Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 56 (2020) 102171

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

Recipes for achieving customer loyalty: A qualitative comparative analysis

of the dimensions of customer experience
Sanja Pekovic a, *, Sylvie Rolland b
a
University of Montenegro, Montenegro
b
Dauphine Recherches en Management (DRM), Universit�e Paris-Dauphine, PSL Research University, France

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Theoretical literature on customer experience (CX) agrees that the effects of customer experience on customer
Customer experience behavior depend on different combinations of its dimensions. In contrast with unidimensional or integrated
Customer loyalty approaches to CX, determining customer behavior requires specifying how the dimensions of CX interact.
Configuration
However, empirical research on the interactions between CX dimensions has not, to our minds, progressed
Generational cohort
fsQCA model
sufficiently. Therefore, in this study, we have advanced CX research by empirically demonstrating the ways in
which customer loyalty can result from various dimensions; we do this by focusing on synergies between
different CX dimensions within a DIY sector. A sample of 603 consumers from France, applied to a fuzzy-set
qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) model, reveals two configurations that firms can use to achieve su­
perior customer loyalty. The findings also specify that complementarity and substitutability effects result among
CX dimensions when they reflect a perfect match, and not simply by adding extra dimensions. Further analysis
reveals both distinct features and similarities among generational cohorts, in terms of CX dimensions assessment,
and their relevance for customer loyalty. This article thus contributes to existing research by tracing the multiple
CX paths that can lead to enhanced performance for firms within the DIY sector.

1. Introduction
Postmodern consumers do not buy a product or service; they seek to
purchase a series of memorable events, created by the firm, that produce
a personal consumption journey (Pine and Gilmore, 1999). No longer
satisfied with generic offerings, many consumers require personalized,
contextualized experiences in all their interactions with a firm (De
Keyser et al., 2015). In response, retailers aim to achieve competitive
advantages and differentiate themselves from competitors by offering
more personal, unique experiences to their customers (Pine and Gil­
more, 1999; Verhoef et al., 2009; Klaus and Maklan, 2013; Åkesson
et al., 2014; Stein and Ramaseshan, 2016). The resulting customer
experience (CX) refers to all the interactions between a customer and a
product, firm, or any part of the organization that provokes reactions
from a customer. This experience is strictly personal and concerns the
customer’s involvement at different levels, including the customer’s
cognitive, affective, emotional, social and physical responses to the
retailer and its technology, which then determine customers’ overall
shopping service experience (Verhoef et al., 2009). Recently, Forbes
(2019) presented ten firms that experienced dramatic turnarounds by
investing in their customer experiences. For example, the report spec­
ifies that, since investing in customer experience, Target’s reputation
and sales have significantly risen.
In turn, CX has become critical for the success of firms in nearly all
industries (Sharma and Chaubey, 2014; Wei et al., 2019), because a
superior CX can enhance various performance outcomes. Firms that
offer strong CX grow revenue faster than those which do not, attracting
greater brand preferences, meaning they can charge more for their
products, thereby outperforming other firms on both stock price growth
and total returns (Harvard Business Review Analytic Services, 2014;
Forrester Report, 2018). The Temkin Group Insight Report (2016)
demonstrates that a moderate increase in CX generates an average
revenue increase of $823 million over three years for a firm whose
annual revenue is $1 billion. In the same vein, CX is considered to be the
main reason for explaining why iPhone prices have risen by at least 10%
each year since 2011, meaning that Apple continues to break its own
sales record year after year (Martech Advisor, 2019). Accordingly,
Rudkowski et al. (2019) suggest that retailers invest in CX to obtain a
competitive position and to realize key business objectives, such as those
of market share and sales revenue. A positive CX can also influence

