See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/367138118

Enhancing Value Co-creation Behaviors Through Customer Engagement In

The Moroccan Hotel Context: How Does It Influence Customer Satisfaction
And Brand Image?

Article in Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism · January 2023

DOI: 10.1080/1528008X.2023.2165595

CITATION READS

1 1,018

3 authors:

Zineb Bouchriha Sabra Farid

Hassan First University of Settat - Morocco Cadi Ayyad University
3 PUBLICATIONS 5 CITATIONS 3 PUBLICATIONS 4 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ouiddad Smail
Université Hassan 1er, ENCG- Settat
27 PUBLICATIONS 34 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Zineb Bouchriha on 20 January 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wqah20

Enhancing Value Co-creation Behaviors Through

Customer Engagement In The Moroccan Hotel
Context: How Does It Influence Customer
Satisfaction And Brand Image?

Zineb Bouchriha, Sabra Farid & Smail Ouiddad

To cite this article: Zineb Bouchriha, Sabra Farid & Smail Ouiddad (2023): Enhancing Value Co-
creation Behaviors Through Customer Engagement In The Moroccan Hotel Context: How Does It
Influence Customer Satisfaction And Brand Image?, Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality &
Tourism, DOI: 10.1080/1528008X.2023.2165595

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1528008X.2023.2165595

Published online: 12 Jan 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 12

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wqah20
JOURNAL OF QUALITY ASSURANCE IN HOSPITALITY & TOURISM
https://doi.org/10.1080/1528008X.2023.2165595

Enhancing Value Co-creation Behaviors Through Customer

Engagement In The Moroccan Hotel Context: How Does It
Influence Customer Satisfaction And Brand Image?
Zineb Bouchrihaa, Sabra Faridb, and Smail Ouiddada
a
Research laboratory of Marketing, Management, and Communication, Hassan First University of Settat,
Settat, Morocco; bResearch and Study Laboratory in Quality, Marketing, Management of SMEs and
Technology Transfer, Cadi Ayyad University of Marrakech, Marrakesh, Morocco

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
This paper attempts to analyze the effects of customer- Customer value co-creation
employee interaction and digital attributes of engagement on behaviors; customer
customer value co-creation behaviors (CVCB), which in turn engagement; customer-
employee interaction; digital
affect their satisfaction and the brand image of luxury hotels
experience; customer
in Morocco. The research data was received through an online satisfaction; brand image;
questionnaire from 583 tourists and analyzed by IBM SPSS luxury hotels
Statistics 23.0 and Smart PLS 3.3. The findings strongly support
that customer-employee interaction and digital attributes of
engagement are positively and significantly related to CVCB,
which consequently determine their satisfaction and thus
reflect a positive hotel image. Furthermore, the bootstrapping
procedure shows that CVCB significantly mediate the relation­
ship between engagement platforms and brand image, and
customer satisfaction. This research adds to the current litera­
ture on cocreation and tourism marketing and provides man­
agers who design service encounters with insights to properly
manage cocreation activities and improve customer perceived
use-value.

Introduction
Arousing the interest of researchers and practitioners, value cocreation repre­
sents today an unavoidable lever in the consumer-brand relationship.
Although the value is reciprocally cocreated by different parties through
interactions that persist even after the transaction (Grönroos, 2012; Leclercq
et al., 2016), the cocreation process requires more than passive participation.
Value cocreation is a strategy that emphasizes the active participation of
service providers and consumers in its activities (Prahalad & Ramaswamy,
2004). From a customer perspective, use-value does not result directly from
services or products but rather from customers’ consumption experiences
(Holbrook, 1999), especially in service industries (Vargo & Lusch, 2004). In
this regard, tourism represents an industry highly focused on the consumption

CONTACT Zineb Bouchriha z.bouchriha@uhp.ac.ma Hassan First University of Settat, Settat, Morocco
© 2023 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 Z. BOUCHRIHA ET AL.

and production of experiences, where the “postmodern tourist” desires to be

a more active actor in cocreation experiences (Tan et al., 2014).
Customer engagement is an important concept in value cocreation.
Without customer engagement, there can be no value cocreation. Lei
et al. (2020) find that tourism industries engage customers in value
cocreation activities to provide them with unique, memorable, and perso­
nalized experiences. In this sense, researchers underline that engaging
customers requires designing “engagement platforms” (Breidbach et al.,
2014; Leclercq et al., 2016). This concept refers to any space of interaction
between actors, whether online, relating to the digital attributes of the
platform, or, offline, referring to human interaction (Hammedi et al.,
2019; Leclercq et al., 2016). Technology has significantly changed the
way tourists behave and enjoy the travel experience. It has fostered multi­
ple innovative platforms that improve value cocreation by reducing the
cost of interaction between actors and deepening the understanding of
cocreation behavior (Giannopoulos et al., 2020). Yet, in the absence of
human exchange, tourists may encounter a difficult decision-making pro­
cess when seeking more information about offerings. When interactions
return to the center of customer-staff exchanges, value is relatively easy to
create and manage. It allows employees to understand better consumer
aspirations, motivations, behavior, and tradeoffs (Carù & Cova, 2006).
Customer engagement in value cocreation characterizes customer value
cocreation behaviors (CVCB; Shamim et al., 2016). CVCB are essential in
the service context to assure a positive result and create added value
through a reasonable distribution of resources between customers and
service providers (Yi & Gong, 2013). It includes a series of citizenship
and participation behaviors that customers adopt during cocreation
experiences, such as personal interaction, responsible behavior, informa­
tion seeking, information sharing, advocacy, helping, feedback, and toler­
ance (Yi & Gong, 2013). Understanding these behaviors can improve
customer-service provider interactions, personalize experiences, and
increase satisfaction (Liu & Jo, 2020) that create hotel image and reputa­
tion (Foroudi et al., 2016).
Despite a significant amount of research on value cocreation from
different perspectives, CVCB are relatively new topics that challenge
researchers and practitioners, especially in the tourism context. Indeed,
most existing work has considered CVCB to reflect a single dimension of
tourist participation in value cocreation (González-Mansilla et al., 2019;
Z. Lin et al., 2017) thus ignoring citizenship behavior. Thus, few research
studies have concentrated on the effects of digital and physical engage­
ment platforms on customer behavioral responses (Shen et al., 2018; Teng
& Tsai, 2020). In addition, studies of satisfaction and brand image as
a consequence of CVCB in luxury hotels are scarce (Jin & Chen, 2021),
 JOURNAL OF QUALITY ASSURANCE IN HOSPITALITY & TOURISM 3

and require further investigation. Notwithstanding, the role of CVCB as

a mediator between the engagement platforms, customer satisfaction as
well as the brand image is lacking. In light of these considerations, this
paper addresses the subsequent research questions: 1) How do digital
attributes of engagement and customer-employee interaction affect
CVCB? 2) How do CVCB influence customer satisfaction and hotel
brand image? 3) Do CVCB mediate the relationship between a) digital
attributes of engagement and hotel brand image, b) digital attributes of
engagement and customer satisfaction, c) customer-employee interaction
and hotel brand image as well as d) customer-employee interaction and
customer satisfaction?
In doing so, this article contributes to the literature as follows. First, this study
seeks to explain the impact of customer-employee interaction and the digital
attributes of engagement in participation and citizenship behaviors in the hospi­
tality industry to improve guest experiences in online and offline optics and
develop high-quality relationships with hotels. Second, this article seeks to analyze
the individual and organizational results of customer engagement in value cocrea­
tion by researching the hotel’s brand image and customer satisfaction. Third, this
study is the first to examine CVCB as a necessary and sufficient mediating variable
between engagement platforms and customer satisfaction and their perception of
hotel brand image.
Our article is structured as follows. We begin by examining the importance of
CVCB in the service sector, particularly in the hotel setting. After describing the
conceptual framework and developing the hypotheses in light of existing literature,
we empirically examine and test our hypothetical model. Finally, we discuss the
results, draw conclusions, and suggest some perspectives for further studies.

