The war on Iran led to petrol shortages in early 2026. Some people panicked and stockpiled fuel, further driving up prices and depleting resources from regional areas and vital sectors. Ongoing political instability may lead to similar issues. Individual deviance does not explain panic buying. Instead, structural issues and biases play a bigger role. Social science studies stopped people panic buying during the COVID-19 pandemic, using a theory of planned behaviour, social norms, and morality messages. Similar communications may stop petrol hoarding, and other panic buying in future.

Summary

• Since 1973, global wars have led to petrol shortages.
• In February 2026, the United States and Israel started a war with Iran. This led to petrol shortages.
• Some people started to buy too much petrol because they got scared it would run out. The Australian Government tried to stop this by telling people to do the right thing.
• Blaming individuals didn’t stop the problem.
• Government policies have a bigger impact on people’s economic stress. The government has not planned well, despite knowing we had a fuel problem. The government has not done enough to find other types of fuel, because it gets money from petrol companies. There is also an economic crisis.
• Panic buying stopped when the government gave $10 billion to ease the problem. The government also put more effort into checking petrol levels.
• Biased ways of thinking affect people’s behaviour.
• When people feel they don’t have enough of the things they need, they get scared of missing out, so they buy too much.
• When many people repeat something that is untrue, others eventually believe it as a fact. Seeing videos and photos of people buying lots of petrol makes some people afraid that everybody will do the wrong thing, so they buy more than they need.
• People are more likely to do this when they feel out of control. Older people, and people who think of themselves as sensible and organised, also buy too much.
• Two research studies stopped people from buying too much during the COVID-19 pandemic.
• The first study asked people to plan their behaviour, and reminded them about social norms. The researchers told people that there was enough food and essential items for everyone. They asked people to imagine themselves in the shoes of a doctor or vulnerable person who needs to buy food. They reminded people that their family and friends would want them to do the right thing, and to reflect on their values.
• The second study got people to think about their morals. They asked people to consider their family and community. They told people that there was enough food and essential items for everyone. These messages did not stop people from buying too much. What worked was telling people not to be greedy, and reminding them that vulnerable people will miss out.
• If we change the words, these messages might stop people from buying too much petrol. We can remind people that buying too much petrol affects doctors and other vulnerable people. Another message can remind us not to be greedy with petrol, or vulnerable people will miss out.
• Social science stops us from blaming individuals, and to understand how society influences our behaviour. Social science shows us how our thinking gets mixed up. This happens when we’re scared, when we get bad information, and when we feel out of control. Social science helps us see how our choices hurt other people, and it can remind us act according to our morals.

Petrol panic has a long history

As globalisation has intensified, the interdependence of economic markets has impacted consumer behaviour.

In 1973, the “panic at the pump” crises erupted when the Organisation of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC) implemented an oil embargo against the USA and other nations that supported Israel during the Yom Kippur War. During the 1991 Gulf War, similar petrol panic buying was fuelled by American imperialism, capitalist deals, global politics, and poor national energy policies.

In 2026, similar political tensions contribute to the petrol shortage and subsequent disruptions to supply chains across multiple industries.

On 28 February 2026, Israel and the United States attacked Iran, leading to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a waterway between the Persian Gulf and Oman Gulf, and the gateway for 20% of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas. Global petrol prices started rising as a result of the export blockage. From March to early April, local petrol station price increases continued even as the Australian Government introduced a fuel excise for three months, assuring the public there was enough petrol for the near future, and that the state would monitor price gouging.

Despite these assurances, throughout March 2026, Prime Minister Anthony Alabanese made multiple appeals to the public to quell petrol hoarding. On 19 March, the Prime Minister announced the appointment of a Fuel Supply Taskforce Coordinator to monitor fuel supplies and shortages. The message to only buy what you need continued to feature heavily in the Government’s public communications, including during the first national address by the Prime Minister on 1 April 2026, and a much-criticised advertising campaign launched on 13 April 2026.

These messages focused on individuals doing the right thing. However, as we’ll see further below, individual blame does nothing to stop panic buying.

