Article

Journal of Service Research

2015, Vol. 18(2) 160-176
Effect of Customer Participation on ª The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Service Outcomes: The Moderating DOI: 10.1177/1094670514551727
jsr.sagepub.com
Role of Participation Readiness
Beibei Dong1, K. Sivakumar1, Kenneth R. Evans2,
and Shaoming Zou3

Abstract
Prior empirical evidence on the role of customer participation (CP) on service outcomes is limited and inconsistent. The authors
add new insights by investigating the boundary conditions of the CP-service outcome link. Using two experiments, the article
examines the moderating effect of three CP readiness factors: ability, perceived benefits of participation, and role identification.
The results show that when CP readiness is high, increasing CP enhances service outcomes including customer satisfaction and
perceived service quality; however, when CP readiness is low, the effect of CP on service outcomes tapers off or becomes
negative. The results highlight the contingent nature of CP’s effect, demonstrate that CP could indeed be a double-edged sword,
and provide managerial guidelines to enhance CP’s benefits through appropriate targeting and service design.

Keywords
customer participation, service outcomes, customer satisfaction, perceived service quality, ability, benefit of participation, role
identification

Customer participation (CP) is defined as the degree to which
a customer contributes effort, preference, knowledge, or other
inputs to service production and delivery (Chan, Yim, and
Lam 2010; Dabholkar 1990). With the proliferation of self-
service technologies (SSTs), CP has become an important
tool for firms to improve productivity (Vargo and Lusch
2004). In light of CP’s cost advantage, in some extreme cases,
SSTs may be the only available delivery option, and custom-
ers are forced to participate at a much higher level. Examples
include the move to offer self-scanning as the only option
in grocery stores in many Swedish towns and the use of
on-site ticketing machines as the only means for buying
train tickets in smaller towns in the Netherlands (Reinders,
Dabholkar, and Frambach 2008). As Time magazine (2008)
suggests, ending of customer service is considered one of the
ten ideas that are changing the world. However, customer
responses toward participation seem less universally favor-
able than what firms had hoped for. For example, irritated
customers often share tips online as to how to get connected
to a human when forced to use firms’ automated phone sys-
tems (http://gethuman.com). Therefore, it would be beneficial
for managers to learn when CP is a ‘‘double-edged sword’’
(Chan, Yim, and Lam 2010, p. 48).
The general theoretical understanding in the literature is that
CP leads to enhanced productivity, improved service quality,
and increased customer satisfaction (Bitner et al. 1997; Kelley,
Donnelly, and Skinner 1990). However, empirical research on
the effect of CP provides inconsistent findings (Meuter
et al. 2005); therefore, more research is needed to examine the
boundary conditions of CP. Moreover, existing CP research
(e.g., Auh et al. 2007; Claycomb, Lengnick-Hall, and Inks
2001; Ennew and Binks 1999) examines a linear and contin-
uous effect of CP; while anecdotal evidence from practice
suggests the possibility of a nonmonotonic effect.
To address these unresolved issues, we develop a concep-
tual model based on person-job fit theory and conduct two
experiments to examine the effect of CP on service outcomes
and the associated boundary conditions. CP readiness, to what
extent a customer is prepared to participate in service produc-
tion and delivery, is selected as the moderator of the
CP-outcome link (Meuter et al. 2005). Specifically, we exam-
ine the moderating role of three CP readiness factors—perceived
ability, perceived benefits of participation, and role identifica-
tion—on the effect of CP on service quality and satisfaction.
1
Department of Marketing, College of Business and Economics, Lehigh
University, Bethlehem, PA, USA
2
Lamar University, Beaumont, TX, USA
3
Trulaske College of Business, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA
Corresponding Author:
Beibei Dong, Department of Marketing, College of Business and Economics,
Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA 18015, USA.
Email: bdong@lehigh.edu
Dong et al.
Our research makes the following contributions. First, by
adopting a contingency perspective and using the lens of
person-job fit theory, we examine the boundary conditions of
the effect of CP on service quality and satisfaction and offer
a possible explanation for the mixed empirical findings in the
literature. Building on the work of Meuter et al. (2005), we
examine three dimensions of CP readiness to complement the
limited exploration of the psychological process of CP (Bend-
apudi and Leone 2003). Second, Meuter and Bitner (1998)