Literature review
This manuscript is primarily founded on the paradigmatic framework of
Service-Dominant Logic (SDL; Vargo & Lusch, 2004) to examine the CVCB.
It bases its arguments on a series of theories, including the Social Exchange
Theory (SET; Blau, 1968) and the Resource-Based View (RBV; Penrose, 1959).
We suggest that for CVCB to occur, customers must be engaged in the process.
Thus, when customers are engaged, CVCB are more likely to influence the
hotel’s brand image and customer satisfaction positively. The following sec­
tions describe the relationships among the constructs of the conceptual frame­
work (See Figure 1).

Customer value cocreation behaviors

CVCB refer to the customer’s actual engagement in the value cocreation
activities (Shamim et al., 2016). It characterizes a set of interactions and
4 Z. BOUCHRIHA ET AL.

activities that customers develop during the exchange service to ensure opti­
mal outcomes (Roy et al., 2020 ; Yen et al., 2020). In other words, co-creative
behaviors refer to the consequential responses of behavioral engagement (Yi &
Gong, 2013). To identify different CVCB in the services sector, Yi and Gong
(2013) revealed two dimensions: Customer Participation Behavior (CPB) and
Customer Citizenship Behavior (CCB). CPB represents an ordinary dimen­
sion that allows consumers to participate in the experience of cocreation
oriented toward an intentional task (Frasquet-Deltoro et al., 2019). It includes
four sub-dimensions: personal interaction, responsible behavior, information
sharing, and information seeking, (Yi & Gong, 2013). Furthermore, CCB is an
extraordinary dimension that contains supportive and willing gestures where
customers make an extra effort for the value cocreation that enables other
customers to enjoy their experience (Frasquet-Deltoro et al., 2019). According
to SET, CCB represents a mechanism to keep relationships with other custo­
mers in a way that makes their actions helpful over time (Yi & Gong, 2013).
Like CPB, CCB has four sub-dimensions: helping, advocacy, feedback, and
tolerance (Yi & Gong, 2013).
In the hotel industry, tourists’ participation behavior is fundamental to the
creation of a service experience (Shamim & Ghazali, 2014). It refers to the
engagement of tourists in the process of production and service delivery
(Cossío Silva et al., 2016). Indeed, tourists’ participation is through seeking
and sharing information when interacting with employees of tourism estab­
lishments to create a service experience (Cossío Silva et al., 2016). In addition,
citizenship behavior is a voluntary behavior that allows tourists to make
service improvement recommendations to tourism establishments, stimulate
positive word-of-mouth that can consequently support the competitiveness of
the hotel, and help other tourists to better enjoy their experiences (Yi & Gong,
2013). However, CPB is considered a required behavior in the hospitality
industry, while CCB is seen as an additional role (Roy et al., 2020).

Interactions in engagement platforms

In value cocreation, the object of customer engagement is formed by all the

interactions that underlie the process of co-creating experiences (Storbacka
et al., 2016). However, cocreation is a fundamental manifestation of consumer
engagement behaviors resulting from motivational factors beyond purchase
(Van Doorn et al., 2010). Customer engagement is a psychological state that
occurs from the interactive process with an agent/object at several stages
(Huang, 2017). To engage customers, some researchers point out the need to
correctly design “engagement platforms” (Breidbach et al., 2014; Storbacka
et al., 2016).
Engagement platforms represent one of the central pillars of the process of
cocreating experiences. According to (Hammedi et al., 2019), engagement
 JOURNAL OF QUALITY ASSURANCE IN HOSPITALITY & TOURISM 5

platforms are defined as all online or offline spaces where actors (individuals
or organizations) can integrate their resources to create value jointly.
Furthermore, Leclercq et al. (2016) consider them as any space of interaction
between actors, whether digital, relating to the digital attributes of the plat­
form, or physical, referring to human exchange. This research proposes to
examine each theoretical foundation of these attributes in what follows.

Digital attributes of engagement

While value is created by many types of experiences shaped by interactions
between individuals, online engagement platforms must support this process
to make it more effective and affordable. Thanks to technological advances,
companies can easily reach environmental resources through communication,
interaction, and cooperation (Arica & Çorbaci, 2020). However, digital tech­
nologies have changed the service landscape, and increased the growth of
many collaborative platforms to generate more consumer engagement, as
interaction occurs in real-time and without geographical limits (Harridge‐
March & Quinton, 2010). In the hotel context, these platforms represent
emerging technological solutions in the form of automated service facilitation,
mobile applications, and automated ordering services (Beatson et al., 2006). In
this document, we focus on interactions in mobile apps. Hotel mobile apps are
becoming dynamic marketing tools that provide the general public with
information about the hotel to drive tourist engagement. Indeed, businesses
gain customer engagement through their first impressions of the mobile app
(Wang & Hajli, 2014). This is especially the case for tourists who are unfami­
liar with the destination; they gain impressions and information about hotels
by visiting their mobile apps. Engagement in value cocreation happens when
consumers search for product/service information, and/or promotions, share
information, use online services to purchase products/services, give feedback
on the service experience, help other customers consume, etc. (Baldus et al.,
2015).
Many marketing researchers have adopted the SDL to explain the relation
between value cocreation and customer engagement. SDL was proposed by
Stephen Vargo and Robert Lusch in 2004 as a new service-based marketing
approach, particularly developed in the perspective of value cocreation. Prior
research has indeed confirmed a positive association between value cocreation
and online engagement platforms (Heidenreich & Handrich, 2015; Jaakkola &
Alexander, 2014). Indeed, companies are launching innovative services and
products on digital platforms to boost customer engagement and support
actual participation (Sashi, 2012). The more customers are engaged in value
cocreation activities, the more they can share their experiences with other
customers and take advantage of service products (Pansari & Kumar, 2017).
Clauss et al. (2019) examined the impact of online engagement on CVCB in
restaurants. The results showed that engagement in online platforms
6 Z. BOUCHRIHA ET AL.

stimulated customer motivation and enthusiasm leading to CVCB. In addi­

tion, Moliner et al. (2018) found that customers with high online engagement
with the firm can make positive recommendations and reviews. So, the
following relationships are formulated:

H1.1 The digital attributes of engagement impact positively the CPB.

H1.2 The digital attributes of engagement impact positively the CCB.

Customer-employee interaction
In the service context, interactions extend beyond simple transactions to social
exchanges between employees and customers, including communication and
collaboration (Nilsson & Ballantyne, 2014; Solomon et al., 1985). Indeed, the
production and consumption of experiences enable fundamental interactions
between employees and customers in the value cocreation activities (Li & Hsu,
2018). These interactions are considered the basis for service experiences that
influence impressions and identify future consumption behaviors (Lucia-
Palacios et al., 2020). In this regard, many researchers have mobilized SET to
explain interpersonal exchanges (Blau, 1968; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). SET
originated in the sociological field and was later applied to interpersonal and
inter-organizational business relationships and marketing exchanges. In the
context of tourism, this theory recognizes the importance of interpersonal
relationships in facilitating exchanges between consumers and service provi­
ders that promote consumer engagement (Lin et al., 2018). Thus, Ma et al.
(2017) proposed that in service firms, like hotels, interactions between
employees and customers should also be considered an important type of
social exchange.
Since the employees interact regularly with customers, they know what they
expect and how they should deliver the service (Van Nguyen et al., 2021).
Indeed, the hotel’s service attributes are significantly related to the service
performance that the guest receives (Beatson et al., 2006). Employees having
more interaction with customers can enhance value for both businesses and
customers (Li & Hsu, 2018). According to the SDL, value cocreation is
a participative and collaborative service process between customers and
employees occurring through resources that ensure reciprocally beneficial
results (Busser & Shulga, 2018). Thus, the use of RBV theory indicates that
the combination of resources held by employees and customers enables the
creation of value for the parties in exchange (Gummesson & Mele, 2010). RBV
theory was first applied in strategic management and has been mobilized in
several disciplinary fields, including marketing. In the context of value cocrea­
tion, RBV assumes that customer engagement through their resources
depends significantly on how employees are engaged in a highly dynamic
service encounter process (Li & Hsu, 2018). When employees are highly
 JOURNAL OF QUALITY ASSURANCE IN HOSPITALITY & TOURISM 7

engaged, they are expected to achieve favorable outcomes from customers

(Salanova et al., 2005). Chen and Wang (2016) has discussed that, from the
consumer’s perspective, giving feedback to employees manifests as CCB. Thus,
customers can provide positive or negative feedback on aspects of service
provided by employees to improve service (Assiouras et al., 2019). These
personal service attributes could potentially lead to CPB or CCB (Ma et al.,
2017). So, the following relationships are hypothesized:

H2.1 Customer-Employee interaction has a positive impact on CPB.

