International Journal of Hospitality Management 88 (2020) 102514

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Hospitality Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhm

Research Paper

Innovativeness and customer value co-creation behaviors: Mediating role of T

customer engagement
Chang-Hua Yen, Hsiu-Yu Teng*, Jiun-Chi Tzeng
Department of Leisure and Recreation Management, National Taichung University of Science and Technology, No. 129, Sanmin Road, Sec. 3, Taichung 404, Taiwan, ROC

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Customer value co-creation behaviors play a crucial part in determining customer satisfaction. However, few
Innovativeness restaurant literatures have examined how innovativeness influences customer value co-creation behaviors. This
Customer engagement research examined the influence of innovativeness on customer value co-creation behaviors to clarify the
Customer value co-creation behaviors mediating effect of customer engagement. Survey data from 501 customers demonstrated that innovativeness
and customer engagement are positively related to customer value co-creation behaviors. Moreover, customer
engagement mediates the association between innovativeness and customer value co-creation behaviors. This
research extends current knowledge on customer co-creation and examines the associations among innova-
tiveness, customer engagement, and customer value co-creation behaviors. Research implications suggest stra-
tegic directions for restaurant managers in terms of innovative practices and customer relationship management.

1. Introduction 2016), company support (Grissemann and Stokburger-Sauer, 2012),

Recent studies have explored aspects of customer value co-creation
in the food and beverage industry (Im and Qu, 2017; Jeon et al., 2016).
Co-creation refers to the service value created by customers and service
companies to provide the desired customer service experiences
(Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004). Furthermore, customer value co-
creation behavior refers to customers’ actual involvement in value
creation (Shamim et al., 2016), which mainly involves customer par-
ticipation and citizenship behaviors (Yi and Gong, 2013). In the food
and beverage industry, customers play an essential role in creating a
unique and memorable service experience that can have a notable effect
on the value perceived by each customer (Prahalad and Ramaswamy,
2003). Studies have revealed that customer co-creation can improve
perceived value, satisfaction, and loyalty among customers (Mathis
et al., 2016; Morosan and DeFranco, 2016; Nam et al., 2011; Rahimi
et al., 2017) as well as employee satisfaction and job performance
(Chan et al., 2010; Yi et al., 2011). Therefore, effective methods for
promoting customer value co-creation behaviors are critical in the food
and beverage industry for gaining competitive advantages and estab-
lishing sustainable management strategies.
Customer value co-creation has a strongly positive meaning to both
customers and the industry. Accordingly, relevant studies have ex-
plored the antecedents of customer value co-creation behaviors from
various perspectives, including customers (Morosan and DeFranco,
and physical environments (Im and Qu, 2017). Customer co-creation
service experience implies an actual interaction with the customer in
the service process. Moreover, personal interaction and customer par-
ticipation can be promoted through innovative service methods and in
innovative environments (Hollebeek and Andreassen, 2018). Therefore,
innovativeness is vital to a company’s success in promoting customer
co-creation service experiences. Innovativeness refers to a company’s
capability to develop new ideas, services, and promotions (Crawford
and Di Benedetto, 2008; Kunz et al., 2011). A company’s perceived
innovativeness signals to customers that the company is creative and
progressive, which indicates that the company adopts innovative per-
spectives in business practice. Heidenreich and Handrich (2015) in-
dicated that innovation characteristics are critical factors that influence
customers’ willingness to co-create value. Clauss et al. (2018) argued
that customers’ perceived business model innovativeness could stimu-
late their motivation and enthusiasm to engage in value co-creation.
Hence, innovativeness is an essential antecedent variable that affects
customers’ willingness to participate in co-creating service experiences,
and innovativeness and customer value co-creation may be positively
correlated. However, relatively few studies have explored this correla-
tion.
Previous studies in the hospitality industry have explored the
mediating role of customer engagement in consumer behaviors (Ahn
and Back, 2018; Harrigan et al., 2017). Customer engagement refers to

