1943-5901-1-PB

RAU Revista de Administração Unimep ISSN 1679-535
ALIVIANDO O SOFRIMENTO EMOCIONAL: UMA ANÁLISE DO FOCO

REGULATÓRIO CRÔNICO, DA COMPRA POR VINGANÇA E DO PAPEL
MODERADOR DA SOLIDÃO
VENTING EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: AN ANALYSIS OF CHRONIC

REGULATORY FOCUS, REVENGE BUYING AND THE MODERATING ROLE OF
LONELINESS
Patrícia de Oliveira Campos, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, patriciacamposufpe@gmail.com
Marianny Jéssica de Brito Silva, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, marianny.jrito@gmail.com
RESUMO
Objetivo: Este estudo visa contribuir para a literatura investigando a interação entre foco
regulatório crônico, solidão e intenção de compra por vingança.
Método: Uma survey on-line reuniu dados de 204 consumidores válidos, e esses dados foram
analisados por meio de regressão linear múltipla e Macro Process de Hayes.
Principais resultados: Em resumo, os principais achados revelam que consumidores com foco
regulatório crônico em promoção são propensos à compra por vingança independentemente da
solidão. Além disso, embora a literatura sinalize que consumidores com foco regulatório
crônico em prevenção não estão propensos a comportamos reativos, nossos achados revelam
que esses consumidores estão dispostos a comprar por vingança na presença de solidão.
Contribuições teóricas/metodológicas: Esta pesquisa expande o escopo da teoria do foco
regulatório e avança a literatura de compra por vingança. Além disso, com base nos resultados,
orienta os tomadores de decisão de negócios.
Relevância/originalidade: A literatura do comportamento do consumidor em momentos de
crises de saúde tem se dedicado a explorar a compra por pânico, enquanto a compra por
vingança permaneceu negligenciada. Este estudo inova e contribui para a literatura na medida
em que preenche a lacuna de estudos explicativos sobre o fenômeno, revelando os seus
mecanismos subjacentes.
Palavras-chave: Compra por vingança. Foco regulatório. Solidão. COVID-19. Pós-pandemia.
CAMPOS, P. O., SILVA, M. J. B. 263

v19 n13 - Dezembro, 2022
ABSTRACT
Purpose: This study aims to contribute to the literature by investigating the interplay among
chronic regulatory focus, loneliness, and revenge buying intention.
Method: An online survey gathered data from 204 valid consumers, and these data were
analyzed using multiple linear regression and Hayes Macro Process.
Findings: In short, the main findings reveal that chronically promotion-focused consumers are
prone to revenge buying regardless of loneliness. Furthermore, although the literature indicates
that consumers chronically prevention-focused consumers are not likely to behave reactively,
our findings reveal that these consumers are willing to do so in the presence of loneliness.
Theoretical/methodological contributions: This research expands the scope of regulatory
focus theory and advance the revenge buying literature. Moreover, drawing upon the results,
we also provide guidance for business decision-makers.
Relevance/originality: The literature on consumer behavior during health crisis has been
dedicated to exploring panic buying, while revenge buying remained overlooked. This study
innovates and contributes to the literature as it fills the gap of explanatory studies on the
phenomenon, revealing its underlying mechanisms.
Keywords: Revenge buying. Regulatory focus. Loneliness. COVID-19. Post-pandemic.

1 Introduction
People believe they have complete control over their lives and decisions (Rosenberg &
Siegel, 2021). When personal freedom is threatened or eliminated, an unpleasant arousal
(reactance) may trigger reactive actions to restore autonomy (Matarazzo & Diamantopoulos,
2022). Within the consumer behavior field, such arousal serves as an underlying psychological
mechanism of revenge buying, a behavior elicited by the novel coronavirus pandemic. Revenge
buying is referred to as compensatory overindulgence in brick-and-mortar stores by consumers
who refrained from freely shopping at their favorite outlets (Malhotra, 2021), either due to
lockdowns (Hashmi, 2021), physical distancing, or stay-at-home orders (Kang et al., 2021).
Behavioral constraints enforced by national health decision-makers were aimed at
slowing down the looming spread of coronavirus (Ang et al., 2021). Although necessary and
paved with good intentions, such measures wrought emotional, psychological, and behavioral
harm. Sadness and boredom (Droit-Volet et al., 2020) are examples of the untoward
consequences. Those emotional side-effects have proven to be underpinning drivers of reactive
behaviors amidst the coronavirus health crisis, such as impulsive (Xiao et al., 2020) and panic
buying (Arafat et al., 2020). As a result, the ongoing impacts of the pandemic on behavior and
daily life developed into a major concern in academia.
However, extant literature on consumer behavior during the novel coronavirus disease
has mostly addressed panic buying (see Yuen et al., 2022 for a review), a buying behavior
triggered by perceived shortage of products that aims to stockpile daily essentials goods (Arafat
et al., 2020). Consequently, revenge buying remained overlooked in academic research (Lins
et al., 2021). The few attempts to understand this compensatory behavior are grounded on
exploratory research (e.g., Darshan & Krishnegowda, 2020; Lakshmi, 2020), unable to cover
complex explanatory relationships that may revolve around the phenomenon.
Nevertheless, the study carried out by Park et al. (2022) is an exception. They examined
revenge spending among different emotional groups (groups of anxiety, depression, anger, and
indifference). However, it is noteworthy that revenge spending has a slightly different meaning
from the one adopted in this research. While they address this behavior as the purchase of
discrete goods to ease negative emotions, we are concerned with revenge buying as a
compensatory behavior specifically performed in brick-and-mortar stores. Apart from that, Park
et al. (2022) reveal that shopping motivations, such as mood alleviation, socialization seeking,

and self-control seeking, influence revenge spending depending on the consumer's emotional
state.
Our study then draws upon the findings of Park et al. (2022) in order to contribute to the
revenge buying literature and fill the gap regarding explanatory studies. As such, we expand
their findings by taking into account that regulatory focus and loneliness may play an important
role in explaining revenge buying intention. Regulatory focus is a self-regulation mechanism
to attain an end-state that encompasses promotion or prevention goals (Higgins, 1997). While
chronic promotion focus is related to ideal goals and oriented by intentions and emotions
(Novak & Hoffman, 2009), chronic prevention focus is rational and committed to ought goals
(Idson et al., 2000).
As the shopping constraints during the pandemic trigger reactance (Akhtar et al., 2020),
we postulate that promotion focus might easily give in to this unpleasant state and be prone to
revenge buying. Conversely, prevention focus might be complacent with shopping restrictions
in order to attain an ought goal, being negatively related to revenge buying. We argue, therefore,
that these two self-regulation mechanisms are important to account for revenge buying for two
main reasons. Firstly, they underlie motivation which is boundary condition of consumer
behavior (Pham & Higgins, 2005). Secondly, they have been helpful in explaining a set of
consumers' buying behavior, such as retail shopping (Das, 2016) and impulse buying (Krishna
et al., 2021). This study therefore expands the explanatory scope of regulatory focus to revenge
buying and advances the research of Park et al. (2022) as we work with a principle that regulates
shopping motivation.
Moreover, we also consider the moderating role of loneliness in the relations between
regulatory focuses and revenge buying. Loneliness is addressed here as it is one of the main
drivers of offline shopping (Smith et al., 2018). As these authors posit, consumers use in-store
shopping to meet their social needs. However, bearing in mind that during the pandemic
consumers were constrained from dealing with the lack of social relations through offline
shopping, we conjecture that promotion focus aligned with loneliness might strengthen the
willingness to revenge buying.
In addition, even though prevention focus might be negatively related to revenge
buying, when considering the influence of emotional distress (i.e., loneliness), they might give
in to revenge buying. This may happen because loneliness is a competing emotion that can
deplete prevention self-regulation resources, leading to self-regulation failure (Vohs & Faber,

