Received: 14 August 2022 Accepted: 16 August 2022

DOI: 10.1111/ijcs.12861

EDITORIAL

Theory generation from literature reviews: A methodological

guidance

Rodoula H. Tsiotsou1 | Bernadett Koles2 | Justin Paul3,4 |

5
Sandra Maria Correia Loureiro

1
Department of Business Administration,
Marketing Laboratory MARLAB, University of Abstract
Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Greece
This article aims to assist researchers in navigating the path to theory creation by
2

Department of Marketing and Sales, IESEG
School of Management, Paris, France
investigating how they might build theory through literature reviews. In particular,
3
Graduate School of Business, University of we propose and elaborate upon the Theory Generation from Literature Review
Puerto Rico, San Juan, PR, USA (TGLR) process, capturing different methods and techniques to be applied depending
4
Henley Business School, University of
Reading, Reading, UK
on the level of development and saturation characterizing the focal area of inquiry. In
5
Department of Marketing, Operations and the second part of the article, we briefly present the 21 articles conducting system-
General Management, Iscte-Instituto atic literature reviews on consumer research topics selected for this special issue
Universitário de Lisboa and Business Research
Unit (BRU-IUL), Lisbon, Portugal in IJCS.

Correspondence KEYWORDS
Rodoula H. Tsiotsou Department of Business
customer behaviour, consumer research, research question, review protocol, systematic
Administration, Marketing Laboratory
literature review, theory building
MARLAB, University of Macedonia,
156 Egnatia Street, TK 54006, Thessaloniki,
Greece.
Email: rtsiotsou@uom.edu.gr

Literature reviews play a critical role in generating knowledge, initi-
ating new arguments, and altering research directions (Hoon &
Baluch, 2019; Kunisch et al., 2018; Paul, Lim, et al., 2021). Review
articles identify and synthesize relevant literature to provide
readers with a state-of-the-art understanding of the research topic
by comparing and contrasting the findings of previous studies in a
domain, identifying knowledge gaps, and providing future research
directions (Paul & Criado, 2020). At the same time, some reviews
have limited scope because they fail to challenge, enrich, or
advance current theoretical perspectives (Breslin & Gatrell, 2020;
Kabadayi & Tsiotsou, 2022). Recently, Kabadayi and Tsiotsou
(2022) proposed the Triple-A framework for conducting research.
According to the authors, research should be Authentic, Advancing,
and Applicable to move a topic forward. In a similar vein, literature
reviews can be used not only for examining the available research
on a topic but also for advancing current knowledge through theo-
rizing. That is, to build theory by assessing a body (or bodies) of
past research (Durach et al., 2021; Loureiro et al., 2020; Paul &
Barari, 2022; Post et al., 2020). However, researchers have yet to
recognize the potential of literature reviews to assist in creating
theory and advancing a research domain (Durach et al., 2021).
Hoon and Baluch (2019, p. 1246) define theorizing from reviews as
“activities of conceiving and constructing out of the phenomenal
world—as represented in the review data—with extant theory to inform
subsequent work.”
Literature reviews play a critical role in affecting the development
and evolution of theory within an area of study. Reviews allow
researchers to assess what scholars have accomplished and to pro-
pose new conceptualizations and paths for future study. In our digi-
tally infused global context, this theory-building function is becoming
even more significant, accentuating the need for research that chal-
lenges prevailing traditional paradigms and establishes new theoretical
routes (Breslin et al., 2020). Theorizing can be viewed along a contin-
uum, beginning with initial hunches and exploratory insights, followed
by explanations and models, and ultimately ending up with “full-
fledged theories” (Cunliffe, 2018).
In literature reviews, academics use several approaches to
organizing the existing body of research, including the stimulus-
organism-response (SOR), the antecedents-decisions-outcomes
(ADO) framework propounded by Paul and Benito (2018),

Int J Consum Stud. 2022;46:1505–1516. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ijcs © 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 1505

1506
stakeholder theory, or the theory, context, and method (TCM)
framework (Akhmedova et al., 2021; Lim et al., 2021; Loureiro
et al., 2021; Paul et al., 2017; Tsiotsou & Boukis, 2022). These
approaches are considered “useful” because they are not necessar-
ily expected to yield conceptual contributions that provide substan-
tial and novel insights (Paul, Merchant, et al., 2021). In order for
literature reviews to make significant conceptual contributions,
they need to fulfill the requirement of offering “a strategic platform
for new directions in research, and making a difference to how scholars
might conceptualize research in their respective fields” (Gatrell &
Breslin, 2017, p. 1). Conducting a review also requires researchers
to cross disciplinary boundaries in order to tap into the knowledge
and borrow ideas from multiple domains (e.g., Mishra et al., 2021).
Consequently, embracing a higher-risk approach might strengthen
theoretical contributions and provide a strategic platform for
scholars to think differently about their research (Breslin &
Gatrell, 2020; Kunisch et al., 2018).
Given the relevance and scarcity of guidance as to how to con-
duct literature reviews that enable theory creation, the purpose of the
present article is to assist researchers in navigating through such a
mission. More specifically, by proposing a TGLR processual approach,
we provide researchers with the critical features underlying theory-
building reviews. As a starting point, TGLR highlights that “low-risk”
approaches concern the mere organization of frameworks from the
extant literature, but not theory building per se. A range of theorizing
through review approaches will be presented and discussed briefly to
provide concrete guidance for academics on the appropriate avenues
and strategies that might lead them to develop the contributions of
their review papers. Finally, we conclude the article by aligning theo-
rizing through reviews with the objectives of IJCS and briefly present
the articles included in the Special Issue.
1 | THEORY GENERATING THROUGH THE
LITERATURE REVIEW PROCESS
1.1 | The TGLR process
Literature reviews have contributed to the development of frame-
works, the advancement of specific paradigms, and the provision of
insights into management practice (Hoon & Baluch, 2019;
Kabadayi & Tsiotsou, 2022; Kunisch et al., 2018). Rather than being
only comprehensive or state-of-the-art systematic reviews on a spe-
cific topic, review articles should be theoretically driven with an inte-
grative and generative approach. That opens up or redirects streams
of research by linking avenues that enable theoretical contributions
through various forms of synthesis (Torraco, 2016). Hence, review
articles should aim for a theoretical contribution, in turn requiring
them to be analytical, with implications for advancing knowledge
and sparking debate in the research stream of interest (Gatrell &
Breslin, 2017).
A review article should offer a theoretical contribution by focus-
ing on examining, evaluating, and demonstrating how the theory can
14706431, 2022, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12861 by Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, Wiley Online Library on [17/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
TSIOTSOU ET AL.
be enhanced in the focal field of study as opposed to merely mapping
existing knowledge. A theory-generating literature review should
encourage academics to reconsider a specific subject, theory, issue,
phenomenon, or another area of concern in a specific domain. A liter-
ature review article should explain why the literature fills an essential
theoretical gap, enigma, or anomaly, how the approach is used to
advance theory, and what the review format will be. To guide authors
in how to conduct and write a theory-building literature review, we
propose the TGLR processual approach (Figure 1).
Following the TGLR, authors need to start by clarifying their
review's scope and objective based on the level of maturity and
extent of saturation characterizing the topic under investigation. In
the case of mature topics with a significant volume of extant research,
a justification of the relevance of the literature review is mandatory.
For topics representing medium-level maturity and saturation, authors
need to demonstrate the value and depth of the chosen topic. For
emerging topics, authors need to justify why the chosen topic has suf-
ficient substance and quantity to warrant a review (Post et al., 2020;
Webster & Watson, 2002).
As a second step, the authors need to define the review questions
that will drive the literature review after assessing their importance
and relevance to theory, practice, and/or policy-making.
In the third step, it is essential to explain the methodological
approach by describing and justifying the study design. Literature
reviews can be systematic quantitative reviews following specific pro-
tocols; qualitative, narrative reviews discussing ideas of experienced
authors in the research topic; or hybrid/mixed reviews combining
quantitative and qualitative approaches with text mining techniques
(Loureiro et al., 2021; Paul, Merchant, et al., 2021; Tsiotsou &
Boukis, 2022; Vrontis & Christofi, 2021). Authors need to describe
and justify their study design explaining why a particular method cho-
sen is appropriate for exploring the specific topic.
As a fourth step, the authors need to clearly define the review pro-
tocol they implemented to ensure the objectivity, transparency, and
inclusiveness of their literature search. For instance, in quantitative
reviews, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and
Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol has been used widely (Roschk
et al., 2017; Tsiotsou & Boukis, 2022). However, Paul, Lim, et al. (2021)
recently proposed an even more comprehensive approach, namely the
Scientific Procedures and Rationales for Systematic Literature Reviews
protocol (SPAR-4-SLR). According to SPAR-4-SLR (Paul, Lim,
et al., 2021), the following conditions need to be met in order to warrant
conducting a systematic literature review: (i) there is a substantial vol-
ume of publications; (ii) no other review is available in the given domain
in recent years; (iii) the available reviews have faults and shortcomings.
In qualitative reviews, some notable examples include the Realist and
Meta-Narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards (RAMESES)
(Wong et al., 2013); the Relevance, Appropriateness, Transparency,
Soundness (RATS) (Clark, 2003); and finally, the Critical Appraisal Skills
Program (CASP) (Dixon-Woods et al., 2007) that have been proposed as
ways to identify and evaluate the literature protocols.
In the fifth step, the approaches for organizing the body of litera-
ture must be presented. Organizational frameworks such as the
 14706431, 2022, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12861 by Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, Wiley Online Library on [17/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
TSIOTSOU ET AL. 1507