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: chyan@nutc.edu.tw (C.-H. Yen), serenateng2017@nutc.edu.tw (H.-Y. Teng), pt1443@nutc.edu.tw (J.-C. Tzeng).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102514
Received 1 April 2019; Received in revised form 12 March 2020; Accepted 18 March 2020
Available online 28 March 2020
0278-4319/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C.-H. Yen, et al.
the psychological state of customers when participating in the service
experience interaction process (Brodie et al., 2011). Besides purchasing
goods or services, customer engagement is manifested in how custo-
mers treat the service company and its personnel (So et al., 2014).
Related studies have found that customers’ perceptions of innovative-
ness regarding a company’s products or services tend to positively affect
customer engagement (Omar et al., 2018). Furthermore, studies have
claimed that customer engagement promotes customer value co-crea-
tion behaviors (Merrilees, 2016; Zhang et al., 2017). Therefore, in-
novativeness may positively affect customer engagement, and in turn
promote customer value co-creation behaviors. This shows that cus-
tomer engagement may play a mediator in the linking between in-
novativeness and customer value co-creation behaviors; however the
role of customer engagement in this relationship is still unclear.
Therefore, the following research questions were explored: (1) Do
innovativeness and customer value co-creation behavior have a positive
relationship in the food and beverage industry? (2) Does customer en-
gagement mediate the association between innovativeness and cus-
tomer value co-creation behavior? To answer these questions, gaps in
the literature first need to be explained. For solving the mentioned
research questions, the study investigated this relationship and strove
to clarify the mediating role of customer engagement therein. This
study aimed to compensate for the inadequacy of past studies and ex-
pand customer co-creation knowledge.
First, in response to the suggestions of Kim et al. (2018a), the study
explored the possible relationship between innovativeness and cus-
tomer value co-creation behavior. Second, to the best of our knowledge,
although previous scholars have identified that customer engagement is
a vital outcome of perceived innovativeness (Omar et al., 2018), no
empirical research has explored its mediating role. The mechanism
underlying the relationship between innovativeness and customer value
co-creation behavior remains unclear. Unlike related literature (Omar
et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2017), the novelty of the study is that it ad-
dressed and highlighted the crucial role of customer engagement in the
relationship of innovativeness with customer value co-creation beha-
vior. In academic research for the food and beverage industry, ex-
plorations of the relationship between these variables have a compre-
hensive understanding of the linkage between innovativeness and
customer value co-creation behavior. For companies using innovative
strategies when implementing customer value co-creation, the study
could put forward strategic suggestions for actual practice regarding
service innovation and customer relationship management in the res-
taurant industry.
2. Literature review
This study proposes and tests a research model (Fig. 1). The study
positions innovativeness as an antecedent to customer value co-creation
behaviors (customer-participation and -citizenship behaviors) and
customer engagement as its mediator. In particular, this model illus-
trates how innovativeness influences customer value co-creation
Fig. 1. Research Model of Innovativeness, Customer Engagement, and
Customer Value Co-Creation Behaviors.
2
International Journal of Hospitality Management 88 (2020) 102514
behaviors through customer engagement. Here, literature on these
three constructs—namely innovativeness, customer engagement, and
customer value co-creation behaviors—is first reviewed, based on
which six research hypotheses that focus on the interrelationships the
three constructs are then proposed. In addition, the mediating effect of
customer engagement in these relationships is evaluated.
2.1. Customer value co-creation behaviors
Customer value co-creation is a popular recent research topic in the
hospitality industry (Im and Qu, 2017; Xu et al., 2018). For service
companies, co-creation is a valuable customer behavior (Jaakkola et al.,
2015). Tynan et al. (2010) noted that co-creation is a value creation
process used to establish satisfactory service experiences through the
exchange of knowledge and efforts between service companies and
customers. Value creation refers to a customer’s creation of value-in-use
in the food and beverage industry (Grönroos and Voima, 2013). Ranjan
and Read (2016) argued that value co-creation involves two essential
elements, namely coproduction and value-in-use. Based on social ca-
pital theory (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998), Tsai and Ghoshal (1998)
reported that social capital can strengthen information sharing between
customers and companies, which in turn positively affects value crea-
tion. In addition, Kallmuenzer et al. (2019) asserted that social inter-
action ties between hospitality firms and customers can contribute to
knowledge sharing, resource production, information exchange, pro-
duct and service coproduction, and providing values to firms and cus-
tomers. Accordingly, social interaction between firms and customers is
a vital social capital for the restaurant industry, which enables custo-
mers to engage in a co-creation service process that can develop posi-
tive values and benefit both the firm and customer.
Grönroos (2012) asserted that customer value co-creation are those
where customers enhance the value of a product or service by partici-
pating in and developing the service process. In the value co-creation,
customers may exhibit specific behaviors, which Yi and Gong (2013)
classified as customer participation behaviors and customer citizenship
behaviors. Customer participation behavior is the process of customer
involvement in the production and delivery of services (Revilla-
Camacho et al., 2015); this is a basic customer in-role behavior required
for value co-creation (Shamim and Ghazali, 2014; Yi and Gong, 2013).
According to Revilla-Camacho et al. (2015), customer participation
behaviors include information seeking, information sharing, re-
sponsible behavior, and personal interaction. For instance, in the in-
teraction process with food and beverage staff, customers provide and
share information to create service value. Customer citizenship beha-
viors are voluntary and extra-role behaviors from customers that pro-
vide extraordinary value to the firm but are not necessarily required for
value co-creation (Shamim and Ghazali, 2014; Yi and Gong, 2013).
They are related to customers’ suggestions for service improvement,
helping other customers, and disseminating positive word-of-mouth
(Bettencourt, 1997). Customer citizenship behaviors consist of feed-
back, advocacy, helping, and tolerance (Revilla-Camacho et al., 2015).
For example, a customer actively recommends a restaurant to friends
and family members after experiencing a satisfactory dining experience
at the restaurant.
2.2. Customer engagement
In recent years, studies have investigated issues related to customer
engagement in the hospitality context (Ahn and Back, 2018; Tu et al.,
2018). Hollebeek (2011) argued that engagement is a multifaceted
concept that encompasses aspects of affection, cognition, and behavior.
Customer engagement is customers’ deep commitment and interest in
customer relationships; this differs from customer involvement, which
focuses on customers’ interest in certain products or services (Abdul-
Ghani et al., 2011). In the customer engagement theory model con-
structed by Van Doorn et al. (2010), the main influencing factors are
C.-H. Yen, et al.
customer, company, and contextual factors; customer engagement af-
fects purchasers (i.e., their perceptions, attitudes, and behavioral out-
comes), companies (i.e., finances, prestige, and legality), and other
consequences. Customer engagement can lead to a variety of customer
values (e.g., customer lifetime value, referral value, influencer value,
and knowledge value) for companies (Kumar et al., 2010). Further-
more, it can improve customer loyalty and operating performance
(Pansari and Kumar, 2017; So et al., 2016), thereby creating a sus-
tainable competitive advantage (Kumar and Pansari, 2016).
Studies have investigated the issue of customer engagement in
various areas, including visitor engagement at cultural tourism attrac-
tions (Bryce et al., 2015; Chen and Rahman, 2018) and brand en-
gagement for food and beverage services (Odoom et al., 2017). Studies
have claimed that customer engagement is a multidimensional con-
struct that describes a customer’s state of mind that results from ex-
periences of a particular relationship with a service provider (Brodie
et al., 2011; Harrigan et al., 2017; So et al., 2014). So et al. (2014)
conceptualized the construct of customer engagement, which in-
corporates five components, namely identification, enthusiasm, atten-
tion, absorption, and interaction. Identification refers to the degree to
which a customer identifies with a company or brand; enthusiasm refers
to the degree of a customer’s excitement about and interest in a com-
pany or brand; attention refers to the degree of conscious or un-
conscious concern a customer pays to a company or brand; absorption
refers to a customer’s high level of attention and fixation when inter-
acting with a company or brand; and interaction refers to a customer’s
participation in the offline and online activities of a company or brand,
including the sharing of thoughts, ideas, feelings, and experiences.
2.3. Innovativeness
Throughout history, tourism has been characterized by considerable
innovativeness. Hjalager (2010) claimed that innovativeness in tourism
was conveyed through the product or service, process, managerial,
marketing, and institutional dimensions. Kallmuenzer (2018) asserted
that entrepreneurial family and employees are key drivers of internal
innovation in hospitality family firms, whereas customers and regional
competitors are external drivers of a firm’s comprehensive innovation
input. In addition, Hu et al. (2009) noted that knowledge sharing and
team culture have a positive effect on service innovation performance.
Regarding tourism or hospitality family firms, Kallmuenzer and Peters
(2018) further observed that innovativeness can improve their financial
performance. Therefore, innovativeness is key to successful tourism and
hospitality businesses.
Scholars have defined innovativeness in various fields in the past.
For manufacturing firms, Hurley and Hult (1998) noted that innova-
tiveness refers to a firm’s notion of openness to new ideas and re-
presents the level of corporate culture. Furthermore, Hult et al. (2004)
defined innovativeness as the capacity of an organization to introduce
new processes, products, or ideas. For the service industry, innova-
tiveness is a multistage process in which operators convert ideas into
new products, services, or processes to differentiate themselves from
other market competitors (Demary, 2017). For the hospitality industry,
Tajeddini and Trueman (2014) defined innovativeness as a firm’s
willingness and ability to adopt, imitate, or implement new technolo-
gies, processes, or concepts and commercially launch innovative, un-
ique products or services before its competitors.
Innovativeness in the food and beverage industry has been in-
creasingly emphasized over the preceding decade (Kim et al., 2018a).
The food and beverage industry pays considerable attention to in-
novativeness in its practices and processes. Therefore, the study con-
sidered innovativeness a vital activity in the food and beverage in-
dustry. For example, restaurants can consider and construct unique
ideas, services, and marketing strategies from customer perspectives
when alternative programs (Kim et al., 2018a). Moreover, restaurant
operators can use mobile, digital, or social media channels to deliver
3
International Journal of Hospitality Management 88 (2020) 102514
creative promotional activities to their target customers. For low-usage
and perishable products, special promotion methods such as the “name
your own price” model (Sorescu et al., 2011) can be used to improve
the financial performance of a restaurant. Building on the previous
results, innovativeness is defined herein as a restaurant’s capability to
develop new ideas, services, and promotions.
Related studies have asserted that innovativeness mainly involves
products, services, technology, and experience (Kim et al., 2018a).
Gagić (2016) noted that restaurant innovativeness includes innovation
in terms of menus, marketing, and processes. Kim et al. (2018a) con-
structed an innovativeness scale for casual dining restaurants from the
perspective of customer perceptions. The scale included innovativeness
in products, technological services, experience, and marketing. Fur-
thermore, they suggested that the effects of innovativeness on customer
attitudes (e.g., trust) and behaviors (e.g., customer engagement) should
be further explored. Tajeddini et al. (2017) interviewed managers and
executives in the hotel industry in Tokyo, Japan, and revealed that
hotel service innovativeness has a positive effect on business perfor-
mance. Jin et al. (2015) analyzed customers of US fine dining restau-