H2.2 Customer-Employee interaction has a positive impact on CCB.

Brand image

The increasing intensity of competition currently marks the service industry.

However, thanks to technological progress, customers are increasingly
demanding, changing, and above all, informed in real-time. Hotels can only
find new and “interesting” customers among their competitors. To counter
competitors’ attacks, hotels try to differentiate themselves with a solid and
durable brand image that develops positive attitudes among their customers
and makes them satisfied.
The brand image refers to the perceptions, impressions, beliefs, and atti­
tudes that an individual has of the company (Foroudi et al., 2016). Indeed, the
brand image fosters a dialogue and interaction between different parties to
take full advantage of the dynamics of the place (Kavaratzis & Hatch, 2013).
Introducing CVCB into the brand-building process can provide an important
benchmark that will bring a competitive edge to hotels. By promoting cocrea­
tion, the consumer will, by definition, participate in the cocreation experiences
that prove their engagement and enhance the perceived intrinsic value of the
product and the brand image with which they co-create. By engaging in
ongoing interactions, customers collaborate and interact with the company
and consequently improve their brand perception (Hatch & Schultz, 2010). In
their research (Foroudi et al., 2019) found a meaningful effect between CVCB
and university image and reputation. Furthermore, Moulin and Roux (2008)
stipulated that to achieve perfect congruence, the customer would need to
identify with the brand, and their image would need to match the brand’s
image. Since value cocreation consists of interaction while integrating the
customer’s real needs, it is then expected that this process will impact the
consumer’s perception of the brand (Van Dijk et al., 2014). From the above, we
postulate that the CVCB process influences the customer has perceived brand
image. Hence, the following hypotheses are theorized:
8 Z. BOUCHRIHA ET AL.

H3.1. CPB is reflected in a positive perception of the hotel’s brand image.

H3.2. CCB is reflected in a positive perception of the hotel’s brand image.

Customer satisfaction
Customer satisfaction is a social construct and one of the most critical con­
cepts in the service context, mainly influenced by customers’ engagement in
the cocreation experiences (Dong et al., 2015). Service experience satisfaction
represents a good achievement that customers feel when their wants and needs
are met through consumption (Liu & Jo, 2020). We cannot talk about satisfac­
tion based on a single consumption of services and products but rather
through the consumer’s experience. Frempong et al. (2018) examined the
impact of value cocreation on customer satisfaction and demonstrated
a strong link between these constructs. By participating in cocreation activ­
ities, customer satisfaction increases because they feel that their needs and
wants will be better met (Gupta & Zeithaml, 2006).
Customer engagement in value cocreation probably has consequences on
consumer satisfaction with the service experience. In the tourism literature, it
has been extensively found that cocreation with customers improves satisfac­
tion (Assiouras et al., 2019; Prebensen & Xie, 2017). Active consumer engage­
ment in the service could improve its efficiency and increase its productivity so
that customers are more satisfied (Payne et al., 2008). In addition, Cheung and
To (2016) showed that tourists’ participation in co-creating hotel services
improves their satisfaction. Value cocreation with customers is important in
terms of reinforcing citizenship behaviors that express customers’ belonging to
the company and, therefore, improve customer satisfaction (Arica & Çorbaci,
2020). Furthermore, (Navarro et al., 2016) found that customers are likely to
be dissatisfied without feedback, help from others, personal interaction, and
tolerance. In addition, customer satisfaction with the service experience is
positively associated with the hotel’s brand image (Saleem & Raja, 2014).
While (Brodie et al., 2009) found a positive relationship between brand
image and customer satisfaction, (Mazanec, 1995) showed that luxury hotel’s
brand image is positively related with customer satisfaction. This study shows
that a pleasant image leads to customer satisfaction, while an unpleasant image
can lead to customer dissatisfaction. On these theoretical grounds, the follow­
ing hypotheses are proposed:

H4.1. The more customers adopt a participation behavior, the more they will
be satisfied with the tourism experience.
 JOURNAL OF QUALITY ASSURANCE IN HOSPITALITY & TOURISM 9

H4.2. The more customers adopt citizenship behavior, the more they will be
satisfied with the tourism experience.

H5. Customer satisfaction brings a positive perception of the hotel’s brand

image.

The mediating role of CVCB

Few studies have shown that CVCB significantly mediates their antecedents
and consequences. (Mai et al., 2019) confirm the mediating role of CVCB in
the relationship between the three dimensions of customer cocreation experi­
ence and customer satisfaction. According to Foroudi et al. (2019), student
value cocreation behaviors can mediate the influence of website features on
university brand image and reputation. Arica and Çorbaci (2020) found that
the behaviors “advocacy” and “tolerance” had a mediating role in the positive
effect of the value cocreation on customer satisfaction. 2022 showed that
CVCB play a mediating role between traditional marketing activities and the
university brand. While the direct effects of CVCB have been widely analyzed,
the results regarding their mediating role are inconclusive. Therefore, the
following hypotheses were developed to address this gap:

H6: CVCB mediate the relationship between digital attributes and brand
image and customer satisfaction.

H6a: CVCB mediate the relationship between digital attributes and brand
image.

H6b: CVCB mediate the relationship between digital attributes and customer
satisfaction.

H7: CVCB mediate the relationship between customer-employee interaction

and brand image and customer satisfaction.

H7a: CVCB mediate the relationship between customer-employee interaction

and brand image.

H7b: CVCB mediate the relationship between customer-employee interaction

and customer satisfaction.
10 Z. BOUCHRIHA ET AL.

Engagement Customer value

platforms co-creation behaviors

Digital Customer
Brand
attributes of Participation
Image
engagement Behavior

Digital Customer Customer

attributes of Citizenship satisfaction
engagement Behavior

Direct effect
Indirect effect

Figure 1. Conceptual framework.

Methodology
Sample and data collection
This study was conducted with domestic and foreign tourists who had visited
4- or 5-star hotels in Morocco within the past 6 months and experienced value
cocreation. Morocco was selected for the context of this study because, in
2019, Moroccan policy has succeeded in positioning the country as Africa’s
top tourist destination with 12.93 million tourists.1 Thus, the tourism sector is
an excellent example of a value cocreation context focused on the consumer
experience (Zhang et al., 2018). Moroccan tourism has remarkable advantages:
its climate, specific culture, imperial cities, and geographical position. In
addition, luxury hotels were chosen for four reasons. First, this hotel segment
offers a true service experience. By describing the consumption patterns of
luxury consumers, we identify that they are willing to spend more money for
a better experience. Second, this category pays attention to human dimensions
and the physical environment (Walls et al., 2011). Third, this target uses online
platforms to search and share information, as well as to purchase and con­
sume. The majority of these establishments offer now mobile apps that
enhance the experience of a tourist stay more exciting and rewarding as they
enable guests to book online, access keyless rooms, check- in/out, order room
service, have the program for the day’s entertainment, and choose activities to
do. Finally, although each hotel does its best to engage consumers in value
cocreation activities, consumer engagement appears to be higher for luxury
hotels than for low-cost hotels (Roy et al., 2020).
 JOURNAL OF QUALITY ASSURANCE IN HOSPITALITY & TOURISM 11

This research collected data through a self-reported online questionnaire

using the convenience sampling method because it is based on accessibility,
availability of participants, and reliability of responses (Sekaran & Bougie,
2011). The questionnaire framework focused on descriptive questions about
the sample, and questions about the variables in the research design. This
questionnaire was pre-tested with 20 tourists and confirmed by experts to
verify the comprehensibility and relevance of all included indicators. There
were 751 total responses, of which 168 were discarded. The final sample size
was 583 respondents, and data collection took place between March 2022 and
July 2022. The questionnaire included screening questions at the beginning.
Participants were selected based on their length of stay, which had to be within
the last 6 months, and whether they had participated in a value-creating
activity with the hotel. Respondents were excluded from the survey if they
indicated “no” to any of the screening questions. Table 1 presents respondents’
demographic characteristics.