classify service production into firm, joint, and customer pro-
duction. Most previous CP research focuses on joint production
(e.g., Auh et al. 2007; Chan, Yim, and Lam 2010; Yim, Chan,
and Lam 2012), and SST research primarily examines customer
production (e.g., Meuter et al. 2005). Our study adds to the lit-
erature by capturing a wide range of CP levels from very low to
very high. Third, previous empirical research reports a linear
effect of CP on service outcomes (e.g., Auh et al. 2007; Clay-
comb, Lengnick-Hall, and Inks 2001; Ennew and Binks 1999).
With the wider coverage of the CP spectrum, our research stud-
ies the nonmonotonic effect of CP, proposing that the positive
effect of CP may taper off or even turn negative after CP
crosses a threshold. Our empirical verification of the contin-
gency view offers particular insights toward high participation
services such as SSTs.
Background and Conceptual Framework
Terminology to Denote CP
Various terms have been used to describe CP, such as cus-
tomer participation (e.g., Chan, Yim, and Lam 2010; Yim,
Chan, and Lam 2012), coproduction (e.g., Auh et al. 2007),
and customer participation in coproduction (e.g., Bendapudi
and Leone 2003), resulting in a lack of conceptual clarity
(Mustak, Jaakkola, and Halinen 2013). We use the phrase
‘‘customer participation’’ in our article due to its prevalence
in the literature, its much broader conceptual domain covering
various customer roles and behaviors such as sharing informa-
tion/preferences and providing labor, and its wide coverage
of CP spectrum consisting of firm, joint, and customer prod-
uction (Lovelock and Young 1979; Mustak, Jaakkola, and
Halinen 2013).
Outcomes of CP
Online Appendixes A and B summarize relevant conceptual
and empirical research on CP, respectively. As seen in Online
Appendix B, some CP research has found positive effects of CP
on service quality and satisfaction (e.g., Chan, Yim, and Lam
2010); Ennew and Binks (1999) report the effect to be insignif-
icant and Bendapudi and Leone (2003) find a negative effect of
CP on satisfaction. The existence of contingency factors is a
possible reason for the mixed empirical evidence (Yim, Chan,
and Lam 2012).
Only recently attempts have been made to explore such con-
tingency factors, and only limited moderators have been exam-
ined so far. These include cultural values (i.e., individualism
161
and power distance; Chan, Yim, and Lam 2010) and customers’
perceived efficacy of self (self-efficacy) and their partners
(other efficacy; Yim, Chan, and Lam 2012). Highlights from
extant CP research include the following: CP may not always
be desirable (Chan, Yim, and Lam 2010); offering customers
a choice of participation is important (Bendapudi and Leone
2003); the effect of CP on service outcomes is linear and con-
tinuous (Auh et al. 2007; Claycomb, Lengnick-Hall, and Inks
2001; Ennew and Binks 1999); and existing CP research only
covers a limited spectrum of CP such as joint production,
thereby limiting the ability to capture a more complete and
even nonmonotonic effect of CP (Auh et al. 2007; Chan, Yim,
and Lam 2010). Our research contributes to the literature by
examining CP’s effect on the full spectrum of CP, which allows
us to capture the nonmonotonic effect of CP, and provides
empirical support for the long-held view that the effects of
CP on service outcomes may not be universal.
Person-Job Fit Theory
We use the person-environment fit theory (Kristof-Brown, Zim-
merman, and Johnson 2005) as the theoretical basis of our
model. Discussed in the employee management literature, the
theory involves various aspects of fit such as person-job fit,
person-organization fit, person-supervisor fit, and person-group
fit (Kristof 1996). Since customers are often viewed as partial
employees in service participation (Claycomb, Lengnick-Hall,
and Inks 2001), person-job fit provides the most relevant theore-
tical approach for the CP context. According to the person-job fit
theory, if there is a good alignment between an employee and his
or her job, it in turn leads to positive outcomes, such as increased
job satisfaction, better performance, and lower turnover rate
(Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, and Johnson 2005). The person-
job fit has two components: (1) demand-ability fit—the employ-
ee’s ability matches the job requirement and (2) needs-supply
fit—the employee perceives a match between rewards desired
by him or her and those offered by the organization (Kristof-
Brown, Zimmerman, and Johnson 2005). Building on these two
fit elements, we argue that good customer-task fit arises when
customers are ready for the participation tasks—that is, when
they have the right ability (demand-ability fit), perceive accepta-
ble rewards, and deem the role as appropriate (needs-supply fit).
Such fit would lead to positive service outcomes (Kristof-
Brown, Zimmerman, and Johnson 2005). Figure 1 presents our