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: psanja@ucg.ac.me (S. Pekovic).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102171
Received 31 August 2019; Received in revised form 20 May 2020; Accepted 25 May 2020
Available online 15 June 2020
0969-6989/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Pekovic and S. Rolland
customer commitment and determine customer preferences, which
inform their purchase decisions (Gentile et al., 2007), satisfaction
(Shankar et al., 2003), communication with potential customers (Kei­
ningham et al., 2007), and their loyalty to the brand (Brakus et al., 2009;
Srivastava and Kaul, 2016). Consequently, firms are urged to implement
CX programs. But even when CEOs believe they deliver superior CX,
often only a small percentage of their customers agree (Bain and Com­
pany, 2005). In France, for instance, 70% of firms claim to focus on
customers, but no customers agree (Capgemini, 2017). Analyzing the
financial services industry, Kantar’s report (2018) points out that 91% of
top executives consider CX to be a crucial tool for the future of their
business; however, only one third of their customers strongly consider
their banks to be focused on customer experience. Similarly, Oracle’s
analysis (2011) indicates that 86% of buyers will pay more for a better
CX, but only 1% feel that firms meet such expectations.
To overcome this perceptual gap, firms need a clearer understanding
of what CX entails within individual sectors and, particularly, what
distinguishes it from customer satisfaction (Meyer and Schwager, 2007).
CX simultaneously incorporates various dimensions that jointly enhance
a firm’s performance; however, not all dimensions of CX are beneficial.
Moreover, it is essential to underline that no single dimension improves
performance when in isolation; instead, as indicated by Johansson and
Kask (2017), who examined combinations of business strategy, retail
format and multi-channel setup, only the right combination of di­
mensions will improve performance. Managers need to be able to
identify and measure the importance of various essential CX dimensions,
as well as their synergy, which in turn influences business performance,
so they can therefore allocate their time and resources appropriately.
Even as our understanding about the importance of CX is increasing, CX
budgets are not (Gartner, 2018).
Although prior research identified relationships between the indi­
vidual or aggregated effects of CX dimensions and performance out­
comes; however, these studies tended to overlook the ways in which CX
dimensions might be interacting with each other and by implication how
they could be substituted for or complement one another. Recent work
by Boon et al. (2019) emphasizes how, when practices fit into a coherent
system, they underpin one another and create positive synergies;
whereas, when practices do not fit, they may detract from each other’s
effects. Yet some scholars propose theoretical arguments suggesting that
the effects of CX depend on different combinations of its dimensions
(Gentile et al., 2007; Grønholdt et al., 2015; Lemon and Verhoef, 2016).
Åkesson et al. (2014) highlighted the notion that firms need to coordi­
nate those customer experiences that generate value and create loyalty
whenever customers interact with the resources within its service sys­
tems. According to Grønholdt et al. (2015), firms must carefully deci­
pher which CX dimensions, and appropriate combinations, from both
rational and emotional perspectives, will actually create superior
customer loyalty. However, most of previous research have tended to
examine the independent or aggregated effects of CX dimensions, thus
neglecting the possibility that multiple CX dimensions are interactive in
their stimulation of customer loyalty. Indeed, Lemon and Verhoef
(2016) urge that researchers should go beyond typical paths in order to
assess the combined effects of those elements that constitute CX. They
call for more research that combines these specific elements to reveal
their influence on customer experience, to thereby provide a deeper
understanding of this multidimensional concept.
This study therefore seeks to expand and further CX knowledge by
empirically analyzing the effects of the interactions between different
CX dimensions and how these may differ across different customer
groups to influence customer loyalty. Can a combination of CX di­
mensions be used effectively to trigger and alter customer loyalty? What
are the optimal configurations of CX dimensions that lead to better
customer loyalty? In other words, our intention is to identify customer
experience dimensions that drive customer loyalty in a more holistic
manner. In doing so, we will blueprint the combinations of customer
experience dimensions that boost customer loyalty which has not been
2
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 56 (2020) 102171
previously undertaken in CX literature. With our theoretical framework,
we expect that a single, specific outcome can result from different
combinations of causal factors (Ragin, 2000). Our findings differ with
the dominant analyses that employ individual or aggregate measure­
ments of CX. Instead we empirically uncover combinations of CX di­
mensions that influence positively customer loyalty within the DIY
sector. More precisely, our approach is founded on configurational logic,
and we consider notions of complementarity and substitution to argue
that CX dimensions combine to form different bundles, all of which may
increase customer loyalty. This approach enabled us to identify how CX
dimensions combine into distinct configurations to generate improved
customer loyalty. More precisely, some CX dimensions are comple­
mentary and mutually strengthening, while others are redundant.
Furthermore, some dimensions can be substituted for others. Thus, when
CX dimensions act as substitutes, the improvement of a firm’s perfor­
mance does not require further investment. Previous research has not
clearly investigated those dimensions that are complimentary to each
other, or those that can be substituted with one another. This comple­
ment versus substitute framework can contribute to a deeper under­
standing of CX dimensions. Therefore, we propose a configurational
approach that better reflects the causal complexity between CX di­
mensions, and, in so doing, identify how CX dimensions interact to affect
customer loyalty, thus highlighting the importance of the interactions
between dimensions. We focus on the DIY retailing sector, which has
witnessed considerable growth in recent decades (Watson and Shove,
2008; Sands et al., 2009). In France alone, the DIY market was worth an
estimated €26.0 billion in 2018 (European DIY Retail Association/Glo­
bal Home Improvement Network, 2019). However, research from
Bazaarvoice (2019) identified a gap in loyalty between firms and cus­
tomers within the DIY sector. For instance, the report indicates that, of
the 15 leading DIY stores, only nine were recognized by just 10% of
consumers. Therefore, it is clear that DIY retailers should create CX that
captures loyalty (Bazaarvoice, 2019). What’s more, the orientation of
loyalty is essential for sectors with high purchase frequency, a category
in which the DIY sector belongs (Leenheer et al., 2007; Vasel and Zab­
kar, 2009). These novel findings will provide empirical evidence de­
tailing how managers should combine CX dimensions to achieve
customer loyalty in the DIY sector, as well as contributing important
implications to the wider marketing literature.
Apart from few exceptions, there is little large-scale empirical evi­
dence that analyses customer experience at the level of the customer (e.
g. see Gao et al., 2019 for comprehensive reviews). Moreover, scholars
have also pointed out that the literature is scare when it comes to un­
derstanding CX antecedents, as well the impact they have on firms’
performance (Verhoef et al., 2009; Lemon and Verhoef, 2016). To bridge
these research gaps, we examined the relationship between CX and
loyalty in relation to the customer. Our unique theoretical framework
proposes that greater customer loyalty results not from investing in in­
dividual CX dimensions, but by investing in specific configurations of
them. This is because CX dimensions revealed different effects on
customer loyalty depending on how they are arranged. As different
generational cohorts are associated with specific values and priorities
(Mcelroy and Morrow, 2010; Jackson et al., 2011), it is important to
identify whether customers’ generational differences matter for the
creation of CX. Actually, Funches et al., 2009, Deshwal (2016), Garg
et al. (2014) and Dean and Rolland (2011) posit that age categories
behave differently across the dimensions of CX. For instance, customers
from different generations are presumed to experience differences in
environmental stimuli (Phillips and Sternthal, 1977) which would have
had an impact on their overall customer experience. Similarly, by
analyzing multichannel customer journeys, Hu and Tracogna (2020)
demonstrate that younger customers require a greater need for attri­
butes concerning “information” and “convenience”. However, we still
lack evidence that has identified which combinations of CX dimensions
can enhance customer loyalty regarding the different generations. It is
worth noting that generation-based segmentation is considered to be an
S. Pekovic and S. Rolland
effective tool for improving a firm’s competitiveness (Moschis et al.,
2003). Following, Wang and Lang (2019), we have determined three
generational groups: Generation Y (18–35), Generation X (36–55) and
Baby Boomers (56–75). We have done so to identify which CX config­
urations best enable enhanced customer loyalty in different cohorts.
Furthermore, this study applies fuzzy-set qualitative comparative anal­
ysis (fsQCA) to CX research. When compared with conventional models,
this method can better demonstrate how multiple dimensions interact
and influence a firm’s performance. Using fsQCA is especially advan­
tageous for examining complex phenomena such as CX, and it allows us
to further advance our knowledge of CX. As indicated by Johansson and
Kask (2017), applying a configurational approach will help us identify
the interactions between dimensions that will lead to the improvement
of customer loyalty for a retailer. Overall, we aim to enrich previous
findings by identifying configurations that may lead to the enhancement
of customer loyalty.
In the next section, we review the relevant CX literature, considering
its dimensions and their influence on customer loyalty. After we present
an empirical model, we detail the study results. These results indicate
some important theoretical and managerial implications. Here, we also
note some limitations of our study and suggest future directions for
further research.
2. Theoretical background
2.1. Customer experience: multidimensional concept
The term “experience” comprises different elements, definitions and
perspectives (Maklan and Klaus, 2011; Walls et al., 2011), but it is also a
term that is often difficult to clearly define. Experiences depend on
various factors that firms may not be able to control or manage, such as
customers’ personal characteristics and preferences. Siqueira et al.
(2020) emphasized that a CX model should capture both controllable
and uncontrollable factors. As Verhoef et al. (2009) show, CX is a holistic
concept, covering multiple phases. However, because CX is multifac­
eted, scholars often separate it into parts in order to define it more
specifically. For example, Schmitt (1999) cites five approaches to
experience marketing: sensation, feeling, thought, action, and relation.
Pine and Gilmore (1999) categorized four facets: entertainment, edu­
cation, escapism and aesthetics. Gentile et al. (2007) instead proposed
six CX components: sensorial, emotional, cognitive, pragmatic, lifestyle,
and relational. Verhoef et al. (2009) classified it as customers’ cognitive,
affective, emotional, social, and physical responses to the retailer.
Similarly, Homburg et al. (2015) identify sensorial, affective, cognitive,
relational, and behavioral dimensions. For Voorhees et al. (2017), firms
should capture relevant customer information for experiential di­
mensions, such as cognitive, emotional, sensory, social and behavioral,
because information on those dimensions enables firms to comprehend
CX throughout the customer’s journey. McColl-Kennedy et al. (2019)
view CX as a concept that integrates elements of value creation (re­
sources, activities, context, interactions and customer role), cognitive
responses and discrete emotions; these all become touch-points across
the customer journey. Recently, Molinillo et al. (2020) identified af­
fective and cognitive dimensions as the base from which customer
experience can be measured.
In addition, CXs depends on the firm’s ability to use technology
(Foroudi et al., 2014). Piotrowicz and Cuthbertson (2014) argue that a
technological dimension should be included in the CX measurement,
due to fact that technologies should interact fully with the customer’s
experience. Surprisingly though, most CX research does not refer to
technology, or, when it does, it only includes one form of technology
that is used during either in-store encounters (e.g. use of an ATM) or
through online interactions (Rose et al., 2012). Moreover, as stressed by
Verhoef et al. (2007), interrelationships between channels (e.g. offline,
online, catalogs) should be considered during all purchase phases.
Technological developments give customers the chance to access
3
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 56 (2020) 102171
products or services through a multitude of channels while, at the same
time, creating their own personal customer journeys (Verhoef et al.,
2015; Barwitz and Maas, 2018; Hu and Tracogna, 2020). Consequently,
retailers are obliged to shift their strategy from being multichannel to
omnichannel (Shen et al., 2018). Piotrowicz and Cuthbertson (2014)
state that omnichannel customers move freely between the online
channels, the mobile devices and the physical store during the same
transaction process. In addition, the authors argue that the omnichannel
strategy aims to deliver a seamless customer experience, regardless of
the channel. Likewise, McKinsey’s report (2016) demonstrates that
many customers want to move freely from traditional channels to digital
channels, thus constituting an omnichannel experience.
Previous scholars contend (Palmer, 2010; Van Noort et al., 2012;
Piotrowicz and Cuthbertson, 2014) that the CX involves customers’
direct interaction with technology. In addition, Gilboa et al. (2019)
underline the idea that big firms manage CX by employing advanced
technologies. For instance, in-store technologies, such as interactive
screens, augmented reality, and “magic mirrors,” as well as technologies
for the staff, significantly justify the integration of technology when
measuring CX (Piotrowicz and Cuthbertson, 2014). Overall, technology
has become more relevant when defining the overall CX (Majra et al.,
2016; Stein and Ramaseshan, 2016), and, because of the nature of the
service encounter, still informs CX (Bateson, 1995); therefore, the space
for that experience, including simulated service experiences, is critical
(Edvardsson et al., 2005). Accordingly, the CX should be redefined to
consider the role of technology, given that technology potentially pro­
vides a key for creating an integrated customer experience (Bl� azquez,
2014).
Although the literature has recognized the importance of CX, there is
no consensus regarding what constitutes CX (Mahr et al., 2019). Some
scholars have proposed different ways to measure CX that are incorrect,
or they simply focus on a single dimension (Siqueira et al., 2020).
Research by Mahr et al. (2019) demonstrates that the physical, social
and cognitive dimensions are constantly used to conceptualize the CX,
while the sensorial dimension has only received attention more recently.
Moreover, Keiningham et al. (2017, 2020) propose cognitive, physical,
sensory, emotional and social dimensions, indicating that defining CX by
using these dimensions will help managers to understand it better.
Therefore, extending the definition from Verhoef et al. (2009), Homburg
et al. (2015), Voorhees et al. (2017), Keiningham et al. (2017, 2020), in
this research, we define CX as a multidimensional concept to integrate
customer’s emotional, cognitive, sensorial, social, behavioral and tech­
nological responses.
Notably, earlier research by Pine and Gilmore (1999) have already
underlined that experience is a key tool in shaping the way in which a
customer intends to behave. CX is considered to define the perceived
value of a service, which influences customer behavior (Kim and Choi,
2013). Accordingly, Grewal et al. (2011) concluded that delivering a
superior CX will positively affect different aspects of customer behavior,
such as higher customer satisfaction, more frequent shopping visits and
larger wallet shares. Foroudi et al. (2016) described how CX has the
capability to influence a firm’s reputation, which in turn affects
customer behavior. Several empirical analyses confirm the positive link
between customer experience and their behavior. For instance, Kumar
et al. (2014) find that, at more positive levels of the economy, the impact
of CX on customer purchase behaviors becomes more pronounced. Using
