The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0309-0566.htm

Consumption
Consumption coping to deal with coping to deal
pandemic stress: impact on with pandemic
stress
subjective well-being and shifts in
consumer behavior 1467
Avinash Jain Received 14 November 2021
Revised 21 July 2022
Jindal School of Banking and Finance, OP Jindal Global University, Sonipat, India 1 November 2022
13 February 2023
Satyabhusan Dash Accepted 25 March 2023
Indian Institute of Management Lucknow, Lucknow, India, and
Naresh K. Malhotra
Scheller College of Business, Georgia Tech, Atlanta, Georgia, USA

Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to investigate the role of consumption coping in managing collective tragedy
stress and stress outcomes using the COVID-19 pandemic context.
Design/methodology/approach – A mixed-method study with a sample size of 931 was conducted to develop
the questionnaire, followed by a quantitative study with 1,215 respondents to test the hypotheses.
Findings – The results of this study empirically validated the use of consumption coping and found it
effective in managing collective tragedy stress and its outcomes (subjective well-being and continuance
intention).
Research limitations/implications – This study advances the literature on stress coping in a
collective tragedy context, with a specific focus on consumption coping.
Practical implications – The COVID-19 pandemic has affected all elements of the marketing mix.
Understanding pandemic-induced stress and the role of consumption coping can help managers to proactively
formulate strategic responses suitable for changing consumer habits.
Social implications – The COVID-19 pandemic has affected all elements of the marketing mix.
Understanding pandemic-induced stress and the role of consumption coping can help managers to proactively
formulate strategic responses suitable for changing consumer habits. This should lead to better social outcomes.
Originality/value – This study developed a scale for pandemic-induced stress that integrates various
well-established theories to identify the role of consumption coping in managing collective tragedy stress and
the psychological mechanism behind the shift in consumer behavior after a collective tragedy.
Keywords COVID-19, Coping, Stress, Subjective well-being, Consumer behavior
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The concept of stress has attracted researchers from various fields, including anthropology
and clinical and social psychology, but marketing researchers have paid relatively little
attention to it (Liu and Black, 2011; Moschis, 2007). However, comprehending the stress
European Journal of Marketing
Vol. 57 No. 5, 2023
pp. 1467-1501
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support provided by Mr. Mohan Krishnan and Ms. Ashu © Emerald Publishing Limited
0309-0566
Sabharwal during the survey design and data collection phase. DOI 10.1108/EJM-11-2021-0864
EJM experience and coping attempts of consumers can benefit marketing researchers and
57,5 practitioners (Duhachek, 2005; Viswanathan et al., 2005).
Individuals use various coping strategies to deal with the negative forces they face
(Pearlin, 1982). The consumption and lifestyle changes that people make when faced with
stress are integral to their overall coping responses (Moschis, 2007). Consumption and
lifestyle adjustments made to face the stress, or consumption coping, can also influence the
1468 impact of stress on an individual’s well-being (Milanova, 1999). Although consumption
coping is an important process in the wake of stress caused by life events, it has been little
studied and, hence, warrants more attention from researchers (Liu and Black, 2011).
Life events can range from individual crises (e.g. job loss and divorce) to collective tragedies
(e.g. hurricanes, earthquakes, terrorist attacks, wars and pandemics). Unlike individual crises,
collective tragedies are felt by a large section of the population, the element causing the stress is
uncontrollable and the stress level is high (Sneath et al., 2009). While some individual life events
such as marriage, old age and illness are predictable, collective tragedy events are unexpected;
therefore, the stress is high and people have less time to prepare, which makes some of the
coping approaches ineffective (Moschis, 2007). There is a dearth of research on consumption
coping during collective tragedy, as well as its impact on stress outcomes, such as subjective
well-being and shifts in consumer behavior (Lee et al., 2001).
The coronavirus disease2019 (COVID-19) outbreak, which originated in Wuhan, China,
in late 2019 and spread to 215 countries by June 2020, is a suitable context to fathom
consumption coping and collective tragedy stress. Unlike recent virus outbreaks such as
Ebola and SARS, COVID-19 has affected the entire globe rather than being limited to low-
and middle-income countries. COVID-19 is perhaps the biggest pandemic since the Spanish
flu of 1918 and the greatest collective tragedy of the century.
This study was conducted in India, which is one of the worst COVID-19-affected countries
(Yadav, 2021). India ranks 145th of the 195 countries in the Healthcare and Quality Access Index
(Fullman et al., 2018), which resulted in its health-care infrastructure struggling to cope with the
pandemic. The Indian economy contracted by 7.3% in fiscal year 2020–2021 (Kaul, 2021).

Review of literature
Pandemic-induced stress
Stress has both stimulus- and response-based definitions. According to the former, an event
is stressful if it is appraised by an investigator. However, the latter is subjective and views
stress as a state. According to the response-based definition, an individual reacts to stress
(Lazarus and Folkman, 1984).
Stimulus definitions are objective and focus on external conditions that are stressful (e.g.
divorce or the death of a loved one). These circumstances (called stressors) give rise to stress, as
they require readjustment (Pearlin, 1989). Although a few researchers have attempted to
conceptualize pandemic-induced stress during the COVID-19 pandemic (Table 1), there is a lack
of consensus on active stressors. Furthermore, stressors active in a country depend on the social
context and existing rules and regulations; for example, if a nation imposes a strict lockdown,
then the stress because of the risk of infection will be lower than that because of the economic
impact. Hence, there is a need to develop a multifaceted pandemic-induced stress scale.

Consumption coping
Lazarus and Folkman (1984) defined coping as any behavioral or cognitive effort to manage
the demands created by stressors if an individual’s resources are exhausted. Coping theories
explain the structural distinction between the lower- and higher-order coping processes. The
classification of lower-order coping has been given by Skinner et al. (2003), whereas higher-
 Reflective/
Literature Name of scale Order formative Country Dimensions

Taylor et al. COVID Stress Second Reflective The USA (1) Danger – stress because of fear of getting infected
(2020) Scale and Canada (2) Socio Economic – stress because of possibility of stock outs
(3) Xenophobia – fear of foreigners
(4) Contamination – worry about other people around and touching things
(5) Trauma – inability to stop thinking about COVID-19 and its spread
(6) Compulsive checking – stress and checking information about COVID-19,
posting about COVID-19
Nitschke et al. COVID-Specific First Reflective Australia (1) Worry about going to supermarket
(2020) Worries (2) COVID-19 will bring lasting changes
(3) Social isolation
(4) Worry about not being able to see people who are important
(5) Worry about losing job
(6) Worry about being close to other people
Ahorsu et al. Fear of COVID First Reflective Iran (1) Afraid of COVID-19
(2020) Scale (2) Uncomfortable thinking about COVID-19
(3) Afraid of losing life
(4) COVID-19 news makes me nervous
(5) Inability to sleep because of worries about getting COVID-19
(6) Heart races or palpitates when think about getting COVID-19
Wright et al. COVID Adversity First Reflective The UK (1) Catching COVID-19
(2020) Worry Scale (2) Safety and security
(3) Finances
(4) Losing job
(5) Getting food
(6) Getting medication
Bareket-Bojmel COVID State Second Reflective The UK and (1) Economic
et al. (2020) Anxiety the USA (2) Health
(3) Routine change
(4) Social isolation

Source: Created by authors

Stress during
Table 1.
1469
stress

pandemic
Consumption

with pandemic
coping to deal
EJM order coping was categorized by Duhachek (2005). Coping processes adopted in
57,5 event-specific contexts, such as pandemics, exhibit a high degree of heterogeneity
(Duhachek and Oakley, 2007). Thus, the conceptualization of lower-order coping processes
results in a high degree of variance. Higher-order coping theories are distinct from lower-
order theories, as they seek to collapse the lower-order dimensions into a few core
dimensions based on their conceptual similarity, which results in a more parsimonious and
1470 grounded system (Duhachek and Oakley, 2007). Duhachek (2005) compared the
effectiveness of various higher-order classifications in an event-specific context and found
the approach and avoidance classification to be a comparatively better fit.
The concept of consumption coping is not new in the context of life events. However, only a
few studies have explored the role of consumption coping in collective tragedies such as
recessions (Kumar and Singh, 2014), natural disasters (Sneath et al., 2014) and pandemics (Laato
et al., 2020; Seale et al., 2009). Nevertheless, consumption coping adopted in any collective tragedy
is heterogeneous and situationally dependent on resources and active stressors. Therefore, a
comprehensive consumption coping model for global pandemics such as COVID-19 is required.
In the literature, two approaches have been proposed to model coping strategies:
dispositional and situational (Carver and Scheier, 1994). Situational coping assumes that the
preferred coping strategy can change over time during a stressful event based on available
coping resources (Bandura, 2001; Liu and Black, 2011). Dispositional coping assumes that
people have a predisposition to a coping strategy that they choose in every situation (Carver
and Scheier, 1994). Nonetheless, little information is available on how an individual chooses
between the approach and avoidance coping styles during a pandemic.

Coping self-efficacy
One possible moderator for determining the choice of consumption coping is coping self-
efficacy (CSE), defined as the perceived capability to cope with stressful environmental
demands (Benight et al., 1999a). According to Bandura (1986), individuals’ coping attempts
are significantly determined by their self-appraisal of their ability to cope, that is, CSE. In the
literature on collective tragedies, studies have empirically validated the cushioning role of
CSE (Benight and Bandura, 2004) in satisfying day-to-day living (Liu and Black, 2011).
However, little research has linked CSE with the choice of coping (Benight et al., 1999b).

Subjective well-being
According to research on the long-term effects of prior pandemics, psychological disorders
such as sadness, anxiety and stress can persist for months or even years after an outbreak
(Bonanno et al., 2008; Chan and Huak, 2004; Liu and Black, 2011). Under such extreme
situations, it is critical to uncover the psychological processes that can protect the well-being
and psychological health (Dawson and Golijani-Moghaddam, 2020). The role of stress in
reducing subjective well-being and the impact of coping responses on stress and subjective
well-being have been explored for various life events (Balaswamy and Richardson, 2001;
Brunstein, 1993; Wrosch et al., 2011). In the context of pandemics, some studies have
reported the use of coping to improve well-being (Dawson and Golijani-Moghaddam, 2020;
MacIntyre et al., 2020; Shamblaw et al., 2021). However, all these investigations used generic
dispositional coping scales, not the specific consumption and lifestyle coping adopted to
tackle pandemic stressors. Hence, this study aimed to assess the impact of effective
consumption coping on subjective well-being.
Continuance intention Consumption
Several changes in consumer behavior have been observed during the COVID-19 pandemic. coping to deal
Some of these changes will not return to the pre-pandemic period and will be ingrained as
habits (John and Thakur, 2021; Sheth, 2020). A shift in consumer behavior has also been
with pandemic
reported in other collective tragedies such as recessions (Flatters and Michael, 2009), stress
traumatic violence (Sigirci et al.,2016) and hurricanes (Ma and Smith, 2017). Sheth (2020)
mentioned four contexts that can disrupt consumer habits: social context, technology, 1471
changes in rules and regulations and natural disasters. Consumption coping is an immediate
response to the time, location and existential constraints that natural disasters posit.
However, the process by which consumers reach continuance intention of adopted
consumption coping is unknown.

