To assess convergent validity, standardized factor loadings, com­ ratifying acceptable discriminant validity for all constructs (Hair et al.,
posite reliability, and the average variance extracted (AVE) were 2017, 2019).
calculated for each construct (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). Table 2
shows the factor loading for each construct – the reflective indicators 4.2. Structural model
ranged from 0.862 to 0.967. The composite reliability (CR) ranged from
0.931 to 0.981, and the average variance extracted (AVE) ranged from Following Hair et al.’s (2019) recommendations, path coefficient (β),
0.771 to 0.921, thus exceeding the recommended level of 0.50. There­ coefficient of determination (R2), and effect size (f2) are reported. As
fore, it was confirmed that construct validity achieved the recommended shown in Table 4, the structural model hypothesis testing, including
levels (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988; Hair et al., 2012). As shown in path estimates and t-statistics, was calculated using 5000 resampling
Table 3, two methods were utilized to confirm discriminant validity: the techniques. First, the path coefficient demonstrated that the relationship
Fornell-Larcker procedure (Fornell and Larcker, 1981) and the between perceived risk and panic buying was significant; thus, H1 was
heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) method (Henseler, Ringle and Sarstedt, supported. Interestingly, the three variables of thinking styles showed
2016). The results of the Fornell-Larcker calculation, clarified that the different results. There was a significant relationship between judicative
square root of AVE between each pair of factors was higher than the thinking and perceived risk. Thus H2a was supported. However, there
correlation estimated between constructs, thus indicating discriminant was no significant relationship between the executive and legislative
validity was accepted (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988; Fornell and Larcker, 1981). thinking styles on perceived risk; therefore, H2b and H2c were not
The heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlations explained that supported. The relationship between situational ambiguity and
perceived risk and panic buying was significant; thus, H3a and H3b were
supported. Next, the R-squared values reported in Table 4 measured the
Table 2 variance described in each of the endogenous constructs, with higher
Construct validity. values demonstrating a greater explanatory power. Panic buying was
Construct Items Loadings Cronbach’s α CR AVE explained by 75.8% of perceived risk (R2 = 0.758). Perceived risk was
Thinking Styles explained by 33.7% of judicative, executive, and legislative (R2 = 0.337)
Executive EXEC1 0.950 0.972 0.979 0.921 thinking styles. Perceived risk was explained by 33.7% of situational
EXEC2 0.960 ambiguity, and panic buying was explained by 75.8% of situational
EXEC3 0.963
ambiguity (R2 = 0.337; R2 = 0.758) and demonstrating the predictive
EXEC4 0.965
Judicative JUDI1 0.867 0.902 0.931 0.771 model’s strength. Thirdly, the effect size (f2) of all constructs was
JUDI2 0.911 calculated. As shown in Table 4, the effect size (f2) value showed that
JUDI3 0.873 legislative and executive thinking styles did not affect perceived risk.
JUDI4 0.862 Meanwhile, judicative and situational ambiguity has a small impact on
Legislative LEGI1 0.947 0.971 0.979 0.920
perceived risk (0.049; 0.061). Perceived risk and situational ambiguity
LEGI2 0.967
LEGI3 0.961 had a medium effect on panic buying (0.660; 0.169).
LEGI4 0.962
Punic Buying PBUY1 0.943 0.958 0.970 0.889
4.3. Moderating analysis
PBUY2 0.965
PBUY3 0.953
PBUY4 0.910 Following Henseler and Fassott’s (2010) recommendation, the PLS
Perceived Risk PRISK1 0.942 0.951 0.969 0.912 product-indicator method was performed to test the moderating effects.
PRISK2 0.963 As shown in Table 4 and Fig. 2 and 3, the information overload
PRISK3 0.959
moderated the relationship between perceived risk and panic buying;
Information Overload QUAL1 0.941 0.978 0.981 0.868
QUAL2 0.925 thus, H4a was supported. Meanwhile, information overload did not
QUAL3 0.933 moderate the relationship between situational ambiguity and panic
QUAL4 0.941 buying; thus, H4b was not supported.
QUAL5 0.933
QUAN1 0.905
QUAN2 0.936 5. Discussion
QUAN3 0.938
Situational ambiguity SAMB1 0.869 0.902 0.939 0.837 This study was conducted to test the relationships among thinking
SAMB2 0.938 styles, situational ambiguity, perceived risk, information overload, and
SAMB3 0.937
panic buying. The findings of this study validate that perceived risk is

5
H. Herjanto et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 60 (2021) 102455

Table 3
Discriminant validity.
