Journal of Consumer Affairs最新文献

The link between social media use and financial outcomes is still emerging. This study examines the association between communication through social media, financial outcomes, and the potential mediating role of fear of missing out. Using data from a national survey on the socio-economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic (n = 4178), linear regression results show that greater social media use is positively associated with difficulty in making ends meet and lacking emergency savings. Furthermore, fear of missing out mediates the relationship between social media use and both adverse financial outcome measures. It appears that social media use and a higher propensity to experience fear of missing out can be negatively related to a person's financial situation. The results of this study have implications for consumer financial behaviors related to social media communication.

The proliferation of consumer panicbuying behavior is unpredictable and sudden in situations such as wars, pandemics, and oil crises, indicating its multifarious nature. Despite global prevalence, understanding the phenomenon holistically remains a challenge. This study systematically reviews the literature on panic buying through bibliometric analysis combined with content analysis of 73 articles published between 1998 and 2022. To provide comprehensive understanding of panic-buying behavior during pandemics, the literature is divided into timeframes based on each pandemic's magnitude. The study examines the thematic evolution of PB research based on pandemics and utilizes co-citation network to identify the intellectual structure of scholarly work. The co-citation analysis identified four distinct clusters clarifying the conceptual structure of panic buying. Content analysis uncovered emerging and declining themes, revealing two additional hidden clusters that illustrate panic buying evolution over time. This study offers valuable insights into consumer behaviors associated with crises and scarcity events, and suggests directions for future research.

Individuals make subjective judgments about the probability of their current social class changing in the future, and this judgment is known as perceived social mobility. Studies have explored the impact of perceived social mobility on consumer psychology and behavior; however, they have not linked it to risk preference. Based on social cognitive theory, this research examines the impact of perceived social mobility on consumers' risk preference and its underlying mechanism. Five studies are conducted to test the proposed conceptual model. Findings indicate that low perceived social mobility reduces consumers' risk preference compared to high perceived social mobility, with self-efficacy playing a mediating role in this relationship. Alternative mediators, including sense of control and sense of power, are excluded. Time orientation plays a moderating role in this relationship. The findings advance research on perceived social mobility and risk preference, while guiding consumers to make informed consumption decisions that protect their interests.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping insurance services, yet it introduces significant consumer risks such as privacy erosion, service exclusion, and trust deterioration. This systematic review clarifies how specific AI features—algorithmic opacity, hyper-personalization, and data-driven bias—trigger psychological responses and shape consumer decisions, ultimately producing negative outcomes. Drawing from 33 empirical studies, the review organizes fragmented findings using the TCCM (Theory–Context–Characteristic–Method) framework, revealing theoretical fragmentation, geographical concentration, and methodological imbalance. To move beyond static categorizations, the study proposes a novel Trigger–Psychology–Decision–Outcome (TPDO) framework that maps sequential pathways of consumer harm. Findings show that adverse consumer outcomes emerge primarily through fairness concerns, anxiety, and perceived loss of control, influencing behaviors such as disengagement and resistance to AI-enabled insurance systems. This mechanism-based synthesis provides theoretical clarity, outlines targeted avenues for future research, and informs consumer-centric governance of algorithmic insurance.

In the era of big data and AI, consumers are confronted with an overwhelming amount of information and a wide range of choices when purchasing agri-food products online. This can significantly impact their decision-making processes. However, there is currently insufficient comprehensive understanding regarding how information overload influences consumer purchasing decisions in the agri-food sector and whether differences in personal cognition and knowledge moderate this effect. This study aims to address this knowledge deficiency. Drawing on the stimulus-organism-response (S-O-R) theory, an influence mechanism model is developed to examine the impact of information overload on consumers' decision deferral. A situational experiment involving 430 agri-food consumers is conducted to empirically test the proposed model. The results show that information overload significantly affects the level of consumer confusion. This, in turn, causes a deferral of purchase decisions. Furthermore, both cognitive need and consumer knowledge negatively moderate the relationship between information overload and consumer confusion.

This paper demonstrates that the more people attribute poverty to individualistic causes—such as a lack of effort—the less willing they are to support initiatives that address the non-basic needs of low-income communities. Accordingly, observers are more likely to (a) attribute a low-income individual's financial struggles to personal failings when that individual makes a hedonic (vs. utilitarian) consumption choice (Studies 1A and 1B), and consequently, (b) penalize them for those choices. We examine this hedonic penalty in two contexts: people are less likely to support government assistance programs for low-income individuals who engage in hedonic consumption (Study 1A), and they are less inclined to hire an equally qualified low-income job candidate who chooses hedonic over utilitarian spending (Study 2). Finally, we show that the hedonic penalty can be mitigated by making the importance and commonality of addressing hedonic needs more salient (Study 3).