a sample of 350 adult respondents staying in five-star hotels in Istanbul,
Cetin and Dincer (2014) revealed a strong relationship between CX and
positive customer behaviors. By the same token, Chahal and Dutta
(2015), employing both qualitative and quantitative research methods,
conclude that CX impacts positively, with significant customer outcomes
for brand equity, satisfaction and word-of-mouth (WOM). Similar results
were obtained by Fernandes and Cruz (2016), who confirm the positive
effect had by CX on loyalty, satisfaction and WOM. Vinod Tapar et al.
(2017) show that CX positively affects satisfaction, which in turn leads
to positive commitment, enhancing the revisit intentions (RVIs) of the
S. Pekovic and S. Rolland
tourists. Recent results by Siqueira et al. (2020) show that CX exerts a
considerable influence on consumer’s intentions to communicate with
other potential consumers through WOM.
2.2. Effect of customer experience on customer loyalty
Loyalty is a primary outcome variable of CX (Chahal and Dutta,
2015; Klaus and Maklan, 2013; Sirapracha and Tocquer, 2012; Srivas­
tava and Kaul, 2016). Srivastava and Kaul (2016) find empirically that
attitudinal and behavioral loyalty to the service provider can be
improved by CX, and earlier research by Klaus and Maklan (2013) also
demonstrated a strong relationship between CX and customer loyalty.
They also predict a link between service evaluations and customer
behavior through CX, and they advocate that CX is a better predictor of
loyalty than customer satisfaction. In a similar vein, Sirapracha and
Tocquer (2012) indicate that CX has a positive impact on customer
loyalty, defined as a diminished propensity to switch brands. Working
on the sample of 227 retail banking clients, Fernandes and Pinto (2019)
find that there is a positive relationship between CX and relationship
quality (RQ), customer retention, WOM intentions, and customer
tolerance. Further examination reveals that RQ is a powerful mediator
between CX and loyalty-related outcomes.
In addition, alternative configurations of various dimensions can
lead to superior performance outcomes (e.g. Crifo et al., 2016; Johans­
son and Kask, 2017; Delmas and Pekovic, 2018). As Brun et al. (2017)
demonstrate, the dimensions of CX have their own idiosyncrasies but
also exhibit similarities (Havir, 2017). In order to predict some potential
complementary or substitutive effects among CX dimensions, we
describe these below and consider how they shape a firm’s performance
and CX.
Emotional experience
When related to consumption, emotions refer to a set of emotional
responses that are elicited during experiences of consumption (West­
brook and Oliver, 1991). Emotions thus significantly impact upon per­
ceptions of the CX (Bign�e et al., 2008; Mattila and Enz, 2002), and they
provide powerful predictors of consumer behaviors (Morris et al., 2002;
Westbrook, 1987). To be more specific, they have a significant effect on
a customer’s preferences, evaluations, recommendations and purchase
intentions (Westbrook, 1987; Oliver, 1997), as well as on their repeat
patronage and revisit intentions (Han and Back, 2007), and their will­
ingness to pay more (Bign� e et al., 2008). Emotions also interact, posi­
tively or negatively, with customer equity drivers (Ou and Verhoef,
2017).
More generally, emotions around consumption provide antecedents
of loyalty (Dube and Menon, 2000). An affective experience influences
loyalty directly (Tsaur et al., 2006), as well as indirectly through brand
personality (Brakus et al., 2009) or affective commitment (Iglesias et al.,
2011). Ou and Verhoef (2017) show that emotions influence the effec­
tiveness of loyalty drivers too; positive interactions between negative
emotions and customer equity drivers imply that, though negative
emotions harm loyalty intentions, positively perceived customer equity
drivers can buffer this effect.
Cognitive experience
Thinking and conscious mental processes can get customers to use
their creativity, or problem solving skills, and thereby revise their as­
sumptions about a product or service (Schmitt, 2010). However, sur­
prisingly little research has examined how consumers conceive of their
experiences cognitively, and most CX studies focus primarily on affec­
tive evaluations of experiences. Nevertheless, consumers are likely
driven in part by rational and cognitive considerations, especially if they
engage in goal-directed shopping and/or have expectations of the
product or service prior to experiencing it. Task-oriented customers may
consider the price, assortment, or quality of the product to be more
important determinants of their CX than do more impulsive,
4
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 56 (2020) 102171
experimental customers. At the start of the CX, affect likely plays a
greater role; in later stages, as consumers gain more information,
cognitive evaluations may become more significant (Kranzbuhler et al.,
2017). As a part of CX management, cognitive processes (e.g. search,
selection of products/services, or price) are important because retailers
can control them (Verhoef et al., 2009). Accordingly, the cognitive
dimension could improve customers’ engagement and loyalty (Schmitt,
1999), online or offline (Brun et al., 2017).
Sensory experience
Schmitt (1999) and Gentile et al. (2007) describe the sensory expe­
rience as sensory perceptions associated with the shopping environ­
ment: its atmosphere, products, or services, which arouse aesthetic
pleasure, excitement and satisfaction. According to Hulten et al. (2009),
all five human senses (smell, sound, sight, taste and touch) contribute to
an experience, and they interact together to form the foundation of a
sensory experience. Vargo and Lusch (2004) in turn argue that a per­
son’s sensory experience, and their judgment of it, enables them to
develop their attitudes towards that which is being offered. For example,
atmospheric cues influence various customer outcomes (Ballantine
et al., 2015), such as time spent in a store, or the purchases that are made
(Donovan et al., 1994; Morrison et al., 2011). The environment and
atmosphere can also generate positive behavioral intentions and
enhance consumer retention (Babin and Attaway, 2000; Clegg, 2003;
Lindstrom, 2005), so sensory experiences might drive customers’ loyalty
directly (Srivastava and Kaul, 2016) or through a love of the brand itself
(Huang, 2017).
Social experience
A social experience describes an encounter in which people interact
with one another (e.g. employees and consumers) (Yi and Gong, 2008).
Gentile et al. (2007) explain that social experiences emerge from social
contexts and relationships that occur during processes of consumption.
Employees, as part of this social interaction, affect CX through their
behavior in a physical store (Bitner, 1990). Garg et al. (2014) even assert
that frontline employees are the main determinant of CX, regardless of
demographic differences. Customer–employee relationships can
contribute to the development of customer loyalty (Guenzi and Pelloni,
2004). As Lemmink and Mattsson (1998) show, even if consumers’ ex­
pectations are not met, the perceived warmth of an employee can result
in positive perceptions of productivity and loyalty. Similarly, Sivadas
and Baker-Prewitt (2000) argue that customers who have sound re­
lations with employees tend to come back and recommend the firm to
their friends. Delcourt et al. (2016) identified the importance of em­
ployees’ competence in general, and, specifically, with regard to con­
sumer satisfaction and loyalty; Srivastava and Kaul (2016) and Nysveen
et al. (2013) also argued that social experiences can predict customer
loyalty.
Behavioral experience
Customers invest varying amounts of time and effort in sharing in­
formation, making suggestions, and engaging in decision-making pro­
cesses (Auh et al., 2007). We take a behavioral approach to capture
customers’ participation in the service process; or, in other words, the
degree to which they devote effort and resources to the process of the
service creation (Dabholkar, 1990), in so far as they actively participate
in consuming and producing value (Nysveen and Pedersen, 2014). When
customers co-produce, they share new ideas, suggestions, and problems
with the service firm (Chen et al., 2011), which may leave them feeling
more satisfied due to their personal investment (Cermak et al., 1994).
Ranjan and Read (2014) argue that co-production involves a coopera­
tive act of satisfaction; this is because customers provide resources to
support the process. Their co-creation with a brand stimulates engage­
ment with this brand, and this engagement influences their brand
experience (Nysveen and Pedersen, 2014). Thus, co-production effec­
tively predicts customer satisfaction (Ranjan and Read, 2014; Flores and
S. Pekovic and S. Rolland
Vasquez-Parraga, 2015) and loyalty (Auh et al., 2007; Nysveen and
Pedersen, 2014).
Technological experience
According to Verhoef et al. (2009), technology-based service de­
livery systems are integral to shopping, and they should thus be inves­
tigated as a key element of CX. Considering technology to be important
to the way in which a customer interacts with a brand or product, Stein
and Ramaseshan (2016) indicate that technological elements play an
essential role during customers’ encounters with a retailer. However, the
relationship between technology and CX has not yet been clearly
established; in the social science literature, technological interactions
are mainly limited to online customer experiences. But the broader
interaction between customers and technology may involve other for­
mats, such as smartphone apps, that also influence the overall service
experience (Dube and Helkkula, 2015). Such technological experiences
should therefore be considered as part of the overall shopping experi­
ence (Pine and Gilmore, 1999; Klaus, 2013).1 In addition, Gilboa et al.
(2019) listed several ways that firms use new technology to improve CX,
such as automation and artificial intelligence that offer 24/7 services,
virtual and augmented reality, in both online and physical stores, big
data analytics, and CRM systems. Furthermore, human–computer
interaction research affirms that consumers’ interactions with techno­
logical devices affect their overall experience (Borsci et al., 2015). The
technological elements of CX influence repurchase intentions indirectly,
through customer satisfaction (Rose et al., 2012). Wu and Tseng (2015)
show that online experiences are significant predictors of online
customer satisfaction. Several other studies show that online experi­
ences indirectly influence customer loyalty through their cognitive di­
mensions (Ding et al., 2010; Brun et al., 2017), satisfaction (Mhaya
et al., 2013), or website browsing and purchasing intentions.
Thus, the prior literature provides evidence that the various CX di­
mensions individually enhance customer loyalty. However, the optimal
combination of CX dimensions required to enhance customer loyalty
remains uncertain. Based on previous literature review, Bolton et al.
(2018) pointed out that the manner in which dimensions are combined
and managed is important for providing a superior consumer experi­
ence. Assessing customer experience using a critical review of literature,
Palmer (2010) stressed that the main challenge for creating CX is the
question of how to integrate diverse dimensions that generate trade-offs.
Therefore, Gentile et al. (2007) highlighted that it is important to deliver
an adequate balance between dimensions. Accordingly, the authors
proposed that the future analyses should account for the interaction
effects between dimensions. Whilst previous research has investigated
how individual or aggregate measurements of CX come to influence
consumer behavior; however, as far as we are aware, there is no previous
empirical research that provides evidence about the specific combina­
tions of CX dimensions which can improve customer loyalty within a
particular sector.
As a theoretical lens, we draw on the previous literature to predict
possible complementarity and substitutive relations between CX di­
mensions. Palmer (2010) identifies two constructs that are relevant for
our research, constructs that could be considered to be the most
important for creating CX: quality and relationship dimensions. More­
over, previous scholars recognized cognitive and social experience as
fundamental to achieving an ideal CX (Hoffman and Novak, 2009;
Palmer, 2010; Nguyen et al., 2012; Bednarz Beauchamp and Barnes,
2015; McLean et al., 2018). Therefore, we predict that cognitive and
social dimensions will have a dominant role in all possible configura­
tions that drive the improvement of customer loyalty, and will likely
complement each other. Assuming that both social and behavioral di­
mensions display some similarities, as they present personalized aspects
1
User experience is a wider concept than CX, in that it includes dimensions of
human experience, and it has a temporal component (Nenonen et al., 2007).
5
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 56 (2020) 102171
of customer experience, we postulate that they may act as substitutes for
each other. As Berry et al. (2002) argued that functional and emotional
aspects should be used as complementary forces, we predict that there
will be a complementarity effect between cognitive and emotional di­
mensions. Given that process recourses are not constrained in the DIY
sector, we propose, based on Shiv and Fedorikhin’s discussion (1999),
that consumer behavior will be driven by a cognitive rather than an
affective construct. Thus, we posit a superior role for the cognitive
dimension, as well as substitute relation between cognitive and affective
dimensions. Furthermore, Peppers and Rogers (1993) argue that even
though the technological dimension may provide significant possibil­
ities concerning information and communication, it cannot replace an
emotional relationship. Therefore, we consider that the emotional
dimension of CX could not be replaced by the technological one, and this
is because they can only act as complements to it. Following Fang et al.
(2016), who showed that product and e-service quality can be treated as
substitutes to each other, we consider that the cognitive and techno­
logical dimensions of CX will substitute one another. Moreover, Mar­
inova et al. (2016) anticipated that smart technologies can be a
substitute for, or a complement to, frontline employees’ efforts to deliver
a customized service, implying not only that technological and social
dimensions could be complementary, but they could also become sub­
stitutes for one another, depending on the context. Nysveen et al. (2013)
reported that emotions and sensations complement the cognitive
dimension, which leads us to conclude that their joint effect may com­
plement the effect of the cognitive dimension. In addition, Bolton et al.
(2018) argued that digital and social resources can act as substitutes for
physical resources, which implies that the joint effect of social and
technological dimensions may act as a substitute for the sensory
dimension, and certain components of the cognitive dimension as well.
Overall theoretical literature implicates that individual CX di­
mensions may affect customer loyalty in different ways, depending on
how these dimensions are interrelated – whether they complement each
other, or if they become substitutes for one another. Therefore, we draw
on a configurational approach that highlights the importance of our
complement/substitute framework to identify combinations that can
lead to greater customer loyalty. Our empirical approach will help us to
identify a variety of pathways that lead to customer loyalty, involving
different combinations of CX dimensions.
3. Method
3.1. Data
We conducted a consumer survey and collected data from DIY re­
tailers in France between June 2017 and July 2017. The questionnaire
was administered online to a representative sample of the French pop­
ulation, which was achieved by using a quota method (gender, age,
socio-economic status). To ensure a representative national pool, we
applied response rates by profile when sending the survey to panelists.
Of the 18,713 invited to participate, 3423 responded positively, but we
excluded 2726 who had not had recent experience with the service
provider (longer than three months). The 697 participants all answered
within a two-week time frame, and we controlled for their response
times to avoid respondents who answered too quickly; a trap question
system eliminated respondents who answered too quickly. In total, 603
respondents filled out the survey and received monetary compensation,
of whom 47.5% were men and 52.5% were women; all of them varied in
age from 18 years to 75 years. Regarding family status: 16.09% of re­
spondents were single; 29.19% came from a family with children;
46.77% of respondents lived in couple without children; 6.47% of re­
spondents were from single-parent families; and 1.49% of respondents
lived in shared accommodation, or other forms of accommodation. As
for education: 2.16% had no educational diploma; 12.27% had voca­
tional or technical school certificates; 23.53% had a general secondary
school diploma; 25.70% had a diploma from a technological or
S. Pekovic and S. Rolland Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 56 (2020) 102171

