The Role of Co-Creation Experience in Engaging Customers With Service Brands

The role of co-creation experience in engaging
customers with service brands

Khalid Hussain
School of Business, East China University of Science and Technology, Shanghai, China and Department of Management Sciences,
COMSATS University Islamabad, Sahiwal Campus, Sahiwal, Pakistan
Fengjie Jing
School of Business, East China University of Science and Technology, Shanghai, China
Muhammad Junaid
School of Management and Economics, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, China and Department of Management Sciences,
COMSATS University Islamabad, Sahiwal Campus, Sahiwal, Pakistan
Qamar Uz Zaman
Department of Management Sciences, COMSATS University Islamabad, Sahiwal Campus, Sahiwal, Pakistan, and
Huayu Shi
School of Business, East China University of Science and Technology, Shanghai, China
Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to investigate the outcomes of customers’ co-creation experience in a realistic and routinely performed co-creation
setting, a restaurant. To fulfill this purpose, the current study links the branding literature to hospitality research and offers a novel framework by
incorporating customers’ co-creation experience, customer brand engagement, emotional brand attachment and customer satisfaction in an
integrated research model.
Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected from 421 diners at Chinese hotpot restaurants via a self-administered questionnaire. The
reliability and convergent and discriminant validities were established through confirmatory factor analysis, and then hypotheses were tested
through structural equation modeling.
Findings – This study demonstrates that customers’ co-creation experience with a restaurant brand positively impacts customer brand engagement,
emotional brand attachment and customer satisfaction. In addition, current study examines these relational paths at the dimensional level by taking
the co-creation experience and customer brand engagement as multidimensional constructs. The resulting in-depth investigation reveals that the
hedonic, social and economic experience dimensions of co-creation experience positively influence customer satisfaction, emotional brand
attachment and customer brand engagement’s buying, referring, influencing and feedback dimensions.
Practical implications – This study helps relationship and brand managers better understand customer experience in co-creation settings and
paves the way for managers to devise engagement strategies.
Originality/value – The current study marks an initial attempt to delineate the outcomes of customers’ co-creation experience in a realistic co-
creation setting. Furthermore, the study is first of its kind that investigates the relationship of co-creation experience and customer brand
engagement at the dimensional level.
Keywords Value co-creation, Customer experience, Customer satisfaction, Emotional brand attachment, Customer brand engagement
Paper type Research paper
Introduction and satisfying relationship with customers by introducing co-

creation as a key service offering (Hussain et al., 2019). Kumar
Brand managers are striving to engage customers with their et al. (2019) asserted that brand managers wishing to achieve
brands (Junaid et al., 2019; Kumar and Nayak, 2019). consumer brand engagement, emotional brand attachment and
Specifically, service brands are struggling to achieve an
engaging and emotionally sound relationship with their
customers. In this regard, a recent longitudinal investigation
We profoundly acknowledge Editor and reviewers’ valuable comments and
has suggested that service brands can maintain an emotional suggestions to improve the quality and contributions of earlier versions of
our manuscript.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Funding Information: This research project is funded by National Natural
Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/1061-0421.htm Science Foundation of China with Grant/Award Number: 71572056.
Received 28 August 2019