2007). In short, this research set out to examine the roles of regulatory focus and loneliness on
revenge buying intention.
2 Theoretical background and hypotheses development
Given that revenge buying is grounded on reactance, we initially discussed the

psychological reactance theory, whose theoretical assumptions are helpful to understanding
such buying behavior.
2.1 Psychological reactance theory
Originated in the cognitive theories field, the reactance theory was proposed by the
social psychologist Brehm (1966). Relying on the assumptions established by this author,
reactance is a momentary state that arises when the individual experiences a threat or restriction
to their freedom. Reactance, therefore, refers to the quest to restore freedom of choice. Such
freedom is subjective (Brehm & Brehm, 1981), and its restoration is targeted, i.e., the restricted
option becomes more attractive and exciting, yielding a desire to recover it (Brehm, 1989).
Although the aforementioned perspective is currently the most accepted, it is
noteworthy that reactance is no longer referred to as a momentary state, but as a behavioral trait
(Kelly & Nauta, 1997). According to the authors, people consistently tend to feel and react to
threatening situations to maintain all their choices available. Reactance, therefore, is examined
as a means of susceptibility (Quick et al., 2013). An individual is more or less susceptible to
experiencing it, depending on the context and their experiences. Considering that this
perspective represents an advance of Brehm's (1966) seminal proposition, it will be the one
adopted in this study.
Three main elements are related to the reactance trait. First, freedom related to this trait
refers to behaviors that the individual performed in the past, was currently engaged in, or
intended to engage in the future (Rosenberg & Siegel, 2018). Second, the quest to restore
freedom is a reactive rather than a proactive process (Amarnath & Jaidev, 2021). Therefore,
reactance is triggered due to external factors that superimpose on the individual. Finally,
according to Amarnath and Jaidev (2021), the magnitude of reactance is determined by the level

of loss of freedom. Thus, the amount of effort involved in restoring freedom is proportional to
how much the individual feels that he/she has lost possibilities of choice.
Reactance is also triggered in unexpected situations. When the scenario is of threatening
uncertainty, the individual tends not to feel his/her freedom restricted so intensely compared to
a scenario of certainty (Rosenberg & Siegel, 2021). This may be why the COVID-19 pandemic
has fostered reactive behaviors, such as revenge shopping (Lins et al., 2021). The pandemic
occurred unexpectedly, and its duration and repercussions are different from any other health
crisis already experienced in history (Kang et al., 2021).
Indeed, the unexpected character of the pandemic seems to be the drive for reactive
behaviors. Given the guidelines recommended by health agencies, such as physical distancing
and lockdowns (Kang et al., 2021), it is reasonable to expect that people would face reactance.
In such a way, we claim that this trait may serve as a boundary condition of reactive behaviors
that were triggered amidst and after more intense periods of the disease spread, such as revenge
buying. This buying behavior will be explored in the next section.
2.2 Revenge buying
Revenge buying gained momentum in academia during the novel coronavirus pandemic
with exploratory studies such as Darshan and Krishnegowda (2020) and Lakshmi (2020).
However, this phenomenon is not new. There are records that such buying behavior occurred
in the mid-1980s when China, a closed economy, opened up to the international market
(Hashmi, 2021). Previously deprived of buying foreign products, the Chinese engaged in a real
rush to buy western products, which became known as "baofuxing xiaofei" (Darshan &
Krishnegowda, 2020). Regardless, little is known about the underlying mechanisms of such a
phenomenon (Lins et al., 2021).
Due to the lack of research regarding revenge buying, even its definition is still not clear
in the literature, especially in terms of which types of products are the target of revenge. For
instance, some scholars from the consumer psychology field point out that revenge buying is
more related to the purchase of luxury goods (e.g., Lins et al., 2021; Park et al., 2022). On the
other hand, in economics, revenge buying refers to situations in which consumers engage in a
shopping spree to buy products, ordinary or luxury, after a period of deprivation (Nguyen &
Chao, 2021).

Despite the product type, there is a consensus that revenge buying is a behavior that
aims to make up for a period of shopping constraint. Of note, in the pandemic context, in
particular, due to the closing of stores and the recommendation of social distancing (Kang et
al., 2021), revenge buying is more associated with brick-and-mortar overindulgence by
consumers who missed this experience (Malhotra, 2021). For this reason, this author posits that
revenge shopping is made up of added purchasing power, feel store environment, feel-good
factor, and desire satiation. Therefore, bearing in mind that this research does not focus on the
product category, that will be the definition used here.
Although there is a lack of studies encompassing the explanatory factors of revenge
buying, there are a few attempts in the literature to understand the phenomenon. So far, the
results are divided into hedonic motivations, sociodemographic and psychological factors. In
the category of hedonic factors, the findings indicate that consumers were inclined to revenge
buying to acquire items that could arouse joy and pleasure, such as food products, textiles, and
cosmetics (Darshan & Krishnegowda, 2020). Regarding sociodemographic factors, Lakshmi
(2020) points out that young people with high purchasing power tend to revenge buying;
however, regarding gender, no differences were found between men and women.
Finally, the psychological factors are composed of aspects such as behavior freedom
restoration, distress (Lim, 2021), and fatigue (Hashmi, 2021) caused by social isolation.
Socialization and self-control seeking also make up this category (Park et al., 2022). In view of
these findings, we claim that the goal orientation, whether to relieve tensions caused by the
pandemic and/or obtain pleasure, is important to understand the phenomenon. This study,
therefore, proposes to advance these findings by analyzing whether loneliness, which is
somewhat related to socialization seeking through shopping, moderates the relationship
between revenge buying and goal orientation. This latter topic is addressed in a comprehensive
manner in the regulatory focus theory, which will be discussed in the upcoming section.
2.3 Regulatory focus
Higgins (1997) was the one who proposed the regulatory focus theory. He postulated
that motivation studies should go beyond the hedonic principle that people approach pleasure
and avoid pain. According to the author, such a perspective was limited as it should be
recognized that motivation operates differently according to different needs. Thus, he proposed

that self-regulation underlies motivation according to desired end-states, which could

