Received: 11 January 2022 Revised: 11 September 2022 Accepted: 25 October 2022

DOI: 10.1111/ijcs.12884

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

The impact of loneliness on compliance with COVID-19

prevention guidelines

Ainslie E. Schultz | Kevin P. Newman

Arthur F. and Patricia Ryan Center for

Business Studies, Providence College,
Providence, Rhode Island, United States
Correspondence
Ainslie E. Schultz, Arthur F. and Patricia Ryan
Center for Business Studies, Providence
College, 1 Cunningham Square, Providence,
RI 02918, USA.
Email: aeschultz@providence.edu
Funding information
This research was supported by an internal
research grant from the Arthur F. and Patricia
Ryan Center for Business Studies at
Providence College.
Abstract
Many individuals have been reluctant to follow the COVID-19 prevention guidelines
(e.g., wearing a mask, physical distancing, and vigilant handwashing) set forth by the
U.S. Center for Disease Control to reduce the spread of COVID-19. In this research,
we use reciprocal altruism theory to investigate the role of loneliness and its impact
on compliance with these guidelines. Our findings indicate that lonely individuals are
less willing to comply with COVID-19 prevention guidelines than non-lonely individ-
uals. Process evidence suggests that this occurs as loneliness can inhibit an individual's
sense of obligation to reciprocate to others. However, we demonstrate that framing
information about COVID-19 through agentic (vs. communal) advertising messaging
strategies can offset the negative impact of loneliness on compliance with COVID-19
prevention guidelines. Thus, marketers and policymakers may want to consider the
important role of loneliness when tailoring messaging appeals that encourage compli-
ance with COVID-19 prevention guidelines.

KEYWORDS
agentic, coronavirus, COVID-19, loneliness, reciprocal altruism, reciprocity

1 | I N T RO DU CT I O N behavior in minimizing its impact, it is vital to understand individual

In March of 2020, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19
a pandemic and a global public health emergency. To slow the virus's
spread, government health agencies like the US Centers for Disease
Control (CDC) instituted prevention guidelines including urging indi-
viduals to physically distance themselves from people outside their
immediate household, wash their hands frequently, and later, to wear
face masks (CDC, 2021). Research shows that these guidelines have
been highly successful in reducing COVID-19's spread (Eikenberry
et al., 2020; Howard et al., 2021; Lio et al., 2020; Moosa, 2020), espe-
cially in the presence of new, more contagious variants (Phillips, 2021),
inequitable vaccine access (Rouw et al., 2021), and vaccine hesitancy
(Machingaidze & Wiysonge, 2021; Pereira et al., 2022). As the pandemic
continues, such guidelines remain crucial. Some individuals, however,
tend not to follow (or choose to ignore) COVID-19 prevention guidelines
(Belanger & Leander, 2020; Wang, Marmo-Roman, et al., 2021), some-
times even defying legal mandates (Taylor & Asmundson, 2021). Given
the pandemic's severity thus far and the importance of individual
differences in compliance with COVID-19 prevention guidelines. Accord-
ingly, we seek to understand why certain individuals are less likely to
comply with these guidelines, and how marketers and policymakers
might consider these individuals in their public health messaging. In this
research, we suggest that lonely individuals are among those less likely
to comply with COVID-19 prevention guidelines and examine a potential
way to mitigate this through an advertising strategy.
An emerging stream of research has begun to explore how indi-
vidual factors affect compliance with COVID-19 prevention guidelines
(Han, 2021; Kim et al., 2022; Oosterhoff & Palmer, 2020; Uddin
et al., 2021; Xu & Cheng, 2021). For instance, some researchers have
focused on how factors like an overall increase in vaccine awareness
(Verma, 2021) and the use of mobile technology to track the
virus (Verma & Mishra, 2020) can mitigate COVID-19's impact.
Other research has explored how various psychological factors
can encourage individuals to adopt COVID-19 prevention guidelines.
For instance, Kim et al. (2022) found that hope and fear mediate the
relationship between protection motivation and behavioral intentions

Int J Consum Stud. 2023;47:59–73. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ijcs © 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 59

60
toward COVID-19 protection behaviors such as increased hygienic
behaviors. In addition, Han (2021) found that extraversion, agreeable-
ness, openness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism all correlated to
compliance with one or more COVID-19 prevention measures. Other
research has found that higher levels of social responsibility
(Oosterhoff & Palmer, 2020), risk aversion and need for control (Xu &
Cheng, 2021), as well as greater trust in government (Uddin
et al., 2021), increased compliant behaviors.
However, much remains unknown about how psychosocial fac-
tors like loneliness predict compliance with COVID-19 guidelines.
Humans are social creatures, heavily influenced by perceptions of
their social environments (Ramya & Ali, 2016)—yet there remains a
notable gap in this line of research regarding how psychosocial factors
like loneliness impact compliance with COVID-19 guidelines. The
current research focuses on loneliness as the psychosocial factor for
two reasons: first, loneliness was highly prevalent even before the
pandemic, affecting 35% of adults aged 45 and older (Wilson &
Moulton, 2010). Second, while physical distancing and quarantine
efforts are effective in preventing the spread of illness (Moosa, 2020),
these efforts may also amplify levels of loneliness, a phenomenon
widely reported during the COVID-19 pandemic (Groarke et al., 2020;
Killgore et al., 2020; Li & Wang, 2020). Thus, marketers and policy-
makers need to understand the impact of loneliness on compliance
with health-related behaviors, why this impact occurs, and how to
address any subsequent public health consequences.
Using reciprocal altruism theory as a guide, we suggest that invest-
ing in collective behaviors like mask-wearing, washing hands vigilantly,
and physically distancing from others, may be less worthwhile for lonely
individuals (Roberts, 1998; Trivers, 1971; Van Vugt et al., 2007). Loneli-
ness decreases one's capacity to experience the social benefits of altru-
istic behavior such as higher social standing and increased access to
shared group resources (Miller, 2000; Zahavi, 1975). As such, we might
expect lower compliance with COVID-19 prevention guidelines among
lonely individuals as opposed to non-lonely individuals, because lonely
individuals have a lower sense of obligation to reciprocate.
From a practical perspective, identifying and targeting high-risk
groups—like those who feel lonely—with marketing and communica-
tion strategies that encourage compliance is important to reducing
the severity of COVID-19. Research indicates that many COVID-19
public health campaigns have failed to resonate with consumers due
to ineffective and often inconsistent communication and advertising
strategies (Overton et al., 2021; Robinson & Veresiu, 2021; Sauer
et al., 2021; Segal, 2021). To create more effective marketing cam-
paigns, experts are beginning to recommend that marketers use mes-
saging appeals customized to specific consumers, communities, and
cultures (Robinson & Veresiu, 2021). We respond to this recommen-
dation by creating and testing messaging strategies that specifically
focus on increasing compliance among lonely consumers.
This research makes several contributions to the literature. First,
it connects the social affiliation literature with the literature on com-
pliance with COVID-19, and to our knowledge, is the first to identify
a relationship between loneliness and consumers' compliance with
14706431, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12884 by George Mason University, Wiley Online Library on [12/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
SCHULTZ AND NEWMAN
COVID-19 prevention guidelines. We also shed light on why lonely
individuals respond less positively to COVID-19 prevention guidelines
by examining how loneliness can lead to a diminished sense of obliga-
tion to reciprocate. As such, our research may offer insights into
well-documented phenomena in the cooperation and social affiliation
literature, specifically regarding who contributes to the collective and
why. Second, this research contributes to reciprocal altruism theory
(Trivers, 1971) by bringing it to a new area of inquiry. In doing so, we
find that how we view ourselves socially influences our obligation to
reciprocate, which in turn affects our willingness to comply with
health guidelines. Third, we contribute to marketing practice by show-
ing how to encourage compliance among lonely individuals through
advertising strategies that deemphasize the communal nature of
adhering to COVID-19 prevention guidelines.
We investigate the impact of loneliness on compliance with
COVID-19 prevention guidelines across three experiments. Experiment
1A explores whether lonely individuals are less willing than non-lonely
individuals to comply with COVID-19 prevention guidelines. Experi-
ment 1B expands upon Experiment 1A by exploring whether a lower
sense of obligation to reciprocate mediates the effect of loneliness on
compliance with COVID-19 prevention guidelines. Experiment
2 explores whether ads that encourage compliance with COVID-19
prevention guidelines using agentic-focused (vs. communally focused)
appeals can eliminate the effect of loneliness on willingness to comply
with COVID-19 prevention guidelines.
We begin our discussion by developing our theoretical framework
and then present the results of the three experiments. We conclude
with our research's theoretical and managerial implications and poten-
tial directions for future research.
2 | THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
2.1 | Loneliness, obligation to reciprocate, and
compliance with COVID-19 prevention guidelines
Humans have an innate drive to connect with others and form social
bonds (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Relationships offered our ances-
tors protection and access to resources; thus, social bonds increased
survival and are considered adaptive (Axelrod & Hamilton, 1981;
Bowlby, 1969; Buss, 1990; Moreland, 2013). However, when individ-
uals perceive a lack of social connections in their lives, loneliness can
ensue. Typically, people report feeling lonely when they perceive both
a misalignment of their relationships with their expectations
(Kupersmidt et al., 1999) and a deficit in their current level of social
connection (Weiss, 1973). Unfortunately, loneliness can be detrimen-
tal to an individual's social functioning (Jones et al., 1982), and it can
lead individuals to become less sensitive to situations that may help
them regain their sense of connection (Cacioppo & Patrick, 2008).
Furthermore, lonely individuals tend to disengage from society
(Woodhouse et al., 2012) and exhibit higher levels of shyness
(Cassidy & Asher, 1992). Accordingly, given this research, we suggest

