Journal of Promotion Management

ISSN: 1049-6491 (Print) 1540-7594 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjpm20

Customer Participation, e-Service Quality,

Satisfaction: (e)Service Dominant Logic Trinity

Thomas Fotiadis

To cite this article: Thomas Fotiadis (2019) Customer Participation, e-Service Quality,
Satisfaction: (e)Service Dominant Logic Trinity, Journal of Promotion Management, 25:3, 394-418,
DOI: 10.1080/10496491.2019.1557818

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2019.1557818

Published online: 23 Apr 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wjpm20
JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT
2019, VOL. 25, NO. 3, 394–418
https://doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2019.1557818

Customer Participation, e-Service Quality, Satisfaction:

(e)Service Dominant Logic Trinity
Thomas Fotiadis
Department of Production and Management Engineering, Democritus University of Thrace,
Xanthi, Greece

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
This study aims to assess the effects of customer participation Customer participation
behavior on perceived e-service quality and satisfaction in behavior; e-service quality;
Greek e-shops, by analyzing data collected by 335 Greek information seeking;
information sharing;
customers, employing Explanatory and Confirmatory Factor responsible behavior
Analysis (SEM) of the ADF method. The research explores and
expands existing literature, focusing on self-service technolo-
gies and specifically on e-shopping, while customer participa-
tion is considered a multi-dimensional construct. The results
reveal that one dimension of customer participation behavior
(responsible behavior) positively affects perceived service qual-
ity, as well as customer satisfaction, while information seeking
affects only e-service quality, whereas the two dependent
variables are not affected by information sharing.

Introduction
Customer participation behavior in the production and distribution of a
service, namely the required behavior that customers must show to attain
value co-creation (Tat Keh & Wei Teo, 2001) has attracted scholarly atten-
tion in recent decades (Dong, Sivakumar, Evans, & Zou, 2015). This notion
expresses ‘the degree to which the customer is involved in producing and
delivering the service’ (Dabholkar 1990, p. 484).
Several attempts to study customer involvement have been attempted in
the literature: Han & Kim (2017) related customers’ perceptions of risk,
with their trust on the provider and their purchase intention. Quintal &
Phau (2014) associated customers’ perceived quality, with the perceived
risk. Shirkhodaee & Rezaee (2014) also colligated perceived risk and its
effect on creative advertising, and purchase intention. Rosenkrans (2010)
highlighted the importance of customer involvement and interaction.
Podnar & Javernik (2012) made an effort to link ‘word-of-mouth’ as a
‘powerful marketing communication medium’ and a ‘credible information
gathering tool’ (Patti & Chen, 2009) – with the probability to make a

CONTACT Thomas Fotiadis dr.fotiadis.thomas@gmail.com Department of Production and Management

Engineering, Democritus University of Thrace, V. Sofias 12, Xanthi 67100, Greece.
ß 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
 JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 395

purchase, on the side of the customers’. Shirai (2015) associated perception

of quality relative to price, as used in advertising, and its effects on con-
sumer evaluations while consumer trade-offs between price and perceived
quality have also been discussed by N. Kim, Lee, & Kim .
Customer participation, via the provision of relevant informing, is
deemed mandatory for most services, to effectively integrate the production
of the service (Kelley, Donnelly, & Skinner, 1990; Martin & Pranter, 1989).
Customers, therefore, become ‘partial employees’ of the enterprise. By
virtue of this conduct, what customers express is their actual desire to
improve the quality of the services being rendered to them (Bitner,
Faranda, Hubbert, & Zeithaml, 1997). Organizations cannot reward their
‘partial employees’ by means of the classic methods used to recompense
their employees (Kelley et al., 1990), rendering the high levels of perceived
service quality and satisfaction as their ultimate reward. Bendapudi and
Leone (2003) noted, however, that in case of failure customers usually
renounce all responsibility, which they exclusively attribute to the organiza-
tion (self-serving bias).
Customer participation has been associated in the literature with the
quality of the service provided to customers, as well as customer satisfac-
tion (Dong et al., 2015; Kelley, Skinner, & Donnelly, 1992; Yang, Huang, &
Chen, 2017). Vargo & Lusch (2004) revealed a connection between
customer participation behavior and quality of service, whereas it has been
depicted that this way customers can affect the qualitative and quantitative
characteristics of the service and ultimately, their own satisfaction (Bitner
et al., 1997). Customers are rendered human resources in service-based
organizations, be it a case where self-service technologies fully replace the
traditional employee or where they function as strategic partners of the
enterprise, offering important information for the production of the service
(Halbesleben & Buckley, 2004).
Despite the fact that prior studies have extensively probed the effects of
customer participation on perceived service quality and satisfaction in vari-
ous contexts (Auh, Bell, McLeod, & Shih, 2007; Cermak, File, & Prince,
2011; Chan, Yim, & Lam, 2010; Claycomb, Lengnick-Hall, & Inks, 2001;
Ennew &Binks, 1999; Kelley et al., 1992; Rebecca Yen, Gwinner, & Su,
2004; Yim, Chan, & Lam, 2012), there are but a handful of studies focused
on the field of self-service technologies (Chen, Wang, & Jiang, 2016; Dong,
Evans, & Zou, 2008; Turner & Shockley, 2014) and none on e-shops.
This article addresses this particular research gap. Most research in the
field of e-shopping has focused on the effects of e-shopping attributes on
consumer acceptance of e-shopping (Ha & Stoel, 2009; Jayawardhena, 2004;
Shih, 2004), on e-quality (Gounaris, Dimitriadis, & Stathakopoulos, 2010)
and on e-satisfaction (Christodoulides & Michaelidou, 2010; Ha & Stoel,
396 T. FOTIADIS

2012). This research essentially extends the relevant literature by studying

the role of the participation of the e-shop’s customers themselves in the
co-creation of the service and the ultimate perceived e-quality and
e-satisfaction.
In addition, existing literature has measured customer participation by
either using one-dimensional constructs (Chan et al., 2010; Cermak et al.,
2011) or by manipulating customer participation in the context of experi-
mental surveys (Bendapudi & Leone, 2003; Claycomb et al., 2001). This
study draws further investigating customer participation by utilizing a
multi-dimensional construct developed by Yi & Gong (2013) aiming to
dwell deeper in the effects of individual dimensions of customer participa-
tion (i.e. information seeking, information sharing and responsible behav-
ior) on consumers’ perceptions.

Theoretical background
Marketing has transitioned to a service-dominant view, where elements
such as intangibility, exchange processes, relationships and competences
prevail (Vargo & Lusch, 2004). Customers nowadays assume the role of co-
creators, always involved with the production of value (Vargo & Lusch,
2008), which they determine and co-create with companies. This approach
is considered participatory and dynamic, so the service provided is continu-
ously improved via a repetitive learning process, where both companies
and customers participate (Payne, Storbacka, & Frow, 2008), with the latter
constituting a necessary condition for the attainment of value co-creation
(Yi & Gong, 2013).
The research on customer participation has principally focused on busi-
nesses (mainly financial services) where customers are considered strategic
partners (Dong et al., 2015; Halbesleben & Buckley, 2004). Most of these
studies examined relationships between customer participation and per-
ceived quality and/or satisfaction, or even existing moderating effects that
affect such relationships (Cermak et al., 2011; Dong et al., 2015; Yang
et al., 2017; Yim et al., 2012), even in differentiated contexts.
Similar efforts have been made by Kellogg, Youngdahl, & Bowen (1997),
who uncovered a connection between customer participation and perceived
satisfaction – also illustrated by Chan et al. (2010) and Yim et al. (2012) –
the role of information exchange and the expectations that are shaped with
respect to the service, as well as the possible effects of the relationship that
the customer builds with the company. Chan et al. (2010), however, noted
that customer participation may potentially decrease employee satisfaction.
There have been few studies probing into the relationship between cus-
tomer participation behavior and perceived service quality and satisfaction
 JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 397