F I G U R E 1 The Theory
Generation from Literature
Review (TGLR) process

Stimulus-Organism-Response (SOR), the Antecedents-Decisions- 1.2 | Methodological approaches

Outcomes (ADO), the Actors-Antecedents-Decisions-Outcomes
(AADO), the Theory, Context, and Method (TCM), and finally the
Theory-Construct-Characteristics-Methods (TCCM) might be useful in
helping researchers present and communicate their findings
(Akhmedova et al., 2021; Lim et al., 2021; Paul & Benito, 2018;
Tsiotsou & Boukis, 2022). As an additional layer, authors could orga-
nize their findings in thematic clusters or use a blend incorporating
both frameworks and thematic clusters (Tsiotsou & Boukis, 2022).
As the sixth and final step, based on the critical assessment and
synthesis foundations of an integrated synthetic review, there are
numerous significant, intriguing, and promising pathways and direc-
tions for producing theory based on a review article. In the following
section, some recently proposed methodological approaches will be
presented. We advise authors to choose the method and forms or
their combinations that are most appropriate given the scope and
maturity or saturation level of their research topic.
Only articles that analyze and synthesize the research to produce new
ways of thinking about a specific topic or phenomenon—rather than
just reporting on and presenting a descriptive composite of past
research—have the potential to contribute to theory. Discovering such
innovative insights requires a thorough and in-depth examination of
the core body (or bodies) of the literature, with a critical perspective
that can challenge traditional approaches and the status quo (Post
et al., 2020). These paradigm shifts should be logical, authentic, con-
vincing, and ideally embrace an interdisciplinary orientation to break
down academic barriers and evoke new creative pathways to address
complex research problems.
Three states of theory along a continuum have been proposed in
the literature: nascent, intermediate, and mature (Edmondson &
McManus, 2007). The absence of definitions and concepts or incon-
sistencies, along with very little knowledge and agreement on key
 14706431, 2022, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12861 by Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, Wiley Online Library on [17/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
1508 TSIOTSOU ET AL.

TABLE 1 Methods for theory generation from literature reviews

Post et al. (2020)—7 avenues of Breslin and Gatrell (2020)—“miner-prospector

theorizing in review papers
• Exposing emerging perspectives
• Analyzing assumptions
• Clarifying constructs
• Establishing boundary conditions in
review papers
• Testing new theory
• Theorizing with systems theory
• Theorizing with mechanisms
Forms of synthesizing the literature
• State a research agenda
• Develop a taxonomy of mechanisms
• Test an alternative model or
conceptual framework
• Conduct a meta-analysis
• Develop a meta-theory
continuum” Durach et al. (2021)—“consistency model”
• Identifying conceptual gaps (Miner) Purpose of review X State of theory:
• Organizing and categorizing literatures • Exploratory/Nascent: Inductive theory building
(Miner) • Exploratory-Explanatory/Intermediate:
• Problematizing the literature (Miner) Contextualized explanations
• Identifying and exposing contradictions • Explanatory/Intermediate or Mature: Theory
(Miner) testing
• Transferring theories across domains • Making sense/Nascent or Intermediate or Mature:
(Prospector) Interpretive sense-making
• Developing analogies and metaphors across
domains (Prospector)
• Blending and merging literatures across
domains (Prospector)
• Setting out new narratives and
conceptualizations (Prospector)
Features of reviews
• Transparency
• Inclusivity
• Critical assessment