rants and discovered that customer perceptions of food innovation have
positive effects on brand trust and preference. The results of these
studies have indicated that innovativeness in the food and beverage
industry has a crucial influence on restaurant performance.
Gomezelj (2016) and Kim et al. (2018a) have collated relevant
studies on innovativeness in the tourism and hospitality industry. Most
researchers have adopted a supply perspective to explore how man-
agers assess the innovativeness capabilities of their companies (Binder
et al., 2016; Sandvik et al., 2014), whereas few studies had explored
corporate innovativeness capabilities from a demand perspective. As-
sessing a company’s innovativeness from a customer-centric perspective
enables the acquisition of knowledge on the influence of customer ac-
ceptance on companies’ innovative activities and projects (Victorino
et al., 2005); thus, the possibility of innovative initiatives being suc-
cessfully promoted on the market could be better understood.
2.4. Innovativeness and customer value co-creation behaviors
The practical innovation of service companies plays a strategic role
during the customer value co-creation process in service value chains
(Grayson, 2011). Because innovativeness promotes knowledge and in-
formation exchange between service providers and customers, it helps
to increase co-created value (Cabiddu et al., 2013; Lusch et al., 2007).
Past studies have revealed a positive association between innovative-
ness and customer value co-creation from the perspective of service-
dominant logic (Heidenreich and Handrich, 2015; Jaakkola and
Alexander, 2014). Clauss et al. (2018) explored the interrelationships
between customers’ perceived business model innovativeness, customer
value co-creation behaviors, and customer satisfaction regarding var-
ious gourmet restaurants in Germany. The results revealed that per-
ceived business model innovativeness stimulated customers’ en-
thusiasm and motivation, leading to customer value co-creation
behaviors. According to a relevant study, customer value co-creation
behavior includes customer participation and customer citizenship be-
haviors (Yi and Gong, 2013). Customer participation behavior refers to
necessary behaviors that achieve appropriate performance in value co-
creation during service provision, whereas customer citizenship beha-
vior refers to the voluntary behaviors of customers that facilitate value
creation.
According to the innovation diffusion theory (Rogers, 2010), people
react differently to a new idea, object, or practice because of differences
in their perceptions of innovativeness and predisposed tendencies to-
ward adopting innovations. Customers tend to be more willing to use a
product or service when they perceive that product or service to be
highly innovative (Hwang et al., 2019). Buhalis and Foerste (2015)
proposed a social context mobile marketing framework, which implies
that the use of smart technologies in the tourism industry can engage
C.-H. Yen, et al.
customer in the value creation process. When customers discover that a
new product or service is unique and superior to other existing pro-
ducts, they are more willing to gather product-related information,
participate in marketing activities, and interact with the service per-
sonnel (Leckie et al., 2018). Therefore, customers’ perceptions of in-
novative services in the food and beverage industry are reflected in
their customer participation behaviors. Innovativeness increases cus-
tomers’ participation in the service production and delivery processes.
Accordingly, the hypothesis was formed:
H1. Innovativeness is positively associated with customer participation
behaviors.
Ajzen and Fishbein (2000) argued that individuals’ attitude and
behavior toward an object are affected by their values and beliefs. Si-
milarly, Fu and Elliott (2013) suggested that consumer perceptions of
service providers’ innovativeness reflect their values and beliefs, which
influence subsequent attitude and behavior. Yeh (2015) reported that
the open-minded quality of firm innovativeness promotes the creation
and sharing of knowledge and competency; therefore, businesses’ in-
novative practices enhance consumer advocacy. Firm innovativeness
may elicit consumer excitement and thus create positive word of mouth
(Kyrgidou and Spyropoulou, 2013; Szymanski et al., 2007). Moreover,
Hwang et al. (2019) studied drone food delivery services and observed
that consumer perception of innovativeness in such services positively
affected their willingness to recommend these services to others. When
customers believe that innovative services and products can meet their
needs and interests, the value of these services and products is en-
hanced (Getnet et al., 2019). Customers are willing to provide con-
structive feedback to firms, advocate the benefits of products to other
customers, help other customers, and tolerate service errors (van
Tonder et al., 2018v). Therefore, customer perception of innovativeness
is positively associated with customer citizenship behaviors (Kim et al.,
2019a). Based on the aforementioned studies, innovativeness can en-
hance customer citizenship behaviors in the food and beverage in-
dustry. The following hypothesis was formed:
H2. Innovativeness is positively associated with customer citizenship
behaviors.
2.5. Customer engagement and customer value co-creation behaviors
According to a service-dominant logic (Vargo and Lusch, 2004),
value creation resources are not possessed only by companies; stake-
holders (such as customers) can also contribute to value creation. The
service-dominant logic emphasizes the importance of customer en-
gagement and dialog during the co-creation process. Binkhorst and
Dekker (2009) stated that tourism is an experience network, where
visitors can engage in co-creating their own tourism experiences. Cus-
tomer engagement is critical in the value creation process. Scholars
have explored the role of customer engagement in customer value co-
creation behaviors (Oyner and Korelina, 2016; Zhang et al., 2017).
Jaakkola and Alexander (2014) investigated the role of customer en-
gagement behaviors in value co-creation based on the service systems of
different stakeholders and proposed a customer engagement and value
co-creation nomological network. Customer engagement constitutes a
process where customers contribute resources and efforts to the pro-
duction and delivery of services, thereby changing the perceptions,
preferences, expectations, and behaviors of all stakeholders. Through
integration of customer resources, customer engagement behavior
contributes to value co-creation, and thus all stakeholders gain positive
benefits. Merrilees (2016) integrated results from relevant studies on
brand experience and interactivity to construct a conceptual model
claiming that an interactive brand experience can influence customer
engagement and further influence customer value co-creation. More-
over, Zhang et al. (2017) affirmed that customer engagement in com-
pany social networks can enhance customer benefits and values,
4
International Journal of Hospitality Management 88 (2020) 102514
thereby enhancing customer value co-creation from an information
management perspective.
Customer engagement is a personal psychological state (Brodie
et al., 2011), whereas customer participation and customer citizenship
behaviors are consequent reactions at the individual behavioral level
(Yi and Gong, 2013). Apenes Solem (2016) indicated that customer
engagement was a key driver of customer participation. Customers
express higher degrees of customer engagement when they emotionally,
cognitively, or intentionally engage in a particular activity. Firms dis-
seminate their launched innovative products and services on social
media so as to stimulate the emotional engagement of customers and
encourage actual customer participation behaviors and information
search about the firms (Sashi, 2012). Furthermore, as customers be-
come more engaged in the service process, they can experience more of
the service products and share their service experience and information
with other customers (Pansari and Kumar, 2017). Therefore, customer
engagement is positively associated with customer participation beha-
viors. Accordingly, the hypothesis was formed:
H3. Customer engagement is positively associated with customer
participation behaviors.
Regarding the hospitality industry, studies have revealed that con-
sumer engagement is a crucial driver of consumer attitude and behavior
(Aluri et al., 2019; Ou et al., 2020). Hollebeek and Macky (2019) in-
dicated that customer behavioral engagement can lead to customer
citizenship behavior. Customers are engaged with the firm provide an
ideal environment for customers to extend beyond their roles (Pervan
and Bove, 2011). Customers who express a high degree of engagement
are more apt to initiate interactions with the firm by providing ideas
and feedback and generate customer advocacy (Hsieh and Chang, 2016;
Kemp et al., 2012). For service brands, Moliner et al. (2018) discovered
that consumers displaying high engagement with a brand were likely to
refer and recommend the brand to others. Bilro et al. (2019) researched
online reviews for hospitality businesses and discovered that consumers
with high brand engagement had a higher tendency to recommend the
businesses to others than did their low-engagement counterparts. In
addition, Kim et al. (2019b) surveyed consumers of Korean and global
coffee brands. According to the survey, brand engagement promoted
consumer enthusiasm, endorsement, and helpful behavior with respect
to a particular brand, regardless whether a local or global brand. In
summary, customer citizenship behaviors manifest when customers are
more familiar with the innovative service product content and process
because of their deeper engagement in the service experience process.
Therefore, customer engagement has a positive influence on customer
citizenship behaviors. Based on the aforementioned studies, in the
restaurant industry, customer engagement in the processes of service
production and delivery should promote customer citizenship beha-
viors. The research proposed the following hypothesis:
H4. Customer engagement is positively associated with customer
citizenship behaviors.
2.6. The mediating role of customer engagement
Previous studies have argued that in customer–brand relationships,
customer engagement plays a mediator between consumer perceptions
and behavioral intentions (Harrigan et al., 2017; Merrilees, 2016).
Because customer engagement is a psychological state occurring in the
service experience process (Brodie et al., 2011), most scholars have
used customer engagement as a mediator (Rather et al., 2019; Tu et al.,
2018). Furthermore, through their theoretical framework, Jaakkola and
Alexander (2014) supported the idea of customer engagement being a
mediator. According to the customer engagement service system model
proposed by Jaakkola and Alexander (2014), customer engagement
behavior is induced by companies, customers, or situational factors;
thus, it influences value co-creation. Furthermore, the model
C.-H. Yen, et al.
highlighted the importance of customer engagement as a mediator
between innovativeness and value co-creation behavior.
Recent studies have explored the correlation between innovative-
ness and customer engagement (Hollebeek et al., 2019; Omar et al.,
2018). Hollebeek and Chen (2014) developed a conceptual model that
triggered customer engagement and identified that innovativeness is
one of the factors affecting customer engagement. In recent years, the
food and beverage industry has introduced numerous innovative pro-
ducts and technology services, and this new service approach promotes
opportunities to interact with customers, thus triggering customer en-
gagement (Hollebeek et al., 2019). Therefore, in the food and beverage
industry, innovativeness increases the opportunity for customers to take
part in the service interaction process, thereby increasing customer
engagement. Based on service-dominant logic (Vargo and Lusch, 2004),
Hollebeek and Andreassen (2018) developed a service-dominant logic-
informed “hamburger” model of service innovation. They stated that
service innovation can enhance perceived value among customers and
facilitate the service interaction process of customer engagement. This
argument is similar to the findings of Leckie et al. (2018). Thus, in-
novativeness in the food and beverage industry can enhance customer
value and promote customer engagement in the service experience
process. From different dimensions of innovativeness, Omar et al.
(2018) explored the relationship between innovativeness and customer
engagement for 723 customers of small and medium-sized service re-
tailers; the results revealed that product innovativeness had the most
considerable effect on customer engagement, followed by service and
experience innovativeness. This indicates that restaurant operators can
improve the delivery service quality through product, service, and ex-
perience innovation to increase customer engagement. Thus, the per-
ception of the innovativeness of restaurant operators by customers can
enhance customer engagement.
According to social exchange theory, individuals’ contributions to
and engagement in a relationship are determined by derived tangible or
intangible costs and benefits (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005). From
the perspective of social exchange theory, customer engagement can
increase perceived benefits and values among customers. Because cus-
tomer engagement can satisfy customers’ needs and expectations, cus-