encompass a concern with advancement, growth, and accomplishment — promotion focus —
or protection, safety, and responsibility — prevention focus. In this vein, promotion and
prevention focus are the two major types of self-regulation mechanisms related to goal
attainment.
Promotion focus aligns with the absence or presence of positive outcomes, and its self-
regulation strategy is to approach matches to ideal goals — hopes and aspirations (Liberman et
al., 1999). Conversely, according to these authors, prevention focus involves the absence or
presence of negative outcomes, whose self-regulation strategy is to avoid mismatches to ought
goals — duties and responsibilities. These two regulatory systems can be momentary or
dispositional. The former situation is accessible when the individual thinks about gains
achieved — promotion focus — or losses avoided — prevention focus. The latter is related to
a chronic personality feature and is formed through socialization processes (Lee et al., 2000).
It is the latter, that is, the chronic regulatory focus, in particular, that this study refers to.
The chronic regulatory focus arises from parental influences. If the relationship involves
encouraging accomplishments and the discipline is the absence of love, it yields a strong
inclination toward ideal goals — chronic promotion focus. On the other hand, the interaction
between child and caretakers can produce a deep concern with ought goals — chronic
prevention focus — if it encompasses protection experiences (e.g., teaching the child how to
protect him or herself from potential dangers) and the punishment as a discipline (Higgins &
Silberman, 1998; Idson et al., 2000).
Both chronic regulatory focuses have been studied in many research fields, such as
sports (Klatt & Noël, 2020) and consumption (Sun & Ham, 2021). Within the consumer
behavior field, it is understood that the decision-making mechanisms of the promotion and
prevention-oriented people differ significantly (Aaker & Lee, 2001). This is partly explained
by the fact that promotion focus has a greater tendency to seize the moment and disregard
possible consequences. In contrast, prevention focus tends to be more cautious in their decisions
(Campos & Costa, 2021).
Promotion focus, therefore, is more willing to take risks than prevention focus (Pham &
Hingins, 2005). Because of that, it has already been identified that chronic promotion focus is
associated with hedonic shopping values and impulse buying, whereas chronic prevention focus
is related to a lower level of impulsiveness and a higher level of utilitarian shopping values

(Das, 2016). Although such findings are related to impulse buying, which originates from a
spontaneous and irresistible urge to buy, regardless of whether the situation involves restoration
of freedom (Rook, 1987), they allow us to conjecture that promotion focus might be more prone
to revenge buying than prevention focus.
We posit such a conjecture by relying on the theoretical assumptions of regulatory focus
and revenge buying. This purchasing behavior is related to discomfort caused by the restriction
of an action (Nguyen & Chao, 2021). When such an action is restricted, it becomes more
attractive, increasing the intention to perform it (Amarnath & Jaidev, 2021). Thus, as promotion
focus tends to behave more based on intuitions and emotions (Novak & Hoffman, 2009), such
as giving in to impulses (Krishna et al., 2021), it is more likely to seek to restore freedom when
behavior is restricted.
Conversely, chronic prevention focus tends to be more cautious, logical, and rational
(Novak & Hoffman, 2009). Also, individuals with such a trait are related to seeking safety and
avoiding losses (Idson et al., 2000). Thus, given that the restriction of purchases amidst the
pandemic was to avoid the contagion of the disease (Lakshmi, 2020), prevention focus may be
more complacent with such a restriction, being something that they would perform even without
a recommendation from health regulatory organizations. We assume, therefore, that a
prevention focus is negatively related to revenge buying since instead of trying to restore
freedom, a prevention focus would corroborate with its loss for the sake of health security, i.e.,
an ought goal. Therefore, we hereby state:
H1. Chronic promotion focus positively influences revenge buying intention.
H2. Chronic prevention focus negatively influences revenge buying intention.
2.4 Loneliness
Studies on loneliness date back from a distant past with discussions brought up by
Reichmann (1959). According to the author, loneliness is multifaceted and differs in terms of
being an own decision or imposed, pleasant or unpleasant, temporary or permanent. Although
Reichmann's (1959) postulations have fostered an interest in the subject, Weiss (1973) is
considered the main seminal inquiry. He defines loneliness as a specific deficit in interpersonal

relationships that is divided into two dimensions: emotional loneliness and social loneliness.
The former results from a loss of a particular person, whereas the latter results from a loss of a
specific social network. It is the latter, i.e., social loneliness, that we are concerned with.
Drawing upon Perlman and Peplau's (1981) definition, we view social loneliness as an
unpleasant, distressing, and subjective experience that results from a sub-optimal level of social
interactions, either quantitatively or qualitatively. As these authors posit, such a type of
loneliness is precipitated by changes in a person's social relationships that may be an ending of
a close emotional relationship (termination), changes in an individual's position within a
specific group (status change), or separation from relatives and friends (physical separation).
Our focus here relies on social loneliness resulting from physical separation as it is the main
cause of such a state during the novel coronavirus pandemic.
Amidst the pandemic, social loneliness stemmed from the stay-at-home policies
(Okruszek et al., 2020). Within this context, this emotional distress has proven to be a major
cause of low well-being, high stress (Landmann & Rohmann, 2022), and dysfunctional
behaviors, such as panic buying (Im et al., 2022). This is because loneliness influences human
behavior as a series of analyzes already point out (e.g., Perlman & Peplau, 1981; Fumagalli et
al., 2022). In the consumer behavior field, in particular, scholars found that loneliness is related
to low self-control (Li et al., 2021), retail therapy (Kang & Johnson, 2011), and in-store
shopping to satisfy social experience needs (Smith et al., 2018).
Indeed, in-store shopping is one of the main means of mood repair (Wang et al., 2022).
However, during the pandemic, offline shopping went from fun to scary and was characterized
by fear and concern (Zulauf & Wagner, 2022). Consumers then were deprived of meeting their
social needs through such shopping. This may be why lonely ones appraised the pandemic more
negatively and experienced higher levels of distress (Okruszek et al., 2020). In such a situation,
we posit that even those who were dealing well with the behavioral constraints may become
more prone to reactance and revenge buying due to the depletion of self-control resources.
When consumers spend energy to mitigate emotional distress (e.g., loneliness), they
deplete self-regulation resources (Tice et al., 2001), which causes self-regulatory failure (Vohs
& Faber, 2007). This partly explains why both promotion and prevention focus may buy
motivated by emotions (Verplanken & Sato, 2011). According to these authors, although
promotion focus does not require many self-regulation resources to give in to emotions,

prevention focus becomes vulnerable to such an experience in the presence of negative

emotional states.
Therefore, bearing in mind that consumers deal with loneliness through compensatory
behaviors (Okruszek et al., 2020), we claim that lonely consumers may deplete their self-
regulation resources to deal with such distressing emotion as they were unable to meet their
social needs during the pandemic context. As a result, reactance might be strengthened, leading
to self-regulation failure. Hence the relationship between promotion focus and revenge buying
might become strong in the presence of loneliness. Likewise, prevention focus might deplete
their regulatory resources and elicit compensatory behaviors, such as revenge buying. Thus, we
postulate that:
H3. Loneliness positively moderates the relationship between chronic promotion focus
and revenge buying intention.
H4. Loneliness positively moderates the relationship between chronic prevention focus
and revenge buying intention.
2.5 Theoretical model
Figure 1 shows the theoretical relationships proposed in this study. Aside from that, we
considered gender, age, and income as control variables. This is because prior research pointed
out that younger people with high purchasing power are more willing to revenge buying
(Lakshmi, 2020). Moreover, a series of analyzes underscore gender differences in regard to
compensatory behaviors (e.g., Koles et al., 2018).