SCHULTZ AND NEWMAN
that the motivation to pursue collective actions likely differs based on
an individual's level of loneliness.
Collective actions often require a self-other trade-off (Schultz
et al., 2017; White et al., 2019): a social dilemma in which individual
self-interest conflicts with the good of the collective (Boone
et al., 2010; Cruickshank & Shaban, 2020). Such self-other trade-offs
may include compliance with COVID-19 prevention guidelines, which
require individuals to take altruistic actions often aimed at keeping
others safe such as wearing a mask, physically distancing, and washing
hands (Cheng et al., 2020). We note the possibility that individuals are
likely motivated by self-protection in complying with COVID-19
prevention guidelines; yet previous research demonstrates that
risk-reduction motives remain a weaker motivator than altruism for
adhering to guidelines like mask-wearing and physical distancing (Bir &
Widmar, 2021; Nakayachi et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2021b). Accord-
ingly, self-protective motives do not appear to be as powerful a motiva-
tor of compliance with COVID-19 prevention guidelines as altruism.
There are many reasons why complying with COVID-19 pre-
vention guidelines draws on altruism. For example, complying with
these guidelines can be inconvenient or uncomfortable to the self
and following them often necessitates stifling one's immediate
desires, to “prioritize behaviors with ill-defined consequences that
are focused on others” (White et al., 2019, p. 30). However, follow-
ing these altruistic actions may produce a return in the form of
social benefits. This assertion is based on reciprocal altruism the-
ory, which holds that individuals have evolved to act altruistically
toward others beyond kin, as such acts resulted in reciprocity from
others, boosting one's fitness. Thus, the theory states that individ-
uals are motivated by the normative belief that people should help
others because they are likely to need help at some later time
(Trivers, 1971).
According to reciprocal altruism theory, humans are motivated to
cooperate, as it fosters a positive reputation, which allows them to
gain greater access to group resources (Nowak & Sigmund, 2005).
Consistent with this notion, research has found that people are less
inclined to deplete community resources when their reputation is at
stake, and that conservationists are more likely to be chosen as group
partners (Hardy & Van Vugt, 2006; Milinski et al., 2006). Altruistic
acts, like complying with COVID-19 prevention guidelines, could help
to catalyse and maintain social relationships by building on the individ-
ual's prosocial reputation (Roberts, 1998; Trivers, 1971; Van Vugt
et al., 2007). As such, adhering to COVID-19 prevention guidelines
may demonstrate that one is a cooperative, kind person who is willing
to absorb the costs of altruism for the group's welfare. Being per-
ceived as a good group member is also valuable as it is tied to being
perceived as a more desirable companion (Cottrell et al., 2007; Stiff &
Van Vugt, 2008) and can lead to other social benefits, such as reci-
procity from others (Barclay, 2004). However, loneliness, which leads
individuals to perceive social deficits (Weiss, 1973) and withdraw
from society (Woodhouse et al., 2012), may cause individuals to reas-
sess what they stand to gain from communal efforts in relation to the
potential costs of participating in them. This implies that loneliness
could impair perceptions of future reciprocity.
14706431, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12884 by George Mason University, Wiley Online Library on [12/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
61
We suggest that loneliness may negatively impact compliance
with CDC-recommended COVID-19 prevention guidelines like mask-
wearing, physical distancing, and vigilant handwashing. We chose to
focus on these specific guidelines because following them require
significant, repeated compliance on the part of the individual—unlike
following other CDC guidelines like self-quarantining, which is less
commonly necessary.
We suggest that repeated compliance with COVID-19 prevention
guidelines may be costly to the self. For instance, individuals are
reporting a sense of burnout resulting from mask fatigue, restriction
fatigue, or an overall feeling of COVID-19 fatigue (Berg, 2021). How-
ever, according to reciprocal altruism theory, individuals are more
likely to suffer some personal cost if they assess the future prospect
that their self-other trade-off will be reciprocated in return
(Trivers, 1971). Yet, lonely individuals may not expect reciprocity in
the form of social rewards because they do not expect their behavior
to foster beneficial relationships. As such, we suggest that lonely indi-
viduals may be unlikely to invest in collective behaviors that decrease
the spread of COVID-19, as the personal costs of doing so likely out-
weigh any potential benefits that may or may not be gained in the
future. In sum, we suggest that lonely individuals will experience a
lower sense of obligation to reciprocate, given that they may not
accrue the same social benefits from complying with COVID-19
prevention guidelines. As a result, in light of the self-other trade-off
motivation for adhering to COVID-19 guidelines, we propose that
lonely individuals will be less willing to comply with them than non-
lonely individuals. Accordingly, we test the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1. Lonely (vs. non-lonely) consumers will be
less willing to comply with COVID-19 prevention guidelines.
Furthermore, we expect that the experience of loneliness will
decrease the sense of obligation to reciprocate and that lonely individ-
uals will be less willing to comply with COVID-19 prevention guide-
lines given that they may not perceive that they will gain the same
social benefits from adhering to these behaviors as non-lonely individ-
uals. Thus, we expect that “sense of obligation to reciprocate” will
mediate the effect of loneliness on willingness to comply with
COVID-19 guidelines. Accordingly, we test the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2. Sense of obligation to reciprocate will
mediate the relationship between loneliness and willingness
to comply with COVID-19 prevention guidelines.
2.2 | Agentic and communal appeals
Research finds that messaging framing can greatly impact the appeal
and compliance with public policy campaigns across a variety of health
domains, including obesity (Puhl et al., 2013), alcohol use (Hassan
et al., 2022), smoking (Record et al., 2018), and COVID-19 (Pink
et al., 2020). Therefore, it is important to understand how different
types of advertising messaging appeals might encourage compliance

62
with COVID-19 prevention guidelines among lonely and non-lonely
consumers.
Past research indicates that congruity between a consumer's self-
concept and the content of advertising appeals increases the latter's
impact (Hong & Zinkhan, 1995; Newman & Trump, 2019). Bakan
(1966) distinguished agentic from communal characteristics in an indi-
vidual's self-concept. Agentic characteristics are related to the self,
including self-improvement, self-esteem, self-reliance, and control
over situations (Bakan, 1966). By contrast, communal characteristics
are related to a connection with others, including care for others, nur-
turance, and social bonding (Bakan, 1966; Bartz & Lydon, 2004).
Those individuals who hold agentic characteristics are more likely to
be focused on the self and a desire to differentiate themselves from
others. On the other hand, those individuals who have communal
characteristics are more likely to be focused on others and a desire to
maintain social connections. Accordingly, given the self-other trade-
off associated with complying with COVID-19 prevention guidelines,
we propose that advertising appeals emphasizing agentic instead of
communal characteristics will be particularly effective for lonely
individuals.
The appeal of communal advertising messages is likely to differ
based on levels of loneliness. Complying with COVID-19 prevention
guidelines involves a self-other trade-off, as it requires directing
resources away from the self and toward others. Thus, adhering to
COVID-19 guidelines may incur some cost or individual sacrifice.
Accordingly, given that we expect lonely consumers to experience a
lower sense of obligation to reciprocate than non-lonely consumers,
we also expect lonely consumers to be less persuaded by communal
appeals that heighten the social aspect of compliance with COVID-19
prevention guidelines. Thus, there is likely an incongruity between
communal appeals that focus on others and lonely individuals, who
typically focus on themselves. On the other hand, complying with
COVID-19 guidelines may help to catalyse and maintain social rela-
tionships, as it demonstrates to others that one is a cooperative, kind
person who is willing to absorb the costs of altruism for the group's
welfare, which ultimately leads to social benefits and reciprocity later
on. Thus, there is likely a congruity between communal appeals that
focus on others and non-lonely individuals who experience a higher
sense of obligation to reciprocate. Accordingly, we test the following
hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3. After exposure to a communally focused
appeal, lonely (vs. non-lonely) consumers will be less willing
to comply with COVID-19 guidelines.
On the other hand, we predict that when exposed to agentic-
focused appeals, consumers both higher and lower in loneliness
should show no difference in willingness to comply with COVID-19
prevention guidelines. We propose this because agentic-focused
framing is more congruent with lonely consumers' emphasis on
autonomy, self-focus, and lower sense of obligation to reciprocate.
In contrast, since non-lonely consumers experience a higher sense
of obligation to reciprocate, agentic-focused framing should not
14706431, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12884 by George Mason University, Wiley Online Library on [12/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
SCHULTZ AND NEWMAN
negatively affect them and their willingness to comply with COVID-
19 prevention behaviors. In other words, for non-lonely consumers,
we expect that a sense of obligation to reciprocate and the desire to
maintain social relations will outweigh any appeal emphasizing a focus
on the self. Thus, we predict that lonely and non-lonely individuals'
willingness to comply with COVID-19 prevention guidelines will be
similar. Accordingly, we predict the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4. After exposure to agentic-focused appeals,
there will be no difference between willingness to comply
with COVID-19 prevention guidelines among lonely and
non-lonely consumers.
2.3 | Overview of the present studies
Three experiments show that loneliness impacts people's willingness
to comply with COVID-19 prevention guidelines. Experiment 1A dem-
onstrates that lonely (vs. non-lonely) individuals are less willing to
comply with COVID-19 prevention guidelines, while Experiment 1B
shows that this effect is mediated by a lower sense of obligation to
reciprocate. Experiment 2 shows that when ads encourage compli-
ance with COVID-19 prevention guidelines using agentic-focused
(vs. communally focused) appeals, the effect of loneliness on willing-
ness to comply with COVID-19 prevention guidelines is eliminated.
These results suggest that when the communal aspect of complying
with COVID-19 prevention guidelines is removed, individuals both
higher and lower in loneliness show similar willingness to comply
with them.
3 | EX PE RI MENT 1A
3.1 | Materials and methods
Experiment 1 provided an initial test of Hypothesis 1—that is, whether
loneliness affects consumers' willingness to comply with COVID-19
prevention guidelines. We also tested mood as an alternative explana-
tion for our findings, since research has found low mood to affect
behavior (Gardner, 1985) and be associated with the feeling that one
lacks important relationships (Baumeister & Leary, 1995).
Participants consisted of 147 undergraduate students
(Mage = 19.86 years, 62% female) who participated in an experiment in
return for course credit. The experiment consisted of a between-
subjects design with one manipulated, independent variable (loneliness:
lonely or non-lonely) and one measured dependent variable (willingness
to comply with COVID-19 prevention guidelines). The experiment was
run between the end of October 2020 to the beginning of November
2020 amid the height of the pandemic.
In this experiment, participants were led to believe they would
take part in two separate experiments to reduce demand effects,
although in actuality, participants only took part in one experiment.
This methodological approach is common in experimental research to