Confirmation
Not all coping attempts are successful, and both avoidance and approach coping can be
successful (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). Coping was attempted with the initial expectation
of reducing the impact of stress on subjective well-being. Therefore, coping is successful to
the extent that initial expectations are confirmed. This finding confirms a possible mediator
between consumption coping and subjective well-being. Confirmation can also be a salient
motivation for consumers’ intention to continue adopting consumption coping after initial
acceptance (Bhattacherjee, 2001).
Based on the above discussion, the present study was conducted with the following
objectives:

to understand the stressors active in India during the COVID-19 pandemic;

to examine the consumption and lifestyle adjustments made by people to cope with
pandemic-induced stress;

to comprehend how people choose between the approach and avoidance
consumption coping strategies; and

to identify the role of consumption coping in improving subjective well-being and
shifts in consumer preference during collective tragedy stress.

By addressing these objectives, we intend to contribute to the literature on collective

tragedy, stress and consumption coping in three important ways. First, we aimed to develop
a unified theoretical framework that explains the use of both approach and avoidance
coping to manage pandemic-induced stressors, how an individual chooses between the two
strategies and the impact of effective consumption coping on subjective well-being and
continuance intention of the adopted consumption coping. Second, we aimed to
operationalize pandemic-induced stress and the two consumption coping strategies based
on a mixed-methods study (Study 1). Finally, we tested the measurement and hypothesized
model in Study 2 using structural equation modeling.

Integrated theoretical framework

This study presents a multi-theory framework that integrates three well-established
theories:
(1) the transactional theory of stress and coping (TTSC; Lazarus and Folkman, 1984);
(2) the expectation confirmation theory (ECT; Oliver, 1977, 1980); and
(3) the theory of consumption value (TCV; Sheth et al., 1991).
EJM These three theories have been integrated to develop a research model that explains the
57,5 relationship between the constructs of interest, supported by the stimulus–organism–
response (S–O–R; Mehrabian and Russell, 1974) theory and theory of mental incongruity
(TMI; Dykstra and Gierveld, 1994).
Although various aspects of the stress-coping process have been addressed in the
literature, there is a dearth of unified frameworks. In this study, we first synthesized theories
1472 to explain the coping processes under stress. Next, we discuss the theories that explain the
choice between approach and avoidance coping strategies. Finally, we integrated the coping
theories with those that explain the continuance intention of the adopted consumption
coping strategies. Table 2 summarizes the theories, argument advanced in them and
argument advanced for this study, along with related constructs. In the next section, we
develop our hypotheses.

Transactional theory of stress and coping

The TTSC is a cognitive theory that proposes cognitive judgments about situations that
individuals make, their ability to respond to situations and the effectiveness of the responses
using primary appraisal, secondary appraisal and reappraisal, respectively (Lazarus and
Folkman, 1984). Primary appraisals are made to assess the threats and challenges posed by
the environmental stimuli. Based on this assessment, approach and avoidance responses are
initiated to cope with stimuli-generated stress. If a pandemic is appraised as dangerous, then
the appraisal will result in stress. The higher the perceived danger of the pandemic, the
higher will be the resulting stress. To deal with higher stress, a higher number of both
approach and avoidance consumption coping responses is required. The TTSC assumes
that all coping responses are cognitively adopted; we can complement this understanding
using the S–O–R theory, which explains reactive consumption coping. During a pandemic
(stimuli), people perceive the risk of getting infected, losing jobs, etc., which results in stress
(organisms). People then react to stress by adopting an approach that avoids coping with
consumption (response). Although the TTSC and S–O–R theory can explain most of the
coping responses, the link between pandemic-induced stress and consumption coping can be
further strengthened by the TMI, which is a cognitive motivational theory that explains
coping responses that people do not respond to, even though those responses are cognitively
assessed. According to the TMI, interrelations between standards (desires) and cognitions
(experiences) form an individual’s mental system and behavioral disposition (Dykstra and
Gierveld, 1994). An individual’s mental system comprises of various standards and
cognitions. The discrepancy between any standard and cognition forms incongruence in the
mental system. An attempt to reduce incongruence in one pair of standards and cognition
may increase incongruence in the other. Therefore, individuals form behavioral dispositions
by minimizing the incongruence in the overall mental system. According to the TMI, a
coping strategy is adopted only when it does not exacerbate the imbalance in the overall
mental system. Therefore, even if cognitive theories predict that the coping strategy of
staying at home is the right choice, an individual might not adopt it, because not going to the
gym creates a greater imbalance in their mental system.
The objective of secondary appraisal is to assess the ability to cope with situational
demands. Based on the secondary appraisal, individuals decide to approach or avoid
stressors. Pandemic-induced stress is multifaceted and comprises various stressors.
Secondary appraisals of the TTSC can be used to explain how an individual decides
between approach and avoidance consumption to cope with stressors. In secondary
appraisals, individuals assess their CSE to decide whether they want to approach a
pandemic stress dimension, avoid it or use a combination of approach and avoidance
 Related
constructs in the
Underlying theory and its basic assumptions Arguments advanced by the theory Arguments advanced in the current study proposed model

Transactional theory of stress and coping
(TTSC)
Basic assumptions

Individuals make cognitive judgments
about situations, their ability to respond
to situations and the effectiveness of the
responses using primary appraisal,
secondary appraisal and reappraisal.

Individuals make primary appraisals of
If an individual appraises the pandemic
Pandemic-
the environmental stimuli through as dangerous, then it will result in stress. induced
which they assess the threat and
Perceived danger is positively associated stress
challenges to well-being posed by the with stress. Therefore, much approach
Approach
stimuli. and avoidance consumption coping are consumption

A situation can be assessed as irrelevant required. coping
or dangerous.
Avoidance

Dangerous situations result in stress. consumption

There is a positive association between coping
stress and approach and avoidance
responses used to reduce the stress.

The objective of the secondary appraisal
is to assess the ability to cope with
situational demands.

Based on secondary appraisals,
individuals decide whether to approach
a stressor or avoid it.

Individuals assess their coping self-
Pandemic-
efficacy to decide if they want to induced
approach a pandemic stress dimension, stress
avoid it or use a mixture of approach and
Approach
avoidance consumption coping. consumption

A higher coping self-efficacy results in a coping
higher proportion of approach
Avoidance
consumption coping and a lower consumption
proportion of avoidance consumption coping
coping.

Coping self-

A lower coping self-efficacy results in a efficacy
lower proportion of approach
consumption coping and a higher
proportion of avoidance consumption
coping.

(continued)

Integration of
Table 2.
1473

theories
stress
Consumption

with pandemic
coping to deal
 57,5
EJM

1474

Table 2.
Related
constructs in the
Underlying theory and its basic assumptions Arguments advanced by the theory Arguments advanced in the current study proposed model

After adopting a coping response,
Both approach and avoidance
Approach
individuals reappraise its effectiveness. consumption coping can be effective. consumption

Effective coping is positively associated
The higher the number of coping coping
with subjective well-being. responses adopted, the higher the
Avoidance
chances that some of them will be consumption
effective (i.e. higher confirmation). coping

Higher confirmation is positively
Confirmation
associated with subjective well-being.
Subjective
well-being

Expectation confirmation theory (ECT)
Basic assumptions

Post-adoption satisfaction is a function
of expectation and perceived
performance.

Cognitive appraisal of the discrepancy
between initial expectations and
perceived performance is the driver of
continuance or discontinuance.

Consumers have initial expectations
before adopting any product or service.

After consumption, they evaluate
perceived performance to initial
expectations and determine the
confirmation of initial expectations.

Confirmation level is positively
associated with continuance intention.

Both approach and avoidance
Confirmation
consumption coping are adopted with an
Continuance
initial expectation to reduce pandemic- intention
induced stress.

If a coping is found to be effective (i.e.
higher confirmation), then it will be
continued during the pandemic.

Repeated use of a consumption coping
will make it a habit.

Confirmation is positively associated
with continuance intention.

Theory of consumer value (TCV)
The TCV identifies five consumption
ECT theory effectiveness sonly consider
Confirmation
Basic assumption values: conditional value, that is, utility derived
Continuance

Consumer preference is influenced by a
Functional: utility derived from by reducing the pandemic-induced stress. intention
variety of consumption values. utilitarian benefits.
(continued)

Underlying theory and its basic assumptions

In any given choice of situation,
consumption values contribute
differently.

Consumption values are independent
and additive.
Source: Created by authors
Table 2.
Arguments advanced by the theory

Social: utility derived by specie social
group perception about the alternative.

Emotional: perceived utility from an
alternative’s ability to elicit feelings or
affective states.

Epistemic: perceived value of an
alternative’s ability to pique curiosity,
offer novelty or satisfy curiosity.



Conditional: perceived utility of an
alternative based on the decision
situation.
Related
constructs in the
Arguments advanced in the current study proposed model

Higher confirmation leads to repeated
use of the adopted consumption coping
during the pandemic.

An individual while repetitively using
the consumption coping may realize its
functional, social or emotional value and
may want to continue them even after
pandemic.
Higher confirmation leads to higher
functional, emotional and social value,
which leads to continuance intention.
1475
stress
with pandemic
coping to deal
Consumption
EJM consumption coping strategies. A higher CSE prompts individuals to use a higher
57,5 proportion of approach consumption coping strategy and a lower proportion of avoidance
consumption coping strategy and vice versa.
The TTSC supports the mediating role of coping between stress and well-being (Dawson
and Golijani-Moghaddam, 2020; Shamblaw et al., 2021). However, this relationship will hold
only if the coping is effective. The effectiveness of both approach and avoidance coping in
1476 managing stress depends on the fit and context (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). According to
the TTSC, individuals reappraise their effectiveness after adopting a coping response. The
higher the number of coping responses adopted, the higher the chances that some of them
will be effective (i.e. higher confirmation). Effective coping (i.e. higher confirmation) is
positively associated with subjective well-being.

Expectation confirmation theory

As part of the consumption coping response, people have adopted various changes in their
consumption and lifestyle. Some of these alterations will continue and not revert to normal
even after the pandemic ends (John and Thakur, 2021; Sheth, 2020). There are two reasons
for the continuance intention of the adopted consumption coping. One can be explained by
the ECT, which assumes that post-adoption satisfaction is a function of expectations and
perceived performance (Bhattacherjee, 2001). Therefore, cognitive appraisal of the
discrepancy between initial expectations and perceived performance drives continuance or
discontinuance. According to the ECT, consumers form repurchase intentions in five steps
(Oliver, 1980): First, they form an initial expectation about a product or service. Second, they
adopt the product or service. Third, they assess its perceived performance with respect to
the initial expectation and determine the confirmation level. Fourth, if the initial expectation
is met, then it results in satisfaction or a positive effect. Finally, the satisfied consumers form
their repurchase intention.
The ECT is widely used in service marketing and consumer behavior literature to
predict the repurchase intention (Oliver, 1980; Spreng et al., 1996). It has also been
extensively applied to predict the continuance intention of information system users
(Bhattacherjee, 2001). The ECT can be applied in the context of coping with stress in the
following manner:

Consumption coping is adopted with the initial expectation of reducing stress.

Coping appraisal is performed to assess the efficacy of coping post-adoption.

Effective consumption coping leads to a higher level of confirmation.

Based on the level of confirmation, people decide on continuance or discontinuance
of the adopted coping.

If the initial expectation of a consumption coping strategy is met, that is, if it is successful in
reducing stress, then people are motivated to continue it at least for the duration of the
pandemic. The habit theory suggests that behaviors are attached to the context. A strong
association between contextual cues and the behavior is formed if the behavior is executed
repetitively in a given situation (Clark et al., 2007). This association results in a behavioral
disposition (habit) toward that consumption (Wood et al., 2005).