professional secondary school in apprenticeship; 14.93% had a 3-year Table 1

university diploma; 19.57% had a master degree; and 1.82% had a Sample statistics.
PhD. In our sample, the respondents were from the following regions: Dependent Items description Mean SD
20.23% were from the ^Ile-de-France region; 43.78% were from the Variable
Northern region; and 35.99% are from the Southern region. Customer (1) “I will continue to use this shop’s services,” 8.90 1.78
Loyalty (2) “Next time when I will need this type of 8.64 1.89
3.2. Measures service I will go to this shop,” and
(3) “I will use services of this shop in coming 8.86 1.79
years.”
In line with previous studies (Schmitt, 1999; Gentile et al., 2007; CX items description
Verhoef et al., 2009; Homburg et al., 2015; Voorhees et al., 2017), our Emotional (1) “I feel serene,” 7.22 2.25
questions collected information about the six CX dimensions we speci­ (2) “I got a warm welcome,” 6.27 2.50
fied: emotional, cognitive, sensory, social, behavioral, and technolog­ (3) “I am content,” 7.29 2.08
(4) “I feel appeased,” 7.79 2.10
ical. We also gathered loyalty information. In designing the
(5) “I get a nice feeling,” 6.98 2.27
questionnaire, we used 11-point Likert scales, ranging from 1 ¼ “not (6) “I feel happy,” 6.96 2.38
important” to 11 ¼ “very important.” The variable LOYALTY was (7) “I feel zen,” 7.29 2.13
measured according to Oliver (1997), who suggests that loyalty refers to (8) “I am enthusiastic,” 7.56 2.10
a customer’s commitment to repurchase or to re-patronize the product (9) “I feel a sense of harmony,” 8.01 2.01
(10) “I feel the fullness,” and 7.07 2.25
or service in the future. We conceptualize the variable EMOTIONS (11) “I was cool.” 7.92 1.99
following Lichtl�e and Plichon (2014). We gathered information pro­ Cognitive (1) “The check-out is quick,” 8.23 1.78
posed by Bitner (1992) to measure the SENSORY dimension. We used (2) “It is rapid to get a product or a service,” 8.25 1.58
information from Engel et al. (1990) to construct the COGNITIVE mea­ (3) “The quality of the products/services are 7.92 1.80
easy to evaluate,”
sure. For the SOCIAL dimension, we used information from Parasuraman
(4) “I can trust the products/services of this 8.43 1.67
et al. (1988), Walter et al. (2006) and De Waal and van der Heijden store,”
(2016). The information adapted from Chan et al. (2010) was used to (5) “I can rely on this store to provide good 8.27 1.67
measure the BEHAVIORAL dimension. We measured the TECHNOLOG­ products/services,”
ICAL variable by using information taken from Cyr et al. (2007) and (6) “This store has a good selection of 8.47 1.64
merchandise,”
Ganguli and Roy (2011). (7) “Their products/services are safe,” 8.21 1.68
Measurement Model Validity. To assess the accuracy of our measure­ (8) “The products/services service provided 7.60 1.97
ments, we conducted convergent validity, discriminant validity and by this store are superior quality;
composite reliability (Appendix 1). We use the average variance (9) “This store’s services are reasonably 7.57 1.89
priced; their prices are among the best,”
extracted (AVE) for each construct to assess convergent validity. AVE
(10) “I enjoy the advertising of this store”; and 6.72 2.33
that exceeds the threshold of 0.5 indicated good convergent validity (11) “The advertising of this store is provide 7.22 2.18
(Hair et al., 2010). In addition, the results demonstrate that discriminant consumers with essential information.”
validity is not an issue. Composite reliability is assessed using Raykov’s Sensory (1) “The overall lighting at the store is 7.91 1.96
factor reliability coefficient and Cronbach’s alpha, the obtained values pleasant,”
(2) “The cleanliness of the store attracts me 8.05 1.87
exceeded the recommended value of 0.7 (Churchill et al., 1974). towards the store,”
The definitions and sample descriptive statistics of the variables used (3) “It’s airy,” 7.51 2.13
are summarized in Table 1. (4) “It smells good,” 6.75 2.15
(5) “The temperature of the store is adequate,” 7.87 1.94
(6) “The colors are fine,” and 7.68 1.99
3.3. Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA)
(7) “The place brings all elements together 7.61 1.97
into a harmonious whole.”
We used QCA to analyze different combinations of CX dimensions Social (1) “Employees are warm,” 8.25 1.95
and their relationships with customer loyalty. Unlike traditional ana­ (2) “Employees respect me,” 8.38 1.81
lyses, QCA can analyze complex relations across dimensions: it reveals (3) “Employees’ behavior instills confidence 7.97 1.97
in me,”
how causal conditions, as joint configurations, relate to some outcomes (4) “They provide accurate information,” 8.44 1.84
of interest (Ragin, 2000; Fiss, 2011). Instead of taking a competitive (5) “Employees are interested in my needs,” 8.42 1.87
view of the extent to which variables can explain an outcome, QCA (6) “Employees provide reliable service,” 8.37 1.82
determines how those variables combine into configurations and thus (7) “They provide prompt services,” and 7.68 2.28
(8) “Employees are competent.” 8.48 1.84
generate an outcome (Woodside, 2013). This combination of qualitative
Behavioral (1) “I spent a lot of time sharing information 6.07 2.99
and quantitative techniques supports complex configuration analyses about my needs and opinions with the staff
(Ragin, 2000), and it thereby combines the strengths of case-oriented during the service process,”
(qualitative) and variable-oriented (quantitative) approaches (Rihoux, (2) “I express my personal needs to the staff 4.23 2.91
2003). For this study, we predict that the effects of the various CX di­ during the service process,”
(3) “I always provide suggestions to the staff 6.09 2.96
mensions on customer loyalty depend on how the dimensions are for improving the service outcome,” and
combined (configurations), so we use QCA to negotiate the combina­ (4) “I have a high level of participation in the 5.88 3.02
tional complexities and asymmetrical relationships among dimensions, service process.”
rather than considering the symmetrical net effects that appear in Technological (1) “My store’s technology provides 8.10 1.89
information that I need,”
multiple regression analyses or structural equation modeling (Johansson
(2) “My store’s technology provides the 7.89 1.95
and Kask, 2017; Delmas and Pekovic, 2018; Di Fatta et al., 2018). precise information I need,”
(3) “My personal information exchanged 7.51 2.09
Transforming data into fuzzy-sets while using technology is correctly used,”
Using QCA and its fuzzy-set version (fsQCA) requires that all original (4) “I feel safe using my store’s technology,” 7.82 1.89
(5) “My store’s technology provides 8.01 1.80
variables, both dependent and independent, are calibrated and trans­ personalized information,”
formed into fuzzy-set membership scores, ranging from 0 to 1 (Ragin, (6) “Access to my store’s technologies is easy,” 8.34 1.75
2000, 2008, 2009). The fsQCA differentiates three anchors that measure (continued on next page)
values for non-membership (0), full membership (1), and indifference