conceptual framework.
CP
Following Meuter and Bitner (1998), we categorize CP into
three levels. At low levels, the service is primarily delivered
by the service provider; often, the customer may only be
physically present (Dong, Evans, and Zou 2008) or take the
minimum responsibility for service provision such as having
the computer ready for Internet setup. Traditional employee-
assisted services (e.g., a technician setting up the Internet) often
belong to this category. At moderate levels, the customer and
162
Customer Participation Readiness
Perceived Ability
Perceived Benefit of
Participation
H1
Customer
Participation H2
Figure 1. A model of customer participation, service outcomes, and customer participation readiness.
the service provider collaborate to produce the service by each
contributing effort, time, or other resources, exemplified by a
customer working with a technician to set up the Internet (Chan,
Yim, and Lam 2010). At high levels, the customer assumes the
primary responsibility of service production, while the role of
the service provider is limited, one of facilitating and supporting
such as providing the platform or necessary tools for CP. For
example, a customer sets up the Internet and the cable company
provides the manual and other supporting service (Bendapudi
and Leone 2003). SSTs are one type of such high-CP services,
although services not using SSTs such as IKEA furniture assem-
bly can also belong to this category.
Service quality and customer satisfaction are the two fre-
quently studied service outcomes in the CP literature (e.g., Auh
et al. 2007; Bendapudi and Leone 2003; Chan, Yim, and Lam
2010). Thus, to position our study in the context of previous
work, we include these two outcomes.
CP Readiness Factors
Meuter et al. (2005) demonstrate that customer readiness
variables—role clarity, motivation, and ability—are key fac-
tors determining customers’ trial of SSTs. Similarly, Bowen
(1986) explains how to improve CP by providing role clarity,
ability, and motivation from a human resource perspective.
Building on previous literature, we define CP readiness as the
extent to which a customer is prepared to participate in service
production and delivery consisting of three factors: perceived
ability, perceived benefit of participation, and role identifica-
tion (Meuter et al. 2005).
More specifically, perceived ability refers to the customers
perceived knowledge and skills that enable them to participate
effectively (Meuter et al. 2005). Perceived benefit of participa-
tion refers to the customers evaluation of the participation
rewards (Meuter et al. 2005). Benefits may include extrinsic
Journal of Service Research 18(2)
Identification with the
Participation Role
Service Outcome
H3 H5
Perceived Service Quality
H4 H6
Satisfaction
rewards such as monetary discounts and convenience (Meuter
et al. 2005) or intrinsic rewards such as enjoyment and sense of
accomplishment (Lusch, Brown, and Brunswick 1992). Role
identification reflects the degree to which customers accept and
internalize their roles in service participation (Lengnick-Hall
1996; Zeithaml, Berry, and Parasuraman 1993).
Table 1 summarizes the constructs. ‘‘Perceived ability’’ in
our article is consistent with terms in most existing research:
‘‘ability’’ (Meuter et al. 2005), ‘‘self-efficacy’’ (Yim, Chan,
and Lam 2012), and ‘‘customer ability’’ (Auh et al. 2007) but
aligns better with the concept of ‘‘demand-ability fit’’ than the
others. Likewise, our use of ‘‘perceived benefits of participa-
tion’’ is close to ‘‘motivation’’ (Meuter et al. 2005) and ‘‘per-
ceived value’’ (Chan, Yim, and Lam 2010). However,
‘‘perceived benefits of participation’’ serves our research better
because it captures the essence of ‘‘needs-supply fit’’ by ass-
essing the rewards of participation; while ‘‘motivation’’ by
definition evaluates the desire to receive the rewards which
is a psychological outcome of the ‘‘needs-supply fit’’ (e.g.,
Meuter et al. 2010), and ‘‘value’’ contains a wide variety of
meanings and thus not as specific as ‘‘benefit’’ (e.g., Chan,
Yim, and Lam 2010).
Regarding ‘‘role identification,’’ we are adding further
clarity and relevance beyond ‘‘role clarity’’ proposed by Meu-
ter et al. (2005). Role identification, customers’ acceptance
and internalization of their roles in participation, is concep-
tually different from role clarity which is defined as consu-
mers understanding of what is required of them in service
production (Meuter et al. 2005). We argue that customers’
role identification is a more appropriate factor than role
clarity in the context of CP. This is because customers are not
partial employees in reality, and despite being clear about
their participation role, some customers may not identify with
it; hence, it is critical to understand whether customers would
accept the service role in the first place.
Dong et al. 163