Construct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Fornell & Larcker

1. Executive 0.959
2. Information Overload 0.129 0.932
3. Judicative 0.341 0.219 0.878
4. Legislative 0.192 0.361 0.049 0.959
5. Panic Buying 0.124 0.662 0.310 0.507 0.943
6. Perceived Risk 0.121 0.575 0.308 0.460 0.813 0.955
7. Situational Ambiguity 0.155 0.433 0.254 0.838 0.648 0.551 0.915
HTMT
1. Executive
2. Information Overload 0.132
3. Judicative 0.368 0.227
4. Legislative 0.196 0.366 0.073
5. Panic Buying 0.125 0.683 0.324 0.514
6. Perceived Risk 0.123 0.594 0.327 0.469 0.850
7. Situational Ambiguity 0.162 0.460 0.270 0.888 0.694 0.593

Table 4
Hypothesis testing.
Hypothesis Beta t-values p-values Confidence Intervals Bias Corrected f2 r2 Results

2.50% 97.50%
H1. Perceived Risk - > Panic Buying 0.535 7.979 0.000 0.414 0.675 0.660 0.758 Supported
H2a. Judicative - > Perceived Risk 0.211 2.665 0.008 0.038 0.366 0.049 0.337 Supported
H2b. Executive - > Perceived Risk 0.037 0.499 0.618 0.189 0.103 0.002 0.337 Not Supported
H2c. Legislative - > Perceived Risk 0.117 1.010 0.313 0.093 0.358 0.005 0.337 Not Supported
H3a. Situational Ambiguity - > Perceived Risk 0.405 3.249 0.001 0.175 0.634 0.061 0.337 Supported
H3b. Situational Ambiguity - > Panic Buying 0.246 3.600 0.000 0.117 0.385 0.169 0.758 Supported
H4a. Information Overload x Perceived Risk - Panic Buying 0.110 2.430 0.015 0.019 0.193 0.043 0.768 Supported
H4b. Information Overload x Situational Ambiguity - Panic Buying 0.080 1.640 0.102 − 0.031 0.160 0.027 0.337 Not Supported

Fig. 2. Moderating slope: information exposure x situation ambiguity – panic buying.

responsible for panic buying. As hypothesized, the results show that
different thinking styles affect perceived risk differently. Situational
ambiguity affects perceived risk and panic buying, while information
overload moderates the relationship between situational ambiguity and
panic buying but not the relationship between perceived risk and panic
buying.
The findings of this study validate that perceived risk is responsible
for panic buying. Reducing perceived risk, which produces consumer
discomfort and a high level of uncertainty and unpredictability (Bruwer
et al., 2013), can improve consumers’ self-control and trust in retailers.
This trust is crucial for consumer confidence (Nicholson et al. 2001) as
distrust reduces consumers’ perception of the retailer’s dependability
and, more importantly, strengthens consumers’ negative thinking and
negative assumptions. When consumers have a negative thinking style,
consumers are likely to start panic buying. These findings confirm the
meta-analysis of Yuen et al. (2020), who also found that risky situations
are responsible for panic buying.
As hypothesized, our findings show that different thinking styles
affect perceived risk differently. Within this study, while the judicative
thinking style was responsible for perceived risk, executive and legis­
lative thinking styles had no significant effect. A judicative thinker is
considered conservative and careful; that is, someone who chooses to
base their decisions on facts and data (Stenberg, 1999) and avoids risk
(Pace and Passanisi, 2018). This type of thinker is likely to select,
analyze, and evaluate COVID-19 information very carefully and objec­
tively. For example, they are likely to read COVID-19 information from
credible sources such as a government body like the CDC and make
decisions based on such facts and data (Zhang, 2002). The CDC and

6
H. Herjanto et al.
Fig. 3. Moderation slope: information exposure x perceived risk – panic buying.
other government bodies have presented COVID-19 information openly
with facts and data, such as the death toll, the unemployment rate, etc.
This information is perceived negatively, and accordingly, it increases
judicative thinkers’ perception of risk and the need to avoid it.
In contrast, executive and legislative thinking styles do not influence
perceived risk. In the current situation, executive and legislative
thinkers do not see COVID-19 as a trigger that activates perceived risk.
As discussed by Groza et al. (2016), executive thinkers are more flexible
in evaluating information and tend to make their decisions based on
predetermined actions and large crowd opinions. The University of
Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy states that
the COVID-19 virus is part of a family of coronaviruses that include
SARS and MERS (2020). Executive thinkers likely view this fact as
important information, and previous strategies to fight SARS and MERS
serve as their predetermined strategies to deal with COVID-19. Although
the COVID-19 virus is more severe than other viruses, executive thinkers
may view previous virus strategies applicable to COVID-19.
Consequently, they do not feel a need to activate their perceived risk.
