The role of individualism, collectivism,

and promotional reward type on

consumer response to amplified
word-of-mouth strategies
Monika Rawal
Else School of Management, Millsaps College, Jackson, Mississippi, USA
Jose Luis Saavedra Torres
Department of Marketing, Sports Business and Event Management, and Construction Management, Northern Kentucky University,
Highland Heights, Kentucky, USA
Ramin Bagherzadeh
Department of Marketing, Howard University, Washington, District of Columbia, USA and School of Business, Ithaca College,
Ithaca, New York, USA
Suchitra Rani
Amity Global Business School, Hyderabad, India, and
Joanna Melancon
Department of Marketing, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, Kentucky, USA

Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to understand the effect of cultural dimension (individualism/ collectivism) on promotional rewards (social or economic)
resulting in incentivizing consumers to engage in electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM), further impacting their repurchase intentions.
Design/methodology/approach – In Study 1, a 2 (culture: individualism vs collectivism)
2 (promotional rewards: social vs economic) between-
subjects design was used. Structural equation modeling was used to test the hypotheses. In Study 2, culture was measured instead of just being
manipulated. The authors used regression analysis in this study.
Findings – Owing to the characteristics of collectivistic individuals, consumers in collectivistic cultures were more likely to respond to social rewards as an
incentive to engage in eWOM. However, consumers in individualistic cultures were more motivated to engage in eWOM when economic rewards were offered.
Originality/value – Despite the global nature of eWOM, little research has explored the effects of cultural traits on consumer response to amplified
eWOM strategy. Additionally, though many organizations now offer various promotional incentives to reviewers, little research has explored the
effects of promotional offers on a reviewer’s subsequent behavior, and no research has explored the relationship between cultural dimensions and
current and future response to promotional eWOM rewards.
Keywords Collectivism, Culture, eWOM, Individualism, Promotional rewards, Repurchase intention
Paper type Research paper

Introduction has allowed, for the first time, the power of WOM
communication to be not only harnessed but also tracked and
Electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) has been defined as: measured (Arora et al., 2019). In a worldwide study of key
Any positive or negative statement made by potential, actual, or former industry trends, 98% of firms considered learning to capitalize
customers about a product or company, which is made available to a on eWOM as a significant issue for managers (Erskine, 2018).
multitude of people and institutions via the Internet (Hennig-Thurau et al.,
2004, p. 39). Additionally, in an American Marketing Association study,
64% of managers went so far as to say that WOM was the most
A total of 92% of consumers trust their peers over advertising
effective marketing approach, but only 6% of managers felt
(Whitler, 2014), and the rise of social media and review sites
they had “mastered” the WOM strategy (Whitler, 2014).
By many estimates, eWOM is much more effective than
advertising in recruiting customers and costs the firm considerably
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald
Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/0736-3761.htm

Received 11 May 2022

Revised 11 February 2023
Journal of Consumer Marketing 19 August 2023
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 0736-3761] 27 December 2023
[DOI 10.1108/JCM-05-2022-5369] Accepted 29 December 2023
 Amplified word-of-mouth strategies Journal of Consumer Marketing
Monika Rawal et al.

less (Luo et al., 2014). Over half of consumers cite reviews as write a review to help others. Snuggs mentions on their website:
important or extremely important to their online purchasing “Once you have purchased a product, you can help other
decisions, and online reviews have been linked to increased customers by writing a review of your purchased product or by
marketing performance and sales in previous studies (Duan et al., rating the product.”
2019). Moreover, eWOM plays a significant role in shaping While the effect of incentivizing reviewers on other
repurchase intentions among consumers. When online reviews consumers and their response to the brand has been explored,
provide useful information to potential buyers, their likelihood of less is known about the effect of various types of amplified
expressing a higher intention to repurchase increases (Alhidari eWOM incentive offers on the reviewing consumer’s current
et al., 2015; Baykal and Hesapci Karaca, 2022). The influence of and future behavior toward the brand. According to Schutt
eWOM on repurchase intention can be attributed to several (2022), “if customers feel like they’re being tricked into leaving
factors. First, consumers tend to trust the experiences and a 5-star review, it could damage your relationship with them—
opinions of fellow buyers shared in online reviews, as they offer a and your brand.” As there is a lack of clarity on how firms
sense of authenticity and credibility. Furthermore, the accessibility should incentivize their consumers to write reviews, the current
of a large number of reviews allows consumers to make well- research attempts to determine the type of promotional reward
informed decisions about products or services. Positive eWOM that should be offered to increase eWOM.
not only reinforces the consumers’ positive attitudes toward a The e-revolution created by social media e-giants such as
brand but also fosters a sense of loyalty, leading to repeat Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and Twitter has only served to
purchases. However, comparatively few consumers leave reviews accelerate the globalization of brands, and for many brands,
and companies are left with the problem of how to increase there may be consumers from around the world both leaving
positive eWOM on review sites, e-commerce platforms and social and viewing reviews online (Qin, 2020). Studies suggest that
media outlets. Therefore, the aim of this study is to explore eWOM varies by culture (Arora et al., 2019), and that culture
strategies incentivizing different consumers, specifically in can change whether and why consumers share their opinions
collectivistic versus individualistic cultures, using social or with others (Hofstede, 2001). In particular, Kusawat and
economic rewards. The focus is to understand the impact of these Teerakapibal (2022) reviewed more than 60 cross-cultural
incentives on enhancing eWOM and, consequently, on boosting
studies on eWOM and were able to identify social
repurchase intentions.
communication variables related to various key elements such
The critical nature of eWOM had led many brands to use
as “communicators, stimuli, receivers and responses.” They
incentive programs to encourage consumers to engage in
demonstrated that different cultures had different effects on
eWOM (Reimer and Benkenstein, 2016), a practice sometimes
eWOM and that the difference was because of either the
referred to as amplified WOM (Kulmala et al., 2013), to
communicators or the receivers. They suggested that
decrease uncertainty about the quality of the product (Reimer
communicators and receivers produce consumer response,
and Benkenstein, 2016). One prominent strategy used to
namely, perceived usefulness, trust and purchase intention,
amplify WOM is the use of promotional rewards programs for
moderated by the cultural backgrounds of the receivers of
consumers who share brand messages (Abendroth and
eWOM. Kusawat and Teerakapibal (2022) set up a foundation
Heyman, 2013) and/or leave reviews of a product or service
(Duan et al., 2019). There are various types of promotional for future research and, in their paper, called for further
rewards a firm may offer consumers; typically, consumer clarification of the impact that each of the Hofstede’s cultural
rewards can be broadly categorized as social rewards or dimensions – for example, individualism and collectivism – can
economic rewards (Melancon et al., 2011). have on eWOM behavior. Thus, the current research studies
Traditionally, eWOM rewards have been monetary rewards consumer response to incentive programs for leaving reviews or
in exchange for leaving a positive review (Reimer and engaging in eWOM based on culture (individualistic/
Benkenstein, 2016; Duan et al., 2019). For example, Wayfair collectivistic).
often offers a cash reward on writing a review on their website. Therefore, the goal of this paper is to answer the following
Another example is Nordstrom, which offers a chance to win a research questions: How does culture (individualism/collectivism)
$1,000 gift card to their store for writing a product review. The impact eWOM? How does eWOM relate to repurchase
literature suggests monetary incentives are effective at intentions? Does perceived usefulness mediate the relationship
increasing the likelihood of a consumer leaving positive eWOM between eWOM and repurchase intentions? Do promotional
(Reimer and Benkenstein, 2016). However, there is also rewards moderate the relationship between culture and eWOM?
evidence that economically compensated reviewers are not Do promotional rewards moderate the mediating relationship
credible to other shoppers and that companies that knowingly between eWOM and repurchase intentions via perceived
pay online reviewers may suffer a decrease in brand attitudes usefulness of online reviews?
when consumers learn that reviewers are compensated (Martin, Based on the above discussion, we developed the conceptual
2014). model shown in Figure 1.
Although less common, other incentives offered by The model above was tested using structural equation
companies for eWOM may be more social in nature, such as modeling (SEM) and regression analysis. SEM helped us to
the company offering to donate to a social cause in exchange for analyze interrelated dependence relationships simultaneously,
a review or an expression of thanks from the company for estimate the strength of each relationship with path analysis
helping either the company or other consumers by leaving a (Hair et al., 2010) and identify latent variables (Serrano-Cinca
review (Reimer and Benkenstein, 2016). For example, et al., 2007). We conducted two experimental studies, with 192
companies such as Sony and Snuggs request their customers to participants recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk)
 Amplified word-of-mouth strategies Journal of Consumer Marketing
Monika Rawal et al.