phenomena and their linkages, correspond to a nascent theoretical
state. A medium-level or intermediate theoretical state refers to
instances where the literature has some grasp of the fundamental
“what,” “why,” and “how” issues of a particular phenomenon. At the
same time, this state still lacks specific critical solutions to queries
such as “for whom,” “under what conditions,” and “when.” Additional
ideas and greater knowledge concerning the relationships under con-
sideration are frequently required for such an intermediate level of
theory. A mature theoretical state, however, requires broad consensus
on definitions and ideas while postulating the qualities and conditions
that define “for whom,” “under what conditions,” and “when” a spe-
cific occurrence may take place (Durach et al., 2021; Edmondson &
McManus, 2007).
Recently, several methodological approaches have been proposed
to guide scholars to theorize from literature reviews, including the
Seven-Avenues Approach by Post et al. (2020); the “Miner-Prospector
Continuum” proposed by Breslin and Gatrell (2020); and the
“Consistency Model” introduced by Durach et al. (2021) (see Table 1
for further details).
Post et al. (2020) proposed seven avenues for advancing theory
with literature reviews that include: exposing emerging perspectives,
analyzing assumptions, clarifying constructs, establishing boundary
conditions, testing new theory, theorizing with systems theory, and
theorizing with mechanisms in review papers. These distinctive ave-
nues were established based on existing literature of state-of-the-art
review articles and an in-depth assessments of theory-building review
papers. Post et al. (2020) also suggested five forms for synthesizing
the literature corresponding to each theory-building avenue. These
include developing a research agenda by identifying relevant mecha-
nisms, creating a taxonomy of the identified mechanisms, identifying
alternative models, conducting a meta-analysis to test the existing
mechanisms, and developing a meta-theory by applying the mecha-
nisms to other phenomena.
Breslin and Gatrell (2020) explained theorizing through literature
reviews using the metaphor of a Miner-Prospector Continuum. They
identified eight strategies that fall along a continuum from miners—
corresponding to those whose contributions are limited to an estab-
lished domain; to prospectors—those who are more likely to step out
of disciplinary limits, introduce new ideas, and reach beyond and
across knowledge silos. Breslin and Gatrell (2020) recognized the
importance of both miner and prospector methods; however, they
favor prospector reviews because they aid research in addressing
complex phenomena. The authors also recommend three features that
literature reviews should have: transparency, inclusiveness, and critical
assessment. Transparency refers to reporting how the literature is
identified, analyzed, and interpreted; inclusiveness entails the consid-
eration of all relevant literature to the review's objectives; and critical
assessment refers to interpretation and analysis, demonstrating a
deep understanding of the knowledge base by identifying abnormali-
ties and gaps (Elsbach & van Knippenberg, 2018).
Recently, Durach et al. (2021) proposed the “Consistency Model”
representing a crossroad between the maturity state of theory and
the selected review type. Based on this framework, the authors cate-
gorized literature reviews into four types: inductive theory building,
contextualized explanations, theory testing, and interpretative sense-
making. The efficiency of a review type can be determined by the cur-
rent theory stage, which can vary from nascent through intermediate
to mature.
An inductive theory-building approach to a literature review
entails the careful assessment and critique of the existing literature
aiming to identify themes, patterns, relationships, and knowledge gaps
through within—as well as cross-study analyses (Elsbach & van

TSIOTSOU ET AL.
Knippenberg, 2018). Inductive reviews are appropriate when the state
of theory is nascent and the scope of the review is exploratory.
Contextualized reviews criticize causal homogeneity or processes
that lead to causality similarly in all situations (Miller & Tsang, 2011).
This category is most relevant when the theory state is at an inter-
mediate level and the purpose of the review is explanatory.
Theory-testing reviews or meta-analytic approaches seek to authenti-
cate and consolidate knowledge by formally testing existing propositions
while rejecting current assumptions (Goldsby & Autry, 2011), challenging
and questioning prior and competing theories (Rosenzweig &
Easton, 2010). This review type is appropriate when the theory state is
intermediate or mature, and the scope is explanatory.
The interpretive sense-making review is a unique literature
review based on the interpretive paradigm and can be applied to all
states of theory (nascent, intermediate, and mature). Theorizing, in
this case, is not a linear problem-solving process; instead, it is a
progressive form of sense-making that involves simultaneous parallel
processing (Weick, 1989) in the pursuit of understanding the
subjective perspective of an individual actor (Darby et al., 2019). The
term “interpretative” highlights the act of contrasting different
motives, meanings, and experiences and placing actors in proper social
contexts while avoiding generalizations (Wieland, 2021).
In the above section, we presented an overview of leading frame-
works that can be used to guide the methodological underpinnings of
TGLRs. We provided clarifications for scholars as to where and how
reviews can be positioned, as well as assisted authors in understand-
ing each method's requirements, risks, and advantages. Considering
these relationships and steps carefully, we aim to enable scholars to
engage in decision-making and ultimately in a selection process that is
proactive and strategically sound, contemplating tradition, conve-
nience, and the undertaking of new challenges.
2 | A L I G N I N G R E V I E W S OF LI T E R A T U R E
WI T H T H E A I M S A N D S CO P E O F T H E
JOURNAL
International Journal of Consumer Studies (IJCS) seeks theory-
development reviews that add new perspectives to knowledge in con-
sumer studies. IJCS is inclusive and receptive to a broad diversity of
theoretical ideas, methodologies, and philosophical foundations.
Furthermore, with respect to the general approach of IJCS, a well-
written theory-building review should frame itself within the broader
framework of consumer studies. It demonstrates the reasons its
contents and ideas are valuable to readers who are not directly
concerned with the issue and increases, thus, the intellectual impact
of the review article.
IJCS aims to advance knowledge in consumer studies by present-
ing new ideas derived from reflections on existing theories and empir-
ical research having the potential to revolutionize the way we
comprehend and interpret them. A theory-generating review article
prompts academics to reconsider their future research after gaining
fresh insights from the review, providing new research directions, and
14706431, 2022, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12861 by Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, Wiley Online Library on [17/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
1509
opening new avenues for investigation. We hope our editorial will
inspire and challenge authors when designing and conducting reviews
to elevate their value by theorizing from them.
The selection of articles using diverse approaches and topics is an
important aspect of this special issue of IJCS. The articles of this spe-
cial issue investigate emerging research topics and guide researchers
to the most relevant and timely research questions. The 21 articles
have been grouped into four categories. The first category includes
eight articles on Transformative Service Research (TSR) and Transforma-
tive Consumer Research (TCR). The articles in this group deal with the
literature on poverty issues (BoP) (Vishnoi et al., 2022), social exclu-
sion (Rawat et al., 2022, education and well-being (Khatri &
Duggal, 2022), children as consumers (Sigirci et al., 2022), elderly as
consumers experiencing vulnerabilities (Berg & Liljedal, 2022), the role
diversity training on consumer experiences (Thakur & Dhar, 2022) and
healthy consumption behavior (Nguyen et al., 2022). Given that both
perspectives, TSR and TCR, are attracting increasing research atten-
tion (Tsiotsou & Diehl, 2022), we hope that these articles will provide
valuable future research directions.
Another group of articles related to the previous category (it could
be a sub-category of environmental-related issues) is Consumer Social
Responsibility, which includes four articles. The articles map socially
responsible consumption (Falcão & Roseira, 2022), identify determi-
nants of consumer green innovation behavior (Flores & Jansson, 2022),
e-waste consumer behavior (Gilal et al., 2022), and sustainable fashion
(Busalim et al., 2022). The third category includes four articles on the
Digital World and New technologies. This group of articles covers topics
such as digital consumer behavior (Güngör & Çadırcı, 2022) and adver-
tising (Moradi & Zihagh, 2022), the use of collaborative economy plat-
forms (Ertz & Sarigöllü, 2022), and consumers' interactions with social
robots (Blaurock et al., 2022). The fourth category includes six articles
that cover Various Consumer Behavior Themes such as double deviation
in services (Suresh & Chawla, 2022), opportunity cost (Haghpour
et al., 2022), brand personality (Ghorbani et al., 2022) and brand hate
behavior (Yadav & Chakrabarti, 2022), consumer collecting behavior
(Lee et al., 2021) and neuroscience research in consumer behavior
(Oliveira et al., 2022). Next, we briefly present the articles of the special
issue based on the above categorization.
2.1 | Transformative service research and
transformative consumer research
Recently marketing scholars proposed the possibility of serving the
poor profitably while alleviating poverty, demonstrating that BoP is a
large market that merits the attention of profit-seeking firms. In their
article titled “Marketing at the bottom of the pyramid: Literature review
and future research agenda,” by Vishnoi et al. (2022) explore the exist-
ing Bottom/Base of the Pyramid (BoP) literature in the marketing
domain. The authors analyzed 88 articles published from 2000 to
2021 to present a comprehensive view of the marketing literature on
BoP, classifying it into five main themes: conceptualizing poverty,
market assessment, marketing strategy, consumer behavior, and the