Another explanation may be that executive thinkers also follow large
crowd opinions. Some consumers believe that COVID-19 is like any
other flu virus and will eventually disappear, with warm weather
expediting this eradication (University of Toronto, 2020). For this
reason, then, the executive thinking style does not significantly influ­
ence perceived risk. The legislative thinking style is considered a liberal
thinking style. In other words, legislative thinkers tend to solve prob­
lems with their own authentic and non-predetermined solutions (Zhang
and Sternberg, 2002). In our study, the findings showed that the legis­
lative thinking style does not affect perceived risk. One explanation for
this finding is the function of the legislative thinking style. One of these
types of thinker’s fundamental characteristics is that they prefer to deal
with a new task or situation (Sun et al., 2013). For legislative thinkers, a
new problem like COVID-19 is their opportunity to exercise their crea­
tive minds. When legislative thinkers believe they understand the situ­
ation, they may anticipate the situation by becoming involved in
creative activities (e.g., creating their masks) as a coping mechanism.
They intend to understand the essence of the information and status to
prepare themselves fully and activate their creative thinking to antici­
pate the situation (Zhang, 2004). In this respect, they do not experience
a higher perceived risk.
Concerning situational ambiguity, the present study confirms that it
significantly affects perceived risk and panic buying. As discussed by
Jamali et al. (2018), situational ambiguity is a negative situation that
occurs when consumers experience a high level of uncertainty and
unpredictability. Generally, when consumers share a situation like this,
they feel that their knowledge about the problem is inadequate.
Consequently, they feel stressed and threatened, and an urge to do
7
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 60 (2021) 102455
something to address this issue. For example, in the highly ambiguous
situation of the COVID-19 pandemic, consumers may understand the
severity and the negative impacts of this pandemic. Still, they do not
know how to handle it. This lack of knowledge generates a higher level
of anxiety and depression, further motivating consumers to solve the
issue. This level of urgency encourages consumers to evaluate the situ­
ation more subjectively and emotionally. As a result, consumers view
the case negatively (Wang et al., 2012) with an increase in their
perceived risk.
Our findings also confirm that situational ambiguity is responsible
for panic buying. As discussed by Lewis-Evans et al. (2011), situational
ambiguity is a gray area in which consumers’ emotional and psycho­
logical pressures lead them to recognize their need for self-protection
(Alary et al., 2013). According to Alary et al. (2013), when consumers
deal with such situations, they tend to make sacrifices and utilize any
resources available to ensure that they are protected from potential
risks. These resources include consumers’ willingness to engage in ir­
rational behavior (Isiksal and Karaosmanoglu, 2018) such as panic
buying. According to Hori and Iwamoto (2013), panic buying serves as a
coping mechanism that helps consumers feel better and safer, restoring
their sense of control (Frost and Gross, 1992). Thus, it is reasonable to
assume that when consumers are dealing with situational ambiguity,
they are likely to become involved in panic buying to reduce the psy­
chological and emotional pressure in ambiguous situations.
Finally, information overload was found to moderate the relation­
ship between situational ambiguity and panic buying. Essentially, this
finding shows that consumers’ ability to process information correctly is
very important. As Han et al. (2014) explained, information overload is
very risky because it provides unnecessary, unrelated, and unimportant
information that negatively influences consumers’ decision-making
process. That is when consumers experience information overload,
and they are not evaluating the key information objectively. For
example, consumers may think that all the information they receive is
important and relevant and consequently start overthinking. Further,
O’Reilly’s (1980) theory of information overload suggests that the
relationship between information overload and consumer willingness to
accept this information can be depicted as an inverted U-shape. The
more information consumers receive, the more they will question the
credibility and validity of the story. The less willing they will be to rely
on such information (Choo, 1998). Accordingly, Mulder et al. (2006)
conclude that information overload does not solve situational ambigu­
ity; instead, it produces a high level of confusion and more questions,
such as should consumer accept and follow this information or is the
information not sufficient? Such confusion leads to higher situational
ambiguity, resulting in consumers seeking to avoid this situation as early
as possible by panic buying. This finding confirms Keszey (2014) study,
H. Herjanto et al.
who investigated the role of trust in information use.
Interestingly, our study did not find a moderating effect of infor­
mation overload on the relationship between perceived risk and panic
buying. It means that information overload does not play an important
role in this relationship. There are three possible explanations for this
contradictory finding. First, during a new and threatening situation like
the COVID-19 pandemic, consumers develop general knowledge of the
subject and a high perceived risk level. Consequently, the degree of in­
formation overload does not affect this situation. Second, consumers
may receive multiple forms of general information in a short space of
time and are unable to process it. Because consumers cannot find spe­
cific details, they may ignore the available information overall, and
consequently, it does not affect their perceived risk. Lastly, information
overload may also reduce consumers’ perception of risk as they are
possibly being provided with incorrect or unrelated information.