by product offerings of self-service technologies, which allow businesses to

cut operating costs and thus reduce the final cost of the rendered service,
while offering such businesses the ability to serve their customers anywhere
and at all times (Chen et al., 2017). Customers save on time, effort and
money, since via self-service technologies they can develop more effective
and faster interactions with service-providers (Meuter, Ostrom, Roundtree,
& Bitner, 2000). Self-service technologies require a high level of customer/
user activity and low provider activity (W€ underlich, Wangenheim, &
Bitner, 2013), which considerably increases the importance of the custom-
ers’ role in attaining value co-creation.
Dabholkar (1990) developed two models that illustrate how customers
assess and evaluate self-service technologies. The first follows an attribute
approach, whereas the second model adopts an overall affect approach. To
the best of the authors’ knowledge, customer participation has not been sur-
veyed as an independent variable, neither has perceived service quality been
studied as a dependent one in a self-service technologies’ context. With
respect to perceived satisfaction, Dong et al. (2008) have revealed similar con-
nection regarding customer participation in service recovery. Chen et al.
(2017) observed that the same relationships hold true in an on-line context.
Past research has studied customer participation in the context of experi-
mental surveys or by using one-dimensional constructs. This study expands
on the existing relevant literature, by employing the multidimensional con-
struct by Yi & Gong (2013) for customer participation behavior. According to
this construct, customer value co-creation behavior comprises of two dimen-
sions: customer participation behavior and customer citizenship behavior.
This study focuses on customer participation behavior as this is what usu-
ally manifests in the context of the interaction of customers with an e-shop.
Customers participate in the value creation process by searching for relevant
information to understand the role that they must play in the context of the
co-creation of value, but also by providing important information to the ser-
vice-provider, so as to successfully complete value co-creation. In addition,
it is important for them to show responsible behavior, understanding their
important roles, as partial employees, in the process of the production of
the service and responding to the company’s requests and demands. Yi &
Gong (2013) also include personal interaction in the individual dimensions
of customer participation, referring to the interpersonal relationships devel-
oped between the customers and the enterprise, which are deemed import-
ant for value co-creation. This research focuses on customer technical
quality (Kelley et al., 1990; Yi & Gong, 2013), namely what the customers
contribute to the provision of the service as interaction with an e-shop is
usually standardized and does not facilitate the development of interper-
sonal relationships between customers and employees.
398 T. FOTIADIS

Research hypotheses
In order for customers to shape their demands with respect to a service
and to satisfy their need to be informed, they seek relevant information (Yi
& Gong, 2013), which constitutes a vital part of a consumers buying pro-
cess (Brassington & Pettitt, 1997). E-shopping is information intensive and
the exchange of information stands at the core of its philosophy (Rowley,
2000). Customers search, compare and access sufficient data via the inter-
net, to distinguish the best offering among the alternatives (Detlor, Sproule,
& Gupta, 2003; Rohm & Swaminathan, 2004) faster, thus accelerating the
overall decision-making process (Peterson & Merino, 2003). Wide use of
the internet has also led to hybrid shopping processes, in the sense that
customers frequently search for products in e-shops and then purchase
them in off-line stores, or vice versa (Cao, 2012).
Customers also collect information on how to perform their duties as
co-creators, what is expected by them, and in what manner. Just like
employees who are assigned a mission inside the business, actively partici-
pating customers, try to understand the nature of the service and their role
in the process of the co-creation of value (Kellogg et al., 1997). The basic
motive for customers who search for relevant information on a service is to
increase the quality of the service and decrease perceived uncertainty
(Fodness & Murray, 1997, 1999). In the e-shopping literature, it is frequent
that the capabilities offered by an e-shop for searching information to be
considered as key elements of its quality (Ha & Stoel, 2009). Hence, the
aforementioned hypothesis is advanced:
H1: Customer information seeking enhances perceived service quality.

Information seeking expresses the high involvement of customers with a

product or service (Zaichkowsky, 1985), this action relates to satisfaction,
either towards the product (Tsiotsou, 2006), or the enterprise (Morrison,
1993). In the e-shopping context, information seeking is positively related
to e-satisfaction (Christodoulides & Michaelidou, 2010). By seeking for
information, customers identify the benefits of the offered service/product,
explore and compare alternatives effectively, save time and thus feel more
satisfied with their final selection. Hence, the aforementioned hypothesis
is advanced:
H2: Customer information seeking enhances customer satisfaction.

In the context of the co-creation process, it is important for customers

to provide information to the service provider (Lengnick-Hall, 1996; Yi &
Gong, 2013) as necessary information might offer the company the ability
to satisfy their particular needs (Ennew & Binks, 1999). Utilization of such
information can increase responsiveness to customer requests and the
 JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 399

overall quality of the service (Fawcett, Osterhaus, Magnan, Brau, &

McCarter, 2007). Information may be necessary either for the provision of
the service or for the further improvement thereof (Ennew & Binks, 1999).
Customers more open to sharing information are more prone to expecting
better and more expedient service as the service provider gathers more data
on their needs and expectations (Ennew & Binks, 1999). Hence, the afore-
mentioned hypothesis is advanced:
H3: Customer information sharing enhances perceived service quality.

The sharing of information directed to the supplier/seller of the product

or service by the customer can indicate the level and quality of the relation-
ship between them (G€ ok, 2009). Accurate information sharing demon-
strates high level of customers’ trust towards the e-shop (Harrison
McKnight & Chervany, 2001). Both these elements are directly connected
with the customer’s satisfaction from the offered service (Jin, Yong Park, &
Kim, 2008). Hence, the aforementioned hypothesis is advanced:
H4: Customer information sharing enhances customer satisfaction.

Information exchange is a concept intertwined with the notion of the

internet (Rowley, 2000), but the responsible behavior of its users is still a
desideratum (Selwyn, 2008). Consumer behavior ‘hides’ a series of misbe-
haviors with significant impact on the operating costs of on-line and
off-line stores (Fullerton & Punj, 2004; Selwyn, 2008). They are directed
against marketer employees, marketer’s merchandise, other consumers, the
financial assets or the physical or electronic premises of marketers
(Fullerton & Punj, 2004). Customer behavior that is divergent and not
anticipated leads to unsatisfactory service encounters and low levels of per-
ceived service quality and satisfaction for customers and service employees
alike (Bitner, Booms, & Mohr, 1994; Harris & Ogbonna, 2006, 2009;
Lovelock & Wirtz, 2007).
Information exchange must ensure the validity and accuracy of such
information being exchanged. Such responsible behavior is manifested
when customers recognize their duties and responsibilities as co-creators of
value (Ennew & Binks, 1999), and, therefore, may act as partial employees
while employees act as partial customers (Bowen & Schneider, 1988).
Customers are expected to be collaborative with the e-shop and company
employees, abiding by the rules, instructions and recommendations the
latter provide (Bettencourt, 1997). Responsible and participatory behavior
of customers is expected to lead to better perceived quality for the service
and higher satisfaction. The following hypotheses are advanced:
H5: Customer responsible behavior increases perceived service quality.
H6: Customer responsible behavior increases customer satisfaction.
400 T. FOTIADIS

Methodology
The empirical setting
To check these hypotheses, the services offered by e-shops in Greece were
examined and assessed. Greece, a member state of the EU and the
Monetary Union, witnessed fast growth from 2000 until 2007
(International Monetary Fund, 2017). During a period of serious and long
economic crisis in the country, which lost more than 25% of its GDP
(Guardian, 2017), the e-commerce/e-shopping sector is one of the few that
flourished, attaining an average annual increase in turnover amounting to
3.1% for the 3 years (2013–2016; Stochasis Consulting, 2016). The
economic environment of the country and the rapid development of
e-shopping designate Greece as an appropriate setting to carry out such
research, given that the vast majority of the previous studies was realized
in developed and economically prosperous nations.