1510
role of technology. Within each of these themes, the analysis of the
extant literature finds main emphasis areas. The authors conclude
with recommendations for more study on the indicated thrust areas,
geographical settings, and methodology used. In addition, the work
incorporates essential theoretical and practical consequences.
The article titled “Social exclusion and consumer responses: A com-
prehensive review and theoretical framework” by Rawat et al. (2022)
reviewed social exclusion in the consumption context. While social
exclusion in the consuming environment has received much research
attention recently, the literature remains fragmented and underex-
plored. Using the “Scientific Procedures and Rationales for Systematic
Literature Review” (SPAR-4-SLR) protocol supported by the TCCM
framework, the authors provide directions for future research and
enable marketers and public policymakers to understand the needs of
socially excluded individuals and make more inclusive decisions.
The concept of students-as-consumers has gained traction with
the neo-liberal agenda taking root in higher education. A critical value
that these consumers look for and derive from their tertiary education
is well-being. This calls for synthesizing existing literature to facilitate
an aggregate understanding of the construct. In their review titled
“Well-being of higher education consumers: A review and research
agenda” by Khatri and Duggal (2022) integrate the bulk of psychologi-
cal, higher education, and consumer literature on the well-being of
students to arrive at a holistic understanding of this complex phenom-
enon. To achieve this, a framework-based systematic review of
112 articles from the last two decades was conducted using a combi-
nation of two well-established organizing frameworks to generate
structured insights; namely the antecedents, decisions, and outcomes
(ADO) framework (Paul & Benito, 2018) and the theories, contexts,
and methods (TCCM) framework (Tsiotsou & Boukis, 2022).
Children have received a great deal of research attention in vari-
ous academic fields within the social sciences, including marketing.
The study of Sigirci et al. (2022), titled “Children in marketing: A review,
synthesis and research agenda,” investigates 423 articles from
marketing-related journals to trace the historical evolution of the
studies on “children.” They found that the major subareas, capturing
the literature on children and marketing, concern children's consumer
socialization and their role in the family decision-making process,
materialism, vulnerability and ethical matters, food marketing, brand-
ing, and advertising. The authors identified under-developed areas
such as sustainability, technology/digitalization, and cross-cultural dif-
ferences and recommended future avenues for scholars interested in
further exploring these areas.
In their article titled “Elderly consumers in marketing research: A
systematic literature review and directions for future research” by Berg
and Liljedal (2022) integrated the past and present state of research
into a comprehensive theoretical framework. After having analyzed
209 marketing research articles capturing several decades of relevant
work, the authors identified 13 research topics aggregated into three
themes: (1) describing and defining the elderly market segment,
(2) age changes and the elderly consumer, and (3) marketing responses
of elderly consumers. In terms of future research, the authors encour-
age scholars to now only explore new topics but also to verify and
14706431, 2022, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12861 by Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, Wiley Online Library on [17/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
TSIOTSOU ET AL.
replicate earlier work to explore their continued relevance and validity
in contemporary society.
Diversity training is the most popular and successful strategy for
workplace inclusion, as evidenced by rising research and investment
interest. The following article of the special issue is titled “Impact of
diversity training on employees and consumers: A review and research
agenda.” Thakur and Dhar (2022) screened 259 articles using the
SPAR-4-SLR protocol to select 48 articles which were then analyzed to
delineate the impact of diversity training on the employees and its
impact on the consumer experience. The authors demonstrated an
overall positive impact of training on employee-related factors and
underscored gaps in methodology, theory, and contextualization. Finally,
they provide future research directions, including proposals and proposi-
tions for improving diversity training to improve customer experiences.
Marketing is crucial in resolving macrolevel social issues, including
decreasing meat consumption and greater intake of alternative pro-
teins. Given the growing concerns about food sustainability, safety,
security, nutrition, and animal welfare, such consumption patterns are
gaining traction. Nguyen et al. (2022), in their article titled “Alternative
protein consumption: A systematic review and future research
directions,” developed a framework that combines the socio-ecological
model and capability, opportunity, and motivation model of behavior
(COM-B) to identify the various factors influencing alternative protein
consumption. Their review outlines methodological approaches, iden-
tifies main variables of interest, highlights the opportunity for further
theoretical development, and identifies gaps in research related to
individual-level opportunities and system-level motivations.
2.2 | Consumer social responsibility
In the article titled, “Mapping the socially responsible consumption gap
research: Review and future research agenda” by Falcão and Roseira
(2022) provide a wide-ranging view of the relevant literature to study
the gaps in socially responsible consumption. They follow a three-
stage approach to design their review. First, they critically analyze the
basic ideas and vocabulary used in the area. Then they provide a
framework for categorizing current research into four primary groups
based on their approaches and focus: gap prediction, readiness “to go
responsible,” gap comprehension, and hurdles to socially responsible
consumption. Second, the qualitative content analysis revealed that
Anglo-Saxon nations lead the sector and that patterns are evolving,
such as China's growth as a contributor. Finally, a bibliometric analysis
of 3367 articles identified the intellectual structure of socially respon-
sible consumption, mature and emerging themes, and the main bar-
riers to its adoption.
Green innovation has seen an increase in demand over the previ-
ous decade. This can be attributed to greater consumer knowledge of
the world's environmental challenges. As a result, green innovation
adoption deserved the attention of Flores and Jansson (2022). Their
article, “SPICe—Determinants of consumer green innovation adoption
across domains: A systematic review of marketing journals and sugges-
tions for a research agenda,” demonstrated the determinants of