SCHULTZ AND NEWMAN
reduce demand effects and the likelihood that participants will
make a connection between the independent variable and the
dependent variable (Das et al., 2020; Finkelstein & Fishbach, 2012;
Wang et al., 2022). In the “first” experiment, participants were ran-
domly assigned to one of two loneliness conditions (lonely vs. non-
lonely) based on Jiao and Wang's (2018) manipulation, where par-
ticipants were asked to write about either feeling socially isolated
or socially connected. Specifically, participants randomly assigned
to the lonely condition were asked to write about a time in their
life when they felt socially isolated, while participants randomly
assigned to the non-lonely condition were asked to write about a
time when they felt socially connected (see Appendix A). Once
participants finished the writing task, they were thanked for com-
pleting the “first” experiment and were asked to proceed to the
second experiment. In the “second” experiment, participants were
told they would answer a few questions about the COVID-19 pan-
demic, followed by some general questions. After reading the
description of “Experiment 2,” participants were asked in the next
week, to what extent do you plan to (1) practice social distancing;
(2) thoroughly wash your hands with soap and water (scrub back
and front of hands for 20 s); and (3) wear a mask when you are
around others (people outside of your immediate household) based
on 5-point scale (1 = Never to 5 = Always). These items were built
based on CDC recommendations and were combined to create a
scale measuring participants' willingness to comply with COVID-19
prevention guidelines (α = .67). The measure served as our depen-
dent variable. Finally, participants completed the PANAS scale to
assess mood (positive affect, α = .87; negative affect, α = .87;
Watson et al., 1988), answered some demographic questions, and
then were debriefed.
3.2 | Results
We conducted a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the
effect of loneliness (contrast coded: lonely = 1, non-lonely = 1) on
willingness to comply with COVID-19 prevention guidelines. As
expected, individuals in the lonely (vs. non-lonely) condition were less
willing to comply with COVID-19 prevention guidelines (Mlonely = 4.23
vs. Mnon-lonely = 4.46; F[1, 145] = 4.74, p = .03). These results fully
support Hypothesis 1.
Neither positive nor negative mood were significant predictors of
willingness to comply with COVID-19 prevention guidelines
(p's > .10). These results provide evidence to rule out mood as an
alternative explanation.
3.3 | Discussion
Results from Experiment 1A provide initial support for our hypothesis
(Hypothesis 1) that lonely (vs. non-lonely) individuals display less will-
ingness to comply with COVID-19 prevention guidelines while also
ruling out mood as an alternative explanation.
14706431, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12884 by George Mason University, Wiley Online Library on [12/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
63
4 | EX PE RI MENT 1B
4.1 | Materials and methods
Experiment 1B examined whether sense of obligation to reciprocate
mediates the relationship found in Experiment 1A. Specifically, we
tested whether lonely (vs. non-lonely) individuals are less willing to
comply with COVID-19 prevention guidelines due to a lower sense of
obligation to reciprocate (Hypothesis 2).
Participants in Experiment 1B consisted of 186 undergraduate
students (Mage = 19.67 years, 57% female) who participated in an
experiment in return for course credit. The experiment consisted of a
between-subjects design with one manipulated, independent variable
(loneliness: lonely or non-lonely) and one measured dependent vari-
able (willingness to comply with COVID-19 prevention guidelines).
The experiment was run at the beginning of November 2021 at a uni-
versity requiring students to comply with mask and social distancing
guidelines.
As with Experiment 1A, participants were led to believe they would
take part in two separate experiments to reduce demand effects—
although in actuality, participants only took part in one experiment. Using
the same loneliness manipulation from Experiment 1A (Jiao &
Wang, 2018), participants were randomly assigned to one of two condi-
tions (lonely vs. non-lonely). Once participants finished the writing task,
participants moved on to the “second experiment” and answered the
dependent variable, which consisted of the same willingness to comply
with COVID-19 prevention guidelines scale from Experiment 1A
(α = .72). Next, participants answered the five-item reciprocity scale (from
Jami et al., 2021), where participants indicated at that moment the extent
to which they felt “obligated,” “indebted,” “appreciative,” “thankful,” and
“grateful” on a 7-point scale (1 = Feel very little to 7 = Feel a lot)
(α = .92). This scale served as our mediator. Finally, participants answered
some demographic questions and were debriefed.
4.2 | Results
4.2.1 | Willingness to comply with COVID-19
prevention guidelines
We conducted a one-way ANOVA to test the effect of loneliness
(contrast coded: lonely = 1, non-lonely = 1) on willingness to com-
ply with COVID-19 guidelines. As expected, individuals in the lonely
(vs. non-lonely) condition were significantly less willing to comply with
COVID-19 prevention guidelines (Mlonely = 2.87 vs. Mnon-lonely = 3.19;
F[1, 184] = 6.43, p = .01). As with Experiment 1A, these results fully
support Hypothesis 1.
4.2.2 | Mediating role of obligation to reciprocate
We predicted that the degree to which participants experienced a
lower sense of obligation to reciprocate would mediate the effect of

64
F I G U R E 1 Experiment 1B: Lonely (vs. non-lonely) individuals are
less willing to comply with COVID-19 prevention guidelines as
mediated by obligation to reciprocate. *p < .05, **p < .01
loneliness on willingness to comply with COVID-19 prevention guide-
lines. To test this prediction, we conducted a 5000-sample boot-
strapped regression analysis using PROCESS Model 4 (Hayes, 2022).
As expected, the pathway from loneliness to willingness to comply
with COVID-19 prevention guidelines through obligation to recipro-
cate was not significant (indirect effect = 0.05, 95% CI [ 0.10,
0.01]), demonstrating full mediation (see Figure 1). These results
support Hypothesis 2 and our theoretical framework, suggesting that
lonely (vs. non-lonely) participants display less willingness to comply
with COVID-19 prevention guidelines because they experience a
lower sense of obligation to reciprocate.
To ensure that a potential interaction between X (loneliness)
and M (obligation to reciprocate) did not affect the results of our
mediation model, we reran the mediation test by selecting the X by
M interaction option in Hayes PROCESS Model 4 (Hayes, 2022).
Consistent with our theory, we did not find any interactive
effect of X and M in our analysis (F[1,182] = 0.73, p = .39) and the
pathway from loneliness to willingness to comply with COVID-19
prevention guidelines through obligation to reciprocate was still
not significant with the inclusion of the interactive effect of X and
M (indirect effect = 0.05, 95% CI [ 0.10, 0.01]), demonstrating
full mediation. These results suggest that our effect still holds even
when accounting for the interaction of X and M in our mediation
model.
4.3 | Discussion
Experiment 1B suggests that lonely (vs. non-lonely) individuals
experience a lower sense of obligation to reciprocate, which in
turn, reduces their willingness to comply with COVID-19 preven-
tion guidelines. In total, our findings provide evidence for the pro-
posed effect (Hypothesis 1) and support for the underlying
process mechanism demonstrated through our mediator (obliga-
tion to reciprocate) (Hypothesis 2). These results suggest that
lonely individuals, due to a lower sense of obligation to recipro-
cate, are a particular consumer segment that may necessitate
targeted marketing strategies to encourage them to comply with
COVID-19 prevention guidelines. Thus, the purpose of Experi-
ment 2 was to provide additional support for our underlying pro-
cess explanation (obligation to reciprocate) by demonstrating how
advertisement appeals can be used to eliminate the negative
impact of loneliness on compliance with COVID-19 prevention
guidelines.
14706431, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12884 by George Mason University, Wiley Online Library on [12/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
SCHULTZ AND NEWMAN
5 | EX PE RI MENT 2
Experiment 2 provided a test of Hypotheses 3 and 4—that is, whether
the use of communal or agentic advertising appeals would impact con-
sumers' willingness to comply with COVID-19 prevention guidelines.
Specifically, we expect that when COVID-19 prevention guidelines are
advertised using communally focused appeals, lonely (vs. non-lonely)
individuals will be less willing to comply with COVID-19 prevention
guidelines (Hypothesis 3). In contrast, when COVID-19 prevention
guidelines are advertised using agentic-focused appeals, the negative
effect of loneliness on willingness to comply with COVID-19 preven-
tion guidelines should be eliminated (Hypothesis 4). This should provide
further support for the underlying process mechanism (obligation to
reciprocate) via moderation.
Another purpose of Experiment 2 was to test ostracism as an
alternative explanation for our findings on loneliness. Other
research on consumer behavior has focused on social exclusion (not
loneliness), which is most often operationalized through ostracism
(Duclos et al., 2013; Lu & Sinha, 2017; Tunçel & Kavak, 2021;
Ward & Dahl, 2014). Prior research has suggested that ostracized
people and lonely people engage in different behavioral patterns.
For instance, Jiao and Wang (2018) point out that those who are
ostracized still see social connection in a positive way and are inter-
ested in engaging with others (Maner et al., 2007). In contrast, those
who are lonely are more pessimistic and less eager to participate in
social interactions (Cacioppo et al., 2006). Furthermore, ostracism
serves as an antecedent to a loneliness, but it often takes time and
multiple sequences of rejection for the effects of loneliness to
appear (Rawat et al., 2022); thus, one can be rejected and experi-
ence a decrease in self-esteem (Tunçel & Kavak, 2021) but not feel
lonely, especially if given the opportunity to reaffiliate with the
group following an experience of ostracism (Asher & Weeks, 2014).
Therefore, we do not predict that ostracism will serve as an alterna-
tive explanation for our findings.
5.1 | Pretest materials and methods
We conducted a pretest for Experiment 2 with 160 undergraduate
students (Mage = 20.32 years, 41% female) who participated in
an experiment in return for course credit. First, participants were
randomly assigned to view an ad with an appeal that was manipu-
lated to be either agentic or communally focused (adapted from
Newman & Trump, 2019; see Appendices B and C for stimuli). After
viewing the ad, participants completed the manipulation checks of
the agentic and communally focused appeal types by responding to
a six-item measure adapted from Trapnell and Paulhus (2012). Based
on a 7-point scale (1 = Not at all to 7 = Completely), participants
were asked to indicate the extent to which they perceived the
appeal in the ad as representing the following agentic and communal
qualities: (1) achievement; (2) status; and (3) superiority (agentic
items) (α = .80) and (1) compassion; (2) civility; (3) loyalty (communal
items) (α = .88). To assess the impact of the advertising appeals on

