consumer psychology case study

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Psychological factors and consumer behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic

Contributed equally to this work with: Adolfo Di Crosta, Irene Ceccato

Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Department of Neuroscience, Imaging and Clinical Sciences, G. d’Annunzio University of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology

Affiliation Department of Psychological, Health and Territorial Sciences, G. d’Annunzio University of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy

Roles Investigation, Writing – review & editing

Roles Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations Department of Neuroscience, Imaging and Clinical Sciences, G. d’Annunzio University of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy, Center for Advanced Studies and Technology (CAST), G. d’Annunzio University of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy

Affiliation Department of Business Studies, Grenon School of Business, Assumption University, Worcester, MA, United States of America

Roles Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing

Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Roles Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

• Adolfo Di Crosta, 
• Irene Ceccato, 
• Daniela Marchetti, 
• Pasquale La Malva, 
• Roberta Maiella, 
• Loreta Cannito, 
• Mario Cipi, 
• Nicola Mammarella, 
• Riccardo Palumbo, 

• Published: August 16, 2021
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256095
• Reader Comments

The COVID-19 pandemic is far more than a health crisis: it has unpredictably changed our whole way of life. As suggested by the analysis of economic data on sales, this dramatic scenario has also heavily impacted individuals’ spending levels. To better understand these changes, the present study focused on consumer behavior and its psychological antecedents. Previous studies found that crises differently affect people’s willingness to buy necessities products (i.e., utilitarian shopping) and non-necessities products (i.e., hedonic shopping). Therefore, in examining whether changes in spending levels were associated with changes in consumer behavior, we adopted a fine-grained approach disentangling between necessities and non-necessities. We administered an online survey to 3833 participants (age range 18–64) during the first peak period of the contagion in Italy. Consumer behavior toward necessities was predicted by anxiety and COVID-related fear, whereas consumer behavior toward non-necessities was predicted by depression. Furthermore, consumer behavior toward necessities and non-necessities was predicted by personality traits, perceived economic stability, and self-justifications for purchasing. The present study extended our understanding of consumer behavior changes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results could be helpful to develop marketing strategies that consider psychological factors to meet actual consumers’ needs and feelings.

Citation: Di Crosta A, Ceccato I, Marchetti D, La Malva P, Maiella R, Cannito L, et al. (2021) Psychological factors and consumer behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS ONE 16(8): e0256095. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256095

Editor: Marcel Pikhart, University of Hradec Kralove: Univerzita Hradec Kralove, CZECH REPUBLIC

Received: March 8, 2021; Accepted: July 31, 2021; Published: August 16, 2021

Copyright: © 2021 Di Crosta et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All data are available from the figshare database (accession number(s) DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.14865663.v2 , URL: https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/RawData_PO_sav/14865663 ).

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) refers to an infection (SARS-CoV-2) of the lower respiratory tract [ 1 , 2 ], which was first detected in Wuhan (China) in late December 2019. Since then, the number of contagions by COVID-19 has been increasing globally each day [ 3 ]. In March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the COVID-19 outbreak a global pandemic [ 4 ]. Subsequently, several national governments implemented long-term full or partial lockdown measures to reduce the spread of the virus. Although these strict measures have proven to be quite effective in containing the further spread of the virus, they have severely impacted the global economic system and caused an unprecedented shock on economies and labor markets [ 5 ]. As a matter of fact, the COVID-19 pandemic can be defined as far more than just a health crisis since it has heavily affected societies and economies. COVID-19 outbreak has unpredictably changed how we work, communicate, and shop, more than any other disruption in this decade [ 6 ]. As reflected by the analysis of economic data on sales, this dramatic situation has greatly influenced consumer attitudes and behaviors. According to a study conducted by the Nielsen Company, the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic led to a globally manifested change in spending levels related to consumer behavior [ 7 ]. Specifically, a growing tendency in the sales of necessities has been observed: consumer priorities have become centered on the most basic needs, including food, hygiene, and cleaning products. In Italy, consumer shopping preferences have changed throughout the pandemic. Initially, when Italy was the first country in Europe to experience the spreading of COVID-19 (between March and April 2020). Consumer behavior tended to compulsively focus on purchasing essential goods, especially connected with preventing the virus, such as protective devices and sanitizing gel [ 8 ]. The pandemic changed the consumption patterns, for instance reducing sales for some product categories (e.g., clothes), and improving sales for other categories (e.g., entertainment products) [ 9 ]. Also, research indicated that job insecurity and life uncertainty experienced during the pandemic negatively impacted on consumer behavior of Italian workers [ 10 ].

It comes as no surprise that in such a situation of emergency, the need for buying necessities takes precedence [ 11 ]. However, the investigation of antecedent psychological factors, including attitudes, feelings, and behaviors underlying changes in consumer behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic, have received less attention. Nevertheless, understanding the psychological factors which drive consumer behavior and products choices can represent a crucial element for two main reasons. First, such investigation can extend our understanding of the underpinnings of the changes in consumer behavior in the unprecedented context of COVID-19. Second, obtained results could be helpful in the development of new marketing strategies that consider psychological factors to meet actual consumers’ needs and feelings [ 12 ]. On the one side, companies could benefit from this knowledge to increase sales during the COVID-19 pandemic [ 13 ]. Moreover, understanding these needs and feelings could be fundamental to improve the market’s preparedness to face future pandemics and emergencies [ 14 , 15 ]. On the other hand, consumers could take advantage of this new market’s preparedness to respond to their actual needs and feelings. As a result, in case of future emergency, factors such as anxiety and a perceived shortage of essential goods could be reduced [ 16 ], whereas well-being and the positive sense of self of the consumers could be supported [ 17 ]. Furthermore, the novelty of the present study lies in two main aspects. First, based on previous studies highlighting that crises differently affect people’s willingness to buy necessities and non-necessities products [ 11 , 18 ], we adopted a fine-grained approach and disentangled between necessities and non-necessities. Second, considering the unprecedented context of the COVID-19 pandemic, we adopted an integrative approach to investigate the role of different psychological factors such as fear, anxiety, stress, depression, self-justifications, personality traits, and perceived economic stability in influencing consumer behavior. Noteworthy, all these factors have been implicated in consumer behavior in previous research, but, to our knowledge, no study has considered all of them at once. Therefore, considering both the lack of studies that have focused on these factors at once and the unique opportunity to study them in the context of such an unprecedented global pandemic, we adopted an integrative approach to get one of the first overviews of the role of the several psychological factors influencing consumer behavior.

Previous studies in consumer psychology and behavioral economics have highlighted that several psychological factors impact consumer behavior differently [ 18 – 20 ]. Consumer behavior refers to the study of individuals or groups who are in the process of searching to purchase, use, evaluate, and dispose of products and services to satisfy their needs [ 12 ]. Importantly, it also includes studying the consumer’s emotional, mental, and behavioral responses that precede or follow these processes [ 21 ]. Changes in consumer behavior can occur for different reasons, including personal, economic, psychological, contextual, and social factors. However, in dramatic contexts such as a disease outbreak or a natural disaster, some factors, more than others, have a more significant impact on consumer behavior. Indeed, situations that potentially disrupt social lives, or threaten individuals’ health, have been proven to lead to strong behavioral changes [ 22 ]. An example is panic buying, a phenomenon occurring when fear and panic influence behavior, leading people to buy more things than usual [ 23 ]. Specifically, panic buying has been defined as a herd behavior that occurs when consumers buy a considerable amount of products in anticipation of, during, or after a disaster [ 24 ]. A recent review on the psychological causes of panic buying highlighted that similar changes in consumer behavior occur when purchase decisions are impaired by negative emotions such as fear and anxiety [ 25 ]. Noteworthy, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, Lins and Aquino [ 23 ] showed that panic buying was positively correlated with impulse buying, which has been defined as a complex buying behavior in which the rapidity of the decision process precludes thoughtful and deliberate consideration of alternative information and choice [ 25 ]. The analysis of the different psychological factors involved in consumer behavior and changes in purchase decisions still represents an area that is scarcely explored. Arguably, during an uncertain threatening situation, such as a health crisis or a pandemic, the primitive part of our brain usually becomes more prominent, pushing individuals to engage in behaviors that are (perceived as) necessary for survival [ 26 – 29 ]. Importantly, these primitive instinctual behaviors can override the rational decision-making process, having an immense impact on usual consumer behavior. Therefore, the basic primitive response of humans represents the core factor responsible for changes in consumer behavior during a health crisis [ 16 ]. Specifically, fear and anxiety originated from perceived feelings of insecurity and instability, are the factors driving these behavioral changes [ 30 ]. In line with the terror management theory [ 31 ], previous studies have shown that external events, which threaten the safety of individuals, motivate compensatory response processes to alleviate fear and anxiety [ 32 , 33 ]. These response processes can prompt individuals to make purchases to gain a sense of security, comfort, and momentarily escape, which can also serve as a compensatory mechanism to alleviate stress. However, as such buying motivation represents an attempt to regulate the individuals’ negative emotions, the actual need for the purchased products is often irrelevant [ 34 ].

Pandemics and natural disasters are highly stressful situations, which can easily induce negative emotions and adverse mental health states [ 35 – 37 ] such as perceived lack of control and instability, which are core aspects of emergency situations, contribute directly to stress. In turn, research has highlighted that stress is a crucial factor in influencing consumer behavior. For example, past studies have shown that individuals may withdraw and become passive in response to stress, and this inaction response can lead to a decrease in purchasing [ 38 , 39 ]. However, some studies point out that stress can lead to an active response, increasing impulsive spending behaviors [ 40 , 41 ]. Moreover, event-induced stress can lead to depressive mood. In some cases, the depressive mood may translate into the development of dysfunctional consumer behavior, such as impulsive (the sudden desire to buy something accompanied by excessive emotional response) and/or compulsive buying (repetitive purchasing due to the impossibility to control the urge) [ 41 , 42 ]. In this context, Sneath and colleagues [ 37 ] highlighted that changes in consumer behavior often represent self-protective strategies aimed at managing depressive states and negative emotions by restoring a positive sense of self. Importantly, a recent study conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic showed that depression predicted the phenomenon of the over-purchasing, which was framed as the degree to which people had increased their purchases of some necessities goods (e.g. food, water, sanitary products, pharmacy products, etc.) because of the pandemic [ 43 ].