Table 1. Respondents’ demographic characteristics.

Estimate Frequency Percent
Gender Female 231 39.62%
Male 352 60.38%
Age Under 20 16 2.74%
21–30 206 35.34%
31–40 193 33.1%
41–50 131 22.47%
Over 50 37 6.35%
Tourists surveyed National 159 27.27%
Foreign 424 72.73%
Marital status Single 183 31.39%
Married 379 65%
Divorced 21 3.61%
Hotel classification Four stars 367 62.95%
Five stars 216 37.05%
Travel frequency Regularly 77 13.2%
Frequently 339 58.15%
From time to time 86 14.76%
Moderately 54 9.26%
Rarely 27 4.63%
Length of stay Under-five days 346 59.35%
5–15 days 224 38.42%
Over 15 days 13 2.23%

Measures
This research used existing scales to measure all constructs. These scales were
five-point Likert-type scales (1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree). The
two dimensions of engagement platforms interactions were measured using 16
scale items (Beatson et al., 2006). This scale was chosen because it was
designed in the hotel service industry, and showed satisfactory reliability.
This study mobilized Yi and Gong’s (2013) scale to measure CVCB, where
participation behaviors present personal interaction (5 items), responsible
12 Z. BOUCHRIHA ET AL.

behavior (4 items), information sharing (4 items), information seeking (3

items), and citizenship behaviors focus on helping (4 items), tolerance (3
items), feedback (3 items), and advocacy (3 items). The seven items to measure
overall satisfaction with the experience were adapted from (Beatson et al.,
2006). This scale was used because it has been mobilized to assess the degree of
customer satisfaction in the hotel and tourism context, and has significant
reliability. Finally, for the brand image variable, we adopt the designed scale
from (Ansary & Hashim, 2018).

Data analysis
The data collected for this research was analyzed by IBM SPSS Statistics 23.0
and Smart PLS 3.3. PLS was mobilized due to the anomalous distribution of
the multivariate data, and its ability to assess the effects between latent con­
structs while adjusting for measurement errors in the structural model (Hair
et al., 2017). Furthermore, since our research is explanatory in nature, PLS is
therefore suitable for our purpose. This is in the way of the Hair et al. (2017)
recommendation which posits that measurement models should be evaluated
before the structural model. The Smart PLS software uses the Structural
Equation Modeling (SEM)-based PLS method that analyzes second-
generation multivariate data. This technique is widely used in social science
research as it allows for the testing of linear and additive cause-and-effect
models supported by the theoretical foundation (Haenlein & Kaplan, 2004).
Before evaluating the measurement model, this research tested for the
nonexistence of common variance bias. This is because when data are gener­
ated by a self-reported questionnaire and the questions are perceptual,
responses to one variable may affect responses to another variable. This bias
is called Common Method Bias (CMB; Podsakoff et al., 2003). To this end, this
research analyzed CMB in the data using Harman’s (1967) single factor test
and Podsakoff et al.’s (2003) guidelines, through an exploratory factor analysis
using varimax rotation by loading all items into a single factor. However, the
results revealed that all items explained 35.819% of the variance in a single
factor. Since this variance is less than 50%, we can say that CMB is not
substantial in this research (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Therefore, no single factor
explains the majority of the variance.

Results
To validate the hypotheses and construct measures, this research used PLS-
SEM (Hair et al., 2017). In doing so, the literature recommends two phases to
evaluate, interpret, and present the results (Hair et al., 2011). The first phase
evaluates the measurement model to examine the reliability and validity
 JOURNAL OF QUALITY ASSURANCE IN HOSPITALITY & TOURISM 13

criteria of each construct in the model. The second step evaluates the struc­
tural model that connects the relationships between the latent variables.

Evaluation of the measurement model

The analysis began with an evaluation of the measurement models. Table 2
shows the internal consistency reliability and convergent validity of each
indicator.

Table 2. Assessment of internal consistency reliability and convergent validity.

Items Loading CA CR AVE
Customer-employee interaction 0.917 0.933 0.634
Friendly 0.895
Responsive 0.794
Polite 0.727
Courteous 0.743
Prompt 0.744
Informative 0.799
Approachable 0.831
Trustworthy 0.824
Digital attributes of engagement 0.945 0.954 0.721
Reliable 0.849
Easy to use 0.830
Easy to control 0.867
Enjoyable 0.889
Convenient 0.788
Saved time 0.899
Low risk 0.823
Customized 0.842
Customer value co-creation behaviors
Customer Participation Behavior 0.969 0.972 0.684
Personal Interaction
I was friendly to the hotel employee. 0.880
I was kind to the hotel employee. 0.854
I was polite to the hotel employee. 0.732
I was courteous to the hotel employee. 0.881
I didn’t act rudely toward the hotel employee. 0.874
Information sharing
I clearly explained what I wanted the hotel employees to do 0.860
I gave the hotel employees proper information 0.818
I provided necessary information so that the hotel employees could perform their 0.818
duties
I answered all of the hotel employee’s service-related questions. 0.781
Information seeking
I have asked others for information on what this hotel offers 0.854
I have searched for information on where this hotel is located 0. 861
I have paid attention to how others behave to use this hotel and its services well 0.752
Responsible Behavior
I performed all the tasks that are required 0.861
I adequately completed all the expected behaviors 0.825
I fulfilled responsibilities to the hotel 0.762
I followed the hotel’s rules or regulations 0.799
Customer Citizenship Behavior 0.957 0.962 0.663
Advocacy
I said positive things about the hotel and the employees to others 0.798
I recommended the hotel and the employees to others 0.854
I encouraged friends and relatives to use the hotel 0.819
Feedback
(Continued)
14 Z. BOUCHRIHA ET AL.

Table 2. (Continued).
Items Loading CA CR AVE
If I had a useful idea on how to improve service, I let the hotel employee know. 0.795
When I received good service from the hotel employee, I comment about it. 0.791
When I experienced a problem, I let the employee know about it. 0.877
Tolerance
If service is not delivered as expected, I would be willing to put up with the hotel 0.812
If the hotel employee makes a mistake during service delivery, I would be willing 0.828
to be patient
If I have to wait longer than I normally expected to receive the service, I would be 0.765
willing to adapt
Helping
I assist other customers if they need my help 0.759
I help other customers if they seem to have problems 0.817
I teach other customers to use the service correctly 0.811
I advise to other customers 0.850
Customer satisfaction 0.894 0.917 0.614
Dissatisfied/satisfied. 0.743
Sad/happy. 0.905
Uncomfortable/relaxed 0.721
Disgusted/contented. 0.781
Displeased/pleased. 0.731
Exploited/rewarded. 0.760
Disappointed/delighted. 0.830
Brand Image 0.893 0.919 0.655
This brand has a high quality 0.915
This brand has better characteristics than its competitors 0.795
This brand has a personality that distinguishes it from its competitors 0.808
This brand is a brand that does not disappoint its customers 0.720
This brand is one of the best brands in the sector 0.808
This brand is stable in the market. 0.796
Note: * = dropped items with loadings lower than 0.7; CR = Composite reliability; CA = Cronbach’s Alpha; AVE = Average
Variance Extracted

Internal consistency reliability examines the degree of internal consistency

between items of a construct (Hair et al., 2017). Our model consists of six
multi-item constructs of reflection. We calculated composite reliability,
Cronbach’s alpha, and loadings (Table 2). Thus, the loadings, alpha, and
reliability coefficients are acceptable if and only if the threshold indicates
a value of 0.7 or more (George & Mallery, 2003). Indeed, our results show
that all of these indicators are more significant than 0.7, indicating that each
item has an appropriate degree of internal reliability for each construct.
Convergent validity measures the correlations of items with their respec­
tive latent constructs. We evaluated the significance and strength of the factor
through Average Variance Extracted (AVE) scores. Chin (2010) states that any
value greater than 0.5 for the AVE is satisfactory. The Table 2 shows that AVE
values for all constructs are significant.
Discriminant validity verifies that the variance of each construct with its
indicators exceeds the correlations between the other constructs, which leads
us to the estimation of the structural model. The test is evaluated by two
complementary methods. The first method checks that the square root of the
 JOURNAL OF QUALITY ASSURANCE IN HOSPITALITY & TOURISM 15

Table 3. Discriminant validity.