6
S. Pekovic and S. Rolland
Table 1 (continued )
Dependent Items description
Variable
(7) “Services provided through technology are
accessible at any time,”
(8) “I get what I want quickly,”
(9) “My store/‘s technologies give me more
freedom of mobility,”
(10) “My store’s technologies allow me to
complete transactions quickly,”
(11) “My store’s technology saves me time
when I use it,”
(12) “The technologies provided by my store
are easy to use,”
(13) “The technologies provided by my store
are user-friendly,”
(14) “The use of these technologies provided
by my store is intuitive,”
(15) “The technologies provided by my store
work accurately and are error-free,”
(16) “The technologies offered by my store are
reliable,”
(17) “The technologies provided by my store
help me share information,”
(18) “These technologies help me keep in
touch,”
(19) “User interface technologies are visually
attractive,”
(20) “User interface technologies provided by
my store are pleasant,” and
(21) “These technologies offer good
illustrations of the products or services.”
(0.5, or the cross-over point) (Ragin, 2008). Anchors at the 10th, 50th,
and 90th percentiles serve as thresholds for full non-membership, the
cross-over point, and full membership, respectively (e.g. Delmas and
Pekovic, 2018). Using defined membership values, fsQCA invokes
Boolean algebra, and it defines which combinations of conditions result
in the outcome (Fiss, 2007). We converted our study variables into
fuzzy-set membership scores using the Stata programs developed by
Longest and Vaisey (2008).
Truth table
In its first stage, the QCA approach produces a truth table, listing all
logically possible causal combinations. The truth table is presented in
Appendix 2, including different combinations of dimensions that lead to
improved customer loyalty or their best fit. According to the calibrated
set membership scores, each observation gets assigned to a particular
configuration in the truth table. Next, we define a minimum acceptable
level of consistency, such that configurations can be classified as either
sufficient or insufficient for achieving the outcome. The lowest accept­
able consistency score is .75 (Ragin, 2006). We use 0.80 as a cut-off point
for identifying sufficiency solutions, using the truth table algorithm.
Finally, the raw coverage score quantifies the extent to which the con­
figurations account for the outcome (Ragin, 2008). A unique coverage
score quantifies the proportion of memberships in the outcome,
explained by each individual configuration (Ragin, 2008).
Table 2
QCA output (N ¼ 603).
Customer Experience Dimension
Emotional Cognitive Sensory Social Behavioral
● ●
● ● ● 0.64
Notes: Black circles indicate the presence of causal conditions; white circles indicate the absence or negation of causal conditions. The blank cells represent a no
significant solution condition.
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 56 (2020) 102171
4. Results and discussion
Mean SD
The results in Table 2 suggest that two configurations are sufficiently
8.46 1.84
linked to customer loyalty; and each displays a consistency level higher
than the 0.85 threshold. The overall solution consistency is 0.89. The
7.91 1.93 total raw coverage score of 0.70 indicates that configurations explain a
7.90 1.93 substantial proportion of customer loyalty. The raw coverage for the
single causal paths ranges from 0.64 to 0.65, indicating the proportion of
7.83 1.96
memberships in the outcome, explained by each term of the solution.
8.25 1.94 Both configurations have the unique coverage that exceed the value of 0,
which indicates the proportion of memberships in the outcome,
8.32 1.79 explained solely by each individual solution term. The consistency
7.47 2.09
values are between 0.89 and 0.90.
Notably, we find that no single dimension of CX provides a single,
7.60 2.00 sufficient condition for improving customer loyalty. That is, CX results
only from complex configurations of various dimensions. This finding
7.75 1.96
support previous theoretical observations (Verhoef et al., 2009;
7.92 1.96 McColl-Kennedy et al., 2012; Lemon and Verhoef, 2016) suggesting that
the importance of the various service dimensions’ interactions
7.44 2.10 throughout the customer journey. In other words, the interplay between
the actors, audience and setting shapes the overall experience of cus­
7.11 2.46
tomers (Ali et al., 2018), which is necessary for improving customer
7.67 1.96 loyalty.
Our findings also suggest that firms do not necessarily have to invest
7.85 1.86 in all dimensions; rather, investment in three specific dimensions can
lead to superior customer loyalty. Configuration 1 combines three CX
8.02 1.96
dimensions: cognitive, social and technological. The consistency score
for this configuration is 0.89, with raw and unique coverage scores of
0.65 and 0.07, respectively. Configuration 2 indicates that firms that
invest in CX constructs pertaining to the emotional, cognitive and social
dimensions can achieve superior customer loyalty. The consistency
score for Configuration 2 is 0.90, and its raw and unique coverage scores
are 0.34 and 0.05, respectively.
Compared to the previous literature that mainly analyzes separate
dimensions of CX, or CX as aggregate construct, our findings show that
there are two different but equally beneficial configurations of customer
experience dimensions, both of which improve the loyalty customers
have to firms. These two configurations suggest that investing in
cognitive and social dimensions, followed by emotional or technological
dimensions, appears essential for both enhancing CX and increasing
customer loyalty. However, none of them alone could improve customer
loyalty. We also note that interesting complementarity and substitut­
ability effects result from perfect matches in CX dimensions, and these
do not arise from simply adding more dimensions. The complementarity
effect occurs between cognitive and social dimensions as we predicted.
The synergy between the cognitive and social dimensions improves
customer loyalty, and this is because their complementarity effect
significantly affects customer loyalty. Accordingly, we may conclude
that these two dimensions, when applied simultaneously, are more
effective as they mutually improve each other’s effect. Our findings
agree with the previous literature (Hoffman and Novak, 2009; Palmer,
2010; Nguyen et al., 2012; Bednarz Beauchamp and Barnes, 2015;
McLean et al., 2018) that highlights the importance of these two di­
mensions for customer loyalty. Further to this, we provide evidence that
it is in fact that rather than these dimensions alone, it is their synergy is
crucial for the improvement of customer loyalty. Indeed, these findings
Coverage Consistency Solution
Technological Raw Unique Coverage Consistency
● 0.65 0.07 0.89 0.70 0.89
0.05 0.90
7
S. Pekovic and S. Rolland
Table 3
QCA output –Gen Y (N ¼ 191).
Customer Experience Dimension
Emotional Cognitive Sensory Social Behavioral
○ ● ● ● ● 0.26
● ● ● ●
● ● ● ●
Notes: Black circles indicate the presence of causal conditions; white circles indicate the absence or negation of causal conditions. The blank cells represent a no
significant solution condition.
are an empirical evidence to the earlier Coot’s theoretical argument
(1994) which stated that customer satisfaction requires an integration of
two attributes: ‘hard-quality’ (e.g. features, warranty) and ‘soft-quality’
(e.g. interpersonal process). Furthermore, as can be seen in Table 2, a
surprising substitute effect arises between the emotional and techno­
logical dimensions. This contradicts Peppers and Rogers’s previous
assumption (1993), which stated that technological aspects cannot
replace emotional ones. Therefore, we suggest that the technological
dimension, when complemented with social and the cognitive dimen­
sion, can substitute for the emotional dimension. This also implies that
investing in both emotional and technological dimensions simulta­
neously will generate an unnecessary cost for the firms and therefore
choosing one of these two appropriate dimensions in conjunction with
cognitive and social dimensions is sufficient and necessary to achieve
superior customer loyalty.
It should be noted that, among the four dimensions of customer
experience that are essential for customer loyalty, the cognitive and
social dimensions could be considered to be the main contributors to the
improvement of customer loyalty. Our findings that the cognitive
(Schmitt, 1999; Brun et al., 2017) and social (e.g. Nysveen et al., 2013;
Srivastava and Kaul, 2016) dimensions are related to customer loyalty
was consistent with other studies that had approached these notions.
Importantly, our findings reveal that there is an effect of mutual
enrichment between cognitive dimension and social dimension (the
relations with employees) when enhancing customer loyalty. Interest­
ingly, we find that optimal configurations do not require the presence of
sensory and behavioral dimensions. The less relevant contribution of the
sensory dimension reveals that different dimensions may be
industry-specific. Indeed, sensorial stimuli contribute to improved
customer experience in leisure services (e.g. travel), as leisure goods and
services are more experiential in their nature, which leads to greater
affective gratification (Brun et al., 2017). Moreover, we find that sub­
stitutive effects exist between the humanlike dimensions, such as the
social and the behavioral dimensions as we predicted. Therefore,
following the substitutive perspective, we assume that investing in both
social and behavioral dimensions may not be cost-efficient when
attempting to improve CX.
Configuration 1, with individual raw and unique coverage scores of
0.65 and 0.7, respectively, accounts for the highest number of cases that
lead to increased customer loyalty. Thus, the findings suggest that the
firms that provide substantial humanlike aspects (emotional and social
experiences), together with cognitive experiences, increase the likeli­
hood that they will achieve greater customer loyalty. Interestingly,
technological experience is not part of this configuration though,
meaning that humanlike aspects, in combination with classical factors,
still appear more important when it comes to ensuring customer loyalty.
4.1. Supplemental analyses
To stratify our empirical analyses, we conducted additional in­
vestigations that will help us to understand which combinations of CX
dimensions correspond to the three generational cohorts. We predicted
that different generations will place different degrees of importance
upon CX dimensions, because they will have developed different per­
spectives, values and attitudes (Mcelroy and Morrow, 2010; Jackson
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 56 (2020) 102171
Coverage Consistency Solution
Technological Raw Unique Coverage Consistency
0.04 0.94 0.61 0.87
● 0.47 0.04 0.90
● 0.53 0.09 0.87
et al., 2011). We distinguished between three generational cohorts:
Generation Y (18–35), Generation X (36–55) and Baby Boomers
(56–75).
Table 2 reports the findings of the Generation Y, also known as
Millennials. Parment (2013) argues that the customer loyalty of Gen­
eration Y is mainly based on their experience. Results of the sufficiency
analysis reveal that three distinct configurations are possible for the
improvement of customer loyalty within this group. Configuration 1
features the cognitive, sensory, behavioral and social dimensions, while
the emotional dimension only plays a minor role. Configuration 2 in­
cludes the emotional, cognitive, social, behavioral and technological
dimensions. Finally, Configuration 3 comprises the emotional, cogni­
tive, sensory, social and technological dimensions of CX. Configuration 3
exhibits the highest raw and unique coverage, 0.53 and 0.09 respec­
tively, indicating that it is the most effective configuration for improving
customer loyalty among Generation Y. As with overall population
analysis, our results highlight the importance of the complementarity
between the cognitive and social dimensions, indicating that they
reinforce one another’s effects or recompense one another’s shortcom­
ings. Indeed, these two dimensions appear in all three configurations,
underlying their prominence. This is in line with Phillips (2007), who
argues that Millennials are considered to be rationality-oriented con­
sumers, for whom price and product features (which pertain to the
cognitive dimension) are essential. Moreover, they are often character­
ized as being highly sophisticated in their tastes and shopping prefer­
ences (Holtshausen and Styrdom, 2006; Wolburg and Pokrywczynski,
2001). In addition, even though Millennials are considered to rely on
their peers when making purchasing decisions, they also largely
appreciate the advice of a salesperson, as well interacting with them
(Massicotte et al., 2011). In the same vein, Bednarz Beauchamp and
Barnes (2015) stress that employee relations remain the most critical
component in producing customer pleasure for Millennials. Interest­
ingly, while sensory and behavioral dimensions together complement
each other to substitute for the technological dimension in Configura­
tion 1, they substitute one another in Configurations 2 and 3. In other
words, when firms invest in the sensory dimension, investment in the
behavioral dimension does not further contribute to customer loyalty of
Millennials. Likewise, substantial investment in the sensorial dimension
does not improve customer loyalty when a firm has invested signifi­
cantly in the behavioral dimension. Our findings also reveal that the
emotional and technological dimensions tend to be complementary in
this cohort. The importance of the technological component is obvious,
since Generation Y consumers are known to be technologically savvy
(Gilboa and Vilnai-Yavetz, 2010) as their daily activities are dependent
upon digital technologies (Lissitsa and Kol, 2016). Regarding the
importance of the emotional dimension, our findings support those from
Kumar and Lim (2008), who argue that Generation Y consumers place
great emphasis on emotional value. What’s more, Nusair et al. (2011)
show that affective (emotional) commitment was most effective in
developing and maintaining long-term relationships with Generation Y,
as supported by our findings. Finally, we have observed that, in order to
improve customer loyalty among Millennials, retailers have to invest in
at least four CX dimensions, confirming that Millennials are demanding
consumers (Noble et al., 2009).
Table 4 presents results relating to Generation X, which is
8
S. Pekovic and S. Rolland Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 56 (2020) 102171