tomers are willing to participate and invest time and effort in their
relationships with service companies. Merrilees (2016) claimed that for
functional brands, highly engaged customers exhibit greater participa-
tion in rational rewards launched by a company; for hedonic brands,
engaged customers possess more intrinsic motives to participate with
the brands they love, such as through collecting and sharing informa-
tion. Therefore, customer engagement can help to promote customer
participation behaviors. This indicates that restaurant operators’ in-
troduction of innovative service products and services induces custo-
mers to engage in the service experience process and benefit from the
resulting social exchange relationship, thus improving customer parti-
cipation behaviors. Accordingly, the hypothesis was formed:
H5. Customer engagement mediates the association between
innovativeness and customer participation behaviors.
For the food and beverage industry, highly engaged customers are a
crucial source of knowledge that helps companies with their activities
(Pansari and Kumar, 2017). For example, they can provide suggestions
for improving products or services as well as assist other customers.
Furthermore, Moliner et al. (2018) noted that customer engagement
positively affects customer advocacy. The higher the customer en-
gagement, the more likely it is to promote the company’s positive
message and present recommendation behavior to others. Thus, cus-
tomer engagement is associated with customer citizenship behaviors.
Because the innovativeness of a company can promote customer en-
gagement (Omar et al., 2018), personal values and benefits are gener-
ated for highly engaged customers. Based on the perspective of social
exchange, innovativeness can promote customer engagement, which in
turn affects customer citizenship behaviors. The hypothesis was
5
International Journal of Hospitality Management 88 (2020) 102514
proposed:
H6. Customer engagement mediates the association between
innovativeness and customer citizenship behaviors.
3. Methodology
3.1. Sample and data collection
The Taiwanese chain coffee shop market has recently been growing
steadily. In 2018, the total number of top 20 chain coffee brand stores
in Taiwan reached 2,116, with an annual business opportunity of ap-
proximately US$2.5 billion (Taiwan Chain Stores and Franchise
Association, 2019). Considering this intense market competition, sev-
eral Taiwanese chain coffee shops keep launching innovative services,
such as Starbucks’ Reserve bars and Dante Coffee’s mobile ordering to
attract customers. Here, customers from Taiwanese chain coffee shops
were selected as participants. A pre-test was conducted with 50 parti-
cipants before the formal questionnaires were issued to ensure that the
questionnaire content was clear, robust, and comprehensive. Some
terms in the questionnaire were modified according to the results of the
pre-test.
Using the final questionnaire, participants’ data were collected be-
tween January and March 2019 in districts of the major cities of Taipei,
Kaohsiung, and Taichung in Taiwan. The data collection period was
three months. A paper format and self-administered field survey was
conducted at the coffee shops of three global and ten local franchise
brands. The global brands were Starbucks, Doutor Coffee, and The
Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf, and the local brands were Oklao Coffee Farm,
Barista Coffee, Dante Coffee, Ikari Coffee, Mr. Brown Café, Crown &
Fancy, Louisa Coffee, Oven Coffee, S&D Coffee, and Cama Café. Related
studies have found that chain coffee shops can instill symbolic value
and special brand images in customers (Kim and Jang, 2017). Fur-
thermore, the aforementioned coffee brands are widely recognized by
Taiwanese customers and are relatively representative of the Taiwanese
chain coffee brand market. This study used an objective random sam-
pling method (every 10th customer that entered each coffee shop) to
select customers aged 18 years or older as participants. To avoid non-
response bias, this study provided a NT$150 coffee drink or meal
voucher for each participant who completed the questionnaire. Among
the 535 responses received, 34 were excluded because of excessive
missing data. Thus, the data derived from 501 responses were used for
analysis.
3.2. Measures
This study adopted the innovativeness scale proposed by Kim et al.
(2018a), which features product innovativeness (5 items) technology-
based service innovativeness (4 items), experiential innovativeness (4
items), and promotional innovativeness (5 items), to measure customer
perceptions of coffee shop innovations. This scale is the most recently
developed innovativeness scale for the food and beverage industry, and
it exhibited satisfactory reliability and validity in this study and Kim
et al. (2018a).
The study adopted the customer engagement scale of So et al.
(2014), which measures identification (3 items), absorption (5 items),
and interaction (3 items), to determine customer engagement percep-
tions among the participants. Identification designates the degree of a
customer’s perceived oneness with or belongingness to the coffee shop.
Absorption refers to a customer’s high level of concentration and en-
grossment in a coffee shop. Interaction involves the various exchanges
that a customer has with the coffee shop or other customers outside of
the purchase time (So et al., 2014). This scale was used because it has
satisfactory reliability and has been employed to measure the extent of
customer engagement in the tourism and hospitality context (So et al.,
2016).
C.-H. Yen, et al.
This study used the scale developed by Yi and Gong (2013) to
measure customers’ perceptions of value co-creation behaviors, where
customer participation behaviors focus on information seeking (3
items), information sharing (4 items), responsible behavior (4 items),
and personal interaction (5 items), and customer citizenship behaviors
feature feedback (3 items), advocacy (3 items), helping (4 items), and
tolerance (3 items). The reason for employing this scale was that it is
commonly used in the service context (Hsieh et al., 2018).
The study incorporated the three mentioned measurement tools. In
addition to demographic variables (i.e., gender, age, marital status, and
educational level), participants rated the questionnaire items on a 5-
point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree). An item that receives a high score indicates that the participant
shows a high level of perception and consent toward the item in the
questionnaire.
4. Results
4.1. Sample characteristics
This study conducted a sample structural analysis of 501 valid
questionnaires to understand the basic information of the participants.
Among the respondents who submitted valid responses, 307 were
women (61.3 %) and 194 were men (38.7 %), 300 were unmarried
(59.9 %), 420 had college degrees (83.8 %), most were aged between
21 and 30 years (27.1 %), and 424 consumed a cup of coffee every day
(84.6 %). The profiles of the sample were similar to those of past res-
taurant literatures (Kim et al., 2018b; Li et al., 2019).
4.2. Measurement properties
This study investigated the interrelationships between innovative-
ness, customer engagement, and customer value co-creation behaviors.
The reliability test results of each scale (Table 1) indicated that all
variables received composite reliability values greater than 0.6 (Bagozzi
and Yi, 1988), ranging from 0.72 to 0.96. This showed that the ques-
tionnaire in this study was reliable. This study adopts three overall
model fit measures: absolute fit index (directly assesses how well the a
priori theoretical model fits the sample data), incremental fit indices
(IFIs; evaluates the proportionate fit by comparing a target model with
a more restricted, nested baseline model), and parsimonious fit indices
(identify whether the model fit has been achieved by overfitting the
data with too many coefficients) (Hu and Bentler, 1995). When in-
vestigating the absolute fit measures of the measurement model
(Table 2), the χ2/df, goodness-of-fit index (GFI), and root mean square
error of approximation (RMSEA) exhibited values with an acceptable fit
(Hair et al., 2010). In addition, IFIs (i.e., comparative fit index [CFI],
nonnormed fit index [NFI], and IFI) were within the ideal range
(> 0.90) for acceptable fit, and both parsimonious fit indices (parsi-
monious normed fit index and parsimonious comparative fit index) also
displayed an acceptable fit. Therefore, this model could fit the data.
Moreover, the average variance extracted (AVE) scores of all variables
were between 0.50 and 0.76, and all scores exceeded 0.5, supporting
convergent validity (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). Furthermore, the square
root of the AVE of each facet was larger than the correlation coefficient
between the paired facets, supporting discriminant validity (Fornell and
Larcker, 1981).
This research used a self-report scale to collect cognitive informa-
tion from each individual participant, and this may have led to common
method variance (CMV) problems. Therefore, this study used a single
unmeasured latent method factor test to investigate the influences of
CMV. In particular, the study reanalyzed the proposed measurement
model by adding a latent CMV factor to all the latent variable indicators
in our model (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The fit indices with a latent CMV
factor were as follows: χ2 = 4528.38, df = 1538, χ2/df = 2.94, GFI =
0.93, AGFI = 0.91, NFI = 0.94, CFI = 0.95, IFI = 0.95, RMR = 0.05,
6
International Journal of Hospitality Management 88 (2020) 102514
and RMSEA = 0.06. A comparison of the two models (with and without
a latent CMV factor) demonstrated that the change in fit indices was
nonsignificant. The results suggest CMV was not a severe problem in the
research (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
4.3. Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis
The results of the descriptive statistics and correlation analysis are
presented in Table 3. The means of innovativeness (mean = 3.67),
customer engagement (mean = 3.13), customer participation behaviors
(mean = 3.90), and customer citizenship behaviors (mean = 3.65)
ranged between neutral and agreement. The findings revealed significant
positive correlations between innovativeness and customer engagement
(r = 0.49; p < .01), innovativeness and customer participation beha-
viors (r = 0.57; p < .01), and innovativeness and customer citizenship
behaviors (r = 0.55; p < .01). In addition, customer engagement had
significant and positive correlations with customer participation beha-
viors (r = 0.46; p < .01) and customer citizenship behaviors (r = 0.66;
p < .01). Any correlation value of > 0.8 indicates a problem of inter-
correlation between constructs (Hair et al., 2010). As observed in
Table 2, all correlation values were < 0.8. Based on the correlation
analysis results, relationships among the variables can be initially un-
derstood as a basis for further analysis.
4.4. Hypothesis testing
Structural equation modeling was conducted to measure the asso-
ciations among innovativeness, customer engagement, and customer
value co-creation behaviors. Table 4 presents standardized path coef-
ficients resulting from the examination of the proposed structural
model. The fit indices (χ2 = 4590.62, df = 1549, χ2/df = 2.96,
p < .001, GFI = 0.92, AGFI = 0.90, CFI = 0.94, NFI = 0.92, IFI =
0.92, RMR = 0.05, and RMSEA = 0.06) supported the appropriateness
of the structural model. The paths from innovativeness to customer
participation behaviors (β = 0.47, p < .01), from innovativeness to
customer citizenship behaviors (β = 0.34, p < .01), from customer
engagement to customer participation behaviors (β = 0.31, p < .01),
and from customer engagement to customer citizenship behaviors (β =
0.62, p < .01) were positively significant. Thus, H1 and H2, which
proposed that innovativeness relates positively to customer participa-
tion behaviors and customer citizenship behaviors, respectively, were
supported. H3 and H4, which proposed that customer engagement re-
lated positively to customer participation behaviors and customer citi-
zenship behaviors, respectively, were supported.
The Sobel test was used to examine the mediating role of customer
engagement (Preacher et al., 2007). This research determined whether
the indirect effect of innovativeness on customer participation beha-
viors and customer citizenship behaviors mediated by customer en-
gagement differed from zero. Table 5 demonstrated that the mediating
effect of customer engagement between innovativeness and both cus-
tomer participation behaviors (z = 4.23 > 1.96, p < .01) and customer
citizenship behaviors (z = 4.94 > 1.96, p < .01) was significant. Two
nested model comparisons were also conducted to assess whether an
alternative model (direct effects) would outperform the hypothesized
model (indirect effects) (Kelloway, 1998). As presented in Table 6, the
χ2 of the hypothesized model (4590.62) was smaller than that of the
alternative model (5131.34), and the difference between χ2 values was
significant (Δχ2 = 540.72, Δdf = 48). The hypothesized model was
thus superior to the alternative model. Hence, H5 and H6, which pro-
posed that customer engagement mediates the relationships of in-
novativeness and customer participation and citizenship behaviors,
respectively, were supported.
4.5. Discussion
This study explored the interrelationships between innovativeness,
C.-H. Yen, et al. International Journal of Hospitality Management 88 (2020) 102514