Theory of consumption value

The TCV can explain another reason for the continuance intention of the adopted
consumption coping. It identifies the following five consumption values that determine the
consumer’s choice:
 (1) functional: utility derived from utilitarian benefits; Consumption
(2) social: utility derived by a specie social group perception about the alternative; coping to deal
(3) conditional: perceived utility of an alternative based on the decision situation; with pandemic
(4) emotional: perceived utility from an alternative’s ability to elicit feelings or stress
affective states; and
(5) epistemic: perceived value of an alternative’s ability to pique curiosity, offer
novelty or satisfy curiosity.
1477

The identified values contribute differently in various choice contexts. The values are
additive and independent; thus, people make trade-offs of values in every choice context
(Sheth et al., 1991). If consumption coping has a higher conditional value (i.e. it is effective in
managing pandemic stress), then it will result in a higher level of confirmation and repetition
during pandemic situations. While repetitively using consumption coping, an individual may
realize its functional, social, emotional or epistemic value and may want to continue it even
after the pandemic. Higher confirmation leads to higher functional, emotional and social
values, which lead to continuance intention. For example, if an individual starts eating home-
cooked meals as a coping strategy and finds them hygienic, tasty and healthy, then they will
decide to continue eating such meals even after the pandemic.

Integration of theories and proposed conceptual model

The TTSC, ECT and TCV have several common themes, including pandemic-
induced stress, approach consumption coping, avoidance consumption coping, CSE and
confirmation, as well as the influence of these factors on subjective well-being
and continuance intention. The various aspects of the positive impact of pandemic-induced
stress on approach and avoidance consumption coping can be explained by the TTSC. The
moderating role of CSE in the relationship between pandemic-induced stress and approach
and avoidance consumption coping can be explained by the secondary appraisal stage of the
TTSC. The positive link between consumption coping and confirmation and between
confirmation and subjective well-being can be explained by the reappraisal phase of the
TTSC. Finally, the ECT and TCV explain the two reasons that contribute to the positive
association between confirmation and continuance intention.
To further illustrate the integration of these theories, Table 2 summarizes the theories
underlying our conceptual framework together with the corresponding arguments advanced
in our research and the associated constructs of interest. Figure 1 presents the causal model
based on the theories discussed herein.

Research hypotheses
Pandemic-induced stress, approach consumption coping and avoidance consumption coping
We define approach consumption coping as any consumption and lifestyle change adopted
to counter stressors and avoidance consumption coping as any consumption and lifestyle
change adopted to distract oneself from stressors. The S–O–R theory explains reactive
approach and avoidance consumption coping, such as panic buying (Putri et al., 2021)
and impulsive buying (Liu and Black, 2011) during a pandemic. The cognitively adopted
approach and avoidance consumption coping, such as major changes in investments and
devoting more time to hobbies, are explained by the TTSC. Individual motivation to adopt
or not adopt consumption coping is explained by the TMI. Previous studies have
demonstrated that people use both approach consumption coping, such as cutting costs,
panic buying and increased health expenditures (Putri et al., 2021), and avoidance
EJM
57,5

H1 H3 H5

1478

H7
H2 H4 H6
H8

Figure 1.
Research model with
hypothesis and
theoretical
underpinning here
Source: Created by authors

consumption coping, such as compulsive and impulsive buying (Liu and Black, 2011;
Seale et al., 2009; Sneath et al., 2009; Sneath et al., 2014), during collective tragedies such as
floods, pandemics and earthquakes. Therefore, this study proposes that people with high
pandemic-induced stress will try more approach and avoidance consumption coping. Thus,
we propose the following hypotheses:

H1. The higher the pandemic-induced stress, the higher the approach consumption
coping.
H2. The higher the pandemic-induced stress, the higher the avoidance consumption
coping.

Consumption coping and confirmation

Confirmation is defined as the perceived effectiveness of approach and avoidance
consumption coping to reduce pandemic-induced stress with respect to the initial
expectation. As per the TTSC, after adopting a coping strategy, an individual reappraises its
effectiveness, which encourages them to replace the ineffective coping with other available
coping options (Cooper and Quick, 2017). This study assumes that the higher the number of
consumption coping options (both approach and avoidance) adopted by an individual, the
greater is the likelihood that he/she finds some of them to be effective. A previous study also
found that both approach (Shamblaw et al., 2021) and avoidance consumption coping
(Kennett-Hensel et al., 2012) are effective in managing collective tragedy stress. Thus, the
following hypotheses were formulated:

H3. The higher the approach consumption coping, the higher the confirmation.
H4. The higher the avoidance consumption coping, the higher the confirmation.

Confirmation and subjective well-being

Subjective well-being is a broad term that encompasses the cognitive and affective
evaluation of an individual’s satisfaction with life (Diener et al., 2002). Subjective well-being
has three components: life satisfaction, positive affect and negative affect (Andrews and Consumption
Withey, 1976). According to the TTSC, people appraise stress based on challenges and coping to deal
threats (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). Personal goals are part of the stress appraisal process,
in which a situation is stressful if it poses a challenge or threat to the achievement of
with pandemic
personal goals (Carver and Scheier, 2008). Therefore, an effective approach consumption stress
coping is reengagement with goals, which results in a greater purpose in life, enhanced life
satisfaction and an increased level of positive affect. Effective avoidance coping involves
disengagement from unattainable goals, which results in reduced levels of negative affect 1479
(Carver and Scheier, 2008; Wrosch et al., 2011). Effective consumption coping will result in
higher confirmation, and not all adopted consumption coping strategies will be effective in
reducing stress (Machackova et al., 2013; Moneyham et al., 1998). Accordingly, the following
hypothesis was formulated:

H5. The higher the confirmation, the higher the subjective well-being.

Confirmation and continuance intention

Continuance intention is defined as the intention to continue some of the consumption and
lifestyle changes adopted to cope with pandemic-induced stress. According to the ECT,
higher confirmation leads to higher satisfaction with the adopted effective consumption
coping and, hence, higher continuance intention. According to the TCV, consumption
coping, if effective (higher confirmation), will result in conditional value (Sheth et al.,
1991). Conditional value derived from coping leads to the repeated use of effective
consumption coping during the pandemic, which, in turn, results in a behavioral disposition
(habit) toward that consumption (Wood et al., 2005). Furthermore, consumers might realize
the functional value of some consumption coping strategies during the repeated usage
period; for example, exercise adopted as consumption coping can be continued to stay fit
even after the pandemic (Sheth et al., 1991). Moreover, evidence supports the continuance
intention of consumption coping such as financial prudence after a recession (Flatters and
Michael, 2009) and technology adoption after a pandemic (Sheth, 2020). Thus, we propose
the following hypothesis:

H6. The higher the confirmation, the higher the continuance intention.

Role of coping self-efficacy in the choice of the coping strategy

According to the TTSC, CSE is an essential basis for secondary appraisal and choice of
coping (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). If the stressors are manageable, then taking efforts to
manage them (approach consumption coping) is a better choice, and if found overwhelming,
then it makes more sense to disengage oneself (avoidance consumption coping) to avoid
potential failure and depression (Carver and Scheier, 2008; Liu and Black, 2011). Whether the
stressors are manageable or overwhelming depends on an individual’s CSE (Liu and Black,
2011). In addition, higher CSE has been positively associated with the active or approach
coping strategy (Bandura et al., 1988; Liu and Black, 2011). Therefore, this study proposes
the following hypotheses:

H7. Coping self-efficacy positively moderates the relationship between collective

tragedy-induced stress and approach consumption coping strategies.
H8. Coping self-efficacy negatively moderates the relationship between collective
tragedy-induced stress and avoidance consumption coping strategies.
EJM Study 1
57,5 Before testing the hypotheses, we attempted to understand the active stressors and various
coping mechanisms used by Indians during the COVID-19 pandemic. For this purpose, a
mixed-method questionnaire was used to collect both qualitative and quantitative data. This
study was conducted in India from March 25 to May 3, 2020, during which the nationwide
lockdown was imposed. We adopted the virtual snowball sampling method using Facebook
1480 to perform the sampling and collect the responses. Snowball sampling is especially useful in
environments with suspicion and a lack of freedom and trust (Cohen and Arieli, 2011).
Details of the questions are provided in Appendix.
We posed quantitative questions on how worried people were about the COVID-19
outbreak, followed by subjective questions regarding the reasons for the respondents’
current level of worry. To understand the variety of coping strategies, we asked people,
“How confident do they feel about India being able to combat this pandemic?” This was
followed by a subjective question regarding the respondents’ reasons for their current level
of confidence and how they were preparing themselves to face the challenge. To elicit more
consumption coping responses, we asked aided questions in the next section of the
questionnaire. First, we provided a list of eatables that people were increasingly buying and
a list of possible changes in daily routines based on various media reports. This was
followed by a question asking them to specify the changes.
The data collection process resulted in a sample size of 1,048, of which 931 were useful.
The participants hailed from 23 of the 36 states and union territories in India. The sample
was representative of 104 cities and towns. Descriptive statistics for Study 1 are presented in
Table 3.
To analyze the responses, we used NVivo 12 Plus, a computer-aided qualitative data
analysis software, to code the qualitative questions. We trained two coders in the coding
process and completed two coding cycles. In the first cycle, we used theming codes for
reasons concerning the questions. Theming coding is suitable if we want to use a phrase
from a sentence to encapsulate the meaning of an aspect described differently by the
respondents(Saldana, 2013). We used process coding/action coding for all other questions
to identify the ways in which participants were preparing themselves. Their focus
was on consumption and lifestyle changes. Process coding is suitable for coding an
observable activity or conceptual action (Saldana, 2013). In the second coding cycle, we
used pattern coding to identify the categories of consumption coping and stress (Saldana,
2013).
After coding, two rounds of discussion were held among the members of the research
team to achieve consensus. Based on the coding, we identified the major stressors during the
COVID-19 pandemic in India and consumption coping, which are presented in Table 4. The
objective of Study 1 was to develop items for pandemic-induced stress, approach

Descriptive statistics Study 1

Gender Male – 62% Female – 38%

HH size 1 to 4 – 76% 4þ – 24%
Marital status Married – 70% Unmarried – 30%
Income Less than 5lac – 43% More than 5 lac – 57%
Table 3. Age Up to 30 – 29% 30 to 45 – 43% More than 45 – 29%
Descriptive statistics
Study 1 Source: Created by authors
 Consumption
Construct Round 2 codes Round 1 codes
coping to deal
Stress Economic impact stress (1) Loss of Income, job or business with pandemic
(2) Ability to buy only necessities
(3) Recession
stress
System-generated stress (1) Lack of health-care infrastructure
(2) Government poor performance in controlling 1481
pandemic
(3) Reliability of COVID-19 tests
(4) Exorbitant cost of treatment in case of infection
(5) Inability to protect hospital staff from getting infected
(6) Accuracy of COVID-19 case reporting
Health and life-related stress (1) Known people are now getting infected
(2) Fear of touching things in public
(3) Fear of stepping out of home
(4) Worry of visiting doctors for regular ailments
(5) No remedy available
(6) Worry about old people in the house
(7) Citizens not taking COVID seriously
(8) COVID-19 spreading widely in the community
Uncertainty (1) Uncertainty when the pandemic will end
(2) Fake information creating uncertainty and worry
(3) World after pandemic
(4) Fear of unknown
Trauma (1) Trouble sleeping because of COVID-19
(2) Imagination of difficulties if infected
Coping Reducing touchpoints (1) More online purchase
(2) More cash less payments
(3) Less market visits
(4) Stopped household helps
(5) Stopped touching unnecessary surfaces
(6) Avoid meeting neighbors and relatives
Immunity-boosting measures (1) Home remedies
(2) Supplements
(3) Exercise
(4) Healthy foods
Preventative coping (1) Sanitizers use
(2) More cleaning agents
(3) Wearing face masks
Financial prudence (1) Decreased spending
(2) Home cooked meals
(3) New insurance Table 4.
(4) Changes in investments Stress and
(5) Alternative income sources consumption coping
(continued) India
EJM
Construct Round 2 codes Round 1 codes
57,5
Adopting technology (1) Meeting software
(2) Video calls to family
(3) Social media use to connect
(4) Asking help to adopt technology
1482 Distraction (1) Keeping occupied
(2) Social media use
(3) Binge watching
(4) More shopping
Table 4. Source: Created by authors

consumption coping and avoidance consumption coping. This is necessary because the
active stressors and consumption coping adopted in a country will depend on the social
context and existing rules and regulations. In addition, previous conceptualizations of
pandemic-induced stress (Table 1) do not seem to have reached a consensus and, therefore,
cannot be directly adopted. Moreover, there is no existing conceptualization of consumption
coping. Details of the round 1 codes are provided in Table 4, using which items were
developed.

