The soaring price of fossil fuels has put the world’s energy supplies at risk. Combined with the repercussions of Russia’s war in Ukraine, these factors have pushed many economies into recession. Moreover, high energy prices have fueled consumer inflation, increased poverty levels in some countries, and caused utilities to increase energy rates in others.
While economists and social scientists have long studied the consequences of global crises, these topics remain off the radar for business/marketing researchers (Panels A and C). Yet global crisis impacts are relevant for consumers’ consumption-related outcomes that directly affect well-being, as well as for their attitudes toward globalization.
Given the increasing frequency and magnitude of global crises, it is crucial for marketing scholars to understand how they impact consumers’ behaviors, beliefs, and dispositions. This article investigates how perceptions of relative local impact following global crises affect consumers’ attributions of blame, trust in national and international institutions, and their decisions to engage in passive (e.g., heeding health advice) or active (e.g., boycotting) anti-institutional behavior. To do so, we draw from psychological theories of attribution and blame and sociopolitical theories of institutional trust and governance.
We find that when consumers perceive a crisis as originating outside their home country, they feel compelled to blame national and international institutions for its effects on them. This effect is mediated by the perceived legitimacy of national and international institutions to manage a crisis’ local symptoms, as well as by their performance in managing the root causes of the crisis.