Sample and data collection

A survey using a structured questionnaire was carried out, on a sample of
335 adult customers of 125 Greek e-shops, with the demographic character-
istics summarized in element A1 (Appendix A). These were conventionally
approached by the Marketing Laboratory of a major public University in
Northern Greece. Two undergraduate students from the Production &
Management Department acted as the interviewers, having undergone
training in their duties. The questionnaire was originally developed in
English and then translated to Greek using the translation and back trans-
lation procedure, whereas tutors of English who speak fluent Greek were
assigned with the translation task.

Measures
Customer participation behavior was measured using Yi & Gong’s (2013)
multidimensional and hierarchical scale, consisting of 11 items, rated on a
seven-point Likert format, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly
agree). Yi & Gong (2013) describe customer participation behavior as com-
posed of three dimensions, namely information seeking, information shar-
ing and responsible behavior. This scale is a validated instrument that has
been used in various studies and in a variety of settings (Navarro, Andreu,
& Cervera, 2014; Navarro, Llinares, & Garzon, 2016; Vega-Vazquez,
Revilla-Camacho, & Cossıo-Silva, 2013).
E-service quality was measured using a scale developed expressly for this
purpose by Lee & Lin (2005), consisting of a one-item scale to measure over-
all service quality, and a one-item scale to measure customer satisfaction.
 JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 401

Both measures were self-assessments and used a seven-point Likert response

format. Over the past 10 years, the scale has attained high recognition among
marketing researchers (Ladhari, 2010; Park & Gretzel, 2007).

Reliability and validity test

This article attempts to measure the effect of information seeking, informa-
tion sharing and responsible behavior on perceived quality and satisfaction.
Principal component analysis with Varimax Rotation produces the dimen-
sion of these variables. The calculations of principal component analysis
were based on variance–covariance matrix as the research variances took
prices from the same measurement scale, and more specifically the Likert
seven-rank scale (Anastasiadou, 2013, 2014). The method that was employed
to treat missing variables was the Listwise method, which excludes from the
analysis any case which will reveal a cell, on one or more variables, of the
same observed unit, without value, i.e. without information.
To determine if the sub-scales are suitable for factor analysis, two statis-
tical tests were used. These are the Bartlet Test of Sphericity, examining if
the sub-scales of the scale are inter-independent, and the Kaiser–Meyer–
Olkin (KMO) Measure of Sampling Adequacy criterion (Kaiser, 1974),
which examines sampling adequacy. The main method of extracting factors
is the analysis on main components with right-angled rotation of varimax
type (Right-angled Rotation of Maximum Fluctuation), so that the variance
between variable loads be maximized, on a specific factor, having as a final
result little loads become less and big loads become bigger (Anastasiadou,
2014), and finally, those with in between values are minimized (Hair,
Black, Badin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2005).
This means that the factors (components) that were extracted are linearly
irrelevant. The criterion of eigenvalue or characteristic root (Eigenvalue)
>1 was used for defining the number of the factors that were kept (Hair,
Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1995; Kaiser, 1960, Sharma, 1996). Essentially,
the eigenvalue is the sum of the squares of variable loads on each factor.
Actually, it is a measurement of fluctuation quantity that is relevant to the
factor. Model acceptance was based on two criteria: (a) in order for each
variable to be included in the variable cluster of a factor, it must load to it
>.50 and (b) it must load <.40 to the rest of the factors (Schene, van
Wijngaarden, & Koeter, 1998).
In addition, each factor must have more than two variables. In addition,
it was considered, on the basis of common variable Communalities (h2),
that the variables with high Communality (h2) imply great contribution to
the factorial model (Dafermos, 2009). The evaluation of questionnaire
reliability–internal consistency is possible by Cronbach’s index alpha (a)
402 T. FOTIADIS

(Cronbach, 1984), which is considered the most important reliability index

and is based on the number of the variables/items of the questionnaire
(Anastasiadou, 2011; Anastasiadou & Anastasiadis, 2011), as well as on the
correlations between the variables (Nunnally, 1978).
To investigate the structure of the factors measured with the question-
naire, a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was carried out and a model
was developed indicating the relationship between the various factors –
particularly the relationship between the observed variable and the factors.
The aim of this analysis was to reveal if the questionnaire is actually valid
and suitable for the measurement of the variables it investigates, which
happens to be the case if the existence of variation is justified in its state-
ments (Anastasiadou, 2006).
To test the model, the goodness-of-fit of the research model was esti-
mated. The criteria to accept a model is the comparative fit index (CFI)
which is not dependent on the size of the sample and takes values from 0
to 1 (Bentler, 1993; J€oreskog & S€orbom,1996) which must, by convention,
be CFI ¼ .9, the index v /df (v /df ¼ chi square to its degrees of freedom
2 2

ratio) which must be v2/df < 2. As the ratio v2/df depends on the size of
the sample the ratio NNFI (Non-Normed Fit Index) is used, which is inde-
pendent of the size of the sample (Bentler, 1993) and it must (by conven-
tion) be NNFI > .95. Goodness of Fit (GFI) is used which must be
GFIt > .8, AGFI (CFI) is used which must be AGFI > .8 and Normed Fit
Index (NFI) is used which must be NFI > .9. In addition, the indexes root
mean square residuals (RMSRs) are used which must (by convention) be
RMSR <.06 and the RMSEA (RMSEA ¼ root mean-square error of
approximation) which must be RMSEA < .06 (Anastasiadou, 2012a, 2012b).
For the purposes of the data analysis, adaptation to the regular distribu-
tions of all the variables that participated in the analysis (Multivariate
Normality) was checked.

Reliability and validity test reliability

The evaluation of the model includes an assessment of its reliability as it
was defined by Nunnally (1978), which measures the internal consistency
of factors. Internal consistency can be calculated with the use of the
Cronbach’s a coefficient (Cronbach, 1984) with acceptable values of >.7
and with the composite reliability of Fornell & Larcker (1981), which is a
measure of internal consistency of the structure indexes (Anastasiadou,
2012a,b). These represent the level of the latent structure and are based on
the correlations between the variables that compose the factor. The values
of the Cronbach’s a coefficient of >.6 are considered as acceptable and >.7
are considered as satisfactory (Nunnally, 1978; Spector, 1992). The
 JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 403

composite reliability should be >.7 to be satisfactory (Fornell & Larcker,

1981). The extracted variance is another measure of reliability that repre-
sents the total amount of structure’s variance which is owing to the vari-
ance of the determining variables.
The validity of the instrument (questionnaire) that was employed, was
assessed (Cohen, Montague, Nathanson, & Swerdlik, 1988). The semantic
structure of the instrument refers to: (a) the number and (b) the context of
its dimensions. The evaluation of the factorial structure/factorial reliability
of each instrument is carried out with the Explanatory Factor Analysis.
Explanatory Factor Analysis is one of the basic methods that is used
for the construction of measurement instruments (Theodorakis &
Xatzigeorgiadis, 2004). Its role lies on both the recognition of the structure
of the questionnaires (Anastasiadou, 2013, 2014) and the recognition of the
appropriate variables that characterized the structures (Kline, 1994).