Table 1. Customer Participation Readiness Constructs and Their Manifestations in Service Research.

Variable Label Article Definition Relationship With Other Variables

Perceived ability
Ability Meuter et al. (2005) Possessing the required skills and Mediator between antecedents (innovation characteristics
confidence to complete the task and individual differences) and trial of new SSTs
Self-efficacy Yim, Chan, and Lam Confidence and perceived capability in Moderator between CP and participation enjoyment
(2012) participation
Customer ability Auh et al. (2007) The quality of input the customer Antecedent to effective coproduction
provides to the service production
Perceived ability This research Customer’s perceived knowledge and Moderator between CP and service outcomes (service
skills that enable them to perform a quality and satisfaction)
participation task effectively
Perceived benefit of participation
Motivation Meuter et al. (2005) A desire to receive the rewards Mediator between antecedents (innovation characteristics
associated with using the SST and individual differences) and trial of new SSTs
Perceived value Chan, Yim, and Lam Economic and relational benefits Mediator between CP and satisfaction
(2010)
Perceived benefit This research Customers’ evaluation of the Moderator between CP and service outcomes (service
participation benefits, including quality and satisfaction)
extrinsic and/or intrinsic benefits
Role identification
Role clarity Meuter et al. (2005) Consumer’s knowledge and Mediator between antecedents (innovation characteristics
understanding of what is required of and individual differences) and trial of new SSTs
them in service production (clear
role expectation)
Role This research The degree to which customers accept Moderator between CP and service outcomes (service
identification and internalize their roles in quality and satisfaction)
participation
Note. SST ¼ self-service technology; CP ¼ customer participation.