Revised 18 January 2020
Journal of Product & Brand Management 28 June 2020
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421] 30 July 2020
[DOI 10.1108/JPBM-08-2019-2537] Accepted 30 July 2020
Role of co-creation experience in engaging customers Journal of Product & Brand Management
Khalid Hussain et al.
satisfaction may focus on the active participation of customers this investment would pay off as empirical research on the
in the service co-creation process. The involvement of outcomes of CCE is still limited and requires attention from
customers in the service co-creation process engenders a academic community (Chathoth et al., 2016; Jaakkola et al.,
unique experience termed as co-creation experience (CCE). The 2015). Therefore, the current study investigates how CCE pays
CCE of customers is defined as their mental state that results off in achieving customer brand engagement (CBE) through
from their participation in the value co-creation process (Chen, customer satisfaction (CS) and emotional brand attachment
2018; Zhang et al., 2015). (EBA).
CCE received considerable research attention from The theory of engagement (Pansari and Kumar, 2017)
academic community in recent years as an increasing number suggests that the focus of marketing has shifted from
of companies opt for value co-creation (Jaakkola et al., 2015; relationship marketing to customer engagement in recent years.
Meng and Cui, 2020; Zhang et al., 2019). The extant literature This tenet is endorsed by a Gallup survey that indicates that
primarily examines CCE in co-creation situations that pertain engaged customers pay 56% more visits to a restaurant brand
to the ideation, design and development of new products/ than actively disengaged customers (Sorenson and Adkins,
services (Kohler et al., 2011; Verleye, 2015; Zhang et al., 2015). 2014). The CBE theory further proposes that a satisfying and
However, the development of new products/services is emotionally bonding relationship is necessary to achieve
intermittent, and only small number of customers may have the sustainable CBE. Therefore, the current study combines CBE,
opportunity to participate in their ideation, design and CS and EBA in an integrated model as the outcomes of CCE in
development. Conversely, services whose nature lends the context of the restaurant industry. Kumar et al. (2019)
themselves to co-creation (e.g. cooking your own food at a argued that customer experience works as a driving mechanism
restaurant or collaborating with the chef to cook your food) are to achieve these outcomes in co-creation settings. However,
routinely performed and thus are more pragmatic and realistic their framework takes customer experience as a general
co-creation settings. These types of service offerings always construct; hence, it does not encapsulate the nuances of the
involve a customer in value co-creation and offer a suitable collaborative and interactive aspects of CCE (Jaakkola et al.,
platform from which to examine CCE. 2015). To encompass these aspects of co-creation, the current
Grönroos (2011) asserted that cooking meal at a restaurant study extends the model of Kumar et al. (2019) by examining
represents a complete value creation process (p. 282), and CCE in a realistic co-creation setting at a restaurant.
recent research has also affirmed that the restaurant industry Additionally, this study uses CCE as a multidimensional
provides a dynamic platform to examine customer experience construct (Verleye, 2015) consisting of hedonic, social,
in co-creation settings (Hussain et al., 2019). Moreover, the economic and cognitive dimensions to offer insights into how
participation of customers in the co-creation of restaurant each of these four dimensions affects the outcome variables.
experience provides competitive advantages to such restaurant Because without examining these relationships at dimensional
brands. For instance, Inamo Restaurant, London has adopted a level, the extant literature has failed to explain the phenomenon
technology that enables customers to place orders through in any depth, settling for a generalized overall assessment.
touchscreens embedded in their dining tables, view enlarged Accordingly, the current study contributes to the field of
images of menu items, change the outlook of the background branding and hospitality research, primarily the discussions on
and play games (Chathoth et al., 2016). Similarly, Subway two emerging streams of research: CCE of customers and
Restaurant offers a unique selection of ingredients, which CBE. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the
becomes a key element of their brand proposition (Simi and first attempt in the realm of hospitality research to offer an
Matusitz, 2017). The participation of customers in co-creation integrated model of CCE by investigating its effect on
remains limited although Subway and Inamo restaurants behavioral outcomes that are critical to brand success, thereby
provide customized service experience. addressing multiple research calls (Chathoth et al., 2016;
By contrast, a famous Chinese restaurant brand called Jaakkola et al., 2015; Kumar et al., 2019; Pansari and Kumar,
HaiDiLao offers a complete CCE. This restaurant is popular 2017). Although the extant literature attempts to provide
for Chinese hotpot cuisines. At Chinese hotpot restaurants, conceptual grounds on how co-creation fits with the hospitality
diners cook their own food right at the table where the sector (Buhalis and Sinarta, 2019; Chathoth et al., 2013;
restaurants offer a value proposition by facilitating them with Rihova et al., 2015; Tu et al., 2018; Wong and Lai, 2018), the
raw ingredients, a cooking facility and a dining table. Moreover, research on the outcomes of CCE in the hospitality sector
they can select ingredients, and then cook their food with the remains nebulous (Im and Qu, 2017). For practice, this study
right mix of spices and edibles that suits their tastes and makes it simpler for relationship and brand managers to
preferences. This whole process is analogous to what Prahalad understand the complex phenomenon of the CCE of customers
and Ramaswamy (2004) described as the co-creation of service and how the management of this experience can improve
experience, where a firm allows their customers to co-create the performance and relational outcomes.
experience that suits their context. It is also in line with
customized offerings (Chathoth et al., 2013; Mathis et al.,
Literature review
2016), where actors invite other actors to assist in the
production of service offerings (Vargo and Lusch, 2010). The meteoric shift in consumer culture from purchasing goods
The extant research has emphasized the need to invest heavy to paying for experiences (Jain et al., 2017; Neuhofer et al.,
resources in improving the experience of customers to achieve 2015) and the emergence of S-D logic as the general theory of
favorable outcomes (Finsterwalder, 2018; Neuhofer et al., co-creation (Vargo and Lusch, 2017) have escalated the
2015; Zhang et al., 2015). However, little is known about how interest of academic community in understanding CCE. The
importance of S-D logic in studying CCE is imbedded in rewards (Chen, 2018; Etgar, 2008). Participation in co-
foundational premises (FPs) 6, 7 and 10 (Vargo and Lusch, creation activities helps consumers escape from their routine
2004, 2008). According to these FPs, value is jointly created by lives and fulfills their innate desire to seek pleasure, amusement
customers and brands, while value is determined primarily by and delight. Such experiences are appreciated more by
customers based on their perceptions of experiential benefits. consumers who place importance on intrinsic values and
The contextual nature of value accentuates the importance of actively pursue co-creation activities to do something different,
studying customer experience in the context of co-creation, difficult and worthwhile.
where customers participate in the production and The second dimension covers the social and personal
consumption of goods and services by investing operand benefits that a consumer draws by participating in co-creation
resources (material resources such as money and goods) and activities. The social experience (SE) helps consumers connect
operant resources (knowledge, skills and competencies). with like-minded people and augments their sense of belonging
Furthermore, while addressing the experiential aspects of (Hussain et al., 2018; Luo et al., 2019; Nambisan and Baron,
consumption, consumer culture theory (CCT) proposes that 2009). This experience builds on the desire of an individual for
customers create experiences collectively through shared social identity, recognition and development of skills that
resources and market interactions (Arnould and Thompson, improve communication with the outside world (Füller, 2010;
2005). The confluence of both research streams (S-D logic and Zhang et al., 2015).
CCT) suggests that value is always co-created depending on While some consumers engage in co-creation activities to
the context and is principally determined through customers’ strengthen their relationships and social connectedness, others
evaluation of their CCE (Akaka et al., 2015; Grönroos and participate to seek benefits that are more pragmatic and
Voima, 2013). economic in nature. The economic experience (EE) refers to
Kumar et al. (2019) argued that S-D logic offers general the material rewards a consumer receives by participating in co-
guidelines to examine the outcomes of customer experience in creation activities or by avoiding risks that are related to the
different settings. The engagement theory (Pansari and Kumar, quality of products and services (Etgar, 2008; Verleye, 2015).
2017) outlines a specific set of assumptions to ascertain the role Füller (2010) corroborated that this type of experience is
of customer experience, satisfaction and emotional particularly desirable for extrinsically motivated customers,
connectedness in driving customer engagement. The present who seek outcomes (e.g. compensation for participating in co-
study builds on engagement theory to delineate the outcomes creation activities) that are independent of co-creation
of customers’ co-creation experience under the broader activities.
guidelines of S-D logic. S-D logic and engagement theory The fourth dimension, the cognitive experience (CoE), refers
propose that value is contextual in nature that emerges from the to the new knowledge and skills that a co-creation activity offers
subjective evaluation of customers within a particular context. (Verleye, 2015; Zhang et al., 2015). Participation in co-creation
The context-dependent variation in customer experience may helps consumers learn about products and services, such as
distinctly influence the engagement behaviors of customers their underlying principles and technologies (Nambisan and
(Chathoth et al., 2016; Hussain et al., 2019; Kumar et al., Baron, 2009). CoE also helps consumers explore new ways to
2019). The context of co-creation of this study at Chinese use products and provides them opportunities to learn from the
hotpot restaurants perfectly aligns with the theory of co-creation efforts of other participants. Those who seek CoE
engagement and FPs 6, 7 and 10 of S-D logic. tend to be intrinsically motivated and stimulated by their desire
to generate and implement creative ideas for their own sake
(Füller, 2010).
Customers’ co-creation experience
The four dimensions of experience collectively contribute to
CCE refers to the mental state of a customer that results from the overall CCE of an individual. Verleye (2015) found that
his or her participation in the value co-creation process (Chen, HE, SE, EE and CoE positively affect the overall CCE of
2018; Zhang et al., 2015). CCE is also multidimensional, both customers. However, having measured this relationship using a
as a concept and a phenomenon (Jaakkola et al., 2015), and is scenario-based co-creation activity, Verleye suggested the need
determined by a multitude of person-specific factors (Füller, to validate these findings in diverse and more pragmatic co-
2010). In a similar vein, Verleye (2015) developed a creation settings. In addition, Im and Qu (2017) highlighted
multidimensional measure of CCE by relying on social the limitations of scenario-based co-creation in the hospitality
exchange theory and the earlier work of Etgar (2008), Füller sector and recommended investigating CCE in real settings.
(2010) and Nambisan and Baron (2009). Verleye identified The hospitality sector offers dynamic co-creation situations
four dimensions of CCE – hedonic, cognitive, social and through which to examine CCE, but the extant research in this
economic – and an additional measure of the overall CCE. The realm has relied primarily on scenario-based or online co-
current study adopts her conceptualization and these four creation settings (Im and Qu, 2017; Stokburger-Sauer et al.,
dimensions to measure the multidimensional nature of CCE, 2016). What’s more, hospitality research takes CCE only as a
along with the overall CCE as a higher order measure. The first higher order construct while overlooking its multidimensional
dimension, hedonic experience (HE), refers to a mentally nature (Im and Qu, 2017; Tu et al., 2018). Contrarily, the
stimulating and pleasurable experience that results from an marketing literature has argued that CCE is person-specific and
absolute absorption in co-creation tasks (Meng and Cui, 2020; depends on the hedonic, social, cognitive and economic
Verleye, 2015). The HE stems from intrinsic motives, where benefits that a person derives from participating in co-creation
consumers perform co-creation activities for their own sake to (Jaakkola et al., 2015; Verleye, 2015). Therefore, the current
seek pleasure, fun and entrainment, regardless of any external study bridges the gap between the service-marketing and the
hospitality literature by taking CCE both as a multidimensional Ramaswamy, 2004; Verhoef et al., 2009), the restaurant brand
construct and a higher order construct to investigate it at a managers are faced with a significant challenge in achieving CS.
restaurant that allows customers to cook their own food. This challenge becomes even more complex in co-creation
Cooking food at a restaurant or collaborating with the chef to settings as CCE depends on how value emerges from the co-
cook one’s food is a mentally stimulating, pleasurable task that creation process and what kinds of benefits (e.g. hedonic,
contributes to the HE of customers. Customers participate in social, cognitive and economic) it delivers (Jaakkola et al.,
cooking for their own sake to seek pleasure, fun and 2015; Verleye, 2015). Akaka et al. (2015) verified that value
entrainment, regardless of any external rewards that could and CCE are heterogeneous in nature and that customers
significantly enhance the overall CCE of customers. interpret value subjectively. The heterogeneous and
People usually visit restaurants with family, friends, unpredictable nature of CCE makes it necessary for those who
colleagues and clients to fulfill social needs and to exchange manage customer experience to understand how CCE
thoughts with the outside world (Hussain et al., 2018). influences CS.
The restaurant sector facilitates the ability of customers to Earlier studies, such as Helkkula (2011) and Jain et al.
achieve recognition and a sense of belonging and augments (2017), have highlighted the role of positive experience in
their desire for social identity by offering co-creation achieving CS. Specifically, Mathis et al. (2016) and Pansari and
opportunities (Chen, 2018; Meng and Cui, 2020). Kumar (2017) confirmed that customer experience in co-
Participation in co-creation (cooking together at a restaurant) creation situations can be a determinant of CS and other
helps customers to cherish time with family, friends or behavioral outcomes. However, the extant literature lacks