TSIOTSOU ET AL.
consumer green innovation adoption across domains identified in top
marketing journals. Then, the authors aggregated them into four cate-
gories: (1) Social, (2) Personal, (3) Innovation, and (4) Contextual and
external level determinants. This classification is based on the source
of inspiration, whether societal, individual, innovative, or contextual.
Flores and Jansson (2022) discovered a dearth of emphasis on con-
sumer characteristics in green innovation adoption studies, underlin-
ing the need for more research into what motivates customers to
adopt these new environmentally friendly goods. Furthermore, the
authors demonstrated that no one variable might predict green inno-
vation uptake, qualifying further investigations.
E-waste is the fastest-growing waste stream on the planet,
including toxic substances that are hazardous to human health.
According to research, the great majority of customers refuse to dis-
pose of e-waste, preferring to retain outmoded items at home rather
than sending them to manufacturers for recycling. In the article titled,
“Consumer e-waste disposal behavior: A systematic review” by Gilal
et al. (2022) provide a synthesis of prior research in this area of
inquiry and explain how their review will serve as a base to guide
future research focusing on this topic. The purpose of their article is
to promote e-waste disposal behavior by looking at how such behav-
ior has been utilized as a construct in the literature and what theories,
contexts, characteristics, and methodological approaches have been
used to strengthen this behavior. To that goal, the authors examined
forty-three research papers on e-waste disposal behavior published in
Scopus-indexed journals between 2000 and 2021, identifying impor-
tant research gaps and proposing complete study agendas in the form
of testable propositions.
Over the last decade, businesses, consumers, and policymakers
have paid growing attention to sustainable fashion. This enthusiasm is
mirrored in consumer behavior studies in this area. Despite this, there
are very few systematic literature reviews on consumer behavior. The
article titled “Consumer behavior in sustainable fashion: A systematic lit-
erature review and future research agenda” by Busalim et al. (2022)
aims to fill this gap. The authors used 88 scientific articles to examine
research methods, trends, and theoretical underpinnings systemati-
cally. Busalim et al. (2022) bring us a model that summarizes the
extant literature in sustainable fashion through the lenses of the S–
O–R framework. The findings reveal that qualitative, experimental,
cross-cultural, and longitudinal studies are significantly less repre-
sented in the literature. There was no evidence of the study employ-
ing big data methodologies, and much of the published research was
not well founded in theory. The findings also suggest that the con-
sumer attitude-behavior gap requires further exploration. Managers
can benefit from the study by understanding the direct and indirect
factors influencing consumer buying decisions, helping create the
appropriate sustainable fashion campaigns.
2.3 | The digital world and new technologies
The expansion of digital technology has tremendously influenced
business operations and how customers search, receive information,
14706431, 2022, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12861 by Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, Wiley Online Library on [17/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
1511
engage, and buy (Tsiotsou, 2021). In their article titled “Understanding
digital consumer: A review, synthesis, and future research agenda” by
Güngör and Çadırcı (2022) analyze and discuss 74 marketing journals
on digital technologies. They uncover three domains within digital
consumer behavior: (1) the use of classical consumption theories and
their application to digital context; (2) transactional subjects within
consumers' digitalization; and (3) digital marketing's impact on the
consumption of specific product groups. The analysis revealed a con-
siderable increase in mobile channel use, sustainable consumption,
user-generated content, and social media interaction. In general, the
findings show a move from a transactional to a more theoretical and
strategic approach. Possible research gaps are expected to emerge
from the following areas: (1) the impact of interactive and immersive
technologies on consumption practices; (2) the possible outcomes of
the pandemic on digital consumption patterns; (3) enhancing brand
engagement through consumer-to-consumer interactions; and
(4) improving understanding of issues such as consumer collaboration,
consumer trust, and service satisfaction.
The following article by Ertz and Sarigöllü (2022) is titled
“Consumer intentions to use collaborative economy platforms: A
meta-analysis.” The authors used a total of 27 independent
samples—through a meta-analysis of psychosocial determinants of
collaborative economy platforms (CEP) use intentions—to find
support for the relation between psychosocial determinants and
CEP use intentions, as well as willingness to pay a premium price
for CEP. They demonstrated that (1) emotional and flexibility
utility exert the most decisive influence on use intentions;
(2) functional and social utility exert more influence on willingness
to pay a premium price; (3) CEP are primarily used for enjoyment
and practical purposes; and (4) hedonism does not strongly lead to
an increased willingness to pay.
Social robots are progressively making their way to the front lines
of organizations, and research is beginning to reveal the ramifications
for consumer–firm relations. While empirical studies on human–robot
service interaction are few in the business literature, other scientific
domains have produced a plethora of empirical results that might
assist consumer research on successfully integrating embodied social
robots in consumer-facing services. Given the timeliness of the topic,
the next article of the special issue is titled “A transdisciplinary review
and framework of consumer interactions with embodied social robots:
Design, delegate, and deploy.” Blaurock et al. (2022) conducted a
systematic literature review across scientific fields and identified
199 service-relevant empirical research articles. An organizing meta-
framework was advanced resulting from this data and called D3:
design, delegate, and deploy. Using the D3 framework, the authors
offered a thorough overview of numerous dimensions of the topic,
as well as critical insights for each dimension. Based on this analysis,
implications for whether, how, and when to incorporate social robots
in practice are generated, and a complete future research agenda.
In the article titled “A meta-analysis of the elaboration likelihood
model in the electronic word of mouth literature” by Moradi and Zihagh
(2022) used a meta-analysis technique to the elaborate likelihood
model (ELM) in the electronic word of mouth. ELM adopts the social-

1512
psychological persuasion process to understand how attitude is cre-
ated. Thus, data from 89 prior studies in a two-stage structural equa-
tion model (TSSEM) integrated covariance-based structural equation
modeling (SEM) with meta-analysis. Based on this analysis, Moradi
and Zihagh (2022) proposed a model demonstrating that the central
route to persuasion is the dominant predictor of eWOM adoption on
e-commerce sites. However, the peripheral route tends to dominate
on social networking sites. This study extends ELM by pointing out
that the effectiveness of central and peripheral routes to eWOM
adoption depends on the digital platform. Managers should encourage
customers to give more information on social networking sites to pre-
pare authentic messages shared with them. E-commerce websites
should create high-quality content and guarantee that their platforms'
review process is transparent.
2.4 | Various consumer behavior themes
Double deviation (failure to recover successfully following a service
failure) is a widespread phenomenon that has lately sparked substan-
tial research attention. However, there is no study mapping and syn-
thesizing the area in the academic literature. In the article entitled
“The burden of double deviation in services: A systematic review and
research agenda,” Suresh and Chawla (2022) systematically reviewed
the double deviation literature in services and identified research
themes and future research directions. The review classifies the litera-
ture into causes, consequences, moderators, and double service
recovery and identifies research themes and future research direc-
tions. Current study themes include inadequate recovery remedies
and cognitive assessment criteria as causes; motivational aims,
revengeful and reparative behaviors as repercussions; firm-customer
relationship-based characteristics as moderators; and distinctive dou-
ble service recovery techniques. Future study recommendations
include reassessing the breadth of double deviation, discovering con-
sumers' distinct emotions during double deviation, and determining
the financial sustainability of double service recovery.
Humans have numerous desires but few resources, forcing them to
select between options. Consumers are urged to understand the oppor-
tunity cost of their decision and the best alternative use of a resource
(e.g., money and time). The article “Opportunity cost in consumer behav-
ior: Definitions, operationalizations, and ambiguities” examines this topic.
Haghpour et al. (2022) used the SPAR-4-SLR protocol (Paul, Lim,
et al., 2021) to conduct the review and the ADO framework to organize
the findings about opportunity cost in consumer behavior. Their sys-
tematic study covers existing arguments and uncertainties regarding
consumers' evaluation of opportunity costs. Through a rigorous assess-
ment of the relevant literature from many disciplines such as marketing,
psychology, and economics, the authors explored the origins, various
definitions, antecedents, related decisions, and results of opportunity
cost consideration. They emphasize and reconcile two opposing view-
points on the idea of opportunity cost as the value foregone (by taking
willingness to pay into account) against the physical market value of
the second-best alternative. Individual differences, environmental
14706431, 2022, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12861 by Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, Wiley Online Library on [17/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
TSIOTSOU ET AL.
circumstances, and information processing style are the three types of
antecedents of opportunity cost evaluation. In addition, Haghpour et al.
(2022) support that opportunity cost consideration does not always
lead to positive outcomes and illustrate how opportunity cost consider-
ations might lead to choosing discomfort, regret, and dissatisfaction.
Brand personality has been attributed a great deal of importance
in establishing and maintaining successful relationships with
consumers. However, surprisingly little is understood about how
these relationships emerge on digital platforms. In their article
titled “Consumers' brand personality perceptions in a digital world:
A systematic literature review and research agenda” by Ghorbani et al.
(2022) used the TCCM framework (Tsiotsou & Boukis, 2022) to identify
dominant theories, contexts, characteristics, and methodologies that
have been used to study the digital brand personality perceptions of
consumers. Based on their systematic review and in-depth content
analysis of 107 peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2005
and 2021, the authors provide a new conceptual framework for digital
brand personality and a comprehensive research agenda covering all
aspects of the framework.
With the increase in academic interest in understanding brand
hate in recent years, there is a need to synthesize the relevant litera-
ture. The following article titled “Brand hate: A systematic literature
review and future research agenda” by Yadav and Chakrabarti (2022)
aims to close this gap in the literature. The authors provide a thorough
overview of the existing literature on brand hate and shed insight on
future research avenues. The comprehensive study of the extant liter-
ature includes a careful examination of peer-reviewed papers that
outline the existing research utilizing the stimulus-organism-response
paradigm. This study also provides a conceptual framework for
explaining consumer aversion to brands. Finally, the authors used a
theory, context, characteristics, and method framework to create a
future research agenda and provide valuable recommendations for
practitioners.
Collecting is becoming increasingly popular among consumers
worldwide, both as a hobby and investment. Furthermore, collect-
ing is growing technologically and continues to permeate regular
purchasing as a powerful sales promotion technique, posing mar-
keting and ethical problems. Despite the growing popularity of col-
lecting in practice, research is behind. In the article “Consumer
collecting behaviour: A systematic review and future research agenda”
by Lee et al. (2021) reviewed 51 journal articles and provided a syn-
thesis of the extant literature demonstrating the meaning and
scope of consumer collecting behavior. The study identifies six
motives for collectibles consumption: achievement through collect-
ing goals; social membership; cooperation and competition; societal
and personal memories; legacy; and financial value. The review's find-
ings also highlight various literature flaws and the complexities involved
with the theoretical foundations of consumer collecting research and
its associated behaviors (i.e., acquisition through disposal). The TCM
framework guides the academic community and promotes ongoing
theory building and future research in consumer collecting behavior.
Consumer neuroscience is a developing marketing and consumer
behavior research area. In the previous 15 years, the number of

