Identifying consumer segments based on COVID‐19 pandemic perceptions and responses

• Published date: 01 March 2022
• Author: Xiaojing Sheng,Seth C. Ketron,Yubing Wan
• Date: 01 March 2022
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/joca.12413

SPECIAL ISSUE

Identifying consumer segments based on

COVID-19 pandemic perceptions and responses

Xiaojing Sheng

1

| Seth C. Ketron

2

| Yubing Wan

3

1

College of Business and

Entrepreneurship, The University of

Texas Rio Grande Valley, Edinburg,

Texas, USA

2

New College at Frisco, The University of

North Texas, Denton, Texas, USA

3

Precision for Medicine, Frederick,

Maryland, USA

Correspondence

Xiaojing Sheng, College of Business and

Entrepreneurship, The University of

Texas Rio Grande Valley, Edinburg,

TX, USA.

Email: xiaojing.sheng@utrgv.edu

Abstract

Consumer responses to the COVID-19 pandemic have

varied widely. Thus, marketers need to understand

consumer segments based on pandemic-related

responses and behaviors. Through two studies con-

ducted 9 months apart, we find that consumers shift

from three segments in Study 1—the Apprehensive,

the Prepared, and the Dismissive, to two segments in

Study 2—the Dedicated and the Dismissive. The

Apprehensive feel particularly threatened of the virus.

The Prepared and the Dedicated perceive a lower sus-

ceptibility but still take the health threat seriously.

The Dismissive downplay the threat and exhibit more

negative reactions to mitigation measures. We also

demonstrate between-segment downstream response

differences. While the Apprehensive and the

Prepared/Dedicated exhibit positive attitude toward

companies enforcing guidelines, the Apprehensive

engage in the most panic buying, hoarding, and

stockpiling. The Dedicated also express greater stress

and less life satisfaction than the Dismissive. The find-

ings offer theoretical and practical implications for

pandemic-related consumer responses.

KEYWORDS

consumer segments, COVID-19, latent class analysis,

pandemic-related consumer responses

Received: 28 October 2020 Revised: 6 September 2021 Accepted: 13 September 2021

DOI: 10.1111/joca.12413

© 2021 American Council on Consumer Interests.

34 J Consum Aff. 2022;56:34–67.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/joca

1|INTRODUCTION

The COVID-19 pandemic, first declared in March 2020, has triggered a cascade of effects for

consumers, companies, and society at large, and social distancing and lockdowns have affected

operations and upended consumers' lives (Kirk & Rifkin, 2020). While safety measures aim to

contain the spread of the virus and contribute to public health, the sudden shift to social isola-

tion is causing unanticipated psychological health consequences detrimental to consumers'

individual well-being and society's collective well-being (Henkel et al., 2020; Tuzovic &

Kabadayi, 2021). For example, Cronshaw (2021) examined the impact of lockdowns in the UK

on the nation's mental health and found that consumers participate in digital-physical activities

to cope with anxiety, stress, and the lost sense of control and to form social bonds within their

online communities. Meanwhile, major shifts in spending have emerged (i.e., Baker et al., 2020;

Chen et al., 2021), leading to turbulent buying patterns that, alongside operational disruptions,

have led to significant supply chain challenges (Hobbs, 2020). Nayal et al. (2021) as well as Pan-

dey (2021) showed that the pandemic has modified consumers' consumption behaviors and

habits, including greater inclinations to consume local products, higher consumption hygiene

and sustainability, and more online shopping. As such, the pandemic has led to a clear need to

be flexible with business decisions, strategies, and models (i.e., Cortez & Johnston, 2020; Habel

et al., 2020; Ritter & Petersen, 2020).

While companies have worked to determine how to adapt to the pandemic, consumer

responses have appeared to sharply diverge. Initially, some consumers had strong, even pan-

icked reactions to the pandemic, leading to isolation and increased buying of essential products

(Chronopoulos et al., 2020; Prentice et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020). As such, rampant product

scarcity—for example, toilet paper and hand sanitizer—quickly emerged (Hamilton, 2021), cre-

ating supply chain problems (Esper, 2021). Meanwhile, other consumers denounced the sudden

response as unnecessary because they felt the pandemic was a farce or overstated in the media.

Some consumers have even exhibited violent reactions to guidelines, throwing objects, scream-

ing, and/or coughing in the faces of people who have asked that they put on face masks or

maintain appropriate physical distances (Brown, 2020). Given the widespread stories of such

consumers and the apparent volume of comments decrying shutdowns, mask policies, and/or

the perceived removal of personal freedoms, this consumer group appears to be sizeable.