Table 4
QCA output –Gen X (N ¼ 276).
Customer Experience Dimension Coverage Consistency Solution

Emotional Cognitive Sensory Social Behavioral Technological Raw Unique Coverage Consistency

● ● ○ ● 0.27 0.05 0.93 0.68 0.88

● ● ● ○ 0.35 0.03 0.94
● ● ● ● 0.59 0.27 0.88

Notes: Black circles indicate the presence of causal conditions; white circles indicate the absence or negation of causal conditions. The blank cells represent a no
significant solution condition.

characterized as the least loyal generational group (Williams, 2005).
Three configurations, with an overall consistency of 0.87, explain the set
of dimensions through which CX can improve customer loyalty. The raw
coverage scores range between 0.27 and 0.59, while unique coverage
scores range between 0.05 and 0.27. Configuration 1 demonstrates the
presence of the cognitive, social and technological dimensions while the
behavioral dimension only plays a minor role. Configuration 2 presents
a combination of the emotional, cognitive and social dimensions while
the behavioral dimension is, once again, not very important. Configu­
ration 3 combines the emotional, cognitive, social and technological
dimensions. This configuration has the highest raw (0.57) and unique
(0.27) coverages, making it the most influential regarding the
improvement of customer loyalty in this cohort. The cognitive and social
dimensions represent core conditions for the improvement of customer
loyalty, but they are complemented by the individual or joint effects of
the emotional and/or technological components. In the same vein,
Massicotte et al. (2011) argue that the product/service evaluation of
adult customers is mainly determined by functional congruity (elements
of cognitive dimension). In addition, Generation X has been described as
being dialogue-oriented (MacDonald et al., 2013), which could explain
the presence of the social dimension in all three configurations. Along
the same lines, to make a decision about a purchase, they want to hear
about the characteristics of a product or service (Himmel, 2008), which
requires an interaction with a salesperson. Furthermore, as Generation X
typically have strong technical skills (Lissitsa and Kol, 2016), they place
a great sense of importance on the technological dimension, as sup­
ported by our findings. Surprisingly, we found an absence of the sensory
and behavioral dimensions in all three configurations, indicating that
the combinations of the four other dimensions can act as a substitute for
them. Actually, we note that the social dimension is sufficient, and that it
can fulfill the humanlike needs of a gen X consumer. Therefore, there is
no need to invest in the behavioral or sensory dimensions for this cohort.
Following the same pattern, we feel that the cognitive dimension is a
seamless substitute for the sensory dimension in this cohort.
Table 5 provides findings associated with Baby Boomers. We found
six configurations that can improve customer loyalty. The raw coverage
for the configurations varied between 0.27 and 0.64, while the unique
coverage of the solutions varied between 0.002 and 0.04. The consis­
tencies of the solutions exceeded the threshold of 0.80, ranging from
0.93 to 0.96. The solution consistency for this generational cohort was
0.90. Configuration 1 implies that investment in the cognitive and social
dimensions can improve the Baby Boomers’ customer loyalty. The
presence of the sensory and behavioral dimensions is not very impor­
tant. Configuration 2 predicts that an investment in the emotional, social
and technological dimensions is crucial for improving customer loyalty,
while the sensory dimension is less important. Configuration 3 exhibits
the presence of the emotional, social and technological dimensions,
while the behavioral dimension only plays a minor role. Configuration 4
identifies the importance of the cognitive, social and technological di­
mensions. Configuration 5 remains consistent with Configuration 4
regarding the presence of the cognitive and social dimensions; but it
varies regarding the presence of the technological dimension, which is
substituted by the emotional dimension. Configuration 6 identifies the
presence of the emotional, cognitive and technological dimensions.
Overall, the findings indicate that the presence of the social dimension,
followed by that of the cognitive dimension, is essential for improving
customer loyalty among Baby Boomers. However, they should be com­
plemented by each other, or with the emotional or technological di­
mensions. Configurations 2 and 3 exhibit the effects of substitution
between the emotional and the cognitive dimensions. Configurations 4
and 5 reveal that the emotional and technological dimensions act as
substitutes for each other. In addition, as we can observe in Configura­
tions 2, 3 and 6, the joint effects between the emotional and techno­
logical dimensions acts as a substitute for the cognitive or social
dimensions. Configuration 4 has the highest raw (0.64) and unique
(0.03) coverage, making it the most influential regarding the improve­
ment of customer loyalty for this group.
As expected, the cognitive and social dimensions are the most
important components for Baby Boomers, as they are for the other two
cohorts. This partly supports findings by Massicotte et al. (2011), who
demonstrated that adult customers, when compared with younger ones,
are more motivated by utilitarian criteria (e.g. a product or service’s
quality) than they are by symbolic criteria (e.g. that which is stimu­
lating, bright and interesting). We found that cognitive criteria (utili­
tarian criteria) are essential for older consumers, but they are also
important for younger consumers, as can be seen in Tables 3 and 4. In
addition, the absence of the sensory dimension for Baby Boomers, as
well as for Generation X, supports Massicotte et al.‘s findings (2011),
indicating that older consumers value criteria that are less symbolic.
Moreover, as the social component is crucial for all three cohorts, not
only for Baby Boomers, our findings contradict those from Lumpkin and
Festervand (1988), who indicated that interactions with employees are
more important to older than younger consumers. Consequently, the
results are in line with to those from Bednarz Beauchamp and Barnes

Table 5
QCA output – Baby Boomers (N ¼ 136).
Customer Experience Dimension Coverage Consistency Solution

Emotional Cognitive Sensory Social Behavioral Technological Raw Unique Coverage Consistency

● ○ ● ○ 0.27 0.01 0.93 0.75 0.90

● ○ ● ● 0.28 0.002 0.94
● ● ○ ● 0.33 0.005 0.96
● ● ● 0.64 0.03 0.95
● ● ● 0.63 0.04 0.94
● ● ● 0.61 0.03 0.94

Notes: Black circles indicate the presence of causal conditions; white circles indicate the absence or negation of causal conditions. The blank cells represent a no
significant solution condition.

9
S. Pekovic and S. Rolland
(2015), who find that employees emerged as the most important factors
in stimulating consumer pleasure, for both Millennials and Baby
Boomers. Even though it is considered that feelings and emotions are
more important to older customers, as they remember emotional in­
formation more than other types of information (Bednarz Beauchamp
and Barnes, 2015), we found that the emotional dimension is propor­
tionally present in all three generational cohorts. The presence of the
technological dimension in four configurations out of six could be sup­
ported by the fact that Baby Boomers adopt new technologies easily
(Cheung et al., 2008). The least relevance of the behavioral dimension
could be explained by the substitution effect that is generated by other
humanlike dimensions (the social dimension).
Overall, our results reveal that unique combinations of dimensions
can provide more benefits than others to different types of consumers
within the same sector. Indeed, the cognitive and social dimensions
constitute the main dimensions for improving customer loyalty across
different age groups. Furthermore, our analysis implies that different
generational cohorts produce both similarities and unique differences in
relation to the customer dimensions assessment. Previous research
indicated (Deshwal, 2016) that there is no difference when it comes to
the experience of certain dimensions among various generational
customer segments within retail sector. Moreover, in our data, there is
no significant difference between the age groups regarding the techno­
logical dimension. This is in line to Niemela €-Nyrhinen (2007), who
argue that the Baby Boomers are different from the traditional stereo­
types in regards to higher significance they place on technological
dimension. This implies that the technological dimension is an impor­
tant tool in connecting with all generations. The main difference be­
tween groups found in our data is related to the sensorial and behavioral
dimensions. Actually, while these two dimensions are less relevant for
Generation X and the Baby Boomers, they are quite important for Gen­
eration Y. Therefore, this confirms that Generation Y places more
importance on self-congruity (e.g. perception of the atmosphere) than
older consumers. Also, the amplified relationship with salespeople (the
presence of behavioral dimension) is appreciated more by Generation Y
than by the other two cohorts.
5. Conclusion
This study has sought a clearer understanding of the effects of CX on
customer loyalty by detailing the systemic interactions between CX di­
mensions across age groups and within the customer population as
whole within DIY sector. Prior research into customer experience
focused on the independent or aggregate effects of CX. However, when
considering CX as a holistic concept, an analysis of the in­
terdependencies between the dimensions that comprise CX is necessary
when trying to understand their effectiveness. Therefore, the main goal
of our research was to provide deeper analysis of CX within the DIY
sector that moves CX research beyond the current discussions that focus
only on individual or aggregated measurements of CX. Consequently, we
emphasize that CX dimensions can operate both as complements to and
substitutes for each other. Going beyond previous research, the objective
of this paper was to assess unique combinations of CX dimensions that
can improve customer loyalty within DIY sector. Likewise, we wanted to
identify configurations where CX dimensions reinforce one another,
creating positive outcomes. On the basis of the complement/substitute
approach, our analysis provides a more complete but also more accurate
depiction of CX role, including a better sense of the effects it may have
on the firm’s overall performance. By employing fuzzy-set qualitative
comparative analysis modeling, we can identify sets of conditions
(configurations) that determine customer loyalty. Such a configura­
tional approach allowed us to test empirically previous theoretical
suggestions (e.g. Gentile et al., 2007; Grønholdt et al., 2015; Lemon,
Verhoef, 2016) that implicate that the effect of a firm’s CX depends on
various combinations of CX dimensions. We contribute to this research
by developing a framework that explains how CX improves customer
10
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 56 (2020) 102171
loyalty. Indeed, we uncover different pathways that include customer
experience dimensions, leading to improved customer loyalty. There­
fore, the overarching insight from our empirical analysis is that in­
terdependencies between CX dimensions is important to generate
customer loyalty improvement and these vary between different age
groups of the same sector. Considering the interdependencies between
CX dimensions, this research provides a more holistic view of CX role in
shaping customer behavior.
Our findings reveal that firms may benefit from investing in CX, even
if they do not invest in all dimensions, as long as the dimensions they
select substitute for or complement the others that are in place. We have
identified unique dimensions and forms of CX that are complimentary
and those that can be substituted to further help us to identify config­
urations that increase customer loyalty. The underlying conclusion is
that there are distinct but equally effective configurations of CX di­
mensions applicable to certain age groups. To achieve customer loyalty
through CX, what matters is not so much the dimensions in isolation, but
rather how they interact. Examining only the net effect of CX, or CX
dimensions in isolation, may inadvertently hide key interrelationships
among CX dimensions, as well as obscuring their significant impact on a
firm’s performance. Furthermore, as generational cohort segmentation
provides deeper understanding associated with consumer motivation
based on common values and beliefs (Mcelroy and Morrow, 2010;
Jackson et al., 2011), our data also distinguished between three types of
generational cohorts: Generation Y, Generation X and Baby Boomers.
The findings reveal both similarities and distinct features between the
three cohorts. More precisely, all generations consider cognitive and
social dimensions to be important in creating a memorable consumer
experience. Even though we expected Generation Y or even Generation
X to have a tendency toward the technological dimension, its impor­
tance is equal among all three generations. We have drawn similar
conclusions regarding the emotional dimension. It could also be sug­
gested that younger generations are more attracted to the sensorial and
behavioral dimensions than older generations. Importantly, we can
suggest that Generation Y is more demanding customer than the other
two generations, since, to improve customer loyalty among Gen Y cus­
tomers, investment in at least four dimensions is necessary. What’s
more, customer loyalty among Baby Boomers could be achieved through
six distinctive configurations, thus making them the most ‘flexible’
cohort.
Overall, the results stress that, to benefit from CX, firms within DIY
sector need to consider the interdependence between multiple di­
mensions. Our model unravels complementarities among different
customer experience dimensions that jointly drive customer loyalty. In
addition, we conclude that certain CX dimensions can be substituted
with each other; therefore, there is no need for further investment.
Further analysis reveals both differences and similarities among gener­
ational cohorts regarding the assessment of CX dimensions, as well as
their relevance for customer loyalty.
Our findings also have several important conceptual implications for
DIY firms. First, we identify that certain dimensions of customer expe­
rience reinforce each other, whereas others are redundant and can be
substituted. Second, there is more than one optimal configuration of CX
dimensions that can lead to high levels of customer loyalty. No single
dimension constitutes a necessary and sufficient condition. Third,
cognitive and social experiences emerge as the most important di­
mensions, present in the majority of the optimal configurations we
identified. Our results highlight the importance of complementarity
between the cognitive and the social dimensions. To replace the cogni­
tive or social dimensions, a firm needs to invest in at least two other
dimensions. Fourth, emotional and technological dimensions can act
both as complements to and substitutes for other dimensions, depending
on the age group, which must be investigated. Fifth, synergy between
emotional and technological experiences can be substituted for cogni­
tive or social experiences. Sixth, when comparing CX across genera­
tional cohorts, similarities and differences emerge that will generate
S. Pekovic and S. Rolland
trade-offs and need to be considered.
Our findings suggest that managers within the DIY sector need to
better understand how different CX dimensions interact with one
another to enhance customer loyalty. Beyond relying on generally
accepted definitions of CX, managers within DIY sector need to assess
and manage CX in a way that optimally suits the orientation of their
business. In other words, they have some freedom to invest in particular
CX dimensions that match their particular environment, resources and
expertise. These findings provide guidelines as to how CX dimensions
should be planned to boost customer loyalty, especially by demon­
strating the interactive effects between them. With this insight, man­
agers within the DIY sector can combine different dimensions, to reflect
their firm strategy. Our analysis should help managers to revise their
investment strategies. All proposed dimensions are important anteced­
ents to CX’s contribution to customer loyalty, even though they are not
sufficient individually. Therefore, managers should pay attention to how
the dimensions interact and influence their firm’s performance. They
need to evaluate different possible configurations, and thereby tailor
their CX strategy accordingly. The findings also indicate that managers
should think carefully about where to allocate resources. Furthermore,
in realizing that there is more than one optimal configuration of CX
dimensions that improves customer loyalty, managers should prioritize
the cognitive and social dimensions. That is to say that cognitive and
social dimensions are necessary to improve customer loyalty. On the
other side, for instance, managers can improve customer loyalty by
focusing on cognitive, social and emotional/technological dimensions
without investing in sensorial or behavioral aspects. Accordingly,
managers need to find an optimal balance between CX dimensions to
improve customer loyalty. Notwithstanding, managers should consider
their main generational cohort segment when establishing their CX
strategy, as various CX dimensions are assessed differently depending on
which generational cohort is being considered. What’s more, stereo­
types that older consumers are reluctant to use new technologies should
be rejected (Niemela €-Nyrhinen, 2007). Therefore, managers should
design their technological dimension in a way that suits Baby Boomers,
as they are considered to have more spending power than the other two
cohorts.
Along with these novel contributions, our study has some limitations.
Our research focuses on combining CX dimensions in a specific retail
environment, DIY and may have implications to retailing sectors of
similar type (i.e. high frequency purchase). Indeed, firms from different
sectors will likely require different CX configurations. Therefore, the
effect on customer loyalty may depend on industry specific character­
istics, implying that future research needs to examine how specific in­
dustry characteristics affect the relationship between experience, CX
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementarydata to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102171.
Appendix 1. Measurement Model Validity
Convergent and Discriminant Validity Assessment
Squared correlations (SC) among latent variables
1 2
Emotion 1.00 – –
Cognitive 0.44 1.00
Sensory 0.44 0.55
Social 0.40 0.61
Behavioral 0.22 0.14
Technological 0.47 0.61
11
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 56 (2020) 102171
dimensions, configurations and customer behavior. Moreover, we
identified distinct configurations across age groups within the same
sector; it is likely that these configurations will also be differently
affected by the sector itself. Regarding our CX construct, to obtain a
more complete understanding, future research could invoke Klaus’s
measurement of customer experience (2014), which includes three
different stages: pre-purchase, during purchase and post-purchase
experience. Notably, we use subjective measures for our dependent
variable rather than actual performance data, such as customer share,
wallet share, or price elasticity. The data used in this study are derived
from a single country across different regions; and the diversity of in­
ternational customer characteristics is beyond the scope of the current
research. Based on several practitioner reports, we note that consumers
in less developing countries appear to value significantly cognitive, so­
cial (employee engagement) and technological dimensions of CX
(McKinsey, 2016; Oracle, 2011) similarly to the findings reported here.
In addition, according to McKinsey (2016) activities associated to CX in
Europe, Middle East and Africa appear common, with minor flavors and
differences in terms of priorities or challenges. However, before gener­
alizing our results, this multidimensional interaction analysis also need
to be replicated in other countries. As stated by Emmanuel Obadia, CX
Network’s Advisory Board member, VP of Marketing, geographic
context should be considered for creating personalized customer expe­
rience. Moreover, generational customer differences should also be
examined in different societies. In line with Siqueira et al. (2020), a CX
model should include the impact of both internal and external touch
points. Therefore, it might be interesting to include other variables that
could affect the link between CX and loyalty, such as the role of the
external environment (e.g. degree of competition, market uncertainty,
or peer-to-peer interactions). Future research should look at the in­
teractions between not only purchase channels, but it could also search
for new ones that can inform better design of firm multichannel strate­
gies (Hu and Tracogna, 2020). Future analyses are also needed to
include other customer socio-demographic characteristics, such as
gender, education, level of income, all of which could also influence an
assessment of CX dimensions in an industry and geography specific
contexts.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support for the
data collection employed in this work from the AFNOR “Performance
des Organisations” endowment in collaboration with the Paris-Dauphine
Foundation.
3 4 5 6
– – –
– – – –
1.00 – – –
0.44 1.00 – –
0.14 0.13 1.00 –
0.50 0.47 0.12 1.00
S. Pekovic and S. Rolland Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 56 (2020) 102171