Figure 1. Theoretical model
Loneliness
Chronic H3(+) H4(+)

promotion
focus
H1(+)
Revenge
buying
intention
H2(-)
Chronic
prevention
focus
Gender Age Income
Source: author, 2022.
3 Method
This study is grounded on a quantitative approach, which is the most suitable to meet
the proposed goal, as it allows testing influence relationships. In addition, this inquiry is
descriptive, as we seek to describe how the constructs are related (Cozby, 2003). The target
population is made up of consumers aged 18 or older since this is the minimum age required
by Law 10406/02 of the Brazilian Civil Code for individuals to be able to perform acts of civil
life, such as purchases and contracts. As we could not guarantee participants' randomness, non-
probabilistic convenience sampling was adopted (Cochran, 1977). Thus, those who were
available and able to provide useful information on the topic took part in the study (Hair Jr. et
al., 2005).
We calculated the minimum sample size using the G*Power software (version 3.1.9.7).
To this end, the parameters outlined by Cohen (1992) were used: F test; Linear multiple
regression: Fixed model, R² deviation from zero; effect size f² = 0.15; α = 0.05; power = 0.80;
number of predictors = 2. The software indicated that a minimum size of 68 respondents was
required. However, Ringle et al. (2014) indicate having twice this value as a parameter to obtain
more robust results. Therefore, we considered that the sample size should contain at least 136
participants.

The data collection instrument was composed of six sections. Firstly, we presented the
research goal and the study's institution. Also, anonymity and confidentiality were guaranteed.
We then outlined that the research would not entail any cost, risk, or reward, and we granted
the possibility to interrupt the participation. In addition, we informed the required time to
complete the questionnaire. The participants should sign the detailed consent form to proceed
to the second part. The following four sections encompassed the scales of each construct (Chart
1). Of note, it is worth mentioning that a 7-point Likert-type scale was used.
Moreover, a control question was inserted in the fourth section to check the participants'
attention. If they were reading the statements carefully, they should mark the number 3 on the
scale. We considered this strategy suitable to increase the data accuracy. Finally, the sixth
section was used to map the sociodemographic profile. Thus, we asked about: gender, age,
monthly family income, marital status, education, and the number of people who share the same
house with the respondent.
Chart 1. Measures
Scales Items Code
Compared to most people, I am typically able to get what I want out of
PRO1
life.
I often have accomplished things that got me “psyched” to work even
PRO2
Chronic promotion harder.
focus I often do well at different things that I try. PRO3
Higgins et al. When it comes to achieving things that are important to me, I find that I
PRO4
(2001) perform as well as I ideally would like to do.
I feel like I have made progress toward being successful in my life. PRO5
I have found a lot of hobbies or activities in my life that capture my interest
PRO6
or motivate me to put effort into them.
Growing up, I would not ever “cross the line'” by doing things that my
PRE1
parents would not tolerate.
Chronic prevention
I did not get on my parents' nerves often when I was growing up. PRE2
focus
I often obeyed rules and regulations that were established by my parents. PRE3
Higgins et al.
Growing up, I did not ever act in ways that my parents thought were
(2001) PRE4
objectionable.
By being careful enough, I do not usually get myself into troubles. PRE5
I often feel that I lack companionship. L1
I often feel that there is no one I can turn to. L2
I often feel that I’m not part of a group of friends. L3
Loneliness I often feel that I do not have a lot in common with the people around me. L4
Adapted from Russell I often feel that my interests and ideas are not shared by those around me. L5
(1996) I often feel that my relationships with others are not meaningful. L6
I often feel isolated from others. L7
I often feel that there are no people who really understand me. L8
I often feel that there are no people I can talk to. L9
Revenge buying When the pandemic ends, I intend to go shopping at physical stores to
RBI1
intention make up for the bad days I experienced during social isolation.
Adapted from Campos When the pandemic ends, I intend to go shopping to make up for the period
RBI2
et al. (2021) I was deprived of freely shopping.

When the pandemic ends, I intend to go shopping at physical stores to

RBI3
relieve the stress caused by social isolation.
Data collection was carried out using the online survey strategy and the Google Forms
platform. Initially, we conducted a pre-test of the instrument to avoid comprehension problems
with 15 consumers aged 18 years or older (Malhotra, 2012). This process was done through the
internet, and, in the end, no amendments were necessary. Thus, the questionnaire was widely
available through emails and social media (WhatsApp, Facebook, and Instagram). We also used
the snowball strategy to spread the survey (Malhotra, 2012). Thus, participants were
encouraged to share the link with consumers aged 18 or older.
Data collection took place from July 27 to September 7, 2021, in a single cross-sectional
design, i.e., at a single moment in time and with a single sample (Malhotra, 2012). As explained
in the minimum sample size calculation, the sample should have at least 136 respondents.
However, to increase the accuracy of the results, the collection was completed with a total of
211 participants. The data went through a purification process. In this process, it was identified
that a total of 7 individuals failed the attention test. For this reason, they were withdrawn from
the database. Also, the Mahalanobis distance (D²) was calculated to check for the presence of
multivariate outliers. However, no statistically significant distances were identified, indicating
the absence of outliers (Hair et al., 2010). Therefore, the final sample consisted of 204 valid
participants.
The sample sociodemographic profile was analyzed using descriptive statistics (mean,
standard deviation, and percentage). Subsequently, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was
carried out to assure the validity of the scales (Hair et al., 2010). We used two statistical
techniques to test the theoretical model: multiple linear regression (H1 and H2) and Hayes'
Macro Process (2018; H3 and H4). We ran the data in SPSS software.
We then verified the adequacy of the database to run the multiple linear regression. First,
we found that the Durbin-Watson value (DW = 1.872) was close to 2. Therefore, the residues
are independent (Durbin & Watson, 1951). The variance inflation factors were below 10 (VIF
= 1.001), indicating the absence of multicollinearity (Myers, 1990). A total of 9 sample units
showed standardized residual values above 2. However, as they remained below three and the
amount is less than 5% of the sample, it is not necessary to exclude them from the database
(Field, 2009). Finally, as recommended by this author, it was verified through normal

probability and residual graphs that the assumptions of normality, linearity, and
homoscedasticity were met.
4 Results
4.1 Sample profile
Among the 204 participants, those belonging to the female gender have the largest share
of participation, corresponding to 63.7%. The male gender comprises 36.3% of the sample. The
average age is 31 years old (range = 18 to 75 years old; SD = 8,866 years old) and the average
monthly income is BRL 7,251.72 (range = BRL 700 to BRL 200,000; SD = BRL 16,057.17).
The average monthly per capita income, in turn, is BRL 3,358.46 (range = BRL 175 to BRL
100,000; SD = BRL 8,300.18). Concerning marital status, there is a greater representation of
single people (57.4%). Subsequently, those who are married or in a stable relationship (39.2%),
divorced or separated (2.9%) and widowed (0.5%) are added to the sample. Finally, most
participants have a complete graduate degree (specialization, master's, or Ph.D.) with a
percentage of 74.5%. Then there are the respondents with complete higher education (19.1%)
and complete secondary education (6.4%).
4.2 Exploratory factor analysis
To verify the dimensionality and reliability of the scales, we carried out an EFA, whose
results (Table 1) were analyzed based on the guidelines of Hair et al. (2010). Evaluating the
factor loadings, it was possible to notice that the item L1 of the loneliness scale had a value
below 0.5, and, in addition, the commonality (H²) was also low (L1 = H²: 0.227; λ: 0.476). For
this reason, it was decided to exclude the L1 item from the construct. The other observed
variables have satisfactory factor loadings with values above 0.5. Although items PRO1 and
PRO2 have commonalities below the threshold, they have suitable factor loadings and are
theoretically relevant to the construct (Higgins et al., 2001). Therefore, those items were not
excluded from the chronic promotion focus scale.