Table 1
Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis.
Constructs Mean SD Factor loadings CR AVE

Innovativeness 3.67 0.66 0.96 0.60

Menu Innovativeness 3.74 0.67 0.73 0.73 0.74 0.71 0.86 0.54
This coffee shop offers new combinations of foods. 3.86 3.58 3.76 0.77 0.89 0.84 0.77
This coffee shop offers an innovative customized menu. 3.82 3.69 0.79 0.85
This coffee shop consistently introduces new menu items.
This coffee shop offers new flavors.
This coffee shop offers innovative presentation of food.
Technology-Based Service Innovativeness 3.52 0.88 0.72 0.81 0.88 0.87 0.89 0.68
This coffee shop offers new apps or online ordering tools. 3.52 3.51 3.49 1.06 0.99 0.97
This coffee shop has integrated innovative technologies into its services. 3.56 1.01
This coffee shop delivers cutting-edge services.
The procedure for ordering menu items at this coffee shop is innovative.
Experiential Innovativeness 3.60 0.78 0.79 0.78 0.81 0.85 0.88 0.65
This coffee shop provides innovative physical designs. 3.75 3.63 3.47 0.89 0.92 0.97
The employees of this coffee shop interact with customers through innovative means. 3.56 0.91
This coffee shop is well-known for innovative events.
The manner in which the employees help solve customers’ problems at this coffee shop is
innovative.
Promotional Innovativeness 3.77 0.71 0.81 0.78 0.72 0.66 0.86 0.54
This coffee shop implements an innovative marketing program. 3.72 3.60 3.85 0.86 0.90 0.88 0.70
This coffee shop adopts novel methods to market itself to customers. 3.83 0.86
This coffee shop offers innovative deals. 3.82 0.92
This coffee shop provides innovative communication platforms (e.g., online communities)
that enable customers to make suggestions.
This coffee shop has an innovative rewards (membership) program.
Customer Value Co-creation Behaviors 3.79 0.50 0.91 0.56
Customer Participation Behaviors 3.90 0.53 0.83 0.56
Information Seeking 3.72 0.72 0.76 0.79 0.70 0.80 0.56
I asked others for information on what this service offers. 3.61 3.84 3.71 0.90 0.83 0.86
I searched for information on where this service is located.
I paid attention to how others make effective use of this service.
Information Sharing 3.50 0.73 0.73 0.87 0.79 0.87 0.62
I clearly explained what I wanted the employee to do. 3.55 3.54 3.54 0.87 0.82 0.88 0.76
I gave the employee the required information. 3.37 0.93
I provided necessary information so that the employee could perform his or her duties.
I answered all of the employee’s service-related questions.
Responsible Behavior 3.99 0.65 0.84 0.88 0.82 0.68 0.88 0.65
I performed all the tasks that were required. 3.91 3.98 4.00 0.76 0.74 0.78
I adequately exhibited all the expected behaviors. 4.07 0.74
I fulfilled my responsibilities to the business.
I followed the employee’s directives or orders.
Personal Interaction 4.26 0.63 0.87 0.93 0.87 0.85 0.93 0.73
I was friendly to the employee. 4.22 4.22 4.23 0.75 0.71 0.72 0.74
I was kind to the employee. 4.26 4.38 0.70 0.69
I was polite to the employee.
I was courteous to the employee.
I did not act rudely toward the employee.
Customer Citizenship Behaviors 3.65 0.57 0.94 0.62
Feedback 3.83 0.62 0.79 0.66 0.67 0.72 0.50
If I had a useful idea on how to improve service, I informed the employee. 3.59 4.03 3.87 0.83 0.78 0.76
When I received good service from an employee, I commented about it.
When I experienced a problem, I informed the employee.
Advocacy 3.89 0.69 0.74 0.85 0.83 0.85 0.65
I said positive things about this coffee shop and the employee to others. 3.82 3.90 3.94 0.80 0.78 0.79
I recommended this coffee ship and the employee to others.
I encouraged friends and relatives to visit this coffee shop.
Helping 3.41 0.81 0.80 0.83 0.88 0.82 0.90 0.69
I assisted other customers if they need my help. 3.69 3.32 3.33 0.90 1.02 0.97
I helped other customers if they seem to have problems. 3.32 0.94
I taught other customers how to use the service correctly.
I provided advice to other customers.
Tolerance 3.55 0.74 0.53 0.85 0.87 0.80 0.59
If a service was not delivered as expected, I was willing to put up with it. 3.32 3.66 3.67 0.95 0.85 0.86
If the employee made a mistake during service delivery, I was patient.
If I had to wait longer than expected to receive service, I was willing to adapt.
Customer Engagement 3.13 0.79 0.96 0.76
Identification 2.90 0.92 0.84 0.88 0.89 0.90 0.76
When someone criticizes this coffee shop, it feels like a personal insult. 2.83 2.88 2.98 0.96 1.01 1.02
When I talk about this coffee shop, I usually say “we” rather than “they.”
When someone praises this coffee shop, it feels like a personal compliment.
Absorption 3.25 0.81 0.82 0.86 0.78 0.75 0.90 0.64
I am passionate about this coffee shop. 3.30 3.27 3.39 0.92 0.94 0.91 0.79
I feel excited about this coffee shop. 3.09 3.19 0.97 0.96
Anything related to this coffee shop grabs my attention.
(continued on next page)

7
C.-H. Yen, et al. International Journal of Hospitality Management 88 (2020) 102514

Table 1 (continued)

Constructs Mean SD Factor loadings CR AVE

When I am interacting with this coffee shop, I forget everything else around me.
I become immersed in my interaction with this coffee shop.
Interaction 3.18 0.89 0.90 0.87 0.91 0.76
In general, I like to get involved in coffee shop community discussions. 3.22 3.27 0.95 0.96 0.85
I enjoy interacting with like-minded people within the coffee shop community. 3.05 0.99
I often participate in activities within the coffee shop community.

Note: CR refers to composite reliability.

AVE refers to average variance extracted.

customer engagement, and customer value co-creation behaviors and Table 3

clarified the mediating influence of customer engagement. The results Correlation Analysis.
revealed that innovativeness positively affects customer participation Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4
behaviors and customer citizenship behaviors. Customer engagement
positively affects customer participation behaviors and customer citi- 1. Innovativeness 3.67 0.66 0.77
zenship behaviors. Furthermore, customer engagement has a mediating 2. Customer engagement 3.13 0.79 0.49** 0.75
3. Customer participation 3.90 0.53 0.57** 0.46** 0.74
influence on the association between innovativeness and customer
behaviors
value co-creation behavior. Kim et al. (2018a) suggested that scholars 4. Customer citizenship 3.65 0.57 0.55** 0.66** 0.67** 0.87
should investigate the potential influence of restaurant innovativeness behaviors
on related consequences. The research responded to this suggestion by
demonstrating that innovativeness is positively associated with cus- The square root of AVE is shown on the diagonal of the matrix.
tomer engagement and customer value co-creation behaviors in the ** p < 0.01.
coffee shop context. The research empirically validated findings from
value co-creation theory and investigating the interrelationships be- creation behaviors. A service company’s innovativeness can enhance
tween innovativeness, customer engagement, and customer value co- the engagement of its customers, and customer engagement can en-
creation behaviors. hance customers’ perceptions of benefits and values. This in turn can
The findings demonstrated that innovativeness has a positive in- promote customer participation and citizenship behaviors, because
fluence on customer participation behaviors and customer citizenship customers are more willing to invest time and effort into their re-
behaviors. Innovativeness is a crucial strategy influencing customer lationships with service companies. Therefore, according to social ex-
participation and value co-creation processes (Chathoth et al., 2013). change theory (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005), the research revealed
Innovativeness within an industry can improve information and that innovativeness promotes customer engagement and thus enhances
knowledge exchange between service providers and customers and can customer value co-creation behaviors.
trigger customer motivation and enthusiasm in promoting customer
value co-creation behaviors. The results supported the argument of 5. Implications and recommendations
service-dominant logic (Cabiddu et al., 2013; Vargo and Lusch, 2004).
Furthermore, the study identified that innovativeness is a crucial 5.1. Theoretical implications
antecedent variable that affects customer value co-creation behaviors in
the food and beverage industry. Customers tend to assume proactive Our findings supplement those of previous restaurant studies from
roles including customer participation behaviors and customer citi- certain perspectives. First, this study responds to a recommendation of
zenship behaviors when they believe that restaurants are innovative. Yi and Gong (2013) to test customer value co-creation behaviors within
This study also found that customer engagement has a positive ef- a more comprehensive model that integrates theoretically related
fect on customer participation behaviors and customer citizenship be- constructs. Based on the coffee shop industry context, this empirical
haviors. Because customer engagement can improve customer-per- study revealed that innovativeness and customer engagement are a
ceived benefits and values, greater satisfaction with service crucial antecedent and a mediator to customer value co-creation be-
relationships may enhance customer value co-creation behaviors. haviors, respectively. Second, this study constitutes a response to the
Moreover, this result supported the arguments of Jaakkola and suggestion of Kim et al. (2018a) that more studies are required to in-
Alexander (2014) and verified the relationship between customer en- vestigate the effect of innovativeness on related consequences. This
gagement and customer value co-creation behaviors. The study showed research filled the literature gap by providing empirical findings on the
that customer engagement is a crucial antecedent variable that affects interrelationships between innovativeness, customer engagement, and
customer value co-creation behaviors in the food and beverage in- customer value co-creation behaviors in the coffee shop context. In-
dustry. novativeness can increase customer engagement and promote customer
This study demonstrated that customer engagement has a mediating value co-creation. Third, few studies have investigated psychological
influence on the linking between innovativeness and customer value co- mechanisms to explain why innovativeness predicts customer value co-

Table 2
Goodness-of-Fit Measures for the Measurement Model.
Absolute fit measures Incremental fit measures Parsimonious fit measures

χ2 χ2/df GFI RMSEA CFI NFI IFI PNFI PCFI

4623.40 2.98 0.93 0.05 0.95 0.94 0.95 0.88 0.85

df = 1551, p < .001

χ2 = Chi-square; df = degree of freedom; GFI = goodness-of-fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CFI = comparative fit index; NFI =
nonnormed fit index; IFI = incremental fit index; PNFI = parsimonious normed fit index; PCFI = parsimonious comparative fit index.

