Abstract
Today's technology-enabled customer with instant access to a global marketplace has led to firms facing intense competition from around the world. As a result, customer engagement has emerged as an important marketing strategy and for more than a decade has fueled intense attention from academe and professionals. However, despite this focus, there is a paucity of research considering customer engagement in a cross-cultural context. This exploratory study provides empirical clarification as to whether culture at a national level impacts the manifestation of specific customer engagement behaviors exhibited by customers engaged with a brand. A conceptualization of customer engagement behaviors according to Hofstede's six dimensions of culture is presented, and a netnographic study focusing on an online brand community reveals that while national culture exerts no impact on the behaviors of engaged customers, the culture associated with a brand does. These findings serve as a foundation for future academic inquiry and present the opportunity for managers to foster and nurture a brand culture that encourages customer engagement.
The construct of customer engagement (CE), which has been found to significantly impact organizational performance by increasing sales, competitive advantage, and profitability (Kumar et al. 2010; Naumann, Bowden, and Gabbott 2020; Pansari and Kumar 2017) as well as fostering customer trust, commitment, satisfaction, and loyalty (Bowden 2009; Hollebeek 2011), has attracted growing attention in recent years from scholars and practitioners alike. Described as the most “extensive and integrated approach to understand customers” (Islam and Rahman 2016, p. 2020), the concept centers on the recognition that today's technology-enabled customers can be active contributors to a firm's marketing functions, thereby facilitating customer acquisition and retention, creating and sharing marketing communication, and even cocreating products (Brodie et al. 2011; Harmeling et al. 2017).
CE research encompasses a myriad of directions: For example, the conceptualization and nature of CE, with individual firm touchpoints such as social media platforms, online brand communities (OBCs), and websites, have been empirically investigated (Connell et al. 2019; Hammedi et al. 2015; Read et al. 2019). The concept of CE marketing, capturing firms’ efforts to encourage and measure customers’ voluntary contributions to its marketing functions, has been established and explored (Harmeling et al. 2017). And recently the impact on CE of the use of artificial intelligence, whereby automated customer–firm interactions can be highly personalized, has been considered (Hollebeek, Sprott, and Brady 2021) in line with significant developments in the wider field of marketing. However, to date there is a paucity of research considering CE in a cross-cultural context.
As a concept, culture is both multifaceted and complex (Möller and Svahn 2004) and is commonly defined as “the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the member of one group or category of people from others” (Hofstede and Hofstede 2007, p. 4). Cultural background is known to influence individuals’ social norms, values, beliefs, and behavior (Erez et al. 2005), and cross-cultural differences are accepted as being one of the biggest challenges to cross-border business (Stöttinger and Schlegelmilch 2000). Despite the fact that market globalization has created a global consumer culture, marketing scholars have determined that cultural homogenization has not taken place, and today culture at a national level exerts tangible influence on individual customers (Steenkamp 2019). Thus firms commonly adapt their marketing strategies to suit the prevailing cultural traits and values of a country (Ashraf et al. 2017). These adaptions can concern each component of the marketing mix (product, price, promotion, and distribution), and the cost implications can be significant and yet, as Albaum and Tse (2001) observe, often necessary for a firm's global success.
Among the theoretical frameworks developed to understand cultural differences, the Hofstede model “remains central to the academic and practical field of international businesses” (Sent and Kroese 2022, p. 23). Developed from multiple comprehensive empirical studies across 76 countries, Hofstede’s model identifies six dimensions of culture: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism versus collectivism, masculinity versus femininity, long-term versus short-term orientation, and indulgence versus restraint (Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov 2010). Proponents of Hofstede's typology cite the fact that the empirically identified cultural dimensions not only support but extend conceptualizations of culture proposed throughout the decades (e.g., Adelman and Morris 1967; Gregg and Banks 1965; Inkeles and Levinson 1969). Thus Hofstede's cultural dimension model is heralded as “probably the dominant explanation of behavioural differences between nations” (Williamson 2002, p. 1392) and is used to explain variances in cognitive and affective individual responses between countries (De Mooij and Hofstede 2010). This is highly significant as CE is empirically identified as a tripartite construct consisting of cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions (Bowden et al. 2017).
Hofstede's model has garnered criticism. McSweeney (2002) highlights issues with the original sample: although the participants came from over 50 different countries, they were all employees of the one company, IBM, and therefore shared a common corporate culture. That said, major replications of Hofstede's study have validated not only the identified cultural dimensions but also individual country scores relative to the metrics (Hofstede 2011). Similarly, the fact that culture is examined at the ecological (i.e., national) level opposed to that of the individual is identified as a limitation of the framework (Yoo, Donthu, and Lenartowicz 2011). However, Hofstede (2011) asserts that this is only a weakness when studies, and therefore researchers, do not recognize that there is a clear distinction between findings at a societal and an individual level. Yoo, Donthu, and Lenartowicz (2011) support this assertion, noting that it is perfectly acceptable to group research participants on the basis of their national identity and assign Hofstede's country-level indices to them in order to study the effect of a particular phenomenon, such as consumer behavior (Dawar and Parker 1994) or, in the case of the present study, CE, when it is the country and not the individual that is being examined.
By establishing whether the customer engagement behaviors (CEBs) exhibited by engaged customers are relative to the prevailing national culture of their country of domicile, this research aims to determine the impact that culture has on the construct of CE. Furthermore, it provides guidance to firms on how best to foster and maintain CE on a global scale. The purpose of this study, therefore, is to provide empirical clarification as to whether culture at a national level impacts the manifestation of a broad range of CEBs. Drawing from the literature on CE and consumer behavior in a cross-cultural context, this research serves as a foundation for future academic inquiry and offers direction to managers on how best to approach their global CE strategies.
Thus, this research aims to answer three questions. First, it identifies the manifestations of specific CEBs exhibited by engaged customers toward a brand, relative to Hofstede's six dimensions of national culture. Second, it provides empirical clarification as to whether differences in the manifestation of CE are contingent on differing dimensions of culture at a national level. Finally, it examines how CE at the level of an OBC can be fostered and maintained, taking into account the likely differing nationalities of members.