Figure 1 Conceptual model of promotional rewards increased diffusion of eWOM internationally. Thus, in any
given eWOM situation, consumers from many different
Perceived cultures may be engaging and interacting with reviews left by
Rewards (Social usefulness of
vs. Economic) online reviews
others (Donthu et al., 2021).
H5
H3
As outlined by Hofstede (2011), culture encompasses six key
H4 dimensions: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism
versus collectivism, masculinity versus femininity, long-term
Culture
Repurchase
(Individualism vs. eWOM versus short-term orientation and indulgence versus restraint.
H1 H2
Previous research, such as the study conducted by Luo et al.
(2014), has identified the dimension of individualism–collectivism
Source: Authors’ own creation as the most significant in delineating differences across cultures.
This is because the individualism–collectivism dimension
illuminates the relationship between the individual and larger
societal groups, thereby serving as a pivotal aspect of cultural
for the first study and 249 participants taken from universities in
distinction with substantial implications for group dynamics,
the USA and India for the second study.
decision-making and interpersonal relationships (Hofstede,
After conducting the analyses, we found that consumers in
2001). Owing to this distinctive behavior of individualistic and
collectivistic cultures are more likely to respond to social
collectivist cultures, information acquisition and sharing behavior
rewards as an incentive to engage in eWOM, while consumers
is also different based on culture. Generally, people from
in individualistic cultures are more motivated to engage in
individualistic cultures focus on their own self-interest rather than
eWOM when economic rewards were offered. More
others’ interests and thus may be more willing to assert their
importantly, regardless of culture, those individuals who were
individual opinions and to share their knowledge and information
offered economic rewards found eWOM reviews to be less
with others, if they are provided with economic incentives (Arora
useful than individuals offered social rewards, and thus those
et al., 2019). On the other hand, collectivists focus on
individuals who were offered economic rewards had lower
interdependence and connectedness with others (Hofstede, 2001)
repurchase intentions than those who were offered social
and may provide information with the goal of helping others.
rewards.
When considering the likelihood to engage in eWOM after
This research makes both theoretical and managerial
purchase, and in support of the notion that collectivists share
contributions. The findings of this study contribute to self-
information more willingly than individualists (Jim
enez and
determination theory (SDT; Deci and Ryan, 1985) and
Mendoza, 2013), the following is hypothesized:
cognitive evaluation theory (CET; Rummel and Feinberg,
1988) by demonstrating that consumers are willing to express H1. Collectivism relates more positively to likelihood to
their opinions in the public sphere regardless of whether the engage in eWOM than to individualism.
motivations are intrinsic or extrinsic but only if the rewards are
aligned with their own motivation. In addition, this study
expands the research on social projection theory (Clement and Electronic word-of-mouth and repurchase intention
Krueger, 2002) by providing empirical evidence on consumers WOM is a phenomenon in consumer behavior that occurs
using promotional rewards as an effective tool to simplify their organically (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004) as well as through
decision-making. efforts by an organization to increase online discussion of and
This research suggests that managers should consider the reviews of a brand or product (Kulmala et al., 2013). eWOM
consumers’ cultural orientation and its effect on their behavior, includes all kinds of interpersonal communication, positive or
such as eWOM and purchase intention, to encourage the negative, about a company, brand or product between a
consumers to provide online reviews. Specifically, the results of receiver and a communicator perceived as noncommercial.
this study show that, as a motivation to write an online review, WOM provides information on product performance and the
consumers from individualistic cultures respond more social and psychological consequences of a potential purchase
favorably to economic rewards and consumers from decision and therefore acts as a major source of information for
collectivistic cultures respond more favorably to social rewards. consumers in their purchase decision-making process (Brown
et al., 2007). In the context of online purchasing behavior,
Review of literature and hypotheses research has shown that eWOM enhances consumers’
repurchase intentions (Praharjo et al., 2016). eWOM quality
development
and eWOM quantity have also been shown to create positive
Culture and electronic word-of-mouth influences on online repurchase intention (Bulut and
Consumers have an enormous number of options for gathering Karabulut, 2018). Our hypothesis is based on the above
information and engaging in eWOM, given the accessibility, discussed previous studies and several others that have shown
reach and transparency of the internet (Hennig-Thurau et al., eWOM to impact consumers’ purchase or repurchase
2004). Research has shown that subjective information intentions. For example, Leong et al. (2021) studied the
gathered from online platforms plays an important role in characteristics of eWOM and demonstrated that perceived
information search and dissemination (Sangwan and Agarwal, eWOM information usefulness leads to information adoption,
2019). The online platforms available today and their which in turn leads to purchase intention. Another study,
immediate reach to millions of consumers have resulted in conducted by Matute et al. (2016), revealed that the
 Amplified word-of-mouth strategies Journal of Consumer Marketing
Monika Rawal et al.

characteristics of eWOM have an impact on repurchase Promotional rewards as a moderator between culture
intentions are mediated by trust and perceived usefulness. and electronic word-of-mouth
Thus, the following is hypothesized: Online reviewers have different reasons for expressing
themselves and for producing eWOM (Arora et al., 2019; Fong
H2. Likelihood to engage in eWOM reviews relates positively and Burton, 2008). SDT is concerned with people’s motivation
to an individual’s repurchase intentions. to complete certain tasks (Deci and Ryan, 1985). SDT
examines the extent to which a person’s behavior is self-
determined and self-motivated. According to SDT, intrinsic
Perceived usefulness of online reviews as a mediator of and extrinsic motivation play an important role in an
electronic word-of-mouth behavior and repurchase individual’s behavior. Intrinsic motivation refers to an action
Perceived usefulness of online reviews is the perception that initiated by an individual for the sake of its inherent satisfaction.
eWOM is beneficial in making a purchase decision easier as Extrinsic motivation, conversely, refers to an action initiated by
well as in giving the consumer important knowledge to make a an individual to achieve some external goal through external
more informed decision (Karmarkar and Tormala, 2010). In sources. Individuals may be differently motivated to perform
one of the previous studies, it was found that online reviews similar tasks, and CET, a subset of SDT, explores the ways in
help to make a purchase decision by providing valuable sources which rewards interact with motivation to perform a task (Deci
of information from previous consumers of the product (Baek et and Ryan, 1985).
al., 2012). Past research has studied the factors affecting In the current context, a consumer’s intrinsic or extrinsic
perceived usefulness of online reviews (Lee et al., 2018). motivation to write a review would depend on the type of
eWOM has been found to be one of the factors impacting reward associated with it. Past research has found desire for
perceived usefulness of travel review websites, leading to economic incentives as a reason for some consumers to write
consumers’ purchase decisions (Wang and Li, 2019). their online reviews (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004). Others
Consumers tend to minimize their problem-solving and express more altruistic motives for wanting to help others make
decision-making efforts. One of the ways consumers can good decisions, or for social interaction with other consumers
achieve this is by facilitating their decision-making process (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004; Reimer and Benkenstein, 2016).
regarding a repeat purchase by evaluating their own eWOM Increasingly, brands are offering promotional rewards to
created for the company. Online reviews proved to be having a consumers for sharing brand-related messages (Abendroth and
positive impact to create trust and to encourage online Heyman, 2013), and SDT theory would suggest that different
purchases in a few emerging markets (Ventre and Kolbe, rewards may be more attractive to different consumers based
2020). Similarly, another study revealed that the purchase on their motivations to engage in any task (Deci and Ryan,
1985). In the current research, a promotional reward is an
intentions of consumers increased owing to positive online
incentive offered by a company in exchange for an honest
reviews (Park et al., 2007).
review about products or services. The rewards can be
Grounding our hypothesis in the cognitive dissonance theory
economic in nature, which is most typical – a cash reward,
(Festinger, 1957), we propose a novel perspective to
discount or voucher, for example (Duan et al., 2019). Rewards
understand the perceived usefulness of online reviews in
can also be “social” – for example, a note of thanks for helping
consumer behavior. As per the cognitive dissonance theory,
the business or other consumers, elevated status as an “expert”
when an individual invests effort into a behavior, such as consumer/ambassador/influencer/partner or a donation to a
writing a review on a site or social media page, they are likely to worthy cause in exchange for a review (Melancon et al., 2011;
perceive that behavior, or similar behaviors like reading Reimer and Benkenstein, 2016) – which can also encourage
reviews, as more beneficial in their decision-making process consumers to spread eWOM about the brand. In both cases,
than those who do not engage in such actions. This proposition the goal of the reward program is to incentivize reviews the
aligns an individual’s actions (writing the review) with their organization otherwise would not have received.
attitudes (perceiving reviews as useful), a necessary condition SDT (Deci and Ryan, 1985) suggests that people are
for cognitive consistency. motivated by either internally regulated or externally regulated
Cognitive dissonance theory further suggests that motives. SDT states that psychological needs can be met by
dissonance may arise if a consumer’s actions are inconsistent intrinsic and extrinsic rewards. Intrinsic rewards lead people to
with their beliefs (Festinger, 1957). Thus, consumers who perform enjoyable and interesting activities and engage them by
have engaged in eWOM, or have shown a propensity to do so, rewarding their needs of self-determination (Zhang, 2014).
are likely to perceive online reviews as more useful. Notably, Thus, rewards reinforcing the status of a consumer as a helpful
the perceived usefulness of reviews has been found to and considerate individual, aided by the social rewards
significantly influence repurchase intentions (Praharjo et al., mentioned above, may be more likely to reinforce intrinsic
2016). Based on the above discussion, the following is motives. On the other hand, external motives refer to other
hypothesized: determined motivations to gain external rewards (Zhang,
2014). External rewards refer to “the instrumental
H3. Perceived usefulness of online reviews positively consequence (e.g. monetary rewards) of doing something”
mediates the relationship between eWOM and (Zhang, 2014, p. 17) and are more aligned with the economic
repurchase intentions; the more likely the individual is to rewards discussed earlier. According to SDT and CET,
leave eWOM, the higher the perceived usefulness and autonomous motivation is indicative of intrinsic rewards, like a
the higher the repurchase intentions. social reward of being recognized for helping others and
 Amplified word-of-mouth strategies Journal of Consumer Marketing
Monika Rawal et al.