8
C.-H. Yen, et al.
Table 4
Structural Model and Hypotheses Test.
Path relationships
H1: Innovativeness → Customer participation behaviors
H2: Innovativeness → Customer citizenship behaviors
H3: Customer engagement → Customer participation behaviors
H4: Customer engagement → Customer citizenship behaviors
Note: All path estimates are standardized.
** p < 0.01.
creation behaviors. In addition, although studies have noted that cus-
tomer value co-creation behaviors is a crucial outcome variable of
customer engagement (Merrilees, 2016; Zhang et al., 2017), the med-
iating role of customer engagement was yet to be explored. The study
used customer engagement as a mediator to explore the association
between innovativeness and customer value co-creation behaviors.
According to the perspective of service-dominant logic (Cabiddu et al.,
2013; Vargo and Lusch, 2004) and social exchange theory (Cropanzano
and Mitchell, 2005), the research contended that customer engagement
is an essential mediator between innovativeness and customer value co-
creation behaviors in the food and beverage industry. The study con-
tributes to the existing knowledge base by uncovering the relationship
of innovativeness with customer value co-creation behaviors. Thus, this
research proposes that customer engagement may be a key checkpoint
in detecting how innovativeness influences customer value co-creation
behaviors.
5.2. Practical implications
The results provide many managerial implications. First, this study
revealed the importance of innovativeness (e.g., in terms of products,
technology-based services, experience, and promotion) for enhancing
customer engagement within the food and beverage industry.
Restaurant supervisors must continue to develop innovative strategies
that attract customers in order to drive customer engagement. The food
and beverage industry can adopt various innovative solutions, integrate
menus and innovative technology-based and experiential services, and
establish innovative marketing strategies to provide customers with
unique service experiences. For example, a restaurant can regularly
introduce new menu options and apply creative food presentation to
enhance the quality and value of its meals, thereby providing customers
with unique and innovative dining experiences. Moreover, restaurant
supervisors can also use unconventional décor and esthetic environ-
ments to create a valuable dining experience. In addition, restaurant
marketing staff can share images of innovative restaurant designs with
existing and potential customers on social media platforms such as
Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook. Customer engagement is expected to
increase through the aforementioned innovative methods.
Second, the results revealed that innovativeness is an essential
factor affecting customer value co-creation behaviors, indicating that
restaurant operators should continue to provide customers with in-
novative services in order to promote customer value co-creation op-
portunities. Restaurant managers should consider what customers can
do with their restaurants, work with customers to meet their needs and
expectations, and encourage customers to take part in the value crea-
tion. Restaurant operators should introduce innovative promotional
Table 5
Indirect Effect of Customer Engagement (Sobel z Test Results).
Path
H5: Innovativeness → Customer engagement → Customer participation behaviors
H6: Innovativeness → Customer engagement → Customer citizenship behaviors
Note: **p < 0.01.
9
International Journal of Hospitality Management 88 (2020) 102514
β t-value Results
.47** 7.64 Supported
.34** 6.02 Supported
.31** 5.72 Supported
.62** 8.73 Supported
strategies, establish effective communication platforms for customer
opinions and feedback, and encourage customer collaboration. Such
communication platforms not only enhance interaction between cus-
tomers and restaurant operators but also create value for both parties,
thereby promoting customer participation behaviors (e.g., information
sharing) and customer citizenship behaviors (e.g., sharing feedback and
performing helping behaviors).
Third, the results showed that innovativeness positively affects
customer engagement and thus promotes customer value co-creation
behaviors. Therefore, restaurant managers should provide innovative
and value-added products or services to enhance customers’ dining
experiences and willingness to engage in value co-creation. Managers
are recommended to suitably design a time-saving, convenient, and
controlled service process for customers to easily engage in the value
co-creation process. For example, in recent years, many restaurant
operators have introduced mobile apps or online tools that enable
customers to order or pay. Managers should pay attention to the user-
friendliness of technology interfaces, design innovative technology
service tools from customer perspectives, and ensure that these tools are
easy to use, interactive, highly responsive, and of high quality to
minimize the perceived cost of customers when engaging in value co-
creation. In addition, restaurant operators can appropriately arrange
roles for customers in the service system to enable customers to invest
resources and efforts into service production, in order to improve the
effectiveness of service innovation.
5.3. Limitations and future research
The research had some limitations. First, the study used a self-report
approach to measure perceptions of innovativeness, customer engage-
ment, and customer value co-creation behaviors; this approach may
have resulted in response bias. Second, the study used a cross-sectional
study design that may have affected the causal relationship inference of
the results. Thus, it is suggested that future studies use longitudinal
design to enhance the inference of causality. Third, the research in-
vestigated only customers of chain coffee shops, and thus the results
may not be fully applicable to other types of restaurant operators or
other industries. Therefore, future studies are recommended to in-
vestigate other tourism industries (e.g., the hotel industry and airline
industry) and service industries. Fourth, this study did not include any
control variables. The proposed relationships in the research model
may have been affected by confounding variables. Relevant studies
have determined that customer’s innovative perception, consumer be-
havior, and client type may influence customer value co-creation be-
haviors (Clauss et al., 2018; Heidenreich and Handrich, 2015). Based on
the suggestion by MacKinnon et al. (2000), further studies may control
Test statistic (z) Std. Error p-value
4.23** .07 .000
4.94** .09 .000
C.-H. Yen, et al.
Table 6
Structural Equation Modeling Comparisons.
Models χ2 (df) Δχ2 Δdf
Hypothesized Model (indirect model) 4590.62 (1549) ﹣ ﹣
Alternative model (direct model) 5131.34 (1597) 540.72 48
χ2 critical: Δdf = 1597 − 1549 = 48; χ295, 1 = 5.99.
for these variables in a model with multiple mediators to accurately
capture the mediating effect of customer engagement in the linkage
between innovativeness and customer value co-creation behaviors. This
could eliminate potential interference of these variables on the re-
lationships between variables in the proposed research model. Finally,
this study focused on how innovativeness influences customer value co-
creation behaviors indirectly through customer engagement, but did
not consider the contingent factors of other variables (e.g., consumer
involvement or duration of customership) (Clauss et al., 2018; O’Cass
et al., 2011). Future researchers could further explore whether in-
novativeness, customer engagement, and customer value co-creation
behaviors are affected by moderating variables.
References
Abdul-Ghani, E., Hyde, K.F., Marshall, R., 2011. Emic and etic interpretations of en-
gagement with a consumer-to-consumer online auction site. J. Bus. Res. 64 (10),
1060–1066.
Ahn, J., Back, K.J., 2018. Antecedents and consequences of customer brand engagement
in integrated resorts. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 75, 144–152.
Ajzen, I., Fishbein, M., 2000. Attitudes and the attitude-behavior relation: reasoned and
automatic processes. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 11 (1), 1–33.
Aluri, A., Price, B.S., McIntyre, N.H., 2019. Using machine learning to cocreate value
through dynamic customer engagement in a brand loyalty program. J. Hosp. Tour.
Res. 43 (1), 78–100.
Apenes Solem, B.A., 2016. Influences of customer participation and customer brand en-
gagement on brand loyalty. J. Consum. Mark. 33 (5), 332–342.
Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y., 1988. On the evaluation of structural equation models. J. Acad.
Mark. Sci. 16 (1), 74–94.
Bettencourt, L.A., 1997. Customer voluntary performance: customers as partners in ser-
vice delivery. J. Retail. 73 (3), 383–406.
Bilro, R.G., Loureiro, S.M.C., Guerreiro, J., 2019. Exploring online customer engagement