Individual deviance is not the primary driver

At the individual level, panic buying of fuel increased rapidly around the world, including Australia. In South Korea, people rushed to buy plastic bags, suggesting that panic buying of other goods might follow if the crisis resurges.

Small business owners, petrol station workers, especially those in rural communities, reported increased public abuse and online harassment.

At the height of the initial crisis, some media outlets drove a punitive narrative, seeking to document selfishness and greed. But social science shows that public shaming of individuals does little to stop panic buying.

Panic buying is not caused by immediate shortages, but due to policy failure, and other dynamics best addressed by social science.

Policy has a significant impact

The average Australian household uses 30 litres of petrol a week. Buying in excess could pose a danger to families and neighbours if the materials are stored incorrectly. Yet people who panic buy do not consider the risk to others. Instead, they put higher weight on the loss to their loved ones if they miss out on essential items (in this case, petrol).

My previous team ran many randomised control trials and experiments during COVID-19. We tested many different community messages. My colleagues found that it’s hard to dissuade people who strongly believe misinformation by simply correcting with facts. For example, telling people that the risk of side effects are near zero does nothing to sway hardline anti-vaxxers. Even if the probability is low, a tiny risk feels too costly. As psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky have shown, we prefer to avoid unknown risks, as ‘losses loom larger than gains.’ This is why attacking individuals and personal beliefs has limited behavioural impact. Instead, we need to consider broader communal behaviours.

Blaming individuals for doing the wrong thing is popular with some politicians, public commentators, and on social media, but it focuses our attention on individual deviance, rather than on structural factors.

For example, the Government’s policy planning means we are poorly prepared for the current crisis. This is despite the fact that international politics have previously impacted oil supplies in Australia, and the Australian Senate highlighted fuel security issues in its 2015 inquiry into Australia’s Transport Energy Resilience and Sustainability.

Our nation’s over-reliance on fossil fuels, and inadequate transition to green energy is a matter of governance, not individuals. The fossil fuel, mining, and resources industry donated $131 million the major parties before Australia’s 2025 election. The fossil fuel industry also has an extraordinary influence on One Nation, a party that has repeatedly called Net Zero climate targets “rubbish and scam” and repeatedly vowed to remove it, despite research showing this would not lower energy prices.

At the same time, the war on Iran happened as Australia (and many other nations) is experiencing high cost of living pressures. Households are already straining to buy essential items, and the fear of high petrol costs only compounds petrol panic.

The petrol panic eventually abated due to policy intervention. Petrol prices became more heavily regulated by the federal and state governments.

On 6 May, the Prime Minister announced a $10 billion package to support the agricultural sector manage fuel and related fertiliser shortages, as well as $10 million to undertake feasibility ‘studies into newer, expanded fuel refining capabilities to be co-funded with state and territory jurisdictions.’

Professor Tarryn Phillips (a medical anthropologist and criminologist), Dr Danielle Couch (sociologist), and Dr Carmen Vargas (public health professional) argue that policy-makers must take responsibility for this crisis:

“We must continue to scrutinise fuel markets and distribution failures. Some commentators have argued that the Australian government has systematically reduced its oil refineries over time and failed to plan ahead for oil shocks that have happened before and will happen again.

“Another planning problem relates to equity and access. The greatest need for fuel is often in regional, remote and farming areas, where there’s a strong reliance on independent fuel suppliers now bearing the brunt of the shortages.”

Tarryn Phillips, Danielle Couch, and Carmen Vargas (2026) The Guardian

So, while individual deviance is not the primary cause, structural dynamics elevate the compulsion to panic buy. Yet not everyone caved into this panic. Why is that the case?

As of mid-July 2026, the war on Iran is escalating. We are once again being told not to panic. But simply telling people not to panic, and not to hoard, does little to stop panic buying behaviour.

Let’s now turn to the impact of cognitive biases, and how we might avert these activating in future.