colleagues, which positively influences the overall CCE. This empirical evidence on the effects of CCE on CS. As the
customer-to-customer interaction offers social and cultural foregoing arguments suggest that customer experience is
benefits that further enrich CCE (Rihova et al., 2018, 2019). As positively related to CS, the current study proposes the same
for the economic dimension, customers have the opportunity to for the multidimensional construct of CCE. Considering that
verify the authenticity and health of ingredients by inspecting CCE relies on a multitude of person-specific factors that
them for freshness and hygiene while they prepare their food at comprise the HE, SE, EE and CoE of an individual in the value
a restaurant. This enables customers to avoid any risks related co-creation process, we propose the following hypothesis:
to food quality and nutrition. The economic value and
avoidance of risks contribute to form an EE that is expected to H2. The (a) hedonic, (b) social, (c) economic and (d)
have a positive impact on the overall CCE. Finally, cognitive dimensions of CCE have positive impact on
participation in co-creation activities at a restaurant provides CS via the overall CCE.
learning opportunities to customers, thereby enhancing their
CoE. Co-creating with the chef enables customers to acquire or
improve their cooking skills and learn about new ingredients Emotional brand attachment
and their nutrition value, thereby fostering their overall CCE. Consumer–brand relationship is becoming the mainstay of
Therefore, we advance the following hypothesis: marketing research (Centeno et al., 2019; Coelho et al., 2019;
Hussain et al., 2020), where EBA helps brands to maintain
H1. The (a) hedonic, (b) social, (c) economic and (d) sustainable relational bonds with customers (Torres et al.,
cognitive experience dimensions of CCE positively 2020). EBA is conceptualized as the emotion-laden
influence customer’s overall CCE at a restaurant. relationship of consumers with the brand that minimizes their
Hospitality research has made attempts to conceptualize co- switching behavior (Torres et al., 2020; Vlachos et al., 2010).
creation (Chathoth et al., 2013; Tu et al., 2018; Wong and Lai, Similarly, the extant research has indicated that emotionally
2018) and to identify the factors that positively affect customer bonded customers are easy to retain (Pansari and Kumar,
co-creation in hospitality settings (Im and Qu, 2017). 2017). This view highlights the central role of achieving EBA in
However, limited research attention has been paid to the the sustainable success of any brand. Attracting a new buyer
performance and relational outcomes of customers’ CCE for costs six times higher than retaining a patron (Hussain and
hospitality businesses. Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004) Waheed, 2016), and emotionally connected consumers are
asserted that CCE enhances customer outcomes that more valuable, as they can help service brands to attain new
contribute to firm success. Building on this tenet, the next patrons by spreading favorable feedback (Vlachos et al., 2010;
sections of this study offer details on how the CCE augments Vlachos, 2012). However, to achieve EBA, managers must
the outcomes of CS, EBA and CBE. understand the controllable antecedents of emotional bonding
with their brands and service offerings (Grisaffe and Nguyen,
2011). Several studies (Jang et al., 2015; Khan and Rahman,
Customer satisfaction 2017; Vlachos et al., 2010) have corroborated that store-evoked
CS, a cornerstone of marketing research, has become key pleasure, shopping pleasure, interpersonal likeability, brand
success factor for restaurant brands (Oh and Kim, 2017). Voss experience and environment-friendly practices foster EBA even
et al. (2010) defined CS as a cumulative, global evaluation though they offer no tangible outcomes to customers. Instead,
based on customers’ experience with brands. The role of CS customers derive experiential benefits from their experience of
becomes critical as consumption trends shift from goods to shopping, product/service use or sense of belonging.
services and experiences. Because customer experience is Research on customer experience has revealed that
highly unpredictable and involves various personal, cognitive experience is strictly personal and involves a customer at the
and social responses of customers (Prahalad and emotional, spiritual and sensorial levels (Carù and Cova, 2015;
Helkkula, 2011; Verhoef et al., 2009). This kind of emotional customer makes to long-term brand success. The referring
involvement in CCE strengthens the connection of an dimension involves situations where a customer recommends a
individual with the service provider (Jaakkola et al., 2015). product or service to family and peers by advocating for the
Thomson et al. (2005) asserted that the emotional bonding of target brand. Influencing represents the attitudes of customers
customers depends on the investment that they make in an where they share a positive experience by word of mouth or on
object. In CCE, a customer invests operand and operant social media and other platforms. Customer feedback is a type
resources (e.g. applying cooking skills and knowledge to make of engagement where a customer provides inputs to service
Chinese hotpots at a restaurant) to co-create value with the providers to improve the services of a brand (for a description,
service provider (Akaka et al., 2015; Chathoth et al., 2016). A see Junaid et al., 2019; Kumar and Pansari, 2016; Pansari and
customer yields experiential benefits like hedonic, social, Kumar, 2017). Therefore, the current study adopts the
cognitive and economic benefits by investing such resources. multidimensional construct of CBE from Kumar and Pansari
Furthermore, Grisaffe and Nguyen (2011) demonstrated that (2016) and builds on the model of Kumar et al. (2019) to
user-derived benefits like sensory pleasure and self-oriented investigate its antecedents under the umbrella of S-D logic
and social-oriented goals positively influence EBA. These (Vargo and Lusch, 2017). The engagement model of Kumar
benefits are in line with the benefits a customer receives by et al. (2019), which is built on the FPs of S-D logic, identifies
participating in co-creation activities that affect EBA in co- customer experience, CS and EBA as the key drivers of CBE in
creation settings. However, the extant literature provides no co-creation settings.
empirical evidence on the relationship between CCE and EBA; Selecting these antecedents receives substantial support from
thus, the current study advances the following hypothesis: the existing literature. The existing studies have affirmed that
CS and EBA can positively influence CBE (Hollebeek et al.,
H3. The (a) hedonic, (b) social, (c) economic and (d) 2019; Jaakkola and Alexander, 2014). Simon and Tossan
cognitive dimensions of CCE positively affect EBA via (2018) also found that CS significantly affects CBE with the
the overall CCE. Facebook page of a brand. Similarly, Choi and Kandampully
(2019) reveal a positive association between CS and
engagement in the hospitality sector. Su and Hsu (2013) show
Customer brand engagement that CS positively influences word of mouth and revisit
Globalization has aggravated competition among national and intentions. In a similar vein, while taking CBE as a
multinational brands. In this dynamic environment, CBE has multidimensional construct, Kumar et al. (2019) and Pansari
become a pre-eminent challenge, and managers are seeking and Kumar (2017) proposed that CS is the basic precursor of
new ways to engage customers with their products and services the spending patterns (direct contributions: buying) of
(Junaid et al., 2019; Loureiro et al., 2019; Matute et al., 2019). customers, while EBA can motivate customers to influence the
Considerable research has asserted that engaged customers behavior of others by sharing their positive experiences and
contribute to the success of brands by influencing other recommending a brand to others (indirect contributions:
customers with positive word of mouth and referrals referring, influencing and feedback). Building on these
(Fernandes and Moreira, 2019; Pansari and Kumar, 2017). propositions, this study proposes the following hypotheses:
Engaged customers are less vulnerable to the actions of
competitors and price changes than other customers are H4. CS positively impacts the (a) buying, (b) referring,
(Veloutsou and Guzman, 2017), and they facilitate the sales (c) influencing and (d) feedback dimensions of CBE.
growth, profitability and competitive advantage of brands H5. EBA positively affects the (a) referring, (b) influencing
(Finsterwalder, 2018; Hepola et al., 2017; Hollebeek et al., and (c) feedback dimensions of CBE.
2019). These performance and relational gains demonstrate
the key role of CBE in the success of any business. The most compelling antecedent of CBE documented in the
The extant literature argues that CBE is context dependent extant literature is a positive customer experience. Particularly,
and conceptualizes it as a psychological state that emerges from research on customer management and value co-creation has
interactive and co-creative experiences with a brand in a service suggested that an excellent customer experience is compulsory
relationship that results in the direct and indirect contributions to engage customers (Akaka et al., 2015; Hollebeek et al., 2016;
of customers toward brand success (Brodie et al., 2013; Junaid Jaakkola et al., 2015; Pine and Gilmore, 1998) . In the
et al., 2019; Kumar et al., 2019). Van Doorn et al. (2010) hospitality sector, customer experience in value co-creation can
envisioned the strategic importance of CBE and called for new touch people more deeply than it can with products and other
insights into its antecedents and motivational drivers. Recently, services and hence generates greater CBE as well (Chathoth
Kumar et al. (2019) and Pansari and Kumar (2017) have et al., 2016; Tu et al., 2018). An experience can touch
developed CBE models that incorporate its antecedents and customers in five ways – through sensing, feeling, thinking,
consequences. Both models take CBE as a multidimensional acting and relating – to garner a high level of CBE (Jain et al.,
construct that encompasses the direct and indirect 2017). Basically, a customer derives value from experience
contributions of customers to brands. CBE consists of four (Grönroos, 2011), and customer-derived experiential benefits
dimensions, namely, buying, referring, influencing and (hedonic, social, economic and cognitive) stimulate
feedback. The buying dimension covers purchase transactions engagement behaviors (Jaakkola and Alexander, 2014; Verleye,
that reflect the direct contributions a customer makes to brand 2015). However, Pansari and Kumar (2017) argued that
value, whereas the referring, influencing and feedback customer experience does not influence CBE directly but
dimensions of CBE are the indirect contributions that a affects CS and EBA, which then transfer to CBE. Earlier
studies have corroborated this tenet, as Van Doorn et al. (2010) from Vlachos (2012). The current study also used 16 items to
argued that dissatisfaction happens when an unpleasant measure the direct and indirect contributions of CBE from
experience leads to negative CBE. Jang et al. (2015) claimed Kumar and Pansari (2016), four items for each of the four
that emotional bonds developed through experiences positively dimensions of buying, referring, influencing and feedback.
influence the behavioral intentions (e.g. referrals and word of Furthermore, we slightly modified the existing measures to suit
mouth) of customers, and Zhang et al. (2018) complemented with context of hotpot experience; for example, the first item of
this assertion, contending that companies can achieve financial CCE reads as it was a nice experience (i.e. the selection of
and relational gains through CBE by creating emotional ingredients, cooking and eating hotpot) where we added the
bonding with CCE. Despite the wide acknowledgment of the characteristics of hotpot experience in parenthesis. Similarly,
role of customer experience in generating engagement the second question of customer engagement was modified
behaviors, the existing literature does not offer empirical from “My purchases with this brand make me content” to “My
evidence on how CCE drives CBE in realistic co-creation experience of eating hotpots at restaurants makes me content.”
situations. Therefore, on the basis of these arguments, the The core theme of questions remained the same, although we
current study posits that CCE positively affects CBE via CS slightly changed the wording. As all of the original measures
and EBA and examines this relationship at the dimensional were in English, we translated them into Chinese by following
level to offer insights into the relationship between CCE and the procedure outlined by Van de Vijver and Leung (1997) to
CBE. This examination helps delineate the roles of individual translate a measuring instrument. In this procedure, a native
dimensions in explaining the direct and indirect contributions Chinese researcher with experience in scale development in
customers make to firm value. Therefore, this study English and Chinese translated the original questions into
hypothesizes the following: Chinese. Thereafter, two bilingual experts from the language
school of a public sector university validated the translation and
H6. Customers’ (a) hedonic, (b) social, (c) economic and suggested minor changes. We also incorporated those changes
(d) cognitive experiences and their (e) overall CCE and distributed the final questionnaire to potential
positively influence the buying dimension of CBE via respondents. The responses for all 47 items were collected on a
CS. five-point Likert-type scale, where responses were quantified as
1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. We then used the
H7. Customers’ (a) hedonic, (b) social, (c) economic and five-point Likert-type scale because the literature has suggested
(d) cognitive experiences and their (e) overall CCE that a five-point scale increases response rates and the quality of
positively impact the referring, influencing and feedback responses as it makes the completion of a questionnaire easier
dimensions of CBE via EBA (Figure 1). for respondents (Nauman et al., 2019). Moreover, the data
collected on five-point, seven-point and ten-point Likert-type
scales do not make much difference, and the data collected on a
Methodology five-point scale are suitable for confirmatory factor analysis
Measuring instruments (CFA) and structural equation modeling (Dawes, 2008).
All the measures for this study were taken from existing
literature and were slightly modified to fit the study context. Procedure and selection of the co-creation setting
This study used 23 items to measure CCE from Verleye The present study used a restaurant setting and customer
(2015): three items for HE, five items for SE, six items for EE, experience with cooking and consuming Chinese hotpots to
five items for CoE and four items for the overall CCE. CS with examine CCE and its impact on the outcome variables. At
a recent experience was measured with four items from Mattila Chinese hotpot restaurants, diners cook their own food right at
(2003), whereas the four items that measure EBA were adapted the table where the restaurants offer a value proposition by
Figure 1 Theoretical model: outcomes of customer’s co-creation experience
Co-Creaon Experience
H2 H4 Direct
Dimensions Customer
Overall Co-Creaon Experience
Sasfacon Contribuons
Hedonic Experience (Buying)
H1 Customer Brand
Social Experience
Engagement
Indirect
Economic Experience Contribuons
(Referring)
H3 H5
Emoonal Brand (Influencing)
Cognive Experience
(Feedback)
Aachment
Notes: 1. Theoretical model; outcomes of customer’s co-creation experience. 2. Structural model;