Structural validity
Evaluation of the structural validity (Bagozzi & Kimmel, 1995) was carried
out, with the combined use of Explanatory Factor Analysis and CFA, which
is considered as the most composite, developed and effective method for
the particular aim (Kline, 1994; Theodorakis & Xatzigeorgiadis, 2004).
Convergent and discriminant validity are both considered subcategories
and subtypes of construct validity (Anastasiadou, 2013, 2014).

Test of convergent validity

Convergent validity is related to the level at which many different methods
of variable measurements lead to the same results (Churchill, 1979; Spector,
1992). Wixon & Watson (2001) state that convergent validity is acceptable
when the loadings of all the variables are >.50, whereas D. J. Kim, Ferrin,
& Rao (2008) support that the items of all the structures should load on
one factor with eigenvalue >1 in order for the convergent validity to be
acceptable. Chin (1998) suggests that convergent validity should be con-
trolled by the evaluation of the composite reliability with the cutoff of .70
and the variance extracted with the cutoff of .50 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

Test of discriminant validity

Discriminant validity refers to the hypothesis that dissimilar structures
should be different (Burns & Bush, 1995). Bagozzi and Yi (1990) described
it as the degree by which factors of a scale evaluate different issues. The
evaluation of discriminant validity takes place under the examination of the
404 T. FOTIADIS

correlations of the latent factors through the CFA, which has the advantage
of the examining factors being free from the measurement’s error.
An indication of discriminant validity exists when the coefficient of the
correlation between the factors is lesser than the Cronbach’s a coefficient of
each factor (Churchill, 1979). The discriminant validity can also be checked
by examining whether the correlations between the variables are less than
the root of the mean extracted variance (Kim et al., 2008). Fornell &
Larcker (1981) propose that the evaluation of discriminant validity was car-
ried out by means of examining the correlation between variables. Indeed,
discriminant validity exists when one variable is correlated to the other
variables of the same construct (Anastasiadou, 2014) at a higher extent
than to any other variable of a different construct (Chin, 1998).

Results
The results of principal component analysis: Both the KMO index, equal to
.855 and deemed very satisfactory as it exceeds the accepted value criterion
(.60), and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (v2 ¼ 1817.456, df ¼ 55, p < .001) have
shown that the application of Factor Analysis on the principal component is
permissible. Element B1 (Appendix B) presents the results of principal com-
ponents’ analysis for all of the statements on the Customer participation
behavior scale from which it follows that the criterion of the eigenvalue or
characteristic root (eigenvalue > 1) is verified for three components.
The first component, responsible behavior, relates to the degree by which
the interviewees responded to Customer participation behavior, and with
an eigenvalue of 3.508, interprets 38.894% of the total dispersion of the
data, a percentage considered satisfactory (Hair et al., 2005), and includes,
in order, statements RB3, RB2, RB4 and RB1 and indeed with very high
loads, .869, .866, .813 and .811 correspondingly. The eigenvalue or charac-
teristic root criterion (eigenvalue > 1) verifies that the four statements,
RB3, RB2, RB4 and RB1, represent the same conceptual construct. The val-
ues of the Common Variance (Communalities) for the statements RB3,
RB2, RB4 and RB1 assume the values .817, .792, .686 and .766, respectively,
and exceed the value criterion (.40), posed as the verification limit for the
satisfactory quality of the statements for factor responsible behavior.
The second factor, Information Sharing, refers to the degree by which
interviewees offer information with clarity in order for the e-shop to
respond to the query and provide its services in the best possible way,
while with an eigenvalue of 2.375, it interprets 21.588% of the total disper-
sion of data. The eigenvalue criterion (eigenvalue > 1) verifies that the
four statements (ISHA1, ISHA2, ISHA3 and ISHA4) represent the same
conceptual construct. The values of the Common Variance
 JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 405

(Communalities) of statements ISHA1, ISHA2, ISHA3 and ISHA4 assume

the values .744, .802, .770 and .441, respectively, and exceed the value
criterion (0.40), posed as the limit for the verification of the satisfactory
quality of statements for factor/construct Information Sharing. Included in
order under this factor, which interprets 21.588% of the total inertia, are
statements ISHA1, ISHA2, ISHA3 and ISHA4 and indeed with very high
loads, .845, .790, .757 and .757 correspondingly.
The third factor, Information Seeking, refers to the degree by which
interviewees have been informed with respect to the digital services offered
by the shop and its capabilities, while with an eigenvalue of 1.683, it inter-
prets 15.302% of the total dispersion of the data. The eigenvalue or charac-
teristic root criterion (eigenvalue > 1) verifies that the three statements,
INF3, INF1 and INF2, represent the same conceptual construct. The values
of Common Variance (Communalities) for statements INF3, INF1 and
INF2 take on values .622, .617 and .511, respectively, and exceed the value
criterion, .40, posed as the verification limit for the satisfactory quality of
the statements for factor Information Seeking. Included, in order, in this
factor, that interprets 15.302% of the total inertia, are statements INF3,
INF1 and INF2 and, indeed, with very high loadings, .784, .781 and .654,
respectively.
Furthermore, all of the factors’ loadings are large and significant, indicat-
ing convergent validity. Additionally, convergent validity is confirmed
owing to the fact that the loadings of all the variables are >.5 (Wixon &
Watson, 2001) and the items of all the structures load on one factor with
eigenvalue >1 (Kim et al., 2008). Based on the suggestion by Hair et al.
(1995), factor loadings >.5 are deemed as very significant and all of the
factor loadings for the items in the research model were >.65, with the
exception of ISHA4. Thus, all factors in the measurement model had
adequate convergent validity. The communalities were >.40, indicating the
quality of all items. The cumulative percentages of variance explained by
each factor were >68% (68.785%) for all constructs. Average Variance
Extracted (AVE) for Responsible Behavior, Information Sharing and
Information Seeking factors are equal to .706, .549 and .551 correspond-
ingly, indicating convergent validity.
Element B2 (Appendix B) presents factor loadings and reliability esti-
mates for each construct. Specifically, the composite reliability scores for
Responsible Behavior, Information Sharing and Information Seeking fac-
tors/constructs equal to .906, .826 and .785, respectively. Cronbach’s a is
equals to .801 for Customer Participation Behavior. Cronbach’s a is equals
to .901,.816 and .602 for Responsible Behavior, Information Sharing and
Information Seeking factors, respectively. The composite reliability scores
range from .785 to .906 and Cronbach’s a estimates range from to .602 to
406 T. FOTIADIS

.901, indicating the reasonable reliability and internal consistency of the

measures (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Nunnally, 1978). The average variances
extracted were all above the recommended .5 level (Hair et al., 1995),
which implies that more than one-half of the variances observed in the
items were accounted for by their hypothesized factors.

Normality test
Element B3 (Appendix B) summarizes the results from the tests for
multivariate normality: The Doornik–Hansen criterion for Multivariate
Kurtosis1, The Hansen–Zirkler criterion for Multivariate Skewness2, the
Mardia criterion for Multivariate Skewness3 and the Mardia criterion for
Multivariate Kurtosis4. It became clear that the normality hypothesis is
rejected with respect to all four statistical criteria, as p ¼ .000 < .05 – the
level of statistical normality has a very low value (Prob > v2 ¼ .000 < .05).
Owing to the fact that the normality hypothesis is rejected, the ADF
method was employed to analyze the results of the SEM model for
Customer Participation Behavior.