with hospitality products and its relationship with involvement, emotional states,
experience and brand advocacy. J. Hosp. Mark. Manage. 28 (2), 147–171.
Binder, P., Mair, M., Stummer, K., Kessler, A., 2016. Organizational innovativeness and its
results: a qualitative analysis of SME hotels in Vienna. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 40 (3),
339–363.
Binkhorst, E., Den Dekker, T., 2009. Agenda for co-creation tourism experience research.
J. Hosp. Mark. Manage. 18 (2–3), 311–327.
Brodie, R.J., Hollebeek, L.D., Jurić, B., Ilić, A., 2011. Customer engagement: conceptual
domain, fundamental propositions, and implications for research. J. Serv. Res. 14 (3),
252–271.
Bryce, D., Curran, R., O’Gorman, K., Taheri, B., 2015. Visitors’ engagement and authen-
ticity: japanese heritage consumption. Tour. Manage. 46, 571–581.
Buhalis, D., Foerste, M., 2015. SoCoMo marketing for travel and tourism: empowering co-
creation of value. J. Destin. Mark. Manage. 4 (3), 151–161.
Cabiddu, F., Lui, T.W., Piccoli, G., 2013. Managing value co-creation in the tourism in-
dustry. Ann. Tour. Res. 42, 86–107.
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. J.
Mark. 74 (3), 48–64.
Chathoth, P., Altinay, L., Harrington, R.J., Okumus, F., Chan, E.S., 2013. Co-production
versus co-creation: a process based continuum in the hotel service context. Int. J.
Hosp. Manage. 32, 11–20.
Chen, H., Rahman, I., 2018. Cultural tourism: an analysis of engagement, cultural contact,
memorable tourism experience and destination loyalty. Tourism Manage. Perspect.
26, 153–163.
Clauss, T., Kesting, T., Naskrent, J., 2018. A rolling stone gathers no moss: the effect of
customers’ perceived business model innovativeness on customer value co‐creation
behavior and customer satisfaction in the service sector. R&D Manage. 49 (2),
180–203.
Cropanzano, R., Mitchell, M.S., 2005. Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review.
J. Manage. 31 (6), 874–900.
Demary, V., 2017. Stepping Up The Game: The Role of Innovation In The Sharing
Economy (No. 11/2017). Konkurrensverket Working Paper, IW-Report. .
Di Benedetto, C.A., Crawford, C.M., 2008. New Products Management. McGraw-Hill, New
York.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18 (1), 39–50.
Fu, F.Q., Elliott, M.T., 2013. The moderating effect of perceived product innovativeness
10
International Journal of Hospitality Management 88 (2020) 102514
GFI AGFI CFI NFI IFI RMR RMSEA
0.92 0.90 0.94 0.92 0.92 0.05 0.06
0.87 0.85 0.89 0.88 0.88 0.07 0.08
and product knowledge on new product adoption: an integrated model. J. Mark.
Theory Pract. 21 (3), 257–272.
Gagić, S., 2016. Restaurant innovativeness: a case study of Vojvodina. Eur. J. Appl. Econ.
13 (2), 57–69.
Getnet, H., O’Cass, A., Ahmadi, H., Siahtiri, V., 2019. Supporting product innovativeness
and customer value at the bottom of the pyramid through context-specific capabilities
and social ties. Ind. Mark. Manage. 83, 70–80.
Gomezelj, D.O., 2016. A systematic review of research on innovation in hospitality and
tourism. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manage. 28 (3), 516–558.
Grayson, D., 2011. Embedding corporate responsibility and sustainability: marks &
Spencer. J. Manage. Dev. 30 (10), 1017–1026.
Grissemann, U.S., Stokburger-Sauer, N.E., 2012. Customer co-creation of travel services:
the role of company support and customer satisfaction with the co-creation perfor-
mance. Tour. Manage. 33 (6), 1483–1492.
Grönroos, C., 2012. Conceptualising value co-creation: a journey to the 1970s and back to
the future. J. Mark. Manage. 28 (13–14), 1520–1534.
Grönroos, C., Voima, P., 2013. Critical service logic: making sense of value creation and
co-creation. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 41 (2), 133–150.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th
ed. Pearson-Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Harrigan, P., Evers, U., Miles, M., Daly, T., 2017. Customer engagement with tourism
social media brands. Tour. Manage. 59, 597–609.
Heidenreich, S., Handrich, M., 2015. Adoption of technology-based services: the role of
customers’ willingness to co-create. J. Serv. Manage. 26 (1), 44–71.
Hjalager, A.M., 2010. A review of innovation research in tourism. Tour. Manage. 31 (1),
1–12.
Hollebeek, L., 2011. Exploring customer brand engagement: definition and themes. J.
Strateg. Mark. 19 (7), 555–573.
Hollebeek, L.D., Andreassen, T.W., 2018. The SD logic-informed “hamburger” model of
service innovation and its implications for engagement and value. J. Serv. Mark. 32
(1), 1–7.
Hollebeek, L.D., Chen, T., 2014. Exploring positively-versus negatively-valenced brand
engagement: a conceptual model. J. Prod. Brand. Manage. 23 (1), 62–74.
Hollebeek, L.D., Macky, K., 2019. Digital content marketing’s role in fostering consumer
engagement, trust, and value: framework, fundamental propositions, and implica-
tions. J. Interact. Mark. 45, 27–41.
Hollebeek, L.D., Srivastava, R.K., Chen, T., 2019. SD logic–informed customer engage-
ment: integrative framework, revised fundamental propositions, and application to
CRM. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 47 (1), 161–185.
Hsieh, S.H., Chang, A., 2016. The psychological mechanism of brand co-creation en-
gagement. J. Interact. Mark. 33, 13–26.
Hsieh, Y.C., Chiu, H.C., Tang, Y.C., Lin, W.Y., 2018. Does raising value co-creation in-
crease all customers’ happiness? J. Bus. Ethics 152 (4), 1053–1067.
Hu, L., Bentler, P.M., 1995. Evaluating model fit. In: Hoyle, R. (Ed.), Structural Equation
Modeling: Concepts, Issues and Application. Sage Publications, Thousand Oak, CA,
pp. 76–99.
Hu, M.L.M., Horng, J.S., Sun, Y.H.C., 2009. Hospitality teams: knowledge sharing and
service innovation performance. Tour. Manage. 30 (1), 41–50.
Hult, G.T.M., Hurley, R.F., Knight, G.A., 2004. Innovativeness: its antecedents and impact
on business performance. Ind. Mark. Manage. 33 (5), 429–438.
Hurley, R.F., Hult, G.T.M., 1998. Innovation, market orientation, and organizational
learning: an integration and empirical examination. J. Mark. 62 (3), 42–54.
Hwang, J., Lee, J.S., Kim, H., 2019. Perceived innovativeness of drone food delivery
services and its impacts on attitude and behavioral intentions: the moderating role of
gender and age. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 81, 94–103.
Im, J., Qu, H., 2017. Drivers and resources of customer co-creation: a scenario-based case
in the restaurant industry. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 64, 31–40.
Jaakkola, E., Alexander, M., 2014. The role of customer engagement behavior in value co-
creation: a service system perspective. J. Serv. Res. 17 (3), 247–261.
Jaakkola, E., Helkkula, A., Aarikka-Stenroos, L., 2015. Service experience co-creation:
conceptualization, implications, and future research directions. J. Serv. Manage. 26
(2), 182–205.
Jeon, S., Park, C., Yi, Y., 2016. Co-creation of background music: a key to innovating
coffee shop management. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 58, 56–65.
Jin, N., Goh, B., Huffman, L., Yuan, J.J., 2015. Predictors and outcomes of perceived
image of restaurant innovativeness in fine-dining restaurants. J. Hosp. Mark. Manage.
24 (5), 457–485.
Kallmuenzer, A., 2018. Exploring drivers of innovation in hospitality family firms. Int. J.
Contemp. Hosp. Manage. 30 (3), 1978–1995.
Kallmuenzer, A., Peters, M., 2018. Innovativeness and control mechanisms in tourism and
hospitality family firms: a comparative study. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 70, 66–74.
Kallmuenzer, A., Peters, M., Buhalis, D., 2019. The role of family firm image perception in
host-guest value co-creation of hospitality firms. Curr. Issues Tour. 1–18.
Kelloway, E.K., 1998. Using LISREL for Structural Equation Modeling: a Research’s Guide.
Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
C.-H. Yen, et al.
Kemp, E., Childers, C.Y., Williams, K.H., 2012. Place branding: creating self-brand con-
nections and brand advocacy. J. Prod. Brand. Manage. 21 (7), 508–515.
Kim, D., Jang, S., 2017. Symbolic consumption in upscale cafés: examining Korean gen Y
consumers’ materialism, conformity, conspicuous tendencies, and functional quali-
ties. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 41 (2), 154–179.
Kim, E., Tang, L.R., Bosselman, R., 2018a. Measuring customer perceptions of restaurant
innovativeness: developing and validating a scale. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 74, 85–98.
Kim, S.H., Kim, M., Holland, S., 2018b. How customer personality traits influence brand
loyalty in the coffee shop industry: the moderating role of business types. Int. J. Hosp.
Tour. Adm. 19 (3), 311–335.
Kim, E., Tang, L., Bosselman, R., 2019a. Customer perceptions of innovativeness: an ac-
celerator for value co-creation. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 43 (6), 807–838.