Accordingly, this situation may reduce the need for panic buying.
To some extent, this finding contradicts Jin and Rhee (2015) study,
which found a moderating effect of information overload on the rela­
tionship between risk impact and hostile behavior. Together, these re­
sults underline the important role of thinking styles in perceived risk and
panic buying. This research extends panic buying studies and fills the
academic literature gap by incorporating the constructs of thinking
style, situational ambiguity, and perceived risk, discussing the impact of
these constructs on panic buying, and investigating the moderating role
of information overload in such relationships.
5.1. Theoretical implications
This study provides several theoretical implications. First, prior
studies have mainly focused on the broad concept of thinking style
(Leikas et al., 2007; Lechner and Paul, 2019), with only a handful of
studies examining the effect of three different thinking styles in the
context of business (e.g., Groza et al., 2016; Sujan, 1995), especially in
the retailing context. The present research extends the scope of empir­
ical research by focusing on three unique thinking styles (judicative,
executive, and legislative) on consumer behavior. The three unique
thinking styles impact how consumers respond to situations; therefore,
investigating each of these thinking styles can guide how to deal with
different consumers.
Second, although the concept of information overload has been
intensively examined across different academic disciplines and research
contexts, the extant literature has focused only on the direct effect of
information overload (Yang and Lin, 2017), with investigations on the
moderating effect of information overload in the retailing context being
limited. This study highlights the importance of information overload’s
moderating effect, especially in the relationships between situational
ambiguity and panic buying and perceived risk and panic buying. The
study tested these relationships and found that information overload
only moderates the relationship between perceived risk and panic
buying. It shows the importance of providing the right amount of correct
information to consumers. Ideally, retailers should train their staff to
communicate effectively by selecting appropriate information to share.
5.2. Managerial implications
In the pandemic situations, judicative thinkers tend to evaluate their
options, executive thinkers are more likely to comply with existing rules,
and legislative thinkers generally prefer to follow their creativity. This
understanding may provide a good foundation for reducing consumers’
perceived risk, reducing their panic buying. The result findings confirm
that cognitive information processing or thinking style is as important as
emotional and psychological attributes in perception development.
Therefore, retailers must better understand their target markets, espe­
cially how they think about a problem. By knowing their market’s
thinking styles, they can adjust their reorder points and size of inventory
and include substitutes for high demand items. In the absence of
8
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 60 (2021) 102455
foreknowledge of events that could provoke panic buying, retailers may
need to apply a quota system for essential daily products. While this will
not change consumers’ desire to hoard products, it will enforce mod­
erate buying, which, in turn, may normalize the purchase of regular
quantities. Combining these efforts will ensure retailers’ shelves are
stocked and subsequently reduce perceived risk and panic buying. When
faced with consumer-side attribution, a better communication way be­
tween salespeople and consumer will provide a significant contribution
to reduce information overload and situation ambiguity. Another aspect,
retail employees should know the expected delivery dates of goods and
current inventory levels. At the same time, staff should make sure that
no irrelevant information is shared, while also providing any personal
predictions on store operations or inventory levels. Signage in retail
stores can also convey this information to consumers, including avail­
ability and substitute product suitability. Prominent signage will not
only inform but can also serve to increase consumers’ confidence in the
store’s ability to provide products and transparency in their dealings.
5.3. Limitations and future research
Several research limitations were identified in the present study. This
study’s data were mainly collected from suburban participants on the
East Coast of the U.S. Replication is warranted in different geographic
and demographic environments to understand the phenomenon better.
Second, these data were collected solely through an online survey
dependent on the respondents’ understanding of the research questions
(Zong and Vowles, 2013). Thus, in the future, interested researchers
could employ different data collection methods to address this issue.
Thirdly, there is a possibility that the model may be oversimplified.
Future research could incorporate other psychological variables such as
subjective norms, anticipated emotions, and acculturation attitude.
Researchers could also investigate the effect of the different character­
istics (quantity or quality) of information overload as potential
moderators.
While this study focused on panic buying in the wake of publicity on
the COVID-19 pandemic, panic buying is not a new phenomenon. In fact,
it is the basis of several cultural tales about consumers rushing to the
store to buy milk and bread whenever there is a forecast of severe
weather. Simultaneously, panic buying, hoarding, and violent incidents
stemming from a lack of consumables are more ancient than commerce
itself. The pandemic has served to highlight aberrant consumer behavior
and emphasizes the need to understand it further. For-profit marketers
and public policymakers need to comprehend what drives such
behavior, how it can be prevented or mitigated, and when safeguards
need to be implemented to minimize human suffering.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102455.