SCHULTZ AND NEWMAN
self-construal, participants answered the independent (α = .89) and
interdependent (α = .86) self-construal scale (Singelis, 1994). Finally,
participants answered some demographic questions and then were
debriefed.
5.2 | Pretest results
A one-way ANOVA test confirmed that participants assigned to the
agentic-focused appeal condition perceived the ad as significantly
more agentic than those assigned to the communally focused appeal
condition (Magentic = 4.03 vs. Mcommunal = 3.62; F[1, 158] = 3.77,
p = .05). Conversely, participants assigned to the communally
focused appeal condition perceived the ad as significantly more
communal than those assigned to the agentic-focused appeal condi-
tion (Mcommunal = 4.73 vs. Magentic = 4.08; F[1, 158] = 8.60, p < .01).
This suggests that we successfully manipulated the ad as having
either a communally focused or agentic-focused appeal type.
We found no effect of our appeal type manipulations on indepen-
dent (Magentic = 5.00 vs. Mcommunal = 4.83; F[1, 158] = 1.53, p = .22,
NS) or interdependent (Magentic = 4.81 vs. Mcommunal = 4.81;
F[1, 158] = .00, p = .95, NS) self-construal. This suggests that we
successfully manipulated a situational agentic or communally focused
appeal type and not an appeal type that heightened independent or
interdependent self-construal.
5.3 | Experiment 2 materials and methods
Experiment 2 consisted of 210 undergraduate students
(Mage = 20.42 years, 61% female) who participated in an experiment in
return for course credit. The experiment used a between-subjects
design with one manipulated, independent variable (appeal type: agen-
tic or communally focused), one measured independent variable (loneli-
ness), and one measured dependent variable (willingness to comply
with COVID-19 prevention guidelines). The experiment was run during
March 2021 amid the height of the pandemic.
As with the first two experiments, participants were led to believe
they would take part in two separate experiments to reduce demand
effects—although in actuality, participants only took part in one exper-
iment. In the “first” experiment, participants were asked to view an
advertisement that was manipulated to use either an agentic or com-
munally focused appeal type, in line with the pretest. Once partici-
pants finished viewing the ads, they were thanked for completing the
“first” experiment and were asked to proceed to the second experi-
ment. The “second” experiment consisted of the same willingness to
comply with COVID-19 prevention guidelines scale (α = .70) from
Experiments 1A and 1B. This measure served as our dependent vari-
able. Afterwards, participants took part in a filler task in which they
rated a series of brand logos, and then completed the UCLA Loneli-
ness Scale (Russell et al., 1980) (α = .88) and a social exclusion scale
from Smith (2011) (α = .90). Finally, participants answered some
demographic questions and then were debriefed.
14706431, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12884 by George Mason University, Wiley Online Library on [12/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
65
F I G U R E 2 Experiment 2: The effect of higher (vs. lower)
loneliness as a function of advertisement appeal type on willingness
to comply with COVID-19 prevention guidelines
5.4 | Experiment 2 results
5.4.1 | Willingness to comply with COVID-19
prevention guidelines
Using Hayes PROCESS Model 1 (Hayes, 2022), we conducted a
5000-sample bootstrapped multiple regression analysis to test the effect
of the advertisement's appeal type (contrast coded: agentic-focused
appeal = 1, communally focused appeal = 1) and loneliness (continu-
ously measured variable), as well as their interaction, on willingness to
comply with COVID-19 prevention guidelines. As expected, the analysis
revealed a significant two-way interaction of loneliness and the adver-
tisement appeal type (β = .23, t[1, 206] = 2.06, p = .04) (Figure 2).
As anticipated, when the advertisement used a communally
focused appeal, we found a negative association between loneliness
and willingness to comply with COVID-19 prevention guidelines. Spe-
cifically, as an individual's level of loneliness increased, they were sig-
nificantly less willing to comply with COVID-19 prevention guidelines
when exposed to an ad using a communally focused appeal (β = .34,
t= 2.24, p = .03). Most importantly, though, when the ad used an
agentic-focused appeal, the difference in willingness to comply with
COVID-19 prevention guidelines between individuals higher and
lower in loneliness was no longer significant (β = .12, t = 0.73,
p = .47). These results fully support Hypotheses 3 and 4.
5.4.2 | Advertisement appeal type
To understand whether exposure to the advertisement's appeal
type (communal vs. agentic) influenced feelings of loneliness, we
conducted a one-way ANOVA test. As expected, we found no
significant effect of appeal type on loneliness (Magentic = 1.68

66
vs. Mcommunal = 1.65; F[1, 208] = .20, p = .66). Accordingly, these
findings do not support the conclusion that the advertisement's
appeal type manipulation affected feelings of loneliness.
5.4.3 | Ostracism
To understand whether feelings of ostracism could account for our
findings, we conducted a 5000-sample bootstrapped multiple regres-
sion analysis using PROCESS model 1 (Hayes, 2022). This allowed us
to test the effect of appeal type (contrast coded: agentic-focused
appeal = 1, communally focused appeal = 1) and ostracism (continu-
ously measured variable), as well as their interaction, on willingness to
comply with COVID-19 prevention guidelines. As expected, there was
no significant interaction of ostracism and appeal type (β = .04,
t = 1.00, p > .10) and no significant main effect of ostracism on will-
ingness to comply with COVID-19 prevention guidelines (β = .07,
t = 1.51, p > .10). Accordingly, these findings do not support the
alternative explanation that ostracism accounts for our earlier results.
5.5 | Discussion
Experiment 2 provides additional support for our process explanation
(obligation to reciprocate) while also revealing a means to eliminate
the negative impact of loneliness on willingness to comply with
COVID-19 prevention guidelines. Specifically, we find further evi-
dence that individuals who experience higher (vs. lower) levels of
loneliness are less willing to comply with COVID-19 prevention guide-
lines, but only when these guidelines are promoted using communally
focused (vs. agentic-focused) appeals (Hypothesis 3). Thus, our results
suggest that lonely (vs. non-lonely) individuals may be less motivated
to comply with COVID-19 prevention guidelines that heighten com-
munal (vs. agentic-focused) aspects because they experience a lower
sense of obligation to reciprocate. Furthermore, we demonstrate that
advertisements using agentic-focused appeals can lead lonely individ-
uals to be as willing to comply with COVID-19 prevention guidelines
as non-lonely individuals (Hypothesis 4). Thus, the use of agentic-
focused appeals may be an effective method to motivate compliance
with COVID-19 prevention guidelines among lonely individuals.
Experiment 2 also ruled out ostracism as an alternative explanation
for our results.
6 | C O N CL U S I O N
Across three experiments, we find that lonely individuals are less will-
ing to comply with COVID-19 prevention guidelines. Our results sug-
gest this occurs because lonely (vs. non-lonely) individuals experience
a lower sense of obligation to reciprocate (Experiment 1B). In addition,
we demonstrate that the negative impact of loneliness on compliance
with COVID-19 prevention guidelines can be offset through advertis-
ing messaging appeals (Experiment 2). Specifically, we find that
14706431, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12884 by George Mason University, Wiley Online Library on [12/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
SCHULTZ AND NEWMAN
individuals higher (vs. lower) in loneliness are more willing to comply
with these guidelines when information about COVID-19 is framed
using an agentic as opposed to communally focused appeal
(Experiment 2). Thus, we suggest that using agentic-focused appeals
may be an effective method to motivate compliance with COVID-19
prevention guidelines among lonely individuals. Alternatively, lonely
individuals may be less responsive to appeals emphasizing the social
or communal nature of complying with COVID-19 prevention guide-
lines. Overall, these results raise many important theoretical and man-
agerial implications, leading to potential areas of future research.
6.1 | Theoretical contributions
This research is the first to establish a relationship between loneliness
and consumers' compliance with COVID-19 prevention guidelines. In
doing so, this research fills a gap in the emerging stream of research
that has begun to explore individual factors impacting the willingness
to comply with COVID-19 prevention guidelines (Han, 2021; Jordan
et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2022; Oosterhoff & Palmer, 2020; Uddin
et al., 2021; Xu & Cheng, 2021). Specifically, this research is unique as
it focuses on loneliness and provides an initial understanding of how
social psychological factors, also referred to as psychosocial factors,
influence compliance with COVID-19 prevention guidelines. This
emphasis on loneliness as the primary psychosocial component is
important given that social factors are crucial drivers of consumer
behavior (Ramya & Ali, 2016; Youn et al., 2022). Furthermore, there is a
potentially reinforcing effect of COVID-19 on loneliness. During the
pandemic, individuals were asked to physically distance and quarantine,
which limited socialization, increased isolation, and ultimately increased
levels of loneliness (Groarke et al., 2020; Killgore et al., 2020; Li &
Wang, 2020). Thus, given the rise of loneliness before the COVID-19
pandemic (Jeste et al., 2020) and during it (Groarke et al., 2020; Killgore
et al., 2020; Li & Wang, 2020), loneliness and other psychosocial fac-
tors may have far-reaching implications for the ability to successfully
combat COVID-19 and encourage compliance with other public health
behaviors.
This research extends our understanding of how loneliness relates
to consumer decision making by demonstrating why lonely consumers
may be less likely to follow COVID-19 prevention guidelines. Specifi-
cally, we add to literature on reciprocal altruism theory (Roberts, 1998;
Trivers, 1971; Van Vugt et al., 2007) by finding that loneliness can lead
to a lower sense of obligation to reciprocate. Thus, by assessing how
loneliness can impair a sense of obligation to reciprocate, we may be
able to explain why some individuals are reluctant to follow COVID-19
prevention guidelines. Our research suggests that lonely individuals
may be less responsive to the social nature of complying with COVID-
19 prevention guidelines, given that they may be less likely to obtain
the social benefits from doing so. That is, lonely individuals may feel
that the self-other trade-off inherent in complying with COVID-19 pre-
vention guidelines is too costly and that their acts of altruism may
potentially go unnoticed, and therefore, unreciprocated. Thus, we find
evidence that loneliness can impair perceptions of future reciprocity.

SCHULTZ AND NEWMAN
In addition, we extend research showing the importance of empha-
sizing congruity between a consumer's self-concept and the use of
advertising appeals (Hong & Zinkhan, 1995; Newman & Trump, 2019;
Price et al., 2018). Our research uniquely reveals the benefits of con-
gruity between loneliness and the use of agentic versus communal
messaging appeals within the public health domain. Specifically, we
show that lonely consumers may not respond well to communal
appeals that encourage a connection with others, care for others, nur-
turance, and social bonding. However, lonely consumers may respond
well to agentic appeals that are more congruent with their emphasis on
the self. Thus, loneliness is an important factor when considering how
to design advertisements that encourage public health compliance, such
as adherence to COVID-19 prevention guidelines.
6.2 | Managerial and societal implications
Our findings have the potential to guide efforts to mitigate the cur-
rent COVID-19 pandemic as well as future crises. In this research, we
show an additional and unintended consequence of the increasing
trend of loneliness: specifically, that loneliness may lead individuals to
be less willing to comply with COVID-19 prevention guidelines. This
is particularly troubling when considering the success of these guide-
lines in combating COVID-19 (Eikenberry et al., 2020; Howard
et al., 2021; Lio et al., 2020; Moosa, 2020) and the presence of con-
sumers who have been reluctant to comply with them (Belanger &
Leander, 2020; Wang et al., 2021a). Thus, for a variety of reasons,
marketers and policymakers would benefit from understanding how
to better market behaviors that comply with community health
initiatives—especially among consumer segments that may be particu-
larly resistant to them, such as those who are lonely.
Based on our research, we offer recommendations on how to tar-
get a growing segment of consumers that report feelings of loneliness.
Our findings suggest that lonely individuals are less willing to comply
with COVID-19 prevention guidelines because they experience a lower
sense of obligation to reciprocate. Thus, marketing advertisements that
appeal to the communal or social nature of compliance may be less per-
suasive and effective for lonely individuals. Instead, when promoting
health compliance guidelines to lonely individuals, we suggest that mar-
keters may want to use agentic messaging, which focuses more on the
individual's own well-being and safety rather than that of the group, as
lonely individuals feel a lower sense of obligation to reciprocate.
Given our findings, we recommend that marketers and policy-
makers consider using segmentation strategies when encouraging com-
pliance with COVID-19 prevention guidelines. Our results suggest that
a uniform, targeted approach to compliance with COVID-19 prevention
guidelines may not be beneficial and could potentially backfire with
some consumer segments. This may help to explain why some public
health campaigns encouraging compliance with COVID-19 prevention
guidelines have been so unsuccessful (Robinson & Veresiu, 2021; Sauer
et al., 2021). In the future, marketers may wish to segment and target
different campaigns to specific groups who feel higher levels of loneli-
ness, such as those who live alone or are disabled, divorced, or
14706431, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12884 by George Mason University, Wiley Online Library on [12/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
67
widowed. In addition, new advances in artificial intelligence and big
data are providing policymakers and marketers with the ability to
detect loneliness via individuals' smartphones (Khatchadourian, 2015),
which may allow for tailored messaging strategies that target lonely
consumers. Going further, marketers may also utilize sentiment analysis
techniques through social media platforms, like Twitter, to track how
different segments of consumers (e.g., lonely vs. non-lonely consumers;
rural vs. urban consumers) react to marketing campaigns and advertis-
ing strategies.
6.3 | Future research
Future research within marketing should explore how loneliness
impacts a variety of consumer behaviors—including behaviors related
to healthcare and public health, whether pandemic-related or not, and
consumer behaviors in general (Chen et al., 2021; Jiao & Wang, 2018;
Rippé et al., 2018, 2022). For instance, does loneliness lead to
decreased or increased vaccination rates? We chose not to focus
on this specific question in our research, as we wanted to explore
COVID-19 prevention guidelines that require significant, repeated
sacrifices for the individual on behalf of the collective. Since people are
vaccinated infrequently, it could be argued that individual vaccination
requires less of a sacrifice for the individual than complying with
COVID-19 prevention guidelines that disrupt daily life (daily mask-
wearing, social distancing, and vigilant handwashing). Based on our
research, whether a relationship exists between loneliness and vaccina-
tion likely depends on the motivational drivers of vaccination rates, and
how much a sense of obligation to reciprocate is present. Thus, future
research should explore whether a relationship exists between loneli-
ness, vaccination, and related consumer health behaviors. For example,
future research could investigate whether loneliness exacerbates
other unhealthy behaviors that were prevalent during the COVID-19
pandemic, including the overconsumption of alcohol and unhealthy
snacks (Gordon-Wilson, 2022; Wright & Schultz, 2022). In addition,
future research may wish to explore the reinforcing relationship
between COVID-19 prevention guidelines and loneliness. In our
research, we studied the impact of loneliness on COVID-19 prevention
guidelines. However, it is likely that following COVID-19 prevention
guidelines exacerbates loneliness. We do note that in our research, we
predominantly manipulated loneliness, with the exception of Experi-
ment 2, where loneliness was measured. Therefore, it is unlikely that
willingness to comply with COVID-19 guidelines caused loneliness
to increase in our experiments, and thus accounted for our results.
However, future research should seek to further disentangle the rela-
tionship between these two variables.
Although it is one of the predominant methodologies in the social
sciences to test for mediation (Sarstedt et al., 2020), our use of Hayes
PROCESS (Hayes, 2022) could not eliminate a limitation that arises
with mediation models in general. That is, given the mediator and
dependent variable are measured, as opposed to manipulated, the
causal relationship between the mediator and the dependent variable
cannot be fully established (Hayes, 2022; Qin & Yang, 2021), even

68
with other statistical approaches to mediation like causal mediation.
Since we did not include any confounding variables in Experiment 1B,
we were unable to run a sensitivity analysis with our data to under-
stand the extent to which confounding variables affect the relationship
between the mediator and the dependent variable. Thus, the causal
relationship between our mediator (obligation to reciprocate) and
dependent variable (willingness to comply with COVID-19 prevention
guidelines) in Experiment 1B cannot be unequivocally established.
However, we did use experimental design in Experiment 1B. According
to Hayes, “No other design [experimental design] gives a researcher
more confidence in the claim that differences between groups defined
by X on some variables of interest are due to X rather than something
else” (Hayes, 2022, p. 128). Since causality is a function of theory and
research design (Hayes, 2022), future research should consider and test
for other confounders that influence the relationship among variables
in the mediation model. Future research might also incorporate longitu-
dinal designs, where the mediator (obligation to reciprocate) and
dependent variable (willingness to comply with COVID-19 prevention
guidelines) would be measured across multiple occasions.
We acknowledge an additional limitation of our research, which is
that certain confounding factors could have reduced the validity and
generalization of our findings. For example, while we found evidence
for the effect of loneliness on compliance with COVID-19 prevention
guidelines across three experimental studies, the act of self-quarantine
could impact the frequency with which individuals wear masks and
wash their hands. In addition, individuals with certain chronic illnesses
may not be able to wear masks at all. Accordingly, future research on
loneliness could test whether confounding variables like these impact
compliance with COVID-19 prevention guidelines.
Additional research should also be conducted on how a sense of
obligation to reciprocate affects a variety of consumer behaviors. For
instance, a sense of obligation to reciprocate likely drives compliance in
other healthcare behaviors, such as whether a lonely individual may be
more inclined to show up late for an appointment, more inclined to can-
cel an appointment last minute, or not show up at all because they
experience less of sense of obligation to healthcare providers. Exploring
this question is important since little research exists about the psycho-
logical factors affecting patient appointment compliance, even though
23% of medical appointments result in no-shows (Dantas et al., 2018;
Milne, 2010). No-shows can often adversely affect a patient's health
outcomes, delay diagnosis or treatment, and reduce effective clinic
capacity (Hwang et al., 2015; LaGanga & Lawrence, 2012). By measur-
ing factors like loneliness, researchers might be able to develop better
predictive models for patient scheduling and appointment overbooking.
Furthermore, given that lonely individuals may feel a lower sense of
obligation to reciprocate, it is possible that this group is more likely to
participate in negative consumption behaviors like the panic buying
that was so prevalent during COVID-19 pandemic's early months
(Billore & Anisimova, 2021; Prentice et al., 2022).
In addition, given our findings that lonely individuals show a lower
sense of obligation to reciprocate, future research may want to test
the use of agentic vs. communal messaging appeals within healthcare
settings. For instance, based on our research, lonely individuals may
14706431, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12884 by George Mason University, Wiley Online Library on [12/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
SCHULTZ AND NEWMAN
prefer agentic appeals emphasizing how not showing up to appoint-
ments could impact their own health (e.g., longer waits and reduced
care for them). However, non-lonely individuals may prefer communal
appeals that emphasize social motives for attending their appoint-
ment, such as how not showing up will inconvenience staff, or how
tardiness could lead to longer waits for other patients.
Loneliness may also be a particularly interesting construct for
exploring how consumers navigate non-health related behaviors, such
as those within the digital world. Given our findings that lonely con-
sumers experience a lower sense of obligation to reciprocate, this may
impact how consumers leave reviews, interact with brands through
social media, and respond to targeted or individual marketing mes-
sages. Would a lonely consumer, for example, be less willing than a
non-lonely consumer to leave a positive review after a good service
encounter as they may not experience as much of an obligation to
reciprocate? Future research may also wish to explore how relation-
ship marketing affects lonely consumers. For example, will lonely con-
sumers be less concerned about being good members of a brand
community or responding well to brands that create spaces and mar-
keting offerings that foster a sense of belonging with other con-
sumers? In other words, marketing toward and responding to lonely
consumers may prove difficult, and future research should be con-
ducted on this particular segment of consumers.
In closing, given the pervasive rise of loneliness within modern
society (Jeste et al., 2020), it is crucial that a variety of stakeholders
(researchers, marketers, policymakers, and health care groups) better
understand the impact of loneliness on consumer behavior. This is
especially important within the public health domain given the global
devastation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the likelihood
that its impact will reach far into the future. We hope that our findings
will inspire additional research about loneliness and specifically on
how to encourage better compliance with consumer behaviors that
are beneficial to society.
AC KNOW LEDG EME NT S
The authors would like to thank the reviewers and editor for their
dedication and insightful comments. Their feedback significantly
improved the quality of the final manuscript. The authors would also
like to thank the Providence College School of Business Research Lab
and the Arthur F. and Patricia Ryan Center for Business Studies at
Providence College for the grant that supported this research.
FUNDING INF ORMATI ON
This research was supported by an internal research grant from the Arthur
F. and Patricia Ryan Center for Business Studies at Providence College.
CONFLIC T OF INT ER E ST
The authors declare no conflict of interests.
DATA AVAILABILITY STAT EMEN T
The data that support the findings of this research are available from
the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Data were col-
lected at Providence College.
 14706431, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12884 by George Mason University, Wiley Online Library on [12/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
SCHULTZ AND NEWMAN 69

E TH I CS S T A TE M E N T Chen, N., Jiao, J. J., Fan, X., & Li, S. K. (2021). The shape of loneliness: The
The authors confirm that the appropriate approval of using human relationship between loneliness and consumer preference for angular
versus circular shapes. Journal of Business Research, 136, 612–629.
subjects was obtained through the IRB of Providence College and all
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.07.046
studies conform to recognized standards of research. The authors also Cheng, K. K., Lam, T. H., & Leung, C. C. (2020). Wearing face masks in the
confirm informed consent was obtained by all human subjects. community during the COVID-19 pandemic: Altruism and solidarity.
The Lancet, 399(10336), e39–e40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-
ORCID 6736(20)30918-1
Cottrell, C. A., Neuberg, S. L., & Li, N. P. (2007). What do people desire in
Ainslie E. Schultz https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0343-255X
others? A sociofunctional perspective on the importance of different
Kevin P. Newman https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5779-5161 valued characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
92(2), 208–231. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.2.208
RE FE R ENC E S Cruickshank, M., & Shaban, R. Z. (2020). COVID-19: Lessons to be learnt
from a once-in-a-century global pandemic. Journal of Clinical Nursing,
Asher, S. R., & Weeks, M. S. (2014). Loneliness and belongingness in the
29, 3901–3904. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15365
college years. In R. J. Coplan & J. C. Bowker (Eds.), The handbook of sol-
Dantas, L. F., Fleck, J. L., Oliveira, F. L. C., & Hamacher, S. (2018). No-shows
itude: Psychological perspectives on social isolation, social withdrawal,
in appointment scheduling–a systematic literature review. Health Policy,
and being alone (pp. 283–301). Hoboken, NJ.
122(4), 412–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.02.002
Axelrod, R., & Hamilton, W. D. (1981). The evolution of cooperation. Science,
Das, G., Roy, R., & Spence, M. T. (2020). The mitigating effect of matching
211(4489), 1390–1396. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7466396
regulatory focus with arousal-inducing stimuli in service failure situa-
Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: An essay on psychology
tions. Psychology & Marketing, 37(10), 1420–1432. https://doi.org/10.
and religion. Rand McNally.
1002/mar.21390
Barclay, P. (2004). Trustworthiness and competitive altruism can also solve
Duclos, R., Wan, E. W., & Jiang, Y. (2013). Show me the honey! Effects of
the “tragedy of the commons”. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25(4),
social exclusion on financial risk-taking. Journal of Consumer Research,
209–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.04.002
40(1), 122–135. https://doi.org/10.1086/668900
Bartz, J. A., & Lydon, J. E. (2004). Close relationships and the working self-
Eikenberry, S. E., Mancuso, M., Iboi, E., Phan, T., Eikenberry, K., Kuang, Y.,
concept: Implicit and explicit effects of priming attachment on agency
Kostelich, E., & Gumel, A. B. (2020). To mask or not to mask: Modeling
and communion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(11),
the potential for face mask use by the general public to curtail the
1389–1401. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204264245
COVID-19 pandemic. Infectious Disease Modelling, 5, 293–308.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interper-
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idm.2020.04.001
sonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulle-
Finkelstein, S. R., & Fishbach, A. (2012). Tell me what I did wrong: Experts
tin, 117(3), 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
seek and respond to negative feedback. Journal of Consumer Research,
Belanger, J. & Leander, P. (2020, December 9) What motivates COVID rule
39(1), 22–38. https://doi.org/10.1086/661934
breakers. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/
Gardner, M. P. (1985). Mood states and consumer behavior: A critical
article/what-motivates-covid-rule-breakers/
review. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), 281–300. https://doi.org/
Berg, S. (2021, January 29) What doctors wish patients knew about
10.1086/208516
pandemic fatigue. American Medical Association. https://www.ama-
Gordon-Wilson, S. (2022). Consumption practices during the COVID-19
assn.org/delivering-care/public-health/what-doctors-wish-patients-
crisis. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 46(2), 575–588.
knew-about-pandemic-fatigue
https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12701
Billore, S., & Anisimova, T. (2021). Panic buying research: A systematic
Groarke, J. M., Berry, E., Graham-Wisener, L., McKenna-Plumley, P. E.,
literature review and future research agenda. International Journal of
McGlinchey, E., & Armour, C. (2020). Loneliness in the UK during the
Consumer Studies, 45(4), 777–804. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12669
COVID-19 pandemic: Cross-sectional results from the COVID-19 psy-
Bir, C., & Widmar, N. O. (2021). Social pressure, altruism, free-riding, and
chological wellbeing study. PLoS One, 15(9), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.
non-compliance in mask wearing by US residents in response to
1371/journal.pone.0239698
COVID-19 pandemic. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 4(1), 100229.
Han, H. (2021). Exploring the association between compliance
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2021.100229
with measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and big five
Boone, C., Declerck, C., & Kiyonari, T. (2010). Inducing cooperative behav-
traits with Bayesian generalized linear model. Personality and Indi-
ior among proselfs versus prosocials: The moderating role of incen-
vidual Differences, 176, 110787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.
tives and trust. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 54(5), 799–824. https://
2021.110787
doi.org/10.1177/0022002710372329
Hardy, C. L., & Van Vugt, M. (2006). Nice guys finish first: The competitive
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Attachment (Vol. 1). Hogarth.
altruism hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(10),
Buss, D. M. (1990). The evolution of anxiety and social exclusion. Journal
1402–1413. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206291006
of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9(2), 196–201. https://doi.org/10.
Hassan, L. M., Parry, S., & Shiu, E. (2022). Exploring responses to differing
1521/jscp.1990.9.2.196
message content of pictorial alcohol warning labels. International Journal
Cacioppo, J. T., Hawkley, L. C., Ernst, J. M., Burleson, M., Berntson, G. G.,
of Consumer Studies, 46, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12779
Nouriani, B., & Spiegel, D. (2006). Loneliness within a nomological net:
Hayes, A. F. (2022). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional
An evolutionary perspective. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(6),
process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
1054–1085. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.11.007
Hong, J. W., & Zinkhan, G. M. (1995). Self-concept and advertising effec-
Cacioppo, J. T., & Patrick, W. (2008). Loneliness: Human nature and the need
tiveness: The influence of congruency, conspicuousness, and response
for social connection. WW Norton & Company.
mode. Psychology & Marketing, 12(1), 53–77. https://doi.org/10.1002/
Cassidy, J., & Asher, S. R. (1992). Loneliness and peer relations in young
mar.4220120105
children. Child Development, 63(2), 350–365. https://doi.org/10.1111/
Howard, J., Huang, A., Li, Z., Tufekci, Z., Zdimal, V., van der
j.1467-8624.1992.tb01632.x
Westhuizen, H. M., von Delft, A., Price, A., Fridman, L., Tang, L. H.,
CDC. (2021, July 26) How to protect yourself & others. Center for Disease
Tang, V., Watson, G. L., Bax, C. E., Shaikh, R., Questier, F., Hernandez, D.,
Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-
Chu, L. F., Ramirez, C. M., & Rimoin, A. W. (2021). An evidence review of
ncov/prevent-getting-sick/prevention.html

70
face masks against COVID-19. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci-
ences, 118(4), e2014564118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2014564118
Hwang, A. S., Atlas, S. J., Cronin, P., Ashburner, J. M., Shah, S. J., He, W., &
Hong, C. S. (2015). Appointment “no-shows” are an independent pre-
dictor of subsequent quality of care and resource utilization outcomes.
Journal of General Internal Medicine, 30(10), 1426–1433. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11606-015-3252-3
Jami, A., Kouchaki, M., & Gino, F. (2021). I own, so I help out: How
psychological ownership increases prosocial behavior. Journal of
Consumer Research, 47(5), 698–715. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/
ucaa040
Jeste, D. V., Lee, E. E., & Cacioppo, S. (2020). Battling the modern
behavioral epidemic of loneliness: Suggestions for research and
interventions. Journal of the American Medical Association Psychia-
try, 77(6), 553–554. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.
2020.0027
Jiao, J., & Wang, J. (2018). Can lonely people behave morally? The joint
influence of loneliness and empathy on moral identity. Journal of Con-
sumer Psychology, 28(4), 597–611. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1040
Jones, W. H., Hobbs, S. A., & Hockenbury, D. (1982). Loneliness and social
skill deficits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(4), 682–
689. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.4.682
Jordan, J. J., Yoeli, E., & Rand, D. G. (2021). Don't get it or don't spread it:
Comparing self-interested versus prosocial motivations for COVID-19
prevention behaviors. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/
10.1038/s41598-021-97617-5
Khatchadourian, R. (2015, January 12). We know how you feel. https://
www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/01/19/know-feel
Killgore, W. D., Cloonan, S. A., Taylor, E. C., & Dailey, N. S. (2020). Loneliness:
A signature mental health concern in the era of COVID-19. Psychiatry
Research, 290, 113117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113117
Kim, J., Yang, K., Min, J., & White, B. (2022). Hope, fear, and consumer
behavioral change amid COVID-19: Application of protection motiva-
tion theory. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 46(2), 558–574.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12700
Kupersmidt, J. B., Sigda, K. B., Sedikides, C., & Voegler, M. E. (1999). Social
self-discrepancy theory and loneliness during childhood and adoles-
cence. In K. J. Rotenberg & S. Hymel (Eds.), Loneliness in childhood and
adolescence (Vol. 1, pp. 263–279). Cambridge University Press.
LaGanga, L. R., & Lawrence, S. R. (2012). Appointment overbooking in
health care clinics to improve patient service and clinic performance.
Production and Operations Management, 21(5), 874–888. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1937-5956.2011.01308.x
Li, L. Z., & Wang, S. (2020). Prevalence and predictors of general psychiat-
ric disorders and loneliness during COVID-19 in the United Kingdom.
Psychiatry Research, 291, 113267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.
2020.113267
Lio, C. F., Cheong, H. H., Lei, C. I., Lo, I. L., Yao, L., Lam, C., & Leong, I. H.
(2020). Effectiveness of personal protective health behaviour against
COVID-19. BioMed Central Public Health, 21(1), 827. https://doi.org/
10.1186/s12889-021-10680-5
Lu, F. C., & Sinha, J. (2017). Speaking to the heart: Social exclusion and reli-
ance on feelings versus reasons in persuasion. Journal of Consumer Psy-
chology, 27(4), 409–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2017.03.004
Machingaidze, S., & Wiysonge, C. S. (2021). Understanding COVID-19 vac-
cine hesitancy. Nature Medicine, 27, 1338–1339. https://doi.org/10.
1038/s41591-021-01459-7
Maner, J. K., DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., & Schaller, M. (2007). Does
social exclusion motivate interpersonal reconnection? Resolving the
“porcupine problem.”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
92(1), 42–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.42
Milinski, M., Semmann, D., Krambeck, H. J., & Marotzke, J. (2006). Stabiliz-
ing the Earth's climate is not a losing game: Supporting evidence from
public goods experiments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci-
ences, 103, 3994–3998. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0504902103
14706431, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12884 by George Mason University, Wiley Online Library on [12/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
SCHULTZ AND NEWMAN
Miller, R. B. (2000). Humanitarian intervention, altruism, and the limits of
casuistry. Journal of Religious Ethics, 28(1), 3–35. https://doi.org/10.
1111/0384-9694.00034
Milne, R. G. (2010). Reducing non-attendance at specialist clinics: An evalua-
tion of the effectiveness and cost of patient-focused booking and SMS
reminders at a Scottish health board. International Journal of Consumer
Studies, 34(5), 570–580. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2010.
00903.x
Moosa, I. A. (2020). The effectiveness of social distancing in containing
Covid-19. Applied Economics, 52(58), 6292–6305. https://doi.org/10.
1080/00036846.2020.1789061
Moreland, R. L. (2013). Composition and diversity. In J. M. Levine (Ed.),
Group processes (pp. 11–32). Psychology Press.
Nakayachi, K., Ozaki, T., Shibata, Y., & Yokoi, R. (2020). Why do Japanese
people use masks against COVID-19, even though masks are unlikely
to offer protection from infection? Frontiers in Psychology, 11(1918),
1–5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01918
Newman, K. P., & Trump, R. K. (2019). Reducing skepticism about corpo-
rate social responsibility: Roles of gender and agentic-communal orien-
tations. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 36(1), 189–196. https://doi.
org/10.1108/JCM-02-2018-2577
Nowak, M. A., & Sigmund, K. (2005). Evolution of indirect reciprocity.
Nature, 437(7063), 1291–1298. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04131
Oosterhoff, B. & Palmer, C. (2020). Psychological correlates of news moni-
toring, social distancing, disinfecting, and hoarding behaviors among
US adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic. PsyArXiv Preprint.
https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/rpcy4
Overton, D., Ramkessoon, S. A., Kirkpatrick, K., Byron, A., & Pak, E. S. (2021).
Lessons from the COVID-19 crisis on executing communications and engage-
ment at the community level during a health crisis. National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. https://doi.org/10.17226/26340
Pereira, B., Fehl, A. G., Finkelstein, S. R., Jiga-Boy, G. M., & Caserotti, M.
(2022). Scarcity in COVID-19 vaccine supplies reduces perceived
vaccination priority and increases vaccine hesitancy. Psychology &
Marketing, 39(5), 921–936. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21629
Phillips, N. (2021, February 16) The coronavirus is here to stay—Here's what
that means. Nature. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-
00396-2
Pink, S., Stagnaro, M., Chu, J., Mernyk, J., Voelkel, J.G., & Willer, R. (2020).
Five experimental tests of the effects of short messages on compli-
ance with COVID-19 public health guidelines. PsyArXiv Preprint.
https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/g93zw.
Prentice, C., Quach, S., & Thaichon, P. (2022). Antecedents and consequences
of panic buying: The case of COVID-19. International Journal of Consumer
Studies, 46(1), 132–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12649
Price, L. L., Coulter, R. A., Strizhakova, Y., & Schultz, A. E. (2018). The fresh
start mindset: Transforming consumers' lives. Journal of Consumer
Research, 45(1), 21–48. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucx115
Puhl, R., Peterson, J. L., & Luedicke, J. (2013). Fighting obesity or obese per-
sons? Public perceptions of obesity-related health messages. International
Journal of Obesity, 37(6), 774–782. https://doi.org/10.1038/ijo.2012.156
Qin, X., & Yang, F. (2021). Simulation-based sensitivity analysis for causal
mediation studies. Psychological Methods. Advanced online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000340
Ramya, N., & Ali, S. M. A. (2016). Factors affecting consumer buying
behavior. International Journal of Applied Research, 2(10), 76–80.
Rawat, G., Dewani, P. P., & Kulashri, A. (2022). Social exclusion and con-
sumer responses: A comprehensive review and theoretical framework.
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 46, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.
1111/ijcs.12832
Record, R. A., Harrington, N. G., Helme, D. W., & Savage, M. W. (2018).
Using the theory of planned behavior to guide focus group develop-
ment of messages aimed at increasing compliance with a tobacco-free
policy. American Journal of Health Promotion, 32(1), 143–152. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0890117116687467

SCHULTZ AND NEWMAN
Rippé, C. B., Smith, B., & Dubinsky, A. J. (2018). Lonely consumers and
their friend the retail salesperson. Journal of Business Research, 92,
131–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.07.013
Rippé, C. B., Smith, B., & Weisfeld-Spolter, S. (2022). The connection of
attachment and self-gifting for the disconnection of loneliness across
cultures. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 46, 1451–1467.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12771
Roberts, G. (1998). Competitive altruism: From reciprocity to the handicap
principle. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sci-
ences, 265(1394), 427–431. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1998.0312
Robinson, T. D., & Veresiu, E. (2021). Advertising in a context harm crisis.
Journal of Advertising, 50(3), 221–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00913367.2021.1925604
Rouw, A., Wexler, A., Kates, J. & Michaud, J. (2021, March 17). Global
COVID-19 vaccine access: A snapshot of inequality. https://www.kff.org/
policy-watch/global-covid-19-vaccine-access-snapshot-of-inequality/
Russell, D., Peplau, L. A., & Cutrona, C. E. (1980). The revised UCLA loneli-
ness scale: Concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 39(3), 472–480. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0022-3514.39.3.472
Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., Jr., Nitzl, C., Ringle, C. M., & Howard, M. C. (2020).
Beyond a tandem analysis of SEM and PROCESS: Use of PLS-SEM for
mediation analyses! International Journal of Market Research, 62(3),
288–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470785320915686
Sauer, M. A., Truelove, S., Gerste, A. K., & Limaye, R. J. (2021). A failure to
communicate? How public messaging has strained the COVID-19
response in the United States. Health Security, 19(1), 65–74. https://
doi.org/10.1089/hs.2020.0190
Schultz, A. E., Lamberton, C., & Nielsen, J. H. (2017). Does pulling together
lead to falling apart? The self-regulatory consequences of cooperative
orientations for the self-reliant. Journal of Business Research, 81, 70–
79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.07.012
Segal, E. (2021, July 30) Mixed messages from White House and CDC could
worsen COVID crisis. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/
edwardsegal/2021/07/30/mixed-messages-about-delta-variant-could-
worsen-covid-crisis/
Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdepen-
dent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5),
580–591. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167294205014
Smith, A. K. (2011). Understanding the diverse responses of the socially
excluded: Exclusion construals moderate aggressive vs. affiliative responses
to exclusion (Theses and Dissertations, Paper 1378).
Stiff, C., & Van Vugt, M. (2008). The power of reputations: The role of
third party information in the admission of new group members. Group
Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 12(2), 155–166. https://doi.
org/10.1037/1089-2699.12.2.155
Taylor, S., & Asmundson, G. J. G. (2021). Negative attitudes about face-
masks during the COVID-19 pandemic: The dual importance of per-
ceived ineffectiveness and psychological reactance. PLOS One, 16(2),
1–15. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246317
Trapnell, P. D., & Paulhus, D. L. (2012). Agentic and communal values:
Their scope and measurement. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94(1),
39–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2011.627968
Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review
of Biology, 46(1), 35–57. https://doi.org/10.1086/406755
Tunçel, N., & Kavak, B. (2021). Being an ethical or unethical consumer in
response to social exclusion: The role of control, belongingness and
self-esteem. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 46(4), 459–474.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12693
Uddin, S., Imam, T., Khushi, M., Khan, A., & Moni, M. A. (2021). How did
socio-demographic status and personal attributes influence compliance to
COVID-19 preventive behaviours during the early outbreak in Japan? Les-
sons for pandemic management. Personality and Individual Differences, 175,
110692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.110692
Van Vugt, M., Roberts, G., & Hardy, C. (2007). Competitive altruism:
Development of reputation-based cooperation in groups. In L.
14706431, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12884 by George Mason University, Wiley Online Library on [12/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
71
Barrett & R. Dunbar (Eds.), Handbook of evolutionary psychology
(pp. 531–540). Oxford University Press.
Verma, J. (2021). COVID-19 vaccines: Immune response after vaccination
against SARS-CoV-2 infections. Health Science Journal, 15(7), 1–6.
Verma, J., & Mishra, A. S. (2020). COVID-19 infection: Disease detec-
tion and mobile technology. PeerJ, 8, e10345. https://doi.org/10.
7717/peerj.10345
Wang, D., Marmo-Roman, S., Krase, K., & Phanord, L. (2021). Compliance
with preventative measures during the COVID-19 pandemic in the USA
and Canada: Results from an online survey. Social Work in Health Care,
60(3), 240–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/00981389.2020.1871157
Wang, M. T., Scanlon, C. L., Hua, M., & Del Toro, J. (2021). Safely social:
Promoting and sustaining adolescent engagement in social distancing
during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Adolescent Health, 68(6),
1059–1066. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2021.03.014
Wang, Y., Xu, A. J., & Zhang, Y. (2022). L'Art pour l'Art: Experiencing art
reduces the desire for luxury goods. Journal of Consumer Research,
ucac016. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/
ucac016
Ward, M. K., & Dahl, D. W. (2014). Should the devil sell Prada? Retail rejec-
tion increases aspiring consumers' desire for the brand. Journal of Con-
sumer Research, 41(3), 590–609. https://doi.org/10.1086/676980
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation
of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
Weiss, R. S. (1973). Loneliness: The experience of emotional and social isola-
tion. MIT Press.
White, K., Habib, R., & Hardisty, D. J. (2019). How to SHIFT consumer
behaviors to be more sustainable: A literature review and guiding
framework. Journal of Marketing, 83(3), 22–49. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0022242919825649
Wilson, C., & Moulton, B. (2010). Loneliness among older adults: A national
survey of adults 45+. AARP.
Woodhouse, S. S., Dykas, M. J., & Cassidy, J. (2012). Loneliness and peer
relations in adolescence. Social Development, 21(2), 273–293. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.14679507.2011.00611.x
Wright, S. A., & Schultz, A. E. (2022). Too gritty to indulge: Grit and indul-
gent food choices. Journal of Business Research, 139, 173–183.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.09.055
Xu, P., & Cheng, J. (2021). Individual differences in social distancing and mask-
wearing in the pandemic of COVID-19: The role of need for cognition,
self-control and risk attitude. Personality and Individual Differences, 175,
110706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.110706
Youn, S. Y., Rana, M. R. I., & Kopot, C. (2022). Consumers going online for
big-box retailers: Exploring the role of feeling disconnected during a
pandemic. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 46, 1–21. https://
doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12793
Zahavi, A. (1975). Mate selection—A selection for a handicap. Journal of
Theoretical Biology, 53(1), 205–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-
5193(75)90111-3
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Ainslie E. Schultz received her PhD from the University of Arizona.
She is an Assistant Professor of Marketing in the Arthur F. and
Patricia Ryan Center for Business Studies at Providence College.
Ainslie's research focuses on ways to improve consumer decision
making. The goal of her research is to investigate questions that
have implications for consumers' well-being and to use that knowl-
edge to advise organizations about responding to consumer needs,
 14706431, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12884 by George Mason University, Wiley Online Library on [12/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
72 SCHULTZ AND NEWMAN

APPENDIX A
reengaging consumers with existing products and services, or nudg-
ing consumers toward better decisions. Ainslie has published her A.1 | Loneliness manipulations
research in the Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Consumer From Jiao and Wang (2018).
Research, and Journal of Business Research. Prior to starting her
career in academia, she worked as an analyst for IMS Research.
A.1.1 | Lonely condition
Kevin P. Newman received his Ph.D. from the University of Ari-
zona. He is an Associate Professor of Marketing in the Arthur
Please recall, in as much detail as you can, a time when: You felt very
F. and Patricia Ryan Center for Business Studies at Providence
lonely (e.g., feeling isolated, not having a high sense of intimacy, com-
College. Kevin uses experimental research techniques to better
panionship, friendship, togetherness, or feelings of belonging).
understand consumer behavior issues relating to corporate social
In the space below, describe in as much detail as possible, a time
responsibility, ethical branding, moral identity and behavior, self-
that you felt lonely: Where were you? When was that? What were
control, and how consumers cultivate their identities through
you doing? And why did you feel so lonely?
brands. He has published articles in these research areas at the
Journal of Consumer Psychology, Journal of Business Ethics, Market-
ing Letters, and Psychology & Marketing.
A.1.2 | Non-lonely condition

How to cite this article: Schultz, A. E., & Newman, K. P.
(2023). The impact of loneliness on compliance with
COVID-19 prevention guidelines. International Journal of
Consumer Studies, 47(1), 59–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.
12884
Please recall, in as much detail as you can, a time when: You felt very
connected (e.g., having a high sense of intimacy, companionship,
friendship, and feelings of belonging and being loved).
In the space below, describe in as much detail as possible, a time
that you felt connected: Where were you? When was that? What
were you doing? And why did you feel so connected?
14706431, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12884 by George Mason University, Wiley Online Library on [12/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
73

C.1 | Experiment 2 communally focused appeal

APPENDIX C

Experiment 2 agentic-focused appeal

SCHULTZ AND NEWMAN

APPENDIX B

B.1 |