Analysis of the SEM model’s results for customer participation

behavior, using the ADF method
Assessment of the model
Confirmatory Factor Analysis was conducted to test the measurement
model. Seven common model-fit measures were employed to measure the
model’ overall fit. The v2, the ratio v2 to degrees of freedom df, RMSEA,
CFI, Tucker–Luis Index (TLI), RMSR and the Coefficient of determination
(CD). Element C1 (Appendix A) presents the adjustment indexes for the
model. All indexes show a good adjustment (fit). More specifically, for v2,
showing the model’s validity, the observed significance level equals to
p ¼ .06 > .05, fact meaning that adjustment is very good. The values for the
ratio v2/df (v2/df < 2), the RMSEA index (RMSEA ¼ .035 < .05), the CFI
index (CFI ¼ .957 > .95), the TLI index (TLI ¼ .956) and the SRMR index
(SRMR ¼ .029) supported good adjustment, whereas the CD index
(CD ¼ .959) verges on value 1, revealing excellent adjustment. Thus, the
measurement model fits the observed data.

Factor values, significance and prediction in the context of the

standardized solution
Useful conclusions on the significance z of variables can be extrapolated from
element C2 (Appendix C). Specifically, in ‘z’ – column of the significance of
each variable is presented, whereas ‘P>jzj”– column presents the level of its
 JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 407

significance. The significance of each variable is defined as the quotient of the

regressing factor of the variable with respect to standard error.
Coeffient Coef:
Consequently; z ¼ ¼ :
standarderror Std:Err:
The importance of the latent variable ‘Information Seeking’ is
z ¼ 2.73 > 2 (which corresponds to a significance level of p ¼ .007 < .05),
meaning that the latent variable ‘Information Seeking’ cannot but be
significant. The importance of the latent variable ‘Information Sharing’ is
z ¼ 14.52 > 2 (with a corresponding level of significance p ¼ .000 < .05).
Furthermore, the significance of the latent variable ‘Responsible
Behavior’ is z ¼ 15.15 > 2 with the corresponding level of significance being
p ¼ .000 < .05. The most important variable in the construct ‘Customer
Participation Behavior’ is the latent variable ‘Responsible Behavior’, imme-
diately followed by the latent variable ‘Information Sharing’ and then
‘Information Seeking’. With respect to the significance of the latent varia-
bles in construct Customer Participation Behavior the following is true:
zResponsible Behavior >zInformation Sharing >zInformation Seeking

The results of the Hypotheses Testing (presented in element C3 of the

Appendix C) revealed that H1, H5 and H6 were supported in contrast to
H2, H3 and H4.

Discussion
The prevailing service dominant logic ascribes high value to customer par-
ticipation in the co-create process for the production and distribution of a
service. This research expands the previous literature by studying the effects
of customer participation in a e-shopping service, its perceived service
quality and customer satisfaction. The findings demonstrate that one of the
three dimensions of customer participation, namely responsible behavior,
influences both dependent variables. On the contrary, information sharing
does not affect any of the two variables, whereas information seeking
affects only perceived quality.
The previous studies in the field of internet (and e-shopping) present
information exchange, in the form of information seeking and information
sharing, as a customer behavior completely interwoven with the nature of
the medium (Rowley, 2000). On the contrary, the sense of anonymity and
spatial distance offered by the internet shape the illusion to the customers
that they are not obliged to develop a responsible behavior with respect to
on-line retail stores (Selwyn, 2008). Thus, information seeking and infor-
mation sharing behavior appear to express lower levels of customer partici-
pation behavior in e-shopping, compared with the customer responsible
408 T. FOTIADIS

behavior which would demonstrate the active and engaged desire by cus-
tomers to contribute to the co-creation of value.
There are two schools of thought with respect to the effects of the degree
a customer participates in the process for the production and distribution
of a service on its perceived quality and satisfaction. Specifically, the first
stream of research considers that given the final quality of the service, cus-
tomers who participate in the co-creation process express higher levels of
satisfaction for themselves and less for the business, compared to those
who do not participate in the process, who would ascribe the positive out-
come completely to the company (Bendapudi & Leone, 2003). Based on
this approach, greater levels of customer participation lead also to small
perceived quality and satisfaction for the company and the system of ser-
vice (Rebecca Yen et al., 2004).
The second stream considers the relationship between customer partici-
pation and perceived quality and satisfaction to be positive and linear
(Cermak et al., 2011; Claycomb et al., 2001). Customer participation
expresses higher levels of customer commitment and a greater desire by
the customer to positively contribute to the co-creation process, so as to
experience a higher quality of services. This article is in accordance with
this second stream of research as it shows that higher levels of participation
(responsible behavior) in the co-creation of value process as correlated to a
higher degree with perceived quality and satisfaction than a lower level of
participation (information seeking and sharing).
The Pygmalion effect (Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968), which has also been
studied in the field of management, can explain this positive relationship
between customer behavior and perceived quality and satisfaction vis-a-vis
the company. Building upon this approach, it may be hypothesized that
customers with higher expectations from a service make a greater effort
(input) by means of their active participation in the co-creation of value
process, via their responsible participation in the information exchange
process. Thus, they reinforce the chances for the service provider to
respond to their demands in a more effective and efficient way. The simple
search and sharing of information does not appear to ensure the quality of
services for customers. On the contrary, their responsible behavior demon-
strates their clear and distinct effort to contribute towards the ultimate
quality of the service rendered.

Managerial implications
This study concludes by suggesting significant managerial implications,
which may help e-shop managers improve their customers’ perceptions on
service quality and their ultimate satisfaction. Designing an on-line store
 JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 409

that will facilitate information exchange between the users and the business
is a necessary but not sufficient factor for success.
The evolution of technology and relevant experience accumulated by
users has rendered them more demanding with respect to the features of
the e-shop they seek. Thus, e-tailers must work towards building a climate
of trust that will push customers towards assuming a responsible behavior
vis-a-vis the e-shop.
The previous research (Kelley et al., 1990, 1992) has established the term
organizational socialization, namely the efforts made by the company to
teach its customers the participatory role they are called to play, as partial
employees. This way customers may acquire knowledge, skills, dispositions
and motivations to effectively participate in the co-creation process. By
understanding the core values, the culture and the vision of the service-
provider, customers may potentially engage more with the business, the
production and distribution of its services, thus developing a more respon-
sible behavior.

Limitations and future research

This study appears to be consistent with corresponding survey method-
ology studies, whereas it is in discord with surveys realized by means of
experimental design. The research methodology employed is considered as
more realistic as interviewees had actually participated in the process for
the production and distribution of a e-shopping service. By conducting an
experiment using a scenario, however, the final outcome of the co-creation
of value process may be kept fixed, so as to facilitate a comparison between
different levels of customer participation. This approach would cast light
on different aspects of the relationship studied and will reinforce the know-
ledge of both academics and marketing professionals.
Pygmalion effect theory was employed to interpret and explain the rela-
tionship between customer participation behavior, on the one hand, and
perceived e-service quality and satisfaction, on the other hand. However,
the initial expectations of the participants were not measured and the sur-
vey was realized after they had participated in the process for the produc-
tion and distribution of the service. It would be important for future
surveys to expand these findings by measuring customer expectations,
customer participation and perceived e-service quality and satisfaction at
different times.
Perceived e-service quality and satisfaction were measured using unidi-
mensional constructs. This particular approach decreased the participants’
fatigue effect, allowing them to respond in less time and paying greater
attention to the questions in the survey. However, this methodology did
410 T. FOTIADIS

not take account of the individual dimensions of e-service quality and

satisfaction. Thus, further research is needed to investigate and assess
customer participation behavior with respect to the individual dimensions
of e-service quality and satisfaction.
Perceived e-service quality should also be investigated in the context of
B2B markets, following existing efforts in the literature, such as the work
of Min, Zhou, Kim, & Kim (2013). Relevant studies on the adoption of
mobile internet services could also prove insightful. Jiang’s (2009) results
showed that perceptions of quality could affect the intention to adopt such
a service, which, in turn, could affect actual mobile internet use.

