key: cord-0950474-7wwgig16 authors: Li, Shaobo (Kevin); Zhang, Zhe; Liu, Yue; Ng, Sharon title: The closer I am, the safer I feel: The “distance proximity effect” of COVID‐19 pandemic on individuals' risk assessment and irrational consumption date: 2021-07-26 journal: Psychol Mark DOI: 10.1002/mar.21552 sha: 3fdf48b362a31e0c42cc9ae28f56c30165e23932 doc_id: 950474 cord_uid: 7wwgig16 The unprecedented crisis of COVID‐19 posed severe negative consequences for consumers, marketers, and society at large. By investigating the effect of individuals' distance from the COVID‐19 epicenter (i.e., the geographical area in which COVID‐19 pandemic is currently most severe) on consumers' risk perception and subsequent behaviors, this research provides novel empirical findings that can offer practical insights for marketers. While intuitively, people expect individuals closer to the COVID‐19 epicenter to generate a greater risk perception of the pandemic, empirical evidence from four studies provides consistent results for the opposite effect. We find that a closer (vs. farther) distance to the epicenter associates with lower (vs. higher) perceived risk of the pandemic, leading to less (vs. more) irrational consumption behaviors. We refer to this phenomenon as the “distance proximity effect,” which holds for both physical and psychological distances. We further demonstrated that this effect is mediated by consumers' perception of uncertainty and moderated by individuals' risk aversion tendency. The current research contributes to the literature of consumers' risk perception and irrational consumption by highlighting a novel factor of distance proximity. It also offers some timely insights into managing and intervening COVID‐19 related issues inside and outside an epicenter. everyday products. In some cities, essential products such as flour, black beans, or even pain reliever and cold remedies were priced five times higher than their regular price, but they still sold out quickly (Walker, 2020) . Such a disordered consumption environment proved to be a phenomenal challenge for consumers, retailers, public policymakers, and society. Everyday shopping became a nightmare for consumers, especially the elders (Kassraie, 2020) . The damage caused by uncertainty, panic, and fear seemed to be no less than that caused by the virus itself. Irrational consumption refers to the excess consumption or unreasonable hoard of particular goods divergent from "reasonable cognitive assessment" (Loxton et al., 2020, pp. 3). Irrational consumption is more likely to occur during a crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic. As pointed out by Loxton et al. (2020, pp. 3), the stress and uncertainty during a crisis may "lead consumers to skew their traditional patterns of spending towards purchases which might otherwise be undertaken at different times, at different volumes or perhaps not made at all." Interestingly, such irrational consumption behavior during COVID-19 seemed to be location-dependent, with consumers inside and outside the epicenter exhibiting different levels of urgency. For instance, in the initial stages of the pandemic, while everyday shopping in Wuhan (which is the epicenter) seemed to be relatively calm and organized , many parts of China witnessed grocery supply shortage due to the panic purchasingeven with the central government control (Wernau, 2020) . Similar situations happened in other countries. Residents in El Paso-a major city in Texas which is an epicenter of the pandemic in the United States (Butterfield, 2020; Washington, 2020) , were reported to be calm and did not engage in panic buying behavior. The popular press reported that "the local Costco and Walmart had plenty of toilet paper, meat, hand sanitizer and more while shelves in other cities are bare due to panic buying" (Butterfield, 2020) . In contrast, residents in Las Cruces were lining up in front of stores, emptying the shelves by stocking up on food, toilet paper, and cleaning products, even though Las Cruces is about 40 miles outside El Paso (Fish & Martinez, 2020) . The previously marked contrast in people's behavior in the epicenter versus those farther away from the epicenter seems counterintuitive. Although people in the epicenters (e.g., Wuhan and El Paso) should face more cognitive and emotional stress than their more distant counterparts, the chaotic and irrational consumption occurred beyond the epicenter, where the level and damage of the virus was much less severe. This type of paradoxical behavior also happened in other pandemics in history. For example, after the Sichuan earthquake in 2008, people in nondevastated areas, compared to those in the devastated area, were more anxious (Xie et al., 2011) and estimated more money and time for the reconstruction of devastated areas (Li et al., 2009) . This paradox led to the current investigation. This research examines how individuals' distance to the epicenter affects their risk perception and subsequent irrational consumption behaviors. Through the empirical investigation of four studies conducted across different countries affected by COVID-19, we show that counterintuitively, a closer (vs. farther) distance to the epicenter reduces (vs. increases) consumers' feeling of uncertainty towards the pandemic, thus leads to a lower (vs. higher) risk perception of the virus, and less (vs. more) irrational consumption. We term this phenomenon the "distance proximity effect." By investigating the distance proximity effect, the current research contributes to the literature on irrational consumption and our understanding of how consumers