We begin by reviewing what researchers found from panic buying during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Scarcity heuristic

Items are more attractive when they are perceived as rare, limited, or soon-to-be unavailable (scarcity heuristic). Highlighting scarcity is influential in marketing because fear of loss is a strong motivator for buying behaviour. A review of international studies shows that scarcity is strongest for utilitarian products (i.e. basic goods, such as washing detergent).

This collective research also shows that supply-based scarcity has large effects on buying intentions (for example, limited edition items). Time-based scarcity (e.g. available for a season or short period) impacts ‘high involvement’ products (e.g. ‘Only X rooms available for the next X hours’).

Petrol is a utilitarian product, but its scarcity is heightened by both supply (the war on Iran), and time (in Australia, the federal government initially announced that national reserves were stocked for 30 days).

Professor Melissa Norberg, a psychologist at Macquarie University, says that price increases at the bowser make petrol psychologically scarce:

“When things are perceived to be in low supply […] If thinking that you might not have petrol puts you into distress, or you fear that it might not be there in the future and you don’t like to deal with uncertainty … that can drive people to stockpile.”

The illusory truth effect

The more we hear a statement, the more we are prone to believe it is true, irrespective of fact (illusory truth effect). Repetition increases misinformation and related behaviours, such as being more willing to share news headlines. A review of international studies show that being exposed to true statement early can reduce the impact of misinformation.

During COVID-19, people shared photos and videos of people stuffing their trolleys with toilet paper and other food staples, as well as empty shelves at supermarkets. This increased the idea that products were running low. In turn, more people engaged in panic buying, as they perceived everybody else was doing the wrong thing (descriptive social norms).

Social science research shows that panic buying is an outcome of people trying to exert control when they feel a sense of deprivation (compensatory control theory). People buy excessive amounts of useful everyday products  (such as toilet paper) as a way to regain control.

Research involving participants from 22 countries shows that the highest predictor of toilet paper stockpiling during COVID-19 are people who feel more threatened by COVID (irrespective of the number of local cases). Toilet paper is a ‘subjective symbol of safety.’ Older people and people who describe themselves as conscientious and well-organised, are also more likely to panic buy. The researchers suggest this anxiety might be redirected to empathy.

During COVID, Australia and many other nations faced prolonged panic buying whenever a new lockdown measure was announced, especially when restrictions increased, or when interstate borders closed.

This has a significant impact on vulnerable community members, such as those on low income and people with disability, who do not have money to buy in excess, and miss out on vital products. Additionally, regional towns are negatively impacted, as metro customers hoarded products from regional towns.

While supermarkets eventually implemented buying limits, this came too late, after panic buying had already occurred.

Two randomised control trials significantly decreased hoarding behaviour during COVID-19. These may be helpful to panic buying petrol.

Study 1: Theory of planned behaviour

Australian psychologists, Karina Rune and Jacob Keech, conducted two studies during the COVID-19 pandemic. First, in 2023, they found that panic buying is related to the theory of planned behaviour. That is, individual attitudes towards a behaviour (positive or negative), subjective norms (perceived social pressure to engage in a behaviour), and perceived behavioural control (whether people think they can perform the desired behaviour). They tested a hypothetical scenario mirroring COVID-19 lockdown, followed by a survey. The researchers find:

• People are more likely to panic buy non-perishable food items, hygiene products, and cleaning products when they had positive attitudes to buying more products, and if they thought it would be risky not to buy more non-perishable products.
• Subjective norms also increased panic buying of non-perishable food, although to a lesser extent. That is, when participants agreed that most people who are important to them would approve of them buying more non-perishable products.
• Socioeconomic factors did not predict higher panic buying (e.g. age, gender, income and household size).

The researchers suggest public campaigns might draw on:

• Attitudinal preferences: prompting people to “imagine themselves in the shoes of frontline line workers or vulnerable persons unable to buy products that have been sold out due to panic buying.”
• Subjective norms: remind people that their family, friends, and peers do not approve of panic buying, and “would prefer that everyone plays their part in not contributing to shortages by only buying what they need.”
• Risk perception: show that supply chains are strong and that “there is no risk of running out of stock if people continue to only buy what they need.”