Although these CP readiness factors are well established in
the literature, they are mostly treated as antecedents (e.g., Van
Beuningen et al. 2009; Xie, Bagozzi, and Troye 2008) or med-
iators (e.g., Meuter et al. 2005) that determine the level of CP.
We align them with the person-job fit theory and examine
their moderating roles for the following reasons. First, since
CP is manipulated in our study, customers cannot choose their
levels of participation; hence, their readiness level will mod-
erate the impact of CP. If customers can determine their par-
ticipation levels (similar to other studies that ask respondents
to self-report their participation levels; e.g., Auh et al. 2007;
Chan, Yim, and Lam 2010), CP readiness could be an antece-
dent to the customers desired level of participation, which fits
their readiness level best and leads to positive outcomes. Sec-
ond, companies often predetermine CP levels in their service
design and in some situations force customers to participate at
high levels. Examples include the opening of the Fresh &
Easy grocery stores in the United States by Tesco using only
self-service checkout lanes and the Alaska Airlines’ terminal
in Seattle using self-check-in kiosks to completely replace
ticket counters (Reinders, Dabholkar, and Frambach 2008).
Examining CP readiness factors as moderators rather than
antecedents is managerially more actionable and provides
insights into service design. Third, treating CP readiness as
a moderator is consistent with the prevalent practice in other
domains such as health care (e.g., Jex and Bliese 1999),
organizational behavior (e.g., Dierdorff, Surface, and Brown
2010), and education (e.g., Pinquart, Silbereisen, and Juang
2004). Fourth, as Yim, Chan, and Lam (2012) postulate, it is
important to examine the moderating role because it involves
viewing CP as a persistent, rather than short-term behavior. Fur-
ther, although Yim, Chan, and Lam (2012) treat perceived effi-
cacy as a boundary condition of CP which is similar to our
approach, our research provides an additional contribution by
examining two other dimensions of CP readiness and exploring
the nonmonotonic effect of CP.
Hypotheses
An Exploratory Study
We conducted a qualitative study to provide added context to
our hypothesis development. Thirty-five interviewees (52%
female) were recruited from students attending a U.S. univer-
sity. Following McCracken (1988), we started the depth inter-
views by introducing the concept of CP and offering a broad
set of examples to solicit their thoughts. Then participants
were asked to recall either a satisfactory or unsatisfactory par-
ticipation experience and discuss under what conditions their
participation was satisfactory or unsatisfactory.
Each interview lasted between 30 and 60 minutes and was
recorded. Two coders transcribed the recording and conducted
164
content analyses. The coders were unaware of the specific
framework and hypotheses of interest and were asked to iden-
tify the factors based on the transcripts. In 90% of the cases,
there was agreement between the two coders; one of the authors
led the discussion to reconcile any remaining disagreement
between the coders.
We were able to capture insights from a variety of service
contexts such as education, airline kiosks, dry cleaning, and
restaurants. The interviewees were encouraged to discuss as
many relevant factors as possible when providing the reasons
for their service evaluations. A total of 12 distinct factors
were derived from the study. About 57%, 43%, and 66% of
interviewees, respectively, mentioned that effective participa-
tion depends on great ability, well-perceived benefits, and
appreciation of the service role, similar to the customer readi-
ness factors identified by Meuter et al. (2005). About 70% of
the interviewees mentioned at least one of these three
customer-related factors. We did not observe any differences
in the nature or number of factors mentioned between those
describing satisfactory or unsatisfactory CP experiences.
Table 2 includes selective consumer quotes from the inter-
views, demonstrating the importance of these three CP readi-
ness factors along with some other factors.
Other than these three factors, control is another customer-
related factor mentioned by 13% of the respondents, as shown
by Quote 21 in Table 2. Since control represents an important
benefit from participation, instead of keeping it as an indepen-
dent category, we grouped it with perceived benefits. Other less
frequently discussed factors include the following: employee-
related factors such as employee expertise (8%), firm-related
factors such as organizational support (5%), service-related
factors such as degree of customer contact (8%), importance
of service (3%), and other customer-related factors such as
customer compatibility (5%). Since the majority of the discus-
sion centered on customer-related factors, we focus on them
in our subsequent hypotheses development. In developing the
hypotheses, we augment the theoretical rationales from the
literature with insights obtained from the exploratory study;
this is similar to the procedure followed by Kohli and
Jaworski (1990).
Moderating Effect of Customers’ Perceived Ability
Typically, a high participation level demands greater knowl-
edge and skills from a customer (Yim, Chan, and Lam 2012).
A high CP design enables customers with high ability to lever-
age their expertise to cocreate value (Bowen 1986). Increasing
participation among such customers is desirable and presents a
favorable ability-task fit (Edwards 1991; Kristof 1996).
According to person-job fit, ability fit leads to better perfor-
mance and greater job satisfaction (Kristof 1996). Therefore,
we argue that when customers have high ability, customers are
confident and competent in fulfilling their tasks, and therefore
the benefits of CP fully materialize as CP increases, resulting in
greater perceived quality and satisfaction (Halbesleben and
Buckley 2003). This is consistent with previous empirical
Journal of Service Research 18(2)
articles that report a positive relationship between CP and ser-
vice quality/satisfaction (e.g., Auh et al. 2007; Chan, Yim, and
Lam 2010; Yim, Chan, and Lam 2012). Our qualitative study
offers similar evidence, as suggested by Quotes 1–3 in Table
2. For example, Quote 1 indicates how a customer’s expertise
in creating her own burrito contributed to her satisfaction,
while Quote 4 describes the opposite response from a customer
whose participation suffered due to the lack of customer
expertise.
When customers believe they are incapable of performing
high participation tasks such as setting up their own Internet
or they are unable to provide appropriate information such
as creating one’s own burrito, the positive effect of CP on ser-
vice outcomes is weakened due to the greater demand-ability
discrepancy. Empowering these low-ability customers with a
low to medium level may still be acceptable because the
actual liability on customers is limited and the ability gap is
not significant. For example, although a customer may not
be competent in making his or her own burrito by configuring
10 different ingredients, choosing or changing some of the
ingredients could still be manageable and yield some benefits
such as preferred taste. Furthermore, with the sharing of
responsibility in the medium participation level such as a cus-
tomer and a technician working together to set up the Internet,
participation is perceived as less demanding. However, when
firms continue to increase CP levels, say from medium to
high, the low-ability customers can no longer fulfill the increas-
ingly demanding tasks, resulting in a significant ability gap
(Kristof 1996). The reduced person-job fit could even trigger
negative consequences because customers do not consider them-
selves as being in a desirable performance zone both psycholo-
gically and technically (Kristof 1996). This is further reinforced
by Quotes 4–6 in Table 2.
Hypothesis 1: Customer’s perceived ability moderates the
relationship between CP and perceived service quality such
that the effect of CP on perceived service quality is stronger
for high-ability customers than for low-ability customers.
Hypothesis 2: Customer’s perceived ability moderates the
relationship between CP and customer satisfaction such that
the effect of CP on satisfaction is stronger for high-ability
customers than for low-ability customers.
Moderating Effect of Customers’ Perceived Benefit of
Participation
Service firms often create incentives to motivate CP; however,
in many situations, firms fail to offer rewards that customers
really value (Frei 2006). As such, finding a good match
between what a customer prefers and what is offered from
CP is important. This is similar to the ‘‘needs-supply fit’’ dis-
cussed in the person-job fit theory (e.g., Edwards 1991; Kristof
1996). Therefore, we propose that the relationship between CP
and service outcomes is contingent on a customer’s perceived
benefit of participation. Customers who consider the rewards
of CP as meeting their expectations will perceive a good
Dong et al. 165