References
Anastasiadou, S. D. (2006). Factorial validity evaluation of a measurement through
principal components analysis and implicative statistical analysis. Paper presented at 5th
Hellenic Conference of Pedagogy (pp. 341–348). Thessaloniki: Conference of Pedagogy
Company.
Anastasiadou, S. D. (2011). Reliability and validity testing of a new scale for measuring atti-
tudes toward learning statistics with technology. Acta Didactica Napocensia, 4(1), 1–10.
Anastasiadou, S. D. (2012a). Evaluating a structural equation model measuring lifelong
learning and continuing education factors. The International Journal of Knowledge,
Culture and Change Management, 12(3), 21–34.
Anastasiadou, S. D. (2012b). Structural equation modelling in the construction of a
structural model of the repercussions and consequences in the Greek society and econ-
omy of Balkan and Eastern Europe Countries immigrants’ entrance. International Review
of Applied Economic Research, 6(1–2), 19.
Anastasiadou, S. D. (2013). Developing and evaluating a structural equation model measur-
ing leadership changes in a lifelong learning world. The International Journal of
Educational Organization and Leadership, 19(2), 1–17.
Anastasiadou, S. D. (2014). A structural equation model describes factors affecting Greek
students’ consumer behavior. Procedia Economics and Finance, 9, 402–406.
Anastasiadou, S. D., & Anastasiadis, L. (2011). Reliability and validity testing of a new Scale
for measuring attitudes toward electronics and electrical constructions subject.
International Journal of Applied Science and Technology, 1(1), 1–10.
Auh, S., Bell, S. J., McLeod, C. S., & Shih, E. (2007). Co-production and customer loyalty
in financial services. Journal of Retailing, 83(3), 359–370.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1990). Assessing method variance in multitrait-multimethod [sic]
matrices: The case of self-reported affect and perceptions at work. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 75(5), 547–560.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Kimmel, S. K. (1995). A comparison of leading theories for the prediction
of goal-directed behaviors. British Journal of Social Psychology, 34(4), 437–461.
Bendapudi, N., & Leone, R. P. (2003). Psychological implications of customer participation
in co-production. Journal of Marketing, 67(1), 14–28.
Bentler, P. M. (1993). EQS: Structural equations program manual. Los Angeles, CA: BMDP
Statistical Software.
Bettencourt, L. A. (1997). Customer voluntary performance: Customers as partners in
service delivery. Journal of Retailing, 73(3), 383–406.
 JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 411

Bitner, M. J., Booms, B. H., & Mohr, L. A. (1994). Critical service encounters: The employ-
ee’s viewpoint. Journal of Marketing, 58(4), 95–106.
Bitner, M. J., Faranda, W. T., Hubbert, A. R., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1997). Customer contri-
butions and roles in service delivery. International Journal of Service Industry
Management, 8(3), 193–205.
Bowen, D. E., & Schneider, B. (1988). Services marketing and management-implications for
organizational-behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 43–80.
Brassington, F., & Pettitt, S. (1997). Principles of marketing. London, UK: Pitman
Publishing.
Burns, A. C., & Bush, R. F. (1995). Marketing research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Cao, X. J. (2012). The relationships between e-shopping and store shopping in the
shopping process of search goods. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice,
46(7), 993–1002.
Cermak, D. S., File, K. M., & Prince, R. A. (2011). Customer participation in service specifi-
cation and delivery. Journal of Applied Business Research (Jabr), 10(2),90–97.
Chan, K. W., Yim, C. K., & Lam, S. S. (2010). Is customer participation in value creation a
double-edged sword? Evidence from professional financial services across cultures.
Journal of Marketing, 74(3), 48–64.
Chen, X., & Wang, X., & Jiang, X. (2017). The impact of power structure on the retail ser-
vice supply chain with an o2o mixed channel. Journal of the Operational Research
Society, 67(2),294–301. doi:10.1057/jors.2015.6
Christodoulides, G., & Michaelidou, N. (2010). Shopping motives as antecedents of e-satis-
faction and e-loyalty. Journal of Marketing Management, 27(1–2), 181–197.
Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures for marketing con-
structs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64–73.
Claycomb, C., Lengnick-Hall, C. A., & Inks, L. W. (2001). The customer as a productive
resource: A pilot study and strategic implications. Journal of Business Strategies, 18(1), 47–47.
Cohen, R. J., Montague, P., Nathanson, L. S., & Swerdlik, M. E. (1988). Psychological
testing: An introduction to tests & measurement. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield
Publishing Company.
Cronbach, L. J. (1984). Essentials of psychological testing (4th ed.). New York, NY: Harper
& Row.
Dabholkar, P. A. (1990). How to improve perceived service quality by increasing customer
participation. In Proceedings of the 1990 Academy of Marketing Science (AMS) Annual
Conference (pp. 483–487). New Orleans: Springer International Publishing.
Dafermos, B. (2009). Factor Analysis with SPSS and Confirmatory Analysis with Lisrel.
Giourdas.
Dafermos, B. (2009). Exploratory Factor Analysis with SPSS and Confirmatory Analysis
with LISREL (Written in Greek). Athens: Giourdas.
Dong, B., Evans, K. R., & Zou, S. (2008). The effects of customer participation in
co-created service recovery. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 123–137.
Dong, B., Sivakumar, K., Evans, K. R., & Zou, S. (2015). Effect of customer participation
on service outcomes: The moderating role of participation readiness. Journal of Service
Research, 18(2), 160–176.
Ennew, C. T., & Binks, M. R. (1999). Impact of participative service relationships on
quality, satisfaction and retention: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Research,
46(2), 121–132.
412 T. FOTIADIS

Fawcett, S. E., Osterhaus, P., Magnan, G. M., Brau, J. C., & McCarter, M. W. (2007).
Information sharing and supply chain performance: The role of connectivity and willing-
ness. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 12(5), 358–368.
Fodness, D., & Murray, B. (1997). Tourist information search. Annals of Tourism Research,
24(3), 503–523.
Fodness, D., & Murray, B. (1999). A model of tourist information search behavior. Journal
of Travel Research, 37(3), 220–230.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
Fullerton, R. A., & Punj, G. (2004). Repercussions of promoting an ideology of consump-
tion: Consumer misbehavior. Journal of Business Research, 57(11), 1239–1249.
G€ok, O. (2009). Linking account portfolio management to customer information: Using
customer satisfaction metrics for portfolio analysis. Industrial Marketing Management,
38(4), 433–439.
Gounaris, S., Dimitriadis, S., & Stathakopoulos, V. (2010). An examination of the effects of
service quality and satisfaction on customers’ behavioral intentions in e-shopping.
Journal of Services Marketing, 24(2), 142–156.
Guardian (2017). Greece’s debt costs rise sharply as worries grow over IMF role. Available
from: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/07/greece-debt-imf-split-bailout.
Ha, S., & Stoel, L. (2009). Consumer e-shopping acceptance: Antecedents in a technology
acceptance model. Journal of Business Research, 62(5), 565–571.
Ha, S., & Stoel, L. (2012). Online apparel retailing: Roles of e-shopping quality and experi-
ential e-shopping motives. Journal of Service Management, 23(2), 197–215.
Hair, F. J., Black, C. W., Badin, N. J., Anderson, E. R., & Tatham, R. L. (2005).
Multivariate data analysis. Hoboken, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.
Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (1995). Multivariate data analysis with
readings. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall International, Inc.
Halbesleben, J. R., & Buckley, M. R. (2004). Managing customers as employees of the firm:
New challenges for human resources management. Personnel Review, 33(3), 351–372.
Han, M. C., & Kim, Y. (2017). Why consumers hesitate to shop online: Perceived risk and
product involvement on Taobao. com. Journal of Promotion Management, 23(1), 24–44.
Harris, L. C., & Ogbonna, E. (2006). Service sabotage: A study of antecedents and conse-
quences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(4), 543–558.
Harris, L. C., & Ogbonna, E. (2009). Service sabotage: The dark side of service dynamics.
Business Horizons, 52(4), 325–335.
Harrison McKnight, D., & Chervany, N. L. (2001). What trust means in e-commerce
customer relationships: An interdisciplinary conceptual typology. International Journal of
Electronic Commerce, 6(2), 35–59.
International Monetary Fund (2017). Real GDP growth Annual percent change, available
from: http://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDP_RPCH@WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/
WEOWORLD/GRC
Jayawardhena, C. (2004). Personal values’ influence on e-shopping attitude and behavior.
Internet Research, 14(2), 127–138.
Jiang, P. (2009). Consumer adoption of mobile internet services: An exploratory study.
Journal of Promotion Management, 15(3), 418–454.
Jin, B., Yong Park, J., & Kim, J. (2008). Cross-cultural examination of the relationships
among firm reputation, e-satisfaction, e-trust, and e-loyalty. International Marketing
Review, 25(3), 324–337.
 JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 413