TSIOTSOU ET AL.
publications published on the subject has expanded rapidly. There is,
however, no systematic review of the literature identifying the key
components, trends, and research needs discovered in such an exten-
sive collection of studies. The article “Neuroscience research in con-
sumer behavior: A review and future research agenda” aims to fill this
void in the literature. Oliveira et al. (2022) used a correlated topic
model algorithm in a text mining (TM) study to cluster and organize
the complicated and scattered content of 469 articles. According to
the findings, the most critical issues in the topic include “consumer
neuroscience,” “brand memory,” and “willingness to buy.” This study
also demonstrates that the literature mainly emphasizes ethical con-
siderations and contentious concerns in applying consumer neurosci-
ence techniques. The authors conclude with a section on future
research issues and possibilities that came from the research.
The guest editors thank all authors and reviewers worldwide for
contributing to this special issue.
ORCID
Rodoula H. Tsiotsou https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2035-0334
Bernadett Koles https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7185-050X
Sandra Maria Correia Loureiro https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8362-
4430
RE FE R ENC E S
Akhmedova, A., Manresa, A., Rivera, D. E., & Bikfalvi, A. (2021). Service
quality in the sharing economy: A review and research agenda. Interna-
tional Journal of Consumer Studies, 45(4), 889–910. https://doi.org/10.
1111/ijcs.12680
Berg, H., & Liljedal, K. T. (2022). Elderly consumers in marketing research:
A systematic literature review and directions for future research. Inter-
national Journal of Consumer Studies, 46(5), 1640–1664. https://doi.
org/10.1111/ijcs.12830
Blaurock, M., Čai
c, M., Okan, M., & Henkel, A. P. (2022). A transdisciplinary
review and framework of consumer interactions with embodied social
robots: Design, delegate, and deploy. International Journal of Consumer
Studies, 46(5), 1877–1899. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12808
Breslin, D., & Gatrell, C. (2020). Theorizing through literature reviews: The
miner-prospector continuum. Organizational Research Methods, 6,
2020. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120943288
Breslin, D., Gatrell, C., & Bailey, K. (2020). Developing insights through
reviews: Reflecting on the 20th anniversary of the International Jour-
nal of Management Reviews. International Journal of Management
Reviews, 22(1), 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12219
Busalim, A., Fox, G., & Lynn, T. (2022). Consumer behavior in sustainable
fashion: A systematic literature review and future research agenda.
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 46(5), 1804–1828. https://
doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12794
Clark, J. P. (2003). How to peer review a qualitative manuscript. In F. God-
lee & T. M. Jefferson (Eds.), Peer review in health sciences (2nd ed.,
pp. 219–235). BMJ Books.
Cunliffe, A. L. (2018). Wayfaring: A scholarship of possibilities or let's not
get drunk on abstraction. M@n@gement, 21(4), 1429–1439. https://
doi.org/10.3917/mana.214.142
Darby, J. L., Fugate, B. S., & Murray, J. B. (2019). Interpretive research: a
complementary approach to seeking knowledge in supply chain man-
agement. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 30(2),
395–413. https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12226
Dixon-Woods, M., Sutton, A., Shaw, R., Miller, T., Smith, J., Young, B.,
Bonas, S., Booth, A., & Jones, D. (2007). Appraising qualitative
14706431, 2022, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12861 by Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, Wiley Online Library on [17/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
1513
research for inclusion in systematic reviews: A quantitative and quali-
tative comparison of three methods. Journal of Health Services
Research & Policy, 12(1), 42–47. https://doi.org/10.1258/
135581907779497486
Durach, C. F., Kembro, J. H., & Wieland, A. (2021). How to advance theory
through literature reviews in logistics and supply chain management.
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,
51(10), 1090–1107. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-11-2020-0381
Edmondson, A. C., & McManus, S. E. (2007). Methodological fit in manage-
ment field research. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1246–
1264. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159361
Elsbach, K. D., & van Knippenberg, D. (2018). The Academy of Manage-
ment Annals: Looking back, looking forward. Academy of Management
Annals, 12(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0167
Ertz, M., & Sarigöllü, E. (2022). Consumer intentions to use collaborative
economy platforms: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Consumer
Studies, 46(5), 1859–1876. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12840
Falcão, D., & Roseira, C. (2022). Mapping the socially responsible con-
sumption gap research: Review and future research agenda. Interna-
tional Journal of Consumer Studies, 46(5), 1718–1760. https://doi.org/
10.1111/ijcs.12803
Flores, P. J., & Jansson, J. (2022). SPICe—Determinants of consumer green
innovation adoption across domains: A systematic review of marketing
journals and suggestions for a research agenda. International Journal of
Consumer Studies, 46(5), 1761–1784. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.
12810
Gatrell, C., & Breslin, D. (2017). Editors' statement. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 19(1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12133
Ghorbani, M., Karampela, M., & Tonner, A. (2022). Consumers' brand per-
sonality perceptions in a digital world: A systematic literature review
and research agenda. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 46(5),
1960–1991. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12791
Gilal, F. G., Shah, S. M. M., Adeel, S., Gilal, R. G., & Gilal, N. G. (2022).
Consumer e-waste disposal behaviour: A systematic review and
research agenda. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 46(5),
1785–1803. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12767
Goldsby, T. J., & Autry, C. W. (2011). Toward greater validation of supply
chain management theory and concepts: the roles of research replica-
tion and meta-analysis. Journal of Business Logistics, 32(4), 324–331.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0000-0000.2011.01028.x
Güngör, A. S., & Çadırcı, T. O. (2022). Understanding digital consumer: A
review, synthesis, and future research agenda. International Journal of
Consumer studies, 46(5), 1829–1858. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12809
Haghpour, B., Sahabeh, E., & Halvari, H. (2022). Opportunity cost in con-
sumer behavior: Definitions, operationalizations, and ambiguities.
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 46(5), 1942–1959. https://
doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12842
Hoon, C., & Baluch, A. M. (2019). The role of dialectical interrogation in
review studies: Theorizing from what we see rather than what we
have already seen. Journal of Management Studies, 57(6), 1246–1271.
https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12543
Kabadayi, S., & Tsiotsou, R. H. (2022). Editorial: The Triple-A framework
for serving humanity with service research. Journal of Services Market-
ing. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-07-2022-0234
Khatri, P., & Duggal, H. K. (2022). Well-being of higher education con-
sumers: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Con-
sumer Studies, 46(5), 1564–1593. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12783
Kunisch, S., Menz, M., Bartunek, J. M., Cardinal, L. B., & Denyer, D.
(2018). Feature topic at organizational research methods: How to
conduct rigorous and impactful literature reviews. Organizational
Research Methods, 21(3), 519–523. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1094428118770750
Lee, C., Brennan, S., & Wyllie, J. (2021). Consumer collecting behaviour: A sys-
tematic review and future research agenda. International Journal of Con-
sumer Studies, 46(5), 2020–2040. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12770