cope with risks. First, we contribute to the broader literature on consumers' irrational consumption. We showcase that the distance proximity effect is associated with important downstream consequences such as panic buying. As such, we offer some timely knowledge regarding the understanding of consumers' panic buying behavior under pandemics, such as the current critical situation of COVID-19 (e.g., Arslan et al., 2020; Naeem, 2021) . We also answer the call by prior scholars on more research on panic buying from the perspective of crisis management (Billore & Anisimova, 2021) . Second, prior research suggested that one's risk perception can be influenced by individual differences and situational factors (Venkatraman, 1989; Wachinger et al., 2013; Wahlberg & Sjoberg, 2000) . The current research builds on and extends this stream of literature by being the first to show distance from an epicenter can influence individuals' risk perception. Importantly, we demonstrate that distance to an epicenter influences consumers' risk perception in a counterintuitive manner-a shorter distance reduces the level of perceived risk and subsequent irrational buying behavior. Finally, the current research also contributes to the literature by documenting how distance may influence consumers' feelings of uncertainty. It is worth noting that although the current study investigates the distance proximity effect in the COVID-19 context, the findings from this research can also be applied to other public crisis contexts, such as natural disasters (e.g., earthquakes, hurricanes) or terrorist attack. Therefore, insights from this research also offer important managerial insights and practical implications for marketers and policymakers by highlighting the importance of catering and adapting to consumers' different psychological needs and behaviors inside and outside of an epicenter or other. 1 | CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT 1.1 | Distance as an antecedent for risk perception Risk perception refers to people's "instinctive and intuitive reactions to danger" (Slovic & Peters, 2006, p. 322 ). Much prior research has shown that individuals' risk perception exerts a substantial influence on their decision-making and behaviors across various domains (e.g., Ha, 2002; Mitchell & Greatorex, 1988) . Understanding the antecedents of people's risk perception and managing and mitigating the negative consequences caused by perceived and actual risk is critical for both individuals and societal well-being. Such understanding is particularly relevant in the current COVID pandemic. Prior research suggests that both individual-centric factors and social factors can influence individuals' risk perception. The individual-centric factors include demographics (e.g., age, gender, education level), personality differences, and personal experiences (Wachinger et al., 2013; Wildavsky & Dake, 1990) . Social factors include one's community connection, media exposure, and cultural influence, to name a few (Farias, 2020; Wachinger et al., 2013; Wahlberg & Sjoberg, 2000; Yoganathan et al., 2021) . Table 1 summarizes some key literature findings on risk perception influencing factors. Interestingly, nonsocial factors, such as one's distance to a hazard (e.g., an individual's geographic proximity to the epicenter of , have attracted little attention from researchers. This could partially be explained by how "intuitive" the answer could be: the closer to the risk center, the higher the perceived risk. According to Brewer et al. (2007) , individuals' perceived risk comprises of three dimensions: perceived likelihood which refers to the probability that one will be harmed; perceived susceptibility, which refers to an individual's constitutional vulnerability to a hazard; and perceived severity which is the extent of harm a hazard would cause. Based on this general model, one can expect that physical closeness to a hazard center (e.g., a COVID-19 epicenter) should lead to an increased perceived likelihood of being influenced by the hazard and thereby increases one's perceived risk associated with that hazard. However, some preliminary investigations in other domains, particularly in urban planning literature, have shown that the "intuitive answer" mentioned above may not always hold. Some research has shown that physical closeness to a hazardous plant (e.g., a nuclear plant) can decrease the perceived risk of that hazard for the residents who live nearby. For instance, Maderthaner et al. (1978) showed that in comparison to people residing near (0.5 km) a nuclear plant, residents living farther away (1.4 km) showed more negative attitudes toward the plant. Though these findings seem unrelated to marketing, we argue that they suggest a greater nuance on the impact of distance on perceived risk as we elaborate below. 