677168

research-article2016
JTRXXX10.1177/0047287516677168Journal of Travel ResearchChoi et al.

Empirical Research Articles

Journal of Travel Research

The Role of Power and Incentives in

1­–13
© The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
Inducing Fake Reviews in the Tourism sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0047287516677168

Industry jtr.sagepub.com

Sungwoo Choi1, Anna S. Mattila1, Hubert B. Van Hoof1,

and Donna Quadri-Felitti1

Abstract
As online reviews have become increasingly prevalent in recent years and their influence on consumers’ purchasing decisions
has grown exponentially, some companies have begun to ask people to write fake reviews about their businesses or their
competitors while offering compensation in return. This process has drawn the attention of regulators because it knowingly
misleads consumers. This article reports on two studies that looked at the effect of two types of incentives (self-benefiting
or charitable) on individuals’ intentions to write fake reviews and examined the moderating role of a person’s sense of
power on his or her propensity to post a fake review. The study findings indicate that powerless individuals are more likely
to post a fake review when presented with a monetary incentive rather than a charity incentive, while powerful individuals
are not impacted by incentive type. Moreover, when asked to post negative fake reviews about competitors, such effects are
mitigated.

Keywords
online review, fake review, unethical behaviors, power, incentives

Introduction 2011; Kim, Mattila, and Baloglu 2011; Wu et al. 2016). More
recently, there has been a focus on the effects of various cen-
Word of mouth (WOM) has a huge impact on consumer tral cues (Filieri and McLeay 2014) as well as peripheral
behavior (Berger 2014; Chevalier and Mayzlin 2006; Trusov, cues in online reviews on consumers’ decision-making pro-
Bucklin, and Pauwels 2009) and online reviews, a form of cesses, such as review valence (Sparks and Browning 2011),
electronic word of mouth (eWOM), are widely recognized as reviewer’s expertise (Vermeulen and Seegers 2009; Zhang,
the most impactful information source in consumers’ deci- Zhang, and Yang 2016), reviewer’s identity (Liu and Park
sion-making processes (Hennig-Thurau et al. 2004; Gruen, 2015; Xie et al. 2011), and source credibility (Ayeh, Au, and
Osmonbekov, and Czaplewski 2006; Park and Lee 2009). Law 2013; Zhang, Wu, and Mattila 2014).
Consumers trust other consumers’ recommendations of a There is growing evidence to suggest that both businesses
product more than company-generated communications and consumers generate fake reviews, a practice that under-
(Hennig-Thurau and Walsh 2003). mines the credibility of the process (Mayzlin, Dover, and
Hospitality and travel services tend to be intangible and Chevalier 2014; Simonson 2016). For instance, a hotel located
experience-based and their attributes cannot be completely nearby a competitor tends to have more fake, negative reviews
assessed until they have been purchased and consumed than a hotel with no close competitors (Mayzlin, Dover, and
(Zeithaml, Bitner, and Gremler 2012). Consumers of such Chevalier 2014). This phenomenon is frequently observed in
services tend to rely on recommendations from others in the restaurant context as well (Luca and Zervas 2015).
order to minimize uncertainty and perceived risk (Murray The occurrence of fake online reviews has begun to receive
1991) and the most recent and most widely used version of attention, both from the media and state and federal regulators.
those recommendations is the online review (e.g., Ring, The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently introduced
Tkaczynski, and Dolnicar 2016).
Previous research has examined the impact of online 1
School of Hospitality Management, Pennsylvania State University,
reviews on trip planning (Gretzel and Yoo 2008), hotel per- University Park, PA, USA
formance (Phillips et al. 2015; Ye, Law, and Gu 2009),
Corresponding Author:
hotels’ responses to online reviews (Sparks, So, and Bradley Sungwoo Choi, School of Hospitality Management, Pennsylvania State
2016; Wei, Miao, and Huang 2013), and consumers’ motiva- University, 101 Keller Building, University Park, PA 16802, USA.
tions to read or post online reviews (Bronner and de Hoog Email: szc216@psu.edu

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on November 21, 2016

2 Journal of Travel Research 

endorsement guidelines, stating that “if there is a connection (a) “intentional or deliberate” and (b) “designed to mislead
between an endorser and the marketer that consumers would or create a false belief in some target.” Based on this defini-
not expect and it would affect how consumers evaluate the tion, fake online reviews fall into the category of digital
endorsement,” an endorser should disclose that connection deception.
clearly (FTC 2015, 2). Yet, while fake reviews are investigated Fake reviews are written to promote a business by
at various levels, there is scant research on consumers’ motiva- unethical means and to deliberately mislead readers in
tion to engage in such reviews. To fill this gap, this study their purchase decisions (Yoo and Gretzel 2009). For
examines whether different types of incentives (i.e., self- example, Harmon (2004) shows that many book reviews
benefiting vs. other-benefiting) influence consumers’ propen- on Amazon were written by publishers and the authors
sity to write fake reviews. Being compensated for writing a themselves. Fake reviews are not only an issue in the retail
fake online review creates a moral dilemma. People can industry but also in the travel industry. A hotel, for instance,
choose to be unethical and post a fake review in order to sup- might benefit from deceptively posting positive reviews
port a charity. Or, they can be unethical and post a fake review about its own property and by posting negative reviews
to receive some benefits for themselves. Finally, people might about competing properties on TripAdvisor.com (Mayzlin,
choose to be ethical and not post a fake review. Dover, and Chevalier 2014; Yoo and Gretzel 2009).
This study examines the role of a person’s sense of power However, when Mayzlin (2006) examined whether firms
in this dilemma and we propose that an individual’s sense of benefit from promotional reviews or chats in online com-
power, the capacity to control resources or outcomes in munities, she found that it is not beneficial to produce a
social relationships (Keltner, Gruenfeld, and Anderson high volume of deceptive reviews, since creating and post-
2003), influences a person’s response to an unethical request. ing such reviews are costly. Moreover, she shows that
Although common sense dictates that people can be moti- eWOM remains persuasive despite misrepresentations in
vated by something that benefits them personally, this study promotional reviews.
demonstrates that individuals are also motivated by incen- Previous research has explored the detection of deception
tives that benefit others, depending on their personal sense of in online communities, and studies in computer science and
power. Whereas powerless individuals tend to activate a con- information technology have developed automated identifier
crete mindset and focus on self-interests, powerful individu- systems to filter out fake reviews (Hu et al. 2012; Mukherjee,
als typically activate an abstract mindset and prioritize a Liu, and Glance 2012). When comparing fake and actual
greater social good (Rixom and Mishra 2014). Based on a reviews, Yoo and Gretzel (2009) and Ott et al. (2011) con-
review of the relevant literature on unethical behaviors, clude that deceptive and actual, honest reviews are different
incentives, and sense of power, this study explores the ethical in terms of their lexical complexity and the use of first-
issues associated with posting fake online reviews. person pronouns. A recent study by Luca and Zervas (2015)
Specifically, we examine the joint effects of power and uses the fraud filter on Yelp.com to detect fake reviews and
incentive type on consumers’ propensity to post either posi- found that promotional, fake reviews tend to be more extreme
tive or negative fake reviews. than other reviews.
Recently, researchers have also examined the role of veri-
fied reviewers who actually purchased a product or experi-
Literature Review enced a service (Anderson and Simester 2014). Mayzlin,
Dover, and Chevalier (2014) compare hotel ratings on
Unethical Behaviors and Fake Online Reviews TripAdvisor.com and Expedia.com. Whereas Expedia.com
Writing a fake review is unethical and “illegal or morally requires the customer posting a review to have had an actual
unacceptable to the large community” (Jones 1991, 367). reservation at the hotel, TripAdvisor.com does not, thus cre-
Research in social psychology and marketing has touched ating an environment that might be more conducive to fake
upon a variety of unethical behaviors, such as individuals’ reviews. Their study shows that reviews on TripAdvisor.com
propensity to engage in lying (Fischbacher and Föllmi-Heusi tend to be more extreme, thus potentially fake.
2013), stealing and cheating (Yap et al. 2013), and other Whereas several studies have investigated various meth-
unethical behaviors (Vitell 2003). Yet, as consumer behavior ods to detect deceptive reviews, to our knowledge, previous
is no longer confined to traditional personal interactions, research has not examined the reviewer’s motivation to post
researchers have begun to investigate unethical behaviors in fake reviews. In this study, we are primarily interested in
online settings such as software piracy (Chiou, Wan, and fake reviews posted by consumers rather than by service pro-
Wan 2012) and retailers falsifying product information (Lu, viders. We define fake reviews as reviews written by con-
Chang, and Yu 2013). sumers who did not purchase a product or a service and who
Hancock (2007, 290) describes “digital deception” as the still wrote a review about it. In the following section, we first
“intentional control of information in a technologically discuss the role of incentive types followed by an individu-
mediated message to create a false belief in the receiver of al’s sense of power in influencing their propensity to post
the message.” He further states that digital deception must be fake reviews.

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on November 21, 2016

Choi et al. 3

Incentives power (DeCelles et al. 2012; Kraus, Piff, and Keltner 2009),
and therefore, we want to examine the moderating role of
In this study, we are interested in two types of incentives: power in influencing consumers’ propensity to write fake
self-benefiting (e.g., a discount in future purchases) and reviews.
other-benefiting (e.g., contribution to charity).
A monetary reward is a powerful tool in motivating peo-
ple to behave in certain ways. Previous research has demon- Sense of Power
strated the importance of monetary (self-benefiting) Power refers to asymmetric control over resources or other
incentives in enhancing employee motivation (Stajkovic and people in social relationships (Keltner, Gruenfeld, and
Luthans 2003), business unit outcomes (Peterson and Anderson 2003). Such resources can be monetary, legitimate
Luthans 2006), and creative thinking (Eisenberger and authority, or intellectual capital (French and Raven 1959).
Rhoades 2001). Moreover, research in marketing shows that French and Raven (1959) demonstrate that power can arise
monetary incentives are effective in generating positive from relationships based on five components: coercion,
WOM (Hennig-Thurau et al. 2004; Jin and Huang 2014; reward, legitimacy, reference, or expertise. Coercive power
Wirtz and Chew 2002). is the ability to let someone to do something forcibly. Reward
The other form of incentive, the charitable contribution, power refers to the ability to retain or give something to
has received less attention. Yet, as corporate social responsi- someone. Legitimate power is the ability to administer to
bility (CSR) gains prominence in today’s corporate world, certain feeling of obligation. Finally, expert power stems
this kind of incentive has increasingly been used in cause- from holding information that can be shared by others.
related marketing campaigns. For example, marketers often Depending on the context, power can be generally described
promise to donate a certain amount of an item’s purchase as rich vs. poor, boss vs. subordinate, or expert vs. novice.
price to a charity. The effects of charity incentives depend on Accordingly, one of the frequently used power manipula-
donation framing and on the price of the product (e.g., a bot- tions asks participants to imagine themselves as a boss or
tle of shampoo vs. a color ink-jet printer) (Chang 2008). employee (Dubois, Rucker, and Galinsky 2010; Galinsky,
Strahilevitz and Myers (1998) demonstrate that, as compared Gruenfeld, and Magee 2003). However, it is important to
to monetary incentives, charity incentives are more effective note that resources are determined by an individuals’ subjec-
in promoting hedonic products rather than utilitarian prod- tive perception of such resources. Consistent with this per-
ucts. Previous studies also suggest that the effect of charity spective, previous marketing literature has defined power as
incentives on product choice is moderated by the customers’ perceived asymmetric control over resources in social rela-
involvement in the cause and by customer–corporate identi- tions (Rucker, Galinsky, and Dubois 2012) Thus, the present
fication (e.g., Nicole, Stefan, and Hoyer 2012). research adapts this notion of power.
The focus of this study is on examining if, and how, these The effects of power on human behavior have been exten-
two types of incentives motivate individuals to post fake sively studied in the psychology and sociology literature
reviews. Although monetary incentives can lead to socially (e.g., Anderson and Berdahl 2002; Galinsky, Gruenfeld, and
responsible behaviors (e.g., Iyer and Kashyap 2007), they Magee 2003). Similarly, the role of power on consumer
may backfire when used as justifications for unethical behav- behavior has been investigated in a variety of contexts:
iors. Xie et al. (2014) suggest that when there is a monetary power shapes not only consumers’ information processing
incentive to engage in a moral transgression, ethical disso- (e.g., Anderson and Galinsky 2006; Mourali and Nagpal
nance (Barkan et al. 2012) is smaller, thereby enabling peo- 2013) but also their behaviors (e.g., Garbinsky, Klesse, and
ple to justify immoral behaviors. In other words, money Aaker 2014; Rucker, Galinsky, and Dubois 2012).
seems to “share” some of the guilt, thereby diminishing the Anderson and Galinsky (2006) show that high-power
attribution of unethical behaviors to intrinsic motives individuals are more likely to engage in risky behaviors
(Barkan et al. 2012; Shalvi et al. 2015; Winterich, Mittal, and because of enhanced optimism about risks (e.g., unprotected
Morales 2014; Xie et al. 2014). sex). Mourali and Nagpal (2013) conclude that high-power
When charity incentives are used to persuade people to consumers tend to focus on positive product features and
write fake reviews, there is an ethical dilemma: helping oth- adopt a choosing strategy (i.e., select a preferred option),
ers by engaging in unethical behaviors. Such a situation is whereas low-power consumers focus on negative features
somewhat different from regular ethical dilemmas, which are and adopt a rejecting strategy (i.e., fail to purchase the prod-
defined as “situations in which no moral choice is without uct or service). Rucker and Galinsky (2009) demonstrate
undesirable moral consequences” (Ditto and Liu 2012, 55). that low-power consumers are more likely to have a strong
When a conflict exists between two ethical principles, people desire to acquire products (which are associated with status)
negotiate between potential outcomes and decide which one to compensate for their lack of power, while high-power
takes priority over the other, thereby influencing their behav- consumers are not heavily influenced by such a desire.
ior (Rixom and Mishra 2014). However, such prioritizing Previous studies in the hospitality and travel literature have
behaviors may vary depending on an individual’s sense of shown that power moderates the impact of relationship

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on November 21, 2016

4 Journal of Travel Research 

status (friends or strangers) on customer satisfaction when Power has also been linked to an individual’s mindset
receiving unearned preferential treatment (Zhang and Hanks (Rucker, Galinsky, and Dubois 2012). Past research has
2015), the impact of other customers’ dress styles on the shown that power might not directly influence an individual’s
focal customer’s approach behavior (Choi and Mattila behavior, but might rather trigger an individual’s underlying
2016), and the impact of experience congruity with other traits or mindset (Chen, Lee-Chai, and Bargh 2001; DeCelles
customers on willingness to post online reviews (Wu et al. et al. 2012). Relying on the construal-level theory (Trope and
2016). Liberman 2003), Smith and Trope (2006) argue that any fac-
tors that influence an individual’s psychological distance
from an object also affect his or her propensity to form an
Power, Incentives, and Unethical Behaviors abstract or concrete representation of the object. As such,
Combined Smith and Trope (2006) show that high-power people tend to
In this article, we argue that individuals’ reactions to incen- process information in an abstract manner because they are
tives that are related to writing fake reviews vary depend- more independent of others, have a greater sense of distinc-
ing on their sense of power. Past research in social tiveness, and feel more psychologically distant from others
psychology has demonstrated the impact of social class (Keltner, Gruenfeld, and Anderson 2003; Lee and Tiedens
and power on individuals’ propensity to engage in unethi- 2001). In contrast, powerless individuals process information
cal behaviors. Social class and power are conceptually and in a concrete manner as they are dependent on others and feel
empirically distinct. However, past research shows that psychologically proximal with others (Keltner, Gruenfeld,
people of higher social class tend to have greater resources, and Anderson 2003; Lee and Tiedens 2001).
which in turn enhance their sense of power. Therefore, Applying the notion of abstract and concrete mindsets to
social class and power yield similar effects, such as neuro- the context of ethicality, previous research has shown that
endocrine changes (e.g., Carney, Cuddy, and Yap 2010) ethical and moral principles are high-level constructs (Eyal
and spending behavior (Piff et al. 2010; Rucker, Dubois, and Liberman 2012; Eyal, Liberman, and Trope 2008) and
and Galinsky 2011). Scholars have suggested several rea- that individuals with abstract mindsets are more likely to
sons why high social class and power induce unethical adhere to ethical decision making. Furthermore, Rixom and
behaviors. The general belief is that, if a person has control Mishra (2014) show that people with an abstract mindset
over resources (i.e., higher social class and power), she or tend to focus on the greater social good rather than on hon-
he is less dependent on others. Thus, the individual feels esty. The authors explain that under an abstract mindset, the
less pressure to abide by social norms or to act prosocially greater social good is seen as a superordinate concern that
(Lammers et al. 2015). There is further evidence to suggest can justify the decision to violate other ethical principles in
people of higher social class engage in unethical behaviors order to achieve a goal.
because of greed (Piff et al. 2012), while individuals of Conversely, individuals with a concrete mindset are less
lower social class engage in prosocial behaviors because likely to prioritize ethical principles (Eyal and Liberman 2012;
of their concern and compassion for others (Piff et al. Eyal, Liberman, and Trope 2008) and, therefore, less likely to
2010). However, another stream of research argues that emphasize the greater social good. Rather, as self-interest is a
lower social class individuals are more likely to engage in more proximate concern (Kivetz and Tyler 2007), people with
unethical behaviors than higher social class individuals a concrete mindset tend to engage in behaviors with outcomes
(e.g., Brush 2007). that will benefit the self (Rixom and Mishra 2014).
Building on this contradiction, Dubois, Rucker, and In sum, we propose that powerful individuals with an
Galinsky (2015) suggest that the beneficiary of unethical abstract mindset are willing to engage in unethical behaviors
acts influences people’s behaviors. According to the agen- (i.e., posting a fake review) for a greater social good (i.e.,
tic–communal model (Bakan 1966), powerful people tend to donation to charity), while powerless individuals with a
foster an agentic orientation, which makes them focus on more concrete mindset are willing to do so for a personal
the self, while powerless people tend to foster a communal gain (i.e., gift card). However, we further postulate that
orientation, thus leading to focus on others (Rucker, review valence is an important boundary condition for such
Galinsky, and Dubois 2012). Based on the agentic–commu- effects.
nal model of power, Dubois, Rucker, and Galinsky (2015)
suggest that people of a higher social class or high power are
The Boundary Effect of Review Valence
more likely to engage in unethical behaviors when such an
act helps themselves. Conversely, individuals of a lower We argue that the interaction effect of power and incentive
social class or those who feel powerless are more likely to type only applies to situations in which individuals are asked
engage in unethical behaviors when the beneficiary is to post positive fake reviews. Specifically, if asked to post
another person. However, we expect a different pattern of negative fake reviews about a competitor, consumers are less
results based on the notion of power–mindset association likely to engage in unethical behaviors, regardless of their
(Smith and Trope 2006). state of power or the incentive type. In other words, people

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on November 21, 2016

Choi et al. 5

Consumer’s Sense of
After reading the scenario, participants rated the requested
Power (High/Low) action by a four-item, 7-point semantic bipolar scale (ethical/
unethical, moral/immoral, self-benefiting/other-benefiting,
Incentive Type Intention to Post Fake
and selfish/altruistic) that was adapted from Dubois, Rucker,
(Self-benefitting/Other-benefitting) Reviews and Galinsky (2015).

Figure 1. Conceptual model. Analyses and results. One hundred twenty-two participants
(48 female; Mage = 33.25, SD = 11.71) recruited from Ama-
zon’s Mechanical Turk were randomly assigned to one of the
are likely to perceive writing negative fake reviews to be four conditions. Table 1 presents the means and standard
more unethical and immoral than writing positive fake deviations of study 1 results.
reviews because, when the moral dissonance increases, it is We conducted analyses of variance (ANOVAs) with
more difficult to justify unethical behaviors (Barkan et al. incentive type as a factor and found that in the positive fake
2012; Xie et al. 2014). review condition, participants in both the monetary and char-
Based on our conceptual framework shown in Figure 1, ity incentive conditions perceived the scenario as equally
we put forth the following hypotheses: unethical (F[1, 60] = 0.26, p > .60) and equally immoral
(F[1, 60] = 0.62, p > .40). However, participants assigned to
Hypothesis 1: Individuals will perceive posting a negative the monetary incentive condition perceived the scenario as
fake review about a competitor as more (a) unethical and more self-beneficial (F[1, 60] = 8.18, p < .01) and selfish
(b) immoral than posting a positive fake review about the (F[1, 60] = 3.27, p < .08) than those who were assigned to the
focal service provider. charity incentive condition.
Hypothesis 2: When asked to post positive fake reviews, Similarly, in the negative fake review condition, partici-
powerful (vs. powerless) individuals will be more likely pants in both the monetary and charity incentive conditions
to post a fake review when the incentive is other-benefit- perceived the scenario as equally unethical (F[1, 58] = 2.39,
ing (vs. self-benefiting). p > .12) and equally immoral (F[1, 58] = 1.19, p > .27).
Hypothesis 3: When asked to post negative fake reviews, Again, participants assigned to the monetary incentive con-
the interaction effect of power and incentive type on one’s dition perceived the scenario as more self-beneficial (F[1,
likelihood of posting a fake review will be attenuated. 58] = 25.05, p = .000) and selfish (F[1, 58] = 21.35, p = .000)
than those who were assigned to the charity incentive condi-
Research Design tion, verifying that the scenarios differed in terms of benefi-
ciary but not in terms of morality and ethicality ratings.
To test our predictions, we conducted three studies. Study 1 was To test hypothesis 1, we then assigned codes to the review
conducted to develop the stimuli and to verify that the two incen- valence (0 = negative, 1 = positive) and ran another one-way
tive types did not differ in terms of ethicality and morality ratings ANOVA. The results indicate that participants assigned to
(hypothesis 1). The purpose of study 2 is to examine if powerful the negative fake review condition perceived the review
individuals are more inclined to post fake positive reviews when request as more unethical (Mnegative = 1.82 vs. Mpositive = 2.42;
presented with charity incentives, while individuals who lack F[1, 120] = 4.03, p < .05) and immoral (Mnegative = 1.82 vs.
power tend to post fake reviews when presented with monetary Mpositive = 2.73; F[1, 120] = 8.97, p < .01) than their counter-
incentives (hypothesis 2). Finally, study 3 investigated the pro- parts in the positive fake review condition. These results lend
posed boundary condition of review valence (hypothesis 3). support for hypothesis 1.

Study 1 Study 2
In study 1, several scenarios were tested using a 2 (review Participants, procedures, and measures. One hundred nineteen
valence: positive vs. negative) × 2 (incentive type: monetary participants were recruited (54 female; Mage = 34.13, SD =
vs. charity) between-subjects design describing a situation in 11.18) from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. The design was a 2
which a restaurant manager asked the participant to write a (power: high vs. low) × 2 (incentive type: monetary vs. char-
fake review while offering an incentive in return (see ity) quasi-experiment. Participants read one of the hypotheti-
Appendix A for a full list of scenarios). In the positive fake cal scenarios and then answered questions about their
review condition, the restaurant manager asked the partici- likelihood to post a fake review and about their personal
pant to give the restaurant a five-star rating and write a posi- demographics.
tive review, while in the negative fake review condition, the Study 2 included two independent variables: in order to
manager asked the participant to give a competitor a one-star manipulate incentive type, we presented each participant
rating and to post a negative review. The incentive was either with one of the two scenarios (incentive type: monetary vs.
a personal gift card or a donation to a local charity. charity) developed in study 1. The participants’ power was

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on November 21, 2016

6 Journal of Travel Research 

Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations of Study 1.

Moral/ Ethical/ Self-Benefiting/ Selfish/

Experimental Scenario Immoral Unethical Other-Benefiting Altruistic

Valence Incentive Type Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Positive Monetary 2.30 1.92 2.53 1.94 2.03 1.56 2.23 1.72
Charity 2.53 1.63 2.91 1.80 3.31 1.93 3.06 1.88
Negative Monetary 1.53 1.24 1.63 1.16 1.47 1.02 1.44 1.01
Charity 2.14 1.80 2.04 1.73 3.43 1.93 3.32 2.04

Note: SD = standard deviation.

measured by two items adapted from previous research Table 2. Result of Moderation Test for Likelihood of Posting a
(Dubois, Rucker, and Galinsky 2010; Rucker and Galinsky Fake Review Using PROCESS (Model 1).
2008). Specifically, we asked participants to indicate the
Variable Coefficient SE t p
extent to which they felt powerful and in control in everyday
life on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = powerless, lacking Constant 5.80 1.34 4.33 .000
control; 7 = powerful, in control; r = .81, p = .000). Power – 0.27 0.24 –1.14 .26
The dependent variable was likelihood of posting a fake Incentive –5.67 1.53 –3.70 .000
review. Participants were asked to respond to three items to Incentive × power 1.04 0.31 3.40 .001
determine the extent to which they would engage in posting Self-importance –0.36 0.18 –2.02 .05
a fake review adapted from Karmarkar and Tormala (2010). Dependence on others 0.27 0.16 1.69 .09
Questions were “Please indicate how much you think you Mood 0.29 0.12 2.36 .02
would like to write a review”; “Please indicate how inter-
ested you would be in writing a review” (1 = not at all, 9 =
very much so); and “Please indicate the probability of writ- effect for incentive type on posting a fake review (b = −5.67,
ing a review” (1 = very low, 9 = very high) (α = .96). t[112] = −3.70, p < .001), such that participants were more
We controlled for self-importance and dependence on oth- likely to post fake reviews when presented with monetary
ers since previous research has shown that power is correlated (vs. charity) incentives. The main effect for power was insig-
with these two constructs (Rucker, Dubois, and Galinsky nificant (b = −.27, t[112] = −1.14, p > .25). Yet the interac-
2011). We assessed self-importance using two items adapted tion effect between power and incentive type is significant
from Rucker, Dubois, and Galinsky (2011): “How important (b = 1.04, t[112] = 3.40, p < .001) (see Table 2).
are you as an individual?” (1 = not important at all, 8 = very To decompose the interaction, we performed a floodlight
important) and “I am a person of worth” (1 = totally disagree, 8 analysis using the Johnson-Neyman technique. Floodlight
= totally agree) (r = .69, p = .000). We measured dependence analysis illuminates ranges of values of the continuous variable
on others using two items: “When it comes to getting things (X) where the simple effect is significant and where it is not
done, do you depend more on yourself or others?” (1 = com- (Spiller et al. 2013). Past research shows that performing a
pletely on myself, 8 = completely on others); and “How much median split results in a substantial loss of statistical power
do you value people’s opinions versus your own when making from dichotomizing a continuous independent variable, which
a decision?” (1 = my opinion matters most, 8 = others’ opinions potentially leads to spurious results (Fitzsimons 2008; Irwin
matter most) (r = .51, p = .000). Moreover, we included a mood and McClelland 2001; Spiller et al. 2013). Our results indicate
measure by asking participants how happy or sad they were that there is a significant negative effect of incentive type on the
feeling at the time of the experiment (1 = sad, 7 = happy). By likelihood of posting a fake review among participants with a
doing so, we could rule out the alternative mechanism of the sense of power lower than 4.52 (bJN = –.95, SE = .48, p = .05),
effect of mood on one’s intention to engage in unethical behav- but not for individuals with power higher than 4.52. In other
iors (Cialdini, Darby, and Vincent 1973; Dubois, Rucker, and words, low-power individuals were more likely to post a fake
Galinsky 2015). review in the monetary incentive condition than in the charity
incentive condition. Approximately 58% of participants fell
Results. To assess each participant’s likelihood of posting a into this category. This interaction is depicted in Figure 2.
fake review, we measured one’s self-reported sense of power Overall, these results provide partial support for hypoth-
and ran a moderation analysis (Hayes 2013; Model 1) with esis 2. Consistent with our predictions, less powerful indi-
incentive type as the independent variable, power as the viduals were more likely to post a fake review when presented
moderator, intention to post a fake review as the dependent with a monetary incentive rather than a charity incentive.
variable, and self-importance, dependence on others, and Unexpectedly, the incentive type had a minimal impact on
mood as covariates. The result shows a significant main powerful individuals’ likelihood to post fake reviews. We

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on November 21, 2016

Choi et al. 7

9
Monetary

8 Charity

Likelihood of posting a fake review

7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Sense of power

Figure 2. Likelihood of posting a fake review in study 2.

Note: Vertical line represents the point of significance (4.52). The gray part represents region of significance of the simple effect of incentive type.

argue that this insignificant result can be explained by the measured on a 9-point scale: “The event recall task made me
fact that high-power individuals tend to have a relatively feel powerful (vs.) powerless.” The manipulation for incen-
high propensity to engage in unethical behaviors (Detert, tive type was identical to study 2, and we used the same
Treviño, and Sweitzer 2008; Piff et al. 2012). Accordingly, dependent variable and control variables as in study 2.
the likelihood of writing a fake review was uniformly high
among our high-power participants. Results. A two-tailed t test on the power manipulation check
revealed that high-power participants reported feeling more
powerful than low-power participants (Mhigh-power = 5.78 vs.
Study 3 Mlow-power = 4.33; t[113] = −4.33, p = .000). We examined the
Participants, procedures, and measures. One hundred eigh- effect of primed power and incentive type on participants’
teen participants were recruited from Amazon’s Mechani- intentions to post fake reviews. The results of a two-way
cal Turk and three individuals were excluded based on the ANCOVA showed no main effect of power (F[1, 108] < 1)
instructional attendance check task (IMC; Oppenheimer, and incentive type (F[1, 108] < 1). Moreover, the interaction
Meyvis, and Davidenko 2009; see Appendix D). The final effect of power and incentive type was not significant (F[1,
sample was composed of 115 participants (54 female; Mage 108] = 1.50, p = .22). The effects of self-importance, depen-
= 35.49, SD = 12.50), and they were randomly assigned to dence on others, and mood were also statistically insignifi-
one of four conditions in a 2 (power: high vs. low) × 2 cant (F[1, 108] = 0.04, p = .84; F[1, 108] = 2.71, p = .10; and
(incentive: monetary vs. charity) between-subjects experi- F[1, 108] = 0.03, p = .87, respectively).
mental design. These results support hypothesis 3. Notably, the propen-
We manipulated power by having participants complete a sity to post fake reviews among both high- and low-power
power recall task (Galinsky, Gruenfeld, and Magee 2003). In individuals remained low (i.e., mean scores less than 3.0)
the high-power condition, participants were asked to recall across the two incentive conditions. This finding is consis-
and write about a time when they had power over others. In tent with study 1 results showing that participants considered
the low-power condition, they were asked to recall and write writing a negative fake review of a competitor to be more
about a time when they lacked power (see Appendix C). We unethical and immoral than writing a positive fake review for
performed a manipulation check using a single bipolar item the focal service provider.

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on November 21, 2016

8 Journal of Travel Research 

General Discussion Specifically, less powerful people with a concrete mindset

focus on helping themselves with a monetary gain, thus jus-
The main purpose of this research is to identify the effect of tifying their decision to violate an ethical principle.
incentive type (i.e., self-benefiting vs. other-benefiting) on By examining consumer motivations to post fake reviews,
consumers’ intention to post fake reviews and to determine the present study delivers an important message to hospitality
whether an individual’s sense of power plays a moderating and tourism practitioners. It is noteworthy that fake online
role in that association. The results of study 2 show that pow- reviews not only undermine credibility of reviews but also
erless individuals are more likely to write fake reviews when affect consumer choices (Munzel 2016). In turn, these reviews
presented with monetary (i.e., self-benefiting) incentives can directly influence business performance (Chevalier and
than when presented with charity (i.e., other-benefiting) Mayzlin 2006). Hence, it is critical to understand reviewers’
incentives. However, powerful consumers are not influenced motivation to eradicate fake reviews from online platforms.
by the incentive type and consequently, hypothesis 2 is only As such, this research has several practical implications. First,
partially supported. The results for the powerless are consis- many third-party firms offer reputation management services
tent with previous social psychology research stating that for hotels and restaurants. Their strategy is to assist their cli-
individuals with a low sense of power desire to acquire per- ents by collecting feedback from customers and posting such
sonal benefits (Rixom and Mishra 2014). feedback on online review forums, such as Yelp.com and
The findings of study 3 support hypothesis 3: when asked TripAdvisor.com. A classic way to motivate customers to
to post negative fake reviews about a competitor, the joint write reviews is to distribute emails that include monetary
impact of power and incentive type on an individual’s inten- incentives, such as gift cards or discount coupons. Although
tion was attenuated. This result is congruent with previous their goal is to obtain genuine evaluations from customers,
research on WOM and self-enhancement. Previous research our findings suggest that this method can unintentionally
has shown that individuals want to be perceived as a “good motivate individuals (especially powerless consumers) to
person,” and therefore, they tend to share things that make write fake reviews. Furthermore, when a consumer responds
them look good (Berger 2014). This evidence suggests that to an email request and writes a review, TripAdvisor.com
negative fake reviews on third-party platforms are likely to adds the sentence: “Review collected in partnership with this
be written by jealous competitors rather than by real restaurant.”1 However, such a cue may backfire, because con-
customers. sumers might infer that the review is fake.
This study makes two theoretical contributions: first, Second, as others have suggested (Anderson and Simester
despite the fact that about 25% of reviews posted on Yelp are 2014; Mayzlin, Dover, and Chevalier 2014), online review
suspicious (Roberts 2013), the tourism literature is silent on forum practitioners might want to follow Expedia.com’s
fake reviews. Previous empirical research on the topic is lim- example and allow only verified purchasers to post a review.
ited to the domain of computer science with a focus on pat- However, this strategy may lead to inadvertent consequences
tern detection (e.g., Ott et al. 2011). However, there is a lack of reducing the number of reviews (Mayzlin, Dover, and
of understanding on what motivates consumers (as opposed Chevalier 2014).
to companies) to post fake reviews. We show that monetary Finally, even after Amazon’s lawsuit against Fiverr.com,
(self-benefiting) and charity (other-benefiting) incentives— an outsourcing site, there are still some websites with users
two prevalent marketing practices—are the main drivers of who advertise “review services” for $5. Our findings suggest
consumer participation in writing fake reviews. that adopting a different incentive method, such as a charity
Second, the study findings reveal that one’s sense of appeal, might prevent users to engage in fake reviews.
power plays an important role in moderating the relationship
between incentive type and consumers’ propensity to post
fake reviews. Specifically, powerless individuals are more
Limitations and Future Research
likely to engage in such unethical behaviors when presented As with any research, the present study is not without limita-
with self-benefiting (vs. other-benefiting) incentives. This tions. First, it was based on self-reported data, which may or
finding is incongruent with Dubois, Rucker, and Galinsky’s may not accurately describe how individuals act in real-life
(2015) results. Focusing on the modality of power (i.e., agen- situations. Thus, future research should develop methods
tic vs. communal), Dubois, Rucker, and Galinsky (2015) find that reflect more realistic situations, for instance, by sending
that high-power individuals tend to engage in unethical fake review requests to a random sample of participants and
behaviors when the behaviors benefit the self, whereas low- recording their responses. Second, past research found that
power individuals tend to engage in unethical behaviors the valence of fake reviews depends on the market situation
when the behaviors benefit others. However, their study does of a hotel and restaurant. For example, a hotel tends to have
not examine situations in which two conflicting ethical prin- more negative fake reviews when located near competitors
ciples are involved. In such cases, as in our study, the funda- (Mayzlin, Dover, and Chevalier 2014), and a restaurant
mental modalities are not necessarily applicable. Instead, whose reputation is less established tends to have more posi-
abstract and concrete mindsets activated by power play a tive fake reviews (Luca and Zervas 2015). However, in our
substantial role in an individual’s decision-making processes. two experiments, such information was missing. Therefore,

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on November 21, 2016

Choi et al. 9

future research should specify the market situation of a prop- Charity incentive
erty in a hypothetical scenario. Third, we did not examine
linguistic characteristics in fake reviews, which can be an
interesting way to detect fake reviews. Thus, future research
should investigate the effect of power and incentive type on
reviewers’ writing styles in fake reviews.

Appendix A
Scenarios
One day, you found a flyer (advertisement) from a restaurant
in town that you have NEVER PATRONIZED. The message
reads as followed: Appendix B
Scales
Positive valence
Monetary incentive (i.e., self-beneficiary) Likelihood of posting a fake review (Study 2: α = .96; Study 3:
α = .97)
Please indicate…
How much you think you would like to write a review.
How interested you would be in writing a review.
Please indicate the probability of writing a review.
Self-importance (Study 2: r = .69, p = .000; Study 3: r = .74,
p = .000)
How important are you as an individual?
I am a person of worth
Dependence on others (Study 2: r = .51, p = .000; Study 3:
r = .67, p = .000)
When it comes to getting things done, do you depend more
on yourself or others?
Charity incentive (i.e., other beneficiary) How much do you value people’s opinions versus your own
when making a decision?
Self-reported power (Study 2: r = .81, p = .000)
In general, how do you feel in your everyday life?
1 = powerless 2 3 4 5 6 7 = powerful
1 = lacking control 2 3 4 5 6 7 = in control

Appendix C
Power Priming Task (Study 3)
High-power

Negative valence
Monetary incentive

Low-power

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on November 21, 2016

10 Journal of Travel Research 

Appendix D Bronner, F., and R. de Hoog. 2010. “Vacationers and eWOM:

Who Posts, and Why, Where, and What?” Journal of Travel
Instructional Attendance Check (Study 3) Research 50 (1): 15–26.
Brush, Jesse. 2007. “Does Income Inequality Lead to More
Crime? A Comparison of Cross-sectional and Time-Series
Analyses of United States Counties.” Economics Letters 96
(2): 264–68.
Carney, D. R., A. J. Cuddy, and A. J. Yap. 2010. “Power Posing
Brief Nonverbal Displays Affect Neuroendocrine Levels and
Risk Tolerance.” Psychological Science 21 (10): 1363–68.
Chang, C. T. 2008. “To Donate or Not to Donate? Product
Characteristics and Framing Effects of Cause-Related
Marketing on Consumer Purchase Behavior.” Psychology and
Marketing 25 (12): 1089–1110.
Chen, S., A. Y. Lee-Chai, and J. A. Bargh. 2001. “Relationship
Orientation as a Moderator of the Effects of Social Power.”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 80 (2): 173–87.
Chevalier, J., and D. Mayzlin. 2006. “The Effect of Word of
Mouth on Sales: Online Book Reviews.” Journal of Marketing
Research 43 (3): 345–54.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests Chiou, W. B., P. H. Wan, and C. S. Wan. 2012. “A New Look
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect at Software Piracy: Soft Lifting Primes an Inauthentic Sense
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. of Self, Prompting Further Unethical Behavior.” International
Journal of Human-Computer Studies 70 (2): 107–15.
Funding Choi, C., and A. S. Mattila. 2016. “The Effects of Other Customers’
Dress Style on Customers’ Approach Behaviors: The
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support
Moderating Role of Sense of Power.” Cornell Hospitality
for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The
Quarterly 57 (2): 211–18.
authors thank the Marriott Foundation for the funding of this
Cialdini, R. B., B. L. Darby, and J. E. Vincent. 1973. “Transgression
research.
and Altruism: A Case for Hedonism.” Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology 9 (6): 502–16.
Note DeCelles, K. A., D. S. DeRue, J. D. Margolis, and T. L. Ceranic.
1. For details, see TripAdvisor’s official press release, available at 2012. “Does Power Corrupt or Enable? When and Why Power
http://www.tripadvisor.com/PressCenter-i5966-c1-Press_Releases. Facilitates Self-Interested Behavior.” Journal of Applied
html. Psychology 97 (3): 681–89.
Detert, J. R., L. K. Treviño, and V. L. Sweitzer. 2008. “Moral
References Disengagement in Ethical Decision Making: A Study of
Antecedents and Outcomes.” Journal of Applied Psychology
Anderson, C., and J. L. Berdahl. 2002. “The Experience of Power: 93 (2): 374–91.
Examining the Effects of Power on Approach and Inhibition Ditto, P. H., and B. Liu. 2011. “Deontological Dissonance and
Tendencies.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83 the Consequentialist Crutch.” In The Social Psychology of
(6): 1362–77. Morality: Exploring the Causes of Good and Evil, edited by
Anderson, C., and A. D. Galinsky. 2006. “Power, Optimism, and M. Mikulincer and P. R. Shaver, 51–70. Washington, DC:
Risk-taking.” European Journal of Social Psychology 36: American Psychological Association.
511–36. Dubois, D., D. D. Rucker, and A. D. Galinsky. 2010. “The
Anderson, E. T., and D. I. Simester. 2014. “Reviews without a Accentuation Bias: Money Literally Looms Larger (and
Purchase: Low Ratings, Loyal Customers, and Deception.” Sometimes Smaller) to the Powerless.” Social Psychological
Journal of Marketing Research 51 (3): 249–69. and Personality Science 1 (3): 199–205.
Ayeh, J. K., N. Au, and R. Law. 2013. “‘Do We Believe in Dubois, D., D. D. Rucker, and A. D. Galinsky. 2015. “Social Class,
TripAdvisor?’ Examining Credibility Perceptions and Online Power, and Selfishness: When and Why Upper and Lower
Travelers’ Attitude toward Using User-Generated Content.” Class Individuals Behave Unethically.” Journal of Personality
Journal of Travel Research 52 (4): 437–52. and Social Psychology 108 (3): 436–49.
Bakan, D. 1966. The Duality of Human Existence: Isolation and Eisenberger, R., and L. Rhoades. 2001. “Incremental Effects of
Communion in Western Man. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Reward on Creativity.” Journal of Personality and Social
Barkan, R., S. Ayal, F. Gino, and D. Ariely. 2012. “The Pot Calling Psychology 81 (4): 728–41.
the Kettle Black: Distancing Response to Ethical Dissonance.” Eyal, Tal, and Nira Liberman. 2012. “Morality and Psychological
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 141 (4): 757–73. Distance: A Construal Level Theory Perspective.” In The
Berger, J. 2014. “Word of Mouth and Interpersonal Communication: Social Psychology of Morality: Exploring the Causes of Good
A Review and Directions for Future Research.” Journal of and Evil, edited by M. Mikulincer and P. R. Shaver, 185–202.
Consumer Psychology 24 (4): 586–607. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on November 21, 2016

Choi et al. 11

Eyal, T., N. Liberman, and Y. Trope. 2008. “Judging Near and Jin, L., and Y. Huang. 2014. “When Giving Money Does Not
Distant Virtue and Vice.” Journal of Experimental Social Work: The Differential Effects of Monetary versus In-kind
Psychology 44 (4): 1204–9. Rewards in Referral Reward Programs.” International Journal
Federal Trade Commission. 2015. “The FTC’s Endorsement of Research in Marketing 31 (1): 107–16.
Guides: What People Are Asking.” https://www.ftc.gov/tips- Jones, T. M. 1991. “Ethical Decision Making by Individuals in
advice/business-center/guidance/ftcs-endorsement-guides- Organizations: An Issue-Contingent Model.” Academy of
what-people-are-asking (accessed December 13, 2015). Management Review 16 (2): 366–95.
Filieri, R., and F. McLeay. 2014. “E-WOM and Accommodation: Karmarkar, U. R., and Z. L. Tormala. 2010. “Believe Me, I Have
An Analysis of the Factors That Influence Travelers’ Adoption No Idea What I’m Talking About: The Effects of Source
of Information from Online Reviews.” Journal of Travel Certainty on Consumer Involvement and Persuasion.” Journal
Research 53 (1): 44–57. of Consumer Research 36 (6): 1033–49.
Fischbacher, U., and F. Föllmi-Heusi. 2013. “Lies in Disguise—An Keltner, D., D. H. Gruenfeld, and C. Anderson. 2003. “Power,
Experimental Study on Cheating.” Journal of the European Approach, and Inhibition.” Psychological Review 110 (2):
Economic Association 11 (3): 525–47. 265–84.
Fitzsimons, G. J. 2008. “Editorial: Death to Dichotomizing.” Kim, E. E. K., A. S. Mattila, and S. Baloglu. 2011. “Effects of
Journal of Consumer Research 35 (1): 5–8. Gender and Expertise on Consumers’ Motivation to Read
French, J. R., and B. Raven. 1959. “The Bases of Social Power.” In Online Hotel Reviews.” Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 52 (4):
Studies in Social Power, edited by D. Cartwright, 150–67. Ann 399–406.
Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Kivetz, Y., and T. R. Tyler. 2007. “Tomorrow I’ll Be Me: The
Galinsky, A. D., D. H. Gruenfeld, and J. C. Magee. 2003. Effect of Time Perspective on the Activation of Idealistic ver-
“From Power to Action.” Journal of Personality and Social sus Pragmatic Selves.” Organizational Behavior and Human
Psychology 85 (3): 453–66. Decision Processes 102 (2): 193–211.
Garbinsky, E. N., A. K. Klesse, and J. Aaker. 2014. “Money in Kraus, M. W., P. K. Piff, and D. Keltner. 2009. “Social Class, Sense
the Bank: Feeling Powerful Increases Saving.” Journal of of Control, and Social Explanation.” Journal of Personality
Consumer Research 41 (3): 610–23. and Social Psychology 97 (6): 992–1004.
Gretzel, U., and K. H. Yoo. 2008. “Use and Impact of Online Travel Lammers, J., A. D. Galinsky, D. Dubois, and D. D. Rucker. 2015.
Reviews.” In Information and Communication Technologies in “Power and Morality.” Current Opinion in Psychology 6:
Tourism, edited by P. O’Connor, W. Hopken, and U. Gretzel, 15–19.
35–46. Vienna: Springer. Lee, F., and L. Z. Tiedens. 2001. “Is It Lonely at the Top? The
Gruen, T. W., T. Osmonbekov, and A. J. Czaplewski. 2006. Independence and Interdependence of Power Holders.” Research
“eWOM: The Impact of Customer-to-Customer Online Know- in Organizational Behavior 23:43–91.
How Exchange on Customer Value and Loyalty.” Journal of Liu, Z., and S. Park. 2015. “What Makes a Useful Online
Business Research 59 (4): 449–56. Review? Implication for Travel Product Websites.” Tourism
Hancock, J. 2007. “Digital Deception.” In Oxford Handbook of Management 47:140–51.
Internet Psychology, edited by Adam Joinson, Katelyn McKenna, Lu, L. C., H. H. Chang, and S. T. Yu. 2013. “Online Shoppers’
and Tom Postmes, 289–301. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Perceptions of E-retailers’ Ethics, Cultural Orientation, and
Harmon, A. 2004. “Amazon Glitch Unmasks War of Reviewers.” Loyalty.” Internet Research 23 (1): 47–68.
The New York Times, February 14. http://www.nytimes. Luca, Michael, and Georgios Zervas. 2015. “Fake It till You Make
com/2004/02/14/us/amazon-glitch-unmasks-war-of-review- It: Reputation, Competition, and Yelp Review Fraud.” Harvard
ers.html?_r=0. Business School NOM Unit Working Paper 14-006.
Hayes, A.F. 2013. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and Mayzlin, D. 2006. “Promotional Chat on the Internet.” Marketing
conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Science 25 (2): 155–63.
Guilford Press. Mayzlin, D., Y. Dover, and J. Chevalier. 2014. “Promotional
Hennig-Thurau, T., and G. Walsh. 2003. “Electronic Word-of- Reviews: An Empirical Investigation of Online Review
Mouth: Motives for and Consequences of Reading Customer Manipulation.” American Economic Review 104 (8): 2421–55.
Articulations on the Internet.” International Journal of Electronic Mourali, M., and A. Nagpal. 2013. “The Powerful Select, the
Commerce 8:51–74. Powerless Reject: Power’s Influence in Decision Strategies.”
Hennig-Thurau, T., K. P. Gwinner, G. Walsh, and D. D. Gremler. Journal of Business Research 66 (7): 874–80.
2004. “Electronic Word-of-Mouth via Consumer Opinion Mukherjee, Arjun, Bing Liu, and Natalie Glance. 2012. “Spotting
Platforms: What Motivates Consumers to Articulate Themselves Fake Reviewer Groups in Consumer Reviews.” In Proceedings
on the Internet?” Journal of Interactive Marketing 18:38–52. of the 21st international Conference on World Wide Web, 191–
Hu, N., I. Bose, N. S. Koh, and L. Liu. 2012. “Manipulation of 200. ACM.
Online Reviews: An Analysis of Ratings, Readability, and Munzel, A. 2016. “Assisting Consumers in Detecting Fake Reviews:
Sentiments.” Decision Support Systems 52 (3): 674–84. The Role of Identity Information Disclosure and Consensus.”
Irwin, J. R., and G. H. McClelland. 2001. “Misleading Heuristics Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 32:96–108.
and Moderated Multiple Regression Models.” Journal of Murray, K. B. 1991. “A Test of Services Marketing Theory:
Marketing Research 38 (1): 100–9. Consumer Information Acquisition Activities.” Journal of
Iyer, E. S., and R. K. Kashyap. 2007. “Consumer Recycling: Role Marketing 55:10–25.
of Incentives, Information, and Social Class.” Journal of Nicole, K. F., I. V. Stefan, and W. D. Hoyer. 2012. “Willingness
Consumer Behaviour 6 (1): 32–47. to Pay for Cause-Related Marketing: The Impact of Donation

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on November 21, 2016

12 Journal of Travel Research 

Amount and Moderating Effects.” Journal of Marketing Decision Making, A Commentary on de Langhe, Fernbach, and
Research 49 (6): 910–27. Lichtenstein.” Journal of Consumer Research 42 (6): 840–45.
Oppenheimer, D. M., T. Meyvis, and N. Davidenko. 2009. Smith, P. K., and Y. Trope. 2006. “You Focus on the Forest When
“Instructional Manipulation Checks: Detecting Satisficing to You’re in Charge of the Trees: Power Priming and Abstract
Increase Statistical Power.” Journal of Experimental Social Information Processing.” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 45 (4): 867–72. Psychology 90 (4): 578–96.
Ott, M., Y. Choi, C. Cardie, and J. T. Hancock. 2011. “Finding Sparks, B. A., and V. Browning. 2011. “The Impact of Online
Deceptive Opinion Spam by any Stretch of the Imagination.” In Reviews on Hotel Booking Intentions and Perception of Trust.”
Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Tourism Management 32 (6): 1310–23.
Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Sparks, B. A., K. K. F. So, and G. L. Bradley. 2016. “Responding to
Vol. 1, Long Papers, 309–19. Stroudsburg, PA: Association Negative Online Reviews: The Effects of Hotel Responses on
for Computational Linguistics. Customer Inferences of Trust and Concern.” Tourism Management
Park, C., and T. M. Lee. 2009. “Information Direction, Website 53:74–85.
Reputation and eWOM Effect: A Moderating Role of Product Spiller, S. A., G. J. Fitzsimons, J. G. Lynch, Jr., and G. H.
Type.” Journal of Business Research 62 (1): 61–67. McClelland. 2013. “Spotlights, Floodlights, and the Magic
Peterson, S. J., and F. Luthans. 2006. “The Impact of Financial Number Zero: Simple Effects Tests in Moderated Regression.”
and Nonfinancial Incentives on Business-Unit Outcomes over Journal of Marketing Research 50 (2): 277–88.
Time.” Journal of Applied Psychology 91 (1): 156–65. Stajkovic, A. D., and F. Luthans. 2003. “Behavioral Management
Phillips, P., K. Zigan, M. M. S. Silva, and R. Schegg. 2015. “The and Task Performance in Organizations: Conceptual
Interactive Effects of Online Reviews on the Determinants Background, Meta-Analysis, and Test of Alternative Models.”
of Swiss Hotel Performance: A Neural Network Analysis.” Personnel Psychology 56 (1): 155–94.
Tourism Management 50:130–41. Strahilevitz, M., and J. G. Myers. 1998. “Donation to Charity as
Piff, P. K., M. W. Kraus, S. Côté, B. H. Cheng, and D. Keltner. Purchase Incentives: How Well They Work May Depend on
2010. “Having Less, Giving More: The Influence of Social What You Are Trying to Sell.” Journal of Consumer Research
Class on Prosocial Behavior.” Journal of Personality and 24:434–47.
Social Psychology 99 (5): 771–84. Trope, Y., and N. Liberman. 2003. “Temporal Construal.”
Piff, P. K., D. M. Stancato, S. Cote, R. Mendoza-Denton, and Psychological Review 110 (3): 403–21.
D. Keltner. 2012. “Higher Social Class Predicts Increased Trusov, M., R. E. Bucklin, and K. Pauwels. 2009. “Effects of
Unethical Behavior.” Proceedings of National Academy of Word-of-Mouth versus Traditional Marketing: Findings from
Sciences 109 (11): 4086–91. an Internet Social Networking Site.” Journal of Marketing
Ring, A., A. Tkaczynski, and S. Dolnicar. 2016. “Word-of-Mouth 73:90–102.
Segments Online, Offline, Visual or Verbal?” Journal of Vermeulen, I. E., and D. Seegers. 2009. “Tried and Tested: The
Travel Research 55 (4): 481–92. Impact of Online Hotel Reviews on Consumer Consideration.”
Rixom, J., and H. Mishra. 2014. “Ethical Ends: Effect of Abstract Tourism Management 30 (1): 123–27.
Mindsets in Ethical Decisions for the Greater Social Good.” Vitell, S. J. 2003. “Consumer Ethics Research: Review, Synthesis
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 124 and Suggestions for the Future.” Journal of Business Ethics
(2): 110–21. 43:33–47.
Roberts, D. 2013. “Yelp’s Fake Review Problem.” Fortune, Wei, W., L. Miao, and Z. J. Huang. 2013. “Customer Engagement
September 26. http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/09/26/yelps- Behaviors and Hotel Responses.” International Journal of
fake-review-problem/. Hospitality Management 33:316–30.
Rucker, D. D., D. Dubois, and A. D. Galinsky. 2011. “Generous Winterich, K. P., V. Mittal, and A. C. Morales. 2014. “Protect
Paupers and Stingy Princes: Power Drives Consumer Spending Thyself: How Affective Self-Protection Increases Self-
on Self versus Others.” Journal of Consumer Research 37 (6): Interested, Unethical Behavior.” Organizational Behavior and
1015–29. Human Decision Processes 125 (2): 151–61.
Rucker, D. D., and A. D. Galinsky. 2008. “Desire to Acquire: Wirtz, J., and P. Chew. 2002. “The Effects of Incentives, Deal
Powerlessness and Compensatory Consumption.” Journal of Proneness, Satisfaction and Tie Strength on Word-of-Mouth
Consumer Research 35 (2): 257–67. Behaviour.” International Journal of Service Industry
Rucker, D. D., and A. D. Galinsky. 2009. “Conspicuous Management 13 (2): 141–62.
Consumption versus Utilitarian Ideals: How Different Levels Wu, L., A. S. Mattila, C. Y. Wang, and L. Hanks. 2016. “The
of Power Shape Consumer Behavior.” Journal of Experimental Impact of Power on Service Customers’ Willingness to Post
Social Psychology 45 (3): 549–55. Online Reviews.” Journal of Service Research 19 (2): 224–38.
Rucker, D. D., A. D. Galinsky, and D. Dubois. 2012. “Power Xie, H. J., L. Miao, P. J. Kuo, and B. Y. Lee. 2011. “Consumers’
and Consumer Behavior: How Power Shapes Who and What Responses to Ambivalent Online Hotel Reviews: The Role of
Consumers Value.” Journal of Consumer Psychology 22 (3): Perceived Source Credibility and Pre-decisional Disposition.”
352–68. International Journal of Hospitality Management 30 (1): 178–83.
Shalvi, S., F. Gino, R. Barkan, and S. Ayal. 2015. “Self-Serving Xie, W., B. Yu, X. Zhou, C. Sedikides, and K. D. Vohs. 2014.
Justifications: Doing Wrong and Feeling Moral.” Current “Money, Moral Transgressions, and Blame.” Journal of
Directions in Psychological Science 24 (2): 125–30. Consumer Psychology 24 (3): 299–306.
Simonson, I. 2016. “Imperfect Progress: An Objective Quality Yap, A. J., A. S. Wazlawek, B. J. Lucas, A. J. C. Cuddy, and D.
Assessment of the Role of User Reviews in Consumer R. Carney. 2013. “The Ergonomics of Dishonesty: The Effect

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on November 21, 2016

Choi et al. 13

of Incidental Posture on Stealing, Cheating, and Traffic Author Biographies

Violations.” Psychological Science 24 (11): 2281–89. Sungwoo Choi is a graduate student at the School of Hospitality
Ye, Q., R. Law, and B. Gu. 2009. “The Impact of Online User management at the Pennsylvania State University. He received his
Reviews on Hotel Room Sales.” International Journal of M.S. at the School of Hospitality management at the Pennsylvania
Hospitality Management 28 (1): 180–82. State University. His primary research interests focus on social influ-
Yoo, K. H., and U. Gretzel. 2009. “Comparison of Deceptive and ence and consumer behavior in the hospitality and tourism industry.
Truthful Travel Reviews.” In: Information and Communication
Technologies in Tourism 2009: Proceedings of the International Anna S. Mattila, is the Marriott Professor of Lodging Management
Conference in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2009, edited at the School of Hospitality management at the Pennsylvania State
by Wolfram Höpken, Ulrike Gretzel, and Rob Law, 37–47. University. She holds a Ph.D. in services marketing from Cornell
Vienna: Springer. University. Her research interests focus on service encounters with
Zeithaml, V. A., B. J. Bitner, and D. D. Gremler. 2012. Services a particular interest in service recovery, corporate social responsi-
Marketing: Integrating Customer Focus across the Firm, 6th bility, social media and cross-cultural research.
ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hubert B. Van Hoof, Ph.D, is a Professor at the Penn State School of
Zhang, L., and L. Hanks. 2015. “Unearned Preferential Treatment:
Hospitality Management. He holds a Ph.D. in Public Administration
The Moderating Role of Power.” Cornell Hospitality Quarterly
with a focus on Tourism Policy Analysis from Arizona State
56 (3): 309–19.
University. His primary areas of research and teaching interest are
Zhang, L., L. Wu, and A. S. Mattila. 2014. “Online Reviews: The
strategic management and issues in international higher education.
Role of Information Load and Peripheral Factors.” Journal of
Travel Research 55 (3): 299–310. Donna Quadri-Felitti is the Marvin Ashner Director and Associate
Zhang, Z., Z. Zhang, and Y. Yang. 2016. “The Power of Expert Professor in the Penn State School of Hospitality Management. She
Identity: How Website-Recognized Expert Reviews Influence holds a PhD. in Hospitality Management from Iowa State
Travelers’ Online Rating Behavior.” Tourism Management University. Her areas of research interest are consumer experiences
55:15–24. in hospitality and destination and digital marketing.

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on November 21, 2016