Received: 7 July 2020 | Revised: 11 January 2021 | Accepted: 12 January 2021

DOI: 10.1002/mar.21517

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Social good or self‐interest: Incentivizing consumer social

media engagement behaviour for health messages

Helen Siuki | Cynthia M. Webster

Department of Marketing, Macquarie

Business School, Sydney, New South Wales,
Australia
Correspondence
Dr Helen Siuki, Macquarie Business School,
3 Management Drive, room 147, Macquarie
University, NSW 2109, Australia.
Email: helen.siuki@mq.edu.au
Abstract
This study investigates the impact of incentive type and ad appeal on consumers'
social media engagement in health‐related ads. The aim is to determine whether
self‐oriented incentives versus other‐oriented social incentives encourage (crowd
in) or discourage (crowd out) consumers to engage in health‐related ads on social
media. Four experimental studies examine the level of social media consumer en-
gagement under three different incentive conditions for two types of ad appeals and
two different health issues. Findings show among incentives, the social good in-
centive has a significantly greater impact on social media consumer engagement for
alcohol ads, with the social good incentive triggering people's intrinsic motivations
and encouraging social media engagement. For smoking ads, the social good in-
centive again promotes engagement, although not significant, This study finds that
overall people are significantly more likely to engage in emotional health‐related ads
on social media compared to rational ads. This study also sheds light on the mod-
erating role of gender on social media engagement for health campaigns. Finally, this
study provides insights on the interaction effect of ad appeal and incentives in
generating social media engagement.

KEYWORDS
ad appeal, consumer engagement, health promotion, incentives, motivations, social media

1 | INTRODUCTION employing methods to influence voluntary behaviour change towards

Using social media as an interactive platform to communicate with
people about product and brand‐related information is one of the
most effective promotional strategies employed by today's success-
ful organisations (Ashley & Tuten, 2015). Besides commercial brands,
increasingly, public health organisations are using social media to
promote healthy lifestyle changes and engage consumers, encoura-
ging them to like, comment, tag and share health messages
throughout their online social networks. Social marketers working
with governments, nonprofit organisations and nongovernmental
organisations in the areas of public health, social change and en-
vironmental sustainability are also taking advantage of the benefits
social media marketing offers (Liang & Scammon, 2011; Lim
et al., 2017). Social marketing places behaviour change at its core,
a better personal and societal wellbeing (Lowe et al., 2015). The
scope of social marketing is broad, with examples from easier be-
haviour changes such as wearing a seatbelt, to more complex pro-
blems such as tackling obesity, racism and drug addiction. Therefore,
motivating e‐WOM (word‐of‐mouth) for some social marketing
messages can be more challenging especially for messages that
promote difficult lifestyle changes.
Promotional strategies typically used in commercial marketing
to incite e‐WOM, such as the use of humour and sex appeals, may be
less effective for social marketing messages as these approaches may
be interpreted as insensitive and inappropriate (Brennan &
Binney, 2010; McKay‐Nesbitt & Yoon, 2015). We argue that even
outgoing, conscientious, confident individuals who typically engage in
e‐WOM, may not be willing to share social marketing messages with

Psychol Mark. 2021;38:1293–1313. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/mar © 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC | 1293

1294 | SIUKI
their online friends, especially in social networking sites such as
Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, where individuals use their per-
sonal profiles to interact with friends and families for social purposes
(Berger & Milkman, 2011). Moreover, along with health information,
consumers are bombarded by a wide range of different content on
social media today. News, entertainment, advertisements and per-
sonal content posted by friends flood online accounts, yet consumers
choose to pay attention and react to only a small number of such
messages. The important question here is what motivates consumers
to react to a post and participate in an online discussion, especially
for health‐related social marketing messages? Drawing on research
conducted in commercial marketing (e.g., Ashley & Tuten, 2015;
Ryu & Feick, 2007), research shows designing appealing and valuable
offerings (Chandon et al., 2000; Schulze et al., 2014), crafting per-
suasive messages (Barger et al., 2016) and using appropriate in-
centives are key marketing strategies that may encourage e‐WOM.
To encourage e‐WOM for social marketing messages, social
marketers need to employ effective marketing strategies (Thackeray
et al., 2008). As few studies on e‐WOM focus on social marketing
messages, we draw on research conducted in commercial marketing
(e.g., Ashley & Tuten, 2015; Ryu & Feick, 2007). Research shows
designing appealing and valuable offerings (Chandon et al., 2000;
Schulze et al., 2014), crafting persuasive messages (Barger
et al., 2016) and using appropriate incentives are key marketing
strategies that may encourage e‐WOM. Research consistently iden-
tifies message appeal and incentives as critical factors influencing
e‐WOM (Malthouse et al., 2016; Marbach et al., 2016). Offering in-
centives to consumers is common practice in marketing, yet there is
relatively little research on how different types of incentives influ-
ence consumer motivation to engage in e‐WOM. Moreover, research
indicates the relationship between incentives and motivation is
complex with external rewards potentially having a detrimental
crowding out effect (Gneezy et al., 2011) and thus reducing e‐WOM
likelihood (Jin & Huang, 2014).
Though some research exists on the effectiveness of product
types and message appeals in the context of social marketing
(Alhabash et al., 2013; Noble et al., 2014), there is need of further
research on the role of incentives.
Studies suggest people engage online in social media activities
for both intrinsic and extrinsic, self‐oriented reasons. Intrinsic mo-
tivations include: Hedonic pleasure (Arnold & Reynolds, 2003), en-
joyment (Lu & Su, 2009; Shang et al., 2005), entertainment (Azar
et al., 2016). Extrinsic motives include: Recognition and image
(Toubia & Stephen, 2013), social influence (Azar et al., 2016),
reciprocity (Cui et al., 2014), social bonding (Berger, 2014) and self‐
presentation (Smith et al., 2012) and self‐enhancement (Berger &
Milkman, 2012). Not all social media engagement is self‐interested.
More altruistic reasons such as concern for others (Hennig‐Thurau
et al., 2004) and genuinely wanting to help others make better
decisions or choices (Yoo & Gretzel, 2011) also positively influence
sharing online content (Vilnai‐Yavetz & Levina, 2018). Munzel and
Kunz (2014) find that other‐oriented, altruistic motives outrank so-
cial bonding motives, with high altruistic individuals being more likely
AND WEBSTER
to create online content to assist others. So, what can a marketer do
to trigger consumers' self‐oriented and other‐oriented intrinsic and
extrinsic motivations?
How a message is framed can intrinsically influence consumer
engagement (Sweeney et al., 2012). Framing the message positively
or negatively, for instance, can lead to different levels of engagement
(Barger et al., 2016). Emotional appeals versus rational, informational
appeals impact consumer engagement differently. Even among
emotional appeals, positive emotions of warmth, inspiration and fun
tend to be shared more (Tellis et al., 2019). Arguably, the type of
appeal may be even more important in the context of health. Many
health messages are about challenging behaviour and lifestyle
changes which may be considered as difficult, unappealing or un-
pleasant by many consumers. Messages such as, 'Quite now' en-
couraging smoking cessation and 'Don't Assume' promoting
colorectal cancer screening can be confronting as they deal with hard
lifestyle changes and sensitive issues that offer intangible paybacks
in the distant future (Rothschild, 1999), all of which can negatively
impact consumers' willingness to engage with the messages.
Incentives are one of the extrinsic means broadly used by mar-
keters to influence online engagement (Ryu & Feick, 2007). Mone-
tary incentives, such as price discounts and coupons, are used for
promoting message sharing and successful referrals in viral mar-
keting campaigns (Hinz et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2018). Ashley and
Tuten (2015) find that almost half of the brands that invite con-
sumers to share content on social media offer a monetary incentive
for sharing. Although marketing research reports positive outcomes
from offering incentives to consumers in the context of sales pro-
motion, brand switching and online shopping (Kalra & Shi, 2010;
Raghubir, 2004), the effectiveness of incentives depends on factors
such as incentive size, design and type (e.g., monetary vs. non-
monetary, self‐benefiting vs. other‐benefiting). Moreover, the effec-
tiveness of incentives for encouraging online engagement and
message sharing for prosocial behaviours such as health promotion is
unclear.
Under certain situations, offering incentives actually diminishes
individuals' motivations leading to lower levels of performance and
effort (Dubé et al., 2017; Gneezy & Rustichini, 2000; Jin &
Huang, 2014). This 'crowding out effect' happens when people are
paid to perform a behaviour which is inherently rewarding in itself.
Offering monetary incentives for prosocial behaviours may vio-
late norms of altruism and reciprocity, creating uncertainty as to the
motivations behind the behaviours resulting in a crowding out of
intrinsic motivations by reframing the prosocial behaviour to be seen
as more egoistic (Gneezy & Rustichini, 2000; Gneezy et al., 2011).
Paying people to do something for the social good can backfire,
especially if the payment is made public (Ariely et al., 2009). Other
research looking at participation in a recycling programme shows
that offering nonmonetary rewards benefitting a third party in-
creases participants' satisfaction and that offering a mixed monetary
bundle allowing participants to reward themselves and a third party
produces the best result as this allows for both self‐interest and
altruistic behaviours (Giebelhausen et al., 2016).
SIUKI AND WEBSTER
Despite the importance, research focusing on the factors en-
couraging online consumer engagement with health promotion is
limited and underexplored. Managers need to know how different
incentives work under different situations and how to manipulate
incentive characteristics to increase consumer engagement. This
study examines whether and under what type of ad appeal, offering
incentives increases or decreases people's willingness to engage with
health‐related messages within social media networks. Specifically,
we address the following questions: Do different types of incentives
(monetary, social good, no incentive) encourage or discourage
health‐related engagement on social media? Do women and men
react similarly or differently to different incentive types? Do health‐
related messages framed with an emotional appeal generate greater
online engagement compared to those framed with a rational appeal?
Are there any interaction effects between incentives and ad appeals?
This study addresses these questions in four online experiments
on Facebook. Each study examines the impact of self‐oriented versus
other‐oriented incentives in conjunction with emotional versus ra-
tional ad appeals in laboratory and online experiment recruiting real
FB users. This study sheds light on the role of incentives in con-
junction with ad appeals in generating consumer engagement on
social media for health issues. The results contribute to the literature
by providing new empirical evidence to help better understand how
incentives work and the conflicting impact of offering monetary, self‐
oriented incentives for prosocial behaviours. We chose alcohol and
smoking as two health issues to be examined in this study.
Alcohol is widely consumed for different purposes, including
celebration, relaxation (Graham & Homel, 2008) and/or habit (Butt
et al., 2011). Excessive alcohol consumption can result in harm at two
levels—micro (individual) and meso (societal) (Buyucek et al., 2018;
Laslett et al., 2010). Moreover, the rates of alcohol consumption at
times of crisis, GFC (2007–2009), Hurican Katrina and the attack on
world trade Centre had increased. More recently, and during the
COVID‐19 pandemic, alcohol sales has significantly increased. Ac-
cording to Nielson USA report, in March 2020, there has been a
240% increase in internet alcohol sales which can suggest an in-
crease in consumption Chodkiewicz et al. (2020). Given that alcohol
consumption causes harms across levels, research attention to in-
vestigate the volume consumed and drinking patterns is warranted
to gain insights and inform future behavioural change efforts
Chodkiewicz et al. (2020).
Similarly, tobacco consumption is another behaviour that its health
risks has been acknowledged in the literature (Adhikari et al., 2009.
According to World Health Organization (WHO) (2013), tobacco use
remains the single largest cause of preventable premature death and
disease (Almestahiri et al., 2017). The considerable progress that has
been made in reducing the smoking rates over the past few years, sug-
gests much can be learned by drawing on recent behaviour change at-
tempts (Almestahiri et al., 2017). Recent global pandemic has lead to an
increase in purchase, known as stockpiling behaviour, as many nicotine
consumers reported nicotine as a mechanism to cope with stress and
anxiety (Yach, 2020). Thus, in this study, we focus on alcohol and tobacco
consumption as two common high‐risk behaviours.
| 1295
2 | INC E NTIVI ZING SOC IAL M E DIA
C O N S U M E R E N G A G E M E N T B E H AV I O U R
Some studies show that incentives work to stimulate engagement,
whereas others find incentives demotivate people. Research de-
monstrates that those brands that offer incentives to consumers
have more followers or fans, as well as a higher level of online
consumer engagement (Ashley & Tuten, 2015; Poch & Martin, 2015).
Social media engagement is defined as consumer engagement on
social media, or social media‐based engagement (Hollebeek, 2019).
Although previous research has explored four dimensions to
consumer engagement (i.e., cognitive, emotional, behavioural, social)
(Hollebeek et al., 2016), in this study, we focus on the behavioural
dimension of social media‐based consumer engagement. According
to Hollebeek et al. (2014, p. 154), 'behavioural aspect of consumer
engagement reflects “a consumer's level of brand‐related energy,
effort and time spent in brand interactions”'. Operationally, we de-
fine behavioural engagement as the sum of all different types of
interactions a consumer may have in forms of liking, sharing, com-
menting, reposting a post.
Nonmonetary rewards such as promotional giveaways, product
samples and augmented products (e.g., hats, mugs and wristbands)
associated with the actual product could increase overall word‐of‐
mouth, however, offering monetary incentives such as coupons and
rebates (Berger & Schwartz, 2011) does not have such impact on
online engagement. Although incentives can increase the likelihood
of generating referrals among existing customers (Ryu &
Feick, 2007), the impact of an incentivised referral on the receiver
needs to be taken into account (Reimer & Benkenstein, 2018;
Verlegh et al., 2013). Providing a reward for a referral may have a
negative impact on the receiver. In an unrewarded referral, the re-
ceiver is more likely to perceive the recommendation as genuine and
unbiased, triggered by the recommender's knowledge and/or posi-
tive experience. However, when both the referral provider and re-
ceiver are incentivized, the negative effects of incentives can be
eliminated or reduced (Verlegh et al., 2013).
2.1 | Theoretical foundation: The crowding out
effect
Studies in the fields of economics and business report positive re-
sults from offering incentives (Zhang et al., 2018), however, under
certain situations, offering incentives conflicts with individuals' in-
ternal motives, resulting in crowding out of their intrinsic motivations
(Dubé et al., 2017; Gneezy et al., 2011).
Offering monetary incentives to, for example, shape a good be-
haviour, such as reducing alcohol intake or encouraging exercise,
may crowd‐out individuals' motivations that are crucial for forming
the desired behaviour (Gneezy et al., 2011). Titmuss (1970), after
comparing the American (mostly paid or providing other benefits)
and British (entirely voluntary and unpaid) systems of obtaining
blood for medical purposes, concluded that the paid system results in
1296 | SIUKI
shortages and a lower quality of blood supply. He also noticed that
the social characteristics of contributors in Britain differed from the
characteristics of blood contributors in the United States. In Britain,
they were representative of the population, whereas in America,
they tended to have lower income and lower education. His con-
clusion was that paying for blood destroys an altruistic motivation to
contribute.
The crowding out effect occurs especially in conditions where
the individual feels that the monetary incentive is offered as a result
of mistrust or underestimating the individual's intrinsic motivation
(Frey, 1993). Monetary incentives, especially a large monetary re-
ward, may be encouraging in the short‐term, however, they may
weaken or even destroy an individual's intrinsic motivation in the
long‐term (Gneezy et al., 2011). Extending the theory on the detri-
mental effect of monetary incentives to the context of social inter-
actions, Jin and Huang (2014) find the demotivating effect of
monetary incentives especially when individuals need to send posi-
tive identity signals about themselves. Situations in which individuals
are offered money to perform a task that has an impact on others
such as friends and acquaintances, the detrimental impact of a
monetary reward can be even higher, due to the potential con-
sequences on others (Jin & Huang, 2014).
Several theories can be brought in to describe what exactly
happens and how. Attribution theory suggests that people tend to
attribute their behaviour to the monetary reward and thus discount
their natural interest in the activity with this overjustification un-
dermining their intrinsic motivation (Lepper et al., 1973). Cognitive
evaluation theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985) also asserts that tangible
rewards given to stimulate engagement that are contingent upon
task performance or completion are experienced as controlling which
undermines people's intrinsic need for autonomy.
As shown in Table 1 previous research demonstrates that in-
centives, especially monetary rewards, reduce the performance of
altruistic activities through clashing with intrinsic other‐oriented
motivations, as well as reducing people's self‐enhancement motives
(Dubé et al., 2017; Cui et al., 2014). As an instance, price discounts
bundled with a charitable donation, negatively impact the product
demand, as a result of diminishing consumers' self‐inference of al-
truism, as well as how consumers feel about themselves (Dubé
et al., 2017). This counter interaction of incentives is not as strong if
the task is simple, straightforward, rule‐based and does not require
high creativity and analytical/cognitive skills (Pink, 2011). Decreasing
the perceived social costs related to the task or enhancing the fi-
nancial benefit by offering larger monetary rewards can improve the
effectiveness of a monetary reward (Jin & Huang, 2014).
The interaction effect between incentives and social image con-
cerns, as an extrinsic motivation, should also be considered on per-
forming prosocial activities (Lacetera & Macis, 2010b). The crowding
out effect of monetary incentives also occurs for publicly visible
prosocial behaviours that contribute to the common good such as
donating blood, recycling and volunteering (Gneezy et al., 2011).
Engaging in such activities can involve both intrinsic and extrinsic
motivations. People may intrinsically enjoy contributing to the social
AND WEBSTER
good but also may extrinsically want to comply with social norms and
make a good impression. Research shows offering monetary in-
centives to encourage prosocial behaviour can backfire, especially if
the payment is made public (Ariely et al., 2009). For example, paying
volunteers to collect charitable donations or parents to pick up their
children from day care on‐time violates norms of altruism and re-
ciprocity which creates uncertainties as to the motivations behind
the behaviours (Gneezy & Rustichini, 2000). The payment dilutes the
voluntary normative gesture increasing the risk of appearing selfish
and greedy. Offering the cash reward crowds out intrinsic and ex-
trinsic motivations by reframing the prosocial behaviour as a
monetary transaction making it unclear whether the individual is
engaging in the activity because it is the right thing to do or to look
good to others (Gneezy et al., 2011, p. 11).
Although nonmonetary incentives can negatively influence the
outcomes of online referrals, in an incentivized campaign, a sig-
nificantly greater number of messages are sent and a greater pro-
portion of messages are successfully received (Michalski et al., 2012).
Further research is needed to reveal whether different types of in-
centives encourage or discourage people to engage online with
health‐related messages. The ethical considerations of social mar-
keting research, crowding out a citizen's right to undertake a parti-
cular behaviour change can be discussed from different aspects such
as the process, methods and manipulation (Kennedy & Santos, 2019).
Fundamentally, the right to intervene in people's lives and putting
restrictions on their freedoms in attempts towards a better society is
a process‐related ethical issue (Lefebvre, 2011). In particular, when
social marketers adopt a top‐down approach, aspects such as
transparency, accountability equality and nondiscrimination
(Szablewska and Kubacki, 2019) of ethical issues and interventions
are of greater concern, forcing the target audience to change their
behaviour or to cope the costs (Kennedy & Santos, 2019).
With the method of implementation, the targeted study groups
and the choice of manipulation may have the potential to violate
individuals' rights and challenging the autonomy of the targeted in-
dividual (Smith, 2001, p. 134). The method of manipulation can also
have negative effects on participants trust, if strategies such as de-
ceptive advertising and misleading claims are adopted (Darke &
Ritchie, 2007; Darke et al., 2010). If participants feel fooled, they will
lose their trust and become motivated to response defensively as
they will see new advertisements from the same source as another
attempt to fool them. This will create a negative bias in their eva-
luations (Darke & Ritchie, 2007), resulting in ineffective advertising
strategies.
Though the debate on the best approaches towards addressing
ethical issues around behaviour change remains ongoing, the mar-
keting bottom‐up approach deemed the reasonable approach which
is built on promise instead of top‐down stick approach (e.g., taxing
cigarettes, further disadvantaging those in lower socioeconomic
positions (Eagle et al., 2015; Kennedy & Santos, 2019). More im-
portantly, imposing penalties may neutralise the moral costs an in-
dividual pays for violating a norm. Staying longer in hospital (after
the patient treatment was completed) as a result of imposing fees
SIUKI AND WEBSTER | 1297