Table 1. Exploratory factor analysis

Bartlett
Item H² Factor loadings KMO Exp. Var. Cronbach’s Alpha
df χ2 Sig.
PRO1 .276 .526
PRO2 .346 .588
PRO3 .501 .708
.762 15 307.68 .000 47.02 .768
PRO4 .493 .702
PRO5 .636 .797
PRO6 .570 .755
PRE1 .665 .816
PRE2 .658 .811
PRE3 .682 .826 .854 10 429.84 .000 64.07 .856
PRE4 .695 .833
PRE5 .504 .710
L2 .581 .762
L3 .683 .827
L4 .653 .808
L5 .710 .842
.910 28 1344.69 .000 70.67 .940
L6 .735 .857
L7 .800 .894
L8 .777 .882
L9 .715 .845
RBI1 .834 .913
RBI2 .678 .823 .699 3 302.67 .000 77.89 .852
RBI3 .825 .908
Note(s). PRO = chronic promotion focus; PRE = chronic prevention focus; S = loneliness; RBI = revenge
buying intention; H² = communalities; KMO = Kayser-Meyer-Olkin; χ2 = Chi-squared; df = degrees of
freedom; Sig. = Significance level; Exp.V. = Explained variance
Next, we evaluated the results of Bartlett's sphericity test. Note that the tests are
significant (p < 0.001) in all measurements. Thus, the items are correlated, indicating a
satisfactory factor structure. The sample is also suitable since the Kayser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO)
values are higher than 0.7. The total explained variance, in turn, is greater than 50%. Only the
scale of chronic promotion focus had an acceptable value of 47%. These results indicate
adequate data variability explained by the factor. Finally, Cronbach's alpha values remained
above 0.7, indicating satisfactory internal consistency.
4.3 Common method variance
Since the data are from a single cross-sectional design, we verified if our model is
contaminated by the common method variance. We therefore carried out an EFA, fixing all
items to an overall factor (Podsakoff et al., 2003). This procedure generated a total explained
variance of 23.03%. Thus, as the variance was less than 50%, we conclude that the common
method variance is not an issue in this study (Fuller et al., 2016).

4.4 Multiple linear regression
In order to verify to what extent the chronic promotion and prevention focuses influence
revenge buying intention, we carried out a multiple linear regression analysis (forward method).
Regressions were performed for two models: without and with control variables. The results of
the first model indicate a significant influence of the chronic promotion focus on the revenge
buying intention (β = 0.150, t = 2.159, p < 0.05). The chronic prevention focus, in turn, had no
significant impact (β = 0.077, t = 1.109, p = 0.269).
When controlling for the effect of gender, age, and income (Table 2), we observed that
the significant effect of the chronic promotion focus on the revenge buying intention remains
(β = 0.196, t = 2.774, p < 0.05). Therefore, we concluded that hypothesis H1 was not rejected.
Likewise, the impact of the chronic prevention focus on the phenomenon remained non-
significant (β = 0.054, t = 0.774, p > 0.05). Thus, hypothesis H2 was rejected.
Table 2. Predictors of revenge buying intention

Standardized
Predictors coefficients t Sig. R2 DR2
Beta
(Constant) - 2.960 0.003 - -
Age -0.202 -2.862 0.005 1.9% -
Chronic promotion focus 0.196 2.774 0.006 5.1% 3.2%
Regarding the influence of control variables on revenge purchase intention, we observed

that age has a significant effect (β = -0.202, t = -2,862, p < 0.05). The result demonstrates that
younger people are more likely to revenge buying. Gender has no significant relationship (β =
-0.024, t = -0.349, p > 0.05), indicating that the revenge buying intention is independent of this
variable. Finally, the income also had no effect (β = 0.061, t = 0.884, p > 0.05), which indicates
that the purchase intention under analysis does not depend on income.
4.5 Moderation analysis
Moderation analysis was conducted to test hypotheses H3 and H4. It is possible to

observe in the results (Table 3) that the interaction between the chronic promotion focus and
social loneliness does not influence the revenge buying intention (β = -0.094, t = -1.410, p >
0.05). Thus, we may reject hypothesis H3.

Table 3. Moderation effects (independent variable = chronic promotion focus)

Standard
Coefficient (β) t p R²
error
Constant 2.636 0.119 22.236 0.000
Chronic promotion focus (X) 0.338 0.134 2.526 0.012
3.5%
Loneliness (W) 0.053 0.066 0.803 0.423
Chronic promotion focus * Loneliness (X*W) -0.094 0.067 -1.410 0.160
Subsequently, we tested hypothesis H4. The results (Table 4) demonstrate that the
interaction between the chronic prevention focus and social loneliness has a statistically
significant effect (β = -0.087, p < 0.05), which signals the presence of moderation. Based on
this result, we concluded that social loneliness negatively moderates the relationship between
prevention focus and revenge buying intention. Therefore, we rejected hypothesis H4.
Given that we detected a significant moderating effect, we sought to better understand
it by dividing the moderating variable according to the following parameters: 16% lower, 64%
median, and 16% higher (Hayes, 2018). We then identified that when loneliness levels are
lower, the relationship between the prevention focus and the revenge buying intention becomes
positive and significant (β = 0.275, p < 0.05). However, for intermediate (β = 0.118, p > 0.05)
and high (β = -0.083, p > 0.05) levels of loneliness, the relationship becomes non-significant.
Table 4. Moderation effects (independent variable = chronic prevention focus)

Standard
Coefficient (β) t p R²
error
Constant 2.697 0.115 23.491 0.000
Chronic prevention focus (X) 0.102 0.080 1.282 0.201
Loneliness (W) 0.013 0.064 0.208 0.836 2.6%
Chronic prevention focus * Loneliness (X*W) -0.087 0.043 -2.011 0.046
Conditional effects (W)

- 1.99 (16% lower) 0.275 0.120 2.280 0.024
- 0.18 (64% median) 0.118 0.080 1.462 0.145
2.13 (16% higher) -0.083 0.118 -0.702 0.483
5 Discussion
Our results reveal that regulatory focus plays an important role in revenge buying. First
of all, we found that revenge buying intention is explained by chronic promotion focus. This
result aligns with previous research, supporting that promotion-oriented people operate out of
emotions (Novak & Hoffman, 2009). This happens because the desired end-state of this chronic
trait is the presence of positive outcomes (Higgins, 1997), which in this study is related to easing
an unpleasant emotional state through the restoration of shopping freedom. Thus, we add to the
regulatory focus literature that one of the states that shape promotion focus behavior is the
desire to make up for lost freedom. As such, this research reveals that under a shopping channel
constraint, the restricted option becomes more attractive to promotion-oriented consumers,
leading them to engage in revenge buying.
On the other hand, the prevention focus is not related to revenge buying. Based on the
theoretical foundations of regulatory focus, prevention-focused individuals are induced by
security needs (Higgins, 1997). Considering that offline shopping constraints meet a health
security need, we postulated that prevention-focus would be negatively associated with revenge
buying. In other words, the stronger this stable disposition, the lower the desire to buy in brick-
and-mortar stores to make up for the constraint period. However, our results reveal that
prevention-oriented consumer has no relation to revenge buying, either positive or negative.
Therefore, we suggest that the explanation for this result relies on the underlying mechanisms
of prevention focus.
First, behavioral restrictions during the pandemic were a recommendation by health
agencies (Ang et al., 2021). In this case, prevention-focus might not embody this guidance as a
threat to freedom but as a duty (Idson et al., 2000). Second, prevention-focus yields sensitivity
to avoidance as strategic means (Higgins, 1997). Therefore, the intention to shop at brick-and-
mortar stores would be a mismatch to the ought goal and avoidance strategy. Thus, it is
reasonable to expect that revenge buying would not be triggered under standard conditions, i.e.,
without taking into account competing emotions. According to a previous study, the quest to
restore personal freedom depends on the context and individual experiences (Quick et al.,
2013). Based on our results, we advance this statement by indicating that personal safety and
duty experiences related to prevention focus comprise the set of experiences that can curb
revenge buying.
Another finding from the present study is that loneliness does not moderate the relation
between promotion focus and revenge buying intention. From a theoretical point of view, this
result contrasts a series of previous studies. Lack of social interaction generates loneliness
which is an unpleasant and distressing emotional state (Perlman & Peplau, 1981). Within the
consumer behavior literature, such an emotional state evokes in-store shopping intent in order
to satisfy social needs (Smith et al., 2018) and vent emotional distress (Wang et al., 2022).