Customer-employee Digital attributes of Brand Customer
interaction engagement CPB CCB Image Satisfaction
Customer-employee 0.796 0.776 0.636 0.715 0.508 0.719
interaction
Digital attributes of 0.662 0.849 0.875 0.584 0.836 0.279
engagement
CPB 0.789 0.661 0.827 0.640 0.590 0.481
CCB 0.565 0.486 0.464 0.814 0.834 0.847
Brand Image 0.752 0.469 0.802 0.278 0.809 0.816
Customer Satisfaction 0.738 0.556 0.720 0.518 0.665 0.783
Values in the diagonal are AVE squared roots; Over diagonal: HTMT ratio (Heterotrait-Monotrait); under diagonal: factors
correlations (Fornell-Larcker criterion).

AVE extracted from each construct is greater than its correlation with the
other constructs in the model (Fornell-Larcker criterion); and the second
method checks whether the correlations of the indicators of a construct are
greater than the correlations of the items measuring other constructs (HTMT
ratio), which must be less than one (Henseler et al., 2015). As reflected in
Table 3, the square roots of AVE for each construct were likewise bigger than
their inter-construct correlations, supporting the discriminant validity.

Evaluation of the structural model

The quality of the structural model is first based on the coefficients of

determination (R2) of Lohmöller (2013). Variations in the R2 value assess
the effect of dependent latent constructs and identify whether they have
a substantial effect. Indeed, the higher the R2 value, the better the independent
construct explains the dependent construct, to the point that the structural
equation is sound. In this research, the structural model is:
According to Table 4, the R2 of CPB is 0.918 (which means that digital
attributes of engagement and customer-employee interaction together explain
91.8% of the variance of the CPB concept), and the R2 of CCB is 0.906 (which
means that digital attributes of engagement and customer-employee interac­
tion together explain 90.6% of the variance of the concept CCB), then the R2 of

Table 4. Coefficients of determination of research

constructs.
R2 R2 Adjusted
CPB 0.918 0.916
CCB 0.906 0.904
Brand image 0.923 0.921
Customer Satisfaction 0.794 0.790
Average of R2 0.885 0.883
16 Z. BOUCHRIHA ET AL.

the brand image is 0.923 (which means that the CPB and CCB together explain
92.3% of the variance of the concept brand image), and finally, the R2 of the
customer satisfaction is 0.794 (which means that the CPB and CCB together
explain 79.4% of the variance of the concept customer satisfaction).
The quality of the structural model can also be measured by the average of
the “Goodness of fit” (GoF) coefficients of determination observed on the
dependent variables. The following formula calculates it: GoF = √ [(Mean (R2)
× Mean (Communality or AVE)]. In our case: GoF = √ (0.885 * 0.661).
GOF = 0.765. This index is greater than 0.3, which means that the model fits
the data, and we can proceed with the analysis. Indeed, we find that the validity
and reliability conditions of the model are verified. The scales measuring the
latent variables are valid and reliable. As a result, we can move on to the
hypothesis testing phase of research.
Chin (2010) recommends that in bootstrapping, a T Statistics coefficient
should be greater than 1.96 at the 5% significance level to test the research
hypotheses. Based on the T-test values, we find that some relationships are
significant, and others are not.

Table 5. Results of the global structural model.

Original Sample Std. P-
Sample Mean Dev T-Statistics Values Description
Digital attributes of engagement > CPB 0.680 0.679 0.078 8.674 0.000 Supported
Digital attributes of engagement > CCB 0.618 0.615 0.086 7.227 0.000 Supported
Customer-employee interaction > CPB 0.291 0.293 0.082 3.539 0.000 Supported
Customer-employee interaction > CCB 0.348 0.352 0.087 4.017 0.000 Supported
CPB > Brand image 0.390 0.389 0.161 2.419 0.016 Supported
CCB > Brand image 0.385 0.387 0.140 2.746 0.006 Supported
CPB > Customer satisfaction 1.370 1.414 0.231 5.923 0.000 Supported
CCB > Customer satisfaction −0.500 −0.546 0.236 2.121 0.034 Supported
Customer satisfaction > Brand image 0.214 0.214 0.056 3.820 0.000 Supported

The model fit is exposed in Table 5. All the parameters are represented to
meet the standards which prove that the path model is good. Table 5 shows
that digital attributes of engagement had a direct and significant effect on CPB
(T-statistics = 8.674, P-value = 0.000) and CCB (T-statistics = 7.227,
P-value = 0.000) supporting H1.1 and H1.2. Meanwhile, according to the
bootstraps, H2.1, and H2.2 are accepted indicating that the customer-
employee interaction was positively and strongly related to the CPB
(T-statistics = 3.539, P-value = 0.000) and the CCB (T-statistics = 4.017,
P-value = 0.000). Furthermore, following the consequences of the CPB, its
relationship was positively and significantly correlated to brand image
(T-statistics = 2.419, P-value = 0.016) and customer satisfaction
(T-statistics = 5.923, P-value = 0.000). Therefore, H3.1 and H4.1 are accepted.
In addition, CCB have also a significant relationship with brand image
 JOURNAL OF QUALITY ASSURANCE IN HOSPITALITY & TOURISM 17

Table 6. Indirect effects of CVCB.

Original Sample Std. P- Type of
Sample Mean Dev T-Statistics Values mediation
Digital attributes > CPB > Brand image 0.297 0.296 0.054 5.495 0.000 Partial
Digital attributes > CCB > Brand image 0.067 0.066 0.015 4.438 0.000 Partial
Digital attributes > CPB > Customer 0.027 0.030 0.057 3.823 0.000 Partial
satisfaction
Digital attributes > CCB > Customer 0.073 0.076 0.034 3.632 0.000 Partial
satisfaction
Customer-employee interaction > CPB > 0.061 0.064 0.028 4.398 0.000 Partial
Brand image
Customer-employee interaction > CCB > 0.084 0.091 0.043 3.756 0.000 Partial
Brand image
Customer-employee interaction > CPB > 0.042 0.048 0.075 3.090 0.000 Partial
Customer satisfaction
Customer-employee interaction > CCB > 0.086 0.089 0.023 4.264 0.000 Partial
Customer satisfaction

(T-statistics = 2.746, P-value = 0.006), and customer satisfaction

(T-statistics = 2.121, P-value = 0.034). Indeed, H3.2 and H4.2 can be accepted.
Furthermore, we evaluated the effect between customer satisfaction and hotel
brand image and found a positive and significant relationship
(T-statistics = 3.820, P-value = 0.000). Indeed, H5 is accepted.
Then, the indirect mediation effects of CVCB were analyzed. Table 6 pre­
sents these results.
Mediation analyses were also conducted to see if CVCB mediate the rela­
tionship between engagement platforms and hotel brand image and customer
satisfaction. In mediation, the final step is to confirm whether the mediation is
full or partial, i.e., there will be partial mediation if the independent variable
significantly affects the dependent variable, but if the impact of the indepen­
dent variable on the dependent variable is not significant, and the paths a and
b are significant, then there will be full mediation (Baron & Kenny, 1986).
From Table 6, we can see that both dimensions of CVCB partially mediate the
relationship between engagement platforms and hotel brand image and guest
satisfaction because the direct effects were also supported. Thus, hypotheses
H6a, H6b, H7a, and H7b are supported.