1.2 | Distance influences risk perception in the pandemic, and the mediating role of perceived uncertainty Building on the prior findings reviewed above and drawing from the anecdotal evidence of how residents inside (vs. outside) of Wuhan and El Paso dealt with the COVID-19 situation, we propose the presence of a "distance proximity effect." We suggest that people's risk perception is positively associated with their physical and T A B L E 1 Antecedents and consequences of consumer risk perception Main findings The current study The "distance proximity effect": Individual's physical or psychological distance to an epicenter affects their perceived risk of the pandemic. A closer (vs. farther) distance to the epicenter associates with lower (vs. higher) perceived risk and leads to less (vs. more) irrational consumption behaviors. Physical and psychological factors Loewenstein et al. (2001) The "risk-as-feelings" hypothesis: Individual's emotional reactions to risky situations diverge from one's cognitive assessments of the risks. When such divergence occurs, emotions rather than cognitions drive behavior. Personal/individual factor Slovic & Peters (2006) The "affect heurist": A number of aspects of perceived risk can be predicted and explained by affects. For instance, fear and anger produce different risk perceptions and responses. Personal/individual factor Kobbeltved et al. (2005) Perceived risk is associated with worry but not emotional distress. Personal/individual factor Venkatraman (1989) Individual differences affect consumers' risk perception: Enduringly involved consumers (e.g., hedonic driven) have a greater ability to handle risk than instrumentally involved consumers (e.g., utilitarian driven), which subsequently influences consumers' information seeking and purchase behaviors. perceived distance from the pandemic epicenter. Specifically, people who are further away from (vs. closer to) a hazardous event or object would interpret the hazard as more (vs. less) dangerous-because of the "fear of unknown"-one does not have a clear picture regarding the accuracy and reality of the crisis. Individuals' risk perception involves "personal exposure to or experiences with outcomes, and history of conditioning" (Loewenstein et al., 2001, pp. 268) . Prior research has shown that how individuals respond to risky situations is heavily influenced by the vividness to which they can visualize the consequences (Weber, 2013) , and the accumulated experience with a situation could reduce the perceived risk with this situation (Golant & Burton, 1969; Ulqinaku et al., 2020) . In the COVID-19 context, we suggest that the missing of vividness when a consumer is far away from the epicenter would increase one's perception of uncertainty (e.g., the severity and damage the virus may cause), which leads to greater fear about the disease. Uncertainty refers to the state of lack of information about an event (Bar-Anan et al., 2009) . In this unprecedented worldwide health crisis of COVID-19, the "pandemic-related uncertainty is inescapable" (Prentice et al., 2020; Shiu et al., 2011) and intensify people's perceived risks associated with COVID-19 (Arenas et al., 2006; Fung et al., 2018; Sorrentino et al., 2009; Van Den Bos, Euwema, Poortvliet and Maas, 2007; Wiggins et al., 1992) . According to the uncertainty reduction theory (Berger & Calabrese, 1974) , individuals are generally motivated to seek additional information to reduce uncertainties. In the context of COVID-19, given the disease is new to the human race and our knowledge about it is still very limited, the public's uncertainty facing such an unprecedented public health crisis is naturally high Martin, Hanna, McCartney, et al., 2020) . In this case, distance proximity augments individuals' accessibility to the reality of the crisis and plays a vital role in influencing individuals' uncertainty perception and reduction. Being closer to an epicenter enables consumers to construct the reality of the current situation through their own observations and experience (Heg et al., 2004) , thereby reducing the associated uncertainties. Thus, close distance proximity helps consumers to generate a more vivid and sensible assessment of the crisis, which reduces individuals' perceived uncertainties and mitigates the perceived risk associated with COVID-19. Conversely, an increased distance from the epicenter limits individuals' accessibility to the facts and realities of the crisis, which may hinder consumers' ability to reduce uncertainty. Without much experience and vividness of the situation, the "fear of unknown" associated with COVID-19 may make the virus's damage remain mysterious or imaginary for consumers who are further away from the epicenter. These consumers, therefore, have to rely on secondary sources (e.g., news, WOM) for information. Given the prevalence of unproven, biased, or even fake information, consumers are more likely to get exaggerated or inconsistent information, making the situation seem more serve and uncertain (Borges-Tiago et al., 2020; Di Domenico et al., 2021; Pennycook & Rand, 2019) . As a result, individuals further from the crisis may evaluate the situation less objectively and are more likely to panic about the virus. Following this line of argument, we propose that a closer (vs. farther) distance to the epicenter leads to lower (vs. higher) uncertainty perceptions. We further propose that this will, in turn, influence individuals' perceived risk level of the COVID-19. Taken together, we hypothesize: H1: Consumers' actual and perceived distances to the epicenter are positively associated with their perception of the risk level of the pandemic, such that a closer (vs. farther) distance to the epicenter associates with lower (vs. higher) perceived risk of the pandemic. The relationship between distance and risk perception is mediated by consumers' perception of the uncertainties associated with the pandemic. Prior research has documented that perceived risk can give rise to negative affective responses, such as feelings of worry, fear, and panic, which would shift individuals' behavioral responses (Baker et al., 2016; Kobbeltved et al., 2005; Loewenstein et al., 2001) . The "risk-asfeelings hypothesis" postulates that "emotions often produce behavioral responses that depart from what individuals view as the best course of action" (Loewenstein et al., 2001, pp. 