outcomes of customer’s co-creation experience
facilitating the diners with raw ingredients, a cooking facility questionnaire only if they had participated in preparing hotpots
and a dining table. Moreover, they can select ingredients, such at a restaurant within the last three months. We received 459
as spices, vegetables, meat, rice, noodles and other flavorings, responses and screened out 38 responses with invalid or
and then cook their food with the right mix of spices and edibles incomplete information. Finally, we had 421 responses for data
that suits their tastes and preferences. Customers can inspect analysis and a net response rate of 60%. Of these 421
their ingredients for freshness and cleanliness and their respondents, 52% (N = 219) were female, and 43% were 18 –
nutritional value and combine them to suit their individual 25 years old, whereas 36% were 26–35 years old, 19% were 36–
tastes. It offers an assortment of options for vegetarians and 45 years old and only 2% were older than 45. The highest
non-vegetarians, spice lovers and non-lovers, foodies and diet- percentage of respondents (44%) held an undergraduate
conscious customers. Additionally, it is available for groups to university degree, whereas 42% held masters’ degrees, 13%
eat together in one pot and single pots for individual customers. held doctorates or other post-graduate degrees and only 1%
This process is analogous to what Prahalad and Ramaswamy had only a high school diploma. Professionally, 29% were
(2004) described as the co-creation of service experience, public sector employees, 23% were private sector employees,
where a firm allows their customers to co-create the experience 39% were students, 8% were business owners and 1% were
that suits their context. It is also in line with customized unemployed.
offerings (Chathoth et al., 2013; Mathis et al., 2016), where
“actors invite other actors to assist in the production of service Results
offerings” (Vargo and Lusch, 2010, p. 176).
This study’s selection of a dining experience as an object of The present study performed analysis in two steps by initially
co-creation is in line with the suggestions of Akaka et al. (2015) measuring psychometric properties with CFA and then
for investigating the CCE of customers using S-D logic. In analyzing the hypotheses using the covariance-based structural
addition, the hotpot experience resembles the scenario equation modeling (CB-SEM) technique. The current study
Stokburger-Sauer et al. (2016) used in the co-creation of value, used CB-SEM with maximum likelihood estimation that,
where they examine the co-production of a pasta dish with according to recent literature, was found to be more powerful
various levels of customer involvement. Participation in hotpot than partial least square path modeling (PLS-PM) when the
cooking requires a high level of customer involvement; hence, it sample size is greater than 100 responses (Hair et al., 2014). As
represents the basic form of co-creation. Contrary to sponsored current study collected data from 421 restaurant consumers, it
co-creation, where a co-creating customer receives financial is reasonably a large sample in the context of social sciences
compensation for participating, the hotpot experience is an (Hair et al., 2010). The statistical analyses were performed
example of autonomous co-creation, where a customer using MPlus Version 8.1.
participates in co-creating a meal without expectation of
financial gain. Common method bias
Chinese hotpot has a long history – more than a thousand The current study addressed the issue of common method bias
years – and is the most popular meal in China. It has many (CMB) at two levels. First, before collecting the data, the
varieties but an identical method of cooking. It used to be a respondents were briefed about the confidentiality of their
winter favorite, but recently, hotpot tables have been occupied responses, and that there were no right or wrong answers. The
throughout the year. Considering the popularity of hotpots in respondents were also requested to remain neutral and honest
winter season, we collected data in January 2018 to ensure that while completing the survey. Second, we performed the
we had the most recent dining experience during winter season. Harman single-factor test to establish the statistical evidence
We prepared a structured questionnaire that was divided into that indicates that it explains only 33.57% of the variance
three sections. In the first section, we explained the purpose of (Podsakoff et al., 2003). This value meets the cut-off criterion,
the study and asked the respondents to complete the survey by i.e. less than 50%. Therefore, CMB does not affect the results
recalling their recent hotpot experience at their favorite of this study.
restaurant brand. The respondents were also briefed that their
data and personal information would be kept confidential. The
Confirmatory factor analysis
second section consisted of items that measured the variables of
interest. In the third part, we collected data about the The results of CFA are reported in Tables 1 and 2, indicating
demographic profiles of the respondents and ended the that the observed data fit well with the proposed theoretical
questionnaire with an appreciation statement for their time and model. This study followed the guidelines of Fornell and
response. We invited 700 respondents from Shanghai, China, Larcker (1981) and Hair et al. (2010) to assess the model
using convenience sampling to complete the personally fitness, convergent and discriminant validity and the reliability
administered structured questionnaire. The researchers of constructs. The model fit indices indicate a good model fit as
personally accessed the respondents and distributed the the values of chi-square ( x 2/df = 1.746), comparative fit index
questionnaires to those who had dined at Chinese hotpot (CFI) = 0.948, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = 0.942, root mean
restaurants. As Chinese hotpot is very common among native square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.042 and
Chinese, people also prepare it at home. Nonetheless, the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = 0.047 meet
current study required that respondents obtain dining the cutoff criteria. The reliability of all the measurement
experience at a restaurant to ascertain their experience and instruments was established as the values for the composite
engagement behaviors. To encapsulate the most recent reliability (CR) of each construct are higher than 0.70.
experience, we asked the respondents to fill out the Similarly, the convergent validity was also supported as the
Table 1 Confirmatory factor analysis