References
Abu-Hussain, Jamal, Abu-Hussain, Nadia, 2018. Thinking styles among the Arab-
minority teachers in the Arab education system in Israel. American Journal of
Educational Research 6 (1), 32–37.
Addo, Prince Clement, Jiaming, Fang, Kulbo, Nora Bakabbey, Liangqiang, Li, 2020.
COVID-19: fear appeal favoring purchase beahvior towards personal protective
equipment. The Service Industries Journal 40 (7–8), 471–490.
Alalwan, Ali Abdallah, 2018. Investigating the impact of social media advertising
features on customer purchase intention. International Journal of Information
Management 42, 65–77.
Alary, D., Gollier, C., Treich, N., 2013. The effect of ambiguity aversion on insurance and
self-protection. Econ. J. 123 (573), 1188–1202.
Allon, Gad, Bassamboo, Achal, 2017. Buying from the Babbling Retailer? The Impact of
Availability Information on Customer Behavior. Handbook of Information Exchange
in Supply Chain Management. Springer, Cham, pp. 235–261.
Amin, Muslim, Aldakhil, Abdullah M, Wu, Chengzhong, Rezaei, Salad, Cobanoglu, Cihan,
2017. The structural relationship between TQM, employee satisfaction and hotel
H. Herjanto et al.
performance. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 29
(4), 1256–1278.
Anderson, J.C., Gerbing, D.W., 1988. Structural equation modelling in practice: a review
and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 103 (3), 411–423. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411.
Autio, E., Dahlander, L., Frederiksen, L., 2013. Information exposure, opportunity
evaluation, and entrepreneurial action: an investigation of an online user
community. Acad. Manag. J. 56 (5), 1348–1371.
Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y., 1988. On the evaluation of structural equation models. J. Acad.
Market. Sci. 16 (1), 74–94.
Bendall, R.C.A., Galpin, A., Marrow, L.P., Cassidy, S., 2016. Congitive style: time to
experiement. Front. Psychol. 7 (1786), 1–4.
Blas, J., 2008. Feeding frenzy. Natl. Interest 96 (July/Aug), 21–25.
Bonett, D.G., Wright, T.A., 2015. Cronbach’s alpha reliability: interval estimation,
hypothesis testing, and sample size planning. J. Organ. Behav. 36 (1), 3–15.
Bowles, H.R., Babcock, L., McGinn, K.L., 2005. Constraints and triggers: situational
mechanics of gender in negotiation. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 89, 951–965.
Bruwer, J., Fong, M., Saliva, A., 2013. Perceived risk, risk-reduction strategies (RRS) and
consumption occasions. Roles in the wine consumer’s purchase decision. Asia Pac. J.
Market. Logist. 25 (3), 369–390.
Cheng, H., Andrade, H.L., Zheng, Y., 2011. A cross cultural study of learning behaviors in
the classroom: from a thinking style perspective. Educ. Psychol. 3 (7), 825–842.
Cheng, P., Ouyang, Z., Liu, Y., 2019. The Effect of Information Overload on the Intention
of Consumers to Adopt Electric Vehicle. Transportation, pp. 1–20.
Choo, C.W., 1998. The Knowing Organization – How Organizations Use Information to
Construct Meaning, Create Knowledge and Make Decisions. Oxford University Press,
New York.
Churchill Jr., G.A., Peter, J.P., 1984. Research design effects on the reliability of rating
scales: a meta-analysis. J. Market. Res. 21 (4), 360–375.
Cleeremans, A., 2004. Conscious and unconscious cognition: a graded, dynamic
perspective. In: Jing, Q., Rosenzweig, M., d’Ydewalle, G., Zhang, H., Chen, H.C.,
Zhang, K. (Eds.), Progress in Psychological Science Around the World: Vol.1.
Neutral, Cognitive and Development Issues. Psychology Press, Howe, England,
pp. 401–418.
Conchar, M.P., Zinkhan, G.M., Peters, C., Olavarrieta, S., 2004. An integrated framework
for the conceptualization of consumers’ perceived risk processing. J. Acad. Market.
Sci. 32 (4), 418–436.
Cu, F., Liu, Y., Chang, Y., Duan, J., Li, J., 2016. An overview of tourism risk perception.
Nat. Hazards 82, 643–658.
Debusschere, M., Van Avermaet, E., 1984. Compromising between equity and equality:
the effects of situational ambiguity and computational complexity. Eur. J. Soc.
Psychol. 14, 323–333.
Duhachek, Adam, Kelting, Katie, 2009. Coping repertoire: Integrating a new
conceptualization of coping with transactional theory. Journal of Consumer
Psychology 19, 473–485.
Epstein, S., 2003. Cognitive-experiential self-theory of personality. In: Millon, T.,
Lerner, M.J. (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology, vol. 5. John Wiley & Sons, Inc,
Hoboken, New Jersey, pp. 159–184.