J€
oreskog, K. G., & S€ orbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Skokie, IL:
Scientific Software International.
Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 141–151.
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31–36.
Kelley, S. W., Donnelly, J. H., Jr, & Skinner, S. J. (1990). Customer participation in service
production and delivery. Journal of Retailing, 66(3), 315.
Kelley, S. W., Skinner, S. J., & Donnelly, J. H. Jr. (1992). Organizational socialization of service
customers. Journal of Business Research, 25(3), 197–214.
Kellogg, D. L., Youngdahl, W. E., & Bowen, D. E. (1997). On the relationship between
customer participation and satisfaction: Two frameworks. International Journal of Service
Industry Management, 8(3), 206–219.
Kim, D. J., Ferrin, D. L., & Rao, H. R. (2008). A trust-based consumer decision-making
model in electronic commerce: The role of trust, perceived risk, and their antecedents.
Decision Support Systems, 44(2), 544–564.
Kim, N., Lee, M., & Kim, H. R. (2008). The effect of service coupons on the consumer
trade-offs between price and perceived quality. Journal of Promotion Management,
14(1–2), 59–76.
Kline, P. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. London, UK: Routledge.
Ladhari, R. (2010). Developing e-service quality scales: A literature review. Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, 17(6), 464–477.
Lee, G. G., & Lin, H. F. (2005). Customer perceptions of e-service quality in online
shopping. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 33(2), 161–176.
Lengnick-Hall, C. A. (1996). Customer contributions to quality: A different view of the
customer-oriented firm. Academy of Management Review, 21(3), 791–824.
Lovelock, C., & Wirtz, J. (2007). Services marketing: People, technology, strategy (6th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice-Hall.
Martin, C. L., & Pranter, C. A. (1989). Compatibility management: Customer-to-customer
relationships in service environments. Journal of Services Marketing, 3(3), 5–15.
Meuter, M. L., Ostrom, A. L., Roundtree, R. I., & Bitner, M. J. (2000). Self-service technolo-
gies: Understanding customer satisfaction with technology-based service encounters.
Journal of Marketing, 64(3), 50–64.
Min, S., Zhou, M., Kim, D., & Kim, J. (2013). Assessing the e-service quality of sellers in
an industrial e-marketplace. Journal of Promotion Management, 19(5), 556–582.
Morrison, E. W. (1993). Newcomer information seeking: Exploring types, modes, sources,
and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 557–589.
Navarro, S., Andreu, L., & Cervera, A. (2014). Value co-creation among hotels and disabled
customers: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Research, 67(5), 813–818.
Navarro, S., Llinares, C., & Garzon, D. (2016). Exploring the relationship between
co-creation and satisfaction using QCA. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1336–1339.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Park, Y. A., & Gretzel, U. (2007). Success factors for destination marketing web sites: A
qualitative meta-analysis. Journal of Travel Research, 46(1), 46–63.
Patti, C. H., & Chen, C. H. (2009). Types of word-of-mouth messages: Information search
and credence-based services. Journal of Promotion Management, 15(3), 357–381.
Payne, A. F., Storbacka, K., & Frow, P. (2008). Managing the co-creation of value. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 83–96.
Peterson, R. A., & Merino, M. C. (2003). Consumer information search behavior and the
Internet. Psychology and Marketing, 20(2), 99–121.
414 T. FOTIADIS

Podnar, K., & Javernik, P. (2012). The effect of word of mouth on consumers’ attitudes toward
products and their purchase probability. Journal of Promotion Management, 18(2), 145–168.
Quintal, V., & Phau, I. (2014). Examining consumer risk perceptions of prototypical brands
versus me-too brands. Journal of Promotion Management, 20(2), 115–135.
Rebecca Yen, H., Gwinner, K. P., & Su, W. (2004). The impact of customer participation
and service expectation on Locus attributions following service failure. International
Journal of Service Industry Management, 15(1), 7–26.
Rohm, A. J., & Swaminathan, V. (2004). A typology of online shoppers based on shopping
motivations. Journal of Business Research, 57(7), 748–757.
Rosenkrans, G. (2010). Maximizing user interactivity through banner ad design. Journal of
Promotion Management, 16(3), 265–287.
Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher expectation and
pupils’ intellectual development. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Rowley, J. (2000). Product search in e-shopping: A review and research propositions.
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 17(1), 20–35.
Schene, A. H., van Wijngaarden, B., & Koeter, M. W. (1998). Family caregiving in schizo-
phrenia: Domains and distress. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 24(4), 609–618.
Selwyn, N. (2008). A safe haven for misbehaving? An investigation of online misbehavior
among university students. Social Science Computer Review, 26(4), 446–465.
Sharma, S. S. (1996). Applied multivariate techniques. Hoboken, NJ: John Willey & Sons, Inc.
Shih, H. P. (2004). An empirical study on predicting user acceptance of e-shopping on the
Web. Information & Management, 41(3), 351–368.
Shirai, M. (2015). Impact of “High Quality, Low Price” appeal on consumer evaluations.
Journal of Promotion Management, 21(6), 776–797.
Shirkhodaee, M., & Rezaee, S. (2014). The power of creative advertising and consumers’
perceived risk. Journal of Promotion Management, 20(5), 590–606.
Spector, P. E. (1992). Summated rating scale construction: An introduction. Sage University paper
series. Quantitative application in the social sciences. Newbury Park: CA, SAGE Publications, Inc.
Stochasis Consulting (2016). Sector studies: E-Commerce, (July), Stochasis Consulting,
available from: http://www.stochasis.com/en/E-Commerce_2016.
Tat Keh, H., & Wei Teo, C. (2001). Retail customers as partial employees in service
provision: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management, 29(8), 370–378.
Theodorakis, G., & Xatzigeorgiadis, A. (2004). Development and psychometric in evaluation
of quantitative research instruments. Ellinika Grammata: Scientific Volume of
Philological Company North Greece.
Tsiotsou, R. (2006). The role of perceived product quality and overall satisfaction on pur-
chase intentions. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 30(2), 207–217.
Turner, T., & Shockley, J. (2014). Creating shopper value: Co-creation roles, in-store self-
service technology use, and value differentiation. Journal of Promotion Management,
20(3), 311–327.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing.
Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). Service-dominant logic: Continuing the evolution.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 1–10.
Vega-Vazquez, M., Revilla-Camacho, A.  M., & Cossıo-Silva, J. F. (2013). The value
co-creation process as a determinant of customer satisfaction. Management Decision,
51(10), 1945–1953.
 JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 415

