Abstract
While research on customer engagement (CE) through gamification is gaining significant traction globally, the themes from cross-cultural perspectives that characterize this emerging and interdisciplinary research phenomenon remain unclear, exposing an essential gap within the existing literature. To bridge this gap, we undertake a systematic review of 66 studies, employing the Planning, Operationalizing, Writing, Embedding and Reflectiong (POWER), and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) frameworks to comprehensively identify the existing literature on gamification-based CE. We adopt a qualitative research approach to thematically analyse the selected studies through cross-cultural perspectives. Our review identifies four central themes within the literature on gamification-based CE, including (a) global gamification-based customer engagement marketing, (b) conceptualization of customer engagement, (c) industrial and cross-cultural contexts and (d) outcomes of gamification-based customer engagement. Drawing on the observations from extant research, the authors put forward several directions for future research built upon research philosophy, approach, strategy, choices, time horizon, techniques and procedures, and determine areas for further academic research. In addition, they also outline the managerial implications arising from utilizing gamification for CE across various global markets.
Keywords
Introduction
In recent years, customer engagement (CE), customer’s voluntary resource investment to support an organization’s marketing function that transcends financial patronage (Harmeling et al., 2017; Pansari & Kumar, 2017), has been heralded as a global goal for marketing researchers and practitioners alike (Hollebeek, 2018). Worldwide, engaged customers tend to demonstrate elevated psychological and behavioural outcomes, such as greater satisfaction, the propensity to recommend a brand and enhanced loyalty, which in turn contribute towards a firm’s overall competitive advantage (e.g., Hollebeek et al., 2021a; Zhang et al., 2025). Multinational firms such as Levi’s Strauss & Co., Pepsi and Pringles, along with a growing body of empirical research, have demonstrated the positive influence of CE on both customer lifetime value and overall firm performance in cross-cultural settings (Pansari & Kumar, 2017; Steinhoff et al., 2023). However, the literature has traditionally focused on CE through loyalty programmes, membership systems and point-based incentivization that mainly rely on extrinsic motivation, which is less effective in cultivating sustained loyalty than marketing strategies that reinforce intrinsic need satisfaction (Blut et al., 2023; Harmeling et al., 2017), such as gamification (Eisingerich et al., 2019; Koivisto & Hamari, 2019).
Gamification is a novel design approach that integrates game mechanics in non-gaming contexts such as systems, services and firm processes to foster CE through experiences akin to the beneficial characteristics of gameplay (Deterding et al., 2011) and has been recognized as a rapidly emerging CE strategy by both scholars and practitioners in cross-cultural settings (Blut et al., 2023; Nam & Kannan, 2020). Supporting this outlook, Mordor Intelligence (2024) projects that global revenues of gamification-based CE could reach $61.3b by 2030. Several global brands, including Sephora’s ‘Beauty Insider Community’, utilize game mechanics of social interaction to encourage customer-to-customer interactions through sharing product experiences, usage techniques and beauty advice in return for loyalty badges of various tiers (Gupta & Behl, 2024). Moreover, Sephora often designs virtual challenges similar to those seen in video games to engage customers with creative experimentation of new product ranges (Blut et al., 2023). Through its LEGO Ideas Platform, LEGO utilizes gamification to regularly engage its customers by hosting themed and time-limited product design competitions. Successful participants are awarded exclusive LEGO sets and publicly acknowledged for their contributions on the official website (Steinhoff et al., 2023). Pepsi incentivizes CE by awarding points to individuals who download the Pepsi Pass mobile application, further rewarding social interactions among users who connect with friends using the app. This strategy fosters brand-related discussions within peer networks. Additionally, customers can accumulate points by scanning specially branded ‘Pepsimoji’ bottles through the app, enhancing continued brand interaction and participation (Steinhoff et al., 2023). Thus, gamification has emerged as a valuable tool for global CE marketing, with its applications spanning from firm-initiated to customer-initiated interactions (Blut et al., 2023). To this end, many global firms progressively utilize gamification to enhance their customers’ motivation and stimulate deeper engagement (Blut et al., 2023; Steinhoff et al., 2023). However, despite these optimistic projections for gamification-based CE, the impact of gamification on CE is still unclear due to the following research inconsistencies.
Given the ongoing research and practitioner interest in this topic, it is plausible to assume that global research on gamification-based CE is grounded in well-documented research through assessments of the empirical support for its core tenets. However, this assumption does not hold. In fact, despite many individual examinations of gamification-based CE’s fundamental hypotheses, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, no study has hitherto conducted a comprehensive scholarly review that synthesizes and clarifies these research findings or assesses the research phenomenon’s overall trajectory. This is necessary because, first, the existing research reflects a diverse range of theoretical frameworks, methodological approaches and contextual settings to analyse gamification-based CE. This heterogeneity has led to theoretical fragmentation and inconsistency, as using varying lenses to examine gamification-based CE has resulted in potentially conflicting insights and notable tensions within extant literature. For instance, while Xi and Hamari (2020), Eisingerich et al. (2019) and Jang et al. (2018) reported the importance of achievement- and social interaction-related game mechanics as drivers of gamification-based CE, Behl et al. (2024), Leclercq et al. (2017) and Insley and Nunan (2014) highlight opposing effects, mentioning that these game mechanics may lead to unfavourable results, including disengagement and value co-destruction. Thus, academic scholars and marketers still lack academic and strategic insights regarding effectively leveraging gamification as an emerging global tool for CE (Hollebeek et al., 2021a).
Second, substantial academic evidence also indicates that global marketers struggle to effectively utilize appropriate game mechanics to enable long-term CE (e.g., Behl et al., 2024; Koivisto & Hamari, 2019), leading global organizations to increasingly rethink the effectiveness of gamification in fostering strong customer–brand relationships. Consequently, organizations exhibit highly polarized perspectives regarding the effectiveness of gamification as a tool for CE (Gupta & Behl, 2025). We posit that such perspectives have stemmed from most academic research and marketing practitioners’ lack of emphasis on geographically context-specific domestic markets. In reality, variations across global markets in terms of how customers perceive and respond to an organization’s gamification-based CE efforts, as well as the subsequent outcomes of such CE, appear to be highly probable (Shavitt & Barnes, 2020; Steinhoff et al., 2023). This means that creating an effective gamification-based CE strategy may require local adaptation of game mechanics over global standardization, depending on the cultural attributes of the target market. Such strategic choices play a crucial role in determining how gamification-based CE is received by local customers (Behl & Jain, 2023; Santos et al., 2025). Therefore, the global marketing discipline, in particular, would benefit from a content analysis that synthesizes evidence across extant research while elucidating the influence of cross-cultural factors in determining the most appropriate set of game mechanics engaging customers as well as identifying the underlying industrial and cross-cultural contexts that permit more precision in discerning the effectiveness of gamification as a tool for global CE (see Table 1).