Study 2
The objective of Study 2 was to test the hypothesized model. In all, 23 items of the pandemic-
induced stress scale were derived from the findings of Study 1. From these, 20 items for the
five dimensions of the pandemic-induced stress scale were developed for the study using
exploratory factor analysis. The dimensions of pandemic-induced stress are economic
impact stress, system-generated stress, stress because of fear of contamination, stress
because of the risk of infection and stress because of information asymmetry. Some of the
dimensions identified are similar to previous operationalizations, such as economic impact
stress (Bareket-Bojmel et al., 2020; Nitschke et al., 2020; Wright et al., 2020), stress because of
the risk of infection and stress because of the fear of contamination (Ahorsu et al., 2020;
Taylor et al., 2020; Wright et al., 2020). However, the items within these dimensions are not
the same. The other two-dimensions system generated stress, and stress because of
information asymmetry is not present in any of the conceptualizations. Items of pandemic-
induced stress and their literature linkages are provided in Table 5. Of the 20 pandemic-
induced stress items identified in Study 1, 5 were similar to the previous scale and 15
were new.
The items for the five dimensions of approach consumption coping and one dimension of
avoidance consumption coping were derived from Study 1. Two dimensions of avoidance
consumption coping, emotion regulation consumption (Kemp et al., 2014) and impulsive
buying (Sneath et al., 2009), were adopted from the literature. At the time of Study 1,
the country was in complete lockdown and avenues for emotion regulation consumption and
impulsive buying were very limited. Scales for other constructs were adopted directly from
the literature: CSE (Benight and Harper, 2002), subjective well-being (Brunstein, 1993),
continuance intention and confirmation (Bhattacherjee, 2001). Study 2 was conducted in
India from August 22 to September 10, 2020. All items were measured using a five-point
Likert scale, ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.”
 Consumption
Measurement items Loadinga
coping to deal
Pandemic-induced stress (CR = 0.63 and AVE = 0.86) with pandemic
Economic impact stress (CR = 0.77, a = 0.87, AVE = 0.69 and second-order loading = 0.70**) stress
I have been worried that my family might have to face hardships because of loss of income/
job/business (Study 1, Nitschke et al., 2020 and Wright et al.,2020) 0.84**
I have been worried that I might have to reduce my standard of living to buying only
necessities (Study 1 only) 0.86** 1483
I have been worried that the coronavirus pandemic might lead my country to economic
recession (Study 1 only) 0.78**
System generated stress (CR = 0.72, a = 0.84, AVE = 0.67 and second-order loading = 0.64**)
I have been worried that our health-care infrastructure is insufficient to keep me safe from
coronavirus (Study 1 only) 0.79**
I have been worried about the government’s poor performance in controlling this pandemic
(Study 1 only) 0.82**
I have been worried that the coronavirus tests are not reliable in diagnosing the infection
(Study 1 only) 0.79**
Stress because of fear of contamination (CR = 0.79, a = 0.86, AVE = 0.61 and
second- order loading = 0.78**)
I have been worried that if I touch something in public space, I would get infected (Study 1
and Taylor et al., 2020) 0.8**
I have been worried that if I step out of my home, I would get infected (Study 1 and Taylor
et al., 2020) 0.82**
I have been scared to visit doctors for regular ailments or check up as I fear a higher chance
of infection meeting them (Study 1 only) 0.76**
I have been worried that this is a new virus and no remedy is available to protect me (Study
1 only) 0.74**
Stress because of risk of infection (CR = 0.87, a = 0.9, AVE = 0.53 and second-order
loading = 0.92**)
I get worried thinking about all the difficulties I or my family may have to go through if we
test positive for coronavirus (Study 1 and Taylor et al., 2020) 0.73**
I fear the cost of treatment for coronavirus as I hear stories of high extortionist expenses
(Study 1 only) 0.64**
I get worried hearing stories of hospital staff testing positive and getting quarantined
(Study 1 only) 0.74**
I have been worried that coronavirus is spreading widely in the community and risk of
infection is increasing every day for me and my family (Study 1, Taylor et al., 2020 and
Nitschke et al., 2020) 0.79**
I have been worried about the impact of the coronavirus on the world’s future (Study 1 only) 0.66**
I have been worried that citizens are not taking coronavirus seriously, ignoring social
distancing and careless about wearing masks in public (Study 1 only) 0.74**
I am worried about my parents and elders in our family, as they are most vulnerable to
coronavirus (Study 1 only) 0.78**
I have been worried about the uncertainty, as we have no idea when the pandemic will end
(Study 1 only) 0.72**
Stress because of information asymmetry (CR = 0.60, a = 0.83, AVE = 0.71 and
second-order loading = 0.70**)
I have trouble sleeping because I am worried about the coronavirus (Study 1, Taylor et al.,
2020 and Ahorsu et al., 2020) 0.79**
I am worried that we still do not know enough about this virus and Everyday more
discoveries are shared and sometimes they contradict the earlier ones (Study 1 only) 0.89** Table 5.
Coping self-efficacy (adopted from Benight and Harper, 2002) (CR = 0.84, a = 0.88 and AVE = 0.56) Descriptive and
Saving myself and family from getting infected from coronavirus 0.77** psychometric
Maintaining Financial security during coronavirus crisis 0.77** properties of
(continued) operational measure
EJM
Measurement items Loadinga
57,5
Dealing with income loss caused because of coronavirus outbreak 0.74**
Maintaining intimacy and calm within the family during the crisis time 0.77**
Going back to normal routine after the coronavirus crisis is over 0.69**
Dealing with the mental stress experienced since the coronavirus outbreak 0.73**
1484 Subjective well-being (adopted from Brunstein, 1993)
Positive affect (CR = 0.85, a = 0.90, AVE = 0.69 and Outer Weight = 0.63**)
Happy 0.86**
Joyful 0.88**
Pleased 0.83**
Confident 0.75**
Negative affect (CR = 0.82, a = 0.88, AVE = 0.64 and Outer Weight = 0.47**)
Sadg 0.81**
Angryg 0.77**
Frustratedg 0.85**
Anxiousg 0.77**
Life satisfaction (CR = 0.77, a = 0.90, AVE = 0.81 and Outer Weight = 0.26**)
At present, I am completely satisfied with my life 0.92**
In the near future a lot of things will have to change before I feel satisfied with my lifeg 0.88**
Approach consumption coping (all items developed for the study)
Reduce touchpoint (CR = 0.80, a = 0.86, AVE = 0.51 and Outer Weight = 0.31**)
Purchasing more from online stores and purchasing less from nearby markets and stores 0.63**
Using more online and contactless digital methods instead of dealing in currency notes and
cash 0.73**
Reduced going out of the house for any market, bank or repair tasks 0.78**
Reduced taking help of maids/servants for household chores like cooking, cleaning,
washing, etc. 0.68**
I am cautious in not touching the lift button, door handles, using public washrooms, shop
counters and disinfecting all purchase 0.73**
Avoid meeting neighbors/relatives face to face 0.71**
Immunity-boosting measures (CR = 0.76, a = 0.85, AVE = 0.59 and Outer Weight = 0.27**)
Taking home remedies for immunity boosting like turmeric (haldi), black pepper (kali
mirch), liquorice (mulethi) and herbal dist 0.78**
Taking medicine and supplements for immunity-boosting Ayurvedic, Homeopathic,
Allopathic like Arsenic, Giloy, Ashwagandha and Vit C 0.77**
Increased/started doing exercises and workouts like Yoga, cycling, walking, aerobics, etc. 0.75**
Eating more nutritional and healthy foods 0.77**
Preventive coping (CR = 0.76, a = 0.86, AVE = 0.67 and Outer Weight = 0.21**)
Increase in frequency of using sanitizer and hand wash 0.85**
Increase in use of hygiene related products like cleaning agents/disinfectants like Lizol,
Harpic, phenyl, etc. for sanitize 0.82**
Never go out without a face mask 0.79**
Adopting technology (CR = 0.75, a = 0.84, AVE = 0.57 and Outer Weight = 0.24**)
Increased use of virtual meeting software like Google Meet, Zoom, Microsoft Teams,
WhatsApp, etc. 0.71**
Started making more video calls to friends/family instead of audio 0.82**
Got in touch with friends/acquaintances after a long time using social media/phone 0.82**
Taking help from others to make better use of technology 0.66**
Financial prudence (CR = 0.75, a = 0.83, AVE = 0.50 and Outer Weight = 0.28**)
Decreased spending on nonessentials 0.71**
Eating home cooked meals instead of ordering from outside 0.7**
Brought or thinking about buying new insurance for health coverage for family 0.71**
Table 5. (continued)
 Consumption
Measurement items Loadinga
coping to deal
Discussed, reviewed and, where necessary, changed my investments and savings in Bank, with pandemic
mutual funds, shares, etc. 0.69** stress
Looking at alternative ways to increase my income 0.72**
Avoidance consumption coping [items for distraction are developed for study and other two
constructs, Emotion regulation consumption adopted from (Kemp et al., 2014) and Impulsive 1485
coping adopted from (Sneath et al., 2014)]
Emotion regulation consumption (CR = 0.88, a = 0.93, AVE = 0.81 and Outer Weight = 0.42**)
I find myself snacking on junk food like chocolates, potato chips, etc., to keep myself happy
and feel normal 0.81**
I am consuming more alcohol, tobacco and like products these days to feel better in these
stressful times 0.82**
I am devoting more time to my hobbies like home decorating, cooking, painting, cleaning,
etc. 0.51**
I have started ordering in food from outside to cheer myself up 0.84**
Distraction (CR = 0.71, a = 0.82, AVE = 0.51 and Outer Weight = 0.33**)
I keep myself occupied playing online games with friends and family 0.76**
Increased time on social media like Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, etc. 0.68**
Increased time on watching entertainment content on TV, YouTube, Netflix, Amazon Prime,
etc. 0.66**
I am shopping more often, including online shopping, to keep my mind positive 0.79**
Impulsive buying (CR = 0.74, a = 0.84, AVE = 0.57 and Outer Weight = 0.40**)
I have noticed that I am buying things that I do not really need 0.9**
I am buying new brand and new products for use which I usually would not 0.91**
While shopping I am making some unplanned purchases as well 0.88**
Confirmation (adopted from Bhattacherjee, 2001) (CR = 0.71, a = 0.83 and AVE = 0.62)
Consumption and lifestyle changes I made during Coronavirus are more effective in
managing coronavirus related worries than I expected 0.87**
Overall, most of the expectations I had from the consumption and lifestyle changes I made
during coronavirus are fulfilled 0.85**
Consumption and lifestyle changes made during coronavirus did not help me reduce my
worry level as I expected* 0.63**
Continuance intention (adopted from Bhattacherjee, 2001) (CR = 0.82, a = 0.69 and AVE = 0.61)
I am going to continue many of the consumption and lifestyle changes I made during
coronavirus even after it ends 0.86**
If I could, then I would prefer to discontinue all the consumption and lifestyle changes I
made during coronavirusg 0.73**
I will definitely continue at least some of the consumption and lifestyle changes I adopted
during the coronavirus 0.75**
Notes: *p < 0.05; and **p < 0.01. Outer weights for formative construct are not the same as factor loadings
and are needed only for establishing item validity. aStandardized factor loading, a = Cronbach’s alpha,
CR = composite reliability, AVE = average variance extracted and g = reverse coded
Source: Created by authors Table 5.