A recent study recommended a differentiation between necessity and non-necessity products to better understand consumer behavior in response to stressful situations [ 18 ]. According to the authors, contrasting findings on the link between stress and consumer behavior may be due to the fact that stress affects certain purchasing behaviors negatively, but others positively, depending on the type of product under investigation. On one side, it has been argued that consumers may be more willing to spend money on necessities (vs. non-necessities) by making daily survival products readily available. Accordingly, recent research documented an increase in buying necessities products (i.e., utilitarian shopping) during and after a traumatic event [ 11 ]. However, other findings showed that impulsive non-necessities purchasing (i.e., hedonic shopping) could also increase as an attempt to escape or minimize the pain for the situation. That is, non-necessities buying is used as an emotional coping strategy to manage stress and negative emotional states [ 44 ]. To reconcile these findings, Durante and Laran [ 18 ] proposed that people adopt strategic consumer behavior to restore their sense of control in stressful situations. Hence, high stress levels generally lead consumers to save money and spend strategically on products perceived as necessities. Importantly, regarding the impact of perceived stress due to the COVID-19 pandemic on consumer behavior, a recent study showed that the likelihood of purchasing quantities of food larger than usual increased with higher levels of perceived stress [ 45 ].

Another psychological factor implicated in consumer behavior that deserves special attention is self-justification strategies [ 46 ]. Self-justification refers to the cognitive reappraisal process by which people try to reduce the cognitive dissonance stemming from a contradiction between beliefs, values, and behaviors. People often try to justify their decisions to avoid the feeling of being wrong to maintain a positive sense of self [ 17 ]. In consumer behavior research, it is widely acknowledged that consumers enhance positive arguments that support their choices and downplay counterarguments that put their behavior in question [ 47 ]. Based on previous research, it is plausible that, within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, self-justifications for buying non-necessities products may also include pursuing freedom and defying boredom [ 11 , 48 ]. Further, the hedonistic attitude of “I could die tomorrow” or “You only live once” could certainly see a resurgence during the COVID-19 emergency [ 48 ], and become a crucial mechanism accounting for individual differences in consumer behavior. Based on these considerations, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, self-justifications strategies could be relevant for non-necessities, since products for fun or entertainment could be more suited to the pursuit of freedom and to defy boredom. Conversely, self-justifications strategies related to necessities could be implemented to a lesser degree, due to the very nature of the products. The unprecedented context of the pandemic could already justify the purchase of those essential goods by itself, and additional justifications may not be necessary.

Furthermore, several studies have shown that household income has a significant impact in determining people’s expenses [ 49 – 51 ]. Not surprisingly, the research highlighted a positive relationship between income and spending levels [ 52 ]. Income is defined as money received regularly from work or investments. Interestingly, a different line of research pointed out that self-perceived economic stability is a more appropriate determinant of consumer behavior than actual income [ 53 , 54 ]. Usually, people tend to report subjective feelings of income inadequacy, even when their objective financial situation might not support such attitude [ 55 ]. An interesting explanation for this bias draws on the social comparison process. Indeed, the study of Karlsson et colleagues [ 53 ] showed that, compared to families who considered themselves to have a good financial situation, households which considered themselves to be worse off economically than others reported fewer purchases of goods, perceived the impact of their latest purchase on their finance to be greater, and planned purchases more carefully. Furthermore, a recent study in the context of the COVID-19 emergency showed that people who believed to have limited financial resources were the most worried about the future [ 56 , 57 ]. Therefore, in the present study, we measured both the income and the perceived economic situation of the respondents to respectively consider the objective economic information and the subjective perception of respondents. However, considering the state of uncertainty experienced by many households during the COVID-19 pandemic [ 58 ], we changed the comparison from other families to participants’ economic situation in different time frames. We asked respondents to report perceived economic stability before, during, and after the emergency.

Finally, besides situational factors related to the specific emergency, the individuals’ personality traits are likely to have a role in determining consumer behavior as well. Past research has highlighted that the Big Five personality traits [ 59 ] can differently predict consumer behavior [ 60 ]. Specifically, conscientiousness, openness, and emotional stability (alias neuroticism) were related to compulsive buying, impulsive buying, and utilitarian shopping. Nevertheless, how different personality traits are related to consumer behavior is still an open question [ 61 ].

We conducted a nationwide survey in the Italian population to examine consumer behavior during the lockdown phase due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Since the COVID-19 emergency has emphasized the usefulness of essential goods (e.g. food, medications, etc.) compared to non-essential products (e.g. luxury items such as clothes and accessories) [ 62 ], in our study, we categorized products in necessities and non-necessities. Furthermore, changes in spending levels (necessities vs. non-necessities) were examined to confirm the effect that COVID-19 had on people’s expenses. Moreover, we tried to clarify the relationship between changes in spending levels and changes in consumer behavior. Finally, we focused on the psychological factors underlying changes in consumer behavior toward the target products. Based on the literature, we expected to find an increase in purchases with a more noticeable rise in necessity products. Specifically, we explored potential underpinnings of consumer behavior by examining mood states and affective response to the emergency, perceived economic stability, self-justification for purchasing, and personality traits. All these factors have been implicated in consumer behavior in previous research, but, to our knowledge, no study has considered all of them at once. Therefore, in this study, we adopted an integrative approach to study the contribution of different psychological factors by considering their mutual influence (see Fig 1 ). Specifically, based on the empirical findings and theoretical accounts presented above, we hypothesized that during the COVID-19 pandemic:

• Higher levels of anxiety and COVID-related fear would explain changes in consumer behavior, increasing the need for buying necessities.
• Higher levels of stress would lead consumers to save money or, in alternative, would increase the need to spend money on necessities (i.e., utilitarian shopping).
• Higher levels of depressive state would be associated with an increase in the need for buying, both necessities and non-necessities.
• Higher implementation of self-justification strategies would be associated with a higher need for buying, especially for non-necessities.
• Higher perceived economic stability would be associated with an increase in the need for both necessities and non-necessities.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256095.g001

The construct involved in the study is placed in the center of the figure. Arrows depart from these constructs to show the hypothesized relationship between the constructs and the outcomes of the present study (Necessities and Non-necessities). The symbol “±” was used to take into consideration two possible opposite directions.

Materials and methods

Data were collected through a series of questionnaires, using a web-based survey implemented on the Qualtrics software. The survey was active in the period starting from April 1st, 2020, to April 20th, 2020, during the first peak of the contagion in Italy. We used a convenience sample due to the exceptional situation of the COVID-19 pandemic and the time constraints to conduct our investigation. Therefore, participants were recruited through word-of-mouth and social media. Inclusion criteria were the age over 18 and be resident in Italy. First, socio-demographic information was collected, including gender, age, annual income, and education. Then, questions on spending levels and consumer behavior, both before the COVID-19 pandemic and during the first week of lockdown in Italy, were presented, separating necessities and non-necessities. Finally, a series of specifically created questionnaires and standardized measures were administered to investigate psychological and economic variables.

Participants

A total of 4121 participants were initially recruited. For the present study, we adopted a rigorous approach, excluding 104 participants over the age of 64, since they relied on retirement benefits and -from an economic point of view- were considered a specific population, not comparable to the rest of the sample [ 63 ]. Furthermore, we excluded 184 participants who did not report spending any money before the COVID-19 pandemic on buying necessities and/or non-necessities. Therefore, 3833 Italian participants (69.3% women, age M = 34.2, SD = 12.5) were included in this study. All participants provided their written informed consent before completing the survey. The study was conducted following the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Psychology (IRBP) of the Department of Psychological, Health and Territorial Sciences at G. d’Annunzio University of Chieti-Pescara (protocol number: 20004). Participants did not receive monetary or any other forms of compensation for their participation.

Demographic variables

A demographic questionnaire was administered to collect background information. The questions considered age, gender, annual income, and education. The annual income was then categorized into five levels, based on the income brackets established by the Italian National Statistical Institute [ 64 ]. Education was categorized into five levels, from elementary to school to postgraduate degree.

Consumer behavior during COVID-19

We created this questionnaire from scratch to get a comprehensive overview of people’s economic attitudes and behaviors during the COVID-19 emergency. The idea of this new questionnaire was developed based on a series of previous studies on consumer behavior [ 43 , 65 – 67 ]. However, specific items were developed from scratch adapting them to the specific unprecedented context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, these items were created following a series of group discussions between all co-authors of the present study. To directly measure changes in consumer behavior due to the COVID-19 pandemic, participants were requested to compare their actual behavior to their normal behavior before the COVID-19 outbreak. Therefore, the initial statement in the questionnaire underlined that answers had to be given by referring to the COVID-19 emergency period compared to everyday life before the outbreak.

The factor structure and reliability were evaluated in the larger sample ( n = 4121), using principal component analysis (PCA) and Cronbach’s alpha. The results revealed a six-factor structure and satisfactory reliability values (see S1 Table for more details). Note that the PCA and reliability analyses were also conducted on the current subsample, and the pattern of results did not change.

For the present study’s aims, we focused on three scales: “Necessities”, “Non-necessities”, and “Self-justifications”. Items are shown in Table 1 . The first two scales investigated consumer behavior toward the different framed products. Specifically, items addressed the individual’s attitudes, feelings, and behaviors toward necessities and non-necessities. Thus, higher scores reflected greater value (e.g., need, utility) placed on the target products.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256095.t001

The self-justifications scale referred to consumers’ thoughts to justify their purchases, with no distinction between necessity and non-necessity products. Higher scores reflected a frequent use of self-justifications in purchasing items.

For all these scales, responses were given on a Likert scale ranging from 0 ( not at all ), to 100, ( extremely ). Total scores on each scale were obtained by averaging all items.

Change in spending levels due to COVID-19

A fourth scale, i.e. “Spending Habits,” was extracted from the questionnaire mentioned above. As we aimed at measuring changes in the spending levels due to the COVID-19 emergency, we decided to use single items instead of the total scale score (items are presented in Table 1 ). Specifically, we created three percentage scores: “Changes in General Spending”, “Changes in Necessities spending”, and “Changes in Non-necessities spending” considering the difference between the money spent during the first week of lockdown, and the money spent on average in a week before the emergency (see Table 1 notes). Scores reflect the change in the amount (in Euro) that people devolved in purchasing the target products (hypothetical range from -1999 to +1999).

Big Five Inventory 10-item (BFI-10)

Big Five Inventory 10-item (BFI-10) is a short scale designed to briefly assess the five personality traits with two items for each trait. Specifically, these traits are: Agreeableness (example item: “I see myself as someone who is generally trusting”), Conscientiousness (example item: “I see myself as someone who does a thorough job”), Emotional stability (example item: “I see myself as someone who is relaxed, handles stress well”), Extraversion (example item: “I see myself as someone who is outgoing, sociable”), and Openness (example item: “I see myself as someone who has an active imagination”) [ 68 ]. In addition, respondents are asked to indicate whether they agree or disagree with each statement on a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 ( not agree at all ) to 5 ( totally agree ). A previously validated Italian version was used in the present study [ 69 ].

Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD-7)

The GAD-7 [ 70 ] is a 7-item self-reported measure designed to screen for generalized anxiety disorder and to measure the severity of symptoms, based on the DSM-IV criteria. This measure is often used in both clinical practice and research. Specifically, respondents are asked the frequency they have experienced anxiety symptoms in the past two weeks (e.g., “Not being able to stop or control worrying”) on a 4-point Likert scale, ranging from 0 ( not at all ) to 3 ( nearly every day ). The total score ranges from 0 to 21, with higher scores indicating worse anxiety symptomatology.

