Browsing by Author "Lay S."

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Is it really “panic buying”? Public perceptions and experiences of extra buying at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic
    (Public Library of Science, 2022) Ntontis E.; Ntontis E.; Jurstakova K.; Vestergren S.; Stott C.; Saavedra P.; Neville F.; Cocking C.; Lay S.; Drury J.; Vignoles V.L.; Reicher S.
    © 2022 Ntontis 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.Shopping behaviour in response to extreme events is often characterized as “panic buying” which connotes irrationality and loss of control. However, “panic buying” has been criticized for attributing shopping behaviour to people’s alleged psychological frailty while ignoring other psychological and structural factors that might be at play. We report a qualitative exploration of the experiences and understandings of shopping behaviour of members of the public at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Through a thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with 23 participants, we developed three themes. The first theme addresses people’s understandings of “panic buying”. When participants referred to “panic buying” they meant observed product shortages (rather than the underlying psychological processes that can lead to such behaviours), preparedness behaviours, or emotions such as fear and worry. The second theme focuses on the influence of the media and other people’s behaviour in shaping subsequent shopping behaviours. The third theme addresses the meaningful motivations behind increased shopping, which participants described in terms of preparedness; some participants reported increased shopping behaviours as a response to other people stockpiling, to reduce their trips to supermarkets, or to prepare for product shortages and longer stays at home. Overall, despite frequently using the term ‘panic’, the irrationalist connotations of “panic buying” were largely absent from participants’ accounts. Thus, “panic buying” is not a useful concept and should not be used as it constructs expected responses to threat as irrational or pathological. It can also facilitate such behaviours, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    REPLY TO NIELSEN ET AL.: Social mindfulness is associated with countries’ environmental performance and individual environmental concern
    (National Academy of Sciences, 2022) van Doesum N.J.; Romano A.; van Doesum N.J.; Murphy R.O.; Murphy R.O.; Gallucci M.; Aharonov-Majar E.; Athenstaedt U.; Au W.T.; Bai L.; Bohm R.; Bohm R.; Bohm R.; Bovina I.; Buchan N.R.; Chen X.-P.; Dumont K.B.; Engelmann J.B.; Shalvi S.; Engelmann J.B.; Eriksson K.; Euh H.; Fiedler S.; Friesen J.; Gachter S.; Garcia C.; Gonzalez R.; Graf S.; Hrebickova M.; Growiec K.; Guimond S.; Immer-Bernold E.; Joireman J.; Karagonlar G.; Kawakami K.; Kiyonari T.; Kou Y.; Kyrtsis A.-A.; Tsirbas Y.; Lay S.; Leonardelli G.J.; Leonardelli G.J.; Li N.P.; Li Y.; Maciejovsky B.; Manesi Z.; van Lange P.A.M.; Mashuri A.; Mashuri A.; Mok A.; Moser K.S.; Moser K.S.; Motak L.; Netedu A.; Platow M.J.; Raczka-Winkler K.; Weber B.; Reinders Folmer C.P.; Reinders Folmer C.P.; Reyna C.; Simao C.; Stivers A.W.; Strimling P.; Utz S.; Utz S.; van der Meij L.; Waldzus S.; Wang Y.; Weisel O.; Wildschut T.; Winter F.; Wu J.; Wu J.; Yong J.C.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Social mindfulness and prosociality vary across the globe
    (National Academy of Sciences, 2021) van Doesum N.J.; Romano A.; van Doesum N.J.; Manesi Z.; van Lange P.A.M.; van Doesum N.J.; Murphy R.O.; Murphy R.O.; Gallucci M.; Aharonov-Majar E.; Athenstaedt U.; Au W.T.; Bai L.; Böhm R.; Böhm R.; Böhm R.; Bovina I.; Buchan N.R.; Chen X.P.; Dumont K.B.; Engelmann J.B.; Shalvi S.; Engelmann J.B.; Eriksson K.; Euh H.; Fiedler S.; Friesen J.; Gächter S.; Garcia C.; González R.; Graf S.; Hrebíčková M.; Growiec K.; Guimond S.; Immer-Bernold E.; Joireman J.; Karagonlar G.; Kawakami K.; Kiyonari T.; Kou Y.; Kuhlman D.M.; Kyrtsis A.A.; Tsirbas Y.; Lay S.; Leonardelli G.J.; Leonardelli G.J.; Li N.P.; Li Y.; Maciejovsky B.; Mashuri A.; Mashuri A.; Mok A.; Moser K.S.; Moser K.S.; Moták L.; Netedu A.; Pammi C.; Platow M.J.; Raczka-Winkler K.; Weber B.; Reinders Folmer C.P.; Reinders Folmer C.P.; Reyna C.; Simão C.; Stivers A.W.; Strimling P.; Utz S.; Utz S.; van der Meij L.; Waldzus S.; Wang Y.; Weisel O.; Wildschut T.; Winter F.; Wu J.; Wu J.; Yong J.C.
    © 2021 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.Humans are social animals, but not everyone will be mindful of others to the same extent. Individual differences have been found, but would social mindfulness also be shaped by one's location in the world? Expecting cross-national differences to exist, we examined if and how social mindfulness differs across countries. At little to no material cost, social mindfulness typically entails small acts of attention or kindness. Even though fairly common, such low-cost cooperation has received little empirical attention. Measuring social mindfulness across 31 samples from industrialized countries and regions (n = 8,354), we found considerable variation. Among selected country-level variables, greater social mindfulness was most strongly associated with countries' better general performance on environmental protection. Together, our findings contribute to the literature on prosociality by targeting the kind of everyday cooperation that is more focused on communicating benevolence than on providing material benefits.