Kim, S.H., Kim, M., Lee, S., 2019b. The consumer value-based brand citizenship behavior
model: evidence from local and global coffee businesses. J. Hosp. Mark. Manage. 28
(4), 472–490.
Kumar, V., Pansari, A., 2016. Competitive advantage through engagement. J. Mark. Res.
53 (4), 497–514.
Kumar, V., Aksoy, L., Donkers, B., Venkatesan, R., Wiesel, T., Tillmanns, S., 2010.
Undervalued or overvalued customers: capturing total customer engagement value. J.
Serv. Res. 13 (3), 297–310.
Kunz, W., Schmitt, B., Meyer, A., 2011. How does perceived firm innovativeness affect the
consumer? J. Bus. Res. 64 (8), 816–822.
Kyrgidou, L.P., Spyropoulou, S., 2013. Drivers and performance outcomes of innova-
tiveness: an empirical study. Br. J. Manage. 24 (3), 281–298.
Leckie, C., Nyadzayo, M.W., Johnson, L.W., 2018. Promoting brand engagement beha-
viors and loyalty through perceived service value and innovativeness. J. Serv. Mark.
32 (1), 70–82.
Li, Y., Liu, B., Huan, T.C.T., 2019. Renewal or not? Consumer response to a renewed
corporate social responsibility strategy: evidence from the coffee shop industry. Tour.
Manage. 72, 170–179.
Lusch, R.F., Vargo, S.L., O’Brien, M., 2007. Competing through service: insights from
service-dominant logic. J. Retail. 83 (1), 5–18.
MacKinnon, D.P., Krull, J.L., Lockwood, C.M., 2000. Equivalence of the mediation, con-
founding and suppression effect. Prev. Sci. 1 (4), 173–181.
Mathis, E.F., Kim, H.L., Uysal, M., Sirgy, J.M., Prebensen, N.K., 2016. The effect of co-
creation experience on outcome variable. Ann. Tour. Res. 57, 62–75.
Merrilees, B., 2016. Interactive brand experience pathways to customer-brand engage-
ment and value co-creation. J. Prod. Brand. Manage. 25 (5), 402–408.
Moliner, M.Á., Monferrer-Tirado, D., Estrada-Guillén, M., 2018. Consequences of cus-
tomer engagement and customer self-brand connection. J. Serv. Mark. 3 (4),
387–399.
Morosan, C., DeFranco, A., 2016. Co-creating value in hotels using mobile devices: a
conceptual model with empirical validation. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 52, 131–142.
Nahapiet, J., Ghoshal, S., 1998. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational
advantage. Acad. Manage. Rev. 23 (2), 242–266.
Nam, J., Ekinci, Y., Whyatt, G., 2011. Brand equity, brand loyalty and consumer sa-
tisfaction. Ann. Tour. Res. 38 (3), 1009–1030.
O’Cass, A., Boisvert, J., Ashill, N.J., 2011. How brand innovativeness and quality impact
attitude toward new service line extensions: the moderating role of consumer in-
volvement. J. Serv. Mark. 25 (7), 517–552.
Odoom, R., Boateng, H., Asante, B.O., 2017. An empirical investigation of perceived re-
lational benefits and brand engagement in restaurant services. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp.
Manage. 29 (11), 2767–2784.
Omar, N.A., Kassim, A.S., Alam, S.S., Zainol, Z., 2018. Perceived retailer innovativeness
and brand equity: mediation of consumer engagement. Serv. Ind. J. https://doi.org/
10.1080/02642069.2018.1548614.
Ou, J., Wong, I.A., Prentice, C., Liu, M.T., 2020. Customer engagement and its outcomes:
the cross-level effect of service environment and brand equity. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 44
(2), 377–402.
Oyner, O., Korelina, A., 2016. The influence of customer engagement in value co-creation
on customer satisfaction: searching for new forms of co-creation in the Russian hotel
industry. Worldw. Hosp. Tour. Themes 8 (3), 327–345.
Pansari, A., Kumar, V., 2017. Customer engagement: the construct, antecedents, and
consequences. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 45 (3), 294–311.
Pervan, S.J., Bove, L.L., 2011. The engagement of customers beyond their expected roles.
J. Strateg. Mark. 19 (7), 551–554.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Common method
biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88 (5), 879–903.
Prahalad, C.K., Ramaswamy, V., 2003. The new frontier of experience innovation. MIT
Sloan Manage. Rev. 44 (4), 12–19.
11
International Journal of Hospitality Management 88 (2020) 102514
Prahalad, C.K., Ramaswamy, V., 2004. Co-creating unique value with customers. Strategy
Leadersh. 32 (3), 4–9.
Preacher, K.J., Rucker, D.D., Hayes, A.F., 2007. Addressing moderated mediation hy-
potheses: theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behav. Res. 42 (1),
185–227.
Rahimi, R., Köseoglu, M.A., Ersoy, A.B., Okumus, F., 2017. Customer relationship man-
agement research in tourism and hospitality: a state-of-the-art. Tour. Rev. 72 (2),
209–220.
Ranjan, K.R., Read, S., 2016. Value co-creation: concept and measurement. J. Acad. Mark.
Sci. 44 (3), 290–315.
Rather, R.A., Hollebeek, L.D., Islam, J.U., 2019. Tourism-based customer engagement: the
construct, antecedents, and consequences. Serv. Ind. J. 39 (7–8), 519–540.
Revilla-Camacho, M.Á., Vega-Vázquez, M., Cossío-Silva, F.J., 2015. Customer participa-
tion and citizenship behavior effects on turnover intention. J. Bus. Res. 68 (7),
1607–1611.
Rogers, E.M., 2010. Diffusion of Innovations, 4th ed. Free Press, New York, NY.
Sandvik, I.L., Duhan, D.F., Sandvik, K., 2014. Innovativeness and profitability: an em-
pirical investigation in the Norwegian hotel industry. Cornell Hosp. Q. 55 (2),
165–185.
Sashi, C.M., 2012. Customer engagement, buyer-seller relationships, and social media.
Manage. Decis. 50 (2), 253–272.
Shamim, A., Ghazali, Z., 2014. A conceptual model for developing customer value co-
creation behaviour in retailing. Global Bus. Manage. Res. 6 (3), 185–196.
Shamim, A., Ghazali, Z., Albinsson, P.A., 2016. An integrated model of corporate brand
experience and customer value co-creation behaviour. Int. J. Retail. Distrib. Manag.
44 (2), 139–158.
So, K.K.F., King, C., Sparks, B., 2014. Customer engagement with tourism brands: scale
development and validation. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 38 (3), 304–329.
So, K.K.F., King, C., Sparks, B.A., Wang, Y., 2016. The role of customer engagement in
building consumer loyalty to tourism brands. J. Travel. Res. 55 (1), 64–78.
Sorescu, A., Frambach, R.T., Singh, J., Rangaswamy, A., Bridges, C., 2011. Innovations in
retail business models. J. Retail. 87 (1), S3–S16.
Szymanski, D.M., Kroff, M.W., Troy, L.C., 2007. Innovativeness and new product success:
insights from the cumulative evidence. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 35 (1), 35–52.
Taiwan Chain Stores and Franchise Association, 2019. 2018 Chain Store Yearbook.
Taiwan Chain Stores and Franchise Association, Taipei.
Tajeddini, K., Trueman, M., 2014. Perceptions of innovativeness among Iranian hotel
managers. J. Hosp. Tour. Technol. 5 (1), 62–77.
Tajeddini, K., Altinay, L., Ratten, V., 2017. Service innovativeness and the structuring of
organizations: the moderating roles of learning orientation and inter-functional co-
ordination. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 65, 100–114.
Tsai, W., Ghoshal, S., 1998. Social capital and value creation: the role of intrafirm net-
works. Acad. Manage. J. 41 (4), 464–476.
Tu, Y., Neuhofer, B., Viglia, G., 2018. When co-creation pays: stimulating engagement to
increase revenues. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manage. 30 (4), 2093–2111.
Tynan, C., McKechnie, S., Chhuon, C., 2010. Co-creating value for luxury brands. J. Bus.
Res. 63 (11), 1156–1163.
Van Doorn, J., Lemon, K.N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P., Verhoef, P.C., 2010.
Customer engagement behavior: theoretical foundations and research directions. J.
Serv. Res. 13 (3), 253–266.
van Tonder, E., Saunders, S.G., Lisita, I.T., de Beer, L.T., 2018v. The importance of cus-
tomer citizenship behaviour in the modern retail environment: introducing and
testing a social exchange model. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 45, 92–102.
Vargo, S.L., Lusch, R.F., 2004. Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. J. Mark.
68 (1), 1–17.
Victorino, L., Verma, R., Plaschka, G., Dev, C., 2005. Service innovation and customer
choices in the hospitality industry. Managing Service Quality: An International
Journal 15 (6), 555–576.
Xu, H., Liu, Y., Lyu, X., 2018. Customer value co-creation and new service evaluation: the
moderating role of outcome quality. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manage. 30 (4),
2020–2036.
Yeh, Y.P., 2015. Corporate social responsibility and service innovation on customer
loyalty. Int. J. Bank Mark. 33 (6), 823–839.
Yi, Y., Gong, T., 2013. Customer value co-creation behavior: scale development and va-
lidation. J. Bus. Res. 66 (9), 1279–1284.
Yi, Y., Nataraajan, R., Gong, T., 2011. Customer participation and citizenship behavioral
influences on employee performance, satisfaction, commitment, and turnover in-
tention. J. Bus. Res. 64 (1), 87–95.
Zhang, M., Guo, L., Hu, M., Liu, W., 2017. Influence of customer engagement with
company social networks on stickiness: mediating effect of customer value creation.
Int. J. Inf. Manage. 37 (3), 229–240.