Patient health questionnaire (PHQ-9)

The patient health questionnaire (PHQ-9) is a 9-item self-reported brief diagnostic measure for depression [ 71 ]. Specifically, respondents are asked of the frequency they felt bothered by several depressive symptoms during the past two weeks (e.g., “Little interest or pleasure in doing things”) on a 4-point Likert scale, ranging from 0 ( not at all ) to 3 ( nearly every day ). Total score ranges from 0 to 27, with higher scores indicating higher depressive symptoms.

Perceived Stress Scale (PSS)

The Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) is a 14-item self-report measure designed to assess the degree to which situations are appraised as stressful [ 72 ]. Each item (e.g., “In the last month, how often have you been upset because of something that happened unexpectedly?”) is rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 ( never ) to 4 ( very often ). Thus, the total score ranges from 0 to 56, with a higher score indicating a higher level of perceived stress during the COVID-19 emergency.

Fear for COVID-19

We administered the Fear for COVID-19 questionnaire to measure fear and concerning beliefs related to the COVID-19 pandemic [ 35 , 36 , 73 ]. This questionnaire was created from the assumption that, during a health crisis, the individual’s fear is determined by both the hypothesized susceptibility (i.e., probability of contracting a disease) and the expected severity of the event (i.e., perceived consequences of being infected) [ 25 ]. Therefore, the 8 items dealt with the perceived probability of being infected by COVID-19 (Belief of contagion) and the possible consequences of the contagion (Consequences of contagion). See Table 1 for the complete list of the items. Previous studies have reported the PCA and reliability of the questionnaire [ 36 ]. Responses were given on a Likert scale ranging from 0 ( not at all ), to 100, ( extremely ). A total score was obtained by averaging the items (range 0–100).

Perceived economic stability

This questionnaire was developed to assess the subjective perception of an individual’s economic situation. The PCA in the larger sample revealed a unidimensional structure (see S2 Table for more details). The scale assessed perceived economic stability in three different timepoints: before, during, and after (in terms of expectation) the COVID-19 pandemic. Responses were given on a Likert scale ranging from 0 ( not at all ), to 100, ( extremely ). The total score was calculated by averaging these three items (range 0–100).

Statistical analysis

We preliminary investigated changes in spending levels due to the COVID-19 pandemic, comparing expenses before the emergency to expenses during the COVID-19 pandemic. First, we analyzed changes in the average general spending level. Then, we performed dependent (paired) sample t -tests between “Changes in necessities spending” and “Changes in non-necessities spending” to examine differences between products framed as necessities and non-necessities.

Afterward, we checked whether changes in spending levels were associated with changes in consumer behavior by conducting Pearson’s correlation analyses, respectively between “Changes in necessities spending” and “Necessities”, and “Changes in non-necessities spending” and “Non-necessities” scores.

Finally, to investigate the psychological underpinnings of consumer behavior, we performed two hierarchical multiple regressions, respectively, with “Necessities” (Model 1) and “Non-necessities” (Model 2) as outcomes. The same predictors were entered in Model 1 and Model 2. Specifically, the order of the steps was designed to include at first the socio-demographic information as control variables. Hence, we entered the age, gender, annual income brackets, and education in the first step. In Step 2, we included the personality measures (i.e., Big-Five personality traits) since these traits are stable and are not affected by the specific situation. In Step 3, Anxiety, Depression, and Stress were entered, to analyze the impact of emotional antecedents of consumer. Further, we decided to include Fear for the COVID-19 in a separate fourth step to evaluate the effect of this specific aspect. We included perceived economic stability at Step 5 after the psychological variables. This choice allowed to analyze the impact of the perceived economic stability after controlling for the role of emotional antecedents on consumer behavior. Finally, following the same logic, we included self-justifications strategies.

Considering “Changes in General spending”, our results showed that our sample reported, on average, an increase of 60.48% in the general spending level during the first week of lockdown. Furthermore, significant differences between “Changes in Necessities spending” and “Changes in Non-necessities spending”, t (3832) = 11.99, p < .001, were detected. Indeed, the spending level for necessities products showed an increase of 90.69%, while for non-necessities products, the average increase was only 36.11%. Means and standard deviations are presented in Table 2 .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256095.t002

The results of the correlation analyses indicated that there was a significant positive association between “Changes in necessities spending” and “Necessities”, r (3831) = .22, p < .001. Furthermore, a significant positive association was highlighted between “Changes in non-necessities spending” and “Non-necessities”, r (3831) = .23, p < .001. Therefore, people’s changes in spending levels were related to their attitudes and feelings toward specific products. This finding supported our choice to investigate the psychological underpinnings of people’s consumer behavior.

Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were performed on the two consumer behavior scores. In addition, control variables, psychological factors, and economic variables were entered as predictors as detailed above.

Regarding Model 1 (Necessities), results showed that all the steps explained a significant amount of additional variance (see Table 3 for detailed results). When personality traits were entered in the model (Step 2), only agreeableness, openness, and emotional stability negatively predicted the outcome. However, when anxiety, depression, and stress were entered in the model (Step 3), only openness remained statistically significant. The variables entered in Step 3 contributed to explaining 7% of the variance, with anxiety and stress positively predicting the outcome. Adding fear for COVID-19 in the following step increased the explained variance by 6%, reduced the impact of anxiety, and completely overrode the effect of stress, which became non-significant. In the following steps, perceived economic stability offered a small but significant contribution (1%), and Self-justifications explained even further variance (4%). Overall, in the final step, the final model explained 23% of the variance in Necessities. Inspecting coefficients, we found that, after accounting for control variables, openness ( p < .001), anxiety ( p < .001), fear for COVID-19 ( p < .001), perceived economic stability ( p < .001), and self-justifications ( p < .001) emerged as significant predictors.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256095.t003

In Model 2 (Non-necessities), results indicated that each step significantly contributed to explaining the outcome (see Table 4 ). In Step 2, personality traits explained 2% of the outcome variance, with consciousness and openness emerging as significant predictors and remaining significant until the final step. Notably, consciousness was negatively associated with non-necessities behavior, while high scores in openness were associated with higher scores on the Non-necessities scale. In Step 3, only depression was significantly and positively related to the outcome and remained so in subsequent models. Both fear for COVID-19 and perceived economic stability further significantly explained the outcome, albeit weakly (about 1% of variance each one). Higher levels of fear and perceived economic stability were associated with higher scores on the Non-necessities scale. Noteworthy, adding Self-justifications in the final step explained a substantial share of variance, equal to 12%. Specifically, higher scores on self-justifications were associated with higher scores on the Non-necessities scale. Furthermore, self-justifications also had a greater impact on non-necessities compared to those had on necessities, t (7664) = -10.60, p < .05. Total variance explained in the final step was 22%, with conscientiousness ( p < .001), openness ( p = .001), depression ( p = .002), perceived economic stability ( p = .009), and self-justifications ( p < .001) being significant predictors.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256095.t004

The present study aimed to examine changes in consumer behavior and their psychological antecedents during the lockdown period due to the COVID-19 pandemic. We were specifically interested in separating necessity and non-necessity products since previous studies suggested that such a distinction is helpful to better understand consumer behavior[ 18 , 74 ]. First, our results indicated a 61% increase in spending levels during the first week of the lockdown, compared to the average expenses before the health crisis. Furthermore, spending levels were differently increased for buying products framed as necessities (91%) and non-necessities (36%). Second, we examined consumer behavior through Necessities and Non-necessities scales, which included measures related to the psychological need of buying, the specific aspects of the purchase experience (e.g., impulsiveness, perceived utility, satisfaction), and the number of products purchased. Our results highlighted that changes in consumer behavior were positively associated with changes in spending levels during the COVID-19 emergency.

Finally, we focused on psychological factors that can explain these changes in consumer behavior. In this context, our hypothesis about the role of the identified psychological factors in predicting consumer behavior during COVID-19 was supported. Also, our findings confirmed the importance of separating necessities from non-necessities products, as we found that they had different psychological antecedents. Regarding the investigation on spending levels, our findings are in line with sales data reporting that, during the COVID-19 pandemic, consumer priorities have become more centered on necessities, including food, hygiene, and cleaning products[ 7 , 62 ]. Therefore, the present study confirmed the greater tendency to buy necessities products during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is noteworthy to mention that our sample also reported an increase in spending levels related to non-necessities products. These data can be explained by referring to previous research that considered increases in non-necessities spending levels to respond to the hedonistic pursuit of freedom, defying boredom, restoring the sense of self, and compensatory mechanism, to alleviate negative psychological states[ 16 , 32 , 34 , 37 , 44 , 75 ]. However, as highlighted in the study by Forbes and colleagues[ 76 ] these hedonic needs and compensatory mechanisms can have a different impact during or in the aftermath of a crisis. In addition, the authors highlighted that the consumption of non-necessities products increased, as a way of coping to alleviate negative psychological states, particularly in the short term after a natural disaster. According to these results, a recent study conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic suggested that some factors, such as the degree of perceived threat, may vary during the COVID-19 pandemic, thus, having a different impact on consumer behavior[ 77 ]. Therefore, future research could delve into the analysis of changes in consumer behavior over time in relation to the different phases of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Regarding our investigation of consumer behavior’s antecedent psychological factors, we found partly different antecedents for necessities and non-necessities. Regarding demographic effects, in the present study, we found that men were more oriented in terms of needs and feelings toward non-necessities than women. A possible explanation could consider the context of the COVID-19, whereas the lockdown has imposed the closure of physical stores. In this context, it could be appropriate to refer to those studies that found several gender differences between consumer e-commerce adoption and purchase decision making. Specifically, research has shown that men and women have different psychological pre-disposition of web-based purchases, with men having more positive attitudes toward online shopping[ 78 , 79 ]. Furthermore, a study conducted during COVID-19 showed that women spent more time on necessities such as childcare and chores compared to men[ 80 ]. Regarding age differences, we found that younger people were more oriented toward non-necessities products. A study conducted in Italy during the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted that older adults showed lower negative emotions than younger adults[ 73 , 81 , 82 ]. In this view, it is possible that lower emotional antecedents, such as depressive states, lowered the need to buy non-necessities for more aged people. Another study conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic showed that older adults, aged 56 to 75, had significantly reduced the purchase of non-necessities goods compared to younger people[ 83 ]. Furthermore, considering the closure of physical stores, it is possible that younger people were more able and got used to buy a broader range of non-necessities products by e-commerce. However, it is important to note that we excluded in the present study people aged over 65. We also found a positive effect of income on necessities. A possible explanation is that people more stable from an economic point of view were more oriented to feel the need to buy products. However, surprisingly we did not find this effect for non-necessities. Finally, we found a positive effect of education on non-necessities. This data is congruent with another study conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, showing that people with higher education (e.g., bachelor’s degrees and graduate or professional degrees) tended to buy an unusual amount of goods than people with lower education[ 84 ].Furthermore, another study highlighted that during COVID-19 pandemic entertainment and outdoor expenses significantly varied across different education groups[ 85 ]. Considering the present results, further studies should better investigate the impact of socio-demographic factors on the need to purchase necessities and non-necessities during health emergency and natural disaster.