This study examines CE in a cross-cultural context using a member-initiated (opposed to firm-initiated; Porter 2004) OBC as the data set. Muñiz and O’Guinn (2001) define an OBC as “a specialised, non-geographically bound community, based on a structured set of social relationships among admirers of a brand” (p. 412). OBCs have attracted much attention from academe with regard to CE (Brodie et al. 2013; Dessart, Veloutsou, and Morgan-Thomas 2015; Islam, Rahman, and Hollebeek 2018) because the act of engaging with an OBC signals a state of CE on the part of the individual. Thus, OBCs are considered a meaningful medium through which to examine the construct of CE (Gummerus et al. 2012). The research setting of this study centers on one particular discussion thread on Styleforum, a men's fashion-focused OBC that hosts over 464,000 discussion threads among over 209,000 worldwide members. The topic of the thread is a British handcrafted designer men's footwear brand, Crockett and Jones, as further detailed in the discussion of the study's methodology.
The article is organized as follows. The following section offers a literature review of key CE literature from which propositions regarding the impact of cultural dimensions on the manifestation of CEBs are developed, addressing the study's first research question. This is followed by a brief outline and justification of the adopted research methodology and sampling frame. The findings of the empirical research are then reported and discussed, and finally key theoretical and managerial implications arising from the research are presented, answering the study's second and third research questions.
Literature Review
Customer Engagement in a Cross-Cultural Context
Given the importance with which CE is viewed by both academe and industry, not to mention the fact that businesses are increasingly operating on a global scale, surprisingly little is known about how culture at a national level impacts CE or whether firms should be adapting their approach to fostering and maintaining CE on a country-by-country basis. To date, only a handful of scholars have considered CE in a cross-cultural context. Hollebeek (2018) offers a conceptualization of the differences between characteristic culture-based traits and the impact that these differences would have on the cognitive, affective, behavioral, and social manifestation of CE with brands at the level of the individual. Although this work offers important insight into the effect of culture on the manifestation of CE, it is conceptual in nature, and therefore, as the author acknowledges, empirical work is necessary (Hollebeek 2018). Moreover, as empirical understanding is lacking regarding whether cross-cultural differences impact CE at all, never mind the nature of this impact, the present research considers culture at the level of the country rather than the level of the individual.
Gupta, Pansari, and Kumar (2018) introduce the concept of global CE by integrating culture and economic factors into the CE framework proposed by Pansari and Kumar (2017). Utilizing Hofstede's cultural dimensions as well as country-level factors such as the adoption of new technology and media use, Pansari and Kumar present a framework that captures the process of CE as well as the moderating influence of culture. However, again, this work is conceptual in nature. Furthermore, the focus of this study is not to establish whether culture impacts the construct of CE or how this influence manifests but instead to identify the dimensions of culture that have a moderating effect on specific conceptual relationships in the CE process. We posit that, given the nascent state of the literature, a macro perspective that empirically determines how cultural dimensions at a national level impact CE is required.
Roy et al. (2018) provide insight into the four different CEBs identified by Jaakkola and Alexander (2014)—augmenting CEB, codeveloping CEB, influencing CEB, and mobilizing CEB—across developed and developing countries whose markets are identified as being either individualistic or collectivistic in nature. However, the study's focus is to consider the relationships between service fairness, different forms of trust, value-in-use, and CEBs, not to examine the construct of CE in a cross-cultural context as the present study aims to do.
Gong (2018) considers CEBs in a cross-cultural context but again only considers limited brand-related behaviors (brand ownership, brand responsibility, and self-enhancement) and only two cultural dimensions (individualism–collectivism and power distance). Finally, Thompson and Brouthers (2021) examine the influence that cultural differences between countries have on digital CE—specifically the behaviors of clicking and sharing online advertising. While their study provides empirical insight into the impact of cultural differences on CE, drawing on five of Hofstede's six cultural dimensions and finding that national cultural differences do lead to variations in digital CE, it takes a limited view. By only considering specific CEBs and not all cultural dimensions, Thompson and Brouthers provide a context-specific study that offers limited insight to managers apart from the medium of online advertising. The present study aims to address this limitation by establishing the effect of all six of Hofstede's identified cultural dimensions on the manifestation of a broad spectrum of CEBs.
Customer Engagement and Customer Engagement Behavior
Tracing the evolution of scholarly research on CE in the domain of marketing provides direction for the present study. Early studies attempt to conceptualize the construct of CE, determining its dimensionality as a multidimensional concept comprising cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions that can be impacted by personal, environmental, and object-related (e.g., brand, engagement platform) factors (Hollebeek, Srivastava, and Chen 2019). These findings led Brodie et al. (2011) to define CE as “a psychological state that occurs by virtue of interactive, cocreative customer experiences with a focal agent/object (e.g., a brand)” (p. 260). The theoretical foundation for this conceptualization of CE is firmly rooted in the expanded domain of relationship marketing and service-dominant logic (Brodie et al. 2011; Vivek et al. 2014), whereby customers are viewed as active participants in value cocreation within the marketing process (Vargo and Lusch 2008). However, academic inquiry into CE also has another theoretical stream, which considers CE from a consumer behavior perspective (Calder, Malthouse, and Schaedel 2009; Kumar et al. 2010; Mollen and Wilson 2010). Scholars have been able to advance wider theoretical understanding of CE by adopting a unidimensional view of the construct limiting their focus to the behavioral dimension of CE and the behavioral manifestations that can be easily identified and measured (Gummerus et al. 2012), compared with psychologically derived expressions of engagement such as cognitions or emotions. This approach is mirrored more recently in pioneering studies considering CE in a cross-cultural context, whereby identified behaviors such as the clicking and sharing of online advertisements (Thompson and Brouthers 2021) and the augmenting, codeveloping, influencing, and mobilizing behaviors of luxury hotel guests (Roy et al. 2018) are used to identify CE on the part of the customer.
Given the nascent state of cross-cultural CE research, we take the position that focusing specifically on the identifiable behavioral manifestations of CE in this research will yield valuable insight into the phenomenon that can be used as a much-needed foundation for further inquiry. We selected this study's customer sample because it demonstrates engagement through participation in the OBC, facilitating the examination of the effects of differing dimensions of culture on the participants’ behaviors. Thus we adopt Hollebeek, Srivastava, and Chen’s (2019) resource integration view and definition of CE as being a customer's “motivationally driven, volitional investment of specific operant/operand resources in interactions” (p. 171), whereby customers’ operant resource investments could consist of time, energy, knowledge, experience, or skills (and therefore be cognitive, affective, and/or behavioral in nature; Hollebeek, Srivastava, and Chen 2019; Jaakkola and Alexander 2014), and operand resources refer to the equipment necessary to engage (Hollebeek et al. 2018), such as computers or internet-enabled devices.
Importantly, this conceptualization of CE reflects Bowden et al.’s (2017) definition of behavioral engagement specifically within an OBC, where “behavioural engagement is defined as an individual consumer's interest in devoting energy, effort, and time to a brand and/or OBC-activity” (p. 888). Barari et al.’s (2020) meta-analysis of extant CEB literature identifies three categories of CEBs “beyond purchase” (Van Doorn et al. 2010): resource sharing on the part of the customer with the firm; resource sharing on the part of the customer with other actors, such as other customers; and direct influencing. Resource sharing with the firm typically constitutes customer behaviors such as making suggestions, providing feedback, or participating in cocreation of the firm's core offerings (Jaakkola and Alexander 2014; Kumar et al. 2010). Resource sharing with other actors, namely other customers, takes the form of word-of-mouth communications, customer reviews, experience, and knowledge sharing conducted with the goal of providing assistance (Jaakkola and Alexander 2014; Storbacka et al. 2016). Finally, direct influencing captures customers’ behaviors that directly influence other actors’ attitudes or behaviors toward the firm through the process of referral, recommendations, or review (Jaakkola and Alexander 2014; Kumar et al. 2010). As the present study is focused on a brand community that developed spontaneously on a public forum (i.e., with no overt direct involvement or interaction on the part of the brand), it takes in the latter of these two categories, capturing CEBs related to resource sharing among actors and direct influencing. This sample was chosen because it offers the opportunity to examine the cultural effects on CE without any interference or inducement from the brand that could affect customers’ behavior. Thus, this OBC captures customers’ voluntary engagement responses and behaviors. The remainder of this section conceptually establishes the nature of these CEBs and how they correspond to Hofstede's six dimensions of culture, forming the basis for the empirical inquiry. Table 1 provides a summary of our conceptualizations of CEBs for individual cultural dimensions that are theoretically driven and verified by expert panels as detailed in the methodology.
Conceptualization of the Manifestation of CEBs Relative to Hofstede’s Six Dimensions of National Culture in an OCB.
Power Distance and CEBs
Power distance refers to “the extent to which less powerful members of a society accept and expect that power is distributed unequally” (Hofstede 2011, p. 9). Essentially, it is concerned with how a society deals with inequalities among its people. In cultures that have a high degree of power distance, people are accepting of hierarchy and do not look for justification for their place within this structure (Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov 2010). They are more likely to value status, knowledge, experience, power, and prestige (Jaw et al. 2007; Kirkman et al. 2009) and therefore are more likely to trust, respect, and defer to those perceived to possess expertise, be they authoritative figures (Pornpitakpan and Francis 2000), professional designers (Song, Jung, and Zhang 2021), or brands (Lalwani and Forcum 2016). Consumers from high-power-distance cultures exhibit a greater need for structure (Lalwani and Forcum 2016), clarity, and unambiguity (Lee, Lalwani, and Wang 2020) and will therefore engage in their own research and inquiry rather than trust information provided to them by those not considered to be in positions of authority (i.e., peers; Dawar, Parker, and Price 1996; Thompson and Brouthers 2021). Furthermore, as status is important to them, they place great emphasis on the quality of products and services offered by firms (Lalwani and Forcum 2016). Thus, we posit that engaging in behaviors that demonstrate evidence of a detailed examination of the brand and the brand offerings is representative of CEBs of those from high-power-distance cultures.
Members of low-power-distance cultures, in contrast, do not use social strata, power, or hierarchy to distinguish themselves from others (Javidan and House 2001). Instead, importance is placed on societal equality and the views of others (Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov 2010). Thus, members of a group feel comfortable interacting with one another and do so from a position of egalitarianism, commonly supporting one another to form opinions and make decisions (Fock, Hui, and Au 2004). In fact, these interactions can provide members with an increased sense of security or validation in terms of their decision making, which can act as motivation for their participation in terms of sharing and listening to information (Zhang and Begley 2011). Unsurprisingly, social interaction is valued in these cultures (Hollebeek 2018). Consequently, we propose that CEBs that reinforce group dynamics, such as validating the views, opinions, experiences, and decision making of others in the OBC, are characteristic of low-power-distance cultures.
Individualism Versus Collectivism and CEBs
Individualism captures the degree to which individuality or collectivity prevails in a particular society. Members of cultures high in individualism will prioritize the interests and needs of themselves and their immediate family members over those of the wider societal group (Hofstede 1980). They tend to be independent in their thinking and have high levels of confidence in their own assessment of situations and experiences (Mai, Ketron, and Yang 2020). Moreover, individualistic cultures are notably universalistic and as such have a tendency to assume that their values hold validity worldwide (De Mooij and Hofstede 2010). Hollebeek (2018) identified two of Jaakkola and Alexander's (2014) four CEBs as being reflective of individualist traits: augmenting behavior (i.e., contributing to a firm's offering beyond the transaction, such as by providing feedback or suggestions) and codeveloping behavior, in which contributions such as new product development suggestions are made to develop a firm's offerings. Although the OBC identified as the data set for the present study has no direct links with the brand it is focused on, we posit that there is still the opportunity for both augmenting and codeveloping CEBs to occur, with members discussing among themselves their brand and product feedback and their suggestions for product development. Given that customers from individualist countries exhibit greater levels of certainty and assurance of their own opinions, we suggest that augmenting and codeveloping behaviors in posts are reflective of individualistic cultures.
Conversely, collectivist cultures are characterized by strong, cohesive in-groups, often consisting of extended families, that provide high levels of support in exchange for loyalty (Soares, Farhangmehr, and Shoham 2007). Thus, emphasis is placed on the interests, values, and beliefs of the group over those of the individual (Hofstede 2001). There is a need to belong, uphold appearances, and maintain social harmony by engaging in behaviors and actions that are considered contextually appropriate by the group (Liu and McClure 2001). Given that the focus of collectivist cultures is on their own in-groups, we adopt Hollebeek's (2011) proposal that the collectivist culture dimension is reflected in Jaakkola and Alexander's (2014) remaining two CEB styles: influencing behavior, which aims to affect fellow OBC members’ brand or product-related perceptions, preferences, or knowledge, and mobilizing behavior, which aims to stimulate action by others in the OBC toward the focal brand.
Masculinity Versus Femininity and CEBs
In a cultural context, the masculinity versus femininity dimension “contrasts the relative strength of masculine and assertive (or ego) interests with feminine and nurturance (social, relational) interests” (Nelson et al. 2006, p. 46) within a national culture. Hofstede (1980) identified that women view socially derived goals such as maintaining interpersonal relationships, helping others, and enhancing the physical environment as having greater significance, whereas men place value on egocentric goals such as careers and money. Moreover, countries differ in values and gender roles according to how masculine or feminine their culture is. In masculine societies, achievement, success, and outperforming peers hold great importance, and society at large tends to be competitive, value the acquisition of wealth, and hold distinct gender roles (Hofstede 2001). Achievement is commonly defined by earnings and demonstrated through the purchase of luxury brands and products (De Mooij and Hofstede 2002). Such status-seeking behaviors are prevalent in masculine societies and can be defined as efforts to improve one's social standing either through the consumption of products or brands as status symbols or by engaging in behaviors that enhance status within social groups (Roy and Chau 2011). These efforts may include behaviors that increase the perception of the individual’s prestige, honor, or achievement in the eyes of peers (Lampel and Bhalla 2007). Thus, we propose that CEBs that enhance one's personal status, in the form of achievement, success, wealth, prestige, honor, or material possessions, are representative of masculine cultures.
In contrast, the dominant values in feminine cultures are caring for others, modesty, and quality of life (Hofstede 1980). Caring and nurturing behaviors, equality, environmental awareness, and more fluid gender roles are typical of feminine-oriented societies, resulting in cultures that support and nurture those who are in need or who are less knowledgeable or capable (Van den Bos et al. 2010). Thus, those from feminine cultures are considered more likely to display empathetic behaviors toward others (Aaker and Williams 1998). Empathy can be defined as the capability to identify, comprehend, and respond to another person's thoughts, feelings, experiences, and circumstances (Markovic et al. 2018). Hollebeek (2018) proposes that customers from feminine cultures will display more empathetic, as opposed to status-driven, CEBs, and we support this. Thus we suggest that societies low on masculinity (i.e., feminine societies) will exhibit CEBs that demonstrate empathy toward others in the OBC.
Uncertainty Avoidance and CEBs
Uncertainty avoidance is defined as “the extent to which people feel threatened by uncertainty and ambiguity and try to avoid these situations” (Hofstede 2001, p. 161). Hofstede (2011) posits that uncertainty avoidance should not be confused with risk avoidance, as uncertainty avoidance captures a society's tolerance for ambiguity and the degree to which its members feel comfortable in situations that are new, unknown, or different from what they may be used to. Cultures that are high in uncertainty avoidance seek structure in a bid to remove or minimize ambiguity and therefore are less accepting of change and innovation (De Mooij and Hofstede 2010). Customers from such countries have been found to spend more time searching for, and analyzing, information regarding products and services (Dawar, Parker, and Price 1996) and are hesitant to seek variety, preferring what is known to them as opposed to what is novel (Roth 1995). Thus, they will purchase repeatedly from brands that are familiar to them (Bao, Zhou, and Su 2003) and be less likely to purchase new products or styles (Lowe and Corkindale 1998). Therefore, we submit that customers from high-uncertainty-avoidance cultures will display CEBs that demonstrate their reluctance to purchase new styles or try new products/services from the brand in favor of styles, products, or services that are familiar to them.
In contrast, cultures that are low in uncertainty avoidance are more tolerant of ambiguity and change and embrace variety and novelty (De Mooij and Hofstede 2010; Roth 1995). Customers from these cultures need less structure and therefore will try new brands, products, or services, seeking the opinions of others, rather than establishing patterns of repetitive purchasing behavior (Yaveroglu and Donthu 2002). Variety seeking is defined as the “tendency of individuals to seek diversity in their choice of services or goods” (Kahn 1995, p. 135). In line with Hollebeek's (2018) assertions, we theorize that customers from low-uncertainty-avoidance cultures will display elements of variety seeking in their CEBs relative to this cultural dimension.
Long-Term Versus Short-Term Orientation and CEBs
Long-term versus short-term orientation is concerned with how future focused or how traditional a culture is. Long-term orientation is defined as “the fostering of virtues oriented toward future rewards—in particular perseverance and thrift,” whereas short-term orientation is “the fostering of virtues related to the past and present—in particular, respect for tradition, preservation of ‘face’ and fulfilling social obligations” (Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov 2010, p. 239). However, academe has come to define long-term orientation as the propensity to focus on the “here and now” (Bearden, Money, and Nevins 2006). With regard to brand interactions, long-term-oriented cultures have been found to exhibit patience and tolerance when confronted with brand-related problems. This is because they focus on the future benefits of building and maintaining long-term relationships rather than any short-term disappointments or inconveniences (Hwang, Chung, and Jin 2013; Morgan and Hunt 1994). Therefore, we posit that long-term-oriented customers will evidence patience and/or tolerance of brand-related issues or failures in their CEBs.
Conversely, consumers from short-term-oriented cultures focus on immediacy and therefore look to receive immediate outcomes, benefits, advantages, and rewards in their exchanges with brands (Ganesan 1994). Thus, they are much less likely to tolerate brand issues or failures (Hwang, Chung, and Jin 2013) and will express their dissatisfaction either by giving feedback, spreading negative word of mouth, or switching to other brands (Sengupta, Balaji, and Krishnan 2015). Therefore, we suggest that short-term-oriented customers will display a lack of patience and/or tolerance of brand-related issues or failures in their CEBs.
Indulgence Versus Restraint and CEBs
The final cultural dimension, indulgence versus restraint, is concerned with the extent to which members of a society will attempt to control their desires or impulses. In indulgent cultures greater value is placed on happiness, and individuals tend to be more optimistic and positive than those from restrained cultures (Bearden, Money, and Nevins 2014). Such societies are distinguished by a relative lack of barriers to the free gratification of desires related to enjoying life and having fun, commonly typified by high amounts of recreation, spending, consumption, and sex (Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov 2010). Indulgent consumption is defined as a customer's choice of “allowing oneself to select and enjoy the pleasure from an option that is considered a treat compared with the alternative option(s)” (Cavanaugh 2014, p. 220) and is therefore typified by the selection of what is considered to be an indulgence over a necessity. Customers from indulgent cultures have been found to spend more as they will justify purchases to themselves on the basis of the gratification of their own desires as opposed to need (Broeder and Wildeman 2020). Moreover, Pandey and Devasagayam (2015) identified that indulgent cultures are more prone to compulsive purchasing, in which consumers make purchases even though they may lack the money or the need. Impulsive buying behavior has been linked to compulsive buying behavior, involving the spontaneous or repeated act of buying, often unplanned, with these two constructs widely considered to overlap (Flight, Rountree, and Beatty 2012). Impulsive purchasing is characterized as occurring in response to external triggers such as the physical product itself and involves buying spontaneously or reflexively (Shoham, Gavish, and Segev 2015). Thus, we propose that those from indulgent cultures will evidence impulsive or compulsive purchasing in their CEBs.
Conversely, societies that are low on indulgence and therefore high in terms of restraint reflect the view that the free gratification of desires should be curtailed and regulated by strict societal norms (Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov 2010). People tend to be moderate in their purchase decision making and exhibit limited wants and desires (Koç, Ar, and Aydin 2017). Individuals from restrained cultures have been found to be more pessimistic, feel more guilt, and be afraid of losses (Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov 2010), which is thought to prevent them from seeking new or alternative options as they tend to be more cynical (Koç, Ar, and Aydin 2017). Thus, restraint as a cultural dimension is associated with lower spending, thrift, and the requirement of rational inducements (Koç, Ar, and Aydin 2017; Pandey and Devasagayam 2015). Therefore, we posit that those from restrained cultures will display CEBs that evidence the requirement of rational inducements to purchase, such as financial deals or positive customer reviews.
Methods
As detailed previously, cultural dimensions as defined by Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov (2010) form the basis of the empirical research in this study and are supported theoretically by the concepts of global CE (Gupta, Pansari, and Kumar 2018) and OBCs. The cross-cultural research context follows a long tradition of academic research on leadership (Dickson, Den Hartog, and Mitchelson 2003; Yan and Hunt 2005) and consumption (Hermeking 2005; Howes 1996). The online investigation follows the methodological approach that Li (2010) used to research communities of practice and, in line with this approach, was carried out over a defined and compact time period. Following research on OBCs, a form of netnographic methodology was applied. Netnography, a qualitative method determined by Kozinets (1997), has been widely used to study the context of OBCs (Brodie et al. 2013; Muñiz and O’Guinn 2001). This research draws on these methods and uses a two-step approach (conceptualization and analysis) to investigate the intersection of cultural values of OBCs and CE in a particular brand context. The purpose of the research is to investigate the relationship and impact of culture on CE within an OBC. At this point, OBCs are currently global entities as they are not defined by a physical country, although they can sometimes be the virtual representation of one.
As qualitative research typically entails the in-depth study of a relatively small number of cases of individuals, the generalizability of the results cannot be relied on (Bryman and Bell 2015). Guba and Lincoln (1989) propose that qualitative researchers should focus on the criterion of transferability, which pertains to “the degree to which qualitative findings inform and facilitate insights within contexts other than that in which the research was conducted” (Carpenter and Suto 2008, pp. 149–50). To achieve this, we provide thick descriptions (Geertz 1975) of the research setting and all relevant considerations throughout this section to facilitate readers’ judgments regarding the possible transferability of findings to other contexts (Bryman and Bell 2015; Denscombe 2014).
The first stage concerned the choice of the OBC. The inclusion of a cultural dimension was a vital component of this research. Both from the perspective of the participants in the OBC and from the brand itself, the choice of the OBC and the origin of the brand itself could potentially affect the cultural representation of the interactions. The authors selected Styleforum.net as the research setting. This global online community brings together enthusiasts, sellers, buyers, and classic style seekers (among others) mainly concerned with high-end/luxury menswear. Within this meta-community, subcommunities have emerged, relating to individual brands and even styles such as streetwear and denim. Particular strands focused on specific brands have emerged within the forum, and this research focuses on the “Quintessential Crockett and Jones Thread” brand community. This is an online discussion board concerning Crockett and Jones footwear, where aficionados can review, comment, and exchange information on the products and brand. Crockett and Jones is a shoe manufacturer established in 1879 based in Northampton, United Kingdom, which offers high-end, luxury classic footwear for men.
This brand forum and the CEBs exhibited there are reflective of organic as opposed to firm-initiated or promoted engagement, whereby firms use monetary incentives to encourage participation in CEBs (Barari et al. 2020). This is significant, as studies reveal that CEBs born from firm-initiated activities are short-lived because they are dependent on the presence of economic incentives (Harmeling et al. 2017). CEBs prompted through organically derived CE, in contrast, are the result of a customer–firm relationship that has developed over time (Brodie et al. 2011) and in which the constructs of satisfaction, trust, and commitment are antecedents to the state of CE (Bowden 2009; Hollebeek 2011); that is, the individuals participating in the OBC can be considered to be in a state of CE. It was vital for this research that on the one hand the OBC was organically created by the community and participants themselves, and on the other hand it concerned a product of relatively high consumer involvement.
Examination of the profiles of the active members of this OBC, many of whom have been members since the brand community's inception in 2011, indicates they have more than a superficial interest in the brand Crockett and Jones. These members exhibit a fervent interest in shoes and are highly engaged, information-rich admirers of the brand, its products, and its competitors’ products. This is evidenced by the other related threads that many belong to, such as those of brand competitors Tricker’s and John Lobb and other threads including “The Bespoke Shoes Thread” and “Shoemaking Techniques and Traditions.”
It was important for the research to focus on an attributable brand in terms of cultural origin as global CE could then be examined, taking into account the cultural dimensions of the posts. The discussions of this community from February 2021 until September 2021 were downloaded, representing 116 individual posts that were each treated as individual units of analysis.
Before the codebook could be established, the six cultural dimensions determined by Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov (2010) were translated into manifestations of CEBs as described in Table 1. These dimensions were subsequently employed in the codebook for the study. The authors applied an expert panel method, which is mainly used within allied health environments to evaluate research instruments (Davis 1992), to confirm the conceptualizations. The initial proposals for the conceptualizations were arrived at through a process of literature review, as presented previously, and discussion within the research team. The proposals were commented on by colleagues and experts within the wider discipline field to derive the final verified version (Table 1). The use of expert panels to confirm items in a survey instrument or the conceptualization of a behavior, as is the case in this research, is being applied more commonly but is still somewhat controversial. However, there are some current examples, such as the work of Ishanuddin et al. (2021), which is also concerned with consumer behavior and perceptions and offers support for the approach used here.
The data were reviewed, and the following information was recorded: the handle/name of the OBC member (i.e., those individuals who posted comments who could be identified and related to a particular country), the CEB manifestation(s) identified, and the domicile of origin as acknowledged by the OBC member. The 57 most regular contributors were identified (from those who could be linked to a particular country). This information represented data emanating from 14 different countries as outlined in Table 2.
Domicile of Origin and Number of Posts of OBC Members in This Study.
We implemented a theoretical analysis in which the data were divided between the researchers and analyzed until saturation was achieved according to the codebook, in which each coding was illustrated by relevant quotes. To ensure the reliability of the coding activity, an intercoder reliability test was applied. Intercoder reliability is “a numerical measure of the agreement between different coders regarding how the same data should be coded” (O’Connor and Joffe 2020, p. 2). The method applied was derived from Glen (2016). All coders coded the data simultaneously. Subsequently over 10% of the data (15 units of analysis) were recoded and the percentage agreement method was applied, resulting in 73% rater agreement (11/15 = .73), which was deemed acceptable in this instance. Convention dictates that around 75% is acceptable for most disciplines (Glen 2016). The analysis was then shared and discussed with all the authors to arrive at the final analysis and written up accordingly. This approach, termed researcher triangulation, is recommended for this type of analysis (Bell, Bryman, and Harley 2019). The data finally consisted of 116 posts (which represented an abundance of written text as a post can consist of up to 50 lines). This process revealed the drivers of engagement and cocreative initiatives as well as the relevance of the cultural context from which the posts emanated and, interestingly, the culture of the OBC itself.
Results
This section presents the findings based on the examination of posts from active members of the “Quintessential Crockett and Jones Thread” community. As indicated in Table 2, members of this community are not geographically bound. Neither are members’ CEBs necessarily bound to national cultures. To illustrate this, Table 3 presents a selection of posts mapped against Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov's (2010) six cultural dimensions.
Examples of Posts Aligned and Not Aligned with National Culture Dimensions of Poster’s Country of Origin.
Power Distance
CEBs associated with high power distance, typified as detailed personal examinations of the brand, were evident in posts emanating from the Netherlands, the United States, Finland, Poland, and Australia. Of those, Poland is the only country that Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov (2010) identify as having a high power distance. Regardless of national culture, there was a notably high number of instances of CEBs representative of low power distance, consisting of attempts by members to reinforce group dynamics. This finding supports Muñiz and O’Guinn’s (2001) assertion that a brand community is grounded in the social relations between admirers of a brand. Consequently, this finding indicates that the social relations of the brand community take precedence over the country of domicile of a community member.
Individualism Versus Collectivism
Examples of CEBs reflective of individualistic national cultures, that is, posts that offer suggestions that would augment or develop the brand's offering, were evident from both individualist (Sweden and United States) and collectivist (Caribbean; country not specified) cultures. This finding suggests that a brand community holds positive attitudes toward a brand (Coelho, Rita, and Santos 2018) and, in turn, a sense of belonging to a brand (Carlson, Suter, and Brown 2008), which are facets beyond national culture. Similarly, CEBs relative to collectivist national cultures were identified in posts from noncollectivist countries, such as the United States. Therefore, regardless of the national culture dimensions of their home country, OBC members post supportive comments about the brand.
Masculinity Versus Femininity
Posts that exhibited CEBs identified as being masculine in nature, insofar as they attempt to enhance the individual's personal status, were identified as only coming from individuals domiciled in countries with masculine cultures (e.g., United Kingdom). However, the vast majority of posts displayed CEBs indicative of feminine cultures, demonstrating empathetic behaviors toward others in the OBC. Hollebeek, Juric, and Tang (2017) suggest that helping or assisting others is a characteristic of an OBC. The findings of this study indicate that this characteristic takes precedence over the national culture of the OBC member.
Uncertainty Avoidance
Posts that demonstrated both risk-averse (high uncertainty avoidance) and risk-taking (low uncertainty avoidance) behaviors were identified. Posts of each type could be found from members residing in the same country, as the examples in Table 3 show, thus providing further evidence that CEB is not bound by national culture. Interestingly, although posts evidencing both expressions of this dimension were identified, the vast majority reflected risk-averse CEBs that are associated with high uncertainty avoidance.
Long-Term Versus Short-Term Orientation
Numerous posts relevant to time orientation were identified. Both manifestations of CEBs relative to this cultural dimension were expressed by the same OBC member who was from the United Kingdom. This finding illustrates that, within the environment of the OBC, expressions of intolerance and tolerance for a brand go beyond national culture.
Indulgence Versus Restraint
Posts that evidenced CEBs related to high indulgence, such as impulsive or compulsive (multiple) purchasing, were frequently identified. Likewise, low indulgence (restraint), such as the need to receive positive reviews before purchase, was also evident. Concerning this dimension, the country of origin of OBC members who engaged in both indulgent and restrained posts did not match Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov’s (2010) classification of the national culture to which the member belonged. Given that customer-generated recommendations are identified as more trustworthy than company-generated information (Brown, Broderick, and Lee 2007), the findings indicate that CEBs derived from direct experience override behaviors associated with the national culture of the active member.
Overall, the key finding of the research is that for these highly engaged customers, cultural dimensions at a national level do not apply. Rather, in the context of online CEB, the research shows that there is a distinctive culture associated with the OBC.
Discussion and Managerial Implications
Despite the considerable attention that CE has attracted from both academe and industry over the past decade due to the direct positive impact it can exert on organizational performance, to date little consideration has been given to examining the construct in a cross-cultural context (Thompson and Brouthers 2021). To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study offers the first empirically supported insight into whether culture at a national level impacts the manifestation of CEBs. It also answers calls from scholars working in the field to examine a broad range of CEBs across all cultural dimensions (Gong 2018). In doing so it contributes to the theoretical understanding of the construct of CE and provides valuable direction for managers. This section presents a discussion of these key theoretical and managerial implications.
The first research question in this study aims to identify the manifestations of specific CEBs exhibited by engaged customers toward a brand, relative to Hofstede's six dimensions of national culture. These manifestations were established by way of a literature review and presented in Table 1. To the best of our knowledge this represents the first conceptualization of CEBs for all six of Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov's (2010) dimensions of national culture. Given that most of the limited extant literature that considers CE in a cross-cultural context draws on this model (Gong 2018; Gupta, Pansari, and Kumar 2018; Thompson and Brouthers 2021), we believe that the findings of this study provide a valid and useful foundation for future inquiry, particularly as the CEBs identified here are not limited to OBCs but rather are behaviors that could be found in environments that facilitate customer-to-brand and customer-to-customer interaction, such as social media platforms.
The second research question is concerned with providing empirical clarification as to whether differences in the manifestation of CE are contingent on differing dimensions of culture at a national level. The unique findings of this research reveal that the culture associated with the country of domicile of a highly engaged customer participating in an OBC has no impact on the manifestation of CEBs. Although this finding may appear surprising, as national culture is universally accepted to exert influence over individuals’ behaviors (Erez et al. 2005), the fact that it did not impact the expression of CEBs provides valuable insight into the nature of CE, particularly when considered in conjunction with the finding that an identifiable culture was clearly discernible among the OBC itself.
This finding in itself is not new. Scholars have previously identified that brand communities have their own cultures, often comprising rituals, traditions, and behaviors that can be complex in nature (Muñiz and O’Guinn 2001; Schroeder, Salzer-Morling, and Askegaard 2006). What is novel in the findings of the present study is that the behaviors exhibited by participants correspond to the conceptualizations of CEBs relative to Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov's (2010) six dimensions of national culture, as presented in Table 1. This points to the fact that a recognized model of culture can be used to provide a classification of the nature of the culture of a brand community consisting of engaged individuals. For example, in this study viewing an OBC through the lens of Hofstede's model, prominent characteristics of the OBC’s culture can be identified. Specifically, it tends toward low power distance and is distinguished by behaviors among individual members that reinforce group dynamics. It is predominantly feminine in its interests, valuing socially derived goals, such as fostering relationships between members and providing empathy and assistance, over more typically masculine, egocentric concerns such as achievement or outperforming peers. Finally, the predominance of risk-averse behaviors indicates an OBC culture high in uncertainty avoidance. This is significant because the identification and classification of the culture of an OBC presents brand managers and marketers with opportunities for facilitating, supporting, nurturing, and fostering that culture through their actions and activities.
With the act of engaging in a brand community recognized as signaling a state of CE on the part of the participant (Gummerus et al. 2012), brands are afforded a valuable insight into some of their most highly engaged customers. Particularly in organic, member-initiated brand communities, as is the case here, in which the associated culture is coconstructed by its members without any interference from the company, brands are offered a unique understanding of the conditions that maintain CE at its highest level.
The final research question centers on how CE at the level of an OBC can be fostered and maintained, taking into account the likely differing nationalities of its members. Prior studies consider how online brand culture is created (Schembri and Latimer 2016), but to the best of our knowledge the present study is the first to identify a valid framework for identifying and classifying this culture through the lens of CE. Using the full conceptualization of CEBs developed in the present study for each variant of the six dimensions of culture in Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov's model (2010) (see Table 1), managers have the ability to identify the dominant CEBs exhibited by those in an OBC and, by extension, the dominant culture associated with that OBC.
This insight can be used as stated previously to encourage and maintain CE among members of the OBC, but there is also the potential for this knowledge to be applied to a brand's wider consumer base with the intention of fostering a state of CE or encouraging a deeper level of CE in individual customers. This aligns with the concept of spillover, an established characteristic of the construct of CE, whereby engagement with one focal object, such as a brand, can spill over to engagement with another, for example an OBC (Bowden et al. 2017) or even from customer to customer.
Early CE studies examined the construct firmly within the customer–brand dyad, adopting the position that engagement would be established on the part of the customer on the basis of the value they perceived from specific brand interactions (Dessart, Veloutsou, and Morgan-Thomas 2015; Hollebeek 2011; Vivek et al. 2014). Thus, a conceptualization of CE as being two-way interactions between customer and brand emerged (Bowden 2009). However, further research identifies CE as existing within a wider nomological network or ecosystem (Breidbach, Brodie, and Hollebeek 2014; Maslowska, Malthouse, and Collinger 2016) potentially involving a multitude of brand touchpoints (e.g., social media, OBCs, website, physical stores) and actors (Storbacka et al. 2016). This is highly significant as this holistic perspective takes in situations and CEBs that have a focus beyond that of the firm or brand (Brodie et al. 2019). In fact, Bowden et al. (2017) identified the existence of a duality or potential multiplicity of engagement, whereby customers can be engaged with several focal objects simultaneously, such as a communication platform (e.g., an OBC) as well as other customers and/or the brand. The authors posit that in the specific example of OBCs, customers in fact (co)create value, not just for brands but for themselves and their peers, by engaging on a peer-to-peer basis (Bowden et al. 2017).
This finding becomes even more noteworthy when the online community is created, operated, and managed by customers without any involvement from the brand, as is the case in the present study. In such circumstances the focal object of engagement for individual customers is unclear: some individuals may be motivated to participate in the OBC due to engagement with the community itself (Bowden et al. 2017; Gummerus et al. 2012; Wirtz et al. 2013), whereas others may be induced by engagement they feel toward the brand (Wirtz et al. 2013).
With regard to spillover, academic inquiry has further identified that this can take place between individual customers. Scholars have warned that the strong emotional aspect of negative CE can spill over onto other customers, the fear being that negative thoughts and opinions could result in an engagement detraction effect among other customers (Bowden et al. 2017; Naumann, Bowden, and Gabbott 2017). As presented here, there is a strong emotional aspect to positive CE, whereby the highly engaged individuals participating in the OBC are acutely supportive of the brand and exhibit CEBs that directly influence and mobilize other OBC members to take their own positive actions toward the brand. This positive engagement reflects an engagement accumulation effect (Bowden et al. 2017) that could feasibly extend to all customers beyond simply the OBC members. To harness this effect, brand managers should identify the culture of the OBC and support and encourage it among their customer base as a whole. For example, should the culture of an OBC be identified as being high in terms of individualism, then the brand should focus on providing opportunities for customers to augment and codevelop brand offerings. This could take the form of incorporating customers in the new product development process or making changes to terms or services in response to customer consultation. Similarly, should the culture associated with the OBC be high in terms of uncertainty avoidance, then brands will be alerted to the risk-averse nature of their highly engaged customers and can tailor their marketing communication efforts appropriately with the view to alleviating hesitance among all existing customers to try new product styles, ranges, or services from the brand.
Gupta, Pansari, and Kumar (2018) note that “it is imperative for firms to understand the behavioural activities of customers around the world to keep them engaged” (p. 4). Thus, for brand managers the finding that national culture has no bearing on the manifestation of CEBs is of great consequence. Various studies have revealed that brands should tailor their approach to customers in specific countries (Thongpapanl et al. 2018). The knowledge that a highly engaged customer base will exhibit the same behaviors irrespective of the influence exerted by the specifics of their national culture presents opportunities for the standardization of marketing efforts with regard to CE. Brand communities have been identified as a mine of information for brands that firms can use to direct their marketing and customer relationship management activities (Schembri and Latimer 2016; Zaglia 2013). This research indicates that brand communities could also be used to inform CE strategies. Rather than a brand adapting its approach to encourage CE on a country-to-country basis, the brand simply has to identify the culture that the most highly engaged customers have (co)created and work to support and encourage the discernible expressions of each cultural dimension and their corresponding behavioral manifestations among the customer base as a whole. The opportunity for reducing marketing efforts and spend with a standardized approach is considerable, but it is the in-depth understanding that brands will gain by effectively promoting CE among their consumer base that could prove truly valuable, as CE is recognized to positively impact organizational performance (Naumann, Bowden, and Gabbott 2020; Pansari and Kumar 2017).
Limitations and Future Research
This research represents a first attempt to empirically establish the effect of cultural variations on the manifestation of a broad spectrum of CEBs, and while it offers valid contributions to knowledge, it is also subject to some limitations that may be addressed by further inquiry. First, the conceptualizations of CEBs for each variant of the six dimensions of culture (Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov 2010) could be quantitatively validated to support their applicability across product sectors and industries and promote the generalizability of the findings. Furthermore, the authors acknowledge that there are other worthy approaches to similar studies of OBCs, such as combining qualitative and quantitative methods (e.g., for content analysis, text mining methods such as latent Dirichlet allocation would be an option). Technology has facilitated and driven the global nature of business and necessitated CE (Gupta, Pansari, and Kumar 2018). A validated framework would not only be highly beneficial for managers but would also serve as a foundation for the development of understanding of the impact of culture on the construct of CE.
In addition, the product category of focus—luxury footwear—may conceivably have had some bearing on the results, and thus the study could be extended to take in other focal product categories. Luxury and fashion items are recognized as mediums through which individuals can communicate their social status, which may be a more important consideration in some cultures than in others. For instance, De Mooij and Hofstede (2010) assert that some product categories are likely to appeal more to those in high-power-distance cultures, who have a need to communicate their position within a wider societal hierarchy. Handcrafted footwear would be considered one such product category. While countries that are classified as being both high- and low-power-distance cultures were examined in the present study, a broad spectrum of product categories would likely add further depth to the findings here.
While the real-life data set offers the unique opportunity to observe the phenomenon of CEBs under authentic, true-to-life conditions, it captures consumers from only 14 different countries. Although the 14 countries reflect each manifestation of the six dimensions of culture within the model (Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov 2010), the results might not be generalizable to other countries. Furthermore, four of these countries are primarily English speaking and were overrepresented in terms of posts. However, given that the forum is in the English language, this is perhaps not surprising. Therefore, future research could augment the insight provided here by expanding the amount of data captured from countries where the primary language is not English as well as the number of countries in general.
Likewise, research concerning a greater number of OBCs would facilitate a deeper understanding of OBC culture, particularly when viewed and compared on a cross-cultural and cross-national basis. This insight would be further amplified when considered alongside the unique behaviors commonly exhibited by OBC members. For example, although this study was limited to the examination of identifiable behavioral manifestations of CE, some members may choose not to actively participate in the OBC but instead adopt a passive role, merely observing interactions between others. Fernandes and Castro (2020) assert that this behavior, known as lurking, is a valid form of online engagement and may be more positively associated with brand loyalty than overt CEBs such as the act of posting. Consequently, lurkers are worthy of attention and could be captured in future studies through direct questioning via questionnaires or interviews. Similarly, relationship dynamics, in particular any identifiable power hierarchies between OBC members, are also worthy of consideration as it has been long established that a small number of dominating members can exert influence over a whole community (Lee et al. 2011). It would be extremely valuable to identify if such influence extends to impacting the expression of culture of an OBC.
Furthermore, while the present study's focus on CEBs provides a valid approach to study CE in a cross-cultural context, given that modes of action can be directly observed, it is important to recognize that this offers a limited view of the phenomenon overall. As acknowledged previously, CE is a multidimensional construct comprising cognitive and affective as well as behavioral dimensions (Bowden et al. 2017). Thus, the CEBs identified and considered in this study are likely to have corresponding cognitions and emotions that are not captured. To the best of our knowledge, Hollebeek (2018) is one of the only authors to date to offer a holistic view of CE in a cross-cultural context by conceptually establishing “cultural CE styles,” which express the cognitive, emotional, behavioral, and social expressions of various cultural dimensions for Yoo, Donthu, and Lenartowicz’s (2011) CVSCALE. This model of culture facilitates the measurement of consumers’ individual cultural values, as opposed to those at the national level, as specified in Hofstede's cultural dimension model. Further empirical research could build on the results of the present study by identifying the cognitive and affective expressions of CE that are associated with each expression of Hofstede's six cultural dimensions (Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov 2010) as well as any interrelationships that may exist between them, thus providing a truly comprehensive view of cross-cultural CE.
Finally, although the present study collected data from an OBC, further data mining is not limited to OBCs hosted on forums, as social media platforms represent valid data sources for future studies. Schembri and Latimer (2016) state that brand cultures are created by consumers interacting via social media platforms (such as Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter) as readily as they are through OBCs. Given the heterogeneous characteristics of individual platforms, in which the number of characters permitted per post differ and various communication mediums (e.g., text, images, video) are available, confirming the applicability of the research approach developed in the present study to social media platforms would be wise. Particularly in light of the widespread use of social media by all generational cohorts, the opportunities for managers and academics alike to increase understanding of CEBs in a cross-cultural context is significant.
Footnotes
Special Issue Editors
Linda D. Hollebeek, Wafa Hammedi, Sanjit K. Roy, and Kelly Hewett
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