controlled motivation is induced by extrinsic rewards, like the individual’s own motives are more easily accessible to them
economic reward of receiving a gift card in exchange for a than the motivations of other people (in this instance, the
review. motivations of other reviewers on the site whom they do not
Research has shown that culture affects people’s motivation see, know or interact with), individuals tend to use information
(Iyengar and Lepper, 1999). Individualism focuses on valuing about their own motivations to make sense of the world around
the self with a sense of paying less attention to society and social them (Kreuger, 1988). This process, used to alleviate cognitive
groups. Individualistic people prioritize their own goals and burden, has been widely studied in a wide variety of social
personal success, and individualists are thought be more situations (see Clement and Krueger, 2002, for a review).
ambitious and goal-oriented (Arora et al., 2019). On the other Thus, using social projection theory, we can anticipate that
hand, collectivism emphasizes altruistic activities that benefit those individuals who have been offered an economic incentive
other people in the society. Collectivists focus on their goals in a for leaving a review might also assume others have been offered
way that benefits others as well. According to SDT, collectivists a similar incentive. Consequently, they may perceive others’
are autonomously motivated, as they tend to promote their reactions to the reward as similar to their own, owing to the
goals by benefiting other people in the society (Jim
enez and generally universal impact of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic
Mendoza, 2013). Conversely, individualists are control- motivation (Deci and Ryan, 1985).
motivated because they seek tangible rewards (Arora et al., In this context, the external motivation to leave a review
2019). Therefore, the following are hypothesized: might prompt reviewers to question the intentions of others –
H4a. Promotional rewards moderate the relationship Are they providing helpful/useful/honest information or merely
between culture and eWOM such that, when social pursuing the reward? Conversely, if social rewards boost the
(economic) rewards are offered by the company, intrinsic pleasure of assisting other consumers, then those
consumers in a collectivistic culture are more (less) individuals who receive social rewards would, in line with the
likely to produce eWOM. social projection theory, likely attribute the same intentions to
other reviewers. Hence, consumers offered social rewards
H4b. Promotional rewards moderate the relationship might perceive reviews from others as more useful, offering
between culture and eWOM such that, when economic more insightful information for purchase decisions, than those
(social) rewards are offered by the company, consumers individuals incentivized economically. Therefore, we expect
in an individualistic culture are more (less) likely to that the promotional reward type offered to an individual will
produce eWOM. moderate the perceptions of usefulness of online reviews for the
brand (regardless of individualism/collectivism):

Promotional rewards as a moderator between electronic H5. Promotional rewards moderate the mediating relationship
word-of-mouth and purchase intention through between eWOM and repurchase intentions, via perceived
perceived usefulness of online reviews usefulness of online reviews, such that, when social
Prior research indicates that consumers who know others have (economic) rewards are offered by the company,
been given an economic reward to leave a review for a site likelihood to engage in eWOM relates more (less)
have less trust of reviews and a more negative attitude toward positively to perceived usefulness of online reviews,
the company (Duan et al., 2019). This is likely because of the leading to repurchase intentions for both individualistic
“crowding out” effect external rewards have on intrinsic and collectivistic cultures.
motivation (Reimer and Benkenstein, 2016; Deci and Ryan,
1985). However, less is known about how the individuals
receiving the reward react to other online reviews. Social Methodology
projection is the tendency to project our own attitudes, feelings,
behaviors and motivations on other individuals (Kreuger, Study 1
1988). Social projection is a cognitive strategy that sometimes Experimental design
can lead to accurate information about the world and thus is an A 2 (culture: individualism vs collectivism)
2 (promotional
effective heuristic used to simplify decision-making (Kreuger, rewards: social vs economic) between-subjects design was
1988). For example, Kelley and Jacoby (1996) found that the adopted to conduct this study. A sample of 210 customers was
simpler it is to produce a response, the more likely an individual contacted through Amazon MTurk. Participants were selected
is to believe that others will respond in a similar manner. from the USA and India using the master qualification
Krueger and Clement (1994) stated that even when explicitly database. From 210 surveys collected, 18 cases displayed
instructed not to, or when given feedback on the accuracy of missing values in multiple variables (8.57%) and were thus
their forecasts, individuals still tend to project their beliefs or erased (Hair et al., 2010). The descriptive statistics of the final
feelings onto others. projection is stronger when people make sample of 192 participants are 65.1% male and 34.9% female.
judgments about ingroups than when they make judgments The education question was an open-ended question, and
about outgroups (Robbins and Krueger, 2005). At other times, of the respondents, 48% reported having a bachelor’s degree as
however, there is a false consensus effect that results from the highest degree earned, 27.2% reported their degree as an
projection, where an individual may overestimate the number undergraduate degree and 18.9% held a master’s degree. The
of other individuals who also have similar attitudes, motives or largest percentage of respondents (44.3%) were between 24
behaviors, particularly when we hold an unpopular opinion or and 29 years of age, whereas 25.5% were between 30 and
engage in undesirable behaviors (such as cheating). Because an 35 years of age.
 Amplified word-of-mouth strategies Journal of Consumer Marketing
Monika Rawal et al.

Procedure and stimuli seven-point semantic differential scale (Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.868)