273) . LeDoux (1998, pp. 19) noted that "emotions can flood consciousness," such that the negative affective responses individuals generate while facing a crisis may deviate from cognitive and reasonable evaluations, thus lead to irrational and illogical "emotion-driven risk-related behaviors" (Loewenstein et al., 2001, pp. 268 ). In the COVID-19 context, we expect that enhanced risk perception may increase the dominance of affective-based or illogical decisions in one's consumption Huang et al., 2015) . As such, irrational purchasing, such as an impetus to purchase an unreasonable amount of the same product (e.g., storing an excessive amount of toilet paper), will occur. Irrational purchasing pertains to affective-based consumption that is not economically logical (Zafirovski, 2013) . Adam Smith argued that a rational decision is an economical approach to human behavior and logic and collective action (Boudon, 2003; Parsons, 1935; Smith and Stewart, 1963) . Conversely, "irrational" refers to an "unreasonable act of choice and course of action rather than the essence and epitome of rational choices and actions" (Zafirovski, 2013, pp. 3) . While a rational choice focuses on utility maximization by using logic, individuals' irrational behaviors usually are considered to stem from sentiments (Baker et al., 2016; Pareto, 1909; Weber, 2013) . In the consumption context, Loxton et al. (2020, pp. 3) argued that irrational consumption is the "excess consumption of particular goods which consumers might have judged as sensibly purchase at the time, including those which may be unreasonably hoarded." These irrational consumptions are usually driven by consumers' emotional reactions to a crisis and usually lack cognitive assessments or reasonable justifications. Such irrational behaviors seem to be especially relevant to the COVID-19 crisis. The media reported several irrational behaviors among consumers, such as over-buying and stockpiling groceries such as toilet paper and pasta (Garbe et al., 2020; Lee, 2020) , during the pandemic. While these irrational behaviors are difficult to explain by using economic or logical arguments, we believe that they are rooted in the increased risk perception and attendant negative affective responses. Drawing from our argument above that distance from the epicenter will influence individuals' risk perception, we further propose that the enhanced feeling of perceived risk experienced by those who are further away from the epicenter will lead to greater irrational consumption. We thus hypothesize: H3: Irrational purchasing is more likely to occur to consumers far from the pandemic epicenter than those close to the epicenter. The literature on risk perception has documented the significant influences of personal traits and individual differences on people's evaluation and responses to the (same) hazard (Jie, 2020; Larsen & Diener, 1987; Milliman, 1997; Wachinger et al., 2013; Wahlberg & Sjoberg, 2000) . In particular, one stream of research has shown that individuals' risk aversion tendency-a person's preference for riskcan significantly affect one's behavioral response to the hazards (Chiappori & Salanie, 2000; Schlesinger, 1981; Szpiro, 1985) . Depending on one's level of risk aversion tendency, people can be broadly categorized as risk-averters and risk-takers (Schmitt, Brinkley & Newman, 1999) . In the consumption context, riskaverters and risk-takers may take different preventive approaches to the (same) hazards (Arslan et al., 2020) . For instance, Szpiro (1985) shows that consumers with a higher risk aversion tendency (i.e., the risk-averters) show a higher demand for insurance to resist the potential risks. In the current study context of the distance proximity effect, we suggest that individuals' risk aversion tendency also moderates the relationship between risk perception and irrational consumption. In particular, risk-averters may act more proactively and are more likely to engage in irrational consumption (e.g., paying more or stocking an excessive amount of toilet paper) than risk-takers. This is because, in comparison to risktakers, risk-averters may use consumption as a coping mechanism to increase their sense of control (Loxton et al., 2020; Schmitt, Brinkley & Newman, 1999) . We thus hypothesize: H4: The relationship between perceived risk and irrational consumption is moderated by individuals' risk aversion tendency. Specifically, the effect of risk perception on irrational consumption gets stronger among risk-averters, but it is attenuated among risktakers. Our full conceptual framework is presented in Figure 1 . We tested our hypotheses in four studies. Figure 1 shows the overview of the studies as well as the specific hypothesis each study tested. In particular, Study 1 provided initial evidence for our key argument that consumers' physical distance to the epicenter influences their perceived risk associated with COVID-19. We showed that individuals who were within (vs. outside) the COVID-19 epicenter perceived lower (vs. higher) risk (H1). Study 2 demonstrated the mediation role of perceived uncertainties (H2). Study 3 replicated the distance proximity effect with individuals' psychological distance to the epicenter and demonstrated the downstream consequence of irrational buying (H3). Last, in Study 4, we showed that individuals' risk aversion tendency moderates the effect of perceived risk on irrational consumption (H4). The main goal of study 1 was to provide initial evidence of the distance proximity effect (H1 Since the study was conducted during the COVID 19 pandemic, individuals' personal encounter may