Wixon, B. H., & Watson, H. J. (2001). An empirical investigation of the factors affecting
data warehousing. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 17–41.
W€underlich, N. V., Wangenheim, F. V., & Bitner, M. J. (2013). High tech and high touch:
A framework for understanding user attitudes and behaviors related to smart interactive
services. Journal of Service Research, 16(1), 3–20.
Yang, A. J. F., Huang, Y. C., & Chen, Y. J. (2017). The importance of customer participa-
tion for high-contact services: Evidence from a real estate agency. Total quality manage-
ment & business excellence (pp.1–17). Taylor and Francis Group.doi:10.1080/
14783363.2017.1341814
Yi, Y., & Gong, T. (2013). Customer value co-creation behavior: Scale development and
validation. Journal of Business Research, 66(9), 1279–1284.
Yim, C. K., Chan, K. W., & Lam, S. S. (2012). Do customers and employees enjoy service
participation? Synergistic effects of self-and other-efficacy. Journal of Marketing, 76(6),
121–140.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer
Research, 12(3), 341–352.

Appendix A

A1. Demographic Data Statistics Summary for the Sample.

Demographic data Group Frequency (N ¼ 111) Relative frequency (%)
Sex Male 185 55.2
Female 150 44.8
Age (years) 18–24 20.0 20
25–34 20.0 20
35–44 20.3 20.3
45–54 20.0 20
55–64 19.7 19.7
Family status Single 143 42.7
Married 180 53.7
Separated/divorced 12 3.6
Place of residence Urban 288 86
Rural 47 14
Level of education Elementary 1 .3
Secondary 124 37
Tertiary 160 47.8
Postgraduate studies/doctorate 50 14.9
Income <10,000 137 40.9
10,000–24,999e 154 46
25,000–49,999e 35 10,4
50,000–74,999e 5 1,5
75,000–99,999e 4 1,2
416 T. FOTIADIS

Appendix B

B1. Results of principal components’ analysis for all of the statements on the Customer
Participation Behavior scale.
Construct Eigenvalues % of Variance Loadings Communalities
Customer participation behavior
Responsible behavior 3.508 31.894
RB3 .869 .817
RB2 .866 .792
RB4 .813 .686
RB1 .811 .766
Information sharing 2.375 21.588
ISHA1 .845 .744
ISHA2 .790 .802
ISHA3 .757 .770
ISHA4 .533 .441
Information seeking 1.683 15.302
INF3 .784 .622
INF1 .781 .617
INF2 .654 .511

KMO Measure of Sampling Adequacy .855

Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity Approx. v2 1817.456
df 55
Sig. .000

B2. Table of Loadings, Cronbach’s a, CR and AVE.

Construct Loadings Cronbach’s a CR AVE
Customer participation behavior .801
Responsible behavior .901 .906 .706
RB4 .869
RB3 .866
RB5 .813
RB2 .811
Information sharing .816 .826 .549
ISHA4 .533
ISHA1 .845
ISHA2 .790
ISHA3 .757
Information seeking .602 .785 .551
INF3 .784
INF1 .781
INF2 .654

B3. Test for multivariate normality.

1
Mardia mSkewness ¼ 165.8651 v2(2600) ¼ 9101.619 Prob>v2 ¼ .0000
2
Mardia mKurtosis ¼ 874.5558 v2(1) ¼ 4099.699 Prob>v2 ¼ .0000
3
Hansen–Zirkler ¼ 1.050831 v2 (1) ¼ 1.28eþ.5 Prob>v2 ¼ .0000
4
Doornik–Hansen v2(48) ¼ 1869.016 Prob>v2 ¼ .0000
 JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 417

Appendix C

C1. Adjustment Indexes for the Model.

Fit statistic Value Description
Likelihood ratio v2_ms (244) 479.095 Model vs. saturated
p > v2 .06
v2_bs (276) 4316.689
p > v2 .000
Population error RMSEA .035 RMSE of approximation
90% CI, lower bound
upper bound
pclose Probability RMSEA  .05
Information criteria AIC 25,748.601 Akaike’s information criterion
BIC 26,051.552 Bayesian information criterion
Baseline comparison CFI .957 CFI
TLI .956 TLI
Size of residuals SRMR .029 Standardized RMSR
CD .959 CD

C2. Factor values, Importance and Prediction of Standardized solution.

Standardized Coef. Std. Err. z p>jzj [95% Conf. Interval]
Structural .2212698 .081309 2.72 .007 .0619071 .3806325
IN_SEEK <-
CuPaBe
IN_SHAR <- .8020354 .0552225 14.52 .000 .6938012 .9102696
CuPaBe
RES_BE <- .8912704 .0588427 15.15 .000 .7759408 1.0066
CuPaBe
Measurement .5686593 .0639134 8.90 .000 .4433912 .6939273
INF1 <- 2.240509 .1037617 21.59 .000 2.037139 2.443878
IN_SEEK
_cons
INF2 <- .4879297 .0657555 7.42 .000 .3590512 .6168081
IN_SEEK 2.523799 .1132993 22.28 .000 2.301736 2.745862
_cons
INF3 <- .6749301 .0696061 9.70 .000 .5385047 .8113555
IN_SEEK 2.665144 .1181592 22.56 .000 2.433557 2.896732
_cons
ISHA1 <- .6692379 .0343871 19.46 .000 .6018404 .7366354
IN_SHAR 3.712233 .1555743 23.86 .000 3.407313 4.017153
_cons
ISHA2 <- .8787827 .0197742 44.44 .000 .8400259 .9175396
IN_SHAR 4.396421 .1808654 24.31 .000 4.041931 4.75091
_cons
ISHA3 <- .8615781 .0206973 41.63 .000 .821012 .9021441
IN_SHAR 4.734041 .1934948 24.47 .000 4.354798 5.113284
_cons
ISHA4 <- .5815562 .040528 14.35 .000 .5021228 .6609897
IN_SHAR 3.530157 .1489327 23.70 .000 3.238254 3.82206
_cons
RB1 <- .8520171 .0195536 43.57 .000 .8136927 .8903415
RES_BE 5.968201 .2402043 24.85 .000 5.497409 6.438992
_cons
RB2 <- .8710915 .01762 49.44 .000 .8365569 .9056261
RES_BE 5.797061 .2336878 24.81 .000 5.339042 6.255081
_cons
RB3 <- .8663904 .0185283 46.76 .000 .8300757 .9027052
RES_BE 5.762457 .2323715 24.80 .000 5.307017 6.217897
_cons
RB4 <- .7465017 .0280452 26.62 .000 .6915341 .8014693
RES_BE 5.337227 .2162347 24.68 .000 4.913415 5.76104
_cons
418 T. FOTIADIS

C3. Results of the Hypotheses Testing.

Hypothesis
Hypotheses Proposed relationships Coef. z p>z supported
H1: Customer information seeking .0545319 1.96 .049 Accepted
enhances perceived service
quality
H2: Customer information seeking .0223419 .59 .552 Rejected
enhances customer
satisfaction
H3: Customer information sharing –.0013593 –.03 .976 Rejected
enhances perceived service
quality
H4: Customer information sharing –.0212985 –.35 .724 Rejected
enhances customer
satisfaction
H5: Customer responsible behavior .2945571 5.58 .000 Accepted
increases perceived service
quality
H6: Customer responsible behavior .3752848 5.25 .000 Accepted
increases customer
satisfaction