Participants received a link to take the online survey (through (see Appendix 2).
Qualtrics). After expressing their consent to participate, the After the Cronbach’s alpha reliability test, the data were
participants were asked if they had made an online purchase in subjected to confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). We used a
the past two weeks (control question). Next, participants were threshold of 0.5 for factor loading (Hair et al., 1998), and the
asked to write the name of the product they purchased online results showed that all the constructs exceed this level. Then we
and to indicate whether they had provided a review for this measured the goodness-of-fit statistics for the measurement
product (control question). Following those questions, model, which suggested a reasonable fit to data (Hu and Bentler,
participants were asked to imagine that the seller of the product 1999), as follows: x2(22) ¼ 33.232, chi-square/df ratio ¼ 1.51,
that they had bought online sent them an email about writing a p ¼ 0.059, CFI ¼ 0.990, NNFI ¼ 0.972, SRMR ¼ 0.027 and
review, while offering some benefit in exchange of the review: RMSEA ¼ 0.051. All scales had satisfactory values for composite
either helping other consumers to shop (social reward) or reliabilities and demonstrated strong internal consistency and
participating in a gift card raffle (economic reward) (see reliability (Bagozzi and Yi, 2012). Convergent validity was
Appendix 1). Experimental manipulations using online reviews supported by the fact that each indicator’s path coefficient was
have been widely used in the interactive marketing literature very significant (p < 0.001) for the hypothesized concept. For
(Jim
enez and Mendoza, 2013; Tata et al., 2020). composite reliability, we used a threshold of 0.7 (Nunnally,
1978), and the results showed that all the constructs exceed the
Manipulation checks
level (minimum of 0.84). For discriminant validity, we used a
Manipulation check for the reward type was conducted threshold of 0.5 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981) between the average
through a pretest (Perdue and Summers, 1986) involving 144 variance extracted (AVE) and the squared correlation estimates
undergraduate business students at a mid-sized Midwestern (Hair et al., 2010). In all the cases, the correlations between the
public university in the USA. The manipulation check item was constructs were mainly below 0.7 and below the square roots of
placed at the end of the survey. Participants were asked to the AVEs (Chin, 1998), confirming discriminant validity of the
indicate their opinion on the type of message received from the constructs. Table 1 shows the results of the correlation,
seller on a nine-point semantic differential scale with end points composite reliability and discriminant validity.
as “economically inclined” to “socially inclined.” The results of
this manipulation check suggest that the experimental Results
manipulations were successful. Pretest results showed that the Two sets of analyses were used to test the theoretical model. To
participants in the social reward condition responded with test H1 and H2, we examined how consumers’ culture
higher levels of agreement than their counterparts assigned to (individualism vs collectivism) has an impact on eWOM, which
the economic reward condition [Msocial ¼ 6.45 vs Meconomic ¼ 5.16, in turn impacts their repurchase intentions. A covariance-based
F(1, 143) ¼ 9.43, p < 0.01]. structural equation modeling (CB-SEM) technique was
Another manipulation check, through a separate pretest, was conducted in order to observe the different effects of variables
conducted to confirm the cultural orientation (that is, at the same time.
individualism vs collectivism) of participants from the two In addition, a regression analysis was conducted using
chosen countries: the USA and India. This pretest was PROCESS macro v3.3 (SPSS 26) (Hayes, 2013) to analyze H3
conducted using 99 MTurk respondents (53 from the USA and (Model 4, for a mediation of perceived usefulness of online
46 from India) by providing them with individualism– reviews), H4 (Model 1, for moderation of promotional
collectivism scale items from Sivadas et al. (2008). The results rewards) and H5 (Model 7, for moderated mediation of
showed that the participants from India placed higher on the promotional rewards). The calculation was done through
individualism–collectivism continuum as compared to the bootstrapping method using a large sample size (N ¼ 1,000)
participants from the USA [MUSA ¼ 4.03 vs MIndia ¼ 4.18, which was drawn from the data set and used to test the effect of
F(1, 97) ¼ 0.30, p < 0.05], suggesting that the participants the moderation model (Hayes, 2013). Table 2 presents a
from the USA are individualists and those from India are summary of hypothesized relationships and results.
collectivists, confirming the findings of Hofstede (2001).
Structural model analysis
Measurement scales and measure validation The CB-SEM analysis was conducted using one independent
The three studied constructs used scales from previous research, variable (consumers’ culture: individualism vs collectivism),
and their wording reflected the context of online shopping and one mediator (eWOM) and one dependent variable (repurchase
online reviews. eWOM was measured with three items adapted intentions). The variables in the theoretical model were tested
from Sohn (2009): “unlikely–likely,” “improbable–probable” using CB-SEM in AMOS v. 24 (SPSS 26) with maximum
and “impossible–possible” on a seven-point semantic differential likelihood estimation. The results indicate that the model is a
scale (Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.906). Perceived usefulness of online good fit for the data: x2(30) ¼ 51.26, p < 0.01, chi-square/df
reviews was measured with four items adapted from Erdil et al. ratio ¼ 1.71, CFI ¼ 0.982, NNFI ¼ 0.959, SRMR ¼ 0.034 and
(2019) – “online consumer reviews of this seller (1) are useful, (2) RMSEA ¼ 0.060 (Hair et al., 2010). Therefore, the model
make purchasing easier, (3) make a smarter shopper, and (4) are results were used for hypotheses testing via a bootstrapping
very beneficial” – on a seven-point Likert-type scale (1 ¼ strongly method (N ¼ 1,000) with 90 percentile confidence intervals and
disagree, 7 ¼ strongly agree) (Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.885). Finally, 90 bias-corrected confidence intervals.
repurchase intention was measured with three items adapted H1 assumes that collectivism relates more positively to
from Jones et al. (2003): “very unlikely–very likely,” “very eWOM as compared to individualism [H1: b ¼ 1.21,
improbable–very probable” and “impossible–possible” on a t(30) ¼ 5.33, p < 0.01]. The result indicates that participants in
 Amplified word-of-mouth strategies Journal of Consumer Marketing
Monika Rawal et al.

Table 1 Convergent and discriminant validity

Constructs CR MSV eWOM Repurchase intentions Perceived usefulness

eWOM 0.884 0.340 0.719
Repurchase intentions 0.874 0.619 0.584 0.634
Perceived usefulness 0.837 0.569 0.461 0.623 0.632
Notes:  p < 0.05;  p < 0.01; CR ¼ composed reliability; MSV ¼ maximum shared variance; diagonal elements report of the AVE and elements below
report the square correlation estimation between them
Source: Authors’ own creation

Table 2 Hypothesis testing results

Hypothesized paths b/effect t Confirmatory measurement Test result

H1 Individualism fi eWOM 1.21 5.33 Mcollectivism ¼ 5.70 vs Mindividualism ¼ 4.63 Supported
H2 eWOM fi RI 0.25 4.01 Supported
H3 eWOM fi PU fi RI
Direct effect 0.43 8.32 LLCI ¼ 0.33, ULCI ¼ 0.54 Partial mediation
Indirect effect 0.09 LLCI ¼ 0.03, ULCI ¼ 0.18 Supported
H4a Collectivistic 3 Social R. fi eWOM 1.48 4.91 Msocial ¼ 5.82 vs Meconomic ¼ 5.49 Supported
H4b Individualistic 3 Economic R. fi eWOM 0.71 2.51 Meconomic ¼ 5.03 vs Msocial ¼ 4.34 Supported
H5 eWOM 3 Social rewards fi PU
Economic rewards 0.06n.s. 0.76 LLCI ¼ 0.09, ULCI ¼ 0.21 Supported
Social rewards 0.24 3.16 LLCI ¼ 0.09, ULCI ¼ 0.39
Notes:  p < 0.05;  p < 0.01; R = rewards; RI = repurchase intention; PU = perceived usefulness of online reviews
Source: Authors’ own creation

the collectivism condition showed higher levels of eWOM than interaction was significant [R2 ¼ 0.14, F(3, 188) ¼ 10.33,
those in the individualism condition [Mcollectivism ¼ 5.70 vs p < 0.05], and both conditions of promotional rewards had a
Mindividualism ¼ 4.63, F(1, 190) ¼ 26.82 p < 0.01], providing significant impact [Economic rewards: Effect ¼ 0.71, t(190) ¼
support for H1. Also, as was expected, the results provided 2.51, p < 0.05, LLCI ¼ 0.15, ULCI ¼ 1.28; Social rewards:
support for H2, which stated that eWOM relates positively to Effect ¼ 1.48, t(190) ¼ 4.91, p < 0.01, LLCI ¼ 0.88, ULCI ¼
repurchase intentions [H2: b ¼ 0.25, t(30) ¼ 4.01, p < 0.01]. 2.07]. In addition, results show that, on the one hand, the
Mediation test participants in the collectivistic condition exhibited higher
levels of eWOM when the company offered social rewards
The hypothesized impact of perceived usefulness of online
reviews as a mediator in the relationship between eWOM and compared with economic reward [Msocial ¼ 5.82 vs Meconomic ¼
repurchase intention (H3) was tested using PROCESS macro 5.49, F(1, 94) ¼ 4.02, p < 0.05], providing support for H4a.
v3.3 (Model 4) (Hayes, 2013). Results show a positive significant On the other hand, results show that the participants in the
direct effect of eWOM on repurchase intentions [Effect ¼ 0.43, individualistic condition exhibited an opposite behavior of their
t(190) ¼ 8.32, p < 0.01, LLCI ¼ 0.33, ULCI ¼ 0.54] and also a counterparts in the collectivistic condition by reporting higher
positive significant indirect effect of eWOM on repurchase levels of eWOM when the company offered economic rewards
intentions when controlled for perceived usefulness of online compared with social reward [Meconomic ¼ 5.03 vs Msocial ¼ 4.34,
reviews (Effect ¼ 0.09, LLCI ¼ 0.03, ULCI ¼ 0.18). Both F(1, 94) ¼ 3.94, p ¼ 0.05]. These results provide evidence to
results offer evidence of a partial mediation effect of perceived support H4b. The interaction of the moderation effect is plotted
usefulness of online reviews as a mediator in the relationship in Figure 2.
between eWOM and repurchase intentions providing support Moderated mediation test
for H3. The moderated mediation tests for H5 were conducted on
Moderation test PROCESS macro v3.3 (Model 7) (SPSS 26) using one
The moderation tests were conducted on PROCESS macro independent variable (eWOM), one mediator (perceived
v3.3 (Model 1) (SPSS 26) using one independent variable usefulness of online reviews), one moderator (promotional
(consumers’ culture: individualism vs collectivism), one rewards: social vs economic) and one dependent variable
moderator (promotional rewards: social vs economic) and (purchase intention). Results indicate significant moderation of
one dependent variable (eWOM). The results of the first the relationship between eWOM and perceived usefulness of
moderation test analyzed H4a and H4b, which stated that online reviews by promotional rewards [b ¼ 0.21, t(191) ¼ 1.98,
promotional rewards moderate the relationship between p < 0.05]; however, the two conditions of promotional rewards
consumers’ culture and eWOM. Outcomes suggest that the did not present a similar behavior. Analysis of the moderation
 Amplified word-of-mouth strategies Journal of Consumer Marketing
Monika Rawal et al.