Evidation, 2020. COVID-19 Pulse: Delivering Weekly Insights on the Pandemic from
150,000+ Person Connected Cohort. Retrieved from. https://evidation.com/ne
ws/covid-19-pulse-first-data-evidation/.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. J. Market. Res. 18 (1), 39–50.
Frost, R.O., Steketee, G., Grisham, J., 2004. Measurement of compulsive hoarding: saving
inventory-revised. Behav. Res. Ther. 42, 1163–1182.
Frost, R.O., Gross, R.C., 1992. The hoarding of possessions. Behav. Res. Ther. 31 (4),
367–381.
Frost, R.O., Tolin, D.F., Steketee, G., Fitch, K.E., Selbo-Bruns, A., 2009. Excessive
acquisition in hoarding. Journal of anxiety disorders. J. Anxiety Disord. 23,
632–639.
Gomez-Rodriguez, M., Gummadi, K.P., Scholkopf, B., 2014. Quantifying information
overload in social media and its impact on social contagions. In: Proceeding of the 8th
International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, pp. 170–179.
Grenier, S., Barrette, A.M., Ladouceur, R., 2005. Intolerance of uncertainty and
intolerance of ambiguity: similarities and differences. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 39,
593–600.
Grisham, J.R., Brown, T.A., Savage, C.R., Steketee, G., Barlow, D.H., 2007.
Neuropsychological impairment associated with compulsive hoarding. Behav. Res.
Ther. 45, 1471–1483.
Groza, M.D., Locander, D.A., Howlett, C.H., 2016. Linking thinking styles to sales
performance: the importance of creativity and subjective knowledge. J. Bus. Res. 69,
4185–4193.
Hair, J.F., Risher, J.J., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M., 2019. When to use and how to report
the results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 31 (1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/ebr-11-
2018-0203. Avaialbe at:
Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M., Mena, J.A., 2012. An assessment of the use of
partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. J. Acad.
Market. Sci. 40 (3), 414–433.
Hair Jr., J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C., Sarstedt, M., 2017. A Primer on Partial Least
Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage publications.
Han, D., Herjanto, H., Gaur, S., 2014. Managing information in the selling process: a
conceptual framework of how salesperson information overload impacts on
relationship selling behaviors and sales performance. In: Paper Presented at
International Conference on Exploring New Paradigms in Business, Feb 6-7, Ranchi,
India.
9
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 60 (2021) 102455
Henseler, J., Fassott, G., 2010. Testing moderating effects in PLS path models: an
illustration of available procedures. In: Esposito Vinzi, V., Chin, W., Henseller, J.,
Wang, H. (Eds.), Handbook of Partial Least Squares. Springer, Berlin, pp. 713–735.
Herjanto, Halimin, Amin, Muslim, 2020. Repurchase intention: the effect of similarity
and client knowledge. International Journal of Bank Marketing 38 (6), 1351–1371.
Herjanto, H., Gaur, S., Hong, J.H.H., 2017. Factors influencing consumers’ purchase
intention of genuine products and intention to use pirated products: Malaysian
perspective. In: Paper Presented at International Conference on Management and
Entrepreneurship (I-Come), July 13-15, Bali, Indonesia.
Hori, M., Iwamoto, K., 2013. The run on daily foods and goods after the 2011 Tohoku
earthquake. Jpn. Political Econ. 40 (1), 69–113.
Isiksal, Didem.G, Karaosmanoglu, E, 2018. Consumer brand relationships under the
effect of consumer dishonest behavior. Journal of Management, Marketing and
Logistics 5 (2), 113–123.
Jamali, Behrooz, Kazemi, Reza M, Farsi, Jahangir Y, Dehkori, Ali M, 2018. The study on
the theories’ gap of technological entrepreneurship opportunities emergence.
International Business Reseach 11 (2), 79–88.
Ji, Q., Ha, L., Sypher, U., 2014. The role of news media use and demographic
characteristics in the prediction of information overload. Int. J. Commun. 8,
699–714.
Jin, S., Rhee, C., 2015. Optimal environment for flamers: information overload and its
effect on hostile behavior. 21sr Americas Conference on Information Systems,
pp. 1–14.
Kahneman, Adam, Tversky, Amos, 2013. Choices, Values and Frames. In:
MacLean, Leonard. C, Ziemba, William. T (Eds.), Handbook of the Fundamental of
the Financial Decision Making. World Scientific, Singapore, pp. 269–278.
Kang, W., Duan, W.W., Wen, L., 2011. Research on emergency information management
based on the social network analysis – a case analysis of panic buying of salt. In:
Paper Presented at 2011 International Conference on Management Science &
Engineering (18th), Rome, Italy.
