Prosocial responses to global crises: Key influences of religiosity and perceived control

• Published date: 01 June 2022
• Author: Elizabeth A. Minton,Cindy X. Wang,Carissa M. Anthony
• Date: 01 June 2022
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/joca.12432

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Prosocial responses to global crises: Key

influences of religiosity and perceived control

Elizabeth A. Minton

1

| Cindy X. Wang

2

| Carissa M. Anthony

3

1

College of Business, University of

Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, USA

2

Orfalea College of Business, California

Polytechnic State University, San Luis

Obispo, California, USA

3

Lebow College of Business, Drexel

University, Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania, USA

Correspondence

Elizabeth A. Minton, College of Business,

University of Wyoming, 1000

E. University Avenue, Department 3275,

Laramie, WY 82071, USA.

Email: eminton@uwyo.edu

Abstract

Through three studies, we examine how religiosity

explains why some consumers in the United States are

more resistant toward engaging in prosocial responses

than others in response to global crises (specifically, a pan-

demic) and what can be done to change this. Specifically,

Study 1 shows that consumers with higher levels of religi-

osity exhibit lower global crisis concern, because they feel

less of a sense of personal control over the crisis, which

leads to reduced prosocial responses. Study 2 generally rep-

licates these effects by priming religiosity and showing that

these religiously primed consumers have a lower perceived

sense of control and view prosocial responses as not as ben-

eficial, thereby reducing participation likelihood. Study

3 then shows that marketing messages can be used to

improve higher religiosity consumers' perceived sense of

control over a global crisis, leading to more positive

prosocial responses and retailer attitudes.

KEYWORDS

belief congruence theory, global crises, marketing messaging,

perceived sense of control, prosocial responses, religiosity

1|INTRODUCTION

Global crises present unique situations where consumers are often faced with decisions as to

how to best respond. Such crises can include pandemics, environmental degradation, major

health issues, natural disasters, and so forth. Prosocial responses to such crises require a per-

sonal cost to the self to be made in order to provide benefits for others (Small & Cryder, 2016;

Received: 4 April 2021 Revised: 27 September 2021 Accepted: 13 November 2021

DOI: 10.1111/joca.12432

© 2021 American Council on Consumer Interests.

J Consum Aff. 2022;56:491–511. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/joca 491

White et al., 2020). As such, consumers often have strong opposing viewpoints on the benefits

and necessity of various prosocial responses. For example, in the context of the global pandemic

crisis, a polarity in consumer prosocial actions has prevailed, including whether or not to get

vaccinated, wear a mask, partake in social distancing, or even tip more for food services

(McCorvey, 2021; Rozsa et al., 2020). As of June 2021, the majority of U.S. adults have received

their first vaccine dose (Centers for Disease Control, 2021), indicating a significant uptick in

intentions to get vaccinated (Funk & Tyson, 2021). This is in contrast to the many consumers

who have boycotted mandatory vaccination requirements (Hennessy-Fiske & Baumgaertner,

2021). Consumers have demonstrated this same ambivalence toward mask wearing, with some

having expressed that wearing masks protects one's self and others from the COVID-19 virus

(Blood & Swanson, 2020), whereas others having expressed that masks are unnecessary and not

helpful in stopping the spread of the virus (Morgan, 2020).

These examples shed light on the stark differences in prosocial consumer behaviors in

response to a global crisis. The issue of how and when a consumer takes action to protect the

safety and welfare of others amidst a global crisis poses challenges for both consumers and com-

panies. To promote prosocial behavior and societal welfare, it thus becomes essential to identify

which consumers are more or less willing to engage in prosocial behaviors in response to a

global crisis as well as their accompanying motivations so as to uniquely target these consumers

with specific messaging to encourage prosocial behavior. Understanding these aspects of global

crisis response is the focus of our paper.

Specifically, we examine consumers' responses to global crises using belief congruence the-

ory, which states that people strive to act in ways that align with their core beliefs and values so

as to experience a state of internal consistency (Rokeach & Rothman, 1965). One of the most

prominent sources of consumer values is religion (Mathras et al., 2016), with over 80% of con-

sumers worldwide following some sort of religious belief (Pew Research Forum, 2017). Prior

research shows that higher religiosity consumers tend to exhibit lower anxiety, depression, and

generalized concern (Peres et al., 2018). Additionally, religious consumers usually place greater

belief in a higher being controlling situations (Krause, 2005; Wallston et al., 1999), with reduced

views of having a perceived sense of control over these situations (Loewenthal &

Cornwall, 1993). Religious beliefs, therefore, could influence consumers' prosocial responses to

global crises that may seemingly be viewed as not being influential in terms of overall global

crisis outcomes since control is out of one's hands. For example, in the context of a pandemic,

religious beliefs are likely to influence views toward obtaining a vaccine or wearing a mask—

both behaviors that could differ in terms of how much they make a difference in relation to the

overall global crisis outcomes.

What is left largely unknown, however, is whether a perceived sense of control is influential

when a global crisis harms society, other people, and oneself. In other words, a global problem

like environmental degradation or a more specific situation like a large oil spill or even a global

issue like sexual identity discrimination may be perceived by a religious individual as out of

their control and rather in God's control. This is likely to make it easier to feel like there is little

that can be done outside of prayer to affect the situation and, as such, limit the actions that are

personally taken in response to the situation. This aligns with prior research showing that peo-

ple with a lower sense of perceived control feel less ownership in a situation, which reduces

actions that are taken to solve an issue (Liu et al., 2012). In contrast, a global crisis with clearly

visible potential personal ramifications, like a pandemic or natural disaster, may be perceived

similarly harmful but should also be encompassed with the awareness that there could be

effects felt personally on one's life and on the life of one's family as well. These more personally

492 MINTON ET AL.