Furthermore, after accounting for control variables (gender, age, income brackets, and education), consumer behavior toward necessities was explained by personality traits (openness), negative emotions (anxiety and COVID- related fear), perception of economic stability, and self-justifications. On the other side, consumer behavior toward non-necessities was explained by conscientiousness, openness, depression, perceived economic stability, and self-justifications.

Present findings showed that negative feelings have a considerable role in predicting changes in consumer behavior related to necessities products. This result is consistent with previous literature showing that, during a health crisis, fear and anxiety are developed from perceived feelings of insecurity and instability[ 30 ]. To reduce these negative feelings, people tend to focus on aspects and behaviors that can help them regain control and certainty, such as buying[ 86 ]. Therefore, changes in consumer behavior could be explained as a remedial response to reduce fear and anxiety related to the COVID-19 emergency. According to our hypothesis, present findings indicated that fear and anxiety play an important role in predicting changes in consumer behavior related to necessities. In contrast, no significant effects were found on non-necessities. A possible explanation for this remarkable difference can be provided by research in survival psychology, which highlighted that individuals might undergo behavioral changes during events such as natural disasters or health crises, including herd behavior, panic buying, changes in purchasing habits, and decision making[ 8 , 76 ]. Following these changes, individuals can be more engaged in behaviors that are necessary for survival[ 26 , 87 ]. In this view, COVID-related fear and anxiety could lead individuals to feel the need to buy necessities products useful for daily survival.

Stress is another factor suggested to differently affect changes in consumer behavior toward necessities and non-necessities[ 18 ]. It is noticeable that consumers experiencing stressful situations may show increased spending behavior, explicitly directed toward products that the consumer perceives to be necessities and that allow for control in an otherwise uncontrollable environment[ 18 ]. Our results partly support this position, showing that stress has a specific role in predicting changes in consumer behavior related to necessities but not to non-necessities. However, the role of stress was no longer significant when fear was entered in the regression model. Noteworthy, we focused on fear for COVID-19, therefore, it is possible that in such an exceptionally unprecedented situation, fear had a prominent role compared to stress. Moreover, previous literature shows that the relationship between fear and consumer behavior increases as the type of fear measured becomes more specific[ 88 ]. In this sense, further studies could delve into the relationship between fear and stress in relation to consumer behavior.

Notably, past studies had found a relationship between depressive states and consumer behavior, suggesting that changes in consumer behavior can represent self-protective behaviors to manage negative affective states[ 37 ]. The role of depression was highlighted by our results in respect to consumer behavior only related to non-necessities. Therefore, conversely to the study conducted in the UK and Ireland during the COVID-19 pandemic by Bentall et colleagues (2021), we did not find a relationship between depression and buying necessities. It is important to note that we described non-necessities products as “products for fun or entertainment”. In our opinion, people with higher levels of depressive symptoms may feel a greater need for this kind of product. Thus, people were drawn more toward this category of purchases because it was better suited to satisfy compensatory strategies to improve their negative emotional states. However, future studies are required to investigate this possibility and deepen the relationship between depressive states and the need to buy necessities and non-necessities. Furthermore, considering that depressive mood can be related to severe dysfunctional aspects of consumer behavior, such as impulsivity and compulsivity, future clinical studies should further investigate this relationship.

Furthermore, based on the limited and contrasting literature on this topic, we considered the role of personality traits. As suggested by previous studies, conscientiousness and openness were found to be associated with consumer behavior[ 89 – 91 ]. Interestingly, we found that personality traits were more relevant in consumer behavior toward non-necessities than necessities products. Only openness had a role in (negatively) predicting consumer behavior toward necessities, whereas conscientiousness (negatively) and openness (positively) predicted consumer behavior toward non-necessities. Unexpectedly, we found that people with a high level of openness showed high scores in consumer behavior toward non-necessities but low scores in necessities products. We speculated that individuals with higher levels of openness, which are more inclined to develop interests and hobbies[ 92 ], might have experienced a higher need to purchase non-necessities products during the lockdown. On the other hand, individuals with lower scores of openness, which tend to prefer familiar routines to new experiences and have a narrower range of interests, might have been more focused on purchasing necessity products. However, further studies should investigate the different roles of openness on necessities vs non-necessities consumer behavior. Globally, we acknowledge that the specific role and directions of these different personality traits on consumer behavior toward necessities and non-necessities is still an unexplored question, fully deserving of further investigations.

Finally, in both regression models, perceived economic stability and self-justifications predicted changes in consumer behavior. It comes as no surprise that individuals who perceived themselves and their family as more economically stable were prone to spend more in both products categories, necessities and non-necessities [ 52 , 53 ]. More intriguing, we found that the self-justifications that consumers adopted to motivate their purchases were a strong predictor of consumer behavior, especially in relation to non-necessities, where it explained the largest amount of variance (12%). Therefore, our hypothesis on the greater impact of self-justifications strategies on non-necessities compared to necessities was confirmed. Non-necessities, framed as products for fun or entertainment, seem more suited to satisfy that pursuit of freedom and the need to defy boredom that people increasingly experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic[ 48 ]. Therefore, we confirmed that the hedonistic attitude is an important predictor of consumer behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic. This result supported and extended previous literature showing that, during a crisis, changes in consumer behavior are related to self-justifications and rationalizations that people formulate to feel right in making their purchases, including the pursuit of freedom and the reduction of boredom[ 11 , 48 ]. Companies and markets can acknowledge this process and use it to develop new marketing strategies to meet consumers’ actual needs, feelings, and motivation to purchase during the COVID-19 emergency[ 12 ]. On the one hand, satisfying these needs could support and favor well-being and the positive sense of self, which are essentially sought by the consumer developing such self-justification strategies[ 17 ]. On the other hand, focusing on strategies that consider these psychological self-justifications could be a winning marketing strategy for increasing sales, contributing to the economic recovery after the COVID-19 outbreak[ 13 ].

The results of the present study highlighted that the COVID-19 pandemic had a considerable impact on consumer behavior. In our sample, this impact resulted in increased spending levels accompanied by an increase in the psychological need to purchase both necessities and non-necessities products. Furthermore, our findings demonstrated that several psychological factors predicted these changes in consumer behavior. Notably, consumer behavior respectively toward necessities and non-necessities differed on some psychological predictors.

Some limits of the current study need to be acknowledged. First, we studied consumer behavior from a broad perspective on a non-clinical sample, therefore we did not include dysfunctional aspects related to consumer behavior, such as impulsivity and compulsivity buying and hoarding behavior, which the emergency may elicit. Hence, in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic, it would be interesting to integrate our results with investigations of dysfunctional aspects of consumer behavior. Furthermore, since the unique opportunity to study psychological factors and consumer behavior during this unprecedented period, we adopted an integrative approach to consider the impact of several psychological factors at once, obtaining one of the first overviews of consumer behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, combining all these psychological factors could have led to an aggregation bias[ 93 ], which could have masked the specific roles of each of the individual factors influencing consumer behavior. Therefore, future studies could adopt a more fine-grained approach to disentangle the role of each factor. Another limit is that we collected data during the initial stage of the COVID-19 outbreak in Italy. Notably, we reasoned that focusing on the very first period of the lockdown would likely allow us to capture the greater shift in consumer behavior, thus offering compelling evidence on the first impact of the pandemic on consumers. Nevertheless, it is likely that consumer behavior will undergo further changes in the longer term. Hence, future studies should investigate the evolution of consumer behaviors in relation to the development of the pandemic. Indeed, it is likely that when the “sense of urgency” and the negative affective reaction to the emergency will decrease, also the need for buying and purchases preferences would change. Furthermore, since we asked participants to estimate their weekly expenditures before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is important to keep in mind that our study focused on the people’s perception of changes in expenses. We did not know how much reliable these estimations were, and it is possible that objective assessment of change in the amount of money spent before and during the pandemic diverge from subjective views. In the present study, we focused on individual internal factors that could influence consumer behavior. However, other external factors, including the lockdown restrictions as the closure of physical stores, had certainly had a further impact on consumer behavior. Notwithstanding these limitations, this study represents one of the first attempts to examine changes in consumer behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic from a behavioral economic perspective, providing a thorough analysis of the psychological factors driving changes in consumer behavior, with a direct link to previous psychological research in consumer behavior. Furthermore, our results provided new evidence on the role of psychological factors influencing necessities and non-necessities spending and extended our knowledge of the antecedents of consumer behavior changes during the unprecedented health crisis we are experiencing.

In conclusion, the present study, by shedding new light on changes in people’s behavior due to the pandemic, fits into the growing body of research which helps increase economic and psychological preparedness in the face of future health emergencies.

Supporting information

S1 table. pattern matrix of the pca for the questionnaire on consumer behavior during the covid-19 pandemic..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256095.s001

S2 Table. PCA for the “Perceived economic stability” questionnaire.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256095.s002