Research methodology
Sampling and data collection
The study population comprised Indian citizens. We first stratified the population into
states that were hit hard by the pandemic and those that were not hit so hard. In the former
category were five states that had the highest number of cases as of August 21, namely,
Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Uttar Pradesh (Money Control,
2020). The remaining states belonged to the latter category. We then applied virtual
EJM snowball sampling using various social media platforms and WhatsApp networks to ensure
57,5 representation from both the strata. A total of 1,215 usable responses were collected from the
26 states after removing those with high levels of missing data.
The sample characteristics were as follows:

degree of spread (hit hard: 36.4%; and not hit as hard: 63.6%);

sex (men: 39.7%; and women: 60.3%);
1486
age (< 30 years: 42.4%; 30–60 years: 56.2%; and >60 years: 1.5%); and

income from Indian rupees (below 5 lacs: 63.5%; 5–10 lacs: 25.5%; and
>10 lacs: 11%).

Measurement model
Pandemic-induced stress scale
Before performing confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), we conducted an exploratory factor
analysis on 23 stress items, which provided five stress dimensions: details are provided in
Table 5. Three items were dropped because of loadings <0.5.
Next, we tested the factor structure of the scale using the methodology of Bagozzi and
Heatherton (1994). The pandemic-induced stress scale has previously been conceptualized as
a total aggregation model (Ahorsu et al., 2020; Nitschke et al., 2020) and the total
disaggregation of the second-order model (Taylor et al., 2020). Therefore, we tested these
two rival models. The total aggregation model was theorized as all the items loaded on
stress because of the COVID-19 construct, with the following fit statistics: x2(170) = 2,583.565,
x2/df = 15.197, CFI = 0.76, IFI = 0.76 and RMSEA = 0.108. The total disaggregation of the
second-order model, in which stress because of COVID-19 had five sub-dimensions,
exhibited the following fit statistics: x2(165) = 1,276.4, x2/df = 7.736, CFI = 0.90, IFI = 0.90
and RMSEA = 0.074.
It is evident from the analysis that the total disaggregation of the second-order model had
a better fit than the total aggregation model. The goodness-of-fit statistics for the total
disaggregation of the second-order model were satisfactory. Therefore, we conceptualized
pandemic-induced stress as a second-order reflective construct, which agrees with the
findings of Taylor et al. (2020). The reliability and validity of the conceptualized scale were
assessed, along with the other constructs using CFA in Smart PLS 3.0, and the scale was
found to be reliable and valid (Table 5).
During both the qualitative and quantitative phases, surrogate terms were used and
items were randomized. However, there existed a possibility of presence of common method
variance (CMV). Therefore, to test the presence of CMV, we used the marker variable
technique (Malhotra et al., 2006).
We used the positive affect factor obtained from the subjective well-being scale
(Brunstein, 1993) as a marker variable, as it had the least correlation with the stress
dimensions. The measurement model was found to be satisfactory, with positive affect as a
marker variable: GFI = 0.901, IFI = 0.900, CFI = 0.900 and RMSEA = 0.064. The least
possible correlation of 0.003 was designated as rm. We then calculated the adjusted
correlation and its significance using the following equation:
ru  rm ra
ra ¼ tn;n3 ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1  rm 2 ð1ra2 Þ
n3

where ru is the unadjusted correlation and ra is the adjusted correlation.

 Minute changes were observed in the correlation (Dr < 0.07). To check the rigor of Consumption
the method, we replaced the original correlation with the CMV-adjusted correlation and coping to deal
explored the change in fit (Dx2(1) > 3.84 and p < 0.05), as suggested by Malhotra et al. with pandemic
(2006). The correlations were not significantly different from the CMV correlations,
suggesting a lack of CMV. stress

Other constructs 1487

We applied the following five dimensions of approach consumption coping and three
dimensions of avoidance consumption coping (details in Table 5) derived from Study 1
and the literature. People use various strategies to cope with stress, based on their
preferences and means. Previous research has operationalized consumption adjustment
or coping as a composite index (Lee et al., 2001; Liu and Black, 2011). As both approach
and avoidance coping use multiple strategies, we used a second-order construct to make
the model theoretically parsimonious (Gerbing and Anderson, 1984). Moreover, these
strategies are conceptually different, are not interchangeable and are unlikely to co-vary.
Nonetheless, the items used in each strategy are likely to co-vary. Hence, we used a
second-order reflective–formative construct to measure both approach and avoidance
coping (Jarvis et al., 2003). The other constructs, subjective well-being, confirmation and
continuance intention, were adopted from the literature, the details of which are provided
in Table 5. Based on the measurement model, the resulting hypothesized model is
presented in Figure 2.
Before testing the hypotheses, we assessed the reliability and validity of the constructs
(convergent and divergent). The measurement model was examined by performing CFA
using SmartPLS 3.0. PLS-SEM analysis was suitable as we had a formative measurement
model specification (Hair et al., 2017). All the items loaded >0.5 (Table 5). As all the

Reducing Immunity Boosting Preventive Adopting Financial

Touchpoints Measures Coping Technology Prudence

Economic
Impact Stress Approach Subjective
Consumption Wellbeing
System Coping
Generated
H3

Stress
H1

H5

Stress due to
H7

Risk of
Infection and Pandemic Induced Coping Self- Confirmation
resulting Stress Efficacy
Difficulties
H8

H6

Stress due to
H4
H2

Fear of
Contamination
Avoidance Continuance
Stress due to Consumption Intention
Informaon Coping
Asymmetry
and Resulng
Difficules

Emotion Regulation
Consumption
Distraction
Impulsive
Buying
Figure 2.
Hypothesized
model here
Source: Created by authors
EJM first-order constructs were reflective, to assess their reliability, we used Cronbach’s alpha
57,5 and composite reliability and found them to have values >0.6 (Table 5). To assess
convergent validity, we used average variance extracted and noted that all values were >0.5
(Table 5). To assess discriminant validity, we used the heterotrait–monotrait ratio of
correlations, with a threshold value of 0.85 (Kline, 2011). The same approach was adopted
for the pandemic-induced stress construct, which was a reflective second-order construct.
1488 Approach and avoidance consumption coping were formative in the second order. First-
order constructs act as indicators to assess the validity of the second order (Henseler et al.,
2009). We observed that the weights of the first-order constructs for both approach and
avoidance consumption coping were significant, which signifies that the first-order
constructs are relevant for forming the second-order constructs and, hence, valid.

Results of the structural model

The hypothesized model presented in Figure 2 was tested using SmartPLS 3.0. The two-
stage approach described by Sarstedt et al. (2019) was used. We found support for all the six
hypothesized paths (Table 6). As expected, higher pandemic-induced stress resulted in a
higher use of approach consumption coping (b = 0.52 and p < 0.05) and avoidance
consumption coping (b = 0.21 and p < 0.05). Both approach and avoidance consumption
coping strategies were effective. Confirmation increased with a higher use of approach
consumption coping (b = 0.39 and p < 0.05) and avoidance consumption coping (b = 0.08
and p < 0.05). As hypothesized, higher confirmation led to higher continuance intention (b =
0.429 and p < 0.05) and subjective well-being (b = 0.194 and p < 0.05).
We hypothesized that CSE positively moderates the relationship between pandemic
stress and approach consumption coping and negatively moderates the relationship
between pandemic stress and avoidance consumption coping. None of the hypothesis was
supported, as there was an insignificant moderating effect of CSE on pandemic stress and
the approach consumption coping relationship and a significant, but opposite to the
hypothesized direction, effect of CSE on pandemic stress and the avoidance coping
relationship (Table 6).
We also tested the four mediation paths to check whether pandemic stress leads to
continuance intention if approach and avoidance consumption coping are effective and
whether approach and avoidance coping mitigate the effect of stress on subjective well-
being. We adhered to the procedure of Zhao et al. (2010), rather than that of Baron and
Kenny (1986), for the following two reasons:
(1) Zhao et al.’s (2010) technique uses the bootstrapping method to test the significance
of indirect paths, which is much more stringent than the Sobel test given by Baron
and Kenny (1986).
(2) Two of the mediated paths in this study are opposite to the direct path
(consumption coping and confirmation between pandemic stress and subjective
well-being), which is a type of mediation categorized as inconsistent by Baron and
Kenny (1986) but as competitive by Zhao et al. (2010). All four mediation paths
were found to be significant (Table 6).

Goodness-of-fit
We assessed the quality of our model using the coefficient of determination (R2) and cross-
validated redundancy (Q2) (Table 7) (Hair et al., 2014). R2 values were weak for subjective
well-being and avoidance consumption coping (<0.13), moderate for confirmation (<0.26)
 Path Type of
Consumption
Hypothesis Path coefficient Decision mediation coping to deal
with pandemic
Path results
H1 Pandemic Stress ! Approach Consumption 0.52** Supported NA stress
Coping
H2 Pandemic Stress ! Avoidance Consumption 0.21** Supported NA
Coping 1489
H3 Approach Consumption Coping ! Confirmation 0.39** Supported NA
H4 Avoidance Consumption Coping ! 0.08** Supported NA
Confirmation
H5 Confirmation ! Subjective Well-being 0.194** Supported NA
H6 Confirmation ! Continuance Intention 0.429** Supported NA
H7 Coping Self-Efficacy*Pandemic Stress ! Ns Not NA
Approach Coping supported
H8 Coping Self-Efficacy*Pandemic Stress ! 0.08** Not NA
Avoidance Coping supported
Mediation Results

Pandemic Stress ! Continuance Intention 0.183** Supported Partial

Pandemic Stress ! Approach Consumption Coping ! 0.09** complementary
Confirmation ! Continuance intention

Pandemic Stress ! Continuance Intention 0.183** Supported Partial

Pandemic Stress ! Avoidance Consumption Coping ! 0.01** complementary
Confirmation ! Continuance intention

Pandemic Stress ! Subjective Well-being () Supported Partial

Pandemic Stress ! Approach Consumption Coping ! 0.256** competitive
Confirmation ! Subjective Well-being 0.04**

Pandemic Stress ! Subjective Well-being () Supported Partial

Pandemic Stress ! Avoidance Consumption Coping ! 0.256** competitive
Confirmation ! Subjective Well-being 0.004**
Table 6.
Notes: *p < 0.05; and **p < 0.01 Results of proposed
Source: Created by authors model

and substantial for continuance intention and approach consumption coping (0.26) (Cohen,
1998). However, all R2 values were adequate (0.1) (Falk and Miller, 1992). The positive Q2
values for the endogenous variables further confirm the predictive accuracy of the model
(Hair et al., 2011; Hair et al., 2014). Additionally, we measured SRMR, which was introduced

Constructs R2 Q2**

Approach consumption coping 0.3 0.17

Avoidance consumption coping 0.1 0.06
Confirmation 0.18 0.1
Subjective well-being 0.11 0.05
Continuance intention 0.26 0.14

Notes: **Q2 Calculated with d = 7 Table 7.