In a follow-up study published in 2025, the researchers, Karina Rune, Trent Davis, and Jacob Keech, tested a four-minute video of a PowerPoint presentation, showing text appearing on screen with a voiceover reading the words. The narrator explained the same hypothetical COVID-19 lockdown scenario from the first study, as well outlining a supply chain message.

• The presentation provided risk information about how buying more than necessary can contribute to shortages. Participants were asked to reflect on the impact on healthcare workers, first responders, vulnerable individuals, and carers.
• The video included a social norm message that family and friends would want them to only buy what they need, and to put themselves in the shoes of a frontline worker unable to get essential goods after a shift (injunctive social norms).
• Participants were encouraged to personalise risk by reflecting on their own role in preventing shortages.
• They then completed a self-affirmation exercise, asking them to reflect on whether panic buying is consistent with their values. Click below to see the full script.

Click to read the behavioural message script

A comprehensive analysis of the supply chains that support supermarkets across the country has indicated that there is no risk of running out of stock if people continue to only buy what they need.

However, when many people start buying more groceries than they usually would, it can cause shortages. Buying only what you need helps to ensure supermarkets can maintain stock so that everyone can buy what they need.

We know that buying substantially more groceries than usual during a lockdown affects many people.

It affects nurses and doctors treating patients with COVID-19.

It affects paramedics, police, and other first responders.

It affects the elderly and people with compromised immune systems.

It affects the people who cannot afford to stock up.

It affects people caring for vulnerable people (e.g., aged care, disability care).

And it affects many others…

Your family and friends and the people you know would want you to do the right thing and only buy as many groceries as you need.

Now take a moment to imagine yourself walking in the shoes of a frontline worker. For example, a nurse or doctor, or paramedic.

Think about them finishing a shift and arriving at the supermarket at 8pm.

All of the things they need to buy were completely sold out many hours earlier.

Think about the role you can play in preventing shortages in supermarkets. By not buying more groceries than you actually need, you can contribute to preventing these shortages.

Let’s now turn to thinking about the values you hold. Consider whether contributing to grocery shortages by buying more than you need is consistent with your values…

Please note down the relevant values that come to mind

Source: ‘Intervention Video 2 – Theory Based Messages,’ Open Science Framework.

In an interview about her research, Dr Rune says:

“The takeaway from COVID is that telling people ‘don’t panic’ doesn’t work. What does work is explaining how panic buying harms everyone, reinforcing that most people are buying normally, and addressing risk perceptions before shelves start to empty.”

In relation to the current petrol crisis, the researchers argue public messages should steer away from the shaming used during COVID-19 (e.g. that panic buying is un-Australian and selfish), and instead “respect people’s intelligence and acknowledge their fear”:

“Our research suggests panic buying is driven less by selfishness and more by how people perceive risk and decide what feels reasonable during uncertainty. With fuel shortages and visible price rises likely amplifying these perceptions, the focus should be on reassurance, normalising responsible behaviour, and appealing to people’s sense of responsibility to their community.”

The attitudes and subjective norms messages of these studies might be adapted to the current petrol crisis. However, the risk message might need to be re-orientated, as broader supply chain factors is a pressing limitation.

Study 2: Moral appeal

A 2022 online study by the Behavioural Insights Team (BIT) Australia simulated panic buying behaviours among 2,002 Australian adults. The participants were given a hypothetical scenario of a new COVID-19 outbreak leading to tighter restrictions, similar to real messages released by government. Three groups were shown an additional behavioural message, and the control group saw no additional information.

Click to read the methods

To measure panic buying intentions, participants were then asked about their desire to go shopping, and whether they might buy high quantities of staple products, how likely they thought these items would run out, how much they trusted others in the community to shop responsibly. The participants were also asked about their past panic buying experience, and the quantity they might purchase of one of these items for two weeks of home isolation.

To measure a simulated behaviour of panic buying, participants completed a version of the prisoner’s dilemma, asking them to choose whether they would buy less than five essential groceries (no panic buying), or more than five (panic buying). They are told that they might get a bonus based on their own choice, and that of other people. That is, if they are selfish and buy more, they might get a bonus (but others will be impacted by having fewer groceries), however, if they and everyone is selfish no one wins. Alternatively, if they and everybody else are altruistic, everyone gets a bonus (that is, no one panic buys).

The study finds that messages focused on a moral appeal significantly reduced both panic buying intentions and simulated behaviours during the COVID-19 pandemic. This message reminded people about the impact of their choice on vulnerable people:

“If you’re greedy and buy more than you need at the supermarket, there will be gaps on shelves and the state’s most vulnerable people will miss out.”

The study also found that a message emphasising norms and reciprocity reduces simulated panic buying behaviours, but not the intention to hoard. This message said: “To help your family and your community, please buy only what you need and think of others when you shop at the supermarket. Most people do the right thing.”

The scarcity message reduced expectations that products might not run out, but it did not significantly reduce intentions to panic buy, and, more importantly, this did not change panic-buying behaviour. This message said: “Australia produces three times as much food as it consumes. We’re not going to run out so please buy only what you need at the supermarket.”

Note that this unsuccessful scarcity message is similar to the Australian Government messages regarding petrol.

Both Rune and colleagues’ study and this BIT study find that telling people supplies won’t run out reduces the intention to avoid panic buying, but the present study by BIT shows this does not translate to behaviour change.

Even with the best of intentions, some behaviours are hard to follow through (intention-action gap). This is why behaviour change must be measured (rather than simply surveying people about whether they’ve changed their opinion).

It’s possible that the supply chain message by Rune and colleagues won’t work because the media has focused heavily on how the war on Iran has impacted supply.

Behavioural messages to stop petrol panic

Tweaking these COVID-19 studies might prove useful to stop petrol hoarding and other panic buying in future. However, messages will still need further testing, to track specific behaviours and target groups.

Below are the messages tweaked to stop petrol hoarding.

Theory of planned behaviour (based on a shortened version of Karina Rune, Trent Davis, and Jacob Keech’s 2025 study)

Buying more petrol than you need affects doctors, nurses, paramedics, farmers, and vulnerable people. Imagine a doctor not getting to hospital because they can’t buy petrol. Your family, friends, and the people you know want you to do the right thing. By only buying what you need, you help to stop petrol shortages. Consider whether contributing to petrol shortages fits with your values.

Moral appeal (based on BIT’s 2022 study)

If you’re greedy and buy more petrol than you need, there will be shortages and the state’s most vulnerable people will miss out.

How social science helps

• Avoid focusing on individual deviance. Blaming individuals does not stop panic buying. Structural factors (such as social policies and economic relief) have a bigger impact on economic pressures
• Mitigate cognitive biases. People fear loss (scarcity heuristic). This pain is heightened for everyday goods (utilitarian products), supply chain issues (factors that are outside of our individual control), and time limits (products that run out quickly). Fear and uncertainty motivate people to stockpile
• Get ahead of misinformation. People will believe false information the more they hear it (illusory truth effect). Discourage people from photographing and filming people doing the wrong thing, as this amplifies bad behaviour. This normalises the idea, ‘If everyone else is doing it, I will miss out if I don’t join in.’
• Target messages to people who feel a need to control situations (compensatory control theory). Campaigns should focus on people who feel threatened, especially older people, and people who see themselves as conscientious and well-organised.
• Provide information about the risk of panic buying to loved ones and valued community members. Show the impact on doctors and vulnerable people. Appeal to social norms (your family and friends). Appeal to self-image, and encourage self-affirmation of values (panic buying is not consistent with your values).
• Make a moral appeal. Show the impact of panic buying (vulnerable people will miss out)
• Focus on the power of social networks. Don’t simply tell people that supplies won’t run out. E.g. Your loved ones want you to do the right thing. Ensure valued and vulnerable people in your community don’t miss out