Keszey, T., 2014. How trust affects the use of information obtained through intra-and
intraorganizational relationships? In: Bigne, E. (Ed.), Paradigm Shifts & Interactions.
European Marketing Academy & University of Valencia, Spain, pp. 139–146.
Kim, M., 2011. The relationship between thinking style differences and career choice for
high achieving students. J. Reoper Rev. 33 (4), 4252–4262.
Kuo, P.H., 2016. Effects of synchronous web-based instruction on students’ thinking
styles and creativity. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 12 (3), 609–619.
Laroche, M., McDoughall, G.H.G., Bergeron, J., Yang, Z., 2004. Exploring how
intangibility affect perceived risk. J. Serv. Res. 6 (4), 373–389.
Lechner, A.T., Paul, M., 2019. Is this smile for real? The role of affect and thinking style
in customer perceptions of frontline employee emotion authenticity. J. Bus. Res. 94,
195–208.
Lee, J., Holyoak, K.J., 2020. But he’s my brother: the impact of family obligation on
moral judgments and decisions. Mem. Cognit. 48, 158–170.
Lee, K.L., Lee, W.N., 2004. The effect of information overload on consumer choice quality
in an on-line environment. Psychol. Market. 21 (3), 159–183.
Leikas, S., Lindeman, M., Roininen, K., Lahteenmaki, L., 2007. Food risk perceptions,
gender, and individual differences in avoidance and approach motivation, intuitive
and analytical thinking style and anxiety. Appetite 48, 232–240.
Leontitsis, A., Pagge, J., 2007. A simulation approach on Cronbach’s alpha statistical
significance. Math. Comput. Simulat. 73 (5), 336–340.
Lewis-Evans, B., de Waard, D., Brookhuis, K.A., 2011. Speed maintenance under
cognitive load-Implications for theories of driver behavior. Accid. Anal. Prev. 43,
1497–1507.
Lun, V.M.C., Fischer, R., Ward, C., 2010. Exploring cultural differences in critical
thinking: is it about my thinking style or the language I speak? Learn. Indiv Differ 20,
604–616.
Ma, Q.G., Wang, K., 2009. The effect of positive emotion and perceived risk and usage
intention to online decision aids. Cyberpsychol. Behav. 12 (5), 529–532.
Ma, K., Chen, T., Zheng, C., 2018. Influence of thinking style and attribution on
consumer response to online stockouts. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 43, 218–225.
Maziriri, E.T., Chuchu, T., 2017. The conception of consumer perceived risk towards
online purchases of apparel and an Idiosyncratric scrutiny of perceived social risk: a
review of literature. Int. Rev. Manag. Market. 7 (3), 257–265.
McLain, D.L., Kefallonitis, E., Armani, K., 2015. Ambiguity tolerance in organizations:
definitional clarification and perspectives on future research. Front. Psychol. 6
(344), 1–7.
Mulder, I., de Poot, H., Verwijs, C., Janssen, R., Bijlsma, M., 2006. An information
overload study: using design methods for understanding. In: Paper Presented at
OZCHI 2006 Conference, November 2-24, Sydney, Australia.
Naeem, Muhammad, 2021. Do social media platforms develop consumer panic buying
during the fear of COvid-19 pandemic. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services
58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102226.
Nicholson, C.Y., Compeau, L.D., Sethi, R., 2001. The role of interpersonal liking in
building long-term channel relationships. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 29 (1), 3–15.
Novak, T.P., Hoffman, D.L., 2009. The fit of thinking style and situation: new measures of
situation specific experiential and rational cognition. J. Consum. Res. 36 (1), 56–72.
Nunnally, J.C., 1978. Psychometric Theory, second ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.
O’Hara, L., Sternberg, R.J., 2001. It doesn’t hurt to ask: effects of instructions to be
creative, practical or analytical on essay-writing performance and their interaction
with students’ thinking styles. Creativ. Res. J. 13 (2), 197–210.
O’Reilly, C.A., 1980. Individuals and information overload in organizations: is more
necessarily better? Acad. Manag. J. 23, 684–696.
Ozkan, E., Tolon, M., 2015. The effects of information overload on consumer confusion:
an examination on user generated content. J. Rev. Soc. Econ. Admin. Stud. 29 (1),
27–51.
H. Herjanto et al.
Pace, U., Passanisi, A., 2018. Maladaptive personality traits and thinking styles among
adolescent regular gamblers: a moderator mediation model. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 132,
108–114.
Peterson, R.A., 1994. A meta-analysis of Cronbach’s coefficient alpha. J. Consum. Res. 21
(2), 381–391.