affect their risk assessment. Thus, we also included measures of their prior encounter with COVID-19 as potential covariates. These constructs included (1) An analysis of variance using distance proximity (within or outside the epicenter) as the independent variable and perceived risk as the dependent variable revealed a significant main effect of distance proximity on perceived risk. Specifically, we found that participants who were located within the epicenter indicated a significantly lower perceived risk in comparison to those who were located outside the Consistent with our main hypothesis (H1), results from study 1 showed that individuals who were within the epicenter (vs. outside the epicenter) perceived less (vs. more) risk of COVID-19. However, by categorizing participants as within (vs. outside) the epicenter, distance is treated as a binary factor when in reality, the distance may vary continuously. Therefore, instead of categorizing participants into two conditions (within vs. outside of the epicenter), we measured participants' exact distances to the epicenters as the distance proximity in Study 2 and their psychological distances in Studies 3 and 4. The goal of Study 2 was threefold. First, we applied a different operationalization of distance proximity to test the reliability of this effect. Specifically, we calculated individuals' exact distance to the epicenters to provide a continuous distance variable. Second, we aimed to examine the mechanism behind the distance proximity effect (H2) and show that individuals closer to (vs. farther from) the epicenter would have a lower (vs. higher) perceived uncertainty and risk perception about COVID-19. Third, we aimed to replicate the distance proximity effect with a different population. Hence we conducted this study in a different country-the United States. One thousand and fourteen participants (48.9% female, M age = 39.5 years) from Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) participated in our survey. Prior research (Ganzach et al., 2008) has shown that a single question-"How risky is the situation?"-captures the concept of risk perception more accurately than the multiple-item measure. Thus, we adopted a single-item measurement of perceived risk in this study. Specifically, participants reported their perceived risk associated with COVID-19 by answering, "How would you rate the COVID-19 infection risk?" (1 = very low; 7 = very high). Adapted from prior research (Li et al., 2021) , we asked participants to report their perceived uncertainty about COVID-19 to a threeitem scale: "How uncertain do you think the epidemic of COVID-19 will be in the near future?," "How unpredictable do you think the epidemic of COVID-19 will be in the near future?," and "How much do you think the epidemic of COVID-19 will be difficult to predict in the near future?" (1 = not at all, 7 = completely; α = 0.92). We calculated each participant's distance proximity (to the epicenters) based on their geographical coordinates. First, we determined individual participant's location information by the geographical coordinates recorded automatically on Qualtrics. Second, we referred to the report released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2020) to determine the epicenters in the United States. During the time of data collection (October 2, 2020), five states with the highest infected rates of COVID-19 were Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, and Arizona in descent order (the infected rates of these five states are 3.59%, 3.31%, 3.28%, 3.17%, and 3.05%, respectively). Therefore, we treated the five states with the highest infection rates as the epicenters and calculated each participant's average distance to those epicenters. In particular, we used Google API technology (Google APIs Explorer, 2020) and calculated the sphere distances of a participant's geographical coordinate to each of the epicenters mentioned above. The distances (to the five states) were then averaged to generate average distance proximity, which was used as the independent variable for the analysis. We assessed several constructs as potential covariates. These Table 2 for details). We conducted an ordinary linear square (OLS) regression with perceived risk as the dependent variable and distance proximity as the independent variable. The results indicated that participants who were closer to (vs. farther from) the epicenters indicated significantly lower (vs. higher) perceived risk (B = 0.0001, p = 0.01; η 2 = 0.007). These results again supported H1. Using a similar OLS regression with perceived uncertainty as the dependent variable and distance proximity as the independent variable, we found that participants who were closer to (vs. farther from) the epicenters indicated a marginally significant lower (vs. higher) perceived uncertainty regarding COVID-19 (B = 0.0001, p = 0.09; η 2 = 0.003). To test whether perceived uncertainty mediates the effect of distance proximity on perceived risk, we conducted a mediation analysis with 5000 bootstrapped samples using Model 4 of the PROCESS macro for SPSS (Hayes, 2017) . We included the distance proximity as the independent variable, perceived uncertainty as the mediator, perceived risk as the outcome variable for the analysis. We found that participants who were closer to (vs. farther from) the epicenter indicated significantly lower ( To test the robustness of our results, we conducted additional analyses controlling for several important covariates, as shown in Table 2 Study 2 provided further evidence for the distance proximity effect using more accurate distance