Understanding and managing pandemic-related panic buying

Highlights

• Sporadic bouts of panic buying commonly occur during pandemics.

• Research indicates that episodes of panic buying typically last 7–10 days.

• Particular personality traits, fears, and social learning appear to be contributory.

• Some types of messages (e.g., “Don’t panic!”) are likely to be counter-productive.

• Other forms of messaging are likely more effective in curbing panic buying.

Abstract

Pandemics are associated with panic buying (PB) of groceries and other supplies. During the COVID-19 pandemic, community leaders expressed frustration and bewilderment about PB. Psychological explanatory concepts, including those from social learning theory and the concept of the behavioral immune system, along with recent research, suggests the following account of pandemic-related PB. PB arises when people are told to go into self-isolation as part of pandemic containment interventions. Empirically, episodes of PB typically last 7–10 days and are likely initiated by highly fearful people. PB by an anxious minority of shoppers leads to fear contagion among other shoppers, amplified by widespread dissemination, via social media, of images and videos of PB and empty shelves in stores. Thus, a snow-balling effect arises where fear of scarcity creates real but short-term scarcity. People who are highly frightened of infection tend to have heightened disgust proneness. Toilet paper is a means of escaping disgust stimuli, and for this and other reasons, toilet paper became a target of PB for people frightened of contracting COVID-19. Exploitative or selfish over-purchasing also occurred, motivated by “dark” (e.g., psychopathic) personality traits. “Don’t panic!” messages from community leaders were ineffective or counter-productive. Alternative forms of messaging are discussed.

Introduction

Panic buying (PB), also known as stockpiling, is a situation in which many people suddenly purchase as much food, supplies, and so-forth as they can because they are worried that something bad might happen (Cambridge Dictionary, 2020). The purchases in PB tend to be excessive in relation to the perceived threat. The term “panic buying” although widely used is something of a misnomer because people engaging in this behavior need not be in a state of panic, although many of these individuals are likely to be in a state of heightened anxiety, accompanied by a sense of urgency to procure the coveted items.

Although PB during the COVID-19 pandemic has sometimes been called “hoarding”, PB and hoarding are distinguishable from one another. Hoarding is characterized by the excessive accumulation of possessions, along with difficulty discarding items because of the perceived need to save them (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Hoarding is a persistent behavior, typically lasting years, whereas PB, by definition, is sporadic. Hoarding is associated with the accumulation of worthless items, such as advertising flyers, old newspapers and trash, whereas PB, as it has occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, is a goal-directed activity in which people purchase excessive quantities of staples (e.g., food, toiletries). PB also differs from compulsive buying. Compulsive buying involves a preoccupation with, or urges, to buy particular items. The urges and preoccupations are experienced as intrusive and uncontrollable, and often followed by regret about purchasing the items (Gallagher, Watt, Weaver, & Murphy, 2017; Harvanko et al., 2013). Compulsive buyers, unlike people who engage in PB, are primarily interested in the process of shopping, browsing, choosing, and ordering, but not interested in using the purchased goods (Müller, Mitchell, & de Zwaan, 2015). Compulsive buying is often used to manage negative mood states and to feel better about oneself (Müller et al., 2015). Although PB may co-occur with compulsive buying and hoarding, the focus of the present article is on PB, which is clearly distinguishable from compulsive buying and hoarding.

Pandemic-related PB is an important social problem for many reasons: (1) PB can create real, albeit short-lived shortages of staples, which may create distress and hardship for people who are unable to make large purchases, especially people who are suffering from food insecurity; (2) PB can involve large crowds of people converging on supermarkets and grocery stores, increasing the risk of infection or even creating the conditions for super-spreading events; (3) news media and social media reports and images of panicked shoppers and empty shelves can heighten public anxiety, thereby amplifying pandemic-related distress; and (4) the occurrence of PB can lead to ineffectual and counter-productive messaging from community leaders (as discussed later in this article), which may undermine public confidence in community leaders. The latter is important because a lack of confidence in community leaders can heighten public anxiety and is associated with non-adherence to pandemic-management guidelines issued by community leaders (Taylor, 2019).

During the COVID-19 pandemic, community leaders and new media commentators have expressed bewilderment and frustration about seemingly irrational behaviors such as the widespread PB of toilet paper (ABC News, 2020; BBC News, 2020; CBC News, 2020; Deutsche Welle, 2020). Such behaviors can be explained. The purpose of this article is to conduct a scoping review of pandemic-related PB, including PB during COVID-19 and in past pandemics and outbreaks. Relevant explanatory constructs are examined and empirical research is reviewed in order to (a) identify the characteristics and correlates (e.g., motivations) of PB, (b) identify potentially useful methods for managing PB, and (c) identify important directions for future investigation. The review of empirical research was based on a literature search, up to December 2, 2020, of the Psychinfo, Medline, and Academic Search Premier databases using “panic buying”, “stockpiling”, “hoarding”, and “pandemic” as search terms. Historical newspaper archives were also examined, as were narrative historical reviews of pandemics (2019, Barry, 2018; Cohn, 2018; Crosby, 2003; Honigsbaum, 2014; Spinney, 2017; Taylor, 2019).