Author contributions: The 1 st through 4 th and last authors developed the research questions, oversaw the project, and contributed equally. The 1 st through 3 rd authors oversaw the Main Studies and Replication Studies, and the 4 th , 6 th , 7 th , and 8 th authors oversaw the Forecasting Study. The 1 st , 4 th , 5 th , 8 th , and 9 th authors conducted the primary analyses. The 10 th through 15 th authors conducted the Bayesian analyses. The first and 16 th authors conducted the multivariate meta-analysis.

On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the COVID-19 (coronavirus) outbreak a pandemic. In the following days, media reports showed that consumers increasingly stockpiled groceries and household supplies. Interestingly, behavioral data shows that this stockpiling exhibited considerable heterogeneity across countries. Building on cultural dimension theory, the authors theorize that this heterogeneity can be explained by countries' cultural values: Consumer stockpiling after the WHO's announcement was more pronounced in countries whose residents show high uncertainty avoidance, low long-term orientation, low indulgence, and high individualism. The authors confirm these propositions using global mobility data from Google matched with country-level data on cultural values, pandemic reaction policies, and other key variables. This research note thereby integrates the previously disconnected literature on cultural dimension theory and consumer stockpiling in general, as well as providing new and significant knowledge about cross-cultural consumer behavior in crises. Furthermore, the authors provide actionable insights for international policymakers and business managers who aim to predict or control consumer stockpiling in future global crises, in order to enhance consumer well-being.

Consumers set a lower consumption budget when they set individual calorie budgets for constituent categories (e.g., breakfast, lunch, dinner, and snacks; categorical approach) versus when they set a total budget (overall approach). This contraction effect of unpacking a judgment is driven by motivated reasoning. Consumers are motivated to reduce calorie consumption, and this motive directs their cognitive elaboration for the budget decision to be on what to cut and how much to cut. Furthermore, the categorical (vs. overall) approach brings to mind more thoughts that are consistent with the motive to reduce consumption, which then leads to a lower calorie budget. Consistent with this explanation, the level of elaboration on reducing calorie intake—especially on occasions where overconsumption is less salient—mediates the contraction effect. In addition, the contraction effect is attenuated when the motive to reduce consumption is deactivated. Finally, while the contraction effect occurs when consumers have a motive to reduce consumption, the classic expansion effect of unpacking occurs when consumers are prompted to think about what to consume or are motivated to increase consumption. The results for calorie budgeting are shown to have downstream consequences on actual food consumption.

No abstract

Consumers often use spatial metaphors to describe time. Through six studies, the present research demonstrates that time metaphors influence consumers' perceptions of the temporal distance to future events. Specifically, an ego‐moving metaphor, which characterizes the movement of the self across a timeline from present to future, leads consumers to perceive a target event as more temporally distant than a time‐moving metaphor that illustrates the movement of the event from future to present. This time metaphor distance effect arises because the ego‐moving (vs. time‐moving) metaphor hinders psychological arousal and thus makes the events seem more temporally distant. We also demonstrate a downstream consequence of this effect: by lengthening the perceived temporal distance, the ego‐moving (vs. time‐moving) metaphor leads to greater consumer impatience in a waiting context.

Author contributions: The 1 st through 4 th and last authors developed the research questions, oversaw the project, and contributed equally. The 1 st through 3 rd authors oversaw the Main Studies and Replication Studies, and the 4 th , 6 th , 7 th , and 8 th authors oversaw the Forecasting Study. The 1 st , 4 th , 5 th , 8 th , and 9 th authors conducted the primary analyses. The 10 th through 15 th authors conducted the Bayesian analyses. The first and 16 th authors conducted the multivariate meta-analysis.

No abstract