Construct Items Factor loading CR
Hedonic Experience It was a nice experience (i.e. selection of ingredients, cooking and eating hotpot) 0.675 0.858
It was fun 0.883
I enjoyed it 0.882
Social experience I am able to connect with other people 0.747 0.852
I meet others with whom I share similar interests 0.775
The interaction is pleasant 0.807
I can make others aware of my knowledge and ideas 0.740
I can make a good impression on other people 0.576
Economic I got an excellent experience according to the efforts made 0.705 0.861
experience I got a fair return in terms of food, taste and fun 0.725
I got an appropriate amount of food in return for price paid 0.737
I had control over the quality 0.739
The quality was in my hands 0.705
I had an impact on the degree to which my preferences were met 0.671
Cognitive I can improve my skills 0.781 0.916
experience I gain new knowledge/expertise 0.867
I can test my capabilities 0.850
It allows me to keep up with new ideas and innovations 0.837
It enables me to come up with new ideas 0.807
Overall co-creation My overall hotpot experience was satisfactory 0.769 0.927
experience My overall hotpot experience was delightful 0.893
My overall hotpot experience was excellent 0.928
My overall hotpot experience was positive 0.897
Emotional brand I love hotpot 0.802 0.858
attachment I am passionate about eating hotpot 0.791
Hotpot experience makes me very happy 0.871
Hotpot is my favorite cuisine 0.631
Customer My recent hotpot experience was delightful 0.925 0.886
satisfaction I am happy with my recent hotpot experience 0.894
I am satisfied with my most hotpot experiences 0.811
I am dissatisfied with my most hotpot experiences (reverse) 0.598
Customer brand I will continue eating hotpot in the near future 0.740 0.805
engagement- My experience of eating hotpot at restaurants makes me content 0.824
buying Eating hotpot at restaurants makes me happy 0.718
CBE-referring The value derived from the hotpot experience encourages me to refer this cuisine to my friends 0.800 0.840
and relatives
I promote hotpot because of its self-cooking experience 0.667
I enjoy referring hotpot to my friends and relatives 0.814
Given that I eat hotpot, I refer my friends and relatives to hotpot because of self-cooking style 0.727
CBE-influencing I do not actively discuss my hotpot experience on any media (reverse) 0.704 0.885
I love talking about hotpot experience 0.820
I discuss the benefits that I get from hotpot experience with others 0.858
I like hotpot experience and mention it in my conversations 0.859
CBE-feedback I provide feedback about my hotpot experience to the restaurant operators 0.851 0.930
I provide suggestions/feedbacks about any new additions to hotpot cuisine 0.890
I provide suggestions to improve hotpot experience 0.899
I provide feedback/suggestions for developing new kind of hotpot cuisines 0.871
factor loadings of each item and the average variance extracted squared inter-scale correlations. The statistics presented in
(AVE) of all the constructs is greater than 0.50. The authors Table 2 indicate that discriminant validity is supported, as the
dropped only one item from the buying dimension of CBE on AVEs of all individual constructs are greater than their
the basis of a low factor loading (0.44) and performed respective inter-scale correlations, except for EBA and the
additional analysis with buying as a three-item measure. buying dimension of CBE. Therefore, for this pair of
The current study measured the discriminant validity by constructs, the authors conducted a chi-square difference test
comparing the AVE of each construct with corresponding by comparing unconstrained and constrained (constraining
Table 2 Squared inter-scale correlations and average variance extracted