TABLE 1 Selected research on motivations, incentives and their interaction in the context of prosocial behaviour and behaviour change

Authors Incentive Type Context Findings

Fehr and Falk (2002) Monetary Performance, behaviour Intrinsic motivations (e.g., social approval, reciprocity)
change interacts with monetary incentives to shape behaviour.
Monetary incentives may reduce the performance of
individuals through weakening their intrinsic motives.

Gneezy and Monetary Prosocial behaviour, that is, Monetary rewards (vs. none) decrease performance level, in
Rustichini (2000) collecting donations general. Where monetary incentive is offered, a higher
monetary reward (vs. a lower) produces higher
performance. A fixed (noncontingent on the performance)
monetary reward may not result in lowering intrinsic
motivation.

Shang et al. (2005) Extrinsic/intrinsic Online shopping Intrinsic motivations, for example, enjoyment and interest as
motivations the main reasons for online shopping are more effective
than incentives.

Ryu and Feick (2007) Monetary and Referral reward programmes Incentives increase likelihood of generating referral,
nonmonetary however, reward size does not matter. As there may be a
ceiling effect for the effectiveness of incentives, as well
as, increases in reward size may also increase
psychological and social costs through creating feelings of
guilt regarding the inequity of the exchange.

Mellström and Self/others‐oriented Prosocial behaviour (i.e., Offering a cash incentive bundled with a charitable donation
Johannesson (2008) blood donation) option mitigates the crowding out effect but does not lead
to greater donations.

Ariely et al. (2009) Intrinsic/extrinsic and Prosocial behaviour Offering extrinsic incentives may crowd out ‘image'
image motivation motivation, which is vital for prosocial behaviour.
Importance of image motivation is based on its visibility—
in a private situation, extrinsic rewards may increase
prosocial behaviour likelihood.

Lacetera and Macis Monetary/nonmonetary Prosocial activities (i.e., blood Intrinsically motivated existing donors are not averse to any
(2010a, 2010b) donation) type of incentives, however, they're unwilling to receive
cash reward (vs. in‐kind rewards: Coupons, T‐shirts,
mugs), they're likely to judge themselves as less greedy
when accepting nonmonetary rewards, thus, the social
recognition component attached to publicly announced
symbolic nonmonetary rewards plays a significant role.

Gneezy et al. (2011) Monetary Prosocial behaviour, lifestyle Monetary incentives crowd‐out intrinsic motivation in both
habits short‐ and long‐term. Incentives' design, type and their
interaction with intrinsic and social motivations must be
taken into account—they may come into conflict with
social norm, image concern and trust.

Berger and Monetary and Word‐of‐mouth (WOM) Nonmonetary rewards such as promotional giveaways,
Schwartz (2011) nonmonetary product samples and augmented products such as hats,
mugs and wristbands could increase overall WOM;
however, there is no such an effect for monetary rewards.

Hinz et al. (2011) Extrinsic/intrinsic Online referral Both monetary and nonmonetary incentives strongly increase
motivations the likelihood of online referral.

Michalski et al. (2012) Nonmonetary Viral marketing Incentives, that is, nonmonetary rewards, can result in
negative outcomes. A greater number of messages are
successfully received and further conveyed in the
nonincentivised viral campaign.

Cheung and Lee (2012) Intrinsic motivations e‐WOM intention Consumers' e‐WOM intention is significantly related to the
motives of sense of belonging (the most impact on e‐
WOM intention) and enjoyment of helping others.

(Continues)
1298 | SIUKI AND WEBSTER

TABLE 1 (Continued)

Authors Incentive Type Context Findings

Verlegh et al. (2013) Monetary and Referral reward programmes Providing a reward has a negative impact on the referral
nonmonetary receiver. Offering a combination of monetary and
nonmonetary incentives to both senders and receivers
shares the benefits and changes actions from being
perceived as purely self‐serving to more altruistic.

Gneezy and Rey‐ Monetary Survey response rate Response rate increases with the size of monetary reward;
Biel (2014) however, its effectiveness flattens out after a certain
level. Even a relatively small noncontingent monetary gift
may cause reciprocity in some individuals.

Munzel and Kunz (2014) Intrinsic motivations Online review Altruism‐related motives (positive experience) outrank social
bonding motives, the possibility of warning other
consumers through the review and the opportunity to
voice complaints (negative experience).

Schulze et al. (2014) Nonmonetary Viral marketing Offering incentives (i.e., one free month of premium
membership) for online messages that promote high‐
utilitarian products is ineffective (may not be harmful
though), companies should avoid them since they come at
a cost to the firm. However, a positive effect is seen for
low‐utilitarian products.

Jin and Huang (2014) Monetary/in‐kind Referral reward programmes Offering incentives diminishes individuals' extrinsic and
rewards intrinsic motives, resulting in a crowding out effect.
Demotivating effect of monetary incentives is higher
when individuals need to send positive identity‐signals
about themselves. However, the effectiveness of a
monetary reward could be improved for example by
enhancing the financial benefit (offering larger monetary
rewards) or decreasing the perceived social costs related
to it.

Ashley and Tuten (2015) Monetary and User‐generated Brands that offer an incentive for participation have more
nonmonetary content (UGC) fans/followers and higher engagement scores. Intrinsic
motivations such as the sense of being entertained are
stronger motivator of engagement than informativeness
of the message (Luo, 2002).

Poch and Martin (2015) Extrinsic/intrinsic UGC Extrinsic rewards (economic incentives) result in more
positive intentions to create UGC than intrinsic
motivations. However, an effect for altruism is also
evident revealing that high altruism consumers are more
likely to create positive UGC.

Giebelhausen Self/others‐oriented Voluntary green programme Offering others‐oriented (vs. self‐oriented) incentives
et al. (2016) (e.g., recycling) increases satisfaction of volunteers in green programmes.
A 'mixed incentive bundle' including both types of 'self
and others‐oriented rewards is the most effective
incentive structure, giving participants a choice of
benefitting themselves or a third party.

Woolley and Extrinsic/intrinsic Exercise, different tasks Both extrinsic (earing money, impressing others) and intrinsic
Fishbach (2016) (having fun and enjoyment) incentives encourage long‐
term engagement. People value intrinsic incentive more
during an activity (vs. before or after) as they are
associated with an immediate delivery, whereas extrinsic
incentives will be valued similarly before, during and after
the activity.

Reimer and Extrinsic/intrinsic e‐WOM Monetary incentives include potential negative consequences
Benkenstein (2016) such as credibility loss through consumer uncertainty and
decreases the intrinsic motivations by causing a crowding
out effect, so extrinsic‐oriented incentives work at the
cost of intrinsic motivation.
SIUKI AND WEBSTER | 1299

TABLE 1 (Continued)

Authors Incentive Type Context Findings

Dubé et al. (2017)
Monetary/nonmonetary Prosocial behaviour Offering incentives, especially large and moderate monetary
discounts, negatively affects consumer motivation and
reduces consumer engagement. Bundling a company's
charitable donations with the purchase of price
discounted movie tickets crowds out consumers' altruistic
behaviours.

Chu et al. (2018) Intrinsic motivations e‐WOM intention The need for 'self‐enhancement' positively influences social
media engagement and to some extent e‐WOM intention,
the sense of belonging, however, does not have a
significant impact on consumer engagement.

Vilnai‐Yavetz and
Levina (2018)
Extrinsic/intrinsic e‐Commerce sharing Intrinsic motivations (e.g., altruism) are more important than
extrinsic motives (e.g., financial rewards) for e‐commerce
sharing. Financial incentives (e.g., a discount) result in
crowding out effect, shifting individuals' motives from
intrinsic reasons (e.g., enjoyment) toward extrinsic ones.

Reimer and Monetary/Altruistic Online recommendation Monetary incentives negatively influence credibility of
Benkenstein (2018) incentives recommendations and the company image for review
reader, whereas altruistic incentives make online reviews
more trustworthy and lower scepticism, as well as
improving perceptions of the company and increase
purchase intentions.

Fletcher‐Brown Corporate social media Vulnerable consumer Corporate social media can facilitate resources for vulnerable
et al. (2020) content engagement consumers. Through providing resources and platforms
for sharing experiences, showing renewed strength,
supporting Destigmatization and providing a support
network.

(Holmas et al., 2010), or leaving children in childcare longer and
picking them up late after the childcare centre introduced penalties
for longer stay kids (Gneezy & Rustichini, 2000) are examples of
crowding out effects of imposing monetary penalties. On the con-
trary, offering monetary incentives for behaviour change also has the
risk of making the behaviour change subjective to such extrinsic
incentives (Mortimer et al., 2013).
Monetary‐based strategies have been used in the past in both
the top‐down social marketing and bottom‐up approaches towards
behaviour change. In either approach, the vulnerable population with
low socioeconomic backgrounds that often the social marketing
messages are targeted towards are at risk of being disadvantaged or
manipulated. In the top‐down approach, monetary‐based means of
behaviour change can be seen as punishment for those already
classified as vulnerable, mostly those in lower socioeconomic posi-
tions, further disadvantaging them (Eagle et al., 2015; Kennedy &
Santos, 2019). On the contrary, in the bottom‐up approach, offering
monetary incentives may work (changing the risky behaviour, but
only temporarily and until the incentive is available. Relying solely on
monetary incentives may again be resulted in a biased approach in
behaviour change, as vulnerable and low‐income target audience are
generally more susceptible towards financial incentives (Kennedy &
Santos, 2019).
Therefore, it is important to adopt and implement means of
behaviour change that are not discriminatory towards vulnerable
population. Thus, in this study, we adopt a bottom‐up approach and
offer prosocial intrinsic motivations as an alternative to monetary
incentives.
Built on the current literature on the influence of incentives on
online consumer engagement, we argue that offering a monetary
incentive discourages individuals through diminishing their motiva-
tion and as a result decreases the level of online consumer engage-
ment. The role of consumer motivation is especially critical for
engaging in or promoting prosocial behaviours. Thus, we expect that
offering an other‐oriented incentive generates a higher level of on-
line consumer engagement for health‐related messages compared to
offering a self‐oriented incentive. Therefore, we propose the fol-
lowing hypotheses:
Self‐oriented incentive:
H1: Offering a self‐oriented, monetary incentive (vs. no incentive)
reduces (crowds out) online consumer engagement behaviour for health
ads on social media.
Other‐oriented incentive:
H2: Offering an other‐oriented, 'social good' incentive (vs. no in-
centive) increases (crowds in) online consumer engagement for health
ads on social media.
1300 | SIUKI
2.2 | Ad appeal and social media consumer
engagement behaviour
Online messages are framed differently by different marketers. Po-
sitive versus negative and rational versus emotional framed mes-
sages are used to grab people's attention (Sweeney et al., 2012).
Research shows that emotional (Berger, 2014; Dobele et al., 2007),
positive (de Angelis et al., 2012; Previte et al., 2015; Tellis
et al., 2019), arousing (Berger & Milkman, 2012) messages with a
moderate level of controversy (Chen & Berger, 2013) are more likely
to be shared. Berger (2014) suggests that emotion regulation drives
people to share more emotional content either to increase the va-
lence of the content they share, or to share more psychologically
arousing content. Arousal remains important even when the message
content is surprising, interesting or practical as people are more
active when in a state of excitement (Brooks & Schweitzer, 2011).
Messages that activate emotions such as anger and fear are more
likely to go viral compared to messages conveying deactivating
emotions such as sadness (Berger & Milkman, 2012). Furthermore,
research shows that messages framed with certain characteristics
such as imagination, fun, intrigue have a greater potential to go viral
(Tellis et al., 2019; Woerndl et al., 2008).
Ad appeal plays a critical role in developing effective health
promotion campaigns (Devlin et al., 2007; Michaelidou et al., 2008).
Emotional appeals are commonly used in health communication to
grab attention and provoke action (Previte et al., 2015). Fear‐related
emotions, for instance, are used to convey fearful and alarming in-
formation about negative health consequences (Brennan &
Binney, 2010; Devlin et al., 2007). Existing studies examine the
success of scare tactics in social and public health messages and
report varying results. Some argue that the application of scare
tactics is ineffective in particular for influencing younger people
(Duke et al., 1993; Hastings et al., 2004), whereas other studies find
positive outcomes (Biener et al., 2000; Witte & Allen, 2000). In the
context of health/social behaviour change, many studies demon-
strate the critical role of emotion message framing. Noble et al.
(2014) examine rational versus emotional appeals for public health
ads and find emotional appeals are more effective than rational
appeals.
Fear appeal that is defined as “a persuasive communication that
attempts to arouse fear to promote precautionary motivation and
self‐protective action” (Rogers & Deckner, 1975), offers information
mainly in two forms. First, exposing the susceptible participant to a
threat that is believed to arouse fear (e.g., presenting a smoker with a
message that talks about the risks of smoking associated with can-
cer). Second, fear appeal can be presented as an opportunity to
minimise and neutralise the threat (Ruiter et al., 2014). In other
words, offering solutions to prevent and take a health preventive
action. The impact of negative emotional appeals on persuading
behaviour change has been studied extensively in the literature
(Agrawal & Duhachek, 2010; Arthur & Quester, 2004; Bécheur
et al., 2007; Brennan & Binney, 2010; Duhachek et al., 2012).
Creating a feeling of discomfort, negative appeals encourage
AND WEBSTER
participants to engage in the desired behaviour change (Brennan &
Binney, 2010).
Several studies have investigated the impact of fear appeal in
behaviour change, across a wide range of communication settings
such as antidrinking (Bécheur et al., 2007), AIDS prevention
(Bennett, 1996; Marchand & Filiatrault, 2002), antismoking (Arthur &
Quester, 2004) and road safety (Rossiter & Thornton, 2004). The im-
pact of fear appeal has been summarised in several meta analysis
studies, built around four main variables: Severity and susceptibility,
response and self efficacy. Ruiter et al. (2014) reclassifying the severity
and susceptibility dimensions into threat and response and self efficacy
into efficacy, found a significant interaction between the two major
categories. Threat was found effective only when the efficacy was high.
Similarly, efficacy was effective only under high threat condition.
Moreover, previous research has found that if perceived efficacy is low
(feeling helpless what to do), but the seriousness of the threat is ac-
knowledged by the individual, there is a chance of a negative effect on
persuasion. That is people may become defensive and start engaging in
practicing the risky behaviour even more intensively (Goldenberg &
Arndt, 2008; Ruiter et al., 2014).
Previte et al. (2015) highlight the importance of emotions and
emotional appeals in positive responses to moderate‐drinking mes-
sages. Alhabash et al. (2013) report the effects of emotional appeal
on persuasiveness and virality of online messages on Facebook.
Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis regarding message
appeal and online engagement:
H3: Emotional appeals (vs. rational appeals) increase online con-
sumer engagement for health ads on social media.
Previous research shows that almost half of online brand‐
supported incentives are monetary (Ashley & Tuten, 2015), which
are generally effective; however, when incentives are offered for
prosocial online behaviours, a crowding out effect is expected. This
means that offering incentives may reduce individuals' motivations
leading to lower levels of engagement (Dubé et al., 2017). However,
such crowding out effect may be neutralised by other factors and
triggers that are used to encourage and motivate engagement.
Neutralising the crowding out effect of offering monetary incentives
for pro‐social engagement is expected if the incentive is offered in
conjunction with message appeals that activate human behaviour.
Berger (2014) suggests that emotion is a major trigger for people to
share more content. Activating emotions such as anger and fear may
generate greater engagement than messages conveying deactivating
emotions such as sadness (Berger & Milkman, 2012). Such emotional
messages, therefore, are likely to positively moderate the effect of
incentives, specifically, softening the crowding out effect of in-
centives. Moreover, the altruism and egoism (prosocial and self‐care)
motivations can also be used to distinguish emotions
(Doenyas, 2017). For instance people with other‐oriented motiva-
tions tend to share emotions of sensitive and sympathy or shame,
facilitating cooperative social behaviour (Markus & Kitayama, 1991).
On the contrary, the emotions of self‐oriented individuals with ego‐
focused emotions are associated with satisfaction or frustration of
individual's internal attributes such as their own needs, goals, desires
SIUKI AND WEBSTER
and abilities, such as anger (Doenyas, 2017; Roth, 2008). We argue
that people tend to participate and engage on social media with
health messages for altruistic reasons to assist others as well as for
social recognition motivations, both of which are emotionally
charged. Offering other‐oriented, social good incentives is consistent
with an emotional appeal, whereas offering a self‐oriented, monetary
incentive triggers more of a rational, cost benefit analysis. Therefore,
we expect an interaction effect to occur and propose the following
hypothesis:
H4: There is an interaction effect between incentive type and ad
appeal with an other‐oriented, social good incentive boosting online
consumer engagement for health messages with emotional appeals.
According to schema theory, and spreading activation theory,
males and females respond differently to stimuli, that aligns better
with their gender schema. The semnatic network structures in our
brain known as schemas enable us to process information and cues,
receiving, encoding, registering and decoding (Anderson, 1988). The
gender‐related schemas which start forming in early childhood, af-
fects how we communicate, evaluate cues and respond. According to
spreading activation theory, once a node is activated by external
cues and stimuli, it spreads through highly connected nodes facil-
itating the process of encoding and decoding the cues. The greater
the degree of connection between the external cue and the existing
concepts and nodes, the higher the chance of stronger response, due
to easier and more enjoyable stimuli comprehension (Bower, 1983).
Previous research for instance has studied that moderating role of
gender in comedic violence advertising perception. Yoon and Kim
(2014) argue that highly masculine individuals tend to have strong
nodes and concepts associated with aggressiveness, dominance and
forcefulness (Bem, 1974), thus they're expected to respond differ-
ently to comedic violence compared to less masculine, individuals.
Feminine individual on the contrary, tend to have existing nodes
highly connected to values and concepts like warmth, compassion
and sympathy (Bem, 1974; Yoon & Kim, 2014). Thus, stimuli like
violence won't be generally be supported by feminine individuals,
resulting in less favourable responses, both attitudinal and beha-
vioural. Putrevu et al. (2004) associate the differing response to
sensory stimuli among men and women to the differences in their
psychological orientation, in particular, Agency and Communion.
Agency as a characteristic associated with men denotes a single fo-
cused orientation, which women with Communion characteristic
tend to be both self‐focused and other‐focused. Previous research
suggest that such characters are also associated with traditional
societal roles, men having more dominant roles, versus women oc-
cupying more accommodating roles (Hall, 1984; Putrevu et al., 2004).
Men and women are also different in responding to verbal and visual
communication cues, where due to their sensory capabilities, women
are likely to accurately process the cues (Chamblee et al., 1993). Due
to established gender differences in responding to external stimuli, in
this study, we examine the role of gender in individuals' responses to
health message.
H5: Men and women respond differently to health‐related messages.
| 1301
3 | OVE RVIEW O F ST UD IES
Studies 1a, 1b, 2a and 2b investigate the effectiveness of self‐
oriented versus other‐oriented incentives in generating online en-
gagement for health‐related ads, under two different ad appeal
conditions: Emotional appeal and rational appeal. Facebook was
chosen as the experiment platform for several reasons. Facebook is
still the most popular social media platform (Statista, 2021). Also,
because participants needed to join groups to be exposed to the ads,
incentive messages and so forth, Facebook was a better option as it
would allow us to create groups, where such a feature was not
available on other platforms like Instagram. Moreover, to control for
platform inconsistencies, we only used Facebook across all four ex-
periments. In studies 1a & 2a (lab experiments) participants were
instructed to join the study's Facebook page—a dedicated Facebook
page which was set up for the purpose of this project. Once parti-
cipants joined (became a Facebook friend), they then were randomly
assigned to one of the three Facebook groups that were set up for
the three incentive conditions. Group 1: Monetary incentive
(a monetary incentive has an explicit monetary value; in addition to
cold, hard cash, monetary rewards can take the form of: Gift cards,
bonuses, profit sharing, etc). Group 2: Social good incentive and
Group 3: Control group. In each group, participants were simulta-
neously exposed to two ads, one framed with emotional appeal and
one framed with rational appeal (the two ads were identical across
three groups). Further details regarding incentive conditions and
emotional/rational ads are provided in the following sections, dis-
cussing each study.
Participants were able to contribute to the project (if they wished)
by liking, commenting, sharing the ads. Though some participants only
viewed the ads with no engagement, some other participants got en-
gaged in multiple ways, for example, by liking the ads, commenting on the
ads, liking/replying to others' comments, sharing and so forth. The de-
pendent variable: 'Total Engagement' was calculated on the ad level—as
the sum of all the activities (e.g., like, comment, share) on each ad. For
example, if emotional ad in condition 1 received 35 likes, 15 comments, 4
shares, the total engagement for this ad was equal to 54 and the average
activity was 1.450, which was calculated as the ratio of total engagement
to the number of participants in each group. The minimum sample size of
154 volunteer participants, in study 1a (health issue alcohol), allowed us
to assign 51–52 participants to each incentive condition which is a de-
cent sample size for experiments. Study 2a, which was a replication of
study 1a with a different health issue (smoking), had a sample size of 218
of volunteer participants, which allowed us to assign 70–72 participants
to each incentive condition which is a decent sample size for experi-
mental studies. Study 1b and 2b which were real‐life online experiments,
on Facebook, attracted more than 1000 Facebook users, overall:
1. Study 1a (Alcohol): 154 university students volunteered
2. Study 1b (Alcohol): 588 self‐selected Facebook users participated
by reacting to the 'sponsored' ads (e.g., liking, commenting,
sharing)
3. Study 2a (Smoking): 218 university students volunteered
1302 | SIUKI
4. Study 2b (Smoking): 499 self‐selected Facebook users partici-
pated by reacting to the 'sponsored' ads (e.g., liking, commenting,
sharing)
Manipulation Checks. As manipulation checks, participants were
asked to rate their feelings regarding each ad on a 5‐point likert scale
(1 = completely disagree, 5 = completely agree), expressing their feel-
ings about the extent to which each ad was emotional versus
rational.
Our manipulation check for ad appeal indicated that subjects
perceived the ads as intended. Though the emotional alcohol ad was
perceived as emotional versus rational, emotional ad for alcohol:
Memotional = 3.90 versus Mrational = 2.88; t(80) = 5.954, p < 0.000; the
rational alcohol ad was perceived as rational versus emotional, ra-
tional ad for alcohol: Mrational = 4.09 versus Memotioal = 2.69; t
(79) = 8.659, p < 0.000. Similar results also achieved for the smoking
ads. Emotional smoking ad was perceived as emotional versus ra-
tional, emotional ad for smoking: Memotional = 4.04 versus Mrational =
2.99; t(79) = 6.603, p < 0.000, whereas the rational smoking ad was
perceived as more rational than emotional, rational ad for smoking:
Mrational = 4.20 versus Memotioal = 2.83; t(79) = 9.149, p < 0.000.
3.1 | Study 1a: Laboratory experiment, health
issue: Alcohol
Study 1a uses a laboratory experiment on Facebook to test all four
hypotheses for the health issue of alcohol. According to H1 and H2,
we anticipate a lower level of engagement under the self‐oriented
monetary condition and a higher level of engagement under the
other‐oriented social good condition, compared to the no incentive
control condition. This study also compares two different alcohol
messages, one message framed with an emotional appeal and one
with a rational appeal. On the basis of H3, we expect a greater level
of engagement with the emotional appeal compared to the rational
appeal. Finally, according to H4, we anticipate a boost in online en-
gagement as a result of the interaction between the other‐oriented
social good incentive and emotional ad appeal.
3.1.1 | Method
University students aged over 18 years were invited to participate in
the study for course credit. In total, 154 students volunteered to
take part in study 1a. Participants were randomly assigned to one of
three Facebook groups (monetary, social good and no incentive).
Although Facebook groups were public groups where member ac-
tivities were visible to the participants' Facebook friends outside the
experiment, the group privacy settings were set up to prevent people
outside the experiments joining the groups. A 3 × 2 mixed experi-
mental design conducted on Facebook manipulated three incentive
conditions: Self‐oriented (monetary), other‐oriented (social good)
and a control condition (no incentive), as the between‐subjects factor
AND WEBSTER
and ad appeal (emotional vs. rational) as the within‐subjects factor,
while controlling for a health issue (alcohol). The monetary condition
offered a chance to win a $50 gift card and the social good condition
encouraged participants with the statement: 'Participate and con-
tribute towards the social good', whereas the no incentive control
condition simply stated: 'Participate in the project'.
Participants in each group were simultaneously exposed to
two messages on the effects of alcohol. Both messages featured a
black and white, side facing head shot of a young adult female
drinking a glass of champagne. The rational appeal stated, 'Having
more than two alcoholic drinks a day raises your stroke risk by
50%' and showed the standard image. The emotional appeal stated,
'Heavy drinking damages your brain' and showed the standard
image with stylised shattered glass and a bullet leaving the back of
her head.
Participants were asked to take part in the online discussion by
sharing, commenting and liking the two posts on their Facebook
group page, with no moderation or intervention from the re-
searchers. During a 2‐week period, participants' level of engagement
(the number of likes, comments, shares and other activities such as
liking and replying to others' comments and mentioning others),
were recorded for each message posted in each group. Total level of
engagement was the dependent variable and calculated as the sum of
all Facebook engagement metrics, each given an equal weighting
(Lim et al., 2017).
3.1.2 | Results and discussion of study 1a
As shown in Table 2 and Figure 1, a repeated‐measures analysis of
variance (ANOVA) reveals a significant main effect for incentives, as
a between‐subjects factor, on the level of engagement (Fengage-
ment_incentive = 32.37, p = 0.000). To probe the interaction, we ran
spotlight analysis across the levels of incentive as our categorical
independent variable using model 1 in PROCESS V3 by Hayes
(2013). This model allows for an interaction between a categorical
variable (i.e., incentives) and another categorical variable (i.e., ad
appeal). As predicted, overall the self‐oriented monetary incentive
generates the lowest level of online engagement, a spotlight analysis
shows although the difference between the monetary and the no
incentive conditions is not significant overall, it is marginally sig-
nificant for the rational ad appeal (at 0.10 level). Therefore, H1 is
only marginally supported for the rational ad appeal (MDrational_NI‐MI =
0.448, p = 0.061), as opposed to the emotional ad appeal
(MDemotional_NI‐MI = 0.168, p = 0.701).
The social good condition generates the highest level of total online
engagement behaviour compared to the monetary incentive (MDsocial
good>monetary = 2.147, p = 0.000) and compared to no incentive (MDsocial
good>no incentive = 1.838, p = 0.000), providing full support for H2. In sup-
port of H3 the main effect of ad appeal is significant (Fengagement_ad ap-
peal = 35.527, p = 0.000), with participants significantly more engaged
with the emotional message compared to the rational message (MDe-
motional>rational = 0.944), regardless of incentive type.
SIUKI AND WEBSTER
T A B L E 2 Results of the repeated‐
Experimental condition
measure analysis of variance (study 1a)
Incentive
Ad appeal
Incentive*ad appeal interactions
Abbreviations: EA, emotional ad apeal; MI, monetary incentive; NI, no incentive; RA, rational ad apeal;
SG, social good.
F I G U R E 1 Total engagement behaviour by ad appeal and
incentive condition—Alcohol: Laboratory setting (study 1a)
Moreover, in support of H4, the interaction effect between in-
centives and ad appeal is significant for engagement level (Fincentive*ad
appeal = 24.476, p = 0.000). The interaction effect between incentive
condition and ad appeal suggests that the other‐oriented social good
incentive has the greatest impact on the level of engagement under
the emotional alcohol message (Msocial good*emotional = 4.534), com-
pared to the rational alcohol message (Msocial good*rational = 2.041). On
the other end of the spectrum, the combination of monetary in-
centive and rational appeal (Mmonetary incentive*rational = 0.986) and the
combination of no incentive with rational appeal (Mno incentive*ra-
tional = 1.435) generate the lowest levels of engagement.
A follow‐up spotlight analysis shows that the interaction of so-
cial good incentive and emotional ad appeal generates more en-
gagement compared to social good and rational appeal. Moreover,
the interaction of monetary incentive and emotional appeal is mar-
ginally greater than the rational appeal.
Overall, the findings of study 1a support hypotheses H2, H3 and
H4 and partially support H1. These results from the online Facebook
experiment suggest the most effective way to stimulate consumer
engagement for an alcohol‐related health issue is to use an emotional
| 1303
Post‐hoc F (p Value)
• SG (Mean = 6.575, SD = 5.182) 32.37 (0.000)
• MI (Mean = 2.281, SD = 1.883)
• NI (Mean = 2.898, SD = 2.223)
• Emotional (Mean = 2.431, SD = 3.342) 35.527 (0.000)
• Rational (Mean = 1.487, SD = 1.512)
• SG*EA (Mean = 4.534, SD = 4.024) 24.476 (0.000)
• SG*RA (Mean = 2.041, SD = 1.593)
• MI*EA (Mean = 1.296, SD = 1.313)
• MI*RA (Mean = 0.986, SD = 0.992)
• NI*EA (Mean = 1.464, SD = 1.312)
• NI*RA (Mean = 1.435, SD = 1.557)
ad along with an other‐oriented social good incentive. Next, we fol-
low with an online experiment recruiting real FB users to determine
whether these results hold.
3.2 | Study 1b: Online experiment, health issue:
Alcohol
Study 1b uses an online experiment on Facebook to test the same
incentive and ad appeal experimental conditions as study 1a. Ac-
cording to H1, we expect the self‐oriented monetary condition to
create lower levels of engagement compared to the no incentive
condition and for H2, we expect the social good condition to gen-
erate higher levels of engagement compared to the no incentive
condition. Additionally, for H3, we anticipate that emotional ads to
generate a greater level of engagement compared to rational ads,
and for H4, we predict an interaction effect between incentive and
ad appeal. In this study, we perform further analyses and control for
participants' gender, to find out whether gender moderates the re-
sults and plays a role in stimulating individuals' reactions to alcohol
messages (H5).
3.2.1 | Method
Study 1b is a 3 × 2 online experiment recruiting real FB users, ma-
nipulating three between‐subject incentive conditions (self‐oriented
monetary $50 gift card vs. other‐oriented social good encourage-
ment vs. no incentive) and two between‐subject ad appeal conditions
(emotional vs. rational), controlling for the health issue alcohol. A
separate Facebook page was set up for each incentive condition
where the study's two ads were posted. Instead of randomly as-
signing participants to separate Facebook groups, the two messages
were promoted to potential participants through Facebook adver-
tising, featured as 'sponsored' ads by Facebook. All incentive con-
ditions were allocated the same budget, running for the same
duration of time (2 weeks). The study was promoted to Facebook
1304 | SIUKI AND WEBSTER

users over the age of 18, living in Australia, United States, United
Kingdom and New Zealand and was conducted over a period of 2
weeks. Similar to study 1a, the number of likes, comments, shares
and other Facebook activities such as liking and replying to others'
comments and mentioning friends were recorded for each partici-
pant's engagement. Total engagement behaviour, computed as the
summation of all Facebook activities, with each given an equal
weighting, was used as the dependant variable for both the rational
and emotional messages. In study 2b, 588 self‐selected Facebook
users who were exposed to the promoted ads chose to react to
the ads.

3.2.2 | Results and discussion F I G U R E 2 Total engagement behaviour by ad appeal and

incentive condition—Alcohol: Online experiment setting (study 1b)

ANOVA results in Table 3 and Figure 2 show a significant main effect for
incentives (Fengagement_incentive = 8.708, p = 0.000). Consistent with study
1a results, even though the average engagement for the monetary in-
centive condition is greater than no incentive, there is no significant
difference between the two providing no support for H1. The social good
incentive again is the most effective in generating online engagement for
the alcohol health ads. As expected, the average engagement level with
the other‐oriented social good incentive is significantly greater than the
self‐oriented monetary incentive (MDsocial good>monetary = 0.136, p = 0.000)
and also significantly greater than the no incentive condition (MDsocial
good>no incentive = 0.258, p = 0.002). These results again support hypoth-
esis H2.
The main effect of ad appeal is also significant (Fengagement_ad
appeal = 16.848, p = 0.000). In line with study 1a results, the emotional
appeal ad for alcohol generates greater online engagement com-
pared to the rational ad (MDemotional>rational = 0.248, p = 0.000). These
results provide further support for H3. Looking at the interaction
between incentive type and ad appeal (Fincentive*ad appeal = 2.860,
p = 0.058), results suggest some marginal support for H4 (at 0.10
level). Again, the combination of an emotional appeal with a social
good incentive generates the highest level of engagement for the
alcohol message (Msocial good*emotional = 1.546). Similar to study 1a, the

TABLE 3 Results of univariate analysis of variance (study 1b)

Experimental condition Post‐hoc F (p Value)

Incentive • SG (Mean = 1.24, SD = 0.766) 5.989 (0.000)

• MI (Mean = 1.09, SD = 0.469)
• NI (Mean = 1.06, SD = 0.251)

Ad appeal • Emotional (Mean = 1.21, SD = 0.687), 16.848 (0.000)

• Rational (Mean = 1.04, SD = 0.265),

Incentive*ad appeal interactions • SG*EA (Mean = 1.546, SD = 0.961) 2.860 (0.058)

• SG*RA (Mean = 1.095, SD = 0.412)
• MI*EA (Mean = 1.220, SD = 0.658)
• MI*RA (Mean = 1.030, SD = 0.159)
• NI*EA (Mean = 1.114, SD = 0.285)
• NI*RA (Mean = 1.011, SD = 0.204)

Gender*ad appeal*incentive • SG*Female*EA (Mean = 1.893, SD = 0.119) 5.757 (0.003)

• SG*Female*RA (Mean = 1.094, SD = 0.112)
• SG*Male*EA (Mean = 1.200, SD = 0.07)
• SG*Male*RA (Mean = 1.097, SD = 0.084)
• MI*Female*EA (Mean = 1.143, SD = 0.138)
• MI*Female*RA (Mean = 1.025, SD = 0.100)
• MI*Male*EA (Mean = 1.297, SD = 0.077)
• MI*Male*RA (Mean = 1.035, SD = 0.062)
• NI*Female*EA (Mean = 1.143, SD = 0.138)
• NI*Female*RA (Mean = 0.972, SD = 0.105)
• NI*Male*EA (Mean = 1.086, SD = 0.056)
• NI*Male*RA (Mean = 1.050, SD = 0.060)

Abbreviations: EA, emotional ad apeal; MI, monetary incentive; NI, no incentive; RA, rational ad apeal; SG, social good.
SIUKI AND WEBSTER | 1305

combination of no incentive with rational appeal (Mno incentive*ra-
tional = 1.011) and the combination of monetary incentive and rational
appeal (Mmonetary incentive*rational = 1.030) generate the lowest levels of
engagement. Overall, regardless of different experimental groups
and participant characteristics of age group and geographical loca-
tion, the results of study 1b are consistent and confirm study 1a
results.
Though prior research shows mixed results, there is some evi-
dence indicating women respond more positively to social incentives
(Croson and Gneezy, 2009) and males to monetary incentives (Ariely
et al., 2009). Taking gender into account shows a significant three‐
way interaction (Table 2 and Figure 3), supporting H5. Both women
and men engage most with emotional appeals, but women engage
the most when the other‐oriented social good incentive is offered
(Mfemale*social good*emotional = 1.893), whereas men engage most when
the self‐oriented monetary incentive is offered (Mmen*monetary*emo-
tional = 1.297). Offering no incentive in conjunction with a rational
message is the least engaging for women, whereas for men offering a
monetary incentive with a rational message is less effective (Mfema-
le*no incentive*rational = 0.970, Mmale*monetary*rational = 1.035). Spotlight
analysis shows females are significantly more engaged than males
(MDsocial good*gender = 0.345, p = 0.014), but only for the social good
incentive.
three incentive groups. In each group, participants were simulta-
neously exposed to the same two messages on the effects of
smoking, one message framed with a rational appeal and one with an
emotional appeal. Both messages showed a black and white head
shot of a young adult male smoking a cigarette. The rational message
stated: 'Smokers are four times more likely to have a stroke'. The
emotional message stated: 'Smoking Kills' and showed a stylised
image of a gun made of cigarette smoke aimed at the young man's
head. Participants were instructed to engage with the messages in
forms of sharing, commenting and liking posts on their Facebook
group page, without any intervention from researchers. Participants'
total level of engagement was recorded for each ad posted in each
group. The sum of all engagement types was used as study's de-
pendent variable (Lim et al., 2017).
3.3.2 | Results and discussion of study 2a
Repeated‐measures ANOVA results in Table 4 and Figure 4 indicate
no main effect for incentives (Fengagement_incentive = 1.33, p = 0.267)
as the between‐subject factor. Follow‐up spotlight analysis in-
dicates that the monetary incentive condition (Mno incentive = 1.465)
generates greater engagement compared to no incentive (Mno in-

centive = 1.760), which is opposite to H1. The social good incentive

does produce the highest level of total online engagement
3.3 | Study 2a: Laboratory experiment replication,
health issue: Smoking

Study 2a replicates study 1a for a different health issue: Smoking. As

in study 1a, this study uses the same experimental design, method
and approach, but for smoking. The same three incentive conditions
(monetary, social good, vs. no incentive) and two ad appeals (emo-
tional vs. rational) examine participants' total level of social media
engagement (likes, comments, shares, replies to comments). Similar
to study 1a, we expect to see the self‐oriented monetary incentive
condition having a lower level of engagement (H1) and the other‐
oriented social good incentive having a higher level of engagement
(H2) compared to the no incentive condition. Furthermore, regarding
the ad appeal (H3), we expect to see more engagement with the
emotional ad compared to the rational ad. Finally, for H4 we expect
to see an interaction effect between different types of incentives and
ad appeals on social media engagement.

3.3.1 | Method

This study uses the same 3 × 2 mixed experimental design on Face-

book as in study 1a. Also, the three incentive conditions (self‐
oriented monetary vs. other‐oriented social good vs. no incentive)
are between‐subject factors and the two ad appeal conditions
(emotional vs. rational) are within‐subject factors, controlling for a F I G U R E 3 (a) Female and (b) male engagement behaviour by ad
health issue (smoking). In total, 218 university students participated appeal and incentive condition—Alcohol: Online experiment setting
for course credit. Participants were randomly assigned to one of (study 1b)
1306 | SIUKI AND WEBSTER

behaviour (Mengagement_social good incentive = 1.849) which is consistent

with H2; however, the differences across the three incentive con-
ditions are not significant and provide no support for H1 or H2.
These results for incentives regarding engagement with the smok-
ing ads differ compared to alcohol ads.
Taking ad appeal into account, the results show a significant impact
on the level of engagement (Fad appeal = 11.36, p = 0.001). Similar to stu-
dies 1a and 1b, the emotional appeal generates significantly higher levels
of engagement compared to the rational appeal (Memotional = 1.86 and
Mrational = 1.52, MD = 0.34, p = 0.001), providing support for H3. The
overall interaction effect between incentives and ad appeal is insignif-
icant for social media engagement (Fincentive*ad appeal = 0.610, p = 0.554).
Further analysis shows that the interaction of the social good incentive
and emotional appeal generates significantly greater engagement com- F I G U R E 4 Total engagement behaviour by ad appeal and
incentive condition—Smoking: Laboratory setting (study 2a)
pared to social good and rational ad appeal (MDsocial good_rational mes-

sage = 0.493, p = 0.008), which is partially consistent with H4.

subject ad appeals, for alcohol. Study 2b's emotional and rational

3.4 | Study 2b: Online experiment replication,
health issue: Smoking
Study 2b is an online experiment recruiting real FB users, replicating the
experimental conditions and recruitment approach in study 1b, but using
the same smoking ads used in study 2a. This study again tests whether a
self‐oriented monetary incentive discourages engagement (H1), an other‐
oriented social good incentive encourages engagement (H2) compared to
no incentive condition, whether emotional appeals encourage higher le-
vels of engagement than rational appeals (H3) and whether an interac-
tion effect exists between different types of incentives and ad appeals on
social media engagement (H4). Finally, we examine whether gender in-
fluences the interaction between ad appeal and incentive (H5).
3.4.1 | Method
Study 2b uses the same 3 × 2 experimental design as in study 1b,
with three between‐subject incentive conditions and two between‐
smoking messages were posted on separate Facebook pages
designed for each incentive condition and promoted through
Facebook sponsored ads. Total engagement was calculated the same
as in the previous studies. Study 2b was promoted to Facebook users
over the age of 18, living in Australia, United States, United Kingdom
and New Zealand. A total of 499 self‐selected Facebook users
participated over a period of 2 weeks.
3.4.2 | Results and discussion
Findings in Table 5 and Figure 5 show Facebook users who engaged
reacted differently to different incentives and ad appeals. One‐way
ANOVA results reveal a significant main effect for incentives (Fen-
gagement_incentive = 14.005, p = 0.000) and a significant main effect for
ad appeal (Fengagement_ad appeal = 10.053, p = 0.002). Post‐hoc tests
indicate those Facebook users attracted to the smoking ad under the
monetary incentive are significantly more engaged compared to the
social good incentive (MDmonetary>social good = 0.164, p = 0.000) and no

T A B L E 4 Results of the repeated‐

Experimental condition Post‐hoc F (p Value)
measure analysis of variance (Study 2a)
Incentive • SG (Mean = 1.849, SD = 1.371) 1.33 (0.267)
• MI (Mean = 1.760, SD = 1.867)
• NI (Mean = 1.465, SD = 1.104)

Ad appeal • Emotional (Mean = 1.86, SD = 1.803) 11.36 (0.001)

• Rational (Mean = 1.52, SD = 1.503)

Incentive*ad appeal interactions • SG*EA (Mean = 2.096, SD = 1.757) 0.610 (0.554)

• SG*RA (Mean = 1.603, SD = 1.371)
• MI*EA (Mean = 1.904, SD = 2.148)
• MI*RA (Mean = 1.616, SD = 1.890)
• NI*EA (Mean = 1.583, SD = 1.411)
• NI*RA (Mean = 1.347, SD = 1.152)

Abbreviations: EA, emotional ad apeal; MI, monetary incentive; NI, no incentive; RA, rational ad apeal;
SG, social good.
SIUKI AND WEBSTER | 1307

incentive (MDmonetary>no incentive = 0.212, p = 0.000) conditions. These

results do not support H1 or H2, as against our expectations the
monetary incentive generated greater engagement than both the
social good and no incentive conditions. Ad appeal also has a dif-
ferent effect on engagement compared to the results in studies 1a
and 1b. Unlike studies 1a, 1b and 2a, the rational ad about smoking in
this study is more effective in generating online engagement com-
pared to the emotional message (MDrational>emotional = 0.101,
p = 0.002), therefore, H3 is not supported in this study.
The interaction of ad appeal and incentives is also significant
(Fincentive*ad_appeal = 18.291, p = 0.000). The combination of a mone-
tary incentive with a rational message is the most effective (Mmone-
tary*rational = 1.447), followed by the combination of a social good
incentive with an emotional appeal as the second most effective F I G U R E 5 Total engagement behaviour by ad appeal and
incentive condition—Smoking: Online experiment setting (study 2b)
(Msocial good*emotional = 1.109). Offering no incentive while using a ra-
tional ad appeal has the least impact on online engagement for the
health issue of smoking (Mno incentive*rational = 1.010). Spotlight ana-
lysis reveals that the rational appeal is significantly more effective self‐oriented monetary incentive compared to the emotional appeal
than the emotional appeal when a monetary incentive is offered (MD = 0.455, p = 0.001). This suggests a monetary incentive stimu-
(MD = 0.404, p = 0.000). However, there is no a significant difference lates males' online engagement but only for rational messages, thus,
for the social good or no incentive conditions. H5 is marginally supported.
As in study 1b, we further examine the effect of gender in A possible explanation for these different results may be due to
generating online engagement, testing H5. Figure 6 shows that for self‐selection related to the topic or to the ad. A significantly higher
females, similar to the other studies, offering the other‐oriented number of males (n = 265) than female (n = 167) reacted to smoking
social good incentive through an emotional appeal is the most ef- ads, compared to a significantly higher number of females (n = 300)
fective combination. However, unlike other studies, males engage than males (n = 199) who reacted to alcohol ads in study 1b. Due to
significantly more with the rational appeal if they are offered the the settings of our online experiment recruiting real FB users, the

TABLE 5 Results of univariate analysis of variance (study 2b)

Experimental condition Post‐hoc F (p Value)

Incentive • SG (Mean = 1.08, SD = 0.299) 14.005 (0.000)

• MI (Mean = 1.19, SD = 0.565)
• NI (Mean = 1.04, SD = 0.209)

Ad appeal • Rational (Mean = 1.170, SD = 0.424) 10.053 (0.002)

• Emotional (Mean = 1.069, SD = 0.281)

Incentive*ad appeal interactions • SG*EA (Mean = 1.109 (SD = 0.035) 18.291 (0.000)
• SG*RA (Mean = 1.053 (SD = 0.038)
• MI*RA (Mean = 1.447 (SD = 0.054)
• MI*EA (Mean = 1.043 (SD = 0.043)
• NI*EA (Mean = 1.056 (SD = 0.030)
• NI*RA (Mean = 1.010 (SD = 0.034)

Gender*ad appeal*incentive • SG*Female*EA (Mean = 1.155, SD = 0.037) 2.53 (0.081)

• SG*Female*RA (Mean = 1.074, SD = 0.047)
• SG*Male*RA (Mean = 1.095, SD = 0.089)
• SG*Male*EA (Mean = 1.091, SD = 0.071)
• MI*Female*RA (Mean = 1.00, SD = 0.11)
• MI*Female*EA (Mean = 1.00, SD = 0.055)
• MI*Male*RA (Mean = 1.515, SD = 0.071)
• MI*Male*EA (Mean = 1.060, SD = 0.058)
• NI*Female*RA (Mean = 1.00, SD = 0.036)
• NI*Female*EA (Mean = 1.00, SD = 0.053)
• NI*Male*EA (Mean = 1.079, SD = 0.043)
• NI*Male*RA (Mean = 1.026, SD = 0.066)

Abbreviations: EA, emotional ad apeal; MI, monetary incentive; NI, no incentive; RA, rational ad apeal; SG, social good.
1308 | SIUKI
F I G U R E 6 (a) Female and (b) male engagement behaviour by ad
appeal and incentive condition—Smoking: Online experiment setting
(study 2b)
ads were advertised to people in their Facebook newsfeed as
sponsored ads, thus participation in the study was completely self‐
selected based on individuals' interest in the ad or involvement with
the topic. All the ads were black and white head shots, but the al-
cohol ads featured a female model and the smoking ads featured
a male.
4 | C O N C L U S I O N , RE C O M M E N D A T I O N S
A N D F U T U R E RE S E A R C H
Exploring the factors encouraging engagement with public health
concerns is the focus of this paper. The current paper demonstrates
the impact of different types of incentives and ad appeals in gen-
erating online engagement for four health‐related ads about smoking
and alcohol. The reason for selecting smoking and alcohol is to test
the hypotheses across two different health issues related to lifestyle
choices, with alcohol arguably considered as a more socially accep-
table behaviour than smoking at least across the four countries
studied.
This paper uses a series of laboratory and online experiment
recruiting real FB users to empirically examine the impact of self‐
oriented monetary versus other‐oriented social good incentives un-
der emotional versus rational ad appeal conditions in generating
online engagement for public health messages within the Facebook
AND WEBSTER
social media platform. The results of the experiments reveal that
depending on the incentive and ad appeal, people engage differently
with smoking and alcohol messages. Offering a socially good in-
centive significantly encourages online engagement, especially if the
health‐related message is framed as an emotional ad. Studies 1b and
2b provide further understanding of how people react and get en-
gaged with social messages in real life and what are the most ef-
fective combinations of incentive and message appeal for males and
females. Our findings provide evidence that for women other‐
oriented incentives with emotional ad appeals is the most effective
combination regardless of the health issue, whereas men show a
greater level of engagement when they are offered self‐oriented
monetary incentives in combination with emotional ad appeals for
alcohol but rational appeals for smoking. When offering no incentive,
rational and emotional ad appeals generate similar amounts of online
engagement for males regardless of the health issue. For females
offering no incentive combined with a rational ad appeal generates
the least online engagement only with the alcohol ads.
From a theoretical perspective, this study contributes to-
wards a better understanding of the crowding out effect and the
conflicting impact of offering a monetary, self‐oriented incentive
for a prosocial behaviour. This study sheds light on the interac-
tion of different incentives and ad appeals in generating online
social media engagement for health issues, where people tend to
have other‐oriented, social recognition motivations to partici-
pate and engage with a message. Therefore, this study con-
tributes to the literature on incentives by capturing the impact
incentives may have in neutralising or diminishing personal mo-
tivations if used without taking into account the context, or
without considering the interactions of incentives with other
elements of an ad campaign such as ad appeal. Overall, this study
does not find strong support for 'the crowding out theory' about
the detrimental effects of monetary incentives, which is most
likely due to the nature of the task participants were asked to do
in the experiments. Monetary incentives typically have negative
effects when the task is challenging, intrinsically interesting in-
volving creativity and effort beyond rudimentary abilities (Pink,
2011), requires long‐term commitment where the incentive re-
cipient is seen as greedy thus damaging their credibility, social
status, or trust (Gneezy & Rustichini, 2000; Gneezy et al., 2011;
Reimer & Benkenstein, 2016, 2018). Monetary incentives work
best as a short‐term strategy for activities that are routine, dull
and involve little social risk (Pink, 2011). For example, Hennig‐
Thurau et al.'s (2004) incentivized internet survey of over 2000
consumers and Hinz et al.'s (2011) 19‐day online information
sharing experiment both show that monetary incentives sig-
nificantly increase e‐WOM. Many researchers report the detri-
mental effect of monetary incentives especially for activities that
are intrinsically interesting or fun (Deci et al., 1999; Osterloh and
Fery, 2000). Monetary incentives are thought to be effective in
these situations as they resemble low risk, transient business
transactions compensating individuals for their efforts. Taking
into account these factors, this study suggests providing
SIUKI AND WEBSTER | 1309

monetary incentives to encourage social media engagement is

(Silver zone) This zone is mainly recommended for targeting

(Neutral zone) The combination of social good and rational

better alternatives, we call this zone neutral. Regardless

ad to get a better results in terms of E‐WOM. Given the

adopt Zone 2 combination, offering monetary incentive

isn't recommended as the best zone to generate online

good with monetary, or the rational ad with emotional

mixed with a rational ad message to generate greater

Managers focusing on smoking, are recommended to
not detrimental and, in some circumstances, may actually in-

emergent as managers can either replace the social

make participant when the health issue is smoking.

crease engagement especially for men.

of the gender or the health issue, adopting this

online engagement, especial among men.

combination won't be the most effective
4.1 | Managerial implications

This study offers several managerial implications for those working

in public health and health promotion sector. The research findings
can assist marketers in public health to develop better social media
campaigns by offering appropriate incentives and appealing ads. For
behaviours that are rewarding by themselves, managers may offer
other‐oriented social incentives, especially to engage people in ads
promoting prosocial behaviours. Moreover, managers need to take

Zone 4
into account the moderating role of gender in designing social media
health campaigns. Overall, women are most likely to engage more
actively with a message if an other‐oriented incentive is offered,
whereas men are more engaged when a monetary incentive is of-

should see this as the golden combination, that

fered. Also, considering the interaction effect of incentive and ad

emotional ad appeal, in generating e‐WOM. In

(Golden zone) Practitioners and social marketers

matter whether the health issue is alcohol or

prioritise the combination of social good and

particular, this combination if effective when

triggers the highest level of engagement. No
appeal, the combination of an other‐oriented social good incentive

smoking, managers are recommended to

with an emotional appeal for women and a self‐oriented monetary
incentive with an emotional appeal for men is recommended. In si-
tuations where no incentive is desired, an emotional ad appeal is
recommended as opposed to a rational appeal for optimal social
media engagement, especially for alcohol ads and for females.
Table 6 provides tailored managerial recommendations for each

targeting women.
combination of ad appeal and incentive. Identifying four zones and
labelling them golden, silver and neutral, we discuss each zone and
provide recommendations depending on the health issue.
Zone 3

4.2 | Future research

This study suggests further research is needed to examine the im-

appeal for best results in terms of online engagement
(e‐WOM). This zone is mainly male dominant, as such

portance of product involvement, as in the online experiment re-

recommended to combine it with an emotional ad
combination of offering monetary incentive, are

cruiting real FB users where the health messages were advertised to

(Silver zone) Managers choosing to go with the

a broader range of people the results indicate people reacted very

differently to the alcohol versus smoking ads under different in-
centive and ad appeal conditions. Moreover, future research can
combination works better for men.

focus on the role of consumers' psychological characteristics, such as

Managerial implications summary

personality traits, regulatory focus as well as product involvement on

their level of engagement should also be examined. For instance,
some research demonstrates that personality is strongly associated
with social media behaviour (Acar and Polonsky, 2007; Seidman,
2013). Although many research studies consider consumer char-
acteristics, motivation and behaviour within social networks (e.g.,
Niederhoffer et al., 2007), fewer studies examine the influence of
Zone 2

individual factors on e‐WOM and online consumer engagement,

especially for social marketing messages.
Moreover, with regard to incentives, this paper concentrates on
TABLE 6

Smoking

the effects of incentives on e‐WOM sender; however, we encourage

Alcohol
Zone 1

future research to investigate the influence of incentivised e‐WOM

on the message recipient. Research demonstrates that providing a
1310 | SIUKI
reward has a negative impact on the referral receiver (Reimer &
Benkenstein, 2018; Verlegh et al., 2013). In an unrewarded referral,
the receiver is more likely to perceive the recommendation as being
genuine and unbiased, triggered by the recommender's knowledge
and positive experience. Offering incentives to both referral provider
and receiver may eliminate this negative effect. Moreover, the ne-
gative impact of an incentivised referral could be reduced if it is
solicited by the receiver (Verlegh et al., 2013).
DATA AV AILA BILITY STATEMENT
The data that support the findings of this study are available from
the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
ORCID
Helen Siuki https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4414-1174
Cynthia M. Webster https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6697-2676
R EF E RE N C E S
Acar, A.S., & Polonsky, M. (2007). Online social networks and insights
into marketing communications. Journal of Internet Commerce, 6(4),
55–72.
Adhikari, B., Kahende, J., Malarcher, A., Pechacek, T., & Tong, V. (2009).
Smoking‐attributable mortality, years of potential life lost, and
productivity losses. Oncology Times, 31, 40–42.
Agrawal, N., & Duhachek, A. (2010). Emotional compatibility and the
effectiveness of antidrinking messages: A defensive processing
perspective on shame and guilt. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(2),
263–273.
Alhabash, S., McAlister, A. R., Hagerstrom, A., Quilliam, E. T., Rifon, N. J., &
Richards, J. I. (2013). Between likes and shares: Effects of emotional
appeal and virality on the persuasiveness of anticyberbullying
messages on Facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behaviour, and Social
Networking, 16(3), 175–182.
Almestahiri, R. D., Rundle‐Thiele, S., Parkinson, J., & Arli, D. (2017). The
use of the major components of social marketing: A systematic
review of tobacco cessation programs. Social Marketing Quarterly,
23(3), 232–248.
Anderson, N. H. (1988). A functional approach to person cognition. In T. K.
Srull, & R. S. Wyer, Jr. (Eds.), A dual process model of impression
formation (pp. 37–51). Erlbaum.
de Angelis, M., Bonezzi, A., Alessandro, M., Peluso, A. M., Rucker, D. D., &
Costabile, M. (2012). On braggarts and gossips: A self‐enhancement
account of word‐of‐mouth generation and transmission. Journal of
Marketing Research, 49(4), 551–563. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.
11.0136
Ariely, D., Bracha, A., & Meier, S. (2009). Doing good or doing well? Image
motivation and monetary incentives in behaving prosocially.
American Economic Review, 99(1), 544–555. https://doi.org/10.
1257/aer.99.1.544
Arnold, M. J., & Reynolds, K. E. (2003). Hedonic shopping motivations.
Journal of Retailing, 79, 77–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-
4359(03)00007-1
Arthur, D., & Quester, P. (2004). Who's afraid of that ad? Applying
segmentation to the protection motivation model. Psychology &
Marketing, 21(9), 671–696.
Ashley, C., & Tuten, T. (2015). Creative strategies in social media
marketing: An exploratory study of branded social content and
consumer engagement. Psychology and Marketing, 32(1), 15–27.
https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20761
Azar, S. L., Machado, J. C., Vacas‐de‐Carvalho, L., & Mendes, A. (2016).
Motivations to Interact with brands on Facebook—Towards a
AND WEBSTER
typology of consumer–brand interactions. Journal of Brand
Management, 23(2), 153–178.
Barger, V., Peltier, J. W., & Schultz, D. E. (2016). Social media and
consumer engagement: A review and research agenda. Journal of
Research in Interactive Marketing, 10(4), 268–287.
Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42(2), 155–162.
Bennett, R. (1996). Effects of horrific fear appeals on public attitudes
towards AIDS. International Journal of Advertising, 15(3), 183–202.
Berger, J. (2014). Word of mouth and interpersonal communication: A
review and directions for future research. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 24(4), 586–607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2014.
05.002
Berger, J., & Milkman, K. L. (2011). Social transmission, emotion, and the
virality of online content. Journal of Marketing Research, 49,
192–205.
Berger, J., & Milkman, K. L. (2012). What makes online content viral?
Journal of Marketing Research, 49(2), 192–205. https://doi.org/10.
1509/jmr.10.0353
Berger, J., & Schwartz, E. M. (2011). What drives immediate and ongoing
word of mouth? Journal of Marketing Research, 48(5), 869–880.
https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.48.5.869
Bécheur, I., Dib, H., Merunka, D., & Valette‐Florence, P. (2007). Emotions
of fear, guilt or shame in anti‐alcohol messages: Measuring direct
effects on persuasion and the moderating role of sensation seeking.
In S. Borghini, M. A. McGrath, & C. Otnes (Eds.), E‐European advances
in consumer research (Vol. 8, pp. 99–106). Association for Consumer
Research.
Biener, L., McCallum‐Keeler, G., & Nyman, A. L. (2000). Adults' response
to Massachusetts anti‐tobacco television advertisements: Impact of
viewer and advertisement characteristics. Tobacco Control, 9(4),
401–407. https://doi.org/10.1136/tc.9.4.401
Bower, G. H. (1983). Affect and cognition. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society, 302(B), 387–403.
Brennan, L., & Binney, W. (2010). Fear, guilt, and shame appeals in social
marketing. Journal of Business Research, 63(2), 140–146. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.02.006
Brooks, A. W., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2011). Can nervous nelly negotiate?
How anxiety causes negotiators to make low first offers, exit early,
and earn less profit. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 115(1), 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.
01.008
Butt, P., Beirness, D., Gliksman, L., Paradis, C., & Stockwell, T. (2011). Alcohol
and health in Canada: A summary of evidence and guidelines for low‐
risk drinking. Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse. www.ccsa.ca/
Resource%20Library/2011-Summary-of-Evidence-and-Guidelines-for-
Low-Risk%20Drinking-en.pdf
Buyucek, N., Knox, K., & Rundle‐Thiele, S. (2018). Observing alcohol
drinking in licensed premises: A formative social marketing study.
Journal of Social Marketing, 8, 40–57.
Chamblee, R., Gilmore, R., Thomas, G., & Soldow, G. (1993). When copy
complexity can help ad readership. Journal of Advertising Research,
33(May/June), 23–28.
Chandon, P., Wansink, B., & Laurent, G. (2000). A Benefit Congruency
Framework of Sales Promotion Effectiveness. Journal of Marketing,
64(4), 65–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.64.4.65.18071
Chen, Z., & Berger, J. (2013). When, why, and how controversy causes
conversation. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(3), 580–593. https://
doi.org/10.1086/671465
Cheung, C. M., & Lee, M. K. (2012). What drives consumers to spread
electronic word of mouth in online consumer‐opinion platforms.
Decision Support Systems, 53(1), 218–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
dss.2012.01.015
Chodkiewicz, J., Talarowska, M., Miniszewska, J., Nawrocka, N., &
Bilinski, P. (2020). Alcohol consumption reported during the
SIUKI AND WEBSTER
COVID‐19 pandemic: The initial stage. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(13), 4677.
Chu, S.C., Lien, C.H., & Cao, Y. (2019). Electronic word‐of‐mouth (eWOM)
on WeChat: Examining the influence of sense of belonging, need for
self‐enhancement, and consumer engagement on Chinese travellers’
eWOM. International Journal of Advertising, 38(1), 26–49.
Croson, R., & Gneezy, U. (2009). Gender differences in preferences.
Journal of Economic Literature, 47(2), 448–474. https://doi.org/10.
1257/jel.47.2.448
Cui, J., Wang, L., Wang, L., & Teng, Y. (2014). Empirical study of the
motivations of e‐wom spreading on online feedback system in china.
PACIS 2014 Proceedings, 251.
Darke, P. R., Ashworth, L., & Main, K. J. (2010). Great expectations and
broken promises: Misleading claims, product failure, expectancy
disconfirmation and consumer distrust. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 38(3), 347–362.
Darke, P. R., & Ritchie, R. B. (2007). The defensive consumer: Advertising
deception, defensive processing, and distrust. Journal of Marketing
Research, 44, 114–127.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta‐analytic review of
experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic
motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627–668.
Deci, E., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self‐determination in
human behavior. Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-
4899-2271-7
Devlin, E., Eadie, D., Stead, M., & Evans, K. (2007). Comparative Study of
Young People's response to anti‐smoking messages. International
Journal of Advertising, 26, 99–128.
Dobele, A., Lindgreen, A., Beverland, M., Vanhamme, J., & van Wijk, R.
(2007). Why pass on viral messages? Because they connect
emotionally. Business Horizons, 50(4), 291–304. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.bushor.2007.01.004
Doenyas, C. (2017). Self versus other oriented social motivation, not lack
of empathic or moral ability, explains behavioral outcomes in
children with high theory of mind abilities. Motivation and Emotion,
41, 683–697.
Dubé, J. P., Luo, X., & Fang, Z. (2017). Self‐signaling and prosocial
behavior: A cause marketing experiment. Marketing Science, 36(2),
161–186. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2016.1012
Duhachek, A., Agrawal, N., & Han, D. (2012). Guilt versus shame: Coping,
fluency, and framing in the effectiveness of responsible drinking
messages. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(6), 928–941.
Duke, C. R., Pickett, L. C., & Grove, S. J. (1993). A method for evaluating
the ethics of fear appeals. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 12(1),
120–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/074391569501200112
Eagle, L., Dahl, S., & Low, D. R. (2015). Ethics in social marketing. In L. Eagle, &
S. Dahl (Eds.), Marketing ethics and society. Sage Publications.
Fehr, E., & Falk, A. (2002). Psychological foundations of incentives. European
Economic Review, 46(4), 687–724. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0014-
2921(01)00208-2
Fletcher‐Brown, J., Turnbull, S., Viglia, G., Chen, T., & Pereira, V. (2020).
Vulnerable consumer engagement: How corporate social media can
facilitate the replenishment of depleted resources. International Journal
of Research in Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2020.06.002
Frey, B. S. (1993). Motivation as a limit to pricing. Journal of Economic
Psychology, 14, 635–664. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-4870(93)
90014-C
Giebelhausen, M., Chun, H. H., & Cronin, J. J., Jr., Hult, G. T. M. (2016).
Adjusting the warm‐glow thermostat: How incentivizing participation in
voluntary green programs moderates their impact on service
satisfaction. Journal of Marketing, 80(4), 56–71. https://doi.org/10.
1509/jm.14.0497
Gneezy, U., Meier, S., & Rey‐Biel, P. (2011). When and why incentives
(don't) work to modify behavior. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25,
191–210. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.25.4.191
| 1311
Gneezy, U., & Rustichini, A. (2000). Pay enough or don't pay at all.
Quarterly Journal of Economcis, 115(2), 791–810.
Gneezy, U., & Rey‐Biel, P. (2014). On the relative efficiency of
performance pay and noncontingent incentives. Journal of the
European Economic Association, 12, 62–72.
Goldenberg, J. L., & Arndt, J. (2008). The implications of death for health:
A terror management health model for behavioral health promotion.
Psychological Review, 115, 1032–1053.
Graham, K., & Homel, R. (2008). Raising the bar: Preventing aggression in
and around bars, clubs and pubs. Willian Publishing.
Hall, J. A. (1984). Nonverbal sex differences: Coinmunication acctrracy and
expressive style. John Hopkins University Press.
Hastings, G., Stead, M., & Webb, J. (2004). Fear appeals in social
marketing: Strategic and ethical reasons for concern. Psychology and
Marketing, 21(11), 961–986. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20043
Hayes, J. R. (2013). The complete problem solver, Routledge.
Hennig‐Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., Walsh, G., & Gremler, D. D. (2004).
Electronic word‐of‐mouth via consumer opinion platforms: What
motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the Internet.
Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(1), 38–52. https://doi.org/10.
1002/dir.10073
Hinz, O., Skiera, B., Barrot, C., & Becker, J. U. (2011). Seeding strategies
for viral marketing: An empirical comparison. Journal of Marketing,
75, 55–71. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.10.0088
Hollebeek, L., Glynn, M., & Brodie, R. (2014). Consumer brand
engagement in social media: Conceptualization, scale development
and validation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 28(2), 149–165.
Hollebeek, L., Srivastava, R., & Chen, T. (2016). S‐D logic‐informed
customer engagement: Integrative framework, revised fundamental
propositions, and application to CRM. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-016-0494-5
Hollebeek, L. D. (2019). Developing business customer engagement
through social media engagement‐platforms: An integrative SD
logic/RBV‐informed model. Industrial Marketing Management, 81,
89–98.
Holmås, T.H., Kjerstad, E., Lurås, H., & Straume, O. R. (2010). Does
monetary punishment crowd out pro‐social motivation? A natural
experiment on hospital length of stay. Journal of Economic Behavior &
Organization, 75(2), 261–267.
Jin, L., & Huang, Y. (2014). When giving money does not work: The
differential effects of monetary versus in‐kind rewards in referral
reward programs. International Journal of Research in Marketing,
31(1), 107–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2013.08.005
Kalra, A., & Shi, M. (2010). Consumer value‐maximizing sweepstakes and
contests. Journal of Marketing Research, 47, 287–300. https://doi.
org/10.1509/jmkr.47.2.287
Kennedy, A. M., & Santos, N. (2019). Social fairness and social marketing.
Journal of Social Marketing, 9, 522–539.
Lacetera, N., & Macis, M. (2010a). Do all material incentives for pro‐social
activities backfire? The response to cash and non‐cash incentives for
blood donations. Journal of Economic Psychology, 31(4), 738–748.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2010.05.007
Lacetera, N., & Macis, M. (2010b). Social image concerns and prosocial
behavior: Field evidence from a nonlinear incentive scheme. Journal
of Economic Behavior and Organization, 76(2), 225–237.
Laslett, A. M., Catalano, P., Chikritzhs, T., Dale, C., Doran, C., Ferris, J.,
Jainullabudeen, T., Livingston, M., Matthews, S., Mugavin, J.,
Room, R., Schlotterlein, M., & Wilkinson, C. (2010). The range and
magnitude of alcohol's harm to others. Foundation for Alcohol
Research and Education.
Lefebvre, C. R. (2011). An integrative model for social marketing. Journal
of Social Marketing, 1(1), 54–72.
Lepper, M. R., Greene, D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1973). Undermining children’s
intrinsic interest with extrinsic rewards: A test of the ‘overjustification’
hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 129–137.
1312 | SIUKI
Liang, B., & Scammon, D. L. (2011). E‐word‐of‐mouth on health social
networking sites: An opportunity for tailored health communication.
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 10(6), 322–331.
Lim, M. S., Wright, C. J., Carrotte, E. R., & Pedrana, A. E. (2017). Reach,
engagement, and effectiveness: A systematic review of evaluation
methodologies used in health promotion via social networking sites.
Health Promotion Journal of Australia, 27(3), 187–197. https://doi.
org/10.1071/HE16057
Lowe, B., Lynch, D., & Lowe, J. (2015). Reducing household water
consumption: A social marketing approach. Journal of Marketing
Management, 31(3–4), 378–408.
Lu, H.‐P., & Su, P. Y.‐J. (2009). Factors affecting purchase intention on
mobile shopping web sites. Internet Research, 19, 442–458. https://
doi.org/10.1108/10662240910981399
Malthouse, E. C., Calder, B.J., Kim, S.J., & Vandenbosch, M. (2016). Evidence
that user‐generated content that produces engagement increases
purchase behaviours. Journal of Marketing Management, 32(5‐6),
427–444. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267257x.2016.1148066
Marbach, J., Lages, C. R., & Nunan, D. (2016). Who are you and what do
you value? Investigating the role of personality traits and customer‐
perceived value in online customer engagement. Journal of Marketing
Management, 32(5–6), 502–525. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267257x.
2015.1128472
Marchand, J., & Filiatrault, P. (2002). AIDS prevention advertising:
Different message strategies for different communication
objectives. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Marketing, 7(3), 271–287.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for
cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98,
224–253.
McKay‐Nesbitt, J., & Yoon, S. (2015). Social marketing communication
messages: How congruence between source and content influences
physical activity attitudes. Journal of Social Marketing, 5(1), 40–55.
Mellström, C., & Johannesson, M. (2008). Crowding out in blood donation:
Was titmuss right? Journal of the European Economic Association,
6(4), 845–863.
Michaelidou, N., Dibb, S., & Ali, H. (2008). The Effect of Health,
Cosmetic and Social Antismoking Information Themes on
Adolescents' Beliefs About Smoking. International Journal of
Advertising, 27(2), 235–250.
Michalski, R., Jankowski, J., & Kazienko, P. S. C. A. (2012), Negative effects
of incentivised viral campaigns for activity in social networks, In Social
Computing and its Applications 2012 Proceedings of the 2nd
International Conference, Xiangtan, China.
Mortimer, D., Ghijben, P., Harris, A., & Hollingsworth, B. (2013). Incentive‐
based and non‐incentive‐based interventions for increasing blood
donation. Cochrane Database System Review, 2013(1), CD010295.
Munzel, A., & Kunz, H. W. (2014). Creators, multipliers, and lurkers: Who
contributes and who benefits at online review sites. Journal of
Service Management, 25(1), 49–74. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-
04-2013-0115
Niederhoffer, K., Mooth, R., Wiesenfeld, D., & Gordon, J. (2007). The
origin and impact of CPG new‐product buzz: Emerging trends and
implications. Journal of Advertising Research, 47(4), 420–426.
Noble, G., Pomering, A., & Johnson, L. W. (2014). Gender and message
appeal: Their influence in a pro‐environmental social advertising
context. Journal of Social Marketing, 4(1), 4–21. https://doi.org/10.
1108/JSOCM-12-2012-0049
Osterloh, M., & Frey, B. S. (2000). Motivation, knowledge transfer, and
organizational forms. Organization Science, 11(5), 538–550.
Pink, D. H. (2011). Drive: The Surprising Truth about What Motivates Us,
Penguin.
Poch, R., & Martin, B. (2015). Effects of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on
user‐generated content. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 23(4), 305–317.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2014.926966
AND WEBSTER
Previte, J., Russell‐Bennett, R., & Parkinson, J. (2015). Shaping
safe drinking cultures: Evoking positive emotion to promote
moderate‐drinking behaviour. International Journal of Consumer
Studies, 39(1), 12–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12146
Putrevu, S., Tan, J., & Lord, K. R. (2004). Consumer responses to complex
advertisements: The moderating role of need for cognition,
knowledge, and gender. Journal of Current Issues & Research in
Advertising, 26(1), 9–24.
Raghubir, P. (2004). Coupons in context: Discounting prices or decreasing
profits? Journal of Retailing, 80, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jretai.2004.01.001
Reimer, T., & Benkenstein, M. (2016). Altruistic e‐WOM marketing: More
than an alternative to monetary incentives. Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, 31, 323–333.
Reimer, T., & Benkenstein, M. (2018). Not just for the recommender: How
e‐WOM incentives influence the recommendation audience. Journal
of Business Research, 86, 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.
2018.01.041
Rogers, R. W., & Deckner, C. W. (1975). Effects of fear appeals and
physiological arousal upon emotion, attitudes, and cigarette
smoking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 222–230.
Rossiter, J. R., & Thornton, J. (2004). Fear‐pattern analysis supports the
fear‐drive model for antispeeding road‐safety TV ads. Psychology &
Marketing, 21(11), 945–960.
Roth, G. (2008). Perceived parental conditional regard and autonomy
support as predictors of young adults' self‐ versus other‐oriented
prosocial tendencies. Journal of Personality, 76, 513–534.
Rothschild, M. L. (1999). Carrots, sticks, and promises: A conceptual
framework for the management of public health and social issue
behaviors. Journal of Marketing, 63, 24–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/
002224299906300404
Ruiter, R. A., Kessels, L. T., Peters, G. J. Y., & Kok, G. (2014). Sixty years of
fear appeal research: Current state of the evidence. International
Journal of Psychology, 49(2), 63–70.
Ryu, G., & Feick, L. (2007). A penny for your thoughts: Referral reward
programs and referral likelihood. Journal of Marketing, 71(1), 84–94.
https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.71.1.084
Schulze, C., Scholer, L., & Skiera, B. (2014). Not all fun and games: Viral
marketing for utilitarian products. Journal of Marketing, 78, 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.11.0528
Seidman, G. (2013). Self‐Presentation and belonging on Facebook: How
personality influences social media use and motivations. Personality
and Individual Differences, 54(3), 402–407.
Shang, R.‐A., Chen, Y.‐C., & Shen, L. (2005). Extrinsic versus intrinsic
motivations for consumers to shop on‐line. Information and
Management, 42, 401–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2004.
01.009
Smith, A. N., Fischer, E., & Yongjian, C. (2012). How does brand‐related
user‐generated content differ across Youtube, Facebook, and
Twitter? Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26(2), 102–113. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2012.01.002
Smith, C. N. (2001). Social marketing and social contracts: applying
integrative social contracts theory to ethical issues in social
marketing. In A. Andreasen (Ed.), Ethics in social marketing.
Georgetown University Press.
Statista. (2021). Most used social media 2021. Statista [online]. Available
at: <https://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-networks-
ranked-by-number-of-users/> [Accessed 24 May 2021].
Sweeney, J. C., Soutar, G. N., & Mazzarol, T. (2012). Word of mouth:
Measuring the power of individual messages. European Journal of
Marketing, 4 6(1 /2) , 2 37 –2 57 . h ttps://doi.org /10.1108/
03090561211189310
Szablewska, N., & Kubacki, K. (2019). A human rights‐based approach to
the social good in social marketing. Journal of Business Ethics, 155(3),
871–888.
SIUKI AND WEBSTER
Tellis, G. J., MacInnis, D. J., Tirunillai, S., & Zhang, Y. (2019). What drives
virality (sharing) of online digital content? The critical role of
information, emotion, and brand prominence. Journal of Marketing,
83(4), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242919841034
Titmuss, R.M. (1970). The Gift Relationship: From Human Blood to Social
Policy, London, U.K.: Allen & Unwin.
Thackeray, R., Neiger, B. L., Hanson, C. L., & McKenzie, J. F. (2008).
Enhancing promotional strategies within social marketing programs:
Use of Web 2.0 social media. Health Promotion Practice, 9(4),
338–343.
Toubia, O., & Stephen, A. T. (2013). Intrinsic vs. image‐related utility in
social media: Why do people contribute content To Twitter?
Marketing Science, 32(3), 368–392. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.
2013.0773
Verlegh, P. W., Ryu, G., Tuk, M. A., & Feick, L. (2013). Receiver responses
to rewarded referrals: The motive inferences framework. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(6), 669–682. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11747-013-0327-8
Vilnai‐Yavetz, I., & Levina, O. (2018). Motivating social sharing of e‐
business content: Intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, or
crowding‐out effect? Computers in Human Behavior, 79, 181–191.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.10.034
Witte, K., & Allen, M. (2000). A meta‐analysis of fear appeals:
Implications for effective public health campaigns. Health
Education and Behavior, 27(5), 591–615. https://doi.org/10.
1177/109019810002700506
| 1313
Woerndl, M., Papagiannidis, S., Bourlakis, M., & Li, F. (2008). Internet‐
induced marketing techniques: Critical factors in viral marketing
campaigns. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management, 3(1),
35–45.
World Health Organization (WHO). (2013). WHO report on the global
tobacco epidemic, 2013: Enforcing bans on tobacco advertising,
promotion and sponsorship: Executive summary. http://apps.who.int/
iris/bitstream/10665/85380/1/9789241505871_eng.pdf?ua¼1
Yach, D. (2020). Tobacco use patterns in five countries during the COVID‐19
lockdown. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 22, 1671–1672.
Yoo, K. H., & Gretzel, U. (2011). Influence of personality on travel‐related
consumer‐generated media creation. Computers in Human Behavior,
27(2), 609–621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.002
Yoon, H. J., & Kim, Y. (2014). The moderating role of gender identity in
responses to comedic violence advertising. Journal of Advertising, 43(4),
382–396.
Zhang, T., Lu, C., Torres, E., & Chen, P. J. (2018). Engaging customers in value
co‐creation or co‐destruction online. Journal of Services Marketing, 32(1),
57–69. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-01-2017-0027
How to cite this article: Siuki, H., & Webster, C. M. (2021).
Social good or self‐interest: Incentivizing consumer social
media engagement behaviour for health messages. Psychol
Mark, 38, 1293–1313. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21517