While some initial investigations have linked perceptions of the pandemic to individual dif-

ferences such as personality dimensions (Aschwanden et al., 2021) and tracked the process that

consumers have followed in response to the pandemic (Kirk & Rifkin, 2020), others have shown

that consumer perceptions of risk affect downstream shopping preferences, such as home deliv-

ery vs. in-store shopping (Grashuis et al., 2020). More recent research has started to examine

the impact of the pandemic on outcome variables beyond purchase behaviors such as life satis-

faction (Ekici & Watson, 2021), prosocial giving, and charitable donations (Jin & Ryu, 2021).

However, the variation in consumer reactions has made it difficult for marketers to understand

different consumer segments based on perceptions of and responses to the pandemic and what

proportion of each segment exists in the overall marketplace. Although early conceptual works

suggest the existence of distinct, pandemic-related consumer segments (He & Harris, 2020),

research that empirically verifies these segments is scarce. Given that consumer segments differ

in preferences, tastes, perceptions, and similar factors (i.e., Smith, 1956), this lack of insight

raises questions as to how marketers should handle pandemic-related strategies, such as mes-

saging/communications and supply chain/inventory preparedness, considering pandemic-

related consumer segments.

SHENG ET AL.35

Therefore, the goal of this investigation is to tackle this research deficiency and assist in

identifying consumer segments based on pandemic-related perceptions and behaviors, includ-

ing how consumers view companies that engage in enforcement of pandemic-related guide-

lines. We seek to (a) identify major consumer segments and the likely proportions of those

segments using latent class analysis (LCA), (b) examine each segment's attitudinal and behav-

ioral responses, and (c) assess whether the segments have changed as time progresses through a

second study 9 months later. We ground our work in the Extended Parallel Process Model

(EPPM; Witte, 1992; Witte et al., 1996), a prominent health communication theory, and the the-

ory of reasoned action (TRA; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), which has been widely applied to under-

stand health behavior. We chose the EPPM and TRA to ground our investigation as the EPPM,

unlike many other theories, is specifically designed to offer insights and predictions into how

consumers respond to perceived health threats and communication messages about the threats

(Dutta-Bergman, 2005), and that the TRA links the perceptions and attitudes arising from

threat perceptions to downstream behavior. Our goal is to provide marketers and policy makers

with insights into pandemic-related consumer segments (including important characteristics

such as age, gender, income, employment, and political leanings to assist in outwardly identify-

ing those segments) and how different segments are likely to respond to companies that have

implemented guidelines or policies related to the pandemic. Moreover, given the damaging psy-

chological impact of the pandemic on consumers, including exacerbating stress and deteriorat-

ing work and life satisfaction, we hope to use our research findings to assist in devising public

policies to improve consumer well-being.

2|THE CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC AND CONSUMER

RESPONSES

Although the COVID-19 pandemic is novel, consumers tend to respond in predictable ways to

health crises, enabling the use of frameworks such as the EPPM (i.e., Witte, 1992) and the TRA

(Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) to better understand consumers' health attitude and behavior and to

identify segments within the context of the current coronavirus pandemic. The EPPM posits

that when individuals face a threat, they assess the situation as a function of four factors—self-

efficacy, response efficacy, perceived severity of the threat, and perceived susceptibility to the

threat. While self-efficacy is the perceived ability to act, response efficacy refers to the percep-

tion that any actions taken will adequately address the threat. Perceived severity of and suscep-

tibility to the threat indicates individuals' perceptions of how severe the threat is to them and

how susceptible they think they are to the threat. If an individual considers a threat as low in

either severity or susceptibility, then the individual lacks the motivation to engage in assessing

efficacies and to proceed to act against the threat. However, if the individual views the threat as

significant in either severity or susceptibility, then the individual's efficacy judgment will result

in the domination of either a protection motivation or a defensive motivation. While protection

motivation arises when high perceived threat is coupled with robust efficacy beliefs, defensive

motivation surfaces when perceived threat is high but perceived efficacy is low. Protection moti-

vation “arouses, sustains, and directs activity”(Rogers, 1975, p. 98) to manage the perceived

threat and yields cognitions and behaviors to avert the threat through danger control strategies

(Witte, 1992). In contrast, individuals operating under a defensive motivation have increased

fear but lack the perceived efficacy to prevent the danger and therefore resort to fear control

strategies and maladaptive approaches. The EPPM has been applied to a variety of contexts in

36 SHENG ET AL.