1514
Lim, W. M., Yap, S.-F., & Makkar, M. (2021). Home-sharing in marketing
and tourism at a tipping point: What do we know, how do we know,
and where should we be heading? Journal of Business Research, 122,
534–566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.08.051
Loureiro, S. M. C., Guerreiro, J., & Ali, F. (2020). 20 years of research on
virtual reality and augmented reality in tourism context: A text-mining
approach. Tourism Management, 77, 104028. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.tourman.2019.104028
Loureiro, S. M. C., Guerreiro, J., & Tussyadiah, I. (2021). Artificial intelli-
gence in business: state of the art and future research agenda. Journal
of Business Research, 129, 911–926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.
2020.11.001
Miller, K. D., & Tsang, E. W. K. (2011). Testing management theories: criti-
cal realist philosophy and research methods. Strategic Management
Journal, 32(2), 139–158. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.868
Mishra, R., Singh, R. K., & Koles, B. (2021). Consumer decision-making in
omnichannel retailing: Literature review and future research agenda.
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 45, 147–174. https://doi.
org/10.1111/ijcs.12617
Moradi, M., & Zihagh, F. (2022). A meta-analysis of the elaboration likeli-
hood model in the electronic word of mouth literature. International
Journal of Consumer Studies, 46(5), 1900–1918. https://doi.org/10.
1111/ijcs.12814
Nguyen, J., Ferraro, C., Sands, S., & Luxton, S. (2022). Alternative protein
consumption: A systematic review and future research directions.
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 46(5), 1691–1717. https://
doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12797
Oliveira, P. M., Guerreiro, J., & Rira, P. (2022). Neuroscience research in
consumer behavior: A review and future research agenda. International
Journal of Consumer Studies, 46(5), 2041–2067. https://doi.org/10.
1111/ijcs.12800
Paul, J., & Barari, M. (2022). Meta-analysis and traditional systematic litera-
ture reviews—What, why, when, where, and how? Psychology & Mar-
keting, 39, 1099–1115. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21657
Paul, J., & Benito, G. R. (2018). A review of research on outward foreign
direct investment from emerging countries, including China: what do
we know, how do we know and where should we be heading? Asia
Pacific Business Review, 24(1), 90–115.
Paul, J., & Criado, A. R. (2020). The art of writing literature review: What
do we know and what do we need to know? International Business
Review, 29(4), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2020.101717
Paul, J., Lim, W. M., O'Cass, A., Hao, A. W., & Bresciani, S. (2021). Scientific
procedures and rationales for systematic literature reviews (SPAR-
4-SLR). International Journal of Consumer Studies, 45(4), 1–16. https://
doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12695
Paul, J., Merchant, A., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Rose, G. (2021). Writing an impact-
ful review article: What do we know and what do we need to know?
Journal of Business Research, 133, 337–340.
Paul, J., Parthasarathy, S., & Gupta, P. (2017). Exporting challenges of
SMEs: A review and future research agenda. Journal of World Business,
52(3), 327–342.
Post, C., Sarala, R., Gatrell, C., & Prescott, J. E. (2020). Advancing theory
with review articles. Journal of Management Studies, 57(2), 351–376.
https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12549
Rawat, G., Dewani, P. P., & Kulashri, A. (2022). Social exclusion and con-
sumer responses: A comprehensive review and theoretical framework.
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 46(5), 1537–1563. https://
doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12832
Roschk, H., Loureiro, S. M. C., & Breitsohl, J. (2017). Calibrating 30 years
of experimental research: A meta-analysis of the atmospheric effects
of music, scent, and color. Journal of Retailing, 93(2), 228–240. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2016.10.001
Rosenzweig, E. D., & Easton, G. S. (2010). Tradeoffs in manufacturing? A
meta-analysis and critique of the literature. Production and Operations
14706431, 2022, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12861 by Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, Wiley Online Library on [17/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
TSIOTSOU ET AL.
Management, 19(2), 127–141. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-5956.
2009.01072.x
Sigirci, O., Gegez, A. E., Aytimur, H., & Gegez, E. E. (2022). Children in mar-
keting: A review, synthesis and research agenda. International Journal
of Consumer Studies, 46(5), 1594–1639. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.
12819
Suresh, P., & Chawla, V. (2022). The burden of double deviation in ser-
vices: A systematic review and research agenda. International Journal
of Consumer Studies, 46(5), 1919–1941. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.
12836
Thakur, P., & Dhar, R. L. (2022). Impact of diversity training on employees
and consumers: A review and research agenda. International Journal of
Consumer Studies, 46(5), 1665–1690. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.
12823
Torraco, R. J. (2016). Writing integrative literature reviews: Using the past
to explore the future. Human Resource Development Review, 15, 404–
248. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484316671606
Tsiotsou, R. H. (2021). Introducing relational dialectics on actor engage-
ment in the social media ecosystem. Journal of Services Marketing,
35(3), 349–366. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-01-2020-0027
Tsiotsou, R. H., & Boukis, A. (2022). In-home service consumption: A sys-
tematic review, integrative framework and future research agenda.
Journal of Business Research, 145, 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2022.02.050
Tsiotsou, R. H., & Diehl, S. (2022). Delineating transformative value crea-
tion through service communications: an integrative framework. Jour-
nal of Service Management, 33(4/5), 531–555. https://doi.org/10.
1108/JOSM-11-2021-0420
Vishnoi, P., Bhardwaj, N., & Vohra, A. (2022). Marketing at the bottom of
the pyramid: Literature review and future research agenda. Interna-
tional Journal of Consumer Studies, 46(5), 1517–1536. https://doi.
org/10.1111/ijcs.12804
Vrontis, D., & Christofi, M. (2021). R&D internationalization and innova-
tion: A systematic review, integrative framework and future research
directions. Journal of Business Research, 128, 812–823. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1534484316671606
Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the
future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly, 26, xiii–xxiii. https://
www.jstor.org/stable/4132319
Weick, K. E. (1989). Theory construction as disciplined imagination. The
Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 516–531. https://doi.org/10.
2307/258556
Wieland, A. (2021). Dancing the supply chain: toward transformative sup-
ply chain management. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 57(1),
58–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12248
Wong, G., Greenhalgh, T., Westhorp, G., Buckingham, J., & Pawson, R.
(2013). RAMESES publication standards: meta-narrative reviews. BMC
Medicine, 20, 1–15.
Yadav, A., & Chakrabarti, S. (2022). Brand hate: A systematic literature
review and future research agenda. International Journal of Consumer
Studies, 46(5), 1992–2019. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12772
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Rodoula H. Tsiotsou (Florida State University, PhD) is currently
Professor of Services Marketing at the Department of Business
Administration, University of Macedonia, Greece. She is the foun-
der and Director of the Marketing Laboratory MARLAB at the
University of Macedonia. She serves as an Associate Editor for
the Journal of Services Marketing and the International Journal of