Construct Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
HE 4.16 0.68 0.67
SE 3.97 0.61 0.33 0.53
EE 3.60 0.61 0.24 0.28 0.51
CoE 3.26 0.86 0.12 0.18 0.26 0.68
Overall CCE 4.18 0.66 0.51 0.31 0.23 0.08 0.76
EBA 3.89 0.69 0.50 0.29 0.24 0.07 0.53 0.60
CS 4.19 0.62 0.45 0.27 0.15 0.03 0.61 0.56 0.66
CBE-buying 3.83 0.67 0.51 0.30 0.28 0.09 0.50 0.78 0.51 0.58
CBE-referring 3.44 0.69 0.20 0.21 0.23 0.14 0.17 0.30 0.17 0.44 0.56
CBE-influencing 3.30 0.77 0.13 0.18 0.20 0.11 0.14 0.28 0.11 0.27 0.45 0.66
CBE-feedback 2.93 0.89 0.02 0.05 0.13 0.12 0.02 0.06 0.02 0.08 0.22 0.41 0.77
Note: Italic values at the diagonal represent average variance extracted
their correlation to be one) models to verify the discriminant Table 3 Statistics of structural model: direct effects
validity. The chi-square difference test (D x 2 = 40.779, p =
Hypothesized path b SE CR
0.000) is significant, showing that the unconstrained model is
better than the constrained model and that the both the HE fi Overall CCE (OCCE) 0.568 0.048 11.93
constructs cannot be combined into a single measure. SE fi OCCE 0.212 0.053 3.970
Similarly, one question item Q1 of variable CS seems to be EE fi OCCE 0.155 0.055 2.835
overlapping with question number Q2 of the overall CCE; CoE fi OCCE 0.081 0.045 1.811
therefore, the authors also performed the chi-square difference OCCE fi CS 0.870 0.019 46.92
test for this pair of variables. The chi-square difference test OCCE fi EBA 0.749 0.029 26.03
(D x 2 = 381.90, p = 0.000) is significant, indicating that both CS fi CBE-buying 0.742 0.035 21.19
the variables are entirely different and measure distinct CS fi CBE-referring 0.135 0.083 1.625
concepts. In addition, the factor loading value of the Q1 CS fi CBE-influencing 0.045 0.082 0.553
(0.925) of CS is different from the factor loading of the Q2 CS fi CBE-feedback 0.070 0.087 0.809
(0.893) of the overall CCE. EBA fi CBE-referring 0.394 0.082 4.830
EBA fi CBE-influencing 0.541 0.076 7.115
EBA fi CBE-feedback 0.295 0.084 3.501
Structural model
The model fit indices of the structural model (i.e. chi-square Control variables
( x 2/df = 1.723), CFI = 0.940, TLI = 0.935, RMSEA = 0.041, Gender
SRMR = 0.089) indicate an acceptable fit, as all the values Age
Education
meet their standard cutoffs (Hair et al., 2010). Tables 3 and 4
Profession
present the estimated paths and statistics of the structural
R2 CS 0.757
model. The estimated paths are also shown in Figure 2. The
R2 EBA 0.560
results indicate that the HE, SE and EE dimensions positively
R2 CBE-buying 0.556
affect the overall CCE of customers, supporting our hypotheses
R2 CBE-referring 0.251
H1a, b and c. The coefficients suggest that HE ( b = 0.568) has
R2 CBE-influencing 0.267
the strongest impact, followed by SE ( b = 0.212) and EE ( b =
R2 CBE-feedback 0.076
0.155). However, the current study rejected H1d because CoE

does not contribute to the overall CCE. In addition, the HE, Notes: p < 0.000; p < 0.01; p < 0.05
SE, EE and overall CCE significantly enhance CS, which
extends support to H2a, b, c and e. Given that the overall CCE
( b = 0.870) strongly effects CS, other dimensions complement contributions – that is, referring ( b = 0.394), influencing ( b =
its influence as the impacts of the HE ( b = 0.494), SE ( b = 0.541) and feedback ( b = 0.295) – and extends support to
0.185) and EE ( b = 0.135) dimensions are significant at p < H5a, b and c. The statistics of structural model also lend
0.05. Similarly, H3a, b, c and e are accepted as EBA also support to H6 and H7. The coefficient values (Table 4: indirect
depends on the HE ( b = 0.425), SE ( b = 0.1159), EE ( b = effects) indicate that the HE ( b = 0.366), SE ( b = 0.137), EE
0.116) and overall CCE ( b = 0.749). ( b = 0.100) and overall CCE ( b = 0.646) mark significant
The current study accepted H4a because CS ( b = 0.742) impact on CBE’s buying dimension via CS. Similarly, the HE
significantly impacts the buying dimension of CBE and ( b for: referring = 0.167, influencing = 0.230, feedback =
increases the direct contributions that a customer makes to 0.125), SE ( b for: referring = 0.063, influencing = 0.086,
brand value. However, H4b, c and d are rejected because CS feedback = 0.047), EE ( b for: referring = 0.046, influencing =
does not significantly influence the referring, influencing and 0.063, feedback = 0.034) and overall CCE ( b for: referring =
feedback dimensions of CBE. EBA positively impacts indirect 0.295, influencing = 0.405, feedback = 0.221) positively
Table 4 Statistics of structural model: indirect effects brand (Junaid et al., 2019; Kumar et al., 2019). The current
study presents a detailed investigation on the role of CCE in
Hypothesized path b S.E C.R
driving CS, EBA and CBE in the context of service brands and

HE fi OCCE fi CS 0.494 0.044 11.33 marks valuable contributions to the branding literature.
SE fi OCCE fi CS 0.185 0.047 3.949 This research extends the branding literature by investigating
EE fi OCCE fi CS 0.135 0.048 2.831 CCE in the context of restaurant brands. In the restaurant
CoE fi OCCE fi CS 0.071 0.039 1.80 service context, the results of this study validate the findings of
HE fi OCCE fi EBA 0.425 0.040 10.54 Verleye (2015) that HE and SE are the core parts of CCE that
SE fi OCCE fi EBA 0.159 0.041 3.917 strongly influence the overall CCE. Unlike the findings of
EE fi OCCE fi EBA 0.116 0.041 2.815 Verleye, the CoE does not contribute to the overall CCE in
CoE fi OCCE fi EBA 0.061 0.034 1.80 hospitality services. A plausible reason for this nonsignificant
OCCE fi CS fi CBE-buying 0.646 0.037 17.39 relationship is that participation in hotpot cooking at a
OCCE fi EBA fi CBE-referring 0.295 0.062 4.721 restaurant is a routine activity for native Chinese diners that,
OCCE fi EBA fi CBE-influencing 0.405 0.061 6.640 unlike ideation and new product development, does not offer
OCCE fi EBA fi CBE-feedback 0.221 0.064 3.441 new knowledge to the participants. However, for Western or
HE fi OCCE fi CS fi CBE-buying 0.366 0.038 9.527 non-Chinese consumers, participation in preparing hotpots
HE fi OCCE fi EBA fi CBE-referring 0.167 0.038 4.353 may offer a significant challenge and novel information. As the
HE fi OCCE fi EBA fi CBE-influencing 0.230 0.040 5.712 cognitive dimension does not affect the overall CCE of
HE fi OCCE fi EBA fi CBE-feedback 0.125 0.038 3.287 customers, its influence remains insignificant for all other
SE fi OCCE fi CS fi CBE-buying 0.137 0.035 3.861 hypothesized indirect paths. Conversely, the EE also appears to
SE fi OCCE fi EBA fi CBE-referring 0.063 0.021 3.029 be a significant contributor. This result suggests that customers
SE fi OCCE fi EBA fi CBE-influencing 0.086 0.025 3.398 look for economic benefits when they participate in the co-
SE fi OCCE fi EBA fi CBE-feedback 0.047 0.018 2.594 creation activities of a routine and general nature, such as
EE fi OCCE fi CS fi CBE-buying 0.100 0.036 2.796 preparing Chinese hotpots at a restaurant. By contrast,
EE fi OCCE fi EBA fi CBE-referring 0.046 0.019 2.432 customers seek cognitive benefits when it comes to new
EE fi OCCE fi EBA fi CBE-influencing 0.063 0.024 2.606 product development or ideation (Verleye, 2015). These
EE fi OCCE fi EBA fi CBE-feedback 0.034 0.016 2.189 results also affirm that the overall CCE of customers hinges on
CoE fi OCCE fi CS fi CBE-buying 0.052 0.029 1.79 the hedonic, social and economic benefits that arise from
CoE fi OCCE fi EBA fi CBE-referring 0.024 0.014 1.68 routinely performed co-creation activities, which, in turn, leads
CoE fi OCCE fi EBA fi CBE-influencing 0.033 0.019 1.74 to the kind of consumer behavior that yields performance and
CoE fi OCCE fi EBA fi CBE-feedback 0.018 0.011 1.11 relational gains for a service brand.