Source: Created by authors Goodness of fit
EJM by Henseler et al (2016), as a goodness-of-fit measure to avoid model misspecification in PLS-
57,5 SEM. SRMR values of <0.08 indicate substantial fit (Henseler et al., 2016). For our
conceptual model, the SRMR was 0.072, confirming that our model fits the data well.

Discussion and contributions

This study makes a distinctive contribution to explaining the role of consumption coping in
1490 dealing with a collective tragedy, particularly a pandemic. We attempted to identify how
adjustments in consumption and lifestyle in the face of a collective tragedy improve
subjective well-being and lead to a permanent shift in consumer behavior. To this end, we
developed a multi-theory framework using three well-established theories (Table 2).
The proposed model, with hypothesized paths, was empirically tested in the context of
the current pandemic. We found that pandemic stress has a significant indirect effect on
subjective well-being through both approach and avoidance consumption coping. Collective
tragedies such as COVID-19 results in many psychological disorders which persists for
many months (Chan and Huak, 2004; Liu and Black, 2011). These findings provide the
psychological process that can protect the subjective well-being in these extreme situations.
More importantly, it also establishes the role of consumption in navigating collective
tragedy and protecting psychological health. Many studies have reported the enduring
changes in consumer behavior after collective tragedies (Flatters and Michael, 2009; Ma and
Smith, 2017; Sheth, 2020; Sigirci et al., 2016), but none of them provide the psychological
mechanism of this change. We found that consumption coping and confirmation mediate the
relationship between pandemic induced stress and continuance intention. This empirically
establishes the continuance intention of effective consumption copings.
Our study also intended to identify the mechanism through which people decide between
approach and avoidance consumption coping. However, the hypothesis on the moderating
role of CSE on pandemic stress, approach and avoidance coping has not been proven. One
possible explanation for this result could be that at the time of the study, people had already
been dealing with the pandemic for a long time, which might have resulted in a reduced
ability to evaluate environmental demands.
Second, our study contributes to the literature on coping with stress by empirically
validating the positive impact of pandemic-induced stress on both approach (0.52) and
avoidance (0.21) consumption coping. People are using various consumptions to deal with
pandemic induced stress. Our study identified those consumption copings and classified
them into five types of approach consumption coping strategies and three types of
avoidance consumption coping strategies.
We found that both approach and avoidance consumption coping were effective in
managing pandemic-induced stress, unlike recent studies (Dawson and Golijani-
Moghaddam, 2020; Shamblaw et al., 2021) that reported that only approach coping is
effective in improving subjective well-being. Our finding agrees with the view of Cooper and
Quick (2017), who stated that both approach and avoidance coping can be effective based on
the context and fit. Our research also provides empirical support for the impact of effective
approach and avoidance consumption coping on the intention to continue the lifestyle and
consumption changes adopted. Our study contributes to the field both by identifying the
consumption coping used by people during a pandemic and by using the ECT and TCV to
predict continuance intention and subjective well-being.
There are some previous attempts to develop the scale to measure the stress because of
COVID-19, but there is a lack of consensus on active stressors. Furthermore, stressors active
in a country depend on the social context and existing rules and regulations. To make this
scale robust, the items are generated through a countrywide qualitative study of 931
respondents coming from 23 of 36 Indian states. COVID-19 scale is conceptualized as a Consumption
second-order five-dimensional construct, with its psychometric properties empirically coping to deal
established using a measurement model. Two of the five dimensions, system generated
stress and stress because of information asymmetry, were not present in any of the previous
with pandemic
pandemic stress conceptualization. The other three dimensions identified are similar to stress
previous operationalizations, such as economic impact stress (Bareket-Bojmel et al., 2020;
Nitschke et al., 2020; Wright et al., 2020), stress because of the risk of infection and stress
1491
because of the fear of contamination (Ahorsu et al., 2020; Taylor et al., 2020; Wright et al.,
2020). However, the items within these dimensions are not the same. Of the 20 pandemic-
induced stress items, only 5 were similar to the previous scale and 15 were new. These
findings confirm the robustness of the conceptualized construct.

Managerial implications
Managers are applying various tactics to navigate the COVID-19 pandemic, cutting across
all elements of the marketing mix. Understanding pandemic-induced stress and the role of
consumption coping can help managers proactively formulate strategic responses tuned to
changing consumer habits. The managerial implications presented in this section stem from
the findings of our study and were verified through qualitative interviews with five
marketing managers at the strategic level in various organizations across the country. We
provided a summary of our findings to the managers and asked them to provide implications
for their business. This section presents the most important implications of this study.
Our study found that stress because of the pandemic is multifaceted and that almost
everyone is stressed in one way or the other. Companies need to launch marketing activities
with empathy, hope and expression of gratitude toward frontline workers who protect us.
Cause-related activities initially decrease the share value (Woodroof et al., 2019), but if these
activities reflect brand authenticity, then they will enhance positive word-of-mouth and
brand attachment (Morhart et al., 2015). Such activities will also result in higher purchase
intentions and positive consumer attitudes (Trimble and Rifon, 2006).
Given our findings on approach coping strategies, reducing touch points is of great
importance and will result in a shift toward digital channels for various product and service
categories. Companies that use digital media as secondary channels must realign every
aspect of their business model to suit the digital channels. This initiative is necessary to
ensure that the customer experience in every channel represents the brand value. Firms
must also test the stability and scalability of their digital infrastructures and platforms. We
identified economic stress as a major stress factor that will result in higher financial
prudence by consumers. Consumers will be more price-sensitive and buy only essentials.
Managers need to provide temporary price cuts to gain more market share and to position
their products as utilitarian. People are adopting immunity-boosting measures and
preventive coping strategies, which result in increased sensitivity to health and hygiene.
Marketers can leverage this by adding health and hygiene features to their products or by
introducing new products. It is also prudent to invest in research and development and in
the innovation of products, services and processes, as customers are more receptive to new
products and services in a contraction period than in an expansion period (Srinivasan et al.,
2011). For example, a health drink brand can launch a variant specifically for immunity.
Our study found enduring changes in consumer behavior. Managers must integrate
these changes into their product and promotion strategies. Attenuating products or
launching new products that cater to the changing needs of the customers will help brands
retain their market share, besides creating opportunities to expand the market share.
EJM For example, a snacks brand can launch a variety of healthy frozen food options because
57,5 people receive less help from maids/servants.
Stress because of the fear of contamination can be alleviated if safety protocols are
introduced in the product and service delivery. Having protocols in place is insufficient, and
brands also need to develop trust in these protocols using effective communication. For
example, Ola Cabs established a protocol for sanitizing the cab after every ride and
1492 communicated it through the main screen of the application and on every phone call to the
customers.
One of the major findings of our study is the improvement in subjective well-being
through consumption coping, which provides meaningful insights that policymakers can
use to enhance consumer well-being. Our research also identified various active stressors
during the pandemic, and it is crucial that policymakers respond appropriately to them.
Public service organizations must rebalance safety by initiating economic activities.
Understanding various stressors and their components will help organizations manage
public perceptions appropriately.

Limitations and directions for future research

This study tested the proposed model in the COVID-19 context in India. Nonetheless,
differences between countries in terms of economic policy, income level, health
infrastructure and the extent of disease spread might alter the stressors and their relative
importance, which, in turn, might lead to differences in consumption coping. To validate the
findings of this study better, they need to be replicated in more countries. Another limitation
of this study is its reliance on cross-sectional data, which limits our ability to comment
on actual behavioral changes. Future studies should examine the actual changes in
consumption using a longitudinal study design.
We also found that consumption coping and confirmation partially mediated the
relationship between collective tragedy stress, subjective well-being and continuance
intention. Future research endeavors should focus on identifying and testing other mediators.
People can choose either approach or avoidance consumption coping. To understand
why people choose one coping strategy over the other, the present study used the CSE
moderator. However, there could be other moderators that explain the choice of coping
strategies, and these need to be tested in future research.
This study focuses on consumer behavior from the perspective of stress and coping.
However, the pandemic has disrupted every domain of marketing, resulting in ample
research opportunities to study new consumer behavior from various perspectives
(Das, 2021). Moreover, the theories used in this study were psychological. Future studies
could adopt social and developmental theories, such as life-course research frameworks, to
study actual behavioral changes after the pandemic.
In the past 20 years, the world has witnessed the emergence of several new diseases, such
as MERS, SARS, Zika and COVID-19. Pandemics are becoming more frequent and causing
more damage. Hence, the findings of our study can be used by managers and policymakers
to proactively respond to future collective tragedies. We hope that our efforts will inspire
further research in this field.