Table 2. Selected Interview Quotes From the Exploratory Study.

High Ability Low Ability

1. ‘‘I like to be able to create my own burrito. I know what combination 4. ‘‘I think I am particularly bad at creating my own burrito. I never
of meat, vegetables, and cheese tastes best and what amount I prefer. know what I am supposed to say and in what order. I always get
I like to coach my friends on things such as how much salsa and what messed up and I think that the employees get aggravated. This really
cheese to put on the burrito’’ affects my experience while I am there’’
2. ‘‘I’m able to provide repair shops very accurate information of what is 5. ‘‘The reason I get salads in a restaurant is because I like how they are
wrong with my car when I bring it in. I also help them to relate to me made and tossed. It just seems like it is never as good if I make it.
easier, make the experience enjoyable and productive for both Otherwise, I can make salad and eat at home’’
parties’’ 6. ‘‘The process of self-checkout is too difficult for me. The buttons are
3. ‘‘In the hair salon, I can communicate well, I explain what I want in too complex and there are too many steps. I feel overwhelmed and
details before the process begins, I correct mistakes as I see them, most of the time I would do something wrong’’
and I am confident with the suggestion I provide’’

High perceived benefit Low perceived benefit

7. ‘‘I really like the idea of creating your own burrito. I feel so involved in 10. ‘‘I have only been there once, but I feel like the option to build your
the process and I get to choose any ingredient I want. Sometimes I own burrito doesn’t make sense to me. I do not want to spend one
simply enjoy the experience. It’s the customization that makes this day to make all the decisions; instead I want to be efficient and
restaurant standout’’ precise as restaurants give me the right items’’
8. ‘‘I so much enjoyed creating my own teddy bear, Sophie! It is the only 11. ‘‘I have no desire to ever learn how to do my taxes. There are way
‘Sophie’ in the world that I created!’’ too many loopholes and other nuances that I do not think it is
9. ‘‘Personally, if I’m going for vacation, I like to be in charge of what I do worthwhile to learn’’
with my time and the experience that I have – creating a really unique 12. ‘‘I think that designing a sandwich that tastes like all other
vacation plan for myself’’ sandwiches is a waste of time’’

High role identification Low role identification

13. ‘‘I particularly like picking up my trash at local restaurants . . . I have 16. ‘‘This is not ‘customer service,’ instead, ‘self’ service. I do not think
been a waitress all of my life and I know how much it can be a hassle I should take the responsibility’’
when employees have to do it. I find it worthwhile to clean the table 17. ‘‘What you’re paying for is the privilege of doing the work that
when I know I am being helpful and it is appreciated’’ should be done by those who take your money’’
14. ‘‘I am OK doing gas pumping myself; actually I feel it is just the way 18. ‘‘Why I should trouble shoot my Internet by putting myself on a call
to go’’ with a technician for 30 minutes, while he is the one supposed to
15. ‘‘Online banking is a norm now’’ do it’’

Other factors

19. Employee expertise: ‘‘When I find that salesman lacks the

knowledge about a product, I often do the research myself; I am less
satisfied with such participation due to a lack in employee capability’’
20. Organizational support: ‘‘I felt frustrated when I found myself left
with the automated system alone, with no employee onsite to help’’
21. Control: ‘‘Sometimes I want the hair stylist to decide for me. I hate
that I need to make all the decisions along the way. I will be less
satisfied when I have to make more decisions for myself, and I have
to narrow down what I like’’
22. Service Importance: ‘‘The less expensive the service is, the more
likely I will be dissatisfied if I have to be involved in it, e.g., buying a
car vs. buying a cup of coffee’’