Summary Comparison Between Prior Literature Review and Current Study.
In light of these realities, the present study aims to consolidate the current knowledge and establish a foundation for future development on gamification-based CE by addressing the following research question: What are the future research perspectives on gamification-based customer engagement in cross-cultural markets? Answering this research question is necessary for enhancing the scholarly understanding of the topic, thereby facilitating more coherent knowledge building, minimizing reliance on previous academic trends and avoiding inappropriate or misleading comparisons of game mechanics for CE in cross-cultural markets. Furthermore, integrating gamification-based CE with cross-cultural insights can contribute towards managerial guidance, enabling organizations to understand better the strategic relevance of culturally embedded game mechanics in furthering CE (Behl et al., 2024; Nam & Kannan, 2020). Accordingly, the present study seeks to clarify the role of culture for enabling and maintaining gamification-based CE both inductively and phenomenologically (Grant & Booth, 2009). As exhibited by several state-of-the-art reviews that utilized this approach in other research domains and yielded notable advancements in the fields of marketing and technology (e.g., Behl et al., 2022; Christofi, 2024; Hollebeek et al., 2024; Vrontis et al., 2021), one effective way to achieve this goal is the employment of a systematic literature review (Grant & Booth, 2009). Accordingly, a systematic literature review of high-quality research evidence drawn from leading peer-reviewed academic journals is timely and holds significant scholarly relevance (Christofi, 2024). Particularly, the present study on gamification-based CE is driven by the following objectives: (a) to determine and critically analyse the research trends and contributions of extant research at the interface of gamification-based CE; (b) to organize, synthesize and discuss the key research themes in previous studies from cross-cultural perspectives; and (c) to develop a detailed future research agenda informed by insights derived from the analysed literature.
This study makes several key contributions valuable for future academic research and managerial practice in gamification-based CE. First, employing the POWER (planning, operationalizing, writing, embedding and reflecting; Rana et al., 2023, 2022) and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) frameworks (Page et al., 2021), we systematically identify and analyse 66 research studies focused on gamification-based CE from cross-cultural perspectives. This analysis enabled us to extract their underlying theoretical foundations (e.g., the applied theories and methodologies; Behl et al., 2022) and to identify the central themes within the literature (Christofi, 2024; Vrontis et al., 2021) that are relevant for future cross-cultural research. Second, building on the work of previous scholars (e.g., Behl et al., 2022; Hollebeek et al., 2024), we develop a future research agenda grounded in our review findings. This contribution is particularly relevant in light of the rapid expansion and anticipated ongoing innovations in gamification-based CE, which offer fertile ground for future scholarly inquiry. Given gamification’s relative novelty in the global marketing domain and its potentially transformative and evolving impact on CE (Gupta & Behl, 2025), we anticipate that our insights will serve as a valuable reference point for future researchers and motivate them to underscore the increasing significance of gamification-based CE in cross-border environments in the years to come. Finally, this study seeks to assist practitioners in the effective implementation of gamification-driven CE strategies by highlighting the critical importance of cross-cultural factors when leveraging game mechanics in international markets.
The remainder of this research outlines the employed methodology and presents the descriptive attributes of the studies constituting the final sample. This is followed by a content analysis that synthesizes existing scholarly insights. This is followed by a comprehensive agenda to guide future research in this domain. The last section delineates implications for scholarly research and marketing practitioners.
Methodology
Selecting the Systematic Literature Review Methodology
Systematic review methodology was utilized as a foundation, since it delineates a process for identifying, selecting, thoroughly assessing and synthesizing previous scholarship in a transparent and replicable manner (Grant & Booth, 2009; Tranfield et al., 2003). Compared with traditional narrative reviews, this approach enriches the quality and reliability of findings (Paré et al., 2015), reduces biases (Tranfield et al., 2003), ensures a comprehensive overview of the research domain (Hulland & Houston, 2020) and enables the development of novel academic, managerial and policy-making insights (Paré et al., 2015). Thus, the systematic literature review was deemed the most suitable methodological choice for addressing our research objectives.
To ensure scientific rigour and transparency in conducting the systematic review of the literature, we followed the POWER framework proposed by Rana et al. (2022, 2023). The application of the framework is organized in Table 2.
Application of the Power Framework to Guide the Current Study.
Methodological Approach for Data Acquisition
We followed the three-staged methodological framework established by Tranfield et al. (2003), comprising (a) planning, (b) execution and (c) reporting, as utilized by previous systematic reviews in the business domain (i.e., Behl et al., 2022; Hollebeek et al., 2024). During the planning stage, we defined the research objectives and established a structured review protocol (Grant & Booth, 2009). The execution phase involved the systematic identification, retrieval and critical appraisal of relevant literature, based on its quality and alignment with the research focus. In the reporting phase, a descriptive analysis was undertaken, followed by a content analysis of the final studies in the data set. This approach enabled the articulation of key findings, identification of significant research gaps and formulation of strategic recommendations for advancing gamification-based CE.
Undertaking the Systematic Literature Review
Planning and Execution
An effective literature review is fundamentally anchored by a well-defined research question, which directs and structures the entire review process (Paré et al., 2015; Tranfield et al., 2003). In the present study, the research question was developed collaboratively through discussions among the authors and enriched by insights from academic scholars and industry practitioners. This iterative process culminated in the following guiding question: What are the future research perspectives on gamification-based customer engagement in cross-cultural markets? In alignment with the procedural framework outlined by Grant and Booth (2009) and Tranfield et al. (2003), a preliminary scoping review was undertaken before the systematic review. This step aimed to assess the scope and relevance of the existing literature, thereby delineating the boundaries of the gamification domain as applied to customer engagement. Such an initial investigation plays a pivotal role in shaping the objectives and direction of subsequent review phases (Grant & Booth, 2009; Paré et al., 2015).
To facilitate the rigorous identification of relevant studies, the PRISMA framework (Page et al., 2021) was adopted following previous studies (e.g., Behl et al., 2022; Lim & Rasul, 2022). It comprises three core stages: (a) identification of potential sources, (b) screening for relevance and quality, and (c) final inclusion of eligible studies (Page et al., 2021).
Step 1: Identification (Keywords and Database Search)
To conduct a comprehensive search of the existing literature, the Scopus database was selected, as it offers the most extensive coverage of peer-reviewed publications across social science and technical disciplines and encompasses the majority of content indexed in the Web of Science (Hollebeek et al., 2021a; Koivisto & Hamari, 2019). Utilizing a single, well-established database supports methodological rigour, enhances transparency and facilitates the reproducibility of the search process (Paré et al., 2015). The initial search strategy was guided by the Boolean combination ‘gamification’ AND ‘customer engagement’, reflecting the primary constructs of our research question. Relevant keywords were identified through a preliminary review of editorials, empirical studies and systematic reviews focused on gamification and customer engagement (e.g., Hollebeek et al., 2021a, 2021b; Koivisto & Hamari, 2019). The search was subsequently expanded to encompass broader customer engagement-related terms to ensure comprehensive coverage. Two subject-matter experts in gamification and customer engagement further reviewed and refined the keyword set to enhance its relevance and specificity. No time boundary was imposed, allowing for the inclusion of all eligible studies published up to the final search date, 13 January 2026. The final search was executed in Scopus using the ‘title-abstract-keywords’ fields, applying the Boolean combination as follows:
TITLE-ABS-KEY (gamif* AND (‘customer engagement’ OR ‘consumer engagement’ OR ‘user engagement’ OR ‘brand engagement’ OR ‘consumer brand engagement’ OR ‘customer brand engagement’ OR ‘customer engagement behavior’ OR ‘CE’ OR ‘CBE’))
The article identification and screening process, conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, is illustrated in Figure 1. The final literature search yielded a total of 1,174 records from the database. To ensure relevance and quality, only peer-reviewed journal articles available as a full text and published in English were retained. Consistent with the approach adopted in previous systematic reviews (e.g., Christofi, 2024; Hollebeek et al., 2024; Lim & Rasul, 2022), publications such as conference proceedings, book chapters and working papers were excluded on the grounds that they typically do not undergo the same level of academic scrutiny and peer review (Lim & Rasul, 2022; Vrontis et al., 2021). Following this, a total of 495 articles remained for further evaluation in the subsequent screening phase.
Step 2: Screening and Eligibility
In this step, we first discussed and applied stringent protocols to filter selected papers for further scholarly examination. Following Christofi (2024), our database was determined through quality appraisal of studies in peer-reviewed journals ranked retrospectively in the Chartered Association of Business Schools (CABS) list. This process ensured the selection of quality articles from the business and management domain (Christofi, 2024; Vrontis et al., 2021). This screening step yielded 120 research articles deemed suitable for further analysis.
Subsequently, each study identified during the initial screening was systematically evaluated by examining its title, abstract, keywords, research objectives, methodology and key findings. This assessment was conducted to determine its suitability for inclusion, based on a set of predefined criteria adapted from Riar et al. (2022), as outlined below:
IC1: The study must be empirical, excluding systematic literature reviews, meta-analyses and conceptual papers. IC2: The research must explicitly address gamification, as defined by Deterding et al. (2011), ensuring conceptual alignment with the established meaning of the term. IC3: The study should be situated within the customer engagement domain, explicitly focusing on consumer or customer contexts. Accordingly, studies rooted in the business-to-business (B2B) area or other domains such as human resource management, organizational behaviour or crowdfunding were excluded.
The establishment of well-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria served to minimize the potential reviewer bias. Only studies that satisfied all three inclusion criteria outlined above were retained for analysis, ensuring the review was grounded in credible empirical evidence (Paré et al., 2015). Following this screening process, 58 studies were included in the final data set.
Step 3: Inclusion
Since the results may vary depending on the search strategy employed, we incorporated the backward snowballing technique that Jalali and Wohlin (2012) recommended to identify relevant studies that may not have been captured during the initial database search. As a result, eight additional studies deemed pertinent to the research objectives were added to the data set, bringing the total number of included articles to 66 (see Figure 1). Following the finalization of the study selection, data were systematically extracted using structured data extraction forms to reduce human error and enhance the consistency and accuracy of the documentation process (Paré et al., 2015). Accordingly, the data extraction facilitated in executing the descriptive analysis of the research stream by systematically categorizing the principal components of existing studies in alignment with our research question and objectives as: (a) publication trends (by year); (b) contextual dimensions (industry type, geographical location of respondents); (c) methodological approaches utilized (quantitative, qualitative, mixed); (d) principle findings and (e) research gaps and directions that warrant future scholarly investigation. This step rendered a preliminary mapping of current literature and aided in identifying plausible gaps that warrant future research.
Articulation of Research Findings
Descriptive Analysis
Evaluating the quality of the existing literature and synthesizing findings is complex when previous studies employ diverse methodological approaches (Hulland & Houston, 2020). To minimize the subjective bias, all authors independently reviewed the full texts of the included studies using structured data extraction forms (Paré et al., 2015). Individual assessments were consolidated and analysed. Any discrepancies were addressed and resolved through collaborative discussion. This procedure facilitated the categorization of studies and enabled the identification of research trends in terms of contexts, methodologies and theoretical foundations, along with thematic concentrations within the extant literature.
Publication Trends
The analysis of 66 articles included in our study shows that research on gamification-based CE can be deciphered in two phases (Figure 2). The first phase spans between 2014 and 2019, when CE was viewed from a relational rather than a functional lens, as a long-term, dyadic and process-based approach towards desired consumer behaviours (Pansari & Kumar, 2017). During the same time, academic and practitioner interest in gamification as a technological design strategy for CE also gradually increased (Robson et al., 2016). The latter phase (2020–2026) reflects a sprawling interest for the domain, driven by a shift from relational to transformational, technology-oriented approaches to CE (Steinhoff et al., 2023). As gamification is increasingly replacing traditional engagement models (Eisingerich et al., 2019), academic interest continues to expand, highlighting a strong potential for further research.
Industrial Contextual Trends
To evaluate the extant literature in terms of industrial contexts, we followed the recommendations of Addas (2010), which rationalize the context in terms of task and social contexts. The task context pertains to situational elements linked to the characteristics of tasks undertaken by individuals or groups (Addas, 2010). The current research operationalizes the task context through the industrial sectors in which gamification-based CE has been examined. Conversely, the social context pertains to experiential and interactional factors shaped by individuals’ social environments, which are often influenced by national cultural characteristics (Addas, 2010). The anticipated business outcomes from implementing gamification strategies are inherently construed by the ‘non-game context’ (Deterding et al., 2011; Hollebeek et al., 2021a), as both task and social contexts significantly influence consumer expectations and motivations emanating from gamification-based CE initiatives (Blut et al., 2023; Harmeling et al., 2017). Consequently, identifying and understanding trends within industrial and geographical contexts was deemed more suitable than alternative contexts.
To ensure a transparent classification, the industrial context for each selected study was determined through the International Standard Industrial Classification for all economic activities report (UNSD, 2024). Additionally, these classifications were further interpreted through a hedonic-utilitarian (H/U) lens, informed by the dual-consumption orientation that reflects both affective (hedonic) and functional (utilitarian) motivations (Barrett et al., 2024). This additional categorization was essential, given that the existing literature has often neglected the influence of H/U dimensions across various industries in evaluating how game design elements facilitate CE marketing initiatives (Behl et al., 2024; Blut et al., 2023). Applying the H/U framework enables a more consumer-oriented evaluation by highlighting products’ or services’ experiential and functional attributes, thereby supporting a more purposeful and consumer-focused analysis (Barrett et al., 2024; Blut et al., 2023). The industrial context was projected in two phases (Table 3). The first phase from 2014–2019 elucidates that out of the 15 studies published during this period, most of the articles, that is, n = 11 (73%), analysed gamification-based CE from utilitarian perspectives, mainly in service activities that included crowdsourcing for new product development and knowledge sharing platforms and in the health context. This observation is foreseeable, as the early industrial adoption of gamification-based CE was primarily grounded for utilitarian purposes (Koivisto & Hamari, 2019). Notably, the period of rapid growth between 2020 and 2024, during which n = 49 (76.5%) of the total studies were published, coincides with the onset and aftermath of the global pandemic, offering a range of compelling insights. In parallel with the application of gamification from utilitarian perspectives, the notable rise in scholarly attention towards its use in hedonic CE contexts such as retailing, arts, sports and recreation is noticeable during this period. As such, the relaxation of governmental regulations in the post-pandemic period has enabled businesses to more proactively harness the potential of gamification within the aforementioned hedonic industry sectors.
Industrial Contexts Utilized by Prior Research.
However, unarguably, the employment of gamification-based CE from hedonic perspectives remains limited to 43.9% (n = 29) studies during the complete publication span of research in this domain. To this end, it is essential to expand the research within hedonic consumption contexts to comprehend the potential of gamification-based CE fully. This is particularly important given that consumers in such settings are more inclined to engage with multiple game mechanics simultaneously (Barrett et al., 2024; Blut et al., 2023).
Geographical Contextual Trends
Table 4 outlines the geographical distribution of the countries from where the studies in our reviewed corpus collected population samples. Extant research examined gamification-based CE across five continents and in 19 countries, with most studies emerging from Asia (45%), particularly from China (25.5%), followed by India (9%). This was followed by European studies (27%), mainly from Finland, Belgium and Spain (4.5% each). Studies were comparatively sparsely conducted in North America (6%), Africa (3%) and Australia (1.5%). Regarding geographical research trends, European countries dominated gamification-based CE studies from 2014 to 2019. From 2020 onwards, data collection became prominent in Asian countries.
Geographical Focus of Previous Research.
Overall, these findings highlight a disproportionate reliance on samples sourced from the aforementioned countries, which may lead to inaccurate generalizations across other national contexts, particularly considering the context-dependent nature of both game mechanics implementation and CE (Behl et al., 2024; Hollebeek et al., 2021a). Furthermore, it is crucial to note that cross-national studies remain underrepresented, comprising only 3% (n = 2) of the total corpus, with their emergence traceable only between 2023 and 2024. Considering that CE with various game mechanics may differ substantially across global markets (Gupta et al., 2018; Hollebeek, 2018), it is unlikely that all national cultures conform to the individualistic paradigm within which gamification was initially conceptualized to promote CE (Gupta et al., 2018; Nam & Kannan, 2020). Consequently, advancing future research to encompass underrepresented or unexplored geographical regions and conducting cross-cultural investigations are essential for capturing the diversity in CE and associated behavioural responses to different gamification-based CE marketing initiatives.
Methodological Trends
The reviewed corpus of literature demonstrated a significant employment of quantitative methods, that is, in 73.2% (n = 49 studies) (Figure 3). This was followed by a scant utilization of mixed (i.e., 13.6%, n = 9) and qualitative (12.1%, n = 8) methods. However, interestingly, it was observed that in the initial phases of scholarly interest towards gamification-based CE, studies mainly employed either qualitative methods or mixed methods involving multiple qualitative techniques to explore the nascent phenomenon. Only from 2018 onwards did quantitative techniques start to be implemented for data analysis. Following Avison et al. (2008), we also captured the methodological approaches adopted by the studies in our data set (Table 5). It was observed that most of the quantitative studies were reported through surveys (50.5%), followed by field experiments (12%) and mathematical modelling (6%). Quantitative and mixed studies were mainly reported through interviews and/or focus group discussions (10.5%), with scant utilization of other qualitative techniques and a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods. Since integrating quantitative and qualitative insights facilitates a more holistic comprehension through multiple perspectives on a phenomenon, it highlights a potential avenue for future scholarly inquiry. Notably, a relatively small proportion of the studies, that is, n = 8 (12.5%), utilized longitudinal data collection methods, whereas a substantial majority accounted for an examination through a cross-sectional design. This issue warrants attention, “since an effective integration of gamification-based CE demands long-term commitment and consistent efforts to yield positive outcomes across diverse settings” (Behl et al., 2024; Hollebeek et al., 2021a). Moreover, in the short term, novelty effects may distort customers’ brand engagement due to extrinsically motivated game elements rather than sustained engagement (Behl et al., 2022; Koivisto & Hamari, 2019).
Methodological Approaches Utilized by Previous Research.
Theoretical Foundations
Theoretical foundations utilized by the extant research were classified in terms of the five categories of theories proposed by Gregor (2006) as: analysis, explanation, prediction, explanation and prediction (EP), and design and action (Table 6). An advantage of such labelling is that it compels researchers to clarify the knowledge they seek to impart through their research and consider the nature and scope of claims that can be made within a theoretical framework (Gregor, 2006). During the initial years of academic interest in gamification-based CE, studies did not seem to employ theoretical frameworks due to the exploratory nature of the domain (see Table 4 and Appendix). However, from 2018 onwards, EP theories from psychology (i.e., self-determination theory; n = 8, SOR model; n = 6) and sociology (i.e., social exchange theory; n = 3) streams began to be utilized. While studies underpinned their research objectives through both EP and explanation theories, most of the research used theories from the EP category since EP theories enable analysis through testable propositions and causal explanations (Gregor, 2006). Nevertheless, numerous studies, that is, 41% (n = 27), lack a cohesive theoretical foundation. This absence of theoretical grounding presents a significant challenge, as it impedes the advancement and maturation of the field (Gregor, 2006).
Theories Utilized by Previous Research.
Content Analysis
The content analysis facilitated a consolidated understanding of the existing literature on gamification-based CE, by identifying key themes across the included studies (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Guided by Harmeling’s (2017) CE framework, which is considered as a gold standard to synthesize CE research in technological domains like gamification (de Oliveira Santini et al., 2020; Lim & Rasul, 2022), we moved beyond descriptively cataloguing each study in the data set (Hulland & Houston, 2020). Content analysis was conducted on the 66 articles included in the review, focusing on their stated objectives, research questions or hypotheses, core arguments and principal constructs to identify the central phenomena addressed in each study (Braun & Clarke, 2006). A descriptive summary was formulated for each article, which served as the basis for generating preliminary thematic labels (e.g., de Oliveira Santini et al., 2020; Harmeling et al., 2017). These initial thematic labels were further clustered into broader categories, ultimately resulting in the development of the research themes (Harmeling et al., 2017). In this process, four research themes emerged: (a) global gamification-based customer engagement marketing, (b) conceptualization of customer engagement across industrial contexts, (c) industrial and cross-cultural contexts and (d) outcomes of gamification-based CE (Figure 4).
Key Research Themes on Gamification-based Customer Engagement.
Global Gamification-based Customer Engagement Marketing
The first research theme emerging in the scholarly discourse concerns identifying and utilizing the kinds of game mechanics employed globally, across extant literature, to facilitate gamification-based CE. Organizations intentionally facilitate game mechanics-infused interactions to motivate, enable and evaluate customers’ voluntary participation towards their marketing functions that extend beyond traditional economic transactions (Harmeling et al., 2017). Although CE may occur spontaneously, gamification-based CE marketing is characterized by a firm’s proactive efforts to direct and engage customers in ways that generate strategic values for organizations (Harmeling et al., 2017; Pansari & Kumar, 2017). Nonetheless, the prerequisites for implementing gamification-based CE marketing inherently vary across individual global market environments (Gupta & Behl, 2025; Hollebeek, 2018). The nature of focal interactions through gamification-based CE can significantly vary across global markets because customers’ cultural backgrounds determine their perceptions, responsiveness, evaluation and decision-making regarding the game mechanics that marketers have deployed to motivate and drive their engagement behaviours (Nam & Kannan, 2020; Shavitt & Barnes, 2020). To this end, global variations in how customers perceive and respond to firm-initiated game mechanics for engagement and the ensuing outcomes of CE are normatively constituted by the geographical context (Hollebeek, 2018; Nam & Kannan, 2020). Based on the recommendations of Xi and Hamari (2020) and Koivisto and Hamari (2019), our results point out the utilization of a variety of game mechanics within achievement, immersion and social interaction-based dimensions to test the effects of gamification on CE (Table A1). As represented in Table 4, it is observed that while the existing research has been carried out across multiple global contexts as discussed in the descriptive analysis, a majority of studies collectively examined the effects of game mechanics related to achievement, immersion and social interaction on CE in culturally different country contexts (Eisingerich et al., 2019; Xi & Hamari, 2020), without adequately considering the role of a nation’s inherent cultural dimensions in determining the most suitable game mechanics for engaging customers in the individual-country context.
A country’s culture shapes a ‘collective programming of the mind’ by exposing the individual self to shared socialization processes, institutions and cultural artefacts (Hofstede, 1984). Among the most culturally significant aspects embedded in the mind is how the self is viewed regarding individualistic-collectivistic values (Hofstede, 1984; Shavitt & Barnes, 2020). This cultural dimension reflects the degree to which individuals within a culture align themselves with and integrate into the goals and identity of a wider social group (Hofstede, 1984). Thus, the individualistic–collectivistic dimension is related to customers’ gamification-based CE (Shavitt & Barnes, 2020; Steinhoff et al., 2023). To this end, customers from individualistic (collectivistic) countries tend to more (less) independently focus their cognitive, affective and behavioural CE towards game mechanics that promote individual brand interaction attributes and encourage customers to exhibit brand-related augmenting/co-developing behaviours (Gupta et al., 2018; Hollebeek, 2018). This includes engagement through heightened involvement and participation with achievement and immersion-related game mechanics. Conversely, customers from collectivistic countries focus more on highlighting similarities with others by influencing/mobilizing engagement behaviours, making immersion and social interaction-related game mechanics more salient for entailing CE (Hollebeek, 2018; Xi & Hamari, 2020).
Conceptualization of Customer Engagement Across Industrial Contexts
The following research theme critically discusses the various manifestations of gamification-based CE adopted by the reviewed studies across industrial contexts. The review captures several manifestations of CE that examined its relationship with gamification. In most industrial contexts, scholarly discourse mainly classifies gamification-based CE as a multidimensional construct, encompassing cognitive, affective and behavioural dimensions (e.g., Xi & Hamari, 2020), each reflecting a customer’s willingness towards resource investment towards focal interactions with engagement objects (Hollebeek et al., 2021a; Lim & Rasul, 2022), although some scholars manifested a unidimensional perspective for capturing CE through its behavioural form (e.g., engagement and purchases over a period of 3 years; Jang et al., 2018). As represented in Table A2, irrespective of the industrial context, a majority of the studies applied the CE scale proposed by Hollebeek et al. (2014), followed by Vivek et al. (2014), since both these scales are considered one of the most effective measures to address customers’ (cognitive, affective and conative) behaviours (Hollebeek et al., 2023; Xi & Hamari, 2020). The inherent inclusion of ‘interactivity’ throughout various dimensions of CE makes scales proposed by both Hollebeek et al. (2014) and Vivek et al. (2014) theoretically rigorous (Hollebeek et al., 2023).
Noteworthily, ‘interactivity’ is a critical aspect of CE, since it uniquely differentiates CE from other related concepts, which include customer participation, involvement, experience or co-creation (Hollebeek et al., 2023). Consequently, researchers have to diligently determine and utilize CE measures that embed interactivity across all proposed dimensions of CE, rather than considering it as a standalone dimension of CE (Hollebeek et al., 2023; Lim & Rasul, 2022). To this end, authors who utilized the measures developed by So et al. (2014) and Harrigan et al. (2018) to analyse gamification-based CE were unable to explicitly reflect or acknowledge CE’s inherent interactive nature, given that both the mentioned measures treat interactivity as a distinct dimension of CE, limiting the scope of interactivity to a single dimension that does not extends beyond it (Hollebeek et al., 2023; Lim & Rasul, 2022). Thus, to fully secure CE’s conceptual and measurement rigour within gamification research, a meticulous selection of CE scales wherein interactivity entirely permeates within the proposed CE construct rather than being confined to a fragment of it has been highly recommended by notable scholars (i.e., Hollebeek et al., 2023; Lim & Rasul, 2022). Additionally, Table A2 also highlights that few studies measured gamification-based CE through other constructs (e.g., work, user and community engagement) that do not actually capture a ‘customer’s’ engagement. This is a concerning issue since these studies are ultimately unable to holistically capture the CE construct and, thus, how gamification influences CE. To this end, the operationalization of CE should be aligned with the objectives and scope of the study, where the ‘customer’ constitutes the focal unit of analysis and ‘engagement’ demonstrates the interactive behaviour under investigation (i.e., cognitive, affective and conative) exhibited by that unit (Hollebeek et al., 2023).
Industrial and Cross-cultural Contexts
The next prominent theme revolves around understanding the contextual perspectives (H/U) that are prominently noticeable in different contexts in different countries. Hedonic and utilitarian settings fundamentally vary in the motivational focus of gamification-based CE (Barrett et al., 2024). Utilitarian industrial contexts are defined by instrumentality, where goal achievement through task completion is the primary objective, unlike in hedonic contexts, which are characterized by the need for pleasurable experiences (Blut et al., 2023). To this end, it is clear that utilitarian contexts are outcome-oriented, whereas gamification-based CE in hedonic contexts is driven by experiential values (Barrett et al., 2024). Thus, the assumptions determined by examining gamification-based CE in utilitarian contexts do not necessarily hold in hedonic industry contexts (Blut et al., 2023). Additionally, the level of involvement with gamification-based CE in various H/U contexts may also be dependent and differ due to cultural differences across countries (Nam & Kannan, 2020; Shavitt & Barnes, 2020).
In our reviewed data set, we observed that the deployment of gamification-based CE in utilitarian industrial contexts was mainly prevalent in Asian countries (i.e., collectivist in nature) such as China, South Korea and Malaysia (see Table A3). At the same time, gamification-based CE was more pronounced in hedonic industrial contexts in Western nations (i.e., individualist in nature) such as the United States and the United Kingdom. Following Gupta et al. (2018) and Hollebeek (2018), we structure and explain such observations regarding previous literature based on Hofstede’s (1984) long-term/short-term culture dimensions. A long-term orientation emphasizes cultivating virtues directed towards future benefits, such as frugality or perseverance, implicitly involving a certain degree of delayed gratification (Hofstede, 1984). In contrast, a short-term orientation fosters nurturing virtues tied to the past/present, including respect for tradition, maintenance of social reputation and adherence to social obligations (Hofstede, 1984). Customers from collectivist cultures possess a long-term orientation by engaging in cognitive, future-focused CE, seeking delayed gratification towards gamification-based CE compared to those belonging to individualist nations (Gupta et al, 2018; Santos et al., 2025). The non-experiential task-oriented nature of utilitarian contexts commands cognitive and social engagement, given that the engagement motive here involves seeking deep, attribute-specific knowledge through gamification (Barrett et al., 2024). Given that customers from collectivist nations possess holistic thinking styles, such that they perceive their environment to be interrelated with firm-initiated game mechanics (Shavitt & Barnes, 2020), gamification-based CE is well suited for engaging customers from collectivist nations in utilitarian contexts. Customers from individualist cultures, in contrast, possess a short-term orientation by engaging in affective, present, immediate gratification-oriented gamification-based CE (Gupta et al., 2018; Hollebeek, 2018). The highly experiential pleasure-focused nature of hedonic contexts requires affective engagement, given that the engagement motive here involves seeking entertaining, sensory and experiential pleasures (Barrett et al., 2024). Since customers from individualistic countries possess analytical thinking styles, such as perceiving their environment as independent and separate from firm-initiated game mechanics (Shavitt & Barnes, 2020), gamification-based CE is more appropriate for engaging customers from individualistic nations in hedonic contexts. While this does not conclude that gamification-based CE would be ineffective for collectivist (individualist) customers in hedonic (utilitarian) contexts, it does rationalize the context-specific effectiveness of gamification-based CE in line with previous research (Behl et al., 2024; Hollebeek, 2018).
Outcomes of Gamification-based CE
The fourth and last theme discusses the outcomes of gamification-based CE for organizations implementing game mechanics. From both practical and academic perspectives, gamification-based CE has been proposed to generate favourable financial outcomes for organizations (Blut et al., 2023; Gupta & Behl, 2025). These financial outcomes exhibit customer-level (e.g., purchases) and firm-level (e.g., profits) indicators of financial performance (Barrett et al., 2024; Harmeling et al., 2017). Our review highlights the positive impact of gamification-based CE on financial performance indicators through gamified customer-to-company and customer-to-customer interactions. First, immersive game mechanics enabled participation in new product/service idea generation. Information sharing entails value co-creation through feedback, strengthening new product/service performance, improving sales, cross-buying and profitability (e.g., Leclercq et al., 2017). In addition, engaging with a firm through achievement- and social interaction-related game mechanics positively affects purchase frequency (Behl et al., 2024), purchase quantity (Gupta & Behl, 2025) and sales (Eisingerich et al., 2019). Significantly, gamification-based CE improves sales not only within the platform of operation but also across multiple touchpoints, including online platforms, physical stores (Blut et al., 2023) and mobile channels (Gupta & Behl, 2025). Subsequently, gamified customer-to-customer interactions contribute towards improving a firm’s financial outcomes through two interrelated mechanisms. First, game mechanics that promote word-of-mouth behaviour, like engaging through referral programmes, enhance firm performance by initiating new customer acquisition. Customers acquired through gamified referral programmes tend to demonstrate higher profitability, longer retention rate and more overall value than those gained via non-gamified means (Hollebeek et al., 2021a). Additionally, recommending a brand to other customers generates positive effects for referring customers, including increased spending and higher loyalty (Blut et al., 2023; Xi & Hamari, 2020).
However, a brand’s gamification-based CE marketing may not necessarily exhibit positive outcomes for organizations, likely because of customers’ behavioural reactions to game mechanics. The inherent drive for goal achievement, coupled with the exigency to escape from real-world hardships and monotony through immersion and social interaction mechanics, can addict customers towards gamification-based CE, resulting in the negligence of their physical limitations, disappointment and disengagement (Behl et al., 2024; Gupta & Behl, 2025). Moreover, game mechanics can prompt customers to indulge in subversion when social and firm interactions are inadequately positioned in relation to game mechanics, de-shopping and reselling at higher prices, thus subduing organizational efforts of engagement and showcasing dishonesty through favouritism, purposefully offering negative feedback and sabotaging others’ efforts to earn rewards, thereby irritating them (Gupta & Behl, 2025). Such unfavourable behaviours were found to be associated with the feeling of victory against the brand and social approval received thereafter, erroneously ushering in value co-destruction (Behl et al., 2024; Insley & Nunan, 2014).
Future Research Agenda
To advance scholarly knowledge on gamification-based CE in global markets, we utilize Saunders et al.’s (2009) research onion framework, since it allows philosophical precision, theoretical coherence, contextual sensitivity and methodological rigour. The current study showcased fragmentation in theoretical grounding, inadequate contextualization across industrial and cross-cultural environments, along with methodological limitations influenced by cross-sectional quantitative approaches. Thus, addressing these research gaps in a way that can guide future research would require a multilayered research agenda that spans through research philosophy, approach, strategy, choice, time horizon, and techniques and procedures (Saunders et al., 2009).
Research Philosophy
The outermost layer of the research onion framework constitutes the research philosophy that explains how gamification-based CE has been conceptualized and analysed in global markets. As confirmed by our literature review, previous studies mainly adopted a positivist perspective by focusing on explanation-prediction (EP) theories (Gregor, 2006) to test causal relationships between game mechanics and CE. However, integrating design and action theories within positivist philosophy alongside EP theories can be beneficial to extend beyond explanation, towards a prescriptive understanding of how game mechanics can be configured to drive CE behaviours. This is significant because gamification is fundamentally a design process that constantly improves value co-creation and user experiences (Behl et al., 2024; Deterding et al., 2011).
Second, an interpretivist philosophy is equally important, since gamified CE is not only a behavioural response but also constitutes a socially structured experience shaped through industrial and cultural contexts (Behl et al., 2024; Nam & Kannan, 2020). For example, consumers in hedonic industrial contexts may view game mechanics as improving pleasure and identity expression; however, in utilitarian industries, these mechanics could be interpreted as obligation-based systems or efficiency tools (Nam & Kannan, 2020; Shavitt & Barnes, 2020). Moreover, since cultural norms can determine how rewards, competition and collaboration are perceived by individuals (Shavitt & Barnes, 2020), an interpretivist approach can guide future research by explaining how culturally specific game mechanics could shape CE across different contexts.
Third, a realist perspective exhibits an integrative potential by determining generative mechanisms underlying CE outcomes. Instead of viewing industrial H/U and cultural contexts merely as moderating variables, realism fosters investigating how these contexts activate consumer motivation. For instance, while utilitarian contexts may trigger prevention-focused orientations driven by extrinsic rewards and loss avoidance (Barrett et al., 2024; Blut et al. 2023), hedonic contexts may induce a promotion-focused orientation through intrinsic motivation (Koivisto & Hamari, 2019). Since cultural values determine the rationality of motivation and goal pursuit (Shavitt & Barnes, 2020), future research should consider integrating cultural theories such as regulatory focus, self-construal and Hofstede’s cultural dimensions to undercover why particular game mechanics may succeed in specific contexts.
Finally, the pragmatic perspective mainly aligns with the applied nature of gamification. Thus, gamified CE should not only explain engagement but also inform managerial decision-making (Behl et al., 2022, 2024). Pragmatism backs a context-adaptive design science approach, where researchers iteratively develop and test game mechanics tailored to specific industrial and cultural contexts. Such grounding strengthens practical relevance of academic scholarship by maintaining theoretical rigour.
Research Approach
The present literature showcases the dominance of deductive reasoning grounded in established motivational and engagement theories. Even though deductive reasoning remains important for theory testing, they contribute to the underdevelopment of comprehensive theoretical integration and contextualization (Eisingerich et al., 2019). Thus, future research should adopt abductive approaches, which combine inductive insights through qualitative exploration with deductive hypotheses testing (Saunders et al., 2009). An inductive approach can determine emerging patterns of how consumers engage with gamification across industrial and cultural settings (Behl et al., 2024). These insights can then inform refined deductive models that integrate motivational theories with design and action research frameworks (Eisingerich et al., 2019). Cross-cultural investigations can particularly generate context-specific insights, which can subsequently reconcile with wider theoretical structures. Such an approach fosters theory extension (Shavitt & Barnes, 2020).
Research Strategy
While the survey-based strategy has given foundational insights, the same is insufficient for addressing contextual and design-related gaps in previous research. Therefore, experimental research can be used to contrast intrinsic versus extrinsic game mechanics across industrial contexts (Nam & Kannan, 2020). Controlled manipulations of utilitarian versus hedonic contexts can determine how prevention/prevention focused regulatory orientation mediates gamified CE outcomes (Shavitt & Barnes, 2020).
Methodological Choices
As our descriptive analysis mentioned, most of the scholarly research has examined gamification-based CE through quantitative survey designs. Considering the recent emergence of gamification-based CE as an area of research and the intricate contextual aspects of successful implementation of game mechanics, we advocate for an increased emphasis on qualitative research methods to foster deeper insights into different industrial and geographical contexts, for facilitating knowledge advancement. Further, we encourage future studies to undertake mixed-methods studies that remain relatively uncommon, to generate more nuanced insights and enhance the potential for broader generalizability. Utilization of mixed-methods research enables inquiries from both inductive and deductive outlooks, strengthens the validity of findings and leverages the benefits stemming from both methods (Eisingerich et al., 2019).
Time Horizon
Given that most of the studies cross-sectionally captured the short-term effects of gamification-based CE mainly through surveys, it remains unclear whether the effects of gamification-based CE perpetuate, decline or intensify in the long run (Koivisto & Hamari, 2019). Thus, longitudinal studies would be an important contribution towards examining customers’ changing preferences towards engagement with a variety of game mechanics, in different stages of their engagement, which may be dependent upon different stages of customer engagement cycle which includes connection, interaction, satisfaction, retention, commitment and advocacy (Sashi, 2012).
Techniques and Procedures
Within the innermost layer of the framework (Saunders et al., 2009), future studies can refine techniques and procedures of data collection and analyses by incorporating multi-source data that include real-world stakeholders such as market practitioners and game designers into experimental apparatus to enable an objective assessment of gamification’s effectiveness, reducing reliance on self-generated consumer reports (Behl et al., 2024). Behavioural metrics such as gamified platform usage analytics can also complement the survey design. Such real-time data tracking may provide more accurate indicators of gamified CE behaviours compared to retrospective evaluation (Eisingerich et al., 2019).
Implications and Conclusion
Theoretical Contributions
Research on gamification-based CE has proliferated in recent years (Hollebeek et al., 2021a; Steinhoff et al., 2023). However, despite the notable progress, this evolving research stream is increasingly becoming fragmented, since scholars report divergent and potentially incompatible gamification-based CE perspectives, methods and findings. We undertook a systematic literature review of this interdisciplinary research domain in response to ongoing scholarly discrepancies, synthesizing the extant literature to advance the following contributions (Table 1). Our research demonstrates that despite its practical significance, research on gamification-based CE remains underdeveloped, particularly in terms of research philosophy, approach, strategy, choices, time horizon, and techniques and procedures across various dimensions.
The primary contribution of our research lies in developing a cohesive body of knowledge by integrating and synthesizing insights on gamification-based CE. By identifying the descriptive research trends and determining the dominant themes in literature, we extend previous research to highlight important research inquiries that can form the basis for subsequent research in this domain. The second contribution involves the utilization of a rigorous systematic review methodology, resulting in a comprehensive synthesis. Paré et al. (2015) noted that reviews may be prone to selection bias without a structured approach, reflecting prevailing assumptions rather than an objective analysis. By employing a systematic approach, this study establishes a high-quality, state-of-the-art knowledge base that will help enhance further academic rigour in gamification-based CE research. Third, we uncover multiple gaps within the existing literature, structured according to Saunders et al.’s (2009) research onion framework. Specifically, we propose the integration of explanation-prediction theories with design/action theories by viewing gamification as a dynamic design intervention for CE. We also discuss embedding gamification-based CE within H/U and cultural contexts, focusing on motivational contingencies. Finally, by aligning Saunders et al.’s (2009) framework, the present study promotes philosophical coherence, abductive approach, mixed methods, longitudinal designs and real interventions through cross-cultural inquiries.
Implications for Practice
The findings of this study also offer several important implications for managerial decision-making. First, our initial theme of global gamification-based CE marketing suggests the important role of individualist–collectivist cultural dimension in determining and tailoring game mechanics for CE in different-country contexts (Hollebeek et al., 2018; Nam & Kannan, 2020). Managers can leverage such an understanding to introduce the most suitable game mechanics according to individual-country contexts rather than relying on a standard set of mechanics, for instance, achievement- and immersion-related game mechanics in Western countries and social interaction- and immersion-related game mechanics in Asian countries. This is especially relevant for multi-national brands that aim to elevate CE in the host country through gamification. Second, the next theme on industrial and cross-cultural contexts reveals the most suitable H/U industrial contexts for implementing gamification-based CE in global markets. All ‘non-gaming’ industrial contexts in which gamification is implemented may not be appropriate for engaging consumers in every country (Behl et al., 2024), since consumers’ thinking styles and responses to game mechanics in different H/U contexts can be culturally dependent. Therefore, we recommend that managers evaluate the host country’s cultural dimensions while determining whether embedding game mechanics would be normatively appropriate in a particular H/U context. Such analysis is prudent, since it will help managers further identify the kind of engagement, that is, cognitive, affective or behavioural, that could be successfully targeted through game mechanics. Third, our final theme on outcomes of gamification-based CE proposes customer-level and firm-level financial outcomes emanating from gamification’s ability to enable customer-to-company and consumer-to-consumer interactions. Given that this theme is interrelated with the above-mentioned themes, the positive outcomes associated with gamification-based CE are also normatively infused with the H/U industry context. Correspondingly, cross-cultural implementation of gamification-based CE calls for a thorough international marketing strategy, necessitating collaboration with game designers.
Conclusion
Multinational organizations are challenged to drive CE marketing in various cultural contexts and may decide to motivate engagement by creating dedicated gamified strategies. Our systematic literature review develops a comprehensive knowledge of the emerging research on gamification-based CE through cross-cultural perspectives in global markets. The analysis and synthesis of the extant literature offer enhanced clarity and deeper insights into the function of cross-cultural insights in various global and industrial contexts when implementing gamification-based CE. This, in turn, reveals critical gaps in current knowledge that inform potential avenues for future research. Globally, organizations are often confronted with experiencing failure in driving gamification-based CE due to ignoring the potential role of cultural contextualization in successfully implementing game mechanics. Since cultural differences can affect the nature of customers’ engagement with different game mechanics across global markets, they carry significant implications regarding how organizations approach each market, design their gamification-based CE marketing and develop strategies for customer acquisition and retention. Thus, we hope this study motivates marketers to adopt a more comprehensive perspective towards gamification-based CE, moving beyond the conventional one-size-fits-all approach that may fail to achieve optimal CE outcomes. We are confident that our synthesis lays the groundwork for further meaningful research and offers practical guidance for designing culturally infused gamification-based CE marketing that fosters favourable customer behavioural responses, an objective central to global marketing management.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Appendix
Research Theme 3: Industrial and Cross-cultural Contexts.
| Geographical Context | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K |
| Utilitarian | Hedonic | Utilitarian | Hedonic | Mixed | Utilitarian | Hedonic | Utilitarian | Hedonic | Utilitarian | – | |
| Asia | |||||||||||
| China | 6 | 3 | – | 1.5 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4.6 | – | 1.5 | – |
| India | – | 6 | – | – | – | – | 1.5 | – | 1.5 | – | – |
| South Korea | 1.5 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1.5 | – |
| Pakistan | – | – | – | – | – | 1.5 | – | – | – | – | 1.5 |
| Malaysia | – | – | 1.5 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Indonesia | – | – | – | 1.5 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Thailand | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1.5 | – |
| Europe | |||||||||||
| Finland | – | – | 1.5 | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1.5 | – |
| Belgium | 3 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1.5 | – |
| Spain | – | – | 1.5 | 1.5 | – | – | 1.5 | – | – | – | – |
| United Kingdom | – | 1.5 | – | – | 1.5 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Switzerland | – | 1.5 | – | – | 1.5 | – | 1.5 | – | – | – | – |
| Sweden | – | 1.5 | – | – | – | – | 1.5 | – | – | – | – |
| Portugal | – | – | – | – | 1.5 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| France | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 3 | – |
| Germany | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1.5 | – | – | – | – |
| North America | |||||||||||
| United States | – | – | – | – | – | – | 4.6 | – | – | 1.5 | – |
| Africa | |||||||||||
| Ghana | – | – | – | – | – | 1.5 | – | – | – | – | – |
| Egypt | – | – | – | 1.5 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Australia | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1.5 | – | – | – |
| Cross–cultural | – | 3 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Not specified | 3 | 4.6 | 1.5 | – | 1.5 | – | 1.5 | – | – | – | 1.5 |
| Total | 13.5 | 21.1 | 6 | 4.5 | 9 | 6 | 15.1 | 6.1 | 1.5 | 12 | 3 |