References
Ahorsu, D.K., Lin, C.Y., Imani, V., Saffari, M., Griffiths, M.D. and Pakpour, A.H. (2020), “The fear of
Covid-19 scale: development and initial validation”, International Journal of Mental Health and
Addiction, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 1-9, doi: 10.1007/s11469-020-00270-8.
Andrews, F.M. and Withey, S.B. (1976), “Social indicators of well-being”, Social Indicators of Well- Consumption
Being, Springer, Cham, doi: 10.1007/978-1-4684-2253-5.
coping to deal
Bagozzi, R.P. and Heatherton, T.F. (1994), “A general approach to representing multifaceted personality
constructs: application to state self-esteem”, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary
with pandemic
Journal, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 35-67, doi: 10.1080/10705519409539961. stress
Balaswamy, S. and Richardson, V.E. (2001), “The cumulative effects of life event, personal and social
resources on subjective well-being of elderly widowers”, The International Journal of Aging and
Human Development, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 311-327, doi: 10.2190/6TY3-FX64-K8P4-KBPQ. 1493
Bandura, A. (1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Action, Prentice Hall, NJ, p. 22.
Bandura, A. (2001), “Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective”, Annual Review of Psychology,
Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 1-26, doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1.
Bandura, A., Cioffi, D., Taylor, C.B. and Brouillard, M.E. (1988), “Perceived self-efficacy in coping with
cognitive stressors and opioid activation”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 55
No. 3, pp. 479-488, doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.55.3.479.
Bareket-Bojmel, L., Shahar, G. and Margalit, M. (2020), “Covid-19-related economic anxiety is as high as
health anxiety: findings from the USA, the UK, and Israel”, International Journal of Cognitive
Therapy, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 1-9, doi: 10.1007/s41811-020-00078-3.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1182.
Benight, C.C. and Bandura, A. (2004), “Social cognitive theory of posttraumatic recovery: the role of
perceived self-efficacy”, Behaviour Research and Therapy, Vol. 42 No. 10, pp. 1129-1148, doi:
10.1016/j.brat.2003.08.008.
Benight, C.C. and Harper, M.L. (2002), “Coping self-efficacy perceptions as a mediator between acute
stress response and long-term distress following natural disasters”, Journal of Traumatic Stress,
Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 177-186, doi: 10.1023/A:1015295025950.
Benight, C.C., Ironson, G., Klebe, K., Carver, C.S., Wynings, C., Burnett, K., Greenwood, D., Baum, A.
and Schneiderman, N. (1999a), “Conservation of resources and coping self-efficacy
predicting distress following a natural disaster: a causal model analysis where the environment
meets the mind”, Anxiety, Stress and Coping, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 107-126, doi: 10.1080/
10615809908248325.
Benight, C.C., Swift, E., Sanger, J., Smith, A. and Zeppelin, D. (1999b), “Coping self-efficacy as a
mediator of distress following a natural disaster”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 29
No. 12, pp. 2443-2464, doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb00120.x.
Bhattacherjee, A. (2001), “Understanding information systems continuance: an expectation-
confirmation model”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 351-370, doi: 10.2307/3250921.
Bonanno, G.A., Ho, S.M.Y., Chan, J.C.K., Kwong, R.S.Y., Cheung, C.K.Y., Wong, C.P.Y. and Wong, V.C.W.
(2008), “Psychological resilience and dysfunction among hospitalized survivors of the SARS
epidemic in Hong Kong: a latent class approach”, Health Psychology, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 659-667,
doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.27.5.659.
Brunstein, J.C. (1993), “Personal goals and subjective well-being: a longitudinal study”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 65 No. 5, pp. 1061-1070, doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.65.5.1061.
Carver, C.S. and Scheier, M.F. (1994), “Situational coping and coping dispositions in a stressful
transaction”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 184-195, doi: 10.1037/
0022-3514.66.1.184.
Carver, C.S. and Scheier, M.F. (2008), “Stress-regulation, stress, and coping”, in John, O., Robins, R. and
Pervin, L. (Eds), Handbook of Personality, 3rd ed. Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Chan, A.O.M. and Huak, C.Y. (2004), “Psychological impact of the 2003 severe acute
respiratory syndrome outbreak on health care workers in a medium size regional general
EJM hospital in Singapore”, Occupational Medicine, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 190-196, doi: 10.1093/occmed/
kqh027.
57,5
Clark, F., Carlson, M., Blanche, E.I. and Jackson, J. (2007), “Synthesis of habit theory”, OTJR:
Occupation, Participation and Health, Vol. 27 No. 1_suppl, pp. 7S-23S, doi: 10.1177/
15394492070270S103.
Cohen, J. (1998), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Routledge, London, available at:
https://researchwithfawad.com/index.php/lp-courses/basic-and-advance-data-analysis-using-
1494 smart-pls/understanding-r-square-f-square-and-q-square-using-smart-pls/
Cohen, N. and Arieli, T. (2011), “Field research in conflict environments: methodological challenges and
snowball sampling”, Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 423-435, doi: 10.1177/
0022343311405698.
Cooper, C.L. and Quick, J.C. (2017), “The handbook of stress and health”, The Handbook of Stress and
Health, John Wiley and Sons, NJ, doi: 10.1002/9781118993811.
Das, G., Jain, S.P., Maheswaran, D., Slotegraaf, R.J. and Srinivasan, R. (2021), “Pandemics and
marketing: insights, impacts, and research opportunities”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 49 No. 5, pp. 835-854, doi: 10.1007/s11747-021-00786-y.
Dawson, D.L. and Golijani-Moghaddam, N. (2020), “COVID-19: psychological flexibility, coping, mental
health, and wellbeing in the UK during the pandemic”, Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science,
Vol. 17, pp. 126-134, doi: 10.1016/j.jcbs.2020.07.010.
Diener, E., Oishi, S. and Lucas, R.E. (2002), “Subjective well- being: the science of happiness and life
satisfaction”, in C. R. Snyder and S. J. Lopez (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology,
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Duhachek, A. (2005), “Coping: a multidimensional, hierarchical framework of responses to
stressful consumption episodes”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 41-53,
doi: 10.1086/426612.
Duhachek, A. and Oakley, J.L. (2007), “Mapping the hierarchical structure of coping: unifying empirical
and theoretical perspectives”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 218-233, doi:
10.1016/S1057-7408.
DYkstra, P.A. and Gierveld, J. D J. (1994), “The theory of mental incongruity, with a specific application
to loneliness among widowed men and women”, in R. Erber and R. Gilmour (Eds), Theoretical
Frameworks for Personal Relationships, Psychology Press, London, pp. 235-259, doi: 10.4324/
9780203772065-15.
Falk, R.F. and Miller, N.B. (1992), A Primer for Soft Modeling, The University of Akron Press, Akron,
OH, available at: http://books.google.com/books/about/A_Primer_for_Soft_Modeling.html?id=
3CFrQgAACAAJ
Flatters, P. and Michael, W. (2009), “Understanding the post recession consumer”, Harvard Business
Review, pp. 106-112, doi: 10.4324/9781315820965-2.
Fullman, N., Yearwood, J., Abay, S.M., Abbafati, C., Abd-Allah, F., Abdela, J., Abdelalim, A., Abebe, Z.,
Abebo, T.A., Aboyans, V. and Abraha, H.N. (2018), “Measuring performance on the healthcare
access and quality index for 195 countries and territories and selected subnational locations: a
systematic analysis from the global burden of disease study 2016”, The Lancet, Vol. 391
No. 10136, pp. 2236-2271, doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30994-2.
Gerbing, D.W. and Anderson, J.C. (1984), “On the meaning of within-Factor correlated measurement
errors”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 11 No. 1, p. 580, doi: 10.1086/208993.
Hair, J.F., Jr, Matthews, L.M., Matthews, R.L. and Sarstedt, M. (2017), “PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: updated
guidelines on which method to use”, International Journal of Multivariate Data Analysis, Vol. 1
No. 2, p. 107, doi: 10.1504/ijmda.2017.087624.
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2011), “PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet”, Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 139-152, doi: 10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202.
Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L. and Kuppelwieser, V.G. (2014), “Partial least squares structural Consumption
equation modeling (PLS-SEM): an emerging tool in business research”, European Business
Review, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 106-121, doi: 10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128.
coping to deal
Henseler, J., Hubona, G. and Ray, P.A. (2016), “Using PLS path modeling in new technology research:
with pandemic
updated guidelines”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 116 No. 1, pp. 2-20, doi: stress
10.1108/IMDS-09-2015-0382.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sinkovics, R.R. (2009), “The use of partial least squares path modeling in
international marketing”, Advances in International Marketing, Vol. 20, pp. 277-319, doi: 10.1108/ 1495
S1474-7979(2009)0000020014.
John, J. and Thakur, R. (2021), “Long term effects of service adaptations made under pandemic
conditions: the new ‘post COVID-19’ normal”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 55 No. 6,
pp. 1679-1700, doi: 10.1108/ejm-08-2020-0607.
Kaul, V. (2021), “India’s GDP contracted by 7.3% in 2020-21, with revival postponed to 2022-23”, Live
Mint, available at: www.livemint.com/news/india/indias-gdp-contracted-by-7-3-in-2020-21-with-
revival-postponed-to-202223-11622469188437.html
Kemp, E., Kennett-Hensel, P.A. and Williams, K.H. (2014), “The calm before the storm: examining
emotion regulation consumption in the face of an impending disaster”, Psychology and
Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 11, pp. 933-945, doi: 10.1002/mar.20744.
Kennett-Hensel, P.A., Sneath, J.Z. and Lacey, R. (2012), “Liminality and consumption in the aftermath of
a natural disaster”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 52-63, doi: 10.1108/
07363761211193046.
Kline, R. (2011), “Principles and practice of structural equation modeling”, Structural Equation
Modeling, Vol. 3, The Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Kumar, S. and Singh, D. (2014), “The effect of recession on the buying behavior of consumers in New
Delhi during the economic slowdown of 2013”, IOSR Journal of Business and Management,
Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 203-209.
Laato, S., Islam, A.K.M.N., Farooq, A. and Dhir, A. (2020), “Unusual purchasing behavior during the
early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic: the stimulus-organism-response approach”, In Journal
of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 57, p. 102224, doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102224.
Lazarus, R.S. and Folkman, S. (1984), Stress Appraisal, and Coping, Springer, New York, NY.
Lee, E., Moschis, G.P. and Mathur, A. (2001), “A study of life events and changes in patronage
preferences”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 25-38, doi: 10.1016/S0148-2963(00)
00116-8.
Liu, C. and Black, W. (2011), “Post-disaster consumer coping: consumption adjustment”, AP-Asia-
Pacific Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 9, pp. 214-221. available at: www.acrwebsite.org/
volumes/1009107/volumes/ap09/AP-09
MacIntyre, P.D., Gregersen, T. and Mercer, S. (2020), “‘Language teachers’ coping strategies during the
Covid-19 conversion to online teaching: correlations with stress, wellbeing and negative
emotions”, System, Vol. 94, p. 102352, doi: 10.1016/j.system.2020.102352.
Ma, C. and Smith, T.E. (2017), “Increased alcohol use after Hurricane Ike: the roles of perceived social
cohesion and social control”, Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 190, pp. 29-37, doi: 10.1016/j.
socscimed.2017.08.014.
Machackova, H., Cerna, A., Sevcikova, A., Dedkova, L. and Daneback, K. (2013), “Effectiveness of
coping strategies for victims of cyberbullying”, Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial
Research on Cyberspace, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 1-12, doi: 10.5817/CP2013-3-5.
Malhotra, N.K., Kim, S.S. and Patil, A. (2006), “Common method variance in is research: a comparison of
alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research”, Management Science, Vol. 52 No. 12,
pp. 1865-1883, doi: 10.1287/mnsc.1060.0597.
Mehrabian, A. and Russell, J. (1974), An Approach to Environmental Psychology, MIT Press, Cambridge.
EJM Milanova, E. (1999), “Consumer behavior in an economy in distress”, ACR North American Advances,
Vol. 26, pp. 424-430.
57,5
Money Control (2020), “Coronavirus state-wise tally august 21: confirmed Covid-19 cases in Haryana
cross 50,000 mark”, (21 C.E.). Money Control.
Moneyham, L., Hennessy, M., Sowell, R., Demi, A., Seals, B. and Mizuno, Y. (1998), “The effectiveness of
coping strategies used by HIV-Seropositive women”, Research in Nursing and Health, Vol. 21
No. 4, pp. 351-362, doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-240X(199808)21:4<351::AID-NUR7>3.0.CO;2-E.
1496
Morhart, F., Malär, L., Guèvremont, A., Girardin, F. and Grohmann, B. (2015), “Brand authenticity: an
integrative framework and measurement scale”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 2,
pp. 200-218, doi: 10.1016/j.jcps.2014.11.006.
Moschis, G.P. (2007), “Stress and consumer behavior”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 430-444, doi: 10.1007/s11747-007-0035-3.
Nitschke, J.P., Forbes, P.A.G., Ali, N., Cutler, J., Apps, M.A.J., Lockwood, P.L. and Lamm, C. (2020),
“Resilience during uncertainty. Greater social connectedness during Covid-19 lockdown is
associated with reduced distress and fatigue”, British Journal of Health Psychology, Vol. 26, No. 2,
pp. 553-569, doi: 10.31234/osf.io/9ehm7.
Oliver, R.L. (1977), “Effect of expectation and disconfirmation on postexposure product evaluations: an
alternative interpretation”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 62 No. 4, pp. 480-486, doi: 10.1037/
0021-9010.62.4.480.
Oliver, R.L. (1980), “A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 460-469, doi: 10.1177/002224378001700405.
Pearlin, L. (1982), “Discontinuities in the study of aging”, in Hareven, T. K. and Adams, K.J. (Eds),
Aging and Life Course Transitions: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, Guilford, New York, NY,
pp. 55-74.
Pearlin, L.I. (1989), “The sociological study of stress”, Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Vol. 30
No. 3, pp. 241-256, doi: 10.2307/2136956.
Putri, A.M., Retsan, A., Andika, H. and Hendriana, E. (2021), “Antecedents of panic buying behavior
during the Covid-19 pandemic”, Management Science Letters, Vol. 11, pp. 1821-1832, doi:
10.5267/j.msl.2021.1.021.
Saldana, J. (2013), “Qualitative data analysis: the coding manual for qualitative researchers (second)”.
Sarstedt, M., Hair, J.F., Cheah, J.H., Becker, J.M. and Ringle, C.M. (2019), “How to specify, estimate, and
validate higher-order constructs in PLS-SEM”, Australasian Marketing Journal, Vol. 27 No. 3,
pp. 197-211, doi: 10.1016/j.ausmj.2019.05.003.
Seale, H., McLaws, M., Heywood, A.E., Ward, K.F., Lowbridge, C.P., Van, D., Gralton, J. and MacIntyre,
C.R. (2009), “The community’s attitude towards swine flu and pandemic influenza”, Medical
Journal of Australia, Vol. 191 No. 5, pp. 267-269, doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2009.tb02781.x.
Shamblaw, A.L., Rumas, R.L. and Best, M.W. (2021), “Coping during the Covid-19 pandemic: relations
with mental health and quality of life”, Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, Vol. 62
No. 1, pp. 92-100, doi: 10.1037/cap0000263.
Sheth, J. (2020), “Impact of covid-19 on consumer behavior: will the old habits return or die?”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 117, pp. 280-283, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.05.059.
Sheth, J.N., Newman, B.I. and Gross, B.L. (1991), “Why we buy what we buy: a theory of consumption
value”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 159-170.
Sigirci, O., Rockmore, M. and Wansink, B. (2016), “How traumatic violence permanently changes
shopping behavior”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 7 No. SEP, pp. 1-6, doi: 10.3389/
fpsyg.2016.01298.
Skinner, E.A., Edge, K., Altman, J. and Sherwood, H. (2003), “Searching for the structure of coping: a
review and critique of category systems for classifying ways of coping”, Psycnet.Apa.Org, doi:
10.1037/0033-2909.129.2.216.
Sneath, J.Z., Lacey, R. and Kennett-Hensel, P.A. (2009), “Coping with a natural disaster: losses, Consumption
emotions, and impulsive and compulsive buying”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 45-60,
doi: 10.1007/s11002-008-9049-y.
coping to deal
Sneath, J.Z., Lacey, R. and Kennett-Hensel, P.A. (2014), “Chronic negative circumstances and
with pandemic
compulsive buying: consumer vulnerability after a natural disaster”, Journal of Global Scholars stress
of Marketing Science, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 129-147, doi: 10.1080/21639159.2014.881112.
Spreng, R.A., MacKenzie, S.B. and Olshavsky, R.W. (1996), “A reexamination of the determinants of
consumer satisfaction”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 15-32, doi: 10.1177/ 1497
002224299606000302.
Srinivasan, R., Lilien, G.L. and Sridhar, S. (2011), “Should firms spend more on research and
development and advertising during recessions? ”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 75 No. 3, pp. 49-65,
doi: 10.1509/jmkg.75.3.49.
Taylor, S., Landry, C.A., Paluszek, M.M., Fergus, T.A., McKay, D. and Asmundson, G.J.G. (2020),
“Development and initial validation of Covid stress scales”, Journal of Anxiety Disorders, Vol. 72
Trimble, C.S. and Rifon, N.J. (2006), “Consumer perceptions of compatibility in cause-related marketing
messages”, International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 1,
pp. 29-47, doi: 10.1002/nvsm.42.
Viswanathan, M., Rosa, J.A. and Harris, J.E. (2005), “Decision making and coping of functionally
illiterate consumers and some implications for marketing management”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 15-31, doi: 10.1509/jmkg.69.1.15.55507.
Wood, W., Tam, L. and Witt, M.G. (2005), “Changing circumstances, disrupting habits”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 6, pp. 918-933, doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.88.6.918.
Woodroof, P.J., Deitz, G.D., Howie, K.M. and Evans, R.D. (2019), “The effect of cause-related marketing
on firm value: a look at Fortune’s most admired all-stars”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 47 No. 5, pp. 899-918, doi: 10.1007/s11747-019-00660-y.
Wright, L., Steptoe, A. and Fancourt, D. (2020), “Are adversities and worries during the Covid-19
pandemic related to sleep quality? Longitudinal analyses of 45,000 UK adults”, MedRxiv, doi:
10.1101/2020.06.02.20120311.
Wrosch, C., Amir, E. and Miller, G.E. (2011), “Goal adjustment capacities, coping, and subjective well-
being: the sample case of caregiving for a family member with mental illness”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 100 No. 5, pp. 934-946, doi: 10.1037/a0022873.
Yadav, N. (2021), “10 Most affected countries with the highest number of coronavirus cases j
BusinessInsider India”, Business Insider, available at: www.businessinsider.in/politics/india/
news/check-out-the-10-most-affected-countries-with-the-highest-number-of-coronavirus-cases/
slidelist/76275918.cms
Zhao, X., Lynch, J.G. and Chen, Q. (2010), “Reconsidering baron and Kenny: myths and truths about
mediation analysis”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 197-206, doi: 10.1086/
651257.