Figure 2 Promotional rewards as a moderator between culture and the data, we used four different measurement for data security:
eWOM – culture manipulated location, database master qualification, at least 100 hits
approved, and IP address control (Buhrmester et al., 2011;
6
Chandler and Paolacci, 2017). From 300 responses received,
34 cases presented missing values in multiple variables (12%)
5.5 and were eliminated (Hair et al., 2010). Additional measure to
control data quality was adopted by using attention check
eWOM

5 questions along the survey (Gummer et al., 2021). In attention

check questions, participants were asked to select a specific
4.5
option to ensure that the questions were accurately read and
responded to. From 264 complete responses, 19 (7.2%)
participants failed to answer the attention check questions
4
accurately and were thus deleted. The final sample was 245
Individualisc Collecvisc
Promoonal Rewars
observations (USA ¼ 125, India ¼ 120). The descriptive
statistics of the final sample of the participants are 59.2% male
Economic Social and 40.8% female. The largest percentage of respondents
(54.3%) are between 32 and 36 years of age.
Source: Authors’ own creation The procedure and measurements for this study were kept
the same as for Study 1. Additionally, culture was measured
with 14 items adapted from Sivadas et al. (2008) on a seven-
effect indicated that, on the one hand, the economic rewards point Likert-type scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree, 7 ¼ strongly
condition has not significant effect on the relationship between agree) (Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.91). CFA was performed and the
eWOM and perceived usefulness of online reviews [b ¼ 0.10, goodness-of-fit statistics for the measurement model suggested
t(191) ¼ 1.31, p ¼ 0.19, LLCI ¼ 0.05, ULCI ¼ 0.26]. On the a reasonable fit to data (Hu and Bentler, 1999) as follows:
other hand, the outcomes show that social rewards condition x2 (28) ¼ 88.857, chi-square/df ratio ¼ 3.17, p ¼ 0.000,
has a significant effect on the same relationship [b ¼ 0.31, CFI ¼ 0.947, NNFI ¼ 0.926, SRMR ¼ 0.047 and
t(191) ¼ 4.26, p < 0.00, LLCI ¼ 0.17, ULCI ¼ 0.46]. Also, the RMSEA ¼ 0.087. We used the same threshold as Study 1 to
outcomes indicate that participants in the social rewards confirm the convergent validity, composite reliability and
condition showed higher levels of perceived usefulness of discriminant validity. Table 3 shows the results of the
online reviews than those in the economic rewards condition correlation, composite reliability and discriminant validity.
[Msocial ¼ 5.82 vs Meconomic ¼ 4.97, F(1, 190) ¼ 2.82, p < 0.05].
Manipulation check
These results provide evidence to partially support H5. The
The use of citizens of the USA to represent individualistic
interaction of the moderation effect is plotted in Figure 3.
cultural dimension compared to citizens of other countries
(such as India, Korea or China) to represent collectivistic
Study 2
dimension is widespread in the in the digital marketing
This study was conducted to replicate the results of Study 1. In
literature (e.g. Banerjee and Chai, 2019).
this study, we measured culture instead of just manipulating it.
Despite this evidence of the effectiveness of cultural
A total of 245 consumers participated in the study, from a
manipulation by collecting data from USA and India, we
sampling frame of 300 participants. The sample was contacted incorporated a seven-point Likert-type scale to measure culture
through Amazon MTurk with participants selected from the (Sivadas et al., 2008) in Study 2. The results of the measurement
USA (N ¼ 125) and India (N ¼ 120). To increase the quality of confirm that the use of individuals from the USA and India
reflected the individualistic–collectivistic cultural dimension
Figure 3 Promotional rewards as a moderator between eWOM and spectrum assumed on the experimental manipulations. Results
perceived usefulness of online reviews – culture manipulated showed that the participants from India exhibit higher levels
of collectivistic traits than their counterparts from the USA
6
[MIndia ¼ 4.97 vs MUSA ¼ 4.62, F(1, 244) ¼ 4.76, p < 0.05].

5.5
Results
On this study, a regression analysis with bootstrapping method
was conducted using PROCESS macro v4.2 (SPSS 28) to test
5 the impact of the two cultural conditions over the studied
variable. All results replicated the findings of Study 1.
4.5
A moderation test (PROCESS macro, Model 1) found that
the interaction between culture and promotional rewards had a
significant impact [R2 ¼ 0.047, F(3, 241) ¼ 12.02, p < 0.01] over
4 eWOM [Economic rewards: Effect ¼ 0.35, t(245) ¼ 2.37,
Low eWOM High eWOM p < 0.05, LLCI ¼ 0.06, ULCI ¼ 0.65; Social rewards:
Economic Social Effect ¼ 0.54, t(245) ¼ 3.69, p < 0.01, LLCI ¼ 0.83,
ULCI ¼ 0.25]. In addition, collectivistic individuals
Source: Authors’ own creation displayed higher levels of eWOM when they were exposed to
 Amplified word-of-mouth strategies Journal of Consumer Marketing
Monika Rawal et al.

Table 3 Convergent and discriminant validity

Constructs CR AVE MSV eWOM Repurchase intentions Perceived usefulness

eWOM 0.774 0.537 0.448 0.732
Repurchase intentions 0.820 0.608 0.545 0.863 0.779
Perceived usefulness 0.817 0.528 0.520 0.721 0.676 0.727
Note:  p < 0.05;  p < 0.01; CR ¼ composed reliability; AVE ¼ average variance extracted; MSV ¼ maximum shared variance; diagonal elements report of
the AVE and elements below report the square correlation estimation between them
Source: Authors’ own creation

social rewards [Msocial ¼ 6.14 vs Meconomic ¼ 5.78, F(1, 244) ¼ Figure 5 Promotional rewards as a moderator between eWOM and
10.02, p < 0.01], providing support for H4a. Contrastingly, perceived usefulness of online reviews – culture manipulated
individualistic individuals displayed an opposite behavior by 6.5

Perceived Usefulness of Online Reviews

showing higher levels of eWOM on economic rewards
[Meconomic ¼ 5.97 vs Msocial ¼ 5.59, F(1, 244) ¼ 2.49, p < 0.05],
6
providing evidence to support H4b (see Figure 4).
Results of a moderated mediation test (Model 7) indicated a
significant moderation of the relationship between eWOM and 5.5

perceived usefulness of online reviews by promotional rewards

[b ¼ 0.42, t(245) ¼ 2.04, p < 0.05]. Further, analysis of the 5
moderation effect by promotional rewards replicated the results
of Study 1. Economic rewards condition has no significant
moderation impact [Effect ¼ 0.19, t(245) ¼ 1.24, p > 0.05, 4.5
Low eWOM High eWOM
LLCI ¼ 0.11, ULCI ¼ 0.48] but social rewards condition has Economic Social
a significant effect on the same relationship [Effect ¼ 0.78,
t(245) ¼ 5.46, p < 0.00, LLCI ¼ 0.50, ULCI ¼ 1.07]. Those
Source: Authors’ own creation
results partially support H5. This interaction is plotted in
Figure 5.