proximities. Besides, study 2 demonstrated the mediation role of perceived uncertainty. Consistent with our hypothesis 2, we found that individuals who were closer to (vs. farther from) the epicenter had a lower (vs. higher) feeling of uncertainty about the epidemic, thus perceived a lower (vs. higher) risk associated with COVID-19. The main goal of Study 3 was to demonstrate the downstream consequence of the distance proximity effect that consumers who are farther away from the epicenters are more likely to engage in irrational consumptions (H3). We also aimed to replicate the effect by using a different measure of distance proximity-psychological distance. This approach helped us accommodate the presence of multiple epicenters and further validate the effect's robustness (Kreilkamp, 1984; Stephan et al., 2010) . One hundred and fourteen US participants (51.8% female, M age = 40.2 years) were recruited from MTurk to participate in this study. Adapted from prior research (Slovic, 1999) , we measured participants' psychological distance from the COVID-19 epicenter by asking, "how far do you think you are away from the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) epidemic center?" (0 = very close, 100 = very far away). We asked participants to complete the same 6-items risk assessment scale (α = 0.71) used in Study 1. The spread of COVID-19 has unleashed significant irrational behaviors among consumers. Among these behaviors, stockpiling groceries, especially toilet paper and food, seems to a prominent phenomenon during the pandemic (Garbe et al., 2020; Lee, 2020) . Therefore, we used the intention of purchase the quantity of toilet paper as the proxies of irrational consumption in this study. To this end, we asked participants to indicate how many rolls of toilet paper are they willing to buy, which served as the downstream consequence measure of irrational consumption. Linear regression with psychological distance to the epicenter as the independent variable and perceived risk as dependent variable showed that participants who felt closer to (vs. farther from) the epicenter indicated significantly lower (vs. higher) perceived risk (B = 0.01, t(112) = 2.63, p = 0.01). These results served as a reasonable replication of the distance proximity effect, supporting H1. Linear regression analyses revealed that participants who felt closer to (vs. farther from) the epicenter indicated significantly smaller (vs. larger) purchase quantity of toilet paper (B = 1.32, t(112) = 2.57, p = 0.01). Consistent with our prediction, these results showed that participants who are farther away from the epicenter were more likely to consume irrationally, supporting H3. We conducted a mediation analysis with 5000 bootstrapped samples using Model 4 of the PROCESS macro for SPSS (Hayes, 2017) . We Study 3 provided further evidence for the distance proximity effect with individuals' psychological distance to . Moreover, we also demonstrated the downstream consequences of irrational consumption associated with the distance proximity effect (H3). It is noteworthy that this effect was replicated across different populations in different countries and three different operationalizations of distance proximity (within/outside the epicenter, physical and psychological distances to the epicenter). The goal of study 4 was to explore the proposed moderator of individuals' risk aversion tendency (H4). We empirically showed that the effect of risk perception on irrational consumption is stronger among consumers with high-risk aversion tendency (i.e., the riskaverters) but is attenuated for those with low-risk aversion tendency (i.e., the risk-takers). 6.1 | Method Distance proximity was measured as the same as in Study 3. Similar to Study 3, participants were asked to indicate the number of rolls of toilet paper they would like to purchase. We measured participants' risk aversion tendency by using a 3-item scale from Gray & Durcikova, 2005 . Items include "I am a cautious person who generally avoids risk," "I am very willing to take risks when choosing a job or project to work on" (reversed), and "I usually play it safe, even if it means occasionally losing out on a good opportunity" (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree; α = 0.69). We conducted moderated mediation analysis (PROCESS Model 14) with irrational consumption tendency as the dependent variable, psychological distance from the epicenter as the independent variable, individuals' risk aversion tendency as the moderator, and per- Study 4 demonstrated the moderating role of individuals' risk aversion tendency on the relationship between perceived risk and irrational consumption. We found that the effect of risk perception on irrational consumption gets stronger among people with a high-risk aversion tendency (the risk-averters). However, this effect was attenuated when people's risk aversion tendency is low (the risk-takers). In this research, we identified a new phenomenon of the "distance proximity effect." In four studies, we showed that in the context of COVID-19, a closer (vs. farther) distance to the epicenter leads to a lower (vs. higher) perceived risk of the pandemic (Studies 1-4), and this can lead to irrational consumption behaviors (Studies 3 and 4). We demonstrated that perceived uncertainty mediates this effect (Study 2), and individuals' risk aversion tendency moderates this effect (Study 4). Notably, we found that the distance proximity effect holds for both physical and psychological distances. By investigating a novel factor that influences consumers' risk per- (Wachinger et al., 