Average variance extracted (AVE) by latent variables

Emotion 0.64 No problem with discriminant validity

No problem with convergent validity

Cognitive 0.62 No problem with discriminant validity

No problem with convergent validity
Sensory 0.66 No problem with discriminant validity
No problem with convergent validity
Social 0.77 No problem with discriminant validity
No problem with convergent validity
Behavioral 0.64 No problem with discriminant validity
No problem with convergent validity
Technological 0.64 No problem with discriminant validity
No problem with convergent validity
Note: when AVE values�SC values there is no problem with discriminant validity.
when AVE values�0.5 there is no problem with convergent validity.

Raykov’s factor reliability coefficient and Cronbach’s alpha

Raykov’s factor reliability coefficient Cronbach’s alpha

Emotion 0.95 0.95

Cognitive 0.94 0.94
Sensory 0.93 0.93
Social 0.96 0.96
Behavioral 0.88 0.88
Technological 0.97 0.97
Loyalty 0.97 0.97

Appendix 2. Truth Table Analysis

Set Emotional Cognitive Sensory Social Behavioral Technological Number of best fit Degree of consistency

1 0 1 0 1 0 1 6 0.94
2 0 1 0 1 1 1 5 0.94
3 0 1 1 1 0 1 16 0.93
4 0 1 1 1 1 1 6 0.93
5 1 1 0 1 0 0 4 0.93
6 1 1 0 1 1 0 4 0.92
7 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0.94
8 1 1 1 1 1 0 10 0.92
9 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 0.94
10 1 1 0 1 1 1 10 0.94
11 1 1 1 1 0 1 35 0.94
12 1 1 1 1 1 1 109 0.91

References Bign�
e, J.E., Mattila, A.S., Andreu, L., 2008. The impact of experiential consumption
cognitions and emotions on behavioral intentions. J. Serv. Market. 22, 303–315.
Bitner, M.J., 1990. Evaluating service encounters: the effects of physical surroundings
Martech Advisor, 2019. What is customer experience (CX)? Definition, design,
and employee responses. J. Market. 54, 69–82.
management, best practices and examples. https://www.martechadvisor.com/art
Bitner, M., 1992. Servicescapes: the impact of physical surroundings on customers and
icles/customer-experience-2/what-is-customer-experience-strategy-best-practices
employees. J. Market. 56, 57–71.
-trends/ accessed 10 December 2019.
Bl�
azquez, M., 2014. Fashion shopping in multichannel retail: the role of technology in
Åkesson, M., Edvardsson, B., Tronvoll, B., 2014. Customer experience from a self-service
enhancing the customer experience. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 18, 97–116.
system perspective. J. Serv. Manag. 25 (5), 677–698.
Bolton, R.N., McColl-Kennedy, J.R., Cheung, L., Gallan, A., Orsingher, C., Witell, L.,
Ali, F., Kim, W.G., Li, J., Jeon, H.-M., 2018. Make it delightful: customers’ experience,
Zaki, M., 2018. Customer experience challenges: bringing together digital, physical
satisfaction and loyalty in Malaysian theme parks. J. Dest. Market. Manag. 7, 1–11.
and social realms. J. Serv. Manag. 29, 776–808.
Auh, S., Bell, S.J., McLeod, C.S., Shih, E., 2007. Co-production and customer loyalty in
Boon, C., Den Hartog, Deane, N., Lepak, David P., 2019. A systematic Review of human
financial services. J. Retailing 83, 359–370.
resource management system and their measurement. J. Manag. https://doi.org/
Babin, B.J., Attaway, S., 2000. Atmospheric affect as a tool for creating value and gaining
10.1177/0149206318818718.
share of customer. J. Bus. Res. 49, 91–99.
Borsci, S., Federici, S., Bacci, S., Gnaldi, M., Bartolucci, F., 2015. Assessing user
Bain and Company, 2005. Closing the delivery gap. https://media.bain.com/bainweb/
satisfaction in the era of user experience: comparison of the SUS, UMUX and UMUX-
PDFs/cms/hotTopics/closingdeliverygap.pdf. (Accessed 10 November 2017).
LITE as a function of product experience. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 31,
Ballantine, P.W., Parsons, A.G., Comeskey, K., 2015. A conceptual model of the holistic
484–495.
effects of atmospheric cues in fashion retailing. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 43 (6),
Brakus, J.J., Schmitt, B.H., Zarantonello, L., 2009. Brand experience: what is it? How is it
503–517.
measured? Does it affect loyalty? J. Market. 73, 52–68.
Barwitz, N., Maas, P., 2018. Understanding the omnichannel customer journey:
Brun, I., Lova, R., Ricard, L., Bilitis, B., 2017. Impact of customer experience on loyalty: a
determinants of interaction choice. J. Interact. Market. 43, 116–133.
multichannel examination. Serv. Ind. J. 37, 317–340.
Bateson, J., 1995. Perceived control and the service encounter. In: Czepiel, J.,
Capgemini rapport, 2017. The disconnected customer what digital customer experience
Solomon, M., Surprenant, C. (Eds.), The Service Encounter: Managing Employee/
leaders teach us about reconnecting with customers. https://www.capgemini.com/w
Customer in Service. Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, pp. 67–82.
p-content/uploads/2017/07/the_disconnected_customer-what_digital_customer_e
Bazaarvoice, 2019. DIY SOS- calling DIY to set-up online shop. https://media.bazaarvo
xperience_leaders_teach_us_about_reconnecting_with_customers.pdf accessed 10 July
ice.com/sites/2/diy-ebook-en.pdf accessed 15 December 2019.
2018.
Bednarz Beauchamp, M., Barnes, D.C., 2015. Delighting baby boomers and millennials:
Cermak, D.S.P., File, K.M., Prince, R.A., 1994. Customer participation in service
factors that matter most. J. Market. Theor. Pract. 23, 338–350.
specification and delivery. J. Appl. Bus. Res. 10, 90–97.
Berry, L.L., Carbone, L.P., Haeckel, S.H., 2002. Managing the total customer experience.
Cetin, G., Dincer, F.I., 2014. Influence of customer experience on loyalty and word-of-
MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 43, 85–89.
mouth in hospitality operations. Anatolia 25, 181–194.