Further readings
Bowman, G.D. and Stern, M. (1995), “Adjustment to occupational stress: the relationship of perceived
control to effectiveness of coping strategies”, Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 42 No. 3,
pp. 294-303, doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.42.3.294.
Chiu, W., Cho, H. and Chi, C.G. (2020), “Consumers’ continuance intention to use fitness and health apps:
an integration of the expectation–confirmation model and investment model”, Information
Technology and People, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 978-998, doi: 10.1108/ITP-09-2019-0463.
Dai, H.M., Teo, T., Rappa, N.A. and Huang, F. (2020), “Explaining Chinese university students’
continuance learning intention in the MOOC setting: a modified expectation confirmation model
perspective”, Computers and Education, Vol. 150, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103850.
EJM Donohoe, S. and Turley, D. (1999), “Consumption, identity and coping strategies in times of crisis”, ACR
North American Advances, Vol. 26, pp. 421-423.
57,5
Gierveld, J. and Dykstra, P.-A. (2023), Life Transitions and the Network of Personal Relationships:
Theoretical and Methodological Issues, Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London.
Gillett, J.E. and Crisp, D.A. (2017), “Examining coping style and the relationship between stress and
subjective well-being in Australia’s ‘sandwich generation”, Australasian Journal on Ageing,
Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 222-227, doi: 10.1111/ajag.12439.
1498
Headey, B. and Wearing, A. (1990), “Subjective well-being and coping with adversity”, Social Indicators
Research, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 327-349, doi: 10.1007/BF00303830.
Jarvis, C.B., MacKenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, P.M. (2003), “A critical review of construct indicators and
measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 199-218, doi: 10.1086/376806.
John, E.S. and Frederick, T. (1981), “Disconfirmation of expectations and satisfaction with a retail
service. - PsycNET”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 49-67.
Khalili, N., Arshad, M., Farajzadeh, Z., Kächele, H. and Müller, K. (2021), “Does drought affect
smallholder health expenditures? Evidence from Fars province, Iran”, Environment,
Development and Sustainability, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 765-788, doi: 10.1007/s10668-020-00608-1.
Lindell, M.K. and Whitney, D.J. (2001), “Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional
research design”, Article in Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 1, p. 114, doi: 10.1037/0021-
9010.86.1.114.
Madhav, N., Oppenheim, B., Gallivan, M., Mulembakani, P., Rubin, E. and Wolfe, N. (2017), “Pandemics:
risks, impacts, and mitigation”, Disease Control Priorities, Third Edition (Volume 9): Improving
Health and Reducing Poverty, The World Bank, pp. 315-345, doi: 10.1596/978-1-4648-0527-
1_ch17.
Mehta, S., Saxena, T. and Purohit, N. (2020), “The new consumer behaviour paradigm amid Covid-19:
permanent or transient?”, Journal of Health Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 291-301, doi: 10.1177/
0972063420940834.
Monroe, S. and Peterman, A. (1988), “Life stress and psychopathology”, in Cohen, L.H. (Ed.), Life Events
and Psychological Functioning, Sage, London, pp. 31-63.
Oskorouchi, H.R. and Sousa-Poza, A. (2021), “Floods, food security, and coping strategies: evidence
from Afghanistan”, Agricultural Economics (United Kingdom), Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 123-140, doi:
10.1111/agec.12610.
Pal, D., Funilkul, S. and Vanijja, V. (2020), “The future of smartwatches: assessing the end-users’
continuous usage using an extended expectation-confirmation model”, Universal Access in the
Information Society, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 261-281, doi: 10.1007/s10209-018-0639-z.
Rubin, G.J., Amlôt, R., Page, L. and Wessely, S. (2009), “Public perceptions, anxiety, and behaviour
change in relation to the swine flu outbreak: cross sectional telephone survey”, BMJ (Online),
Vol. 339, p. 156, doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2651.
Sayre, S. (1994), “Possessions and identity in crisis: meaning and change for victims of the Oakland
firestorm”, ACR North American Advances, Vol. 21, pp. 109-114.
Tausig, M. (1982), “Measuring life events”, Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Vol. 23 No. 1, p. 64,
doi: 10.2307/2136389.
Appendix Consumption
Q1. Frankly speaking, how worried are you about the current pandemic? coping to deal

Not at all worried with pandemic

Not so worried stress

Neutral

Somewhat worried

Extremely worried 1499
Q2. What makes you feel that way (your answer in the previous question)? (50 to 200 words)
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________

Q3. How confident do you feel about India being able to combat this pandemic?

Not at all confident

Not so confident

Neutral

Quite confident

Extremely confident
Q4. What makes you feel that way (your answer in the previous question)? (50 to 200 words)
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________

Q5. How have you prepared yourself to face this new challenge? (50 to 200 words)
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________

Q6. Which grocery and eatables did you stock more of for this contingency?

Flour

Rice

Lentils/Pulses

Onions

Potatoes

Tomatoes

Cooking oil

Vegetables

Milk in the form of liquid and/or powder
EJM
Biscuits and cookies
57,5
Other Bakery products like breads, croissants, dinner rolls, etc.

Packaged food items like dry fruits, chips, etc.

Instant Ready to cook/eat products

Mineral water

Fruits
1500

Beverages

Chocolates

Pickles

Spices

Dairy products like butter and cheese

Sauces and Jams

Other staple foods like pasta, noodles, etc.

Cold cuts and frozen foods

Non-vegetarian raw meats

Alcohol

Cigarettes

None of the above
Q7. Describe the changes you have made to face this crisis? Please describe briefly (50 to 200 words)
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________

Q8. From the list of following activities, which ones did you find yourself spending more time on, in
this lock down period, compared to earlier?

Doing nothing, just worrying or sitting around

Doing household chores

Watching shows on TV

Chatting and reading social media like WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram, etc.

Following the news on TV and newspaper

Keeping kids engaged and busy

Talking on phone

Sleeping

Office work

Spending time using laptop/Computer

Spending time on my hobbies/learning new hobbies

Reading books including novels and magazines

Eating

Trying out on cooking and learning new dishes

Spending quality time with family

Spring cleaning Consumption

Teaching my kids coping to deal

Work out or yoga with pandemic

Planning my investments and looking at my finances stress

Meditation/ Prayer
Q9. Please tell us more about the changes in your daily routine and activities. (50 to200 words)
______________________________________________________________________ 1501
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________

Corresponding author
Avinash Jain can be contacted at: fpm18013@iiml.ac.in

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com