Discussion and implications study also investigated the role of promotional rewards on the
relationship between individualism/collectivism and eWOM.
The purpose of this research was to examine the impact of CB-SEM was used to examine the impact of individualism/
individualism versus collectivism on amplified eWOM, the collectivism on eWOM and the impact of eWOM on repurchase
effectiveness of various incentive types commonly used in intention. As people in collectivistic cultures (Hofstede, 2001;
amplified eWOM and the impact of amplified eWOM Jim
enez and Mendoza, 2013) engage in higher levels of
incentives on perceived usefulness of reviews and repurchase information sharing as than people in individualistic cultures
intentions. The focus of this study was to explore perceptions (Arora et al., 2019), collectivism was hypothesized to lead to
and repurchase intentions on those consumers who were offered greater eWOM than individualism, and the results of this study
incentives for leaving eWOM recommendations. Further, this support this argument. There was also support for our hypothesis
that likelihood to leave eWOM resulted in higher purchase
Figure 4 Promotional rewards as a moderator between culture and intentions. These results are consistent with cognitive dissonance
eWOM – culture manipulated theory (Festinger, 1957) and prior research, which shows support
for the positive relationship between eWOM and repurchase
6.5
intentions (Bulut and Karabulut, 2018; Praharjo et al., 2016).
The next set of analyses was tested by the moderated
6
mediation model. Specifically, perceived usefulness of online
reviews was examined as a mediator between eWOM and
repurchase intentions. Based on SDT, the moderating role of
eWOM

5.5 promotional rewards was also examined for interactions with

both individualism/collectivism and perceived usefulness of
reviews. Owing to the characteristics of collectivistic
5 individuals, consumers in collectivistic cultures were more
likely to respond to social rewards as an incentive to engage in
eWOM. However, consumers in individualistic cultures were
4.5 more motivated to engage in eWOM when economic rewards
Individualisc Collecvisc
were offered. Consistent with social projection theory,
Economic Social
however, and regardless of culture, those individuals who were
offered economic rewards found eWOM reviews to be
Source: Authors’ own creation universally less useful than individuals offered social rewards,
 Amplified word-of-mouth strategies Journal of Consumer Marketing
Monika Rawal et al.

and thus those individuals who were offered economic rewards behavior may have on consumer behavior and market
had lower repurchase intentions than those who were offered outcomes.
social rewards. Third, our findings also expand on the social projection
Our results indicate that if firms want to encourage theory (Clement and Krueger, 2002). We provide empirical
customers and engage them with eWOM to reach their evidence regarding how consumers used promotional rewards
marketing goals, such as purchase intention, they should as an effective heuristic to simplify their decision-making
consider culture in making the incentives. In the marketing (Kreuger, 1988), a novel application of this theory. In
literature, culture has been extensively examined in several particular, by demonstrating that customers attribute their own
studies. One feature that makes this study different from other intentions to other site reviewers as well, this study adds to
studies in the literature is that this research directly investigated current debates in the literature on consumer psychology about
the effect of culture on customer’s behavior, such as eWOM the role of unique consumer traits that may contribute to a
and purchase intention. As we discussed earlier, eWOM has person’s propensity to project their opinions onto others (i.e.
been recognized as a powerful tool, even greater than David, 2018; Rawal and Saavedra, 2017) including core
advertising, in persuading customers to take an action. Our cultural values (Mor et al., 2019). This study also deepens the
results contribute to the literature on understanding cultural understanding of social projection theory by highlighting how
orientation to correctly use incentives and ultimately benefit economic rewards influence consumer skepticisms toward the
from eWOM. helpfulness and honesty of other reviewers (Adjei et al., 2023),
irrespective of cultural background. However, consumers who
Theoretical implications received social rewards assessed users’ evaluations posted on
Based on the findings of this study, several conclusions can the website to be more helpful, offering more insightful
advance current research and practice in international information to make the purchasing decision easier.
interactive marketing. First, promotional rewards to encourage From a theoretical perspective, these findings are significant
because they emphasize how a managerial strategy, such as
online reviews are not exempt from the impact of culture.
offering promotional rewards could affect consumers’ short-
Differences between individualistic and collectivistic cultures
term behavior (whether they immediately engage in eWOM,
have a strong impact on how customers understand and
for example), and their long-term behavior (such as future
process online marketing strategies, such as promotional
purchase intentions). According to Ismagilova et al. (2021),
rewards. Some researchers have analyzed the effect of
who did a meta-analysis of the factors affecting eWOM, this
promotional rewards without considering the cultural influence
behavior is recognized as an immediate action affected by
(Abendroth and Heyman, 2013; Melancon et al., 2011).
personal, social, perceptual and consumption-based
However, findings of this study show that culture impacts
conditions. Customers tend to engage in eWOM immediately
online consumer behavior with respect to their engagement in
after consuming a product or service. This immediate action
amplified eWOM and future purchase intentions.
has a long-term effect on consumers’ behavior such as purchase
Second, while previous studies have enhanced widely
intention (Erkan and Evans, 2018; Farzin and Fattahi, 2018;
recognized theories in online environments, such as the theory Kala and Chaubey, 2018). While previous studies have shown
of planned behavior and the technology acceptance model the impact of rewards on the perceptions of other consumers,
(Bagherzadeh and Bayat, 2016), our research represents a this study is among the first to consider how offering a reward to
significant advancement in the understanding of SDT (Deci a consumer could impact that consumer’s own future behavior
and Ryan, 1985) and CET (Rummel and Feinberg, 1988). We toward the firm. Given the importance of retaining consumers,
demonstrate that consumers, regardless of whether the considering the relationship between incentives and future
motivations are intrinsic or extrinsic, are willing to express their relational behavior is an important aspect of all reward
opinions in the public sphere but only if the rewards are aligned programs (Melancon et al., 2011). Prior research also has not
with their own motivation. The findings support the findings of considered consumers’ entire journey related to writing online
past CET studies suggesting that people’s motivation to reviews; this study explores the impact of eWOM from the
purchase a product or service and satisfaction with a product or decision to write a review to the impact of that review on their
service can be influenced by factors such as perceived own future behaviors. This research also considers the impact
competence, autonomy and task interest. These same factors of individualism/collectivism on that journey.
can also affect a person’s likelihood to engage in WOM
(Melancon et al., 2011). Our results show that a person may be Managerial implications
more inclined to spread positive eWOM about a product if they From a managerial perspective, this study suggests that to
have a high level of motivation (intrinsic or extrinsic) related to encourage online reviews, managers must consider both their
the reward associated with it because they feel a sense of consumer’s cultural orientation and the effect of that
personal involvement and delight in it. On the contrary, a orientation on customer’s behavior such eWOM and purchase
person may spread unfavorable information about a product if intention. In the short term, consumers from individualistic
they feel that the reward associated with it is out of line with cultures (i.e. the USA, the UK, Australia, etc.) respond more
their interests or beliefs (i.e. Saavedra Torres et al., 2020). In favorably to economic rewards as a motivation to write an
that sense, our findings create a connection with cultural online review. On the other hand, consumers from collectivistic
dimensions (individualistic and collectivistic) as a proxy to shed cultures (i.e. India, South Korea, Mexico, etc.) may find social
light on how and why consumers use eWOM based on rewards to be more appealing and motivating to write an online
promotional rewards, as well as the possible effects that this review. Though in this world of globalization, consumers can
 Amplified word-of-mouth strategies Journal of Consumer Marketing
Monika Rawal et al.