TSIOTSOU ET AL.
Consumer Studies while she is a member of the editorial board at
the Service Industries Journal, Services Marketing Quarterly, the
International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, and Central
European Business Review. She has published more than 100 scien-
tific publications in a variety of international scientific journals
and conference proceedings such as the Journal of Business
Research, Journal of Service Management, International Journal of
Advertising, Computers in Human Behavior, The Service Industries
Journal, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Journal of Mar-
keting Management, Journal of Services Marketing, Journal of Mar-
keting Communications, International Journal of Retail and
Distribution Management, and Journal of Sport Management. She is
ranked in the Top 2% of Scientists in the World based on the
Science-wide Author Database developed by Elsevier and Stan-
ford University. Her research interests include services marketing,
digital and social media marketing, brand management, relation-
ship marketing, and nonprofit marketing. Personal webpage:
https://rtsiotsou.wixsite.com/uomgr
Bernadett Koles (Harvard University, EdD; Durham University,
PhD) is currently an Associate Professor of Marketing and Con-

Services by McGraw-Hill, Oxford University Press and Pearson,
sumer Behavior at the Marketing and Sales Department of IESEG
School of Management, Paris, France. She holds a Doctorate
(PhD) in Marketing and Consumer Behavior from Durham Univer-
sity Business School (UK) and a Doctorate (EdD) in Psychology
from Harvard University (US). Bernadett's research covers a range
of areas reflecting upon her multidisciplinary background and
expertise. She has devoted many years to studying the role of
innovative technologies (e.g., social media, virtual environments,
virtual reality, artificial intelligence) on individuals, consumers and
organizations, and currently pursues projects that focus on vari-
ous aspects of digital user behavior (human and virtual influen-
cers, streamers, gamers, and consumers) on online gaming and
social media platforms. Bernadett has further expertise in a range
of consumer behavioral topics (e.g., compensatory consumption,
consumer compromise, brand love) which she applies to under-
stand human actions in digital and offline settings. Prior to joining


IESEG, she held professorial positions in the United States,
Portugal, Hungary, the United Kingdom, and France. Bernadett
serves on the Editorial Board of the International Journal of Con-
sumer Studies as an Associate Editor and has published widely in
international peer reviewed journals. She also has experience
managing Special Issues at different high-quality outlets, including
Journal of Business Research and International Journal of
Consumer Studies.
Justin Paul, is the Chief Editor of International Journal of
Consumer studies, an A grade journal with an Impact Factor 7.1.
Among the world's top 0.1% highly cited researchers, his citations
are increasing at 500 per month with an H Index 52. A former
faculty member with the University of Washington, he serves as
Professor of MBA and Research Chair of PhD programs,
14706431, 2022, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12861 by Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, Wiley Online Library on [17/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
1515
University of Puerto Rico, US and holds a title as honorary Visiting
Professor-Henley Business School, University of Reading,
England. He has also served as MBA Director and AACSB Coordi-
nator at Nagoya University, Japan and as Department Chair at
IIM. Dr. Paul introduced the Masstige model and measure for
brand management, CPP Model for internationalization, SCOPE
framework for Small firms, 7-P Framework for International
Marketing and TCCM Framework for literature reviews. He holds
titles as “Distinguished Professor” with three reputed universities
including—Indian Institute of Management-Kerala, SIBM, Pune
and MS University. In addition, he has taught full courses at
Aarhus University-Denmark, Grenoble Eco le de Management-
and University of Versailles-France, University-Lithuania,
Warsaw-Poland and holds/has held a visiting professor positions
at University of Chicago, Vienna University-Austria, Fudan and
UIBE-China, UAB-Barcelona and Madrid. He has published three
bestselling case studies with Ivey and Harvard. He is known as
an author/co-author of books such as Business Environment
(4th ed), International Marketing, Services Marketing, Export–Import
Management (2nd ed), Management of Banking and Financial
respectively. He is/has served as an Associate Editor with Journal of
Business Research, European Management Journal, and Journal of
Strategic Marketing. His articles have been downloaded over
800,000 times during the last six years. An author of over
130 research papers in SSCI journals, Justin has over 70 papers are
in A or A star journals (ABDC) and 65+ in UK-CABS 3 or 4 level
journals. He has visited over 60 countries as a visiting professor/
public speaker.
Sandra Maria Correia Loureiro is in the ranking of 2% of the best
scientists in the world in both Marketing and Sport, Leisure &
Tourism by Stanford University, together with the publishing
house Elsevier and SciTech Strategies. Her research interests
include relationship marketing, tourism marketing issues and the
implications with VR, AR, and AI. Her papers have been published
in a variety of peer reviewed journals that include Journal of
Marketing, Journal of Retailing, Tourism Management, Journal of
Travel Research, International Journal of Hospitality Management,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
Journal of Business Research, the Service Industries Journal, or
International Journal of Consumer Studies. He is the editorial
board of several journals in marketing and tourism context. She
recently won several awards, such as: the 2012 Best Paper
Premier Award presented by the Global Marketing Conference
(comprised of EMAC, ANZMAC, KSMS, and the Japanese
Association of Marketing), Highly Commended paper Award
2014—7th EuroMed Conference and EuroMed Research Business
Institute (EMRBI), Highly Commended paper Award 2016—9th
EuroMed Conference and EuroMed Research Business Institute
(EMRBI), Best Paper Award 2016—ICCMI 2016. In 2017 and
 14706431, 2022, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12861 by Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, Wiley Online Library on [17/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
1516 TSIOTSOU ET AL.

2018 she also won high commended papers award from editor
How to cite this article: Tsiotsou, R. H., Koles, B., Paul, J., &
Emerald. Best paper award at the Fashion Management
Loureiro, S. M. C. (2022). Theory generation from literature
Conference-GAMMA 2019. Excellent Service Award 2021
reviews: A methodological guidance. International Journal of
Global Fashion Management Conference at Seoul-2021 KSMS
Consumer Studies, 46(5), 1505–1516. https://doi.org/10.1111/
International Conference for the Uncompromising Service as a
ijcs.12861
Conference Co-Chair.