However, this shopping strategy to ease negative emotions was limited in the pandemic context,
yielding reactance (Reiss et al., 2020). In such a scenario, promotion-focused people who feel
lonely were expected to have a strong revenge buying intention as promotion focus respond to
consumption decisions based on spontaneous feelings (Krishna et al., 2021).
Indeed, prior research carried out in the early stage of the pandemic found that loneliness
triggered reactive behaviors, such as panic buying (Im et al., 2022). Moreover, consumers were
willing to engage in shopping activities to meet social needs (Park et al., 2020). The present
study, therefore, points out that such an assumption does not hold as far as later stages of the
pandemic are concerned. Probably, loneliness does not interfere in the relationship between
promotion focus and revenge buying intention because the means to socialize may have been
redefined. Offline shopping was characterized as scary and surrounded by fear in such a context
(Zulauf & Wagner, 2022). Therefore, people might not perceive in-store shopping as an ideal
buffer against loneliness.
Another insightful finding of this study is that prevention focus explains revenge buying
intention in the presence of lower levels of loneliness. Prior research argues prevention focus
gives in to spontaneous consumption in the presence of negative emotional states (Verplanken
& Sato, 2011). However, the present inquiry reveals such assumption does not hold to all
emotional distress. In the pandemic context, loneliness was a paralyzer of behavior, leading to
a loss of interest in pursuing personal goals (Reiss et al., 2022). This may be why moderate to
high levels of loneliness do not influence the relationship between prevention focus and revenge
buying intention. On the other hand, lower levels of loneliness may deplete self-regulatory
resources (Tice et al., 2001), promoting self-regulatory failure (Vohs & Faber, 2007) and then
triggering revenge buying intention.
Finally, it is worth mentioning that although Lakshmi (2020) found an influence of
income on revenge buying, our study demonstrates that revenge buying intention is independent
of such variable and gender. However, we reveal that age is an explanatory factor. Thus, the
younger the consumer, the greater the revenge buying intention. This result is in line with
Rossolov et al. (2022) findings that, during the pandemic, young people from emerging
economies lost the pleasure of the shopping process due to the deployed restriction on shop
entrance. Furthermore, according to the authors, younger consumers were willing to impulsive
shopping for mood repair. We, therefore, advance their results by pointing out that such
restrictions also lead younger consumers to revenge buying intentions.

6 Conclusion
The novel coronavirus pandemic brought about a series of behavioral restrictions in

order to contain the spread of the virus. As a result, the feelings unleashed in this period and
the whole context evoked reactive actions. While the literature focused on initial outcomes,
such as panic buying, other behaviors remained neglected. This study contributes to the
consumer behavior literature by investigating how self-regulation mechanisms and emotional
distress stemming from this context influences revenge buying intention. In short, we found
that promotion-focused consumers are willing to revenge buying independent of the level of
loneliness. On the other hand, prevention-focused consumers only intend to do so in the
presence of lower levels of loneliness.
From our results, we draw at least three main theoretical contributions. First, the
literature points out that some people are more sensitive to the desire to restore a constrained
option than others (Kelly & Nauta, 1997; Quick et al., 2013). Our study contributes to this
statement by indicating that self-regulation mechanisms play an important role in differentiating
such susceptibility. Second, hitherto it was understood that in-store shopping is a buffer to a set
of feelings, including loneliness. However, we state that in a context where offline shopping
represents a threat to health, consumers may not engage in such activity to meet their social
needs. Finally, loneliness might not drive consumption decisions but inaction during the
pandemic. On the contrary, lower levels of such emotional distress may be sufficient to deplete
prevention focus self-regulation resources.
The impacts of the pandemic on small and medium-sized companies are notorious. The
findings of this article are helpful to decision-makers outline recovery strategies insofar as it
allows them to understand the mechanisms that lead consumers to revenge buying intention.
Although e-commerce has been trending in recent years, this study reveals that consumers are
looking forward to returning to in-store shopping and enjoying the in-store shopping process.
However, as found here, health safety concerns can preclude the intention to frequent physical
stores. Thus, providing safety to consumers in the store environment is a central issue in
attracting them. In addition, promoting events for consumers to interact with each other can be
a strategy for them to deal with the lack of social interaction brought about by the pandemic.

While interactions with store clerks are crucial, consumers are likely to be more interested in
deeper interactions, especially with their friends.
Despite all contributions, this inquiry has at least four limitations. First, data come from
a non-probabilistic sample. Future research should use probabilistic sampling in order to
generalize the results. Second, we did not assess the depletion of self-regulation resources.
Upcoming studies should include this variable in the study to generate more robust inferences.
Third, we focused on brick-and-mortar stores and did not identify consumers who enjoy more
e-shopping. Future research efforts should take a closer look at this aspect. Fourth, we did not
consider the fine line between loneliness and depression. Therefore, new research should
distinguish and examine these two variables. Fifth, new theoretical contributions might come
from the interplays among reactance, loneliness, and self-regulation failure. Finally, the
redefinition of buffers to cope with loneliness in the post-pandemic scenario should be
addressed.
References
Akhtar, N., Nadeem Akhtar, M., Usman, M., Ali, M., & Iqbal Siddiqi, U. (2020). COVID-19
restrictions and consumers’ psychological reactance toward offline shopping freedom
restoration. The Service Industries Journal, 40(13-14), 891-913.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2020.1790535
Amarnath, D. D., & Jaidev, U. P. (2021). Toward an integrated model of consumer reactance:
a literature analysis. Management Review Quarterly, 71(1), 41–90.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-020-00180-y
Ang, T., Wei, S., & Arli, D. (2021). Social distancing behavior during COVID-19: A TPB
perspective. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 39(6), 809–824. https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-
08-2020-0352
Arafat, S. Y., Kar, S. K., Marthoenis, M., Sharma, P., Apu, E. H., & Kabir, R. (2020).
Psychological underpinning of panic buying during pandemic (COVID-19). Psychiatry
Research, 289, 113061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113061
Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Oxford, England: Academic Press.
Brehm, J. W. (1989). Psychological reactance: Theory and applications. Advances in Consumer

Research, 16, 72–75.
Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control.
London, England: Academic Press.