‘‘needs-supply fit,’’ which in turn leads to positive outcomes
such as increased satisfaction and better performance (Kristof-
Brown, Zimmerman, and Johnson 2005). For example, as
Quote 7 in Table 2 shows, for customers who greatly appreciate
customization, high CP such as designing their own burrito
offers them greater customization, which presents a desirable
benefit fit and leads to more favorable service evaluation
(Claycomb, Lengnick-Hall, and Inks 2001). Further, the bene-
fit fit motivates customers to perform their responsibility more
effectively, resulting in better service quality (Bitner et al.
1997), as shown in Quotes 7–9 in Table 2.
However, customers who do not perceive greater benefits
in participation may react differently. For example, Quote
10 in Table 2 indicates that for time-constrained customers
who value speed and convenience more, the extensive burrito
customization process may seem less appealing—and even
annoying—resulting in a benefit gap and the positive effects
of CP are less likely to materialize (Kristof 1996). Although
166
the positive effect of CP could be attenuated for these custom-
ers compared to those who appreciate customization, enga-
ging customers at a low to medium level may still be
welcome or at least tolerable as the need gap is not significant.
For example, accounting for some customer preferences such
as changing some ingredients of the burrito without over-
whelming the customers may still be endurable for these cus-
tomers (Fish 2007). For them, however, pushing participation
to high levels will result in a significant need gap and such a
gap could result in diminished effects of CP. Quotes 10–12 in
Table 2 provide examples of poor benefit fit.
Hypothesis 3: Customer’s perceived benefit of participation
moderates the relationship between CP and perceived ser-
vice quality such that the effect of CP on perceived service
quality is stronger for customers with high perceived bene-
fits of participation than for those with low perceived
benefits.
Hypothesis 4: Customer’s perceived benefit of participation
moderates the relationship between CP and customer satis-
faction such that the effect of CP on satisfaction is stronger
for customers with high perceived benefits of participation
than for those with low perceived benefits.
Moderating Effect of Customers’ Identification With the
Participation Role
Researchers have noted that outsourcing service to customers is
an appealing cost-saving approach for companies (Bowen
1986); however, if not managed carefully, such outsourcing
may backfire, especially if customers believe they are asked
to take on the liability of the service company (Frei 2006).
Although companies may view customers as partial employees,
an important consideration is the extent to which customers
identify themselves with these new service roles, especially
when the roles were traditionally performed by employees
(Karmarkar and Pitbladdo 1995).
We argue that the effect of CP is contingent on customer’s
identification with the participation role. Whether the assigned
role is commensurate with a customer’s personal service phi-
losophy determines the effectiveness of CP (Zeithaml, Berry,
and Parasuraman 1993). If indeed customers perceive their
service role as necessary, important, and reasonable for obtain-
ing a desired service outcome, empowering them with greater
CP should yield a positive role fit (Zeithaml, Berry, and Para-
suraman 1993). These engaged customers will highly value their
participation, achieve a greater sense of accomplishment, and
evaluate the service experience more positively (Bendapudi and
Leone 2003). This is manifested by Quotes 13–15 in Table 2. For
example, Quote 13 indicates that a customer had considerable
experience as a waitress and therefore picking up her trash at
restaurants made her feel she was helpful and appreciated.
However, some customers may not appreciate their partial
employee roles. This resistance may stem from the reluctance
to adopt new service consumption norms. In such a case, a
poor role fit occurs and customers are less likely to favor the
Journal of Service Research 18(2)
idea of increasing CP (Kristof 1996). Increasing the participa-
tion of these unmotivated customers results in a significant
discrepancy between their expected role and assigned role;
therefore, the positive benefits of CP diminish. Quotes 16–18
in Table 2 demonstrate how poor role fit affects CP experiences.
Hypothesis 5: Customer’s identification with the participation
role moderates the relationship between CP and perceived
service quality such that the effect of CP on perceived service
quality is stronger for high-role-identification customers than
for low-role-identification customers.
Hypothesis 6: Customer’s identification with the participa-
tion role moderates the relationship between CP and cus-
tomer satisfaction such that the effect of CP on satisfaction
is stronger for high-role-identification customers than for
low-role-identification customers.
Study 1
Research Design
Using student participants, we conducted a between-subjects
experiment with CP manipulated at three levels. Researchers
have used scenario-based experiments to study CP (e.g.,
Bendapudi and Leone 2003; Claycomb, Lengnick-Hall, and
Inks 2001; Dong, Evans, and Zou 2008; Yen, Gwinner, and
Su 2004) and our study is similar. Study abroad tour design
was selected because (1) it presents a critical, frequent and
familiar context to the student sample; (2) more than 80,000
U.S. college students study abroad every year (U.S. Depart-
ment of Education 2013), which makes students a significant
population of interest; and (3) it enables us to have the stu-
dents mimic a tour-design process, which is more involved
than simply reading a paper-based scenario.
The scenario featured ‘‘a 1-week study abroad tour in
London for students during the summer break.’’ The coverage
of the tour program is the same across all CP conditions, which
includes three company visits, three sightseeing tours, and a
weekend trip. Following Franke, Keinz, and Steger (2009) and
Moreau and Herd (2010), in this tour design context, CP was
conceptualized as having customers make choices, provide pre-
ferences, and customize the tour plan. Based on the number of
choices a subject needed to make and the level of customi-
zation achieved, CP was manipulated at three levels of low,
medium, and high. More choices/preferences represent greater
participation. More specifically, subjects in the low participa-
tion condition were asked to choose between two plans
designed by the university, with limited preferences/choices
from the participants. Subjects in the medium participation
condition were asked to make some choices such as choosing
the weekend trip location. Subjects in the high participation
condition made even greater numbers of choices by selecting
three companies and three sightseeing destinations from a list
and choosing a weekend trip destination. In addition to follow-
ing the general experimental procedure to develop design activ-
ities (e.g., Franke, Keinz, and Steger 2009; Moreau and Herd
Dong et al. 167