• View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar
• 3. John Hopkins University. Coronavirus COVID-19 Global Cases by the Center for System Science and Engineering (CSSE). In: Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center [Internet]. 2020 [cited 20 Jul 2020]. Available: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html
• 6. Despin T. Knock-on Effects Of COVID-19 On Consumer Behavior And How Businesses Can Prepare For Them. In: Entrepreneur [Internet]. 11 May 2020 [cited 12 Jun 2020]. Available: https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/350457
• 7. Nielsen. Key Consumer Behavior Thresholds Identified as the Coronavirus Outbreak Evolves–Nielsen. 2020 [cited 20 Jul 2020]. Available: https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/article/2020/key-consumer-behavior-thresholds-identified-as-the-coronavirus-outbreak-evolves/?utm_source=sfmc&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newswire&utm_content=3-18-2020
• 12. Rajagopal . Development of Consumer Behavior. In: Rajagopal , editor. Transgenerational Marketing: Evolution, Expansion, and Experience. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2020. pp. 163–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33926-5_6
• 13. Diebner R, Silliman E, Ungerman K, Vancauwenberghe M. Adapting customer experience in the time of coronavirus. McKinsey & Company. 2020 [cited 10 Sep 2020]. Available: available at https://www. mckinsey. com/business-func tions/marketing-and-sales/our-insights/adapting-customer-experi ence-in-the-time-of-coronavirus
• 20. Foxall G. Consumer Psychology in Behavioral Perspective. Beard Books; 2004.
• 22. Leach J. Survival psychology. New York, NY, US: New York University Press; 1994. pp. xii, 220. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230372719
• 24. Steven D, O’Brien E, Jones BD. The New Politics of Strategic Resources: Energy and Food Security Challenges in the 21st Century. Brookings Institution Press; 2014. Available: https://muse.jhu.edu/book/35813
• 26. Dodgson L. A human behavior expert explains 4 psychological reasons why people are panic buying items in bulk during the coronavirus pandemic. In: Insider [Internet]. 2020 [cited 22 Jul 2020]. Available: https://www.insider.com/why-people-are-panic-bulk-buying-during-the-coronavirus-pandemic-2020-3
• 31. Greenberg J, Solomon S, Pyszczynski T. Terror Management Theory of Self-Esteem and Cultural Worldviews: Empirical Assessments and Conceptual Refinements. In: Zanna MP, editor. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Academic Press; 1997. pp. 61–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60016-7
• 55. Streib GF, 1918-, Schneider CJ. Retirement in American society. 1971 [cited 11 Sep 2020]. Available: https://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=US201300475317
• 60. Maison D. The Psychological Perspective in Financial Behaviour. In: Maison D, editor. The Psychology of Financial Consumer Behavior. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2019. pp. 1–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10570-9_1
• 64. Istat. Statistiche Istat. 2020 [cited 28 Jul 2020]. Available: http://dati.istat.it/
• 86. Wilkens J. Why we hoard: Fear at root of panic-buying, psychologists say. In: San Diego Union-Tribune [Internet]. 22 Mar 2020 [cited 3 Aug 2020]. Available: https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/health/story/2020-03-22/hoard-fear-panic-buying-psychology
• 92. McCrae RR, Costa PT. Conceptions and Correlates of Openness to Experience. In: Hogan R, Johnson J, Briggs S, editors. Handbook of Personality Psychology. San Diego: Academic Press; 1997. pp. 825–847. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012134645-4/50032-9

Consumer Behavior

Advertising, Consumerism, Materialism, Marketing

Reviewed by Psychology Today Staff

Consumer behavior—or how people buy and use goods and services—is a rich field of psychological research, particularly for companies trying to sell products to as many potential customers as possible. Since what people buy—and why they buy it—impacts many different facets of their lives, research into consumer behavior ties together several key psychological issues. These include communication (How do different people respond to advertising and marketing?), identity (Do our purchases reveal our personality ?), social status, decision-making , and mental and physical health.

• Why Consumer Behavior Matters
• The Psychology of Buying and Spending
• How Advertising and Marketing Work
• How to Appeal to Consumers

Corporations, political campaigns, and nonprofit organizations all consult findings about consumer behavior to determine how best to market products, candidates, or issues. In some cases, they accomplish this by manipulating people's fears, their least-healthy habits, or their worst tendencies. And consumers themselves can be their own worst enemy, making rash purchasing decisions based on anxiety , faulty logic, or a fleeting desire for social status. But consumers aren’t powerless: Learning more about the different strategies companies employ, as well as the explanations for people's often confusing purchasing decisions, can help individuals more consciously decide what, why, and whether to buy.

In developed countries, people spend only a portion of their money on things they need to survive, and the rest on non-essentials. Purchasing decisions based on want, rather than need, aren’t always rational ; instead, they are influenced by personality , emotion , and trends. To keep up, marketers continuously investigate how individuals and groups make buying choices and respond to marketing techniques.

Political marketing is, in many ways, similar to product marketing: it plays on emotions and people’s desire for compelling stories , rather than pure rationality, and aims to condense complex issues into short, memorable soundbites. Smart politicians use marketing research to tailor their messages, connect with voters who share their values, and counter their opponents’ narrative.

Humans are social animals. We rely on a group to survive and are evolutionarily driven to follow the crowd . To learn what is “correct,” we look to other people—a heuristic known as the principle of social proof . Fads are born because a product’s popularity is assumed to signal value, which further bolsters its popularity.

Natural or man-made disasters can trigger panic buying or hoarding behaviors, either before the disaster or after it has passed, usually of products deemed necessary for survival. In the weeks and months after a disaster, some evidence suggests that “hedonic purchases”—such as alcohol or unhealthy foods —rise as victims of the disaster attempt to cope.

After large-scale recessions, such as the Great Recession of 2007 to 2009, consumers typically become more frugal and sensitive to price. These changes become permanent for some consumers, especially for those who were particularly hard-hit; for others, behaviors revert back to baseline once the economy has stabilized and any personal financial challenges have been overcome.

It already has. Consumers are buying less , shifting more purchasing online, and spending less on travel and in-person events. Whether those changes will endure, though, is unclear. Some experts predict that most people will revert back to old habits post-COVID; a small few, it’s predicted, will become more frugal and less materialistic in the long term.

Much of what people purchase—like food, shelter, or medical care—is necessary for their health and security. But what compels someone to buy things that aren’t necessary, like the latest iPhone or an impractical pair of high-heeled shoes? The study of why people make such purchases—which are often irrational—is closely related to the field of behavioral economics , which examines why people deviate from the most rational choice available.

Behavioral economists, marketing professionals, and psychologists have concluded that extraneous purchases may be driven by a need to display one’s social status, or in response to an emotion like sadness or boredom . In other instances, retailers may successfully manipulate the desire for a “good deal” by making an unneeded item seem especially affordable or portraying it as being in limited supply.

Learning how to recognize common manipulation tactics may help individuals and families save money—and stress —in the long term.

Many human behaviors are driven by reward. Purchasing a new gadget or item of clothing triggers a surge of dopamine , which creates pleasurable feelings. Though the glow of a new purchase may not last long, the desire to once again be rewarded with a burst of dopamine drives us to buy more .

It depends. Some research suggests that experiential purchases like vacations bring more happiness than material goods, in both the short- and long-term . However, this rule may not apply universally. For lower-income people, spending on material goods that meet basic needs is often more conducive to happiness, especially if the items remain useful over time.

Consumers are often irrational. Instead of only buying things they need, they also buy unnecessary items—often because the purchase makes them feel good, soothes negative emotions, or boosts social status. A consumer may also buy something that has been framed by a marketer as especially attractive; “buy one get one free” offers, for instance, are hard to resist and encourage people to buy things they don’t need.

Certain buying impulses can ultimately be harmful , but they often serve a psychological purpose. Purchasing unhealthy foods or excessive alcohol, for instance, can temporarily offer comfort from painful emotions; buying a new pair of designer jeans might break the bank, but can also help the purchaser prominently display their social status.

Dissonant buying impulses—or purchases that conflict with one’s resources, needs, and goals —can be difficult to manage, especially when they’re driven by negative emotions. Learning emotional regulation skills —such as naming any negative feelings, redirecting attention to productive activities, or practicing mindfulness —or creating physical “barriers” (such as freezing credit cards so they can’t be used impulsively) can help.

Anxiety is known to spur impulsive purchases —in part because buying things offers a sense of control and can be used to self-soothe. Anxiety can also lead someone to prioritize products that promote safety or a sense of security—such as toilet paper, hand sanitizer, or canned goods.

In a word, panic. Anxiety and fear make the world appear frightening and senseless; stocking up on certain items like toilet paper is one way to restore a feeling of control. Panic buying is also driven in part by herd mentality; if people see that others are hoarding hand sanitizer, they assume they should too.

Impulse buying may be motivated by negative emotions, as purchasing something often temporarily boosts mood. It may also be driven by personality—the naturally more impulsive or less conscientious may be driven to more frequently purchase items on a whim. Marketing strategies, like advertising products as “limited time offers,” can increase the tendency to impulse buy.

Two vast, interrelated industries—advertising and marketing—are dedicated to introducing people to products and convincing them to make purchases.

Since the public’s desires tend to change over time, however, what works in one product’s campaign won’t necessarily work in another’s. To adapt messages for a fickle audience, advertisers employ focus groups, market research, and psychological studies to better understand what compels people to commit to purchases or become loyal to brands.

Everyone has heard the advertising maxim “sex sells,” for instance—but exactly what, when, and why sex can be used to successfully market a product is the subject of much debate among ad makers and behavioral researchers. Recently, some evidence has suggested that pitches to the perceived “lowest common denominator” may actually inspire consumer backlash.

Marketers regularly use psychology to convince consumers to buy. Some common strategies include classical conditioning —training consumers to associate a product with certain cues through repeated exposure—creating a scarcity mindset (suggesting that a product only exists in limited quantities), or employing the principle of social proof to imply that everyone is buying a product—so you should, too.

Marketers often exploit cognitive shortcuts , known as heuristics, to convince consumers to make purchases. One example of this is the anchoring bias , or the brain’s tendency to rely heavily on the first piece of information it learns. A savvy marketer may say, for instance, that a car costs $20,000, then quickly offer to take $1,000 off. Since the consumer “anchored” on to the initial $20,000 price tag, a $1,000 discount seems substantial and the consumer may leap at the offer. But if the car was truly worth $15,000, it would still be overpriced, even with the supposed discount factored in. 

Renowned marketing researcher Robert Cialdini found that advertisements are perceived very differently depending on consumers’ state of mind. Fearful consumers, for instance, are more likely to respond negatively to ads that promote standing out from the crowd. However, consumers in a positive state of mind respond well to ads encouraging uniqueness; thus, timing and context are often critical to an ad’s success.

Limited time offers trigger a sense of urgency and force consumers to make quick decisions. A product only being available “for a limited time” (either at all or at a lower price) creates a sense of scarcity. Scarcity—whether real or manufactured—increases a product’s perceived value, heightening the chance of an impulsive purchase.

Because the majority of humans desire and seek out sex, sexual stimuli naturally capture attention; thus, marketers often make use of attractive models or erotic imagery simply to make consumers take notice. Being “primed” with erotic content can change behavior, too; research has found that sexual priming can lead consumers to make riskier financial choices.

The effectiveness of sex in advertising likely depends on several factors, including gender and context. Women appear to respond more negatively to sexual ads than men, research finds. When the product is unrelated to sex, using erotic imagery in ads can trigger dissonance and trigger negative feelings about the brand.

In a crowded marketplace, anyone hoping to sell a product or service will need to stand out. To succeed at this, marketers often turn to psychological research to identify and target their most likely consumers, grab their attention, and convince them that a product will fill a specific need or otherwise better their life. Aiming to inform and persuade consumers—rather than manipulate them—is widely considered to be the most ethical approach, and is likely to help build brand loyalty more than cheap marketing tricks.

Both the message and the messenger matter for  persuasion . Marketing researcher Robert Cialdini has found that first impressions matter greatly—a company (or individual) that appears trustworthy and warm is more likely to gain their audience’s trust. Cialdini also coined the term  “pre-suasion”  to argue that marketers must grab consumers’ attention  before  making an appeal—by offering free samples, for instance, or couching a product pitch in an amusing commercial. 

Turning to psychology can help. Appealing to consumers’ emotions and desire for connection with others are often powerful marketing strategies, as long as they’re not interpreted by consumers as manipulative. Introducing novelty, too, can be effective—research shows that consumers respond to surprising ads, humorous ads, or even “experiential” ads (such as parties or events designed to promote a product). Repeating an ad enough times so that a consumer remembers it—but not so much that they become frustrated—is also a critical part of any effective ad campaign.

Humans are creatures of habit and slow to adapt to change. To spread a new message or idea,  advertisers  have learned that simplicity is key; overcomplicated appeals can be frustrating or confusing for consumers. Summarizing the benefits of a new product, service, or political campaign in pithy, memorable phrases or images—and then repeating the message as often as possible—is more likely to grab consumers' attention and convince them to take a chance on a new object or idea.

Customers trust businesses that are honest with them, sharing accurate information about everything from the benefits of using their products to how they run their business.  Other guidelines for ethical marketing  include clearly distinguishing ads from other types of content (news, entertainment, etc.), prioritizing the interests of children or other vulnerable groups (by not marketing unhealthy products to children, for example), avoiding negative stereotypes, and respecting consumers’  intelligence  and privacy.

What enables effective, accurate communication? It comes down to the similarity of two brains during communication, a phenomenon known as neural coupling.

Many people simply don't move enough, but trying to add in daily exercise can feel daunting. In-store shopping could be one way to up your physical activity with no added cost.

A messy space makes for a messy mind. Here's how you can clear them both up.

How truly understanding what customers need can redefine innovation and lead to meaningful products.

You can't finish the job of launching young adults without addressing their finances. But that process can only proceed when parents address financial matters with each other.

While dating, research suggests that we should discuss the sharing of finances at the beginning of our relationships.

Social media scams are rampant: How consumers can protect themselves.

A Personal Perspective: Think brand-management consultations can fix what ails higher education? Think again.

Why it helps for dieters to be reminded that they refused that slice of cake.

Psychological experiments on human judgment under uncertainty showed that people often stray from presumptions about rational economic agents.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

At any moment, someone’s aggravating behavior or our own bad luck can set us off on an emotional spiral that threatens to derail our entire day. Here’s how we can face our triggers with less reactivity so that we can get on with our lives.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

• Case Studies
• Online Courses
• Find an Expert
• Concepts & Biases
• Introduction to BE
• Sales & Conversions
• Product Design
• Customer Satisfaction
• Consumer Behavior

Articles and case studies on how insights from psychology and behavioral economics can change customer behavior, increase conversions, and boost performance. In marketing, sales and CX.

List of 100 Articles

• Case study by Dectech

Case Study: An Insurance Company Reduced Fraud by 36% with Clever Messaging Rooted in Psychology

• Case study by MINDWORX Behavioral Consulting

Case Study: An Insurance Company Increased Email Conversions by 167% Using 3 Behavioral Principles

Case Study: How the Insurer Lemonade Built a Powerful Online Sales Process with Psychology at Its Core

• Case study by Matthew Willcox

Help People Feel Good About the Decisions They’ve Already Made

• Case study by Patrick Fagan

Case Study: How a Health Club Created an Online Sales Process that Outperformed Face-to-face Sales

Make Customers Earn Their Discounts Advise Psychologists

• Case study by Nir Eyal

How to Create a Habit-Forming Business

Reciprocity – How to Use It to Make Your Customers Buy

• Case study by Kristina Radova

Behavioral Consultant Radova: If You’re a Marketer, Context is Your Superweapon

Subscribe to receive the most interesting case studies and articles biweekly.

This site uses cookies to provide services, personalise ads and to analyse traffic. You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website. Read More .

Consumer Psychology

• Living reference work entry
• First Online: 03 February 2024
• Cite this living reference work entry

• Tian Lili 2  

Consumer psychology is a branch of social psychology that focuses on analyzing and studying the psychological and behavioral phenomena of consumers in their consumption activities. It investigates the psychological processes and patterns reflected in consumers’ buying, using, and consuming goods and services.

Brief History

Consumer psychology experienced rapid development from the early twentieth century to the 1960s and gradually evolved into an independent discipline widely applied in marketing activities. Its development can be divided into three stages. (1) Initial stage of origination: In December 1901, American psychologist Walter D. Scott proposed that advertising should be studied as a discipline, emphasizing the importance of psychology in advertising research. Scott’s book The Theory of Advertising was published in 1903, providing a systematic analysis of various factors influencing consumer psychology and behavior. Over the next half-century, many American psychologists...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Further Reading

Xiaoxia L, Jian L (2010) Consumer psychology. Tsinghua University Press, Beijing

Google Scholar  

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Psychology, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 Encyclopedia of China Publishing House

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Lili, T. (2024). Consumer Psychology. In: The ECPH Encyclopedia of Psychology. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6000-2_418-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6000-2_418-1

Received : 04 January 2024

Accepted : 05 January 2024

Published : 03 February 2024

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-99-6000-2

Online ISBN : 978-981-99-6000-2

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Behavioral Science and Psychology Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Understanding the ever-evolving, always-surprising consumer

For many consumers around the world, a return to normalcy feels so close, yet so far away, in light of the alarming spread of COVID-19 variants. Although it’s unclear what the next 12 to 24 months will bring, what’s almost certain is that consumers won’t simply revert to doing exactly what they did in 2019. In this episode of the McKinsey on Consumer and Retail podcast, three consumer-behavior experts share their insights into how consumers’ spending patterns and purchasing behaviors are changing, and what companies should do given those changes. An edited transcript of the conversation with executive editor Monica Toriello follows. Subscribe to the podcast .

Monica Toriello: Over the past several weeks, people in some parts of the world have resumed their prepandemic habits. Maybe you’ve recently seen a movie at a theater, or flown on an airplane, or even just stopped for a cup of coffee on your way to the office for the first time in over a year. But a return to “normal” won’t look the same for everyone. Today, we’ll hear from three people who intensively study consumer behavior. They’ll share fascinating insights into how consumers are changing and what companies should do about it.

Kari Alldredge is a McKinsey partner based in Minneapolis. Kari has been advising consumer-goods companies for more than 20 years on a variety of topics, and she leads McKinsey’s work in consumer-goods growth transformation. She is an author of several articles, including a recent one on COVID-19’s impact on demand and costs in the consumer-packaged-goods [CPG] industry .

Anne Grimmelt is a senior knowledge expert in McKinsey’s Consumer Packaged Goods Practice. She is based in Stamford, Connecticut. Anne has been one of the driving forces behind McKinsey’s consumer-sentiment survey , which was launched in 2008 and during the pandemic has expanded to 45 countries. It provides a rich fact base for how consumers are feeling about their finances and how their buying behavior is changing.

And our third guest is Anjali Lai, a senior analyst at Forrester. Anjali, who is based in New York, helps chief marketing officers [CMOs] and other business leaders to understand the shifts in consumer behavior and consumer decision making and then to figure out what these changes mean for the future of brands and industries.

[To comply with Forrester’s Citation Policy, this transcript excludes Anjali Lai’s comments. Listen to the full episode on McKinsey.com or on Apple, Google, and other podcast platforms.]

A ‘reversal of fortune’ for big brands

Monica Toriello: Kari, Anne, Anjali, it’s great to have you here today. All three of you have been keeping your fingers on the pulse of consumers, both before and throughout the pandemic. Have there been any surprises? Are consumers doing things that you didn’t expect? Or is there anything that seemed to be going one way in, say, March or April 2020 but is going in a different direction today?

Kari Alldredge: In 2019 or early 2020, the topic on the minds of large branded consumer-packaged-goods manufacturers was portfolio shaping: how to reimagine their portfolios, how to move away from center-of-store food products and big brands and instead engage with consumers in very different, more targeted, niche-oriented ways. The degree to which the pandemic pushed people back toward big brands in the center of the store, and toward cooking at home, has been a complete turnaround, a reversal of fortune, for large CPG companies.

Some of those changes could have been anticipated, but others are quite shocking: the notion that bread baking would become a phenomenon among millennials, or that pet ownership would skyrocket to the extent that it has, and that those same millennials would be willing to spend more than they spend on their daily Starbucks to feed their new pets.

So, many of those companies that were desperately searching for growth 18 months ago now have the opposite problem: their supply chains can’t keep up . The big question for all of them is which of those consumer behaviors are truly going to persist  and be “sticky” coming out of this pandemic? Certainly, the dog that you adopted is likely to stay at your home. But when you go back to ordering your daily Starbucks and spending $7 a day on a coffee, are you going to spend the same amount to feed your pet? Those are the questions that are on many company leaders’ minds.

Anne Grimmelt: As Kari said, we saw a complete shift. Prepandemic, the growth was in smaller, niche brands, but early in the pandemic, it was large CPG players that really gained scale because their products were available on the shelf. They were also brands that were trusted by consumers, so consumers felt good buying them. If you look at point-of-sale data from IRI or Nielsen, you see that large companies—those with more than $2.5 billion in retail sales in the US market—picked up most of the share growth early in the pandemic, whereas smaller and midsize companies, as well as private label, were really not picking up growth.

In the second half of 2020 and in early 2021, small and midsize companies are regaining their sales growth. And we expect that private label is going to be powerful again , because if you dive into the why—why did consumers pick a new brand, and why did they pick the brands they chose?—it was about availability, it was about purpose, but it was also about value . It was about price points. Going forward, value is going to be even more important, and private label will gain strength in the future.

Trust as a strategic imperative

Monica Toriello: All three of you to some extent have written about customer loyalty: how to win it and how to retain it, particularly in an environment where people are willing to try new brands. Anne and Kari, you found that 39 percent of consumers tried new brands during the pandemic. And Anjali, in your research, you found that small brands are particularly good at earning consumers’ trust and consequently their loyalty. In a recent blog post, you wrote, “Now is the time for companies to embrace trust as a strategic imperative.” What does that mean? How should companies do that?

Even relatively mundane CPG companies are thinking about the end-to-end consumer journey, including consumer experience pre- and postpurchase. Kari Alldredge

Kari Alldredge: I’m seeing two interesting things in response to the trends you just talked about, Anjali. One is the degree to which even relatively mundane CPG companies are thinking about the end-to-end consumer journey, including consumer experience pre- and postpurchase, as they try to understand how to serve their existing consumers but also look for new ways to better meet consumer needs. The notion that there is a pre- and postpurchase experience related to a can of soda or a can of soup is a relatively novel idea, right? But, increasingly, the most forward-thinking companies are doing research across that entire journey to be able to understand the needs of consumers as they’re considering the range of options that are available to them—all the way through to satisfaction with usage and even disposal of the packaging of products.

Another interesting thing I’m seeing is a recognition that marketing is a dialogue, and a recognition of the degree to which consumers now “own” or shape the narratives of many brands. This, too, was happening before the pandemic but was vastly accelerated during the pandemic. The notion that a marketer positions the brand and delivers a message and a promise to consumers is really becoming quite an antiquated one, I think, as consumers themselves—through reviews, ratings , blogs, videos, and social-media posts—shape the identity of many of these brands. Recommendations from friends and family become part of the brand’s identity and are critical to shaping both loyalty and consumer trust.

We found in our research that about 33 percent of millennial and Gen Z consumers say they choose to buy a brand from a company that has their values, versus about 12 percent of baby boomers. Anne Grimmelt

Anne Grimmelt: Our research corroborates that. We found in our research that about 33 percent of millennial and Gen Z consumers  say they choose to buy a brand from a company that has their values, versus about 12 percent of baby boomers. But every demographic group is leaning toward that.

Another finding from our research is the reasons why consumers change to a new brand. It is definitely the younger generation that more often indicates that it’s because of purpose. It’s because of what the company stands for, how it treats its employees, et cetera.

Purpose: More than just a buzzword

Monica Toriello: We’ve been hearing a lot about purpose and values, but I also hear some skepticism in certain pockets of the corporate world as to whether an emphasis on corporate purpose  actually pays off. Because there is an attitude–behavior gap, right? What’s your response to a CEO who says, “Consumers like to say they care about purpose and values, but when they’re at the point of deciding to buy something, they truly only care about convenience or price or quality. Purpose is just a buzzword.”

Kari Alldredge: It’s necessary but not sufficient. I think there’s an increasing recognition that alignment with a consumer’s values may put you in the consideration set but won’t drive you over the line to purchase. You still have to have product superiority, whether that’s taste superiority, functional superiority, or a price-to-value equation that works for that particular consumer.

We talk a lot about the pandemic, which definitely shone a light on health in general, but there are other crises—like social justice  and climate change —that have come to light over the past year and a half and that have really shaken the corporate community. These crises have helped companies understand that some of these factors are fundamental in how consumers perceive themselves and the world around them, to the point where we now actually see some change happening.

One of the things that I was struck by was the speed and seriousness with which many of the household-cleaning companies responded to the pandemic and the heroic efforts to convert production capacity to manufacture things like wipes and sanitizer. Yes, some of that was for financial gain, but I think there really was an almost wartime mentality that I saw companies get new energy from.

I think about center-of-store food manufacturers who, prepandemic, maybe viewed themselves as being a bit sleepy and not exciting in terms of attracting the best talent. Now when you hear them talk about what they do, there’s real pride in the fact that they fed America, or they kept America safe. It really changed the way they think about the importance of what they do.

Subscribe to the McKinsey on Consumer and Retail podcast

Sources of insight.

Monica Toriello: All three of you are experts in consumer behavior. But consumers are changing fast and they’re changing constantly. Anjali, in another recent blog post, you wrote, “Rather than expect consumers to settle into a defined postpandemic normal, CMOs should prepare for a constant evolution of consumer needs and expectations over the next 12 to 24 months.” So beyond reading the latest consumer research and analysis, what are the best ways for CMOs and CEOs to understand where consumers are and where they’re headed?

Kari Alldredge: One of the best sources of insights is their online channel partners and their own D2C [direct to consumer] sites . Companies should mine online data to get a quick pulse on the way consumers are thinking or feeling. They should look at ratings and reviews using advanced analytics to understand and see trends and what’s selling on sites like Kroger.com, Walmart.com, or Amazon.com. They could even develop products that they can quickly test in an online environment and then change and adjust, as opposed to thinking about mass development of a product that gets pushed out to thousands and thousands of brick-and-mortar retail stores.

Consumers don’t always know what they want, and they can’t predict how their behavior will change. So traditional consumer research—which asks consumers how likely they are to purchase something—is becoming less relevant or reliable than actual data in market. That’s why data from e-commerce sites can be so valuable.

Anne Grimmelt: Another very powerful way to understand consumers  is by looking at what your peer companies do. You can go to industry conferences like the CAGNY [Consumer Analyst Group of New York] conference and hear a company like L’Oréal talk about how they use their D2C and their online-sales platform to see what type of color lipstick people try—not buy , but try —on their online platform. That information is critical for them to know where to innovate. What are the colors that people want and what are the products that people like to try out on the digital platform?

Similarly, I think it’s very important to keep an open mind beyond your own borders, to realize what’s happening elsewhere in the world. Going back to the topic of purpose, for instance, it is very much alive in the US but it’s also very much alive in Europe. Learning about the power of what consumers demand and how purpose is driving consumer decisions about CPG companies—and what companies in Europe are doing to meet consumer demand—can be valuable, wherever you are in the world.

Kari Alldredge: I think we also shouldn’t underestimate the resilience of consumers and the gravitational pull of life as we knew it before the pandemic. One thing that surprised me even in the past several weeks is the degree to which behaviors have bounced back. If there’s anything I’ve learned over the past 18 months it’s that I don’t have a crystal ball, or if I did, it is certainly broken—because there is no part of this last 18 months that I ever could have in a million years predicted.

At the beginning of the pandemic, one company I work with asked every board member, “When you look back, what’s the one thing that will be blazingly obvious that we either should always have done or never have been doing?” And one of the things that came up was shaking hands: “We’re never going to shake hands again.” But I attended a graduation ceremony in the beginning of June—so, early into the recovery—and what was striking to me is that the dean of that school shook the hand of, and physically embraced, every single one of the thousand students who crossed that stage. And this was at an institution that had been, like most educational institutions, incredibly thoughtful and conservative about their public-health response. Literally days after restrictions were lifted, the urge to connect was so strong that it looked as if the pandemic had never happened.

People are resilient. Hundreds of years of behavior certainly have been meaningfully changed by the past 18 months, but I think a lot of the old behaviors will bounce back pretty quickly.

Monica Toriello: So if you could gather all the CEOs and CMOs of consumer companies in one room and leave them with one message, what would it be? What is the one thing they need to do to position themselves for success in 2021 and 2022?

Anne Grimmelt: My one-liner would be, “Be open to change and be agile .”

Kari Alldredge: I would say, “Listen; don’t tell.”

Kari Alldredge is a partner in McKinsey’s Minneapolis office, and  Anne Grimmelt is a senior knowledge expert in the Stamford office.  Monica Toriello is an executive editor in the New York office.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

McKinsey on Consumer and Retail Podcast: Insights from experts on business and management

Global surveys of consumer sentiment during the coronavirus crisis

COVID-19’s impact on demand and costs in the CPG industry

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

What Is a Case Study?

Weighing the pros and cons of this method of research

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Cara Lustik is a fact-checker and copywriter.

Verywell / Colleen Tighe

• Pros and Cons

What Types of Case Studies Are Out There?

Where do you find data for a case study, how do i write a psychology case study.

A case study is an in-depth study of one person, group, or event. In a case study, nearly every aspect of the subject's life and history is analyzed to seek patterns and causes of behavior. Case studies can be used in many different fields, including psychology, medicine, education, anthropology, political science, and social work.

The point of a case study is to learn as much as possible about an individual or group so that the information can be generalized to many others. Unfortunately, case studies tend to be highly subjective, and it is sometimes difficult to generalize results to a larger population.

While case studies focus on a single individual or group, they follow a format similar to other types of psychology writing. If you are writing a case study, we got you—here are some rules of APA format to reference.  

At a Glance

A case study, or an in-depth study of a person, group, or event, can be a useful research tool when used wisely. In many cases, case studies are best used in situations where it would be difficult or impossible for you to conduct an experiment. They are helpful for looking at unique situations and allow researchers to gather a lot of˜ information about a specific individual or group of people. However, it's important to be cautious of any bias we draw from them as they are highly subjective.

What Are the Benefits and Limitations of Case Studies?

A case study can have its strengths and weaknesses. Researchers must consider these pros and cons before deciding if this type of study is appropriate for their needs.

One of the greatest advantages of a case study is that it allows researchers to investigate things that are often difficult or impossible to replicate in a lab. Some other benefits of a case study:

• Allows researchers to capture information on the 'how,' 'what,' and 'why,' of something that's implemented
• Gives researchers the chance to collect information on why one strategy might be chosen over another
• Permits researchers to develop hypotheses that can be explored in experimental research

On the other hand, a case study can have some drawbacks:

• It cannot necessarily be generalized to the larger population
• Cannot demonstrate cause and effect
• It may not be scientifically rigorous
• It can lead to bias

Researchers may choose to perform a case study if they want to explore a unique or recently discovered phenomenon. Through their insights, researchers develop additional ideas and study questions that might be explored in future studies.

It's important to remember that the insights from case studies cannot be used to determine cause-and-effect relationships between variables. However, case studies may be used to develop hypotheses that can then be addressed in experimental research.

Case Study Examples

There have been a number of notable case studies in the history of psychology. Much of  Freud's work and theories were developed through individual case studies. Some great examples of case studies in psychology include:

• Anna O : Anna O. was a pseudonym of a woman named Bertha Pappenheim, a patient of a physician named Josef Breuer. While she was never a patient of Freud's, Freud and Breuer discussed her case extensively. The woman was experiencing symptoms of a condition that was then known as hysteria and found that talking about her problems helped relieve her symptoms. Her case played an important part in the development of talk therapy as an approach to mental health treatment.
• Phineas Gage : Phineas Gage was a railroad employee who experienced a terrible accident in which an explosion sent a metal rod through his skull, damaging important portions of his brain. Gage recovered from his accident but was left with serious changes in both personality and behavior.
• Genie : Genie was a young girl subjected to horrific abuse and isolation. The case study of Genie allowed researchers to study whether language learning was possible, even after missing critical periods for language development. Her case also served as an example of how scientific research may interfere with treatment and lead to further abuse of vulnerable individuals.

Such cases demonstrate how case research can be used to study things that researchers could not replicate in experimental settings. In Genie's case, her horrific abuse denied her the opportunity to learn a language at critical points in her development.

This is clearly not something researchers could ethically replicate, but conducting a case study on Genie allowed researchers to study phenomena that are otherwise impossible to reproduce.

There are a few different types of case studies that psychologists and other researchers might use:

• Collective case studies : These involve studying a group of individuals. Researchers might study a group of people in a certain setting or look at an entire community. For example, psychologists might explore how access to resources in a community has affected the collective mental well-being of those who live there.
• Descriptive case studies : These involve starting with a descriptive theory. The subjects are then observed, and the information gathered is compared to the pre-existing theory.
• Explanatory case studies : These   are often used to do causal investigations. In other words, researchers are interested in looking at factors that may have caused certain things to occur.
• Exploratory case studies : These are sometimes used as a prelude to further, more in-depth research. This allows researchers to gather more information before developing their research questions and hypotheses .
• Instrumental case studies : These occur when the individual or group allows researchers to understand more than what is initially obvious to observers.
• Intrinsic case studies : This type of case study is when the researcher has a personal interest in the case. Jean Piaget's observations of his own children are good examples of how an intrinsic case study can contribute to the development of a psychological theory.

The three main case study types often used are intrinsic, instrumental, and collective. Intrinsic case studies are useful for learning about unique cases. Instrumental case studies help look at an individual to learn more about a broader issue. A collective case study can be useful for looking at several cases simultaneously.

The type of case study that psychology researchers use depends on the unique characteristics of the situation and the case itself.

There are a number of different sources and methods that researchers can use to gather information about an individual or group. Six major sources that have been identified by researchers are:

• Archival records : Census records, survey records, and name lists are examples of archival records.
• Direct observation : This strategy involves observing the subject, often in a natural setting . While an individual observer is sometimes used, it is more common to utilize a group of observers.
• Documents : Letters, newspaper articles, administrative records, etc., are the types of documents often used as sources.
• Interviews : Interviews are one of the most important methods for gathering information in case studies. An interview can involve structured survey questions or more open-ended questions.
• Participant observation : When the researcher serves as a participant in events and observes the actions and outcomes, it is called participant observation.
• Physical artifacts : Tools, objects, instruments, and other artifacts are often observed during a direct observation of the subject.

If you have been directed to write a case study for a psychology course, be sure to check with your instructor for any specific guidelines you need to follow. If you are writing your case study for a professional publication, check with the publisher for their specific guidelines for submitting a case study.

Here is a general outline of what should be included in a case study.

Section 1: A Case History

This section will have the following structure and content:

Background information : The first section of your paper will present your client's background. Include factors such as age, gender, work, health status, family mental health history, family and social relationships, drug and alcohol history, life difficulties, goals, and coping skills and weaknesses.

Description of the presenting problem : In the next section of your case study, you will describe the problem or symptoms that the client presented with.

Describe any physical, emotional, or sensory symptoms reported by the client. Thoughts, feelings, and perceptions related to the symptoms should also be noted. Any screening or diagnostic assessments that are used should also be described in detail and all scores reported.

Your diagnosis : Provide your diagnosis and give the appropriate Diagnostic and Statistical Manual code. Explain how you reached your diagnosis, how the client's symptoms fit the diagnostic criteria for the disorder(s), or any possible difficulties in reaching a diagnosis.

Section 2: Treatment Plan

This portion of the paper will address the chosen treatment for the condition. This might also include the theoretical basis for the chosen treatment or any other evidence that might exist to support why this approach was chosen.

• Cognitive behavioral approach : Explain how a cognitive behavioral therapist would approach treatment. Offer background information on cognitive behavioral therapy and describe the treatment sessions, client response, and outcome of this type of treatment. Make note of any difficulties or successes encountered by your client during treatment.
• Humanistic approach : Describe a humanistic approach that could be used to treat your client, such as client-centered therapy . Provide information on the type of treatment you chose, the client's reaction to the treatment, and the end result of this approach. Explain why the treatment was successful or unsuccessful.
• Psychoanalytic approach : Describe how a psychoanalytic therapist would view the client's problem. Provide some background on the psychoanalytic approach and cite relevant references. Explain how psychoanalytic therapy would be used to treat the client, how the client would respond to therapy, and the effectiveness of this treatment approach.
• Pharmacological approach : If treatment primarily involves the use of medications, explain which medications were used and why. Provide background on the effectiveness of these medications and how monotherapy may compare with an approach that combines medications with therapy or other treatments.

This section of a case study should also include information about the treatment goals, process, and outcomes.

When you are writing a case study, you should also include a section where you discuss the case study itself, including the strengths and limitiations of the study. You should note how the findings of your case study might support previous research. 

In your discussion section, you should also describe some of the implications of your case study. What ideas or findings might require further exploration? How might researchers go about exploring some of these questions in additional studies?

Need More Tips?

Here are a few additional pointers to keep in mind when formatting your case study:

• Never refer to the subject of your case study as "the client." Instead, use their name or a pseudonym.
• Read examples of case studies to gain an idea about the style and format.
• Remember to use APA format when citing references .

Crowe S, Cresswell K, Robertson A, Huby G, Avery A, Sheikh A. The case study approach .  BMC Med Res Methodol . 2011;11:100.

Crowe S, Cresswell K, Robertson A, Huby G, Avery A, Sheikh A. The case study approach . BMC Med Res Methodol . 2011 Jun 27;11:100. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-11-100

Gagnon, Yves-Chantal.  The Case Study as Research Method: A Practical Handbook . Canada, Chicago Review Press Incorporated DBA Independent Pub Group, 2010.

Yin, Robert K. Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods . United States, SAGE Publications, 2017.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Behind the Nano Mistakes: A Case Study on Consumer Psychology

2013, Srusti Management Review, ISSN: 0974-4274

Since from the conception, there have been way too many impediments towards the success of Tata Motors dream project – Nano. It seems evident that Tatas have had problems with the entire marketing mix for Nano. There were initial safety issues with the product; they couldn’t hold on to their original pricing promise due to rising costs; there was a tough time with the distribution due to serious mismatch between demand and supply; and there wasn’t a proper promotional campaign to begin with. This explorative case study looks beyond the mistakes and attempts to throw light on the consumer psychology regarding Nano’s initial low market acceptance; which seemed to be quite different from what the company and industry had speculated in the beginning. While making qualitative assessment of the perception, attitudes and behavior of the consumers, the case study also explores the continuous hurdles that Tata Motors had gone through and the others that it still tries to overcome to ensure “Nano – the people’s car”, gets it’s truly deserving position in the market.

Related Papers

Kenneth Bo Nielsen

When the Indian car manufacturer Tata Motors launched its new ‘people’s car’ in 2008 it was widely predicted to revolutionise automobility in India. Yet seven years after the launch, the car has barely made an impact on the Indian car market and is widely regarded as a failure. This article offers a detailed study of the rise and fall of India’s ‘people’s car’. Based on a mapping of the changing popular representations and symbolic imaginaries that attach to the car as a means to mobility and an object of identity and social status, we suggest that the car failed neither because it was mediocre, nor because it remained economically out of reach for most Indians. Rather, we argue that its insertion into the lower ranks of a powerful status hierarchy of identity-defining objects precluded it from adequately tapping into new and hegemonic forms of consumer aspiration in ‘New India’.

Rishab Munot

Communication, Culture & Critique

Rahul Mitra

Rachelle Alterman

J. Sci. Res.

Letitia Purdoiu

After an overview of the general fiscal and non-fiscal measures for stimulating the Research and Development system (R&D), with a punctual analysis of some countries, the paper examines Romania’s situation from the bibliometric standpoint. The types of incentives are presented and analysed. The awarding programme is viewed as incentive, as its impact consists in an increase of bibliometric performances. The analysis underlines that the paper awarding programme leads to an enhancement of Romania’s bibliometric performances and that it is necessary to develop similar programmes for the research institutions, which can result in increasing publication of research outputs. Alongside Romania’s global performances, the performances obtained in three broad fields (Chemistry, Economics and Agronomy), over an interval of about 15 years, are analysed. Bibliometric performances demonstrate the connection with fiscal incentives, but performances depend on several aspects, including institutiona...

Zn Nr 763 Ekonomiczne Problemy Uslug Nr 105

Benjamin Kwofie

With decrease in size of electronic equipment's, effective heat removal is a major challenge these days. Present work focuses on implementation of a novel hybrid method which helps attain heat transfer enhancement. An experimental investigation is carried out to study effect of pulse air jet on local heat transfer distribution of a flat surface. Effect of nozzle to plate distance (z/d = 2 to 6), Reynolds number (5000 to 9000), pulsating frequency (f = 0.07 to 2.03 hz) and Strouhal number (Sr = 6.7e-5 to 0.0029) are studied with constant nozzle diameter. Thin foil technique is used to estimate local heat transfer characteristics using IR thermal infrared imaging technique. Nusselt number distribution is plotted for all the cases using information got from IR image. It is observed that at lower frequency rate and low Strouhal number heat, transfer rate is more effective. A novel hybrid method to improve heat transfer rate is introduced in this study using Pulse combined with swirl technique. This method involves introducing swirler of specified twist ratio into nozzle subjected to air pulse. Experiments show that this novel hybrid method improves heat transfer rate at all the above-mentioned conditions.

Journal of Tourism, Hospitality and Environment Management

Siti Aisyah Mohamad Zin

During the United Nations Climate Conference (COP15) in 2009, Malaysia pledged to reduce the country&#39;s carbon emissions by up to 40% by 2020 compared to 2005. Meanwhile, in the Paris Agreement in 2015, the pledge was renewed to reduce the intensity of greenhouse gas emissions from Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by 45% in 2030. Thus, the Ministry of Energy, Green Technology and Water (MEGTW) has launched a low carbon cities framework known as the ‘Low Carbon Cities Framework and Assessment System’ (LCCF) to realize the pledge. Following the launch, the Selangor State Government has determined that the LCCF be adopted in urban planning policies in all Selangor local authorities in order to contribute to a reduction in carbon emissions intensity. Bandar Baru Bangi is a city under the administration of the local authority of Kajang Municipal Council (MPKj) which implements the LCCF project to achieve a carbon reduction target of 45%, subsequently emerging as a low carbon city that is ...

2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)

Marine Pollution Bulletin

Claude Joiris

RELATED PAPERS

Acta Palaeontologica Polonica

Larisa Doguzhaeva

Business: Theory and Practice

Evelin Garcia

International Journal of Computer Mathematics

Ademir Roberto Ruschel

Bulletin of the American Physical Society

Catherine Colin

Liinc em Revista

Márcia Regina Silva

Vigilija Žiūraitė

Classica - Revista Brasileira de Estudos Clássicos

Barbara Graziosi

christian fritsen

Tetsu-to-Hagane

Ade Kurniawan

Terrence Collins

Myint Myint Thu

Water Research

Robert Nerenberg

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Official websites use .mass.gov

Secure websites use HTTPS certificate

A lock icon ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the official website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• search    across the entire site
• search  in Division of Banks
• search  in Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation
• This page, CSBS Announces 2024 Community Bank Case Study Competition Teams, is   offered by
• Division of Banks

News  CSBS Announces 2024 Community Bank Case Study Competition Teams

• Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation

A team from Merrimack College, located in Andover, Massachusetts, is one of 27 student teams from 21 colleges and universities across the nation that have entered the 2024 Community of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) Community Bank Case Study Competition .

Division of Banks 

Office of consumer affairs and business regulation , help us improve mass.gov   with your feedback.

The feedback will only be used for improving the website. If you need assistance, please contact the Division of Banks . Please limit your input to 500 characters.

Thank you for your website feedback! We will use this information to improve this page.

If you would like to continue helping us improve Mass.gov, join our user panel to test new features for the site.