Campos, P. O., & Costa, M. F. (2021). Regulatory focus and construal level theory on low-
income consumer indebtedness: Evidence from an emerging market. International Journal of
Emerging Markets, ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOEM-08-2020-0870
Campos, P. O., Nascimento, A. C. L., Santana, P. N., & Costa, M. F. (2021). Quando querer
(não) é poder: Análise da intenção de comprar por vingança no cenário pós-pandemia. XLV
Encontro da ANPAD - EnANPAD 2021, 1–17.
Cochran, W. G. (1977). Sampling Techniques (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159.
Cozby, P. C. (2003). Métodos de pesquisa em ciências do comportamento. São Paulo: Editora

Atlas S.A.
Darshan, S., & Krishnegowda, Y. T. (2020). The Collision of Pandemic Covid-19 on Luxury
Market in India. Dogo Rangsang Research Journal, 10(7), 104–111.
Das, G. (2016). Regulatory focus as a moderator of retail shopping behaviour. Journal of

Strategic Marketing, 24, 484–499. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2015.1063679
Droit-Volet, S., Gil, S., Martinelli, N., Andant, N., Clinchamps, M., Parreira, L., ... & Dutheil,
F. (2020). Time and Covid-19 stress in the lockdown situation: Time free, «Dying» of boredom
and sadness. PloS One, 15(8), e0236465. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236465
Field, A. (2009). Descobrindo a estatística usando o SPSS-5 (2nd ed.). Porto Alegre: Artmed.
Fuller, C. M., Simmering, M. J., Atinc, G., Atinc, Y., & Babin, B. J. (2016). Common methods
variance detection in business research. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3192–3198.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.008
Fumagalli, E., Shrum, L. J., & Lowrey, T. M. (2022). Consuming in response to loneliness:
Bright side and dark side effects. Current Opinion in Psychology, 46, 101329.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101329
Hair Jr, J. F., Babin, B., Money, A. H., & Samouel, P. (2005). Fundamentos de Métodos de
Pesquisa em Administração. Porto Alegre: Bookman.
Hair Jr., J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis
(7th ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River.
Hashmi, A. R. (2021). Covid-19 and the level of consumers revenge buying: an explorative
perspective of the Albaha region. International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering
and Technology, 12(2), 159–166. https://doi.org/10.34218/IJARET.12.2.2020.014
Hayes, A. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A

regression based approach. Guilford Press, New York.

Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280–1300.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280
Higgins, E. T., & Silberman, I. (1998). Development of regulatory focus: Promotion and
prevention as ways of living. In J. Heckhausen & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Motivation and self-
regulation across the life span (pp. 78-113). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Higgins, E. T., Friedman, R. S., Harlow, R. E., Idson, L. C., Ayduk, O. N., & Taylor, A. (2001).
Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: Promotion pride versus
prevention pride. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 3-23.
Idson, L. C., Liberman, N., & Higgins, E. T. (2000). Distinguishing gains from nonlosses and
losses from nongains: A regulatory focus perspective on hedonic intensity. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 36(3), 252–274. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1999.1402
Im, H., Kim, N. L., & Lee, H. K. (2022). Why did (some) consumers buy toilet papers? A cross‐
cultural examination of panic buying as a maladaptive coping response to COVID‐19. Journal
of Consumer Affairs, 56(1), 391-413. https://doi.org/10.1111/joca.12426
Kang, M, & Johnson, K. K. P. (2011). Retail Therapy: Scale Development. Clothing and
Textiles Research Journal, 29(1), 3-19. doi:10.1177/0887302X11399424
Kang, G. W., Piao, Z. (Zoey), & Ko, J. Y. (2021). Descriptive or injunctive: How do restaurant
customers react to the guidelines of COVID-19 prevention measures? The role of psychological
reactance. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 95, 102934.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2021.102934
Kelly, A. E., & Nauta, M. M. (1997). Reactance and thought suppression. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1123–1132. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/01461672972311001
Klatt, S., & Noël, B. (2020). Regulatory focus in sport revisited: Does the exact wording of
instructions really matter? Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 9(4), 532-542.
https://doi.org/10.1037/spy0000195
Krishna, A., Ried, S., & Meixner, M. (2021). State-trait interactions in regulatory focus
determine impulse buying behavior. Plos One, 16(7), e0253634.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253634
Koles, B., Wells, V., & Tadajewski, M. (2018). Compensatory consumption and consumer
compromises: a state-of-the-art review. Journal of Marketing Management, 34(1-2), 96-133.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2017.1373693
Lakshmi, S. (2020). Revenge Buying. Bioscience Biotechnology Research Communications,

13(15), 204–206. https://doi.org/10.21786/bbrc/13.15/35
Landmann, H., & Rohmann, A. (2022). When loneliness dimensions drift apart: Emotional,
social and physical loneliness during the COVID‐19 lockdown and its associations with age,

personality, stress and well‐being. International Journal of Psychology, 57(1), 63-72.

https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12772
Lee, A. Y., Gardner, W. L., & Aaker, J. L. (2000). Personality processes and individual
differences - the pleasures and pains of distinct self-construals: The role of interdependence in
regulatory focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(6), 1122–1134.
https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.78.6.1I22
Li, X., Feng, X., Xiao, W., & Zhou, H. (2021). Loneliness and Mobile phone addiction among
Chinese college students: the mediating roles of boredom proneness and self-control.
Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 14, 687.
https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S315879
Liberman, N., Idson, L. C., Camacho, C. J., & Higgins, E. T. (1999). Promotion and prevention
choices between stability and change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6),
1135–1145. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1135
Lim, W. M. (2021). Toward an agency and reactance theory of crowding: Insights from
COVID‐19 and the tourism industry. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 1-5.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1948
Lins, S., Aquino, S., Costa, A. R., & Koch, R. (2021). From panic to revenge: Compensatory
buying behaviors during the pandemic. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 1–2.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00207640211002557
Malhotra, M. S. (2021). Empirical scale for revenge buying behaviour: A curious consequence
of pandemic. BIMTECH Business Perspective, 3(1), 1–14.
Malhotra, N. (2012). Pesquisa de Marketing: Uma orientação aplicada. (6th ed.). Bookman,
Porto Alegre, Brasil.
Matarazzo, M., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2022). Applying reactance theory to study consumer
responses to COVID restrictions: a note on model specification. International Marketing
Review, ahead-of-print, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-12-2021-0370
Myers, R. H. (1990). Detecting and combating multicollinearity. Classical and modern

regression with applications, 368-423.
Nguyen, X., & Chao, C.-C. (2021). Revenge consumption, product quality, and welfare.
International Review of Economics & Finance, 76, 495–501.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2021.05.007
Novak, T. P., & D. L. Hoffman. (2009). The Fit of Thinking Style and Situation: New Measures
of Situation-Specific Experiential and Rational Cognition. Journal of Consumer Research,
36(1), 56-72. https://doi.org/10.1086/596026.