Table 3. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of Variables. the participation role from Saleh and Hosek (1976). In addi-
tion, we assessed respondents’ previous experience with tour
M SD 1 2 3 4 5
design as a control variable, using one question: ‘‘to what
Study 1 extent have you participated in this similar type of tour design
1. Perceived ability 5.37 1.20 1.00 in the past?’’ The descriptive statistics and measurement
2. Perceived benefita 5.78 0.93 .37 1.00 properties appear in Tables 3 and 4.
3. Role identification 4.76 1.31 .54 .49 1.00
4. Service quality 4.95 1.40 .01 .20 .12 1.00
5. Satisfaction 4.92 1.31 .13 .22 .20 .71 1.00 Results
Study 2
We assessed the manipulation of CP with the question ‘‘You
1. Perceived ability 6.12 1.25 1.00
2. Perceived benefita 5.87 1.10 .59 1.00 have 10 points to assign between you and the university in
3. Role identification 5.19 1.51 .44 .55 1.00 terms of respective contribution to this tour design; how
4. Service quality 5.45 1.35 .30 .25 .17 1.00 much did you contribute?’’ Participants’ individual contri-
5. Satisfaction 5.12 1.41 .31 .32 .39 .69 1.00 butions were significantly different across the three levels
a and in the expected direction (F ¼ 373.84, p < .001):
Perceived benefit is measured as an average of items for the calculations of
means, SDs, and correlations. Mhigh ¼ 7.67, Mmedium ¼ 4.32, and Mlow ¼ 2.31. Therefore,
we concluded that the manipulation was successful.
We used a two-step modeling approach by assessing the
measurement model first and then testing the hypotheses
2010), we mimicked the real study-abroad tour program used in
(Anderson and Gerbing 1988). Since perceived benefit of par-
the university where the data were collected. Online Appendix
ticipation evaluates four different aspects of benefits, and the
C provides the details of the scenarios and manipulations
4 items are not theoretically correlated, according to Jarvis,
The sample consisted of 187 business undergraduate stu-
MacKenzie, and Podsakoff (2003), a formative scale should
dents attending an introductory marketing course at a large
be used. Further, the construct has rather low AVE (.493).
U.S. university. Of the participants, 63% were women and the
Therefore, we treated perceived benefit of participation as a
average age was 20.3. In all, 25% were freshman, 52% sopho-
formative measure and did not include it in the confirmatory
mores, 15% juniors, and the rest were seniors. Extra course
factor analysis (CFA). Similarly, CFA did not include service
credits were offered as incentives for participation. Of the
quality, which was measured by a single item. The mea-
participants, 52.2% had previous experience in tour planning;
surement model showed a good fit (comparative fit index
of these, 51.9% had the experience in the past year.
[CFI] ¼ .980; incremental fit index [IFI] ¼ .980; Bentler–
Following previous research, we measured moderating
Bonett non-normed fit index [NNFI] ¼ .972; standardized
variables before the manipulations to avoid any potential bias
root mean square residual [SRMR] ¼ .045; root mean square
from the manipulations and scenarios (e.g., Dahl and Moreau
error of approximation [RMSEA] ¼ .069; w2(32) ¼ 60.440,
2007; Franke, Keinz, and Steger 2009). Participants first read
p < .002). The coefficient as for all the factors were greater
some background information about designing a study abroad
than .75. These indices jointly indicate that the internal struc-
tour plan, and then we assessed their level of readiness for the
ture of the model was sound and factors possessed strong
task. Participants were then randomly assigned to one of the
convergent validity (Anderson and Gerbing 1988). We made
three CP situations and completed the corresponding tour
three pairwise comparisons between one- and two-factor
design tasks. At the end, service outcomes were measured.
models among the three factors to test their discriminant
Cell sizes for low, medium, and high CP conditions were
validity. Because the fit of the two-factor model was signifi-
61, 63, and 63, respectively.
cantly better than that of the one-factor model for all pairwise
comparisons, it provided evidence of discriminant validity
(Bagozzi and Phillips 1982). Thus, we concluded the mea-
Measurement surement model fit the data adequately.
We measured satisfaction with items adapted from Claycomb, Following the literature (e.g., Dahl and Moreau 2007;
Lengnick-Hall, and Inks (2001) and Bendapudi and Leone Franke, Keinz, and Steger 2009), we conducted multivariate
(2003) to assess overall satisfaction, outcome satisfaction, and analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) by including CP and
process satisfaction. Following Cermak, File, and Prince CP readiness factors as independent variables; service quality
(1994), we captured service quality with a single item: ‘‘over- and satisfaction as dependent variables; and gender, age, and
all, how would you rate the service quality of the tour design previous experience as covariates. We computed factor scores
experience?’’ For the CP readiness factors, we adapted 3 as a composite of their respective items (e.g., Chan, Yim, and
items measuring perceived ability from Dong, Evans, and Zou Lam 2010). For perceived benefit of participation, we used
(2008), 4 items measuring perceived benefit of participation principal component analysis to obtain the factor score, which
from Meuter et al. (2005) to evaluate aspects of benefits allows us to maximize the variances accounted for by the
including customization, efficiency, tour quality, and enjoy- linear combination. We median split the CP readiness vari-
ment, and 4 items measuring customers’ identification with ables into two levels to denote high versus low ability1 using
168 Journal of Service Research 18(2)

Table 4. Measurement Properties of Variables.

Study 1 Study 2

Constructs/Item b M SD b M SD

F1: Perceived ability (1 ¼ strongly disagree, 7 ¼ strongly agree) a ¼ .934; AVE ¼ .912 a ¼ .960; AVE ¼ .944
I am fully capable of designing a good tour plan/setting up Internet myself .888 5.14 1.37 .970 6.16 1.25
I am confident in my ability to create a satisfactory tour plan/to set up Internet successfully .933 5.49 1.25 .951 6.08 1.34
Building a good travel plan/setting up Internet successfully is well within the scope of my .914 5.48 1.19 .910 6.13 1.29
abilities
F2: Perceived benefit of participation (1 ¼ not at all, 7 ¼ very much)
How much of the following benefits would you get if you participate in designing the tour plan/ setting up the Internet?
Needs met—get what I really want
Efficiency—get my tour planned/Internet setup in a timely manner
Quality—make it a good quