Introduction to the special issue: forms and effects of 'distancing' on consumer behaviors and business practices: towards coping strategies and new consumption trends in a pandemic context

The current global COVID-19 pandemic and its related social distancing mandates have disrupted consumer behaviors and business practices. As a result, both companies and consumers have had to develop coping mechanisms and alternative practices (Echeverri & Salomonson 2019), along with resilience (Baker, 2009), to handle vulnerable situations (Saatcioglu & Corus, 2016) and reinvent themselves so as to achieve their individual and collective well-being (Batat et al., 2017). Therefore, it is urgent for marketing scholars to identify and examine the emerging consumer behaviors and business practices in different domains, and to do so from different analytical angles to generate new insights that can enrich our understanding of consumption and business practices within the context of such a crisis.

This introductory essay builds on prior works in medical sciences, sociology, anthropology, and marketing that tackled the concept of ‘distancing’ and its impact on individuals’ behaviors from different perspectives. In medical sciences, distancing refers to a public health practice that urges individuals to maintain their physical distance from each other during a pandemic to slow down the dissemination of the infection (Glass et al., 2006). In sociology, distancing is mainly related to studying the impact of ethnicity, social class, and gender on individuals’ perceptions of social distance (Ethington, 1997). However, although social distancing is a well-defined construct in sociology, there is no consensus yet on its definition. Some sociologists have advised the World Health Organization (WHO) to change the terminology that recently emerged due to the COVID-19 outbreak and use the term ‘physical distancing’ instead of ‘social distancing’.

Although neither of these perspectives and definitions is directly applicable to marketing, the concept of ‘distancing’ as a theoretical construct has been used in a few marketing studies to understand shopping behaviors. For instance, Dickson and MacLachlin (1990) extended the concept of social distance studied in sociology by applying it to the field of retail. Kim et al. (2008) investigated the impact of two dimensions of psychological distance: temporal and social, on consumers’ evaluations of products. Similarly, Zhao and Xie (2011) examined the interplay of social and temporal distance on consumers’ responses to peers’ recommendations. As such, despite these studies, the link to consumer social distancing generated by an unexpected situation such as a pandemic and its impact on consumption and business practices as a field of research remains largely unexplored in marketing. This, therefore, presents an ideal opportunity to extend a growing body of the literature on consumer social distancing in a pandemic by advancing the current understanding of emerging consumer and business practices from different perspectives.

Drawing on the multidisciplinary literature ranging from psychology and anthropology to marketing, this review essay starts by analyzing the perspectives on the concept of ‘distancing’ to propose a comprehensive definition. It also defines the forms of distancing that have been studied in the multidisciplinary literature. Then, a focus on ‘social distancing’ created by the current global pandemic will be introduced. In this sense, social distancing strongly leverages two main categories – namely, consumers’ well-being and their coping and response strategies. We used these two classifications to map out the second part in this essay, and thus address how social distancing can shape consumer behaviors and marketing practices. We did so by discussing the ten articles published in this special issue on social distancing and their contributions to the literature in marketing and consumer research. Finally, this review proposes some avenues for future research on social distancing in the field.

The concept of distancing: theoretical underpinnings

Distancing is not a novel construct recently introduced by the current COVID-19 pandemic. Rather, its introduction occurred in the 1960s in the works of developmental theory psychologists (e.g. Werner & Kaplan, 1964). Although distancing is a well-established concept across different disciplines (e.g. Bruce, 2005; Muller et al., 2013, p. 3; Muller & Runions, 2003), authors do not agree on its definition. Indeed, there are multiple conceptualizations of distancing depending on the discipline, the context, and the phenomena examined by authors. Most of the dictionary definitions describe ‘distancing’ as the ability to create and maintain a personal or emotional separation from a place, a person, an object, or a situation. Overall, we define distancing as: the psychological and sociocultural process of separating oneself from others and every tangible and intangible element present within the physical environment around the person. The analysis of the multidisciplinary literature reveals two perspectives on the concept of distancing: psychological and anthropological.

Drawing on developmental psychology theorists Vygotsky’s and Piaget’s works, Werner and Kaplan (1964, 1988) define distancing according to two main approaches: (1) distancing oneself from others, and (2) distancing from objects of reference. Whereas distancing oneself from others depends on the person’s ability of knowing oneself or understanding others to define oneself as distinct (Muller & Runions, 2003), distancing from objects of reference refers to individuals’ interaction with objects by increasing the person’s distance from them so as to learn more about them (Werner & Kaplan, 1988). Thereafter, the person can decide whether to include them or eliminate them from their experiences (Werner & Kaplan, 1964). Much of the research in psychology that examined the construct of distancing focuses on how the process of distancing is implemented in the context of language development by children, especially those with disabilities (e.g. deaf-blind children). The goal is to help the children develop an understanding of themselves and others in order to differentiate themselves from others, objects, and from representations (Bruce, 2005). Recent research by Muller et al. (2013) contributed to Werner and Kaplan (1964) definition of distancing by offering a comprehensive conceptualization, which refers to distancing as a progressive process of differentiation and hierarchic integration of the four elements, namely addressor, addressee, symbolic vehicle, and referent, which together form the symbolic activity. Thus, this definition emphasizes the critical role symbolism plays and the multidimensional nature of distancing, whereby meaning is embedded in a specific cultural setting and thus should be examined from a comprehensive and anthropological perspective.

Considering an anthropological perspective, anthropologists define humans as social creatures living in groups; their existence depends on the development of relationships among members to form a united social entity. According to Ingold (2011), humans, as social actors, are meant to live together. Ingold proposed the concept of ‘togethering’ to emphasize the critical need people have for social connections with one another as well as other entities (e.g. animals and plants). Combined, they form a person’s social setting. This concept aligns with Latour (2005) call for redefining the ‘social’ by including non-humans as well as other objects and entities that constitute the social world in which humans live. Drawing on this anthropological definition of the social i.e. dissociated from its human connotation (Vinck, 2009), distancing refers to distance from the social; meaning the creation of distance between humans and all the other components, including human and non-human entities that constitute one’s social spheres because social involves more than humans. This logic is supported by authors (e.g. Law, 2009) who have used actor-network theory (ANT) to emphasize entity association and dissociation (distancing) dynamics in the social theory.

In addition, anthropologists suggest that distancing should be examined by distinguishing ‘bodily’ distancing from ‘social’ distancing. Whereas bodily human distancing involves the creation of a physical distance between humans that can be measured, social distancing refers to the limitation of social interactions in the physical context. Yet, social interactions can be maintained while imposing bodily human distancing by using other means of interactions such as technology and social media platforms without physical contact occurring. Therefore, a sociocultural perspective on the concept of distancing in anthropology invites scholars across different disciplines to critically review the overused concept of social distancing to refer to the actual bodily human distancing experienced during the global pandemic since COVID-19.

Forms of distancing within the marketplace and society

By synthesizing the perspectives mentioned above and analyzing works that examined distancing across different disciplines, including psychology, economics, anthropology, sociology, and business, we propose four distinct forms of distancing: emotional, social, marketplace, and spatio-temporal.

Emotional distancing

An emotional state refers to a subjective mindful psychological response (e.g. anger or disgust) expressed by an individual as a reaction to a specific object, environment, experience, or discourse conveyed by corporal and behavioral changes. Emotions are thus a driving force of human behaviors. Emotions can be affected by one’s personality, motivation, character, and disposition (Kellerman, 2013). Depending on an individual’s emotional state, human reactions can be different within the same situation. However, within the professional environment (e.g. workplace), emotions have to be set aside to guarantee the same behavior, which should be dissociated from the individual’s emotional state. Thus, workers in contact with clients or patients in healthcare should control their emotions by engaging in psychological efforts or the so-called ‘emotional labor’, which was first introduced in the airline sector to help airline employees concentrate on their work and thus show professionalism and detachment (Michaelsen, 2012). For Michaelsen, emotional labor refers to the ability of individuals to control their emotions in order to engender a specific facial and physical appearance with likely effects that boost or restrain others’ feelings.

Nevertheless, the authors state that labor expended by humans to control their emotions can lead to emotional fatigue, especially among healthcare workers, due to the high stress levels and the extremely demanding emotional activities they must engage in (Büssing et al., 2017).

Consequently, the term ‘emotional distancing’ emerged as a response to emotional fatigue and exhaustion generated by individuals’ psychological and cognitive efforts to control their emotions. Although emotional distancing is sufficiently researched, the concept lacks a clear definition, and its empirical application is limited. We define emotional distancing, also called self-distancing, as a coping strategy based on people’s self-reflection while experiencing a negative event. The goal of the distancing is to help people understand their feelings by engaging in a sense-making process to improve their well-being, handle emotional fatigue, and thus adapt the reactions. The analysis of the literature shows that other concepts can be associated with emotional distancing. For instance, ‘depersonalization’ is defined as an emotional distancing process defining individuals who express feelings of detachment, either bodily or cognitively, from themselves and their environment to protect themselves and cope with emotional labor (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Another related concept is ‘cynicism’, which refers to a reaction branded with a general skepticism and disbelief toward others’ motivations (Navia, 1996).

Although many terms exist in the literature across different disciplines, emotional distancing is a well-established concept in medical sciences, especially in the nursing literature. In the nursing literature, emotional distancing is defined as a means of coping with emotional effort and compassionate exhaustion generated by interactions between caregivers and patients (e.g. Allan, 2001; Blomquist & Lasiter, 2021; Kim et al., 2020; Michaelsen, 2012; Wright & Cropanzano, 1998). Research in the nursing field by Kim et al. (2020) shows that emotional distancing can benefit both healthcare workers, by protecting their mental health, and patients, who can access great nursing care. The authors also emphasize the importance of emotional distancing, especially with regard to the type of coping strategies deployed by workers, in terms of enhancing the commitment and professionalism among nurses. Since its emergence in the nursing field, most authors across different disciplines have adopted the concept of emotional distancing and agreed on its definition as a coping mechanism for emotional labor (e.g. Fox, 2006; Harris, 2014; Kim et al., 2020; Määttä, 2006). Leigh and Reiser (2013) definition of emotional distancing emphasizes the idea of creating a sufficient separation between social actors to ensure professional behaviors and service delivery.

Thus, the emotional distancing process can take multiple forms, as described by Scheff (1981): hysterical emotion, which is often a result of under-distancing; emotional over-distancing, which occurs when people act as if they are merely observers (e.g. unresolved grief); and optimal or esthetic emotional distance, which occurs when a person is both a participant and an observer. Emotional distancing also involves various strategies implemented by individuals to cope with the emotional labor generated by numerous life and work situations. Kim et al. (2020) distinguish between three critical approaches to emotional distancing among individuals: (1) emotional separation (i.e. detaching and withdrawing from other humans’ feelings by setting boundaries within relationships to manage one’s own feelings); (2) pursuing a protective strategy (i.e. masking one’s feelings and emotions when individuals are involved in the lived experience to defend themselves); and (3) maintaining neutrality (i.e. a self-control process that implies visualizing an event from an observer’s perspective). Moreover, research by Shahar et al. (2019) on emotion regulation differentiates between emotional distancing, which is defined in terms of minimizing the emotional experience, and emotional expression related to the minimization and/or the suppression of expressive behavior.

Although emotional distancing can encompass various elements, most authors agree on its positive consequences, which include three main aspects: empathy, which can be achieved when emotional distancing toward others is applied; reducing emotional labor by preventing pain and the contamination of negative feelings; and upholding one’s effectiveness, which can be increased by separating one’s feelings from others’ feelings, which leads to enhanced centration (e.g. Davis, 1990; Fox, 2006; Kim et al., 2020).

Nevertheless, although most of the literature refers to emotional distancing as a coping mechanism with positive outcomes because it allows people to protect themselves from negative feelings, some authors (e.g. Kim et al., 2020; Michaelsen, 2012) argue that emotional distancing might generate artificial and inappropriate responses that hinder the relationships between individuals. For instance, emotional distancing can be associated with ignoring others’ feelings; this can lead to negative consequences in terms of people’s well-being. Humans are expected to be empathetic and capable of connecting with others and with their environments. Nonetheless, studies that have examined the negative consequences of emotional distancing are scant, and most of them do not consider the sociocultural embeddedness of people’s emotions, which are framed sociologically by people’s backgrounds and cultures – cultures in which emotions and emotional distancing can be perceived in different ways depending on the context.

Social distancing

The concept of social distancing first emerged in sociology in the 1920s and has been used to describe the dynamics and variety of relationships among individuals (Nerlich & Jaspal, 2021). Sociologists emphasize aspects such as social class, race, or ethnicity to capture the nature of social distancing that refers to the distance created between social classes and other social groups that do not mix (Jackson, 2010). In terms of public health, social distancing is a valuable tool designed to limit the interactions between individuals in a group and those who may have a highly infectious disease (e.g. COVID-19; SARS, or polio) but are not yet diagnosed and need to be isolated from the community (Bell, 2004; Wilder-Smith & Freedman, 2020). In today’s pandemic context, social distancing signifies maintaining a safe distance – ranging from 1 meter to 2 meters – between oneself and others who do not belong to the same household to prevent human-to-human virus transmission. In sociology, several authors, such as (Klerk, 2020), have adopted the use of social distancing. Klerk introduced the concept of the ‘1.5-meter society’ to refer to the new social phenomenon that involves creating physical distance between human beings.

Although social distancing is overused in both academia and the media, some authors have started to emphasize the distinction between physical and social distancing. Yet, despite the difference between the two modes, Terry (2020) states that the idea of distancing, whether it is about physical or social distance, remains the same because it refers to humans and their distancing process from other social actors during pandemic lockdowns. Clearly, public health measures to control the spread of COVID-19 contamination have affected people’s social interactions and daily consumption habits. However, studies on how social distancing affects the behaviors of people and their social lives are only starting to arise (Nerlich & Jaspal, 2021).

Some existing works that examined social distancing have looked at aspects such as stigma mitigation due to distancing conditions (Logie & Turan, 2020). Other studies have explored the paradoxical and counterintuitive emerging behaviors as well as people’s strategies to cope with social avoidance during the pandemic (e.g. Long, 2020; Nerlich & Jaspal, 2021; Terry, 2020). In addition, some research in sociology has examined social distancing from a Foucauldian perspective of biopower, which states that social distancing is based on avoidance of the ‘other’ (e.g. Mann, 2020). Marchesi (2020), who examined social distancing in the Italian culture, defines biopower as an act of solidarity related to the idea of ‘stay at home’. Likewise, Nishi (2020) defines social distancing by using the Japanese term jishuku, which refers to voluntary restraint. According to Terry (2020), most of the authors (e.g. Long, 2020; Nerlich & Jaspal, 2021; Terry, 2020) who investigated individual’s behaviors in the current pandemic context, used the concept of social distancing without questioning its meaning and perceptions by different social actors depending on the cultural embeddedness. Presterudstuen (2020) highlighted the intrinsic vagueness of the term social distancing and advices scholars to use a more suitable term, namely ‘spatial distancing’. In the same vein, Kelman (2020) recommends using ‘physical distancing’ instead of ‘social distancing’ because humans, although physically distanced, are eager to maintain social connections without physical proximity.

Therefore, drawing on an anthropological analysis of social distancing along with coping strategies implemented by individuals during the lockdown, Long (2020) offered a critique of the term ‘social distancing’ to reconfigure established forms of sociality by proposing the concept of ‘social containment’, which is considered to be a more creative, flexible, and collaborative process than social distancing is. Long (2020) states that during the pandemic, individuals developed creative strategies to balance public health requirements with social constraints related to pandemic measures. These emerging practices show the urgent need for scholars to shift from the logic of social distancing, which is centered on avoidance, toward the concept of social containment. The latter is a more comprehensive practice whereby social actors’ networks of relations are collaboratively managed to limit contamination while appreciating the social experience and companionship, which are vital components of people’s well-being.

Furthermore, in a recent research, Rossolatos (2021) offered a social phenomenological perspective to understand the cultural practice of social distancing. Rossolatos argues that social distancing is a ‘matter of life or death’ (Rossolatos, 2021, p. 398) and thus is by nature not merely a functional aspect within people’s social lives and interactions but a philosophical concern that defines an essential practice of ‘being with’ in the public sphere. Therefore, in order to understand how people are reacting to the social distancing imposed by the COVID-19 outbreak and how it is affecting their social relationships, it is essential to examine the socialization processes and the cultural meaning of distance from the perspective of the individuals who are experiencing it, while implementing creative strategies to create new social interaction modes so as to maintain one’s physical distance.

Marketplace distancing

The concept of marketplace distancing has been examined by authors relative to its effects on production and consumption activities (e.g. Clapp, 2002; Princen, 2002; Marcos, 2008). These studies stress how production and its social and ecological effects on consumption are progressively detached from both consumers and consumption places. Based on this perspective, Marcos (2008) states that within the marketplace, distancing can be defined as the separation of production from consumption following four main elements: geography, culture, bargaining power, and agency. Marcos' research related to electricity production and consumption highlights the fact that the physical distancing in the marketplace between energy producers and consumers generates unequal ecological exchanges. Thus, the results of this research are aligned with prior works that examined distancing between production and consumption and its ecological and social effects (e.g. Andersson & Lindroth, 2001; Bunker, 2003; Jorgenson, 2006). As stated by Marcos: ‘The consumption of electricity increases with distance from points of production, creating a gradient of geographic separation between consumption and production; the more electricity a household consumes, the further it is from power plants and thus the environmental impacts of its consumption’ (2008, p. 1288).

Much research that examined marketplace distancing emphasized the variety of the theoretical framework used to examine the concept of distancing within the marketplace from a production and consumption perspective. Although the approaches differ among authors, most of the literature on marketplace distancing is concerned with the lengthening of commodity chains and the rise of inequality issues (Conca, 2002) created by the increasing distances between consumers and producers, along with ecological issues due to the global economy. Research by Clapp (2002) focuses on the practice of waste distancing as a consequence of marketplace distancing between production and consumption. Waste distancing refers to the process by which waste, with its negative aspect, is separated from consumers in wealthy Western countries but at the same time generates negative effects on poorer countries that accept harmful waste to create income (e.g. Clapp, 2002; Frey, 2003).

Within a political economy framework, Princen's (2002) research defines distancing as a consequence of the inevitable impulse by governments and businesses to reduce the costs of production and increase profits. Thus, Princen argues that one of the inexpensive and convenient ways to control costs is to externalize them through different actions, including lower labor costs, weaker social regulations, and by minimizing the real ecological or social effects of production. These actions gave rise to a commercial approach that has gradually detached or distanced consumers from the effects of their behaviors (e.g. Marcos, 2008; Princen, 2002). Consequently, marketplace distancing has emerged as a common and dominant norm within the global economy, leading to an increase in the ecological and social costs of production and consumption that have become inaccessible or unaffordable in a closer area.

Considering a consumer standpoint, marketplace distancing reflects consumers’ inclinations to externalize costs by distancing the ecological and social impacts of their behaviors from their self-interested consumption practices. That said, the distinction of consumers can also affect their collective and individual well-being by affecting their immediate environments and their local production and consumption habits, which can become unaffordable. Indeed, as the distance between consumption and production increases, there is a possibility of an interruption in terms of communication and awareness, generating an overall misunderstanding of the situation (such as the experience of a shortage), thereby leading to uncontrolled or disproportionate consumption.

Spatio-temporal distancing

Drawing on theories in sociology, distancing has been examined through the lenses of the concept of time-space distanciation, a wildly-spread concept introduced by Giddens (1990) in social theory. Giddens defines space-time distanciation as ‘the conditions under which time and space are organized so as to connect presence and absence’ (Giddens, 1990, p. 14). In other words, temporal and spatial distanciation connects or disconnects the relationships of individuals to time and space and projects them beyond the actual local setting. Thus, understanding time depends on the space in which the person is localized, and can be apprehended in terms of relationships which are constructed that are shaped by and embedded in the same place. Consequently, time-space distanciation, as described by Giddens, emphasizes the critical role of the embedding and dis-embedding process in the creation and construction of social relations among social actors.

Furthermore, the social definition of space and time is a growing topic among sociologists who focus on time as a critical factor in the construction of social life (Soja, 1989). Space as a driving force of social connections, refers to a static and neutral factor, which is not considered relevant compared to time when related to examining the construction of the social lives of individuals (Gabbert, 2007). However, with the growing influence of research considering space theories and frameworks, such as Lefebvre (1976), space, which Lefebvre defines as a kind of ‘social product’, has become a relevant factor in terms of explaining power relations and social interactions among individuals, who might share or not the same space.

In line with this definition, pioneer philosophers such as de Certeau (1984) and Foucault (1995/1977) built on the definition of space as a social product to examine different approaches related to space organization (e.g. space distanciation and space emptiness) and its effects on power configuration, agency, and resistance (i.e. how social actors can resist the restructuring of city space by using their special agency). Following this logic, works that used Giddens’ (1990) and Harvey's (1990) definitions of time-space distancing show that time and space are distant from one another in a social setting via their quantifiable aspects and social activities and are inclined to take place within considerable distances and long lengths of time (Sullivan et al., 2016). Consequently, for people whose relationships are taking place in lower time-space distanciation spheres, time and space are vaguely distinguished, and time is not precisely defined beyond the current activities; individuals within a higher time-space distanciation context do separate time from space and are more eager to engage in routines to precisely organize and coordinate their social activities (Keefer et al., 2017).

Furthermore, sociologists argue that there are differences related to how social actors and groups manage their members’ activities in time and space. The organization of these activities in time and space is affected by many factors, including one’s social class, ethnicity, religion, occupation, and access to technology or public institutions (Keefer et al., 2017). Altogether, these factors shape the social experience of time and space among the members (Sullivan et al., 2016). Social phycologists often examine space and time in isolation, considering a cultural-psychology perspective on time-space distanciation. In contrast, Keefer et al. (2017) suggest that the two constructs are connected and can be analyzed both at the social-group and individual levels.

In addition, Keefer and colleagues’ research advances current works on distancing by revealing three main features of distinctiveness: (1) time-space distanciation at the state level is linked to but differs from, collectivism and cultural tightness; (2) time-space distanciation highly affects collective well-being; and (3) at the individual level, time-space distanciation is related to a broader range of trait differences. Therefore, a spatio-temporal distancing process that encompasses time-space distanciation can be examined as a trait of social actors’ behaviors within a given setting to construct social relations by organizing and managing their social activities within their groups.

Social distancing shaping consumer behavior and marketing practices

Social distancing during the COVID-19 outbreak affected the behaviors of consumers and marketplace dynamics in various ways. The outbreak also created consequences at individual, community, and environmental levels. By synthesizing the articles, employing different methods, frameworks, and theories published in the Journal of Marketing Management’s special issue ‘Understanding the effects of social distancing on consumer and business practices during a pandemic: Marketing and management implications’, we can identify two pathways: (1) consumers’ responses to social distancing, and (2) changes in consumption and marketing practices. These pathways reflect the various coping strategies implemented by consumers and businesses to deal with the pandemic during social distancing.

How consumers respond to social distancing

Research shows that the COVID-19 pandemic has affected consumers’ daily buying habits. Consumers have pursued alternative strategies and new consumption behaviors to cope with the constraints created by social distancing (e.g. Debata et al., 2020; Khan, 2020). The first article in this special issue by Lindenmeier et al. (2021) examines the rise of panic buying as a consumer response to social distancing. By testing the model of panic-buying behavior, the authors explore the drivers of this purchase behavior in the context of social distancing. The study involved collecting data from German consumers during the first phase of the pandemic. Drawing on Strahle and Bonfield's (1989) definition of a panic buying model in a regular context, Lindenmeier et al. (2021) emphasize the significant role that both cognitive and affective processes play when it comes to panic buying behaviors. This finding aligns with recent research by Song et al. (2020).

However, in contrast to previous panic buying research conducted in a ‘normal’ context (e.g. Lindenmeier et al., 2021; Strahle, & Bonfield, 1993), other research reveals that within a social distancing environment, panic buying is more strongly affected by cognitive aspects (e.g. norms) than by affective aspects (e.g. negative emotions). Authors argue that the overall effect of negative emotions is not as pronounced as in Addo et al.'s (2020) research. With regards to the indirect effect of negative emotions, Lindenmeier et al. (2021) show that the individual panic threshold is of secondary relevance. Consequently, in order to mitigate panic buying behaviors, Lindenmeier et al. (2021) suggest that marketers and policymakers should deemphasize panic buying in their communications so as to contrast media coverage exaggeration. Instead, marketers and policymakers should focus on communicating messages that reassure consumers about the supply of essential products to all citizens.

In line with Lindenmeier et al.'s (2021) research, and drawing on the framework of the appraisal theory of emotions (Lazarus, 1991; Smith & Lazarus, 1990), the second article in this issue by Cho et al. (2021), explores compensatory consumption as a response and a coping strategy implemented by sports consumers while social distancing. Indeed, sports activities have been strongly affected by the COVID-19 outbreak. This has led consumers who were deprived of their usual fitness activities to adopt different compensatory behaviors to cope with the constraints of social distancing. By examining the interrelationships among the perception of global pandemic boredom, nostalgia, and compensatory behaviors of sport consumers in the American context, Cho et al. (2021) show that social distancing due to the COVID-19 outbreak had a positive effect on both boredom and nostalgia. On the one hand, boredom positively influences nostalgia, browsing, and impulse buying behaviors related to fitness products. Nostalgia, on the other hand, has a positive impact on browsing, which is positively related to impulse buying behavior. Thus, Cho et al’.s findings are consistent with the appraisal theory of emotions (e.g. Lazarus, 1991; Smith & Lazarus, 1990), supporting the idea that individuals are conscious of a situation with environmental stimuli, and their behavioral reactions are influenced by emotions generated by their cognitive appraisals.

Marketing research on social distancing has primarily focused on its conceptualization as a psychological closeness to other individuals or groups (Dickson & MacLachlan, 1990; Kim et al., 2008). Cho et al. (2021) enrich the definition of social distancing by introducing cognitions, emotions, and behaviors related to the current pandemic. Moreover, the authors have also helped identify the role emotions play when it comes to compensatory consumption behaviors in the context of social distancing. Whereas previous studies state that boredom leads to compensatory consumption behaviors (e.g. Fahlman et al., 2013; Moynihan et al., 2017), Cho et al. (2021) suggest that nostalgia should be investigated as an emotion that triggers compensatory consumption behavior. Likewise, both boredom and nostalgia should be examined for their effects on behavioral responses related to impulsive purchases of different products (e.g. fitness products).

Regarding response strategies, the third article by Pantano et al. (2021), examines consumers’ responses toward personal space management constraints imposed by social distancing while shopping in retail stores. Following an agents-based simulation approach to model consumers’ movements in a store, the findings of this study show that during the COVID-19 outbreak, personal space defined from a psychological perception becomes an individual and compulsory boundary to protect consumers from virus contamination. Thus, Pantano et al. (2021) advance prior works on shoppers’ perceptions of space. These works widely discussed the concept of crowding, which can affect shoppers’ behaviors in terms of both the time a consumer spends in a store and the consumer’s basket composition (Aydinli et al., 2020). The analysis extended the concept of social distance and personal space while providing a safe shopping experience. Also, the authors contributed to the definition of retail physical distance to limit the spread of the virus and ensure a safer shopping experience.

Past studies that used the theory of personal space (Sommer, 1969) refer to it as the lowest threshold of physical distance that people need in order to notice the presence of other people without provoking adverse reactions from them. Pantano et al. (2021) draw on agents-based simulations theory and thus advance research in the field by defining personal space as the attribute of the dynamic that emerges in the simulations of consumers’ in-stores paths. Therefore, this conceptualization offers a more accurate picture of consumers’ movements in a static shopping area without linear paths. Considering a managerial standpoint, Pantano et al. (2021) suggest an alternative scheme for appraising the safe number of in-store customers, as determined by agents-based simulations that consider the heterogeneity of people’s shopping paths.

Other scholars such as Hesse et al. (2021) focus on consumers’ responses to online brand communications by examining how consumers respond to social media content about COVID-19 while social distancing. By adopting social distancing theories and drawing on social marketing, brand activities, and crisis communication research, Hesse et al. (2021) reveal that the global pandemic and social distancing measures act as amplifiers of consumer sensitivity, which can differ according to various levels of social distancing among consumers. In turn, this can lead to different consumers’ responses to brand communications thematically involving COVID-19. The authors emphasize the key role that empathy plays as a pattern for branded digital content in a pandemic context. The authors also propose various themes under which brands can leverage the crisis topic to gain brand equity. Hesse et al’.s research study goes beyond the categorization of content examined in the marketing and communication literature (Yilmaz et al., 2011) by considering a consumer perspective and a co-creative approach between brands and consumers. This finding aligns with current research, which established that co-creating and framing societal marketing campaigns with consumers can be one way to consider and utilize consumers’ social distancing (Batat & Tanner, 2021).

Furthermore, in the next article in this special issue, research conducted in the context of the global COVID-19 pandemic examined how death anxiety can influence consumers’ coping mechanisms and responses to social distancing. Partouche-Sebban et al. (2021) investigate the effects of death anxiety on adopting different coping strategies during the global pandemic across five different countries. By exploring the role that trust, spirituality, national identity, and lockdowns played in the process, the authors state that higher levels of death anxiety mostly enhance the adoption of avoidance coping strategies and that spirituality and national identity moderate this effect. In contrast, lockdowns do not. Moreover, the authors found that trust in public institutions is a mediator in the relationship between death anxiety and avoidance strategies. Therefore, Partouche-Sebban et al.'s (2021) research contributes to prior works on coping strategies (e.g. Jonas & Fischer, 2006; Landau et al., 2006) by empirically categorizing the coping mechanisms adopted by consumers while social distancing, and thus explaining the role of death anxiety in response strategies (Courtney et al., 2020). Additionally, the authors provide insights into how individuals manage their pandemic-related anxieties about death (Rosenfeld et al., 2020) by embracing spirituality as a defensive mechanism.

Changes in consumption and marketing practices while social distancing

The current COVID-19 pandemic and social distancing measures have contributed to the rise of new consumption trends, leading companies and brands to adapt their marketing and communication actions. Drawing on the theory of reasoned action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), the next paper in this issue, by Ackermann et al. (2021) investigated how French and German consumers’ mask-wearing while shopping as a prosocial consumption behavior while social distancing demonstrates the strong effect that social norms have on mask-wearing intentions. This finding aligns with recent studies that explored emerging trends during COVID-19, such as Betsch et al. (2020), who state that consumers’ mask-wearing is perceived as a social contract and is unrelated to whether mask-wearing is compulsory or deliberate. By revealing that the use of face masks is determined by altruistic values, which inform not only subjective norms (i.e. the perceived social pressure to engage in a particular behavior) but also one’s attitudes (i.e. an individual’s appraisal of the behavior under consideration), Ackermann et al. (2021) state that wearing face masks is perceived by consumers to be a prosocial behavior. Previous research advocated that prosocial behaviors are driven by other-oriented and self-oriented benefits (Ryoo et al., 2020). However, Ackermann et al. (2021) demonstrate a more nuanced view by confirming that prosocial behaviors are predicted by other-oriented benefits in the form of altruistic benefits and that the effect of self-expression benefits may be culturally bound. Consequently, an in-depth and contextualized (through cultural embeddedness) understanding of mask-wearing motivations will offer marketers and retail professionals accurate consumer insights to encourage this behavior within a crisis context and beyond while offering enjoyable shopping experiences to consumers.

The seventh article in this issue, by Schreiner and Baier (2021), focuses on changes in consumption practices by examining online retail practices while social distancing. The authors investigate, from the consumer perspective, online apparel retailers’ marketing actions, and the relationship with corporate social responsibility (CSR). Schreiner and Baier’s findings contribute to pre-pandemic works on the topic (e.g. Andrews et al., 2014; Henderson & Arora, 2010) by demonstrating that in the context of a crisis, some marketing actions with other-benefit elements can outperform traditional sales promotion strategies, such as price discounts. Schreiner and Baier (2021) suggest that CSR initiatives with socially adjacent recipients (e.g. employees) are preferred to CSR practices with socially distant ones (e.g. society at large). Indeed, because of the increased consumer interest in prosocial and responsible consumption during the COVID-19 outbreak, understanding consumers’ choices in terms of future CRM marketing campaigns is vital. Doing so can satisfy heterogeneous consumers’ preferences (Christofi et al., 2019). Schreiner and Baier (2021) suggest that retailers, especially in the apparel industry, should approach the increase of online sales generated by the pandemic by focusing on offering omnichannel purchase options (e.g. click-and-collect) or in-store returns, which in pre-pandemic research have been proven to be attractive to consumers (Baier & Rese, 2020; Rese et al., 2019). Retailers should also consider marketing campaigns with other benefits alongside selecting relevant beneficiaries and reflecting key communication issues, including the content, the channel, and other company-specific factors (e.g. corporate reputation) to generate favorable reactions among consumers.

In a similar vein to studies that examined online consumer behaviors while social distancing, the next article by Robin and Dandis (2021) explores the intention of people to download contact tracing apps by investigating the perceived privacy risks, social empowerment, perceived information transparency and control, and the attitudes that people have toward their governments. The results of the study revealed eight different configurations of asymmetrical relationships of conditions leading to the presence or absence of an intention to download. In addition, the authors found that social empowerment significantly influences the intention to download, and that a lack of perceived information transparency significantly influences the absence of a person’s intention to download an app. Therefore, Robin and Dandis’ (2021) study contributes to the current research stream on perceived privacy risks (Chen, 2018). It does so by showing that considering privacy is context dependent (Epstein, 2017), and thus emphasizes the flexible aspect of a privacy calculus framework. This finding will help scholars understand what genuinely influences a person’s intention to download a contact tracing app during the global pandemic. Moreover, considering social empowerment as it relates to the privacy calculus framework, Robin and Dandis (2021) advance prior research on the role of social empowerment in marketing (Hanson & Yuan, 2018) by highlighting the critical aspect of consumers’ willingness to use mobile health applications (Ali et al., 2018), which is not only related to the contextual use of social empowerment for a contact tracing app but also relies on its psychological significance to understand users’ intention to download a mobile health app that collects sensitive personal information.

Other works have examined the effect of information and beliefs that people have while social distancing in terms of shaping consumption and business practices. The ninth article in this issue, by Mai et al. (2021), focuses on the effects of information factors (trustworthiness and information overload) and health beliefs (perceived susceptibility to and perceived severity of COVID-19) on people’s attitudes toward social distancing behaviors. Mai et al’.s results confirm the predictions made about consumers’ attitudes toward social distancing based on both cognitive load theory (Sweller, 2011) and protection motivation theory (Laato et al., 2020). This statement aligns with existing works in health-related literature (Garfin et al., 2020). The authors also emphasize the positive relationships between two health beliefs (i.e. perceived susceptibility and perceived severity) and consumers’ attitudes toward social distancing. On the managerial level, Mai et al. (2021) offer various practical implications for marketing practitioners to better adapt to social distancing mandates, not only by considering actions (Bove & Benoit, 2020; Sheth, 2020) but also by focusing on consumers’ attitudes toward social distancing based on the information sources that they trust and their health beliefs.

Furthermore, scholars have studied other variables that impact social distancing. In the final article in this special issue, Frechette and Reilly (2021) explore the relationships among a person’s income, financial strain, and risky social distancing behaviors during COVID-19 outbreaks in the United States and Canada. The authors found that financial strain had a stronger effect on the incidence of risky behaviors than did income. The study also found that these relationships vary; they were found in the United States but not in Canada. Thus, Frechette and Reilly's (2021) research advances the current literature on risk-taking and perceptions (Gregory, 1980) by capturing risk perception and behaviors at two points in time during a once-in-a-generation pandemic. Also, the research contributes to the literature on a person’s socioeconomic status during a crisis and the works that examined the influence of education on risky behavior (Winkleby et al., 1992). This was done by demonstrating that the financial strain people experience may have a greater effect than previously understood. The finding may open up a path for further research on financial strain as a driver of social and consumer behaviors. Considering a business perspective, Frechette and Reilly (2021) have raised the possibility that US consumers may be more sensitive to financial inducements during the pandemic than their Canadian counterparts and that communication on risk reduction may therefore be important in advertising campaigns.

To sum up, the aforementioned studies demonstrate how social distancing in a crisis has led to the rise of new consumption trends as a result of the response strategies and coping mechanisms adopted by consumers to deal with constraints generated by the pandemic – constraints that affected their daily consumption habits. Also, from a business perspective, most companies across various industries have adapted their communication and marketing actions to focus more on consumers’ individual and collective well-being (Batat et al., 2017; Batat & Addis, 2021), along with considering the needs of a new segment, namely vulnerable and at-risk populations (Batat & Tanner, 2021). Thus, we are just beginning to understand how the global pandemic and social distancing measures affect the behaviors and consumption habits of consumers and, therefore, change the marketplace dynamics both online and offline.

Social distancing: an agenda for future marketing and consumer research

Social distancing promises interesting advancements in research focusing on consumer behavior and marketing under constraints. Future applications related to social distancing will elicit new questions that deserve further academic investigations. The articles selected and discussed in this issue will open up several avenues for further research in marketing and consumer behavior.

First, future research should help us develop an accurate understanding of social distancing forms and perspectives and how they can shape consumer social distancing outcomes in the years to come. In this editorial, we identified four main forms of distancing: social, emotional, marketplace, and spatio-temporal. However, by analyzing the multidisciplinary literature, other forms of distancing can be acknowledged. Instance digital distancing and experiential distancing are examples. Thus, social distancing forms are relevant to understand marketplace dynamics shaped by a crisis context, including social distancing or limited access mandates. Future studies should then focus more on the forms of distancing examined and the unit used to analyze their effects on consumer behaviors and marketing practices.

Second, future research can adopt a longitudinal perspective combined with mixed methods to better capture the temporal dimension and the evolution of the market dynamics related to social distancing measures. Longitudinal research is critical because of the almost unprecedented context and the entirely new situation experienced by multiple market actors during the pandemic, including consumers, policymakers, and businesses. Moreover, the cultural dimension (Hofstede, 2001) is a major driving factor that can explain how social distancing can shape both consumption and business practices during a crisis. Therefore, scholars can explore in their future research the potential of cultural differences with regard to defensive mechanisms due to extreme constraints generated by a health or economic crisis. Moreover, future research could more deeply explore the role that social media and traditional media play as they relate to the coping mechanisms that people can face during a pandemic.

Finally, new avenues should also consider the collective and individual well-being of people during a crisis and how brands can help their customers achieve well-being. Future works might focus, e.g., on variables such as humor and how brands can use it to create a positive psychological impact on the consumer’s well-being and thus provide the person with support during a crisis. Indeed, today’s consumers expect brands and companies to act in the interests of society and play a social role through education and information. Hence, the pandemic has not only become part of the medical discourses of doctors; it has also become the subject of a new type of responsible brand management. New research needs to shed light on the concept of well-being from the perspective of consumers facing extreme situations such as a lockdown.

Previous studies have defined well-being in general terms and in a regular context (e.g. Batat & Addis, 2021) without embedding it within a specific context, such as social distancing. Thus, marketing scholars have to examine well-being and its pillars within highly constrained settings, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Scholars can do so by answering questions related to the nature and the conceptualization of the construct of well-being. For instance, scholars might ask the following question: Is well-being defined in the same way during a ‘normal’ versus a ‘new normal’ context? Such a question could be of interest to explore.

Conclusion

This editorial conceptualizes and categorizes the concept of ‘distancing’, which refers to the psychological and sociocultural process of separating oneself from others and from one’s physical environment. The essay describes four main forms of distancing: emotional, social, marketplace, and spatio-temporal distancing. In other words, examining one form of distancing, namely social distancing, created by the current global pandemic, was the focus of the aforementioned articles in the special issue. Thus, opportunities for future investigations are manifold as drawn along the two key pathways we identified: (1) consumers’ responses to social distancing and (2) changes in consumption and marketing practices. These pathways reflect the various response strategies that consumers implement to cope with constraints that can affect their daily consumption and social practices. The discussion of the selected articles is meant to advance scholarly examinations of ‘consumer social distancing’ in marketing, consumer research, and other fields so as to help this embryonic body of literature flourish.

We hope that this special issue will encourage discussions about how economic, ecological, political, and health crises can shape new consumer behaviors and marketplace dynamics and how consumers develop response strategies to cope with such a highly constraining environment and thus achieve their well-being. We acknowledge all the valuable work done by the expert reviewers for this special issue and offer a genuine thanks to them all as well as the contributing authors. This project would have never been possible without their extraordinary passion and hard work.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Wided Batat

Wided Batat is Professor of Marketing at EM Normandie Business School, Paris Campus, and the University of Lyon 2 (France). Her work focuses on consumption cultures, vulnerability, well-being, food culture, luxury, and sustainable consumption. Dr. Batat is the author of more than 20 books in the field of marketing and her research has been in academic journals such as Journal of Service Research, Journal of Business Research, Journal of Business Ethics, Marketing Theory, Technological Forecasting & Social Change, Journal of Marketing Management, Journal of Macromarketing, Journal of Service Management, Journal of Service Marketing, Young Consumers, Research and Application in Marketing, Kybernetes, International Journal for Consumer Studies, Journal of Consumer marketing, Advances in Consumer Research, Journal of Research for Consumers, Journal of Communications of the IBIMA, etc.