Notes: p < 0.000; p < 0.01; p < 0.05 This study demonstrates with empirical evidence that the
CCE of customers with a restaurant brand can augment CS,
EBA and CBE, and these findings corroborate earlier theorized
impact the referring, influencing and feedback dimensions of relationships (Kumar et al., 2019; Pansari and Kumar, 2017).
CBE through EBA. In addition to all these significant effects, In addition to this empirical validation, the current study
CCE explains a reasonable amount of the variance in each of reveals these relational paths at the dimensional level, thereby
the outcome variables – 75.7% of the variance in CS, 56.0% of showing that the HE is central to performance and relational
the variance in EBA, 55.6% of the variance in buying, 25.1% of outcomes. The impact of the HE on CS, EBA and CBE
the variance in referring, 26.7% of the variance in influencing (buying, referring, influencing and feedback) is stronger than
and 7.6% of the variance in feedback. The explanatory power that of the social and economic dimensions. More precisely, the
of CCE indicates that it affects the performance outcomes (i.e. effects of the HE are stronger on CS and also transfer strongly
CS and the buying dimension of CBE) more strongly than it to the buying dimension of CBE via CS. The HE is also shown
does the relational outcomes of EBA, referring, influencing and to be a solid precursor of EBA and the subsequent indirect
feedback. contributions of CBE (influencing, referring and feedback) that
All the indirect effects are analyzed using the Mplus’ delta help create long-term customer relationships with service
method. The delta method is an alternative to the Sobel test, brands. Current study’s findings from the hospitality service
which has similar robustness and statistical rigor (Junaid et al., brands are consistent with those from the extant service-
2019; MacKinnon, 2012); thus, the results of our analysis marketing literature (Carù and Cova, 2015; Zhang et al.,
(indirect effects) do not need further validation through an 2015), which assert that mentally stimulating and pleasurable
additional Sobel test. co-creation activities provide hedonic benefits (Füller, 2010;
Jaakkola et al., 2015) that encourage intrinsically motivated
Discussion customers to engage with a brand.
The SE is also found to be a significant predictor of CS, EBA
The purpose of this study was to delineate the brand-related and CBE. These findings confirm that customers participate in
outcomes of customers’ CCE in the context of service business. co-creation activities not only for intrinsic benefits but also to
The branding literature regarded co-creation as the driving express themselves with like-minded people and fulfill their
mechanism to achieve brand-related outcomes (Kennedy and desires to attain social status. It is likely that customers visit
Guzman, 2020). Similarly, outcome variables such as CS, EBA restaurants not only to eat but also for the social benefits and
and CBE have been considered as the key success factors for a participation in co-creation activities that provide them a
Figure 2 Structural model
1 2 3 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3
1
Hedonic Customer 0.703* Buying 1
2 Experience Satisfaction
2
3
0.610* 3
4 Referring
Social 0.937*
Experience 4
5
0.196*
Overall Co-
0.448*
Creation Exp 1
1
Economic Influencing
2 Experience 0.139* 0.899* 2
3 – 0.055 0.447* 3
4 Emotional Feedback 4
Cognitive 0.243*
Experience Attachment
5
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
platform from which to connect with like-minded people and to known about CCE, and it too overlooks the multidimensional
show their skills and competencies to others. The user-derived nature of CCE. Therefore, the present study is the first attempt
benefits of socialization motivate consumers to participate to address CCE as a multidimensional construct in the context
repeatedly in co-creation activities, which enhances of restaurant brands. More importantly, in examining CCE in
satisfaction, attachment and engagement with restaurant the restaurant industry, this study takes a frequently performed
brands. These findings also complement the existing literature and realistic co-creation activity in which a customer cooks his
on the role the SE plays in enhancing behavioral outcomes or her own food at a restaurant. Using this kind of activity
(Zhang et al., 2015). The present study’s finding that the EE enables this study to offer new insights because the extant
positively impacts CS, EBA and CBE contradicts with those of literature on CCE generally focuses on ideation, new product
Füller (2010) and Verleye (2015). Both studies argued that development and virtual co-creation. Using this kind of activity
economic benefits do not really matter for consumers when also offers the opportunity to address the recent research calls
they participate in co-creation activities, but these studies to validate the multidimensional scale of CCE (Verleye, 2015)
examined CCE for product design and virtual co-creation, in a new environment. In doing so, the current study enriches
where the frequency of participation in co-creation activities the existing literature on customer experience management and
may be lower and customers do not pay heed to material consumer brand engagement and argues that customer
rewards. Based on these findings, the current study argues that experience is highly subjective in nature and that it depends on
customers seek economic benefits when they participate in co- the benefits a person perceives to be valuable in co-creation
creation activities that are performed more frequently and this situations.
study provides evidence from the hospitality sector that the EE To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this research is the
significantly influences CS, EBA and CBE (buying, referring, first of its kind to investigate the performance and relational
influencing and feedback). Hence, the EE should not be outcomes of CCE in the context of restaurant brands. For this
ignored. In summary, the current study contends that the purpose, this study examines the relationship between CCE
influence of CCE on performance and relational outcomes (both as a higher order construct and as a multidimensional
differs considerably; hence, brand managers can prioritize the construct) and CS, EBA and CBE, thereby making significant
outcomes they seek and manipulate the customer experience contributions to the restaurant branding literature. The
accordingly. findings affirm that the HE, SE and EE are the key dimensions
This study extends the existing literature on two emerging that drive CS, EBA and CBE in restaurant services, whereas
streams of research: the CCE of customers and brand the CoE does not influence these outcome variables. These
engagement. In the realm of CCE, recent literature has findings substantiate the view that the CCEs of customers vary
suggested that positive customer experiences are required to depending on the nature of the co-creation in which the
achieve performance and relational gains. However, such customers are taking part, which may range from ideation to
experiences cannot be guaranteed until they are comprehended design to collaboration in service creation. In addition, the
at the dimensional level, along with how each dimension findings of this study validate that the impact of CCE on
influences consumer behavior. In this regard, the service- performance outcomes is stronger than that on relational
marketing literature in general and the brand management outcomes in the context of restaurant brands.
literature in particular have paid scant attention to scrutinizing This study also extends the recently framed CBE model of
empirically how the dimensions of CCE affect outcome Kumar et al. (2019) to the dominion of CCE in the realm of
variables. As for the restaurant branding research, little is hospitality service brands. In taking the CBE as a
multidimensional construct, we provide empirical evidence for they ensure that their customers receive fair value. This study
the relationship between CCE and the direct (buying) and examined the co-creation of a general nature at a restaurant,
indirect (referring, influencing and feedback) contributions an where customers participate frequently, and it is appropriate to
engaged customer makes to brand value. This study attract customers with something they can measure in
demonstrates that the HE is the strongest dimension of CCE in economic terms. With these insights, the current study
terms of its effects on the buying, referring, influencing and simplifies the complex phenomenon of CCE for practitioners
feedback dimensions of CBE. The social and economic and brand managers and helps them yield performance and
dimensions also add value in pursuit of brand success by relational gains through better management.
positively influencing the indirect and direct contributions. CCE offers a unique set of integrated benefits (i.e. hedonic,
This in-depth investigation helps advance the scholarly social, economic and cognitive) that increase buying while
discourse in branding research. extending a satisfying and emotionally bonding relationship
that directly contributes to brand value. The role of CCE in
Managerial implications enhancing the referring behavior of consumers indirectly
augments brand value as referring increases restaurants’ base of
Currently, brand managers are seeking new ways to engage loyal customers. Similarly, a well-staged CCE also motivates
customers in pursuit of efficiency gains and the long-term customers to share their experience on social media that
survival of their brands. In response, the recent literature has substantially influences the behavior of other customers.
highlighted the overarching role of customer experience and Finally, CCE also positively enhances the interaction of
value co-creation in engaging customers with brands and customers with service providers and encourages their feedback
achieving competitive advantages. The importance of to improve the service experience. In addition to directly/
understanding and managing customer experience is evident indirectly enhancing brand value, CCE also shapes the brand
from the shift in the corporate sector, where companies recall pattern of customers. As customers associate CCE with
are replacing brand managers with “customer experience challenging, worthwhile, social, economic and amusing
managers” (Jaakkola et al., 2015). Considering the rise in the experience. All these perceived benefits will pop up on their
experience economy and the structural shift in corporate mind whenever they would think of dining at a restaurant.
positions, the current study makes valuable contributions to the Hence, CCE could become a core element of customers’
efforts of brand managers to understand and manage customer memory of brands that would interweave a pathway of the
experience in service co-creation situations. This study deepens concept mapping of restaurant brands.
the extant insights into how CCE affects the performance and Pine and Gilmore (1998) suggested that brand managers
relational outcomes that predominately add value to the pursuit must design experiences to engage customers with brands. The
of brand success. current study empirically demonstrates that CCEs staged at
This study provides empirical evidence from the hospitality restaurant brands significantly enhance direct and indirect
sector that demonstrates that the HE is the most compelling contributions made by consumers toward brand success in the
antecedent of CS, EBA and CBE. From a managerial form of buying, referrals, influencing and feedback. Brand
perspective, this finding suggests that customers prefer an managers can benefit from these findings by making co-
experience in which they encounter something challenging and creation as a key element of their services. The inclusion of co-
worthwhile, accompanied by an element of fun. Therefore, creation in hospitality services can convert a service into an
restaurant brand managers can benefit by integrating co- immersing experience. Because today’s customers do not want
creation into their usual services, which would stimulate the services instead, they want a complete experience that can offer
mental processes of customers and involve them in service co- hedonic, social and economic benefits. Chinese hotpot
creation, as most restaurant services do not require active restaurants blend all these benefits in the form of customer
participation from customers. Resultantly, the CCE participation in co-creation that will ultimately be reflected in
engendered from mentally stimulating and challenging tasks the perceived brand value of restaurants. Currently, restaurant
will fulfill the needs of customers for accomplishment, and hotel brands are facing intense competition that has
amusement and delight that ultimately will be reflected in their marginalized the differentiation among these brands.
engagement behaviors with brands. Restaurant brand managers may also follow the business model
Similarly, the SE positively influences the behavioral of the HaiDiLao restaurant of China to offer CCE to create
outcomes of customers, which suggests that brand managers differentiation and to achieve higher brand value in the form of
should offer co-creation platforms in which customers can meet customers’ engagement behaviors.
with like-minded people and use those platforms to build social
status and a sense of belonging. If co-creation tasks, such as Limitations of the study
Chinese hotpots, are designed in groups with high levels of The current study examined CCE at restaurants, which is an
connectivity, then the outcomes will be more positive than if integral part of the hospitality sector, but the CCE offered at
these experiences are not designed in this way. restaurants may differ from co-creation activities at travel
This study also finds that the EE is a significant predictor of service firms, beauty salons, training centers, online shopping
CS, EBA and CBE in the context of restaurant brands, and this platforms and the like. Considering the highly subjective nature
finding indicates that customers seek material value in return of CCE, the findings may not be generalizable to all services;
for investments they make in the form of time and money. thus, future research may study customer experience using
Therefore, the present study suggests that brand managers may other platforms. In addition, the current study could not find
focus on the material outcomes they offer to customers and that the significant impact of CoE on outcome variables for Chinese
hotpot diners. The same may not be true for non-Chinese Choi, H. and Kandampully, J. (2019), “The effect of
diners as Chinese hotpot is ingrained in Chinese culinary atmosphere on customer engagement in upscale hotels: an
culture and hotpot restaurants can be found in locations all application of S-O-R paradigm”, International Journal of
around the world. However, when Western and other non- Hospitality Management, Vol. 77, pp. 40-50.
Chinese consumers visit such restaurants, they can find Coelho, A., Bairrada, C. and Peres, F. (2019), “Brand
themselves at a loss as to what they do. For them, it is certainly communities’ relational outcomes, through brand love”,
not a routine dining occasion, and it does require a great deal of Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 28 No. 2,
cognitive input. Therefore, future research may also examine pp. 154-165.
the CCE of non-Chinese customers at hotpot restaurants to Dawes, J. (2008), “Do data characteristics change according to
enrich the findings. Although this study investigates the the number of scale points used? An experiment using 5-
relational and performance outcomes of CCE, incorporating all point, 7-point and 10-point scales”, International Journal of
expected outcomes into one model is impractical. Therefore, Market Research, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 61-77.
future research may examine other outcomes, such as Etgar, M. (2008), “A descriptive model of the consumer co-
consumer well-being, customer value and loyalty. In addition, production process”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
the present study examines only high-involvement CCE; Science, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 97-108.
hence, future studies may investigate the moderating role of Fernandes, T. and Moreira, M. (2019), “Consumer brand
customer involvement using other levels of customer engagement, satisfaction and brand loyalty: a comparative
involvement in co-creation. In the context of hospitality and study between functional and emotional Brand
restaurant services, it would be interesting to test the outcomes relationships”, Journal of Product & Brand Management,
of CCE according to low and high brand value restaurants. Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 274-286.
Similarly, respondent-specific characteristics, such as novel and Finsterwalder, J. (2018), “A 360-degree view of actor
expert diners and tourists and non-tourists, may moderate the engagement in service co-creation”, Journal of Retailing and
effects of CCE on engagement behaviors. Consumer Services, Vol. 40, pp. 276-278.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural
equation models with unobservable variables and
References measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18
Akaka, M.A., Vargo, S.L. and Schau, H.J. (2015), “The No. 1, p. 39.
context of experience”, Journal of Service Management, Füller, J. (2010), “Refining virtual co-creation from a
Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 206-223. consumer perspective”, California Management Review,
Arnould, E.J. and Thompson, C.J. (2005), “Consumer culture Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 98-122.
theory (CCT): twenty years of research”, Journal of Consumer Grisaffe, D.B. and Nguyen, H.P. (2011), “Antecedents of
Research, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 868-882. emotional attachment to brands”, Journal of Business
Brodie, R.J., Ilic, A., Juric, B. and Hollebeek, L. (2013), Research, Vol. 64 No. 10, pp. 1052-1059.
“Consumer engagement in a virtual Brand community: an Grönroos, C. (2011), “Value co-creation in service logic: a
exploratory analysis”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 critical analysis”, Marketing Theory, Vol. 11 No. 3,
No. 1, pp. 105-114. pp. 279-301.
Buhalis, D. and Sinarta, Y. (2019), “Real-time co-creation and Grönroos, C. and Voima, P. (2013), “Critical service logic:
ewness service: lessons from tourism and hospitality”, making sense of value creation and co-creation”, Journal of
Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 36 No. 5, the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 133-150.
pp. 563-582. Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B. and Anderson, R. (2010),