Okruszek, Ł., Aniszewska-Stańczuk, A., Piejka, A., Wiśniewska, M., & Żurek, K. (2020). Safe
but Lonely? Loneliness, Anxiety, and Depression Symptoms and COVID-19. Frontiers in
Psychology, 11, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.579181
Park, I., Lee, J., Lee, D., Lee, C., & Chung, W. Y. (2022). Changes in consumption patterns
during the COVID-19 pandemic: Analyzing the revenge spending motivations of different
emotional groups. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 65, 102874.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102874
Perlman, D., & Peplau, L. A. (1981). Toward a social psychology of loneliness. In S. Duck &
R. Gilmour (Eds.), Personal relationships in disorder. Academic Press, London.
Pham, M. T., & Higgins, E. T. (2005). Promotion and prevention in consumer decision making:
state of the art and theoretical propositions. In Ratneshwar, S., & Mick, D. G. Inside
consumption: consumer motives, goals and desires. Routledge: New Jersey.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Quick, B. L., Shen, L., & Dillard, J. P. (2013). Reactance theory and persuasion. In J. P. Dillard
& L. Shen (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of persuasion: Developments in theory and practice
(2nd ed., pp. 167–183). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Reichmann, F. F. (1959). Loneliness †. Psychiatry, 22(1), 1–15.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1959.11023153
Reiss, S., Franchina, V., Jutzi, C., Willardt, R., & Jonas, E. (2020). From anxiety to action—
Experience of threat, emotional states, reactance, and action preferences in the early days of
COVID-19 self-isolation in Germany and Austria. PLoS One, 15, 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243193
Ringle, C. M., Silva, D., & Bido, D. S. (2014). Structural equation modeling with the SmartPLS.
Brazilian Journal of Marketing, 13(2), 56–73. https://doi.org/10.5585/remark.v13i2.2717
Rook, D. W. (1987). The buying impulse. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(2), 189–199.
https://doi.org/10.1086/209105
Rosenberg, B. D., & Siegel, J. T. (2018). A 50-year review of psychological reactance theory:
Do not read this article. Motivation Science, 4(4), 281–300.
https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000091
Rosenberg, B. D., & Siegel, J. T. (2021). Threatening uncertainty and psychological reactance:
are freedom threats always noxious? Current Psychology, (1966).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01640-8

Rossolov, A., Aloshynskyi, Y., & Lobashov, O. (2022). How COVID-19 has influenced the
purchase patterns of young adults in developed and developing economies: factor analysis of
shopping behavior roots. Sustainability, 14(2), 941. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14020941
Russell, D. W. (1996). UCLA loneliness scale (Version 3): Reliability, validity, and factor
structure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66(1), 20–40.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6601_2
Smith, B., Rippé, C.B., & Dubinsky, A.J. (2018). India’s lonely and isolated consumers
shopping for an in-store social experience. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 36(7), 722-736.
Tice, D. M., Bratslavsky, E., & Baumeister, R. F. (2001). Emotional distress regulation takes
precedence over impulse control: If you feel bad, do it! Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 80(1), 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.1.53
Verplanken, B., & Sato, A. (2011). The psychology of impulse buying: An integrative self-
regulation approach. Journal of Consumer Policy, 34, 197–210.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-011-9158-5
Vohs, K.D, & Faber, R. J. (2007). Spent Resources: Self-regulatory resource availability affects
impulse buying. Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 537–547. https://doi.org/10.1086/510228
Wang, X., Ali, F., Tauni, M. Z., Zhang, Q., & Ahsan, T. (2022). Effects of hedonic shopping
motivations and gender differences on compulsive online buyers. Journal of marketing theory
and practice, 30(1), 120-135. https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2021.1894949
Weiss, R. (1973). Loneliness: The Experience of Emotional and Social Isolation. MIT Press,
Cambridge, Mass. & London, England.
Xiao, H., Zhang, Z., & Zhang, L. (2020). A diary study of impulsive buying during the COVID-
19 pandemic. Current Psychology, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-01220-2
Yuen, K. F., Tan, L. S., Wong, Y. D., & Wang, X. (2022). Social determinants of panic buying
behaviour amidst COVID-19 pandemic: The role of perceived scarcity and anticipated regret.
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 66, 102948.
Zulauf, K., & Wagner, R. (2022). Online shopping therapy: if you want to be happy, shop
around. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 34(3), 332-345.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08961530.2021.1955425


1943-5901-1-PB

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

1943-5901-1-PB

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

RAU Revista de Administração Unimep ISSN 1679-535

ALIVIANDO O SOFRIMENTO EMOCIONAL: UMA ANÁLISE DO FOCO

VENTING EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: AN ANALYSIS OF CHRONIC

Patrícia de Oliveira Campos, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, patriciacamposufpe@gmail.com

Marianny Jéssica de Brito Silva, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, marianny.jrito@gmail.com

CAMPOS, P. O., SILVA, M. J. B. 263

Keywords: Revenge buying. Regulatory focus. Loneliness. COVID-19. Post-pandemic.

CAMPOS, P. O., SILVA, M. J. B. 264

CAMPOS, P. O., SILVA, M. J. B. 265

CAMPOS, P. O., SILVA, M. J. B. 266

2 Theoretical background and hypotheses development

Given that revenge buying is grounded on reactance, we initially discussed the

2.1 Psychological reactance theory

CAMPOS, P. O., SILVA, M. J. B. 267

2.2 Revenge buying

CAMPOS, P. O., SILVA, M. J. B. 268

2.3 Regulatory focus

CAMPOS, P. O., SILVA, M. J. B. 269

that self-regulation underlies motivation according to desired end-states, which could

CAMPOS, P. O., SILVA, M. J. B. 270

H1. Chronic promotion focus positively influences revenge buying intention.

H2. Chronic prevention focus negatively influences revenge buying intention.

CAMPOS, P. O., SILVA, M. J. B. 271

CAMPOS, P. O., SILVA, M. J. B. 272

prevention focus becomes vulnerable to such an experience in the presence of negative

2.5 Theoretical model

CAMPOS, P. O., SILVA, M. J. B. 273

Figure 1. Theoretical model

Chronic H3(+) H4(+)

CAMPOS, P. O., SILVA, M. J. B. 274

CAMPOS, P. O., SILVA, M. J. B. 275

When the pandemic ends, I intend to go shopping at physical stores to

CAMPOS, P. O., SILVA, M. J. B. 276

4.1 Sample profile

4.2 Exploratory factor analysis

CAMPOS, P. O., SILVA, M. J. B. 277

Table 1. Exploratory factor analysis

4.3 Common method variance

CAMPOS, P. O., SILVA, M. J. B. 278

4.4 Multiple linear regression

Table 2. Predictors of revenge buying intention

Regarding the influence of control variables on revenge purchase intention, we observed

4.5 Moderation analysis

Moderation analysis was conducted to test hypotheses H3 and H4. It is possible to

CAMPOS, P. O., SILVA, M. J. B. 279

Table 3. Moderation effects (independent variable = chronic promotion focus)

Table 4. Moderation effects (independent variable = chronic prevention focus)

Conditional effects (W)

CAMPOS, P. O., SILVA, M. J. B. 281

CAMPOS, P. O., SILVA, M. J. B. 282

The novel coronavirus pandemic brought about a series of behavioral restrictions in

CAMPOS, P. O., SILVA, M. J. B. 283

Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Oxford, England: Academic Press.

Brehm, J. W. (1989). Psychological reactance: Theory and applications. Advances in Consumer

CAMPOS, P. O., SILVA, M. J. B. 284

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159.

Cozby, P. C. (2003). Métodos de pesquisa em ciências do comportamento. São Paulo: Editora

Das, G. (2016). Regulatory focus as a moderator of retail shopping behaviour. Journal of

Hayes, A. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A

CAMPOS, P. O., SILVA, M. J. B. 285

Lakshmi, S. (2020). Revenge Buying. Bioscience Biotechnology Research Communications,

CAMPOS, P. O., SILVA, M. J. B. 286

personality, stress and well‐being. International Journal of Psychology, 57(1), 63-72.

Myers, R. H. (1990). Detecting and combating multicollinearity. Classical and modern