2013; Wahlberg & Sjoberg, 2000) . The current research contributes to this stream of literature by offering a novel insight into how distance from an epicenter can also filter down to influence individuals' risk perception and lead to augmented irrational purchasing. In addition, our findings contribute to the emerging literature on consumer uncertainty. Prior research documented ambiguity and credibility as the two major antecedents of consumer uncertainty (e.g., Faraji-Rad & Pham, 2017; Shiu et al., 2011; Sun et al., 2012) . Adding to this stream of research, we theoretically demonstrate and empirically show that distance proximity also serves as a factor to influence consumers' uncertainty perception toward a hazard, which serves as the mechanism underlying the distance proximity effect. Through the unique lens of distance proximity to an epicenter, we offer several practical implications that are particularly important to marketers and public policymakers. First, our findings highlight the importance for marketers and policymakers to realize, prepare for and correspond to the different psychological needs and behaviors for consumers who are close to or farther from an epicenter. Within an epicenter, expeditious crisis communication helps increase individuals' awareness of the seriousness of the situation and enhances proper preparations for it. Outside the epicenter, fact-based, judicious information will aid individuals in recognizing and understanding the crisis in a more objective and unbiased manner. The different psychological needs inside and outside the epicenter also require marketers and policymakers to tailor the information and make corresponding communication strategies accordingly. Store policies, restrictions, or even law enforcement should also put the "distance proximity effect" into consideration. Thus specific actions can be more targeted (i.e., more law enforcement outside the epicenter rather than inside) to avoid "unexpected" panic or chaos. Second, as demonstrated in the current research, the "distance proximity effect" comes from the feeling of uncertainty. Policymakers should be more aware of the importance of accurate and transparent information to the public during critical times. Indeed, the United Nations has warned the "infodemic" in the COVID-19 crisis as fake news "spreads faster and more easily than this virus" (United Nations, 2020). Therefore, a more comprehensive examination and stricter regulation regarding how real (and "fake") information is generated, communicated, and spread out in public are needed. For example, because some new reports initially tried to "tone down" the severity of COVID-19 by describing it as a "flu," provision of inaccurate and misleading information in the incipient stage of a major crisis may backfire by causing augmented panic later on and losing precious time required for preparing and preventing the virus (or crisis) from spreading (Lutz, 2020) . The current study has limitations that may be future research opportunities. First, we focused on the "distance proximity effect" in the current context of COVID-19. Whether this effect would hold or even get stronger/weaker in other more common disasters (such as earthquakes, forest fires, or wars) is unknown. Therefore, subsequent empiricism could explore how this effect may change with different types and magnitudes of disasters. Second, from a methodology perspective, both physical and psychological distances were measured rather than manipulated in the current study. To obtain a more accurate causal effect, future research could try to experimentally manipulate distance. This approach may further improve the validity of the proximity effect we found. Third, irrational consumption in the current study was captured by only one downstream behavior (i.e., the purchase amount of toilet paper). To generalize the findings, future research could examine the distance proximity effect with other irrational consumption proxies. In addition, the distance proximity effect may be related to other types of consequences, such as increased drug and alcohol usage, enhanced violence and crimes, etc. Therefore, future research may also extend the distance proximity effect to other aspects of consumer behavior at a broader level. Last, the current study mainly examined the distance proximity effect during the pervasion of COVID-19. However, as the pandemic progresses and hopefully gets into a more manageable phase soon, the significance and intensity of the distance proximity effect may vary. Therefore, the evolving situation of the pandemic (e.g., before and after the mass vaccination campaigns) offers abundant opportunities for future research to explore how the proximity effect may change at different stages of the pandemic. Warrant Buffett once said, "Risk comes from not knowing what you're doing." Our findings show the same: The closer one gets to the risk, the more one knows what to do and behaves more rationally. Effects of goal orientation, error orientation and self-efficacy on performance in an uncertain situation How people know their risk preference An exploration and investigation of edible insect consumption: The impacts of image and description on risk perceptions and purchase intent The feeling of uncertainty intensifies affective reactions Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication Panic buying research: A systematic literature review and future research agenda Online users' attitudes toward fake news: Implications for brand management Uncertainty management and social issues: Uncertainty as an important determinant of reactions