Ringle, C.M., Wende, S., Will, S., 2005. SmartPLS 2.0 (M3) Beta. Hamburg.
Sagan, K., Pondel, M., Wittig, M.A., 1981. The effect of anticipated future interaction on
reward allocation in same and opposite sex dyads. J. Pers. 49, 438–449.
Sheth, Jagdish, 2020. Impact of Covid-19 on consumer behavior: Will the old habits
return or die? Journal of Business Research 117, 280–283.
Shou, B., Xiong, H., Shen, Z.M., 2011. Consumer panic buying and fixed quota policy,
pp. 1–38. Working paper.
Sicilia, M., Ruiz, S., 2010. The effects of the amount of information on cognitive
responses in online purchasing tasks. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 9, 183–191.
Sperling, W., Bleich, S., Reulbach, U., 2008. Black Monday on stock markets throughout
the world – a new phenomenon of collective panic disorder? A psychiatric approach.
Med. Hypotheses 71 (6), 972–974.
Sternberg, R.J., 1999. Thinking Styles. Cambridge University Press, New York, U.S.A.
Sternberg, R.J., Zhang, L.F., 2006. Styles of thinking as a basis of differentiated
instruction. Theory Into Pract. 44 (3), 245–253.
Sujan, H., 1995. Styles of thinking: a bridge between personality and cognition. In:
Kardes, F.R., Sujan, M. (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research, , 22. Association for
Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 427–429.
Sun, C.T., Wang, D.Y., Chang, Y.Y., 2013. Effect of thinking style on design strategies:
using bridge construction simulation programs. Educ. Technol. Soc. 16 (1), 309–320.
Taber, K.S., 2018. The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research
instruments in science education. Res. Sci. Educ. 48 (6), 1273–1296.
Tallman, Benjamin A, 2013. Anticipated posttraumatic growth from cancer: The roles of
adaptive and maladaptive coping strategies. Counseling Psychology Quarterly 26
(1), 72–88.
Tolin, D.F., Frost, R.O., Steketee, G., Muroff, J., 2015. Cognitive behavioral therapy for
hoarding disorder: a meta-analysis. Depress. Anxiety 32, 158–166.
Tsao, Y.C., Raj, P.V.R.P., Yu, V., 2019. Product substitution in different weights and
brands considering customer segmentation and panic buying behavior. Ind. Market.
Manag. 77, 209–220.
10
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 60 (2021) 102455
University of Minnesota, 2020. Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy:
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs). Available at. https://www.cidrap.umn.
edu/covid-19/faqs#COVID1.
University of Toronto, 2020. No, Summer Is Not Going to Make COVID-19 Disappear.
Available at. https://www.technology.org/2020/05/09/no-summer-is-not-going-to-
make-covid-19-disappear/.
Van Schaik, P., Jeske, D., Oniokun, J., Coventry, L., Jansen, J., Kusev, P., 2017. Risk
perceptions of cyber-security and precautionary behavior. Comput. Hum. Behav. 75,
547–559.
Wang, K., Stroebe, K., Dovidio, J.F., 2012. Stigma consciousness and prejudice
ambiguity: can it be adaptive to perceive the world as biased? Pers. Indiv. Differ. 53,
241–245.
Woertz, E., 2010. The Gulf food import dependence and trade restriction of Agro
exporters in 2008. In: Evenett, S.J. (Ed.), Will stabilization Limit Protectionism? the 4th
GTA Report. Center for Economic Policy Research, London.
Yang, H.L., Lin, R.X., 2017. Determinants of the intention to continue use of SoLoMo
services: consumption values and the moderating effects of overloads. Comput. Hum.
Behav. 73, 583–595.
Yang, Y., Liu, Y., Li, H., Yu, B., 2015. Understanding perceived risks in mobile payment
acceptance. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 115 (2), 253–269.
Yin, P., Ou, C.X.J., Davison, R.M., Wu, J., 2018. Coping with mobile technology overload
in the workplace. Internet Res. 28 (5), 1189–1212s.
Yuen, K.F., Wang, X., Ma, F., Li, K.X., 2020. The psychological causes of panic buying
following a health crisis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health 17, 1–14.
Zhang, L.F., 2002. Thinking styles and cognitive development. J. Genet. Psychol. 163 (2),
179–195.
Zhang, L.F., Sternberg, R.J., 2002. Thinking styles and teachers’ characteristics. Int. J.
Psychol. 37 (1), 3–12.
Zhang, L.F., 2004. Thinking styles: University students’ preferred teaching styles and
their conceptions of effective teachers. J. Psychol. 138 (3), 233–252.
Zong, Tung. D, Vowles, N, 2013. Strategies for improving data reliability for online
surveys: A case study. International Journal of Electronic Commerce Studies 4 (1),
121–129.