Discussion
Value cocreation is an innovative practice that enables businesses to build
close relationships with their customers through the interaction and exchange
of their resources. Thus, many businesses call upon their customers to parti­
cipate in generating new ideas, designing, developing, testing and evaluating
new products or services. These various actions are not novel because market­
ing has always called for customer participation. However, it is the variation in
the multiple forms and platforms of collaboration that coexist today between
customers and companies that is new. Customers that engage in various value
18 Z. BOUCHRIHA ET AL.

cocreation activities are no longer viewed as only consumers, but rather as

prosumers with useful knowledge and contributions that may help businesses
in improving their innovation.
This manuscript attempts to analyze the effects of customer-employee
interaction and digital attributes of engagement on CVCB, which in turn
affect their satisfaction and the brand image of 4- and 5-star hotels in
Morocco. A key contribution of this work is the consideration of value
cocreation as a fundamental strategic perspective for the hotel industry since
it allows them not only to engage customers through various platforms but
also to satisfy them and above all to have a sustainable and distinctive
competitive advantage that materializes in a better perception of the brand
image of the establishment.

Theoretical implications
The findings show that digital attributes of engagement influence positively
CPB and CCB (H1.1 and H1.2). A mobile application is a dynamic marketing
tool that provides customers with brand information to boost their engage­
ment. The findings support the foundations of SDL (Vargo & Lusch, 2004),
and the work of (Heidenreich & Handrich, 2015; Jaakkola & Alexander, 2014;
Sashi, 2012). Furthermore, this research identified that digital attributes are
a crucial antecedent that affects CVCB in the luxury hotel industry. Indeed,
luxury hotels offer developed mobile apps that help customers assume proac­
tive roles, especially through CPB and CCB, as they enable them to look up
and share information about products and services, use online services to
purchase products/services, give feedback on the service experience, help other
customers to consume, etc. (Baldus et al., 2015).
This research also found that customer-employee interaction influence
positively CPB and CCB (H2.1 and H2.2). As customer engagement alone
can improve customer-perceived values; greater engagement in the hotel’s
customer-employee relationship can improve CVCB. This result supported
the work of some researchers who found that customer-employee interaction
could potentially lead to cocreation behaviors (Moliner et al., 2018; Ma et al.,
2017; Beatson et al., 2006), and confirmed the premise of social exchange
theory (Blau, 1968) that a quality relational exchange occurring between an
employee and a customer generates ordinary and extraordinary behaviors. In
addition, guest interaction with hotel staff is another fundamental antecedent
variable that affects CVCB in the luxury hotel service industry. This is due to
the hospitality and friendliness of the hotel staff that are well trained, making
the exchange and interaction smooth.
This research also revealed that CVCB affected positively brand image and
customer satisfaction (H3.1, H3.2, H4.1, and H4.2). Introducing CVCB into
the brand-building process can be an important benchmark that will provide
 JOURNAL OF QUALITY ASSURANCE IN HOSPITALITY & TOURISM 19

a competitive advantage for hotels. By encouraging cocreation, consumers will

participate in service experiences that prove their engagement and increase
their satisfaction and the perceived hotel’s brand image. The more they per­
form all the expected behaviors, the more they identify with the brand and the
more positively they perceive the company’s brand image. Indeed, our find­
ings are coherent with the work of (Arica & Çorbaci, 2020; Assiouras et al.,
2019; Foroudi et al., 2019; Moulin & Roux, 2008; Navarro et al., 2016;
Prebensen & Xie, 2017) who found a significant effect between CVCB and
brand image in contexts other than hotels, and between CVCB and customer
satisfaction. In addition, customer satisfaction also translates into a positive
image of the hotel brand (H5). The findings show that when active guests are
engaged in value cocreation activities, they are more likely to be satisfied and
perceive positively the hotel’s brand image. This manuscript contributes also
to the literature by shedding greater light on the mediating effect of CVCB as
a bridge to connect engagement platforms, brand image, and customer satis­
faction (H6a, H6b, H7a, H7b). Rather than having a direct effect, antecedents
such as digital attributes of engagement and customer-employee engagement,
and consequences such as hotel brand image and customer satisfaction, have
a stronger indirect relationship with CVCB.

Managerial implications
This research provides important managerial implications for service indus­
tries. First, this paper has shown that customer engagement on both platforms
is an excellent determinant of CVCB in the luxury hotel industry. On the one
hand, we suggest that luxury hotel managers maintain/develop online spaces
in which they can integrate their resources with customers to generate high-
quality experiences, and on the other hand, improve employees’ interaction
skills with customers to enhance this initial encounter and directly affect their
engagement.
Since the service experience emphasizes the importance of consumers being
able to compare offerings and have choices, luxury hotel brand managers
should maintain/develop a mobile app that makes their service information
highly accessible and available to customers. A mobile app can be a dynamic
marketing tool that not only allows guests to gain insight into the hotel, engage
in value cocreation, and be satisfied but also allows hotels to gain a competitive
advantage that reflects on their brand images. Today, brand managers pay
much more attention to the design of the mobile app than to its features (i.e.,
reliability, personalization, ease of use, and control). We suggest that luxury
hotel managers prioritize these aspects as well to solve problems. For example,
a well-designed and unique mobile app allows for quick, easy-to-use and, easy-
to-navigate access provides a pleasant, engaging and satisfying experience for
guests, and allows for a significant impact on the hotel’s brand and reputation
20 Z. BOUCHRIHA ET AL.

through CVCB. Moreover, offering an attractive mobile app is not enough to

awaken the citizenship behavior of tourists. Since the objective of tourists
browsing the hotel’s mobile app is to search for information, marketers and
brand managers need to set up customer-facing sections that allow future
tourists to access up-to-date information on customer reviews and complaints.
This will also allow hotel staff to better understand complaints and take quick
action. This information should give luxury hotel managers an advantage in
engaging guests in value cocreation activities. From a service improvement
perspective, we also suggest that managers leverage PMS operations to orga­
nize, optimize daily operations and avoid errors which save them time.
Hotel managers should also foster an interactive and personalized dialogue
with their guests, as this can help them understand their needs and deliver an
exceptional service experience. In this regard, tourists are more likely to have
a favorable attitude toward the brand image and be satisfied with their stay
experience when they actively participate in cocreation activities with hotels.
To differentiate their luxury brand experience, we suggest that luxury hotel
brand managers periodically conduct training for frontline staff to improve
their attitude and service performance which directly influences guest experi­
ence behavior. Implementing these attributes increases guests’ sense that staff
is providing timely, proactive, and friendly service.
Luxury hotel managers also need to elicit CVCB. Indeed, we consider it
fundamental to first support CPB before they can engage in citizenship
behavior. Tourists are first encouraged to actively participate in the process
through their interactions with staff, their search, and sharing of information,
or even by engaging in responsible behavior as tourists in luxury hotels, before
engaging in citizenship behavior to help other customers consume better
through feedback and tolerate errors in service delivery. To do this, we
encourage marketers to put forward the two engagement platforms previously
defined.

Limits and future directions

Although this research offers important contributions, a few limitations must

be raised. The first concerns the context of luxury hotels in Morocco. The
selection of a sample from a specific culture, country, or destination may
create difficulties in generalizing the results. It would be relevant for future
studies to analyze CVCB in other tourism contexts, such as smart tourism,
ecotourism, catering, or even budget hotels, with comprehensive results to
generalize the findings. The second drawback is that our study is cross-
sectional, suggesting that the data was collected at a particular point in time.
Future studies should strive to collect data throughout the year. We suggest
that future researchers examine other variables that influence these concepts,
such as quality of experience/service, CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility),
 JOURNAL OF QUALITY ASSURANCE IN HOSPITALITY & TOURISM 21

COVID-19 variables, etc. Furthermore, this work has described the current
knowledge on cocreation and analyzed value cocreation from the customer’s
perspective. Other articles could also incorporate other variables than those
studied in our article to examine value cocreation from the perspective of
service providers.