12
S. Pekovic and S. Rolland
Chahal, H., Dutta, K., 2015. Measurement and impact of customer experience in banking
sector. Decision 42 (1), 57–70.
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. Market. 74, 48–64.
Chen, J.S., Tsou, H.T., Ching, R.K.H., 2011. Co-production and its effects on service
innovation. Ind. Market. Manag. 40, 1331–1346.
Cheung, C.M.K., Lee, M.K.O., Rabjohn, N., 2008. The impact of electronic word-of-
mouth: the adoption of online opinions in online customer communities. Internet
Res. 18, 229–247.
Churchill, Gilbert A., Ford, Neil M., Walker, Orville C., 1974. Measuring the satisfaction
of industrial salesmen. J. Market. Res. 11, 254–260.
Clegg, B., 2003. Capturing Customers’ Hearts: Leave the Competition to Chase Their
Pockets. Prentice Hall.
Crifo, P., Diaye, M.A., Pekovic, S., 2016. CSR related management practices and firm
performance: an empirical analysis of the quantity-quality trade-off on French data.
Int. J. Prod. Econ. 171, 405–416.
Cyr, D., Hassanein, K., Head, M., Ivaniv, A., 2007. The role of social presence in
establishing loyalty in e-service environments. Interact. Comput. 29, 43–56.
Dabholkar, P.A., 1990. How to improve perceived service quality by increasing customer
participation. Acad. Market. Sci. 3, 483–487.
De Keyser, A., Lemon, K.N., Klaus, P., Keiningham, T.L., 2015. A framework for
understanding and managing the customer experience. https://www.msi.org/repor
ts/a-framework-for-understanding-and-managing-the-customer-experience accessed
15 August 2018.
De Waal, A., van der Heijden, B., 2016. Increasing customer loyalty and customer
intimacy by improving the behavior of employees. J. Strat. Manag. 9, 492–510.
Dean, A., Rolland, S., 2011. Using an age-based lens to test the antecedents of value in
retail. Int. J. Market. 51, 85–100.
Delcourt, C., Gremler, D.D., van Riel, A.C.R., van Birgelen, M., 2016. Employee
emotional competence: construct conceptualization and validation of a customer-
based measure. J. Serv. Res. 19, 72–87.
Delmas, M.A., Pekovic, S., 2018. Organizational configurations for sustainability and
employee productivity: a qualitative comparative analysis approach. Bus. Soc. 57,
216–251.
Deshwal, P., 2016. Customer experience quality and demographic variables (age, gender,
education level, and family income) in retail stores. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 44
(9), 940–955.
Di Fatta, D., Patton, D., Viglia, G., 2018. The determinants of conversion rates in SME e-
commerce websites. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 41, 161–168.
Ding, X.D., Hu, P.J., Verma, R., Wardell, D.G., 2010. The impact of service system design
and flow experience on customer satisfaction in online financial services. J. Serv.
Res. 13 (1), 96–110.
Donovan, R.J., Rossiter, J.R., Marcoolyn, G., Nesdale, A., 1994. Store atmosphere and
purchasing behavior. J. Retailing 70 (3), 283–294.
Dube, A., Helkkula, A., 2015. Service experiences beyond the direct use: indirect
customer use experiences of smartphone apps. J. Serv. Manag. 26 (2), 224–248.
Dube, L., Menon, K., 2000. Multiple roles of consumption emotions in post-purchase
satisfaction with extended service transactions. Int. J. Serv. Ind. Manag. 11,
287–304.
Edvardsson, B., Enquist, B., Johnston, R., 2005. Co-creating customer value through
hyperreality in the prepurchase service experience. J. Serv. Res. 8, 149–161.
Engel, J.F., Blackwell, R.D., Miniard, P.W., 1990. Consumer Behavior. Dryden Press,
Chicago.
European DIY Retail Association/Global Home Improvement Network, 2019. https://fe
diyma.com/2016/11/29/global-diy-market-worth-538-billion-e/ accessed 10
January 2020.
Fang, J., George, B., Shao, Y., Wen, C., 2016. Affective and cognitive factors influencing
repeat buying in e-commerce. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 19, 44–55.
Fernandes, T., Cruz, M., 2016. Dimensions and outcomes of experience quality in
tourism: the case of Port wine cellars. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 31, 371–379.
Fernandes, T., Pinto, T., 2019. Relationship quality determinants and outcomes in retail
banking services: the role of customer experience. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 50,
30–41.
Fiss, P.C., 2007. A set-theoretic approach to organizational configurations. Acad. Manag.
Rev. 32, 1180–1198.
Fiss, P.C., 2011. Building better causal theories: a fuzzy set approach to typologies in
organization research. Acad. Manag. J. 54, 393–420.
Flores, J., Vasquez-Parraga, A.Z., 2015. The impact of choice on co-produced customer
value creation and satisfaction. J. Consum. Market. 32, 15–25.
Forbes, 2019. https://www.forbes.
com/sites/blakemorgan/2019/09/16/10-examples-of-customer-
experience-turnarounds/#643e10a34415 accessed 10 January 2020.
Foroudi, P., Melewar, T.C., Gupta, S., 2014. Linking corporate logo, corporate image, and
reputation: an examination of consumer perceptions in the financial setting. J. Bus.
Res. 67 (11), 2269–2281.
Foroudi, P., Jin, Z., Gupta, S., Melewar, T.C., Foroudi, M.M., 2016. Influence of
innovation capability and customer experience on reputation and loyalty. J. Bus.
Res. 69, 4882–4889.
Forrester, 2018. Does CX quality affect stock performance? Yes, but…. https://go.forre
ster.com/blogs/does-cx-quality-affect-stock-performance-yes-but/ accessed 05
August 2018.
Funches, V.M., Funches, M.J., Markley, L.D., 2009. Reprisal, retribution and requital:
investigating customer retaliation. J. Bus. Res. 62, 231–238.
Ganguli, S., Roy, S.K., 2011. Generic technology-based service quality dimensions in
banking. Int. J. Bank Market. 29, 68–89.
13
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 56 (2020) 102171
Gao, L., Melero-Polo, I., Sese, F.J., 2019. Customer equity drivers, customer experience
quality, and customer profitability in banking services: the moderating role of social
influence. J. Serv. Res. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670519856119.
Garg, R.R., Qureshi, M.N., 2014. Measuring customer experience in banks: scale
development and validation. J. Model. Manag. 9, 87–117.
Gartner, 2018. Key findings from the gartner customer experience survey. https://www.
gartner.com/smarterwithgartner/key-findings-from-the-gartner-customer-experie
nce-survey/ accessed 05 September 2018.
Gentile, C., Spiller, N., Noci, G., 2007. How to sustain the customer experience: an
overview of experience components that co-create value with the customer. Eur.
Manag. J. 25 (5), 395–410.
Gilboa, S., Vilnai-Yavetz, I., 2010. Four generations of mall visitors in Israel: a study of
mall activities, visiting patterns, and products purchased. J. Retailing Consum. Serv.
17, 501–511.
Gilboa, S., Seger-Guttmann, T., Mimran, O., 2019. The unique role of relationship
marketing in small businesses’ customer experience. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 51,
152–164.
Grewal, D., Ailawadi, L.K., Gauri, D., Hall, K., Kopalle, P., Robertson, R.J., 2011.
Innovations in retail pricing and promotions. J. Retailing 87, 43–52.
Grønholdt, L., Martensen, A., Jørgensen, S., Jensen, P., 2015. Customer experience
management and business performance. Int. J. Qual. Serv. Sci. 7 (1), 90–106.
Guenzi, P., Pelloni, O., 2004. The impact of interpersonal relationships on customer
satisfaction and loyalty to the service provider. Int. J. Serv. Ind. Manag. 15,
365–384.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis.
Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Han, H., Back, K., 2007. Assessing guest emotional experiences influencing customer
satisfaction in the lodging industry. J. Trav. Tourism Market. 23, 43–56.
Harvard Business Review Analytic Services, 2014. Lessons from the leading edge of
customer experience management. https://hbr.org/sponsored/2016/04/lessons
-from-the-leading-edge-of-customer-experience-management accessed 05 February
2017.
Havir, D., 2017. A comparison of the approaches to customer experience analysis. Econ.
Busin. 31, 83–85.
Himmel, B., 2008. Different strokes for different generations. Rent. Product. News 30,
42–46.
Hoffman, D., Novak, T., 2009. Flow online: lessons learned and future prospects.
J. Interact. Market. 23, 23–34.
Holtshausen, T., Styrdom, J., 2006. Generation Y consumers: behavioral patterns of
selected South African students. Bus. Rev. Cambridge 5, 314–318.
Homburg, C., Jozi, D., Kuehnl, C., 2015. Customer experience management: toward
implementing an evolving marketing concept. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 43, 1–13.
Hu, T.-I., Tracogna, A., 2020. Multichannel customer journeys and their determinants:
evidence from motor insurance. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jretconser.2019.102022.
Huang, C.C., 2017. The impacts of brand experiences on brand loyalty: mediators of
brand love and trust. Manag. Decis. 55, 915–934.
Hulten, B., Broweus, N., van Dijk, M., 2009. Sensory Marketing. Palgrave Macmillan,
London.
Iglesias, O., Singh, J.J., Batista-Foguet, J.M., 2011. The role of brand experience and
affective commitment in determining brand loyalty. J. Brand Manag. 18, 570–582.
Jackson, V., Stoel, L., Brantley, A., 2011. Mall attributes and shopping value: differences
by gender and generational cohort. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 18, 1–9.
Johansson, T., Kask, J., 2017. Configurations of business strategy and marketing
channels for e-commerce and traditional retail formats: a Qualitative Comparison
Analysis (QCA) in sporting goods retailing. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 34, 326–333.
Kantar, 2018. The experience advantage 2018 report. https://cxplus.tnsglobal.com/usa
accessed January 20, 2020.
Keiningham, T.L., Cooil, B., Aksoy, L., Andreassen, T.W., Weiner, J., 2007. The value of
different customer satisfaction and loyalty metrics in predicting customer retention,
recommendation, and share-of-wallet. Manag. Serv. Qual.: Int. J. 17, 361–384.
Keiningham, T., Ball, J., Benoit, S., Bruce, H.L., Buoye, A., Dzenkovska, J., Nasr, L.,
Ou, Y.-C., Zaki, M., 2017. The interplay of customer experience and commitment.
J. Serv. Market. 31, 148–160.
Keininghama, T., Aksoyb, L., Brucec, H.L., Cadeta, F., Clennelld, N., Hodgkinsone, I.R.,
Kearneyf, T., 2020. Customer experience driven business model innovation. J. Bus.
Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.08.003.
Kim, H., Choi, B., 2013. The influence of customer experience quality on customers’
behavioral intentions. Serv. Market. Q. 34, 322–338.
Klaus, P., 2013. The case of Amazon.com: towards a conceptual framework of online
customer service experience (OCSE) using the emerging consensus technique (ECT).
J. Serv. Market. 47 (6), 433–457.
Klaus, P., Maklan, S., 2013. Towards a better measure of customer experience. Int. J.
Mark. Res. 55 (2), 227–246.
Kranzbühler, A., Kleijnen, M.H., Morgan, R.E., Teerling, M., 2017. The multilevel nature
of customer experience research: an integrative review and research agenda. Int. J.
Manag. Rev. 20, 433–456.
Kumar, A., Lim, H., 2008. Age differences in mobile service perceptions: comparison of
Generation Y and baby boomers. J. Serv. Market. 22, 568-57.
Kumar, R.S., Balaji, M.S., Sadeque, S., Nguyen, B., Melewar, T.C., 2014. Constituents and
consequences of smart customer experience in retailing. Technol. Forecast. Soc.
Change 124, 257–270.
Leenheer, J., Van Heerde, H.J., Bijmolt, T.H.A., Smidts, A., 2007. Do loyalty programs
really enhance behavioral loyalty? An empirical analysis accounting for self-
selecting members. Int. J. Res. Market. 24, 31–47.
S. Pekovic and S. Rolland
Lemmink, J., Mattsson, J., 1998. Warmth during non- productive retail encounters: the
hidden side of productivity. Int. J. Res. Market. 15, 505–517.
Lemon, K.N., Verhoef, P.C., 2016. Understanding customer experience throughout the
customer journey. J. Market. 80 (6), 69–96.
Lichtl�e, M.C., Plichon, V., 2014. Les �emotions ressenties dans un point de vente :
proposition d’une � echelle de mesure. Rech. Appl. Market. 29 (1), 3–26.
Lindstrom, M., 2005. Brand Sense: Build Powerful Brands through Touch, Taste, Smell,
Sight and Sound. Free Press, New York.
Lissitsa, S., Kol, O., 2016. Generation X vs. Generation Y – a decade of online shopping.
J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 31, 304–312.
Longest, K.C., Vaisey, S., 2008. Fuzzy: a program for performing qualitative comparative
analysis (QCA). STATA J. 8, 79–104.
Lumpkin, J.R., Festervand, T.A., 1988. Purchase information sources of elderly.
J. Advert. Res. 27, 32–43.
MacDonald, J.B., Saliba, A.J., Bruwer, J., 2013. Wine choice and drivers of consumption
explored in relation to generational cohorts and methodology. J. Retailing Consum.
Serv. 20, 349–357.
Mahr, D., Stead, S., Odekerken-Schr€ oder, G., 2019. Making sense of customer service
experiences: a text mining review. J. Serv. Market. 33, 88–103.
Majra, H., Saxena, R., Jha, S., Jagannathan, S., 2016. Structuring technology applications
for enhanced customer experience: evidence from Indian air travellers. Global Bus.
Rev. 17, 351–374.
Maklan, S., Klaus, P., 2011. Customer experience: are we measuring the right things? Int.
J. Mark. Res. 53 (6), 771–792.
Marinova, D., de Ruyter, K., Huang, M.-H., Meuter, M.L., Challagalla, G., 2016. Getting
smart: learning from technology-empowered frontline interactions. J. Serv. Res. 20,
29–42.
Massicotte, M.C., Michon, R., Chebat, J.C., Sirgy, M.J., Borges, A., 2011. Effects of mall
atmosphere on mall evaluation: teenage versus adult shoppers. J. Retailing Consum.
Serv. 18, 74–80.
Mattila, A.S., Enz, C.A., 2002. The role of emotions in service encounters. J. Serv. Res. 4,
268–277.
McColl-Kennedy, J.R., Vargo, S.L., Dagger, T.S., Sweeney, J.C., Van Kasteren, Y., 2012.
Health care customer value cocreation practice styles. J. Serv. Res. 15, 370–389.
McColl-Kennedy, J., Zaki, M., Lemon, K., Urmetzer, F., Neely, 2019. Gaining customer
experience insights that matter. J. Serv. Res. 22, 8–26.
Mcelroy, J., Morrow, P., 2010. Employee reactions to office redesign: a naturally
occurring quasi-field experiment in a multi-generational setting. Hum. Relat. 63,
609–636.
McKinsey, 2016. More than digital plus traditional: a truly omnichannel customer
experience. https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/operations/our-insigh
ts/more-than-digital-plus-traditional-a-truly-omnichannel-customer#/ accessed 10
December 2019.
McLean, G., Al-Nabhani, K., Wilson, A., 2018. Developing a mobile applications
customer experience model (MACE)-Implications for retailers. J. Bus. Res. 85,
325–336.
Meyer, C., Schwager, A., 2007. Understanding customer experience. Harv. Bus. Rev. 85,
137-37.
Mhaya, I., Najjar, H., Ben Jannet, I., 2013. Effet de l’exp�erience en ligne sur la fid�
elit�e au
site du r�eseau social : le ro^le m�
ediateur de la satisfaction des internautes. J. Global
Manag. Res. 9, 5–14.
Molinillo, S., Navarro-García, A., Anaya-S� anchez, R., Japutra, A., 2020. The impact of
affective and cognitive app experiences on loyalty towards retailers. J. Retailing
Consum. Serv. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.101948.
Morris, J.D., Woo, C., Geason, J.A., Kim, J., 2002. The power of affect: predicting
intention. J. Advert. Res. 42 (3), 7–17.
Morrison, M., Gan, S., Dubelaar, C., Oppewal, H., 2011. In-store music and aroma
influences on shopper behavior and satisfaction. J. Bus. Res. 64, 558–564.
Moschis, G., Bellenger, D., Curasi, C.J., 2003. Financial service preferences and
patronage motives of older consumers. J. Financ. Serv. Market. 7, 331–340.
Nenonen, S., Rasila, H., Junnonen, J-M., K€ arn€a, S., 2008. Customer Journey – a method
to investigate user experience. In: Proceedings of the Euro FM Conference,
pp. 54–63.
Nguyen, D.T., Dewitt, T., Russell-Bennett, R., 2012. Service convenience and social
servicescape: retail vs hedonic setting. J. Serv. Market. 26, 265–277.
Niemel€ a-Nyrhinen, J., 2007. Baby boom consumers and technology: shooting down
stereotypes. J. Consum. Market. 24, 305–312.
Noble, S.M., Haytko, D.L., Melancon, J.P., 2009. What drives college-age Generation Y
consumers? J. Bus. Res. 62, 617–628.
Noort, G., Voorveld, H., Reijmersdal, E., 2012. Interactivity in brand web sites: cognitive,
affective, and behavioral responses explained by consumers’ online flow experience.
J. Interact. Market. 26, 224–234.
Nusair, K., Parsa, H.G., Cobanoglu, C., 2011. Building a model of commitment for
Generation Y: an empirical study on e-travel retailers. Tourism Manag. 32, 833–843.
Nysveen, H., Pedersen, P.E., 2014. Influences of co-creation on brand experience: the role
of brand engagement. Int. J. Mark. Res. 56, 807–832.
Nysveen, H., Pedersen, P.E., Skard, S., 2013. Brand experiences in service organizations:
exploring the individual effects of brand experience dimensions. J. Brand Manag. 20,
404–423.
Oliver, R.L., 1997. Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer. McGraw-Hill,
New York.
Oracle, 2011. Customer experience impact report. http://www.oracle.com/us/products/
applications/cust-exp-impact-report-epss-1560493.pdf accessed 10 December 2019.
Ou, Y.C., Verhoef, P.C., 2017. The impact of positive and negative emotions on loyalty
intentions and their interactions with customer equity drivers. J. Bus. Res. 80,
106–115.
14
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 56 (2020) 102171
Palmer, A., 2010. Customer experience management: a critical review of an emerging
idea. J. Serv. Market. 24, 196–208.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., 1988. SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for
measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. J. Retailing 64, 12–40.
Parment, A., 2013. Generation Y vs. Baby Boomers: shopping behavior, buyer
involvement and implications for retailing. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 20, 189–199.
Peppers, D., Rogers, M., 1993. The One to One Future: Building Relationships One
Customer at a Time. Currency/Doubleday, New York, NY.
Phillips, C., 2007. Millennials: Clued in or Clueless? Advertising Age, pp. 12–13.
November.
Phillips, L.W., Sternthal, B., 1977. Age differences in information processing: a
perspective on the aged consumer. J. Market. Res. 14, 444–457.
Pine, B.J., Gilmore, J.H., 1999. The Experience Economy. Harvard Business School Press,
Boston.
Piotrowicz, W., Cuthbertson, R., 2014. Introduction to the special issue information
technology in retail: toward omnichannel retailing. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 18,
5–16.
Ragin, C.C., 2000. Fuzzy-set Social Science. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Ragin, C.C., 2006. The limitations of net-effect thinking. In: Rihoux, B., Grimm, H. (Eds.),
Innovative Comparative Methods for Policy Analysis: beyond the Quantitative-
Qualitative Divide. Springer, New York, pp. 13–41.
Ragin, C.C., 2008. Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and beyond. The University of
Chicago Press, Chicago.
Ragin, C.C., 2009. Configurational Comparative Methods: Qualitative Comparative
Analysis (QCA) and Related Techniques. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Ranjan, K.R., Read, S., 2014. Value co-creation: concept and measurement. J. Acad.
Market. Sci. 44 (3), 290–315.
Rihoux, B., 2003. Bridging the gap between the qualitative and quantitative worlds? A
retrospective and prospective view on qualitative comparative analysis. Field
Methods 15 (4), 351–365.
Rose, S., Clark, M., Samouel, P., Hair, N., 2012. Online customer experience in e-
retailing: an empirical model of antecedents and outcomes. J. Retailing 88, 308–322.
Rudkowski, J., Heney, C., Yu, H., Sedlezky, S., Gunn, F., 2019. Here Today, Gone
Tomorrow? Mapping and modeling the pop-up retail customer journey. J. Retailing
Consum. Serv. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.11.003.
Sands, S., Oppewal, H., Beverland, M., 2009. The effects of in-store themed events on
consumer store choice decisions. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 16, 386–395.
Schmitt, B., 1999. Experiential marketing. J. Market. Manag. 15, 53–67.
Schmitt, B., 2010. Experience marketing: concepts, frameworks and consumer insights.
Found. Trends® Microecon. 5 (2), 55–112.
Shankar, V., Smith, A.K., Rangaswamy, A., 2003. Customer satisfaction and loyalty in
online and offline environments. Int. J. Res. Market. 20, 153–175.
Sharma, M., Chaubey, D.S., 2014. An empirical study of customer experience and its
relationship with customer satisfaction towards the services of banking sector.
J. Market. Commun. 9, 18–27.
Shen, X.-L., Li, Y.-J., Sun, Y., Wang, N., 2018. Channel integration quality, perceived
fluency and omnichannel service usage: the moderating roles of internal and
external usage experience. Decis. Support Syst. 109, 61–73.
Shiv, B., Fedorikhin, A., 1999. Heart and mind in conflict: the interplay of affect and
cognition in consumer decision making. J. Consum. Res. 26, 278–292.
Siqueira, J.R., Horst, E., Molina, G., Losada, M., Mateu, M.A., 2020. A Bayesian
examination of the relationship of internal and external touchpoints in the customer
experience process across various service environments. J. Retailing Consum. Serv.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.102009.
Sirapracha, J., Tocquer, G., 2012. Customer experience, brand image and customer
loyalty in telecommunication services. Int. Conf. Econ. Bus. Market. Manag. 29 (1),
112–116.
Sivadas, E., Baker-Prewitt, J.L., 2000. An examination of the relationship between
service quality, customer satisfaction, and store loyalty. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag.
28, 73–82.
Srivastava, M., Kaul, D., 2016. Exploring the link between customer experience-loyalty-
consumer spend. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 31, 277–286.
Stein, A., Ramaseshan, B., 2016. Towards the identification of customer experience touch
point elements. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 30, 8–19.
Temkin Group Insight Report, 2016. ROI of Customer Experience.
Tsaur, S., Yung, C.Y., Lin, J.H., 2006. The relational behavior between wholesaler and
retailer travel agencies: evidence from Taiwan. J. Hospit. Tourism Res. 30 (3),
333–353.
Vargo, S.L., Lusch, R.F., 2004. Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing.
J. Market. 68 (1), 1–17.
Vasel, P., Zabkar, V., 2009. Managing customer loyalty through the mediating role of
satisfaction in the DIY retail loyalty program. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 16,
396–406.
Verhoef, P.C., Neslin, S.A., Vroomen, B., 2007. Multichannel customer management:
understanding the research-shopper phenomenon. Int. J. Res. Market. 24, 29–148.
Verhoef, P.C., Lemon, K.N., Parasuraman, A., Roggeveen, A., Tsiros, M., Schlesinger, L.
A., 2009. Customer experience creation: determinants, dynamics and management
strategies. J. Retailing 85, 31–41.
Verhoef, P.C., Kannan, K.P., Inman, J.J., 2015. From multi-channel retailing to omni-
channel retailing. J. Retailing 91, 174–181.
Vinor Tapar, A., Dhaigude, A., Jawed, S., 2017. Customer experience-based satisfaction
and behavioural intention in adventure tourism: exploring the mediating role of
commitment. Tour. Recreat. Res. 42, 344–355.
Voorhees, C., Fombelle, P., Gregoire, Y., Bone, S., Gustafsson, A., Sousa, R.,
Walkowiak, T., 2017. Service encounters, experiences and the customer journey:
defining the field and a call to expand our lens. J. Bus. Res. 79, 269–280.
S. Pekovic and S. Rolland
Walls, A., Okumus, F., Wang, Y., Kwun, D.J.W., 2011. Understanding the consumer
experience: an exploratory study of luxury hotels. J. Hospit. Market. Manag. 20 (2),
166–197.
Walter, A., Auer, M., Ritter, T., 2006. The impact of network capabilities and
entrepreneurial orientation on University spin-off performance. J. Bus. Ventur. 21,
541–567.
Wang, Y.C., Lang, C., 2019. Service employee dress: effects on employee-customer
interactions and customer-brand relationship at full-service restaurants. J. Retailing
Consum. Serv. 50, 1–9.
Watson, M., Shove, E., 2008. Product, competence, project and practice: DIY and the
dynamics of craft consumption. J. Consum. Cult. 8, 69–89.
Wei, S., Ang, T., Anaza, N.A., 2019. The power of information on customers’ social
withdrawal and citizenship behavior in a crowded service environment. J. Serv.
Manag. 30, 23–47.
15
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 56 (2020) 102171
Westbrook, R., 1987. Product/Consumption-based affective responses and post-purchase
process. J. Market. Res. 24, 258–270.
Westbrook, R., Oliver, R.L., 1991. The dimensionality of consumption emotion patterns
and consumer satisfaction. J. Consum. Res. 18 (1), 84–91.
Williams, G., 2005. Using multi-generational marketing to Target donors. Nonprof.
World 23, 8–13.
Wolburg, J., Pokrywczynski, J., 2001. A psychographic analysis of generation Y college
students. J. Advert. Res. 41, 33–52.
Woodside, A.G., 2013. Moving beyond multiple regression analysis to algorithms: calling
for adoption of a paradigm shift from symmetric to asymmetric thinking in data
analysis and crafting theory. J. Bus. Res. 66 (4), 463–472.
Wu, M.Y., Tseng, L.H., 2015. Customer satisfaction and loyalty in an online shop: an
experiential marketing perspective. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 101, 1833–3850.
Yi, Y., Gong, T., 2008. If employees “go the extra mile,” do customers reciprocate with
similar behavior? Psychol. Market. 25, 961–986.