be making purchases or engaging in eWOM from anywhere in the purpose of the purchase and others. Future research should
the world, firms can collect consumer data using various take that into consideration and try to accommodate these
tracking technologies to identify the consumer’s country of variables in the study or test these relationships in a real-world,
origin and develop strategies accordingly (Freedman, 2023). real-time context.
However, our study also shows that the same consumers from Second, this research showed the impact of economic
individualistic cultures who perceived an economic reward as rewards by offering chance to win a certain amount of money
more valuable when they decide to write their reviews do not ($500 for Americans and INR 10,000 for Indians). However, it
equally value the reward when weighing repurchase decisions is possible that different amounts of money can have a different
from the seller. This means that consumers offered social impact on consumers, and that was not studied in the current
rewards for reviews, regardless of their culture and the extent to research. Additionally, a different type of social reward (a
which they personally valued the reward, regard those reviews donation, a special status/title offered vs a thank-you note)
as more useful when it comes to repurchasing from the seller. might produce differing results. Therefore, future research can
If the goal of the firm is to increase the number of online explore differences in the level and types of reward offered and
reviews, regardless of future repurchase from the same the consequent impact on consumers’ behavior.
consumer, then the consumer should receive a reward based on Third, future research could expand the notion of time in the
the culture that he/she belongs to or aligns with. Managers dual moderation of promotional rewards (self-construal)
should clearly define a consumer’s profile before offering any (Bagherzadeh et al., 2017). In this research, the process was
promotional rewards because if the rewards do not match the condensed in a short proximity (almost immediately), but
consumer, the company may not receive the desired response. future research can separate consumers’ interaction with the
Consumer profiling can be done using different customer promotional rewards offered and their subsequent decision to
relationship management software that can help firms track repurchase from the seller.
their consumers’ “spending habits, how often they visit [. . .] Fourth, following this research stream, future research can
[their] website, where they’re from, and how old they are,” so also explore if the level of product involvement, the price
the firms “can tailor [. . .] [their] business’s communications to associated, brand attachment (Saavedra Torres et al., 2020)
their specific needs” (Post, 2023). Thus, targeted promotions and brand identification (Saavedra Torres et al., 2018), with
based on geography and culture may be a good approach. the online purchase can reduce or boost the dual impact of
Given the importance that a vast majority of consumers place promotional rewards.
on reviews in their purchase decisions (Whitler, 2014), the risk of Finally, future research could analyze if firms should make
undermining the credibility of an organization’s own reviews salient to customers their previous online reviews when they are
through the use of economic rewards should be carefully weighed visiting or purchasing new products to trigger their memories of
against the potential benefit of obtaining more reviews for the rewards associated with those reviews. However, this study
consumers to consider. If a firm’s goal is to build a long-term takes an important step in indicating that culture is an important
relationship with consumers, offering social rewards is a better consideration in what types of rewards to offer in an amplified
alternative all around than offering economic rewards. Social eWOM strategy and that the goals of the company (more
rewards often appeal to a person’s intrinsic motivations, such as reviews vs a more loyal customer base) should drive the types of
the desire for recognition, esteem, or belonging, which can be rewards offered to consumers in exchange for their reviews.
more potent and enduring than extrinsic, economic motivators.
A well-crafted social reward can strengthen a consumer’s References
relationship with a brand and foster long-term engagement. In
addition, reviews driven by social rewards may be perceived as Abendroth, L.J. and Heyman, J.E. (2013), “Honesty is the best
more authentic and trustworthy. Consumers often perceive policy: the effects of disclosure in word-of-mouth
reviews motivated by economic rewards with skepticism, marketing”, Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol. 19
suspecting that the individuals providing reviews might be No. 4, pp. 245-257.
providing positive feedback merely for the financial gain. Adjei, M.T., Zhang, N., Bagherzadeh, R., Farhang, M. and
Although consumers of individualistic cultures may not engage as Bhattarai, A. (2023), “Enhancing consumer online reviews:
much in eWOM if social rewards are offered, they will perceive the role of moral identity”, Journal of Research in Interactive
the eWOM as more useful and thus valid for their future Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 110-125.
purchases. Based on the aforementioned recommendation, Alhidari, A., Iyer, P. and Paswan, A. (2015), “Personal level
managers should refrain from offering economic rewards when antecedents of eWOM and purchase intention, on social
possible and instead devote time and resources to make their networking sites”, Journal of Customer Behaviour, Vol. 14
high-quality online reviews more visible. No. 2, pp. 107-125.
Arora, A.S., Arora, A. and Taras, V. (2019), “The moderating
role of culture in social media-based spatial imagery,
Limitations and future research
consumer xenocentrism, and word-of-mouth for global
There are certain limitations in this research, some of which virtual teams”, International Journal of Cross Cultural
may drive future research in the area. First, owing to the Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 160-193.
controlled nature of the experiment, consumers were asked to Baek, H., Ahn, J. and Choi, Y. (2012), “Helpfulness of online
make interpretations of their recent online purchases, where consumer reviews: Readers’ objectives and review cues”,
there could be some confounding variables involved, such as International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 17 No. 2,
the delivery time, consumers’ past experience with the seller, pp. 99-126.
 Amplified word-of-mouth strategies Journal of Consumer Marketing
Monika Rawal et al.

Bagherzadeh, R. and Bayat, R. (2016), “Investigating online Erkan, I. and Evans, C. (2018), “Social media or shopping
consumer behavior in Iran based on the theory of planned websites? The influence of eWOM on consumers’ online
behavior”, Modern Applied Science, Vol. 10 No. 4, p. 21. purchase intentions”, Journal of Marketing Communications,
Bagherzadeh, R., Rawal, M. and Saavedra, J.L. (2017), Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 617-632.
“Compromise and attraction effects under interdependent Erskine, R. (2018), “Study: 97% of business owners say online
and independent Self-Construal”, Association of Marketing reputation management is important—here’s how to keep
Theory and Practice Proceedings 2017, p. 52, available at: up”, Entrepreneurs, available at: www.forbes.com/sites/
https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/amtp-proceedings_ ryanerskine/2018/07/30/study-97-of-business-owners-say-
2017/52 online-reputation-management-is-important-heres-how-
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (2012), “Specification, evaluation, to-keep-up/#826fc2d6c029 (accessed 6 February 2023).
and interpretation of structural equation models”, Journal of Farzin, M. and Fattahi, M. (2018), “eWOM through social
the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 8-34. networking sites and impact on purchase intention and
Banerjee, S. and Chai, L. (2019), “Effect of individualism on brand image in Iran”, Journal of Advances in Management
online user ratings: theory and evidence”, Journal of Global Research, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 161-183.
Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 377-398. Festinger, L. (1957), A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Stanford
Baykal, B. and Hesapci Karaca, O. (2022), “Recommendation University Press, Stanford, CA.
matters: how does your social capital engage you in Fong, J. and Burton, S. (2008), “A cross cultural comparison of
eWOM?”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 39 No. 7, electronic word-of-mouth and country-of-origin effects”,
pp. 691-707. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 233-242.
Brown, J., Broderick, A.J. and Lee, N. (2007), “Word of mouth Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural
communication within online communities: conceptualizing equation models with unobservable variables and measurement
the online social network”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 2-20. Freedman, M. (2023), “How businesses are collecting data
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T. and Gosling, S.D. (2011), (and what they’re doing with it”, Business News Daily,
“Amazon’s mechanical Turk: a new source of inexpensive, available at: www.businessnewsdaily.com/10625-businesses-
yet high-quality, data?”, Perspectives on Psychological Science, collecting-data.html (accessed 6 February 2023).
Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 3-5. Gummer, T., Roßmann, J. and Silber, H. (2021), “Using
Bulut, Z.A. and Karabulut, A.N. (2018), “Examining the role instructed response items as attention checks in web surveys:
of two aspects of eWOM in online repurchase intention: an properties and implementation”, Sociological Methods &
integrated trust–loyalty perspective”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 238-264.
Behaviour, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 407-417. Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R. and Black, W. (1998),
Chandler, J.J. and Paolacci, G. (2017), “Lie for a dime: when Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper
most prescreening responses are honest but most study Saddle River, NJ.
participants are impostors”, Social Psychological and Hair, J.F. Jr., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E.
Personality Science, Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 500-508. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed., Prentice Hall,
Chin, W.W. (1998), “The partial least squares approach to Upper Saddle River, NJ.
structural equation modelling”, Modern Methods for Business Hayes, A.F. (2013), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and
Research, Vol. 295 No. 1, pp. 295-336. Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach,
Clement, R.W. and Krueger, J. (2002), “Social categorization The Guilford Press, New York, NY.
moderates social projection”, Journal of Experimental Social Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K.P., Walsh, G. and Gremler,
Psychology, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 219-231. D.D. (2004), “Electronic word-of-mouth via consumer-
David, M.E. (2018), “I love the product but will you? The role opinion platforms: what motivates consumers to articulate
of interpersonal attachment styles in social projection”, themselves on the internet?”, Journal of Interactive Marketing,
Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 197-209. Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 38-52.
Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (1985), Intrinsic Motivation and Self- Hofstede, G. (2001), “Culture’s recent consequences: using
Determination in Human Behavior, Plenun, New York, NY. dimension scores in theory and research”, International
Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Pandey, N., Pandey, N. and Mishra, Journal of Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 1 No. 1,
A. (2021), “Mapping the electronic word-of-mouth pp. 11-17.
(eWOM) research: a systematic review and bibliometric Hofstede, G. (2011), “Dimensionalizing cultures: the Hofstede
analysis”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 135, pp. 758-773. model in context”, Online Readings in Psychology and Culture,
Duan, Y., Chen, C. and Huo, J. (2019), “The impact of Vol. 2 No. 1, p. 8.
monetary rewards for online reviews”, Asia Pacific Journal of Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit
Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 1486-1515. indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria
Erdil, T.S., Örcan, O. and Ayar, B. (2019), “Consumer versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling: A
perceptions of user experience and risk: a research on online Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55.
shopping” in Özs ahin, M. (Ed.), Strategic Management in an Ismagilova, E., Rana, N.P., Slade, E.L. and Dwivedi, Y.K.
International Environment: The New Challenges for International (2021), “A meta-analysis of the factors affecting eWOM
Business and Logistics in the Age of Industry 4.0, Future Academy, providing behaviour”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 55
Poznan, Poland, pp. 45-60. No. 4, pp. 1067-1102.
 Amplified word-of-mouth strategies Journal of Consumer Marketing
Monika Rawal et al.

Iyengar, S.S. and Lepper, M.R. (1999), “Rethinking the value Mor, S., Toma, C., Schweinsberg, M. and Ames, D. (2019),
of choice: a cultural perspective on intrinsic motivation”, “Pathways to intercultural accuracy: social projection
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 3, processes and core cultural values”, European Journal of
p. 349. Social Psychology, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 47-62.
Jim
enez, F.R. and Mendoza, N.A. (2013), “Too popular to Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill,
ignore: the influence of online reviews on purchase intentions New York, NY.
of search and experience products”, Journal of Interactive Park, D.H., Lee, J. and Han, I. (2007), “The effect of online
Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 226-235. consumer reviews on consumer purchasing intention: the
Jones, M.A., Mothersbaugh, D.L. and Beatty, S.E. (2003), moderating role of involvement”, International Journal of
“The effects of locational convenience on customer Electronic Commerce, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 125-148.
repurchase intentions across service types”, Journal of Perdue, B.C. and Summers, J.O. (1986), “Checking the
Services Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 701-712. success of manipulations in marketing experiments”, Journal
Kala, D. and Chaubey, D.S. (2018), “The effect of eWOM of Marketing Research, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 317-326.
communication on brand image and purchase intention Post, J. (2023), “Best customer tracking methods for your small
towards lifestyle products in India”, International Journal of business”, available at: www.business.com/articles/customer-
Services, Economics and Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, tracking/ (accessed 6 February 2023).
pp. 143-157. Praharjo, A., Kusumawati. and A., Law. (2016), “The impact
Karmarkar, U.R. and Tormala, Z.L. (2010), “Believe me, I of electronic word of mouth on repurchase intention
have no idea what I’m talking about: the effects of source mediated by brand loyalty and perceived risk”, South East
certainty on consumer involvement and persuasion”, Journal Asia Journal of Contemporary Business, Economics and Law,
of Consumer Research, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 1033-1049. Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 62-69.
Kelley, C.M. and Jacoby, L.L. (1996), “Adult egocentrism: Qin, Y.S. (2020), “Fostering brand–consumer interactions in
subjective experience versus analytic bases for judgment”, social media: the role of social media uses and gratifications”,
Journal of Memory and Language, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 157-175. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 3,
Kreuger, J. (1988), “On the perception of social consensus”, pp. 337-354.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 30, Rawal, M. and Saavedra, J.L. (2017), “Mediating effect of
pp. 163-238. word-of-mouth in movie theatre industry”, Journal of Media
Krueger, J. and Clement, R.W. (1994), “The truly false and Communication Studies, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 17-23.
consensus effect: an ineradicable and egocentric bias in social Reimer, T. and Benkenstein, M. (2016), “Altruistic eWOM
perception”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, marketing: more than an alternative to monetary incentives”,
Vol. 67 No. 4, p. 596. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 31,
Kulmala, M., Mesiranta, N. and Tuominen, P. (2013), pp. 323-333.
“Organic and amplified eWOM in consumer fashion blogs”, Robbins, J.M. and Krueger, J.I. (2005), “Social projection to
Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An ingroups and outgroups: a review and meta-analysis”,
International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 20-37. Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 9 No. 1,
Kusawat, P. and Teerakapibal, S. (2022), “Cross-cultural pp. 32-47.
electronic word-of-mouth: a systematic literature review”, Rummel, A. and Feinberg, R. (1988), “Cognitive evaluation
Spanish Journal of Marketing – ESIC, Vol. 28 No. 2, theory: a meta-analytic review of the literature”, Social
pp. 126-143, doi: 10.1108/SJME-06-2021-0116. Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, Vol. 16
Lee, S.-G., Trimi, S. and Yang, C.-G. (2018), “Perceived usefulness No. 2, pp. 147-164.
factors of online reviews: a study of amazon.com”, Journal of Saavedra Torres, J.L., Dadgar, O. and Rawal, M. (2018),
Computer Information Systems, Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 344-352. “Style of thinking as moderator of drivers of consumer brand
Leong, C.M., Loi, A.M.W. and Woon, S. (2021), “The identification: an abstract”, Back to the Future: Using
influence of social media eWOM information on purchase Marketing Basics to Provide Customer Value: Proceedings
intention”, Journal of Marketing Analytics, Vol. 10 No. 2, of the 2017 Academy of Marketing Science (AMS) Annual
pp. 1-13. Conference, pp. 61-62, Springer International Publishing.
Luo, C., Wu, J., Shi, Y. and Xu, Y. (2014), “The effects of Saavedra Torres, J.L., Rawal, M. and Bagherzadeh, R. (2020),
individualism–collectivism cultural orientation on eWOM “Role of brand attachment in customers’ evaluation of
information”, International Journal of Information Management, service failure”, Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 446-456. Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 377-391.
Martin, W.C. (2014), “Independent versus incentivized word- Sangwan, S. and Agarwal, P. (2019), “Effect of consumer self-
of-mouth: effects on listeners”, Academy of Marketing Studies confidence on information search and dissemination:
Journal, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 1-10. mediating role of subjective knowledge”, International
Matute, J., Polo-Redondo, Y. and Utrillas, A. (2016), “The Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 46-57.
influence of EWOM characteristics on online repurchase Schutt, A. (2022), “Why you shouldn’t incentivize customer
intention: mediating roles of trust and perceived usefulness”, reviews”, available at: https://broadly.com/blog/why-you-
Online Information Review, Vol. 40 No. 7, pp. 1090-1110. shouldnt-incentivize-customer-reviews/ (accessed 6 February
Melancon, J.P., Noble, S.M. and Noble, C.H. (2011), 2023).
“Managing rewards to enhance relational worth”, Journal of Serrano-Cinca, C., Fuertes-Call
en, Y. and Guti
errez-Nieto, B.
the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 341-362. (2007), “Online reporting by banks: a structural modelling
 Amplified word-of-mouth strategies Journal of Consumer Marketing
Monika Rawal et al.

approach”, Online Information Review, Vol. 31 No. 3, online purchase intention in emerging markets: a Mexican
pp. 310-332. perspective”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing,
Sivadas, E., Bruvold, N.T. and Nelson, M.R. (2008), “A Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 287-299.
reduced version of the horizontal and vertical individualism Wang, P. and Li, H. (2019), “Understanding the antecedents
and collectivism scale: a four-country assessment”, Journal of and consequences of the perceived usefulness of travel review
Business Research, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 201-210. websites”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Sohn, D. (2009), “Disentangling the effects of social network Management, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 1086-1103.
density on electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) intention”, Whitler, K.A. (2014), “Why word of mouth is the most
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 14 No. 2, important social media”, Forbes, 17 July, available at: www.
pp. 352-367. forbes.com/sites/kimberlywhitler/2014/07/17/why-word-of-
Tata, S.V., Prashar, S. and Gupta, S. (2020), “An examination mouth-marketing-is-the-most-important-social-media/?sh¼
of the role of review valence and review source in varying 5cce514654a8 (accessed 6 February 2023).
consumption contexts on purchase decision”, Journal of Zhang, N. (2014), “Consumer involvement in
Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 52 No. 2, p. 101734. reviewing products online: a self-determination theory
Ventre, I. and Kolbe, D. (2020), “The impact of perceived perspective”, dissertation, Southern Illinois University
usefulness of online reviews, trust and perceived risk on Carbondale.
 Amplified word-of-mouth strategies Journal of Consumer Marketing
Monika Rawal et al.

Appendix 1

Figure A1 Social rewards condition

Figure A2 Economic rewards condition – USA

 Amplified word-of-mouth strategies Journal of Consumer Marketing
Monika Rawal et al.

Appendix 2

Table A1 Model constructs

Factor Cronbach’s
Construct Items loading alpha CR AVE
eWOM Unlikely – Likely 0.910 0.906 0.884 0.719
Based on Karmarkar and Tormala (2010) Improbable – Probable 0.759
Impossible – Possible 0.868
Perceived usefulness of online reviews Online consumer reviews of this seller are useful 0.838 0.885 0.874 0.634
Based on Karmarkar and Tormala (2010) Online consumer reviews of this seller make purchasing easier 0.801
Online consumer reviews of this seller make a smarter shopper 0.761
Online consumer reviews of this seller are very beneficial 0.785
Repurchase intentions Very unlikely – Very likely 0.798 0.868 0.837 0.632
Based on Karmarkar and Tormala (2010) Very improbable – Very probable 0.764
Impossible – Possible 0.822
Source: Authors’ own creation

Corresponding author
Ramin Bagherzadeh can be contacted at: Ramin.
[email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]