Paper Type
Complete
Abstract
Online reviews are central to consumers’ decision-making. A common strategy for firms to elicit reviews is to offer incentives, such as monetary rewards for reviewing. Research on incentivized reviews is extensive. However, less is known about how underlying moral frameworks might affect ethical evaluations and behavioral responses to different incentives, and how consumers justify their decisions. Therefore, this study examines whether moral frameworks shape perceived ethicality, willingness to write incentivized reviews, and justification patterns across different reward types. Based on our conducted survey, we found differences in consumers’ decision-making and justification across moral orientations. Virtue- and deontology-oriented participants largely rejected incentives for reviewing and relied on integrity- and rule-based justifications, such as moral integrity or perceived manipulation. In contrast, egoism-oriented participants showed comparatively higher acceptance, emphasizing self-interest and cost-benefit reasoning. Interestingly, charitable framing (other-benefiting rewards) can activate prosocial justifications. Our findings highlight the importance of moral frameworks for incentivized reviews.
Paper Number
1369
Recommended Citation
Fröhnel, Kim; Lehmann, Roman; and Zarnekow, Rüdiger, "Why Some Accept and Others Refuse: Moral Frameworks and Incentivized Reviews" (2026). AMCIS 2026 Proceedings. 2.
https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2026/social_comput/social_comput/2
Why Some Accept and Others Refuse: Moral Frameworks and Incentivized Reviews
Online reviews are central to consumers’ decision-making. A common strategy for firms to elicit reviews is to offer incentives, such as monetary rewards for reviewing. Research on incentivized reviews is extensive. However, less is known about how underlying moral frameworks might affect ethical evaluations and behavioral responses to different incentives, and how consumers justify their decisions. Therefore, this study examines whether moral frameworks shape perceived ethicality, willingness to write incentivized reviews, and justification patterns across different reward types. Based on our conducted survey, we found differences in consumers’ decision-making and justification across moral orientations. Virtue- and deontology-oriented participants largely rejected incentives for reviewing and relied on integrity- and rule-based justifications, such as moral integrity or perceived manipulation. In contrast, egoism-oriented participants showed comparatively higher acceptance, emphasizing self-interest and cost-benefit reasoning. Interestingly, charitable framing (other-benefiting rewards) can activate prosocial justifications. Our findings highlight the importance of moral frameworks for incentivized reviews.
When commenting on articles, please be friendly, welcoming, respectful and abide by the AIS eLibrary Discussion Thread Code of Conduct posted here.
Comments
SOCCOMP