Note
1. International Tourism Highlights, 2019 Edition

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

References
Ansary, A., & Hashim, N. M. H. N. (2018). Brand image and equity: The mediating role of
brand equity drivers and moderating effects of product type and word of mouth. Review of
Managerial Science, 12(4), 969–1002. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-017-0235-2
Arica, R., & Çorbaci, A. (2020). The mediating role of the tourists’ citizenship behavior between
the value co-creation and satisfaction. Advances in Hospitality and Tourism Research
(AHTR), 8(1), 125–150. https://doi.org/10.30519/ahtr.649639
Assiouras, I., Skourtis, G., Giannopoulos, A., Buhalis, D., & Koniordos, M. (2019). Value
co-creation and customer citizenship behavior. Annals of Tourism Research, 78 5 , 102742.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2019.102742
Baldus, B. J., Voorhees, C., & Calantone, R. (2015). Online brand community engagement:
Scale development and validation. Journal of Business Research, 68(5), 978–985. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.09.035
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173.
Beatson, A., Coote, L. V., & Rudd, J. M. (2006). Determining consumer satisfaction and
commitment through self-service technology and personal service usage. Journal of
Marketing Management, 22(7–8), 853–882. https://doi.org/10.1362/026725706778612121
Blau, P. M. (1968). Social exchange. International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 7(4), 452–457.
Breidbach, F. C., Brodie, R., & Linda, D. H. (2014). Beyond virtuality: From engagement
platforms to engagement ecosystems. Managing Service Quality, 24(6), 592–611. https://
doi.org/10.1108/MSQ-08-2013-0158
Brodie, R. J., Whittome, J. R., & Brush, G. J. (2009). Investigating the service brand: A customer
value perspective. Journal of Business Research, 62(3), 345–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2008.06.008
Busser, J. A., & Shulga, L. V. (2018). Co-created value: Multidimensional scale and nomological
network. Tourism Management, 65(4), 69–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.09.014
Carù, A., & Cova, B. (2006). How to facilitate immersion in a consumption experience:
Appropriation operations and service elements. Journal of Consumer Behaviour: An
International Research Review, 5(1), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.30
22 Z. BOUCHRIHA ET AL.

Chen, C. F., & Wang, J. P. (2016). Customer participation, value co-creation and customer
loyalty–A case of airline online check-in system. Computers in Human Behavior, 62(10),
346–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.04.010
Cheung, M. F., & To, W. M. (2016). Service co-creation in social media: An extension of the
theory of planned behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 65(13), 260–266. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.031
Chin, W. W. (2010). How to write up and report PLS analyses. V. Esposito Vinzi et al. (eds.). In
Handbook of partial least squares (pp. 655–690). Springer.
Clauss, T., Kesting, T., & Naskrent, J. (2019). A rolling stone gathers no moss: The effect of
customers’ perceived business model innovativeness on customer value co‐creation beha­
vior and customer satisfaction in the service sector. RandD Management, 49(2), 180–203.
https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12318
Cossío Silva, F. J., Vega-Vázquez, M., & Revilla Camacho, M. (2016). The customer’s percep­
tion of value co-creation: The Appropiateness of Yi and Gong's Scale in the Spanish Context.
The Appropriateness of Yi and Gong’s Scale in the Spanish Context. ESIC Market, 47(1) , 153.
Dong, B., Sivakumar, K. D., Evans, K., & Et Zou, S. (2015). Effect of customer participation on
service outcomes: The moderating role of participation readiness. Journal of Service
Research, 18(2), 160–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670514551727
Foroudi, P., Gupta, S., Kitchen, P., Foroudi, M. M., & Nguyen, B. (2016). A framework of place
branding, place image and place reputation. Qualitative Market Research: An International
Journal, 19(2), 241–264. https://doi.org/10.1108/QMR-02-2016-0020
Foroudi, P., Yu, Q., Gupta, S., & Foroudi, M. M. (2019). Enhancing university brand image and
reputation through customer value co-creation behavior. Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, 138(1), 218–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.09.006
Frasquet-Deltoro, M., Alarcón-del-Amo, M. C., & Lorenzo-Romero, C. (2019). Antecedents
and consequences of virtual customer co-creation behaviors. Internet Research, 29(1), 218–
244. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-06-2017-0243
Frempong, J., Junwu, C., & Et Enock, M. A. (2018). Effects of waste management customer
online value co-creation on sanitation attitude and advocacy: A customer-enterprise dyadic
perspective. Sustainability, 10(2557), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072557
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). Reliability analysis. SPSS for Windows, step by step: A simple
guide and reference (14th edn) ed., pp. 222–232). Allyn and Bacon.
Giannopoulos, A., Skourtis, G., Kalliga, A., Dontas-Chrysis, D. M., & Paschalidis, D. (2020).
Co-creating high-value hospitality services in the tourism ecosystem: Towards a paradigm
shift? Journal of Tourism, Heritage & Services Marketing, 2529-1947. 6(2), 3–8. https://doi.
org/10.5281/zenodo.3822065
González-Mansilla, Ó., Berenguer-Contrí, G., & Serra-Cantallops, A. (2019). The impact of
value co-creation on hotel brand equity and customer satisfaction. Tourism Management, 75
6 , 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.04.024
Grönroos, C. (2012). Conceptualizing value co-creation: A journey to the 1970s and back to the
future. Journal of Marketing Management, 28(13–14), 1520–1534. https://doi.org/10.1080/
0267257X.2012.737357
Gummesson, E., & Mele, C. (2010). Marketing as value co-creation through network interac­
tion and resource integration. Journal of Business Market Management, 4(4), 181–198.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12087-010-0044-2
Gupta, S., & Zeithaml, V. (2006). Customer metrics and their impact on financial performance.
Marketing Science, 25(6), 718–739. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1060.0221
Haenlein, M., & Kaplan, A. M. (2004). A beginner’s guide to partial least squares analysis.
Understanding Statistics, 3(4), 283–297. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328031us0304_4
 JOURNAL OF QUALITY ASSURANCE IN HOSPITALITY & TOURISM 23

Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares
structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage publications.
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-
6679190202
Hammedi, W., Leclercq, T., & Poncin, I. (2019). Customer engagement: The role of gamifica­
tion. Linda, D. Hollebeek, David, E. Sprott. In Handbook of research on customer engage­
ment. Edward Elgar Publishing, 164–185. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788114899.00014
Harman, D. (1967). A single factor test of common method variance. The Journal of Psychology,
35, 359–378.
Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (2010). Toward a theory of brand co-creation with implications for
brand governance. Journal of Brand Management, 17(8), 590–604. https://doi.org/10.1057/
bm.2010.14
Heidenreich, S., & Handrich, M. (2015). What about passive innovation resistance?
Investigating adoption‐related behavior from a resistance perspective. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 32(6), 878–903. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12161
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant
validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
Holbrook, M. B. (Ed.). (1999). Consumer value: A framework for analysis and research.
Psychology Press.
Huang, S. (2017). Tourist Engagement: Conceptualization, Scale Development and Empirical
Validation (Doctoral dissertation, University of Guelph).
Jaakkola, E., & Alexander, M. (2014). The Role of Customer Engagement Behavior in Value
Co-Creation. Journal of Service Research, 17(3), 247–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1094670514529187
Jin, R., & Chen, K. (2021). Impact of value cocreation on customer satisfaction and loyalty of
online car-Hailing services. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce
Research, 16(3), 432–444. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer16030027
Kavaratzis, M., & Hatch, M. J. (2013). The dynamics of place brands: An identity-based
approach to place branding theory. Marketing Theory, 13(1), 69–86. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1470593112467268
Leclercq, T., Hammedi, W., & Poncin, I. (2016). Ten years of value co-creation: An integrative
review. Recherche Et Applications En Marketing, 31(3), 26–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/
2051570716650172
Lei, S. I., Ye, S., Wang, D., & Law, R. (2020). Engaging customers in value co-creation through
mobile instant messaging in the tourism and hospitality industry. Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Research, 44(2), 229–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348019893066
Li, M., & Hsu, C. H. (2018). Customer participation in services and employee innovative
behavior. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(4),
2112–2131. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-08-2016-0465
Lin, Z., Chen, Y., & Filieri, R. (2017). Resident-tourist value co-creation: The role of residents’
perceived tourism impacts and life satisfaction. Tourism Management, 61(4), 436–442.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.02.013
Lin, S., Yang, S., Ma, M., & Huang, J. (2018). Value co-creation on social media. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(4), 2153–2174. https://doi.org/10.
1108/IJCHM-08-2016-0484
Liu, J., & Jo, W. (2020). Value co-creation behaviors and hotel loyalty program member
satisfaction based on engagement and involvement: Moderating effect of company
24 Z. BOUCHRIHA ET AL.

support. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 43(2), 23–31. https://doi.org/10.