Carù, A. and Cova, B. (2015), “Co-creating the collective Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective, 7th ed.,
service experience”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 26 Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River.
No. 2, pp. 276-294. Hair, J.F., Gabriel, M. and Patel, V. (2014), “AMOS
Centeno, E., Cambra-Fierro, J., Vazquez-Carrasco, R., Hart, covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM):
S.J. and Dinnie, K. (2019), “The interplay between SME guidelines on its application as a marketing research tool”,
owner-managers and the brand-as-a-person”, Journal of Brazilian Journal of Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 2.
Product & Brand Management, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 555-572. Helkkula, A. (2011), “Characterising the concept of service
Chathoth, P.K., Ungson, G.R., Harrington, R.J. and Chan, E. experience”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 22 No. 3,
S.W. (2016), “Co-creation and higher order customer pp. 367-389.
engagement in hospitality and tourism services: a critical Hepola, J., Karjaluoto, H. and Hintikka, A. (2017), “The effect
review”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality of sensory Brand experience and involvement on brand
Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 222-245. equity directly and indirectly through consumer brand
Chathoth, P., Altinay, L., Harrington, R.J., Okumus, F. and engagement”, Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Chan, E.S.W. (2013), “Co-production versus co-creation: a Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 282-293.
process based continuum in the hotel service context”, Hollebeek, L.D., Conduit, J. and Brodie, R.J. (2016),
International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 32 “Strategic drivers, anticipated and unanticipated outcomes
No. 1, pp. 11-20. of customer engagement”, Journal of Marketing Management,
Chen, Z. (2018), “A pilot study of the co-creation experience in Routledge, Vol. 32 Nos 5/6, pp. 393-398.
traditional cantonese teahouses in Hong Kong”, Journal of Hollebeek, L.D., Srivastava, R.K. and Chen, T. (2019), “S-D
Heritage Tourism, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 506-527. logic–informed customer engagement: integrative
framework, revised fundamental propositions, and Kumar, J. and Nayak, J.K. (2019), “Brand engagement
application to CRM”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing without Brand ownership: a case of non-Brand owner
Science, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 161-185. community members”, Journal of Product & Brand
Hussain, K. and Waheed, A. (2016), “Building green brand Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 216-230.
relations: the role of green brand image as significant driver”, Kumar, V., Rajan, B., Gupta, S. and Pozza, I.D. (2019),
International Journal of Environment, Workplace and “Customer engagement in service”, Journal of the Academy of
Employment, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 116-138. Marketing Science, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 138-160.
Hussain, K., Jing, F. and Parveen, K. (2018), “How do Loureiro, S.M.C., Bilro, R.G. and Japutra, A. (2019), “The
foreigners perceive? exploring foreign diners’ satisfaction effect of consumer-generated media stimuli on emotions and
with service quality of chinese restaurants”, Asia consumer Brand engagement”, Journal of Product & Brand
Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 23 No. 6, Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 387-408.
pp. 613-625. Luo, J., Wong, I.K.A., King, B., Liu, M.T. and Huang, G.Q.
Hussain, K., Jing, F., Junaid, M., Shi, H. and Baig, U. (2020), (2019), “Co-creation and co-destruction of service quality
“The buyer–seller relationship: a literature synthesis on through customer-to-customer interactions: why prior
dynamic perspectives”, Journal of Business & Industrial experience matters”, International Journal of Contemporary
Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 669-684. Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 1309-1329.
Hussain, K., Jing, F., Junaid, M., Bukhari, F.A.S. and Shi, H. MacKinnon, D. (2012), Introduction to Statistical Mediation
(2019), “The dynamic outcomes of service quality: a Analysis, Taylor & Francis, New York, NY.
longitudinal investigation”, Journal of Service Theory and Mathis, E.F., Kim, H.L., Uysal, M., Sirgy, J.M. and
Practice, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 513-536. Prebensen, N.K. (2016), “The effect of co-creation
Im, J. and Qu, H. (2017), “Drivers and resources of customer experience on outcome variable”, Annals of Tourism Research,
co-creation: a scenario-based case in the restaurant Vol. 57, pp. 62-75.
industry”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Mattila, A.S. (2003), “The impact of cognitive inertia on
postconsumption evaluation processes”, Journal of the
Vol. 64, pp. 31-40.
Jaakkola, E. and Alexander, M. (2014), “The role of customer Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 287-299.
Matute, J., Palau-Saumell, R. and Occhiocupo, N. (2019),
engagement behavior in value Co-Creation: a service system
“Understanding customer Brand engagement in user-
perspective”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 17 No. 3,
initiated online brand communities: antecedents and
pp. 247-261.
consequences”, Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Jaakkola, E., Helkkula, A. and Aarikka-Stenroos, L. (2015),
available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-04-2019-2329
“Service experience co-creation: conceptualization,
Meng, B. and Cui, M. (2020), “The role of co-creation
implications, and future research directions”, Journal of
experience in forming tourists’ revisit intention to home-
Service Management, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 182-205.
based accommodation: extending the theory of planned
Jain, R., Aagja, J. and Bagdare, S. (2017), “Customer
behavior”, Tourism Management Perspectives, Vol. 33,
experience–a review and research agenda”, Journal of Service
pp. 100581.
Theory and Practice, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 642-662.
Nambisan, S. and Baron, R.A. (2009), “Virtual customer
Jang, Y.J., Kim, W.G. and Lee, H.Y. (2015), “Coffee shop
environments: testing a model of voluntary participation in
consumers’ emotional attachment and loyalty to green value co-creation activities”, Journal of Product Innovation
stores: the moderating role of green consciousness”, Management, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 388-406.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 44, Nauman, S., Malik, S.Z. and Jalil, F. (2019), “How workplace
pp. 146-156. bullying jeopardizes employees’ life satisfaction: the roles of
Junaid, M., Hussain, K., Basit, A. and Hou, F. (2020), job anxiety and insomnia”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 10,
“Nature of brand love: examining its variable effect on pp. 2292.
engagement and well-being”, Journal of Brand Management, Neuhofer, B., Buhalis, D. and Ladkin, A. (2015), “Smart
Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 284-299. technologies for personalized experiences: a case study in the
Kennedy, E. and Guzman, F. (2020), “No matter what you do, hospitality domain”, Electronic Markets, Vol. 25 No. 3,
I still love you: an examination of consumer reaction to pp. 243-254.
Brand transgressions”, Journal of Product & Brand Oh, H. and Kim, K. (2017), “Customer satisfaction, service
Management, available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-07- quality, and customer value: years 2000-2015”, International
2019-2450 Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 29
Khan, I. and Rahman, Z. (2017), “Brand experience and No. 1, pp. 2-29.
emotional attachment in services: the moderating role of Pansari, A. and Kumar, V. (2017), “Customer engagement:
gender”, Service Science, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 50-61. the construct, antecedents, and consequences”, Journal of the
Kohler, T., Fueller, J., Matzler, K. and Stieger, D. (2011), Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 294-311.
“CO-creation in virtual worlds: the design of the user Pine, B.J. and Gilmore, J.H. (1998), “Welcome to the
experience”, MIS Quarterly: Management Information experience economy”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 76
Systems, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 773-788. No. 4, pp. 97-105.
Kumar, V. and Pansari, A. (2016), “Competitive advantage Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.
through engagement”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 53 P. (2003), “Common method biases in behavioral research:
No. 4, pp. 497-514. a critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2008), “Service-dominant logic:
pp. 879-903. continuing the evolution”, Journal of the Academy of
Prahalad, C.K. and Ramaswamy, V. (2004), “Co-creation Marketing Science, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 1-10.
experiences: the next practice in value creation”, Journal of Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2010), “From repeat patronage
Interactive Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 5-14. to value co-creation in service ecosystems: a transcending
Rihova, I., Buhalis, D., Gouthro, M.B. and Moital, M. (2018), conceptualization of relationship”, Journal of Business Market
“Customer-to-customer co-creation practices in tourism: Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 169-179.
lessons from Customer-Dominant logic”, Tourism Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2017), “Service-dominant logic
Management, Elsevier, Vol. 67, pp. 362-375. 2025”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 34
Rihova, I., Buhalis, D., Moital, M. and Gouthro, M. (2015), No. 1, pp. 46-67.
“Conceptualising customer-to-customer value co-creation in Veloutsou, C. and Guzman, F. (2017), “The evolution of
tourism”, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 17 Brand management thinking over the last 25 years as
No. 4, pp. 356-363. recorded in the journal of product and Brand management”,
Rihova, I., Moital, M., Buhalis, D. and Gouthro, M.B. (2019), Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 26 No. 1,
“Practice-based segmentation: taxonomy of C2C co- pp. 2-12.
creation practice segments”, International Journal of Verhoef, P.C., Lemon, K.N., Parasuraman, A., Roggeveen, A.,
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 9, Tsiros, M. and Schlesinger, L.A. (2009), “Customer
pp. 3799-3818. experience creation: determinants, dynamics and
Simi, D. and Matusitz, J. (2017), “Glocalization of subway in management strategies”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 85 No. 1,
pp. 31-41.
India: how a US giant has adapted in the asian
Verleye, K. (2015), “The co-creation experience from the
subcontinent”, Journal of Asian and African Studies, Vol. 52
customer perspective: its measurement and
No. 5, pp. 573-585.
determinants”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 26
Simon, F. and Tossan, V. (2018), “Does brand-consumer
No. 2, pp. 321-342.
social sharing matter? A relational framework of customer
Vlachos, P.A. (2012), “Corporate social performance and
engagement to brand-hosted social media”, Journal of
consumer-retailer emotional attachment: the moderating
Business Research, Vol. 85, pp. 175-184.
role of individual traits”, European Journal of Marketing,
Sorenson, S. and Adkins, A. (2014), “Why customer engagement
Vol. 46 Nos 11/12, pp. 1559-1580.
matters so much now”, Gallup, Inc, pp. 1-9, available at: https://
Vlachos, P.A., Theotokis, A., Pramatari, K. and Vrechopoulos,
news.gallup.com/businessjournal/172637 A. (2010), “Consumer-retailer emotional attachment: some
Stokburger-Sauer, N.E., Scholl-Grissemann, U., Teichmann, antecedents and the moderating role of attachment anxiety”,
K. and Wetzels, M. (2016), “Value cocreation at its peak: the European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 44 Nos 9/10,
asymmetric relationship between coproduction and loyalty”, pp. 1478-1499.
Journal of Service Management, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 563-590. Voss, G.B., Godfrey, A. and Seiders, K. (2010), “How
Su, L.J. and Hsu, M.K. (2013), “Service fairness, consumption complementarity and substitution alter the customer
emotions, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions: the satisfaction-repurchase link”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 74
experience of chinese heritage tourists”, Journal of Travel & No. 6, pp. 111-127.
Tourism Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 8, pp. 786-805. Wong, J.W.C. and Lai, I.K.W. (2018), “Evaluating value co-
Thomson, M., MacInnis, D.J. and Park, C.W. (2005), “The creation activities in exhibitions: an impact-asymmetry
ties that bind: measuring the strength of consumers’ analysis”, International Journal of Hospitality Management,
emotional attachments to brands”, Journal of Consumer Vol. 72, pp. 118-131.
Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 77-91. Zhang, C.X., Fong, L.H.N. and Li, S.N. (2019), “Co-creation
Torres, J.L.S., Rawal, M. and Bagherzadeh, R. (2020), “Role experience and place attachment: festival evaluation”,
of Brand attachment in customers’ evaluation of service International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 81,
failure”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, available pp. 193-204.
at: https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-03-2019-2293 Zhang, T.C., Jahromi, M.F. and Kizildag, M. (2018), “Value
Tu, Y.J., Neuhofer, B. and Viglia, G. (2018), “When co- co-creation in a sharing economy: the end of price wars?”,
creation pays: stimulating engagement to increase revenues”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 71,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, pp. 51-58.
Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 2093-2111. Zhang, H., Lu, Y., Wang, B. and Wu, S. (2015), “The impacts
van Doorn, J., Lemon, K.N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., of technological environments and co-creation experiences
Pirner, P. and Verhoef, P.C. (2010), “Customer engagement on customer participation”, Information & Management,
behavior: theoretical foundations and research directions”, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 468-482.
Journal of Service Research, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 253-266.
van de Vijver, F.J.R. and Leung, K. (1997), Methods and Data
Analysis of Comparative Research, Allyn & Bacon, Needham
Further reading
Heights, MA. Junaid, M., Hou, F., Hussain, K. and Kirmani, A.A. (2019),
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004), “Evolving to a new “Brand love: the emotional bridge between experience and
dominant logic for marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68 engagement, generation-M perspective”, Journal of Product
No. 1, pp. 1-17. & Brand Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 200-215.
About the authors the corresponding author and can be contacted at: fjjing@
ecust.edu.cn
Dr Khalid Hussain has received PhD in marketing from the
School of Business, East China University of Science and Muhammad Junaid is a PhD scholar studying marketing at
Technology, Shanghai, China. Currently, he is serving as a School of Management and Economics, Beijing Institute of
Lecturer at a leading public sector university in Pakistan. His Technology, Beijing, China. His main areas of research interest
main areas of research interest include relationship marketing, include relationship marketing, brand love, services marketing,
services marketing, service management, hospitality and tourism marketing and consumer behavior. He has published
tourism management, service quality and consumer behavior. couple of research articles in peer-reviewed international journals
He has published a number of research articles in peer- including Journal of Product and Brand Management, Journal of
reviewed international journals including Journal of Business Brand Management, Journal of Service Theory and Practice and
and Industrial Marketing, Journal of Product and Brand International Journal of Market Research.
Management, Journal of Brand Management, Journal of Service Dr Qamar Uz Zaman is currently serving as Incharge of
Theory and Practice, International Journal of Market Research Department of Management Sciences, COMSATS University
and Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research. Islamabad, Sahiwal Campus. He completed his PhD in
Prof. Fengjie Jing (Corresponding author) is the Professor Management Sciences from COMSATS University
and Head of Marketing Department, School of Business, East Islamabad, Lahore Campus. His major areas of research are
China University of Science and Technology, China. He is a management and marketing. He has published a number of
seasoned researcher with a number of research publications. research papers in well-ranked academic journals.
His research appeared in well-reputed journals including Dr Huayu Shi is a PhD scholar studying marketing at School
Journal of Business Research, Journal of Services Marketing, of Business, East China University of Science and
International Journal of Consumer Studies and Journal of Technology, China. Her main areas of research interest
Consumer Behavior. His research portfolio consists of include consumer behavior, relationship marketing and
consumer behavior, consumer psychology, services marketing, services marketing. She has published a couple of research
service management, relationship marketing, hospitality and articles in peer-reviewed international journals including
tourism management and brand management. Fengjie Jing is International Journal of Consumer Studies.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

The Role of Co-Creation Experience in Engaging Customers With Service Brands

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Role of Co-Creation Experience in Engaging Customers With Service Brands

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Role of Co-Creation Experience in Engaging Customers With Service Brands

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The role of co-creation experience in engaging

customers with service brands

Introduction and satisfying relationship with customers by introducing co-

Received 28 August 2019

Figure 1 Theoretical model: outcomes of customer’s co-creation experience

Notes: 1. Theoretical model; outcomes of customer’s co-creation experience. 2. Structural model;

Table 1 Conﬁrmatory factor analysis

Table 2 Squared inter-scale correlations and average variance extracted

Figure 2 Structural model

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.