Model Driven Causal Factors of Panic Buying and Their Implications for Prevention: A Systematic Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The authors have provided an interesting and relevant review of empirically evaluated and theoretically-proposed models of panic buying, and examined the commonalities between the two to suggest future strategies to limit panic buying. The manuscript is clear and well-organized, and I have outlined a few suggestions for the authors to consider below.
Introduction
The introduction is succinct and well-written.
Lines 49 – 50 I would suggest expanding on this point. To what extent has panic buying exacerbated resource scarcity during the pandemic, and what impact has this had on consumers? For example, I am thinking of panic buying of medications of interest for preventing/treating COVID-19, which then led to shortages that impacted medication access for patients with indicated uses of these drugs.
Methods
Figure 1 – The specific sources listed in the second box “Articles screened for inclusion in the review” could be presented in a more consistent format. At first it seemed that the dashes (– 57 and – 2) were minus/subtraction signs, could the authors please revise this to the (n = X) format or something similar for consistency? It may also help to include “Articles identified” in the subheadings [i.e., Articles identified through literature search (n = 57)].
Results
Table 1 – Please review and revise the text in the right-most column to improve specificity. For example, it seems that the authors mean holding right-wing authoritarian values or views when they say “Right-wing authoritarianism (Mod)”. Please revise this text and the others to improve meaning and understanding of the relevant variables.
Table 2 – The “Yes:” preceding the text in each cell in the right-most column seems redundant with the column heading and could be removed.
Table 3 – Please revise the bullets in the right side column to make the text easier to read, either by left-aligning all bullets or making an alternative edit.
Discussion
264 – 266 Please elaborate on the risk factors identified in previous reviews that have been supported/not supported by the findings from this review.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article itself is well written with only minor mistakes in grammar, spelling, etc. The structure and content are clear, and the points are cogent. However, while I understand the reason behind this study and its general purpose and process, I do feel that the scope included here is so limited as to make it of similarly limited value for generalization. Let me explain.
- Only two sources of articles are used in the literature search. I made use of the same terms and dates as given in the paper, and I found references to many more articles than are included here: ABI/Inform: 208; Academic Search Complete: 75; ProQuest Research Library: Social Sciences: 100; Psychology (Gale OneFile): 22; and Psychology Database: 99. True, there would be some overlap, and there would be many removed as not proposing a framework to test. However, the limited databases used will likely have reduced the sample group excessively. Even if the authors have limited access to library databases, searching on Google Scholar produced 351 references with links to many of those articles provided.
- Only articles specifically about panic buying during the current pandemic were used in order to generalize a larger theory about the phenomenon. This, I believe, is a flawed process. This paper does not propose that panicked consumer behavior in the COVID-19 period is theoretically different from the same behavior under other conditions, but the sample group of articles effectively does just that. Should we assume that panic buying under the earlier SARS epidemic was influenced differently, or should we assume that the ZIKA virus or hurricanes or conflicts would be different in their influence on consumers from COVID-19? The time period limitation is unique, but no rationale is given nor comparison made with past literature to justify ignoring past consumer frenzy literature, unless the aim is to see if current articles under COVID-19 are different from past work. This assertion is never made, proposed nor justified, however.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
the topic of causal factors of panic buying is timely as it relates to the pandemic. Ideally a meta-analysis would be performed, but acknowledge the authors' stated limitations in doing so.
While the 'factors' concerning the systematic review are organized in a logical manner, the psychiatric theory that integrates or models the behavior for future empirical research is lacking/underdeveloped.
Examining other literature that examines other contexts related to 'hoarding' or 'panic' buying may provide theoretical models or frameworks that may encapsulate factors discussed.
Examining resiliency from a micro, as well as macro perspective, and using a continuum between 'utilitarian/planful to hedonic/impulsive' may be informative. Given the psychiatry lens, examining individual responses with 'perceptions of contexts...influenced by media' as moderators or mediators may be a theoretical framework to consider.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for addressing my concerns.