1016/j.jhtm.2020.02.002
Lohmöller, J. B. (2013). Latent variable path modeling with partial least squares. Springer
Science and Business Media.
Lucia-Palacios, L., Perez-Lopez, R., & Polo-Redondo, Y. (2020). How situational circumstances
modify the effects of frontline employees’ competencies on customer satisfaction with the
store. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 52(1), 101905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jretconser.2019.101905
Ma, S., Gu, H., Wang, Y., & Hampson, D. P. (2017). Opportunities and challenges of value
co-creation: The role of customer involvement in hotel service development. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(12), 3023–3043. https://doi.org/10.
1108/IJCHM-08-2016-0479
Mai, A. T., HO, H. X., & LE, A. N. H. (2019, October). Value co-creation experiences and
customer satisfaction in e-retailing sectors: The mediating role of participation behaviors. in
E-proceedings of 2nd connect-us conference (cuc 2019) (p. 86).
Mazanec, J. A. (1995). Positioning analysis with self-organizing maps: An exploratory study on
luxury hotels. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 36(6), 80–95.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001088049503600621
Moliner, M. A., Monferrer-Tirado, D., & Estrada-Guillén, M. (2018). Consequences of custo­
mer engagement and customer self-brand connection. Journal of Services Marketing, 32(4),
387–399. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-08-2016-0320
Moulin, J. L., & Roux, E. (2008). Un modèle tridimensionnel des relations à la marque: De
l’image de marque à la fidélité et aux communications de bouche-à-oreille. communication au
congrès marketing trends (pp. 17–19). Venise.
Navarro, S., Llinares, C., & Garzon, D. (2016). Exploring the relationship between co-creation
and satisfaction using QCA. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1336–1339. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.103
Nilsson, E., & Ballantyne, D. (2014). Reexamining the place of servicescape in marketing: A
service-dominant logic perspective. Journal of Services Marketing, 28(5), 374–379. https://
doi.org/10.1108/JSM-01-2013-0004
Pansari, A., & Kumar, V. (2017). Customer engagement: The construct, antecedents, and
consequences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(3), 294–311. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11747-016-0485-6
Payne, A. F., Storbacka, K., & Frow, P. (2008). Managing the co-creation of value. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0070-0
Penrose, E. T. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. John Wiley.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in
behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. The Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value
creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.20015
Prebensen, N. K., & Xie, J. (2017). Efficacy of co-creation and mastering on perceived value and
satisfaction in tourists’ consumption. Tourism Management, 60(3), 166–176. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tourman.2016.12.001
Quinton, S, & Harridge‐March, S. (2010). Relationships in online communities: The potential
for marketers. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 4(1) 59–73. https://doi.org/10.
1108/17505931011033560
Roy, S. K., Balaji, M. S., Soutar, G., & Jiang, Y. (2020). The antecedents and consequences of
value co-creation behaviors in a hotel setting: A two-country study. Cornell Hospitality
Quarterly, 61(3), 353–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/1938965519890572
 JOURNAL OF QUALITY ASSURANCE IN HOSPITALITY & TOURISM 25

Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiró, J. M. (2005). Linking organizational resources and work engagement
to employee performance and customer loyalty: The mediation of service climate. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1217. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1217
Saleem, H., & Raja, N. S. (2014). The impact of service quality on customer satisfaction, customer
loyalty and brand image: Evidence from hotel industry of Pakistan. Middle-East Journal of
Scientific Research, 19(5), 706–711. https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.mejsr.2014.19.5.21018
Sashi, C. M. (2012). Customer engagement, buyer-seller relationships, and social media.
Management decision.
Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2011). Research methods for business: A skill building approach (5th)
ed.). Wiley.
Shamim, A., & Ghazali, Z. (2014). A conceptual model for developing customer value co-creation
behaviour in retailing. Global Business and Management Research, 6(3), 185–196.
Shamim, A., Ghazali, Z., & Albinsson, P. A. (2016). An integrated model of corporate brand
experience and customer value co-creation behavior. International Journal of Retail and
Distribution Management, 44(2), 139–158. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-06-2015-0079
Shen, H., Wu, L., Yi, S., & Xue, L. (2018). The effect of online interaction and trust on
consumers’ value co-creation behavior in the online travel community. Journal of Travel
and Tourism Marketing, 37(4) , 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2018.1553749
Solomon, M. R., Surprenant, C., Czepiel, J. A., & Gutman, E. G. (1985). A role theory
perspective on dyadic interactions: The service encounter. Journal of Marketing, 49(1),
99–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298504900110
Storbacka, K., Brodie, R. J., Böhmann, T., Maglio, P. P., & Nenonen, S. (2016). Actor engage­
ment as a micro-foundation for value co-creation. Journal of Business Research, 69(8),
3008–3017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.02.034
Tan, S.-K., Luh, D.-B., & Kung, S.-F. (2014). A taxonomy of creative tourists in creative tourism.
Tourism Management, 42(3), 248–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.11.008
Tariq, Z., Noor, N., & Rauf, M. (2022). Role of traditional marketing activities in creating
university brand image and reputation: Mediating role of customer value co-creation
behavior, 55(6), 264–281. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/FZ8CS
Teng, H.-Y., & Tsai, C.-H. (2020). Can tour leader likability enhance tourist value co-creation
behaviors? The role of attachment. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 45(4),
285–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2020.08.018
Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The Social Psychology of Groups, New Brunswick, 1,
Transaction Publishers.
Van Dijk, J., Antonides, G., & Schillewaert, N. (2014). Effects of co‐creation claim on
consumer brand perceptions and behavioral intentions. International Journal of Consumer
Studies, 38(1), 110–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12071
Van Doorn, J., Lemon, K. N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P., & Verhoef, P. C. (2010).
Customer engagement behavior: Theoretical foundations and research directions. Journal of
Service Research, 13(3), 253–266. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670510375599
Van Nguyen, L. T., Duy Nguyen, P. N., Nguyen, T. Q., & Nguyen, K. T. (2021). Employee
engagement in brand value co-creation: An empirical study of Vietnamese boutique hotels.
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 48(3), 88–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhtm.2021.05.015
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of
Marketing, 68(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.68.1.1.24036
Walls, A., Okumus, F., Wang, Y. (Raymond), & Kwun, D. J.-W. (2011). Understanding the
consumer experience: An exploratory study of luxury hotels. Journal of Hospitality
Marketing and Management, 20(2), 166–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2011.536074
 26 Z. BOUCHRIHA ET AL.

Wang, Y., & Hajli, M. (2014). Co-creation in branding through social commerce: The role of
social support, relationship quality and privacy concerns. In Proceedings of twentieth
Americas conference on information systems, Savannah, Georgia.
Yen, C. H., Teng, H. Y., & Tzeng, J. C. (2020). Innovativeness and customer value co-creation
behaviors: Mediating role of customer engagement. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 88(5), 102514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102514
Yi, Y., & Gong, T. (2013). Customer value co-creation behavior: Scale development and
validation. Journal of Business Research, 66(9), 1279–1284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2012.02.026
Zhang, H., Gordon, S., Buhalis, D., & Ding, X. (2018). Experience value cocreation on
destination online platforms. Journal of Travel Research, 57(8), 1093–1107. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0047287517733557

View publication stats