to socially deviating people 1 Beyond rational choice theory Meta-analysis of the relationship between risk perception and health behavior: The example of vaccination EXCLUSIVE: Virus, what virus? No panic buying in El Paso as shelves are fully stocked, residents are seen leisurely shopping at strip malls and dining indoors despite the Texas town being the Covid-19 epicenter with hospitals filled to capacity Testing for asymmetric information in insurance markets Multidimensional properties of the LOT-R: Effects of optimism and pessimism on career and well-being related variables in adolescents 8 Ways Japan Prepares for Earthquakes Free but fake speech: When giving primacy to the source decreases misinformation sharing on social media Uncertainty increases the reliance on affect in decisions The inescapable effects of superstition and sacrifice on crimes against wildlife Please be considerate and think of your neighbors Japan Earthquake: Country Better Prepared than Anyone for Quakes and Tsunamis School education for disaster risk reduction in Japan after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami (GEGET) Testing links among uncertainty, affect, and attitude toward a health behavior Anxiety, Confusion, Rush for Masks: How the Wuhan Coronavirus Makes People Panicky and How to Stay Calm How Wuhan Residents are Trying to Make the Best of the Coronavirus Lockdown On the perception and operationalization of risk perception Influence of perceived threat of Covid-19 and HEXACO personality traits on toilet paper stockpiling The role of knowledge repositories in technical support environments: Speed versus learning in user performance Gender Differences in risk perception: Theoretical and methodological erspectives The effects of consumer risk perception on pre-purchase information in online auctions: Brand, word-of-mouth, and customized information Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach I" follow my heart and "We" rely on reasons: The impact of self-construal on reliance on feelings versus reasons in decision making The impact of power on reliance on feelings versus reasons in decision making. Association for Consumer Research North American Advances Older is better: Consumers prefer older drugs Supermarkets Offer Special Hours for Older Shoppers Risk as feelings or risk and feelings? A cross-lagged panel analysis Psychological closeness Affect intensity as an individual difference characteristic: A review Is COVID-19 coronavirus leading to toilet paper shortages? Here is the situation Seeking closeness in an Unstable World: Exposure to Greater Variability Increases People's Brand Attachment Psychological typhoon eye in 2008 Wenchuan earthquake of Risk as feelings Consumer behaviour during crises: Preliminary research on how Coronavirus has manifested consumer panic buying, herd mentality, changing discretionary spending and the role of the media in influencing behaviour Nurse: Some Billings Patients Describe COVID-19 as "Worst Flu" and "Worst Cold" They've Ever Had. Motana's News Leader Effect of distance upon risk perception Urgency and uncertainty: Covid-19, face masks, and evidence informed policy Science, society, and policy in the face of uncertainty: Reflections on the debate around face coverings for the public during COVID-19 Women Charged as Virus Fears Fuel Panic Buying in Australia Perceived risk attitudes: Relating risk perception to risky choice Consumer risk perception in the UK wine market Do social media platforms develop consumer panic buying during the fear of Covid-19 pandemic Sociological elements in economic thought: I. Historical Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning Timed intervention in COVID-19 and panic buying A social network contagion theory of risk perception The optimal level of deductibility in insurance contracts Testing Damasio's somatic marker hypothesis with psychopathic individuals: Risk takers or risk averse Consumer uncertainty, revisited Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield Risk perception and affect An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1) Uncertainty management: To fear of not to fear? Politeness and psychological distance: A construal level perspective The effect of attribute alignability on service evaluation: The moderating role of uncertainty Optimal insurance coverage A cognitive-affective scale for hurricane risk perception Benefits of heroes to coping with mortality threats by providing perceptions of personal power and reducing unhealthy compensatory consumption UN tackles "infodemic" of misinformation and cybercrime in COVID-19 crisis Involvement and risk The risk perception paradox-implications for governance and communication of natural hazards Risk perception and the media Amazon Sued for Price Gouging during Coronavirus Pandemic Millions of federal, state aid sent to El Paso as it becomes new epicenter of COVID-19 Seeing is believing How China kept its supermarkets stocked as coronavirus raged The psychological consequences of predictive testing for Huntington's disease Theories of risk perception: Who fears what and why? Daedalus WHO Director-General's Opening Remarks at the Mission Briefing on COVID-19-12 Beijing Daxue Xuebao Ziran Kexue Ban/Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Pekinensis Building better employer brands through employee social media competence and online social capital Beneath rational choice: Elements of "irrational choice theory Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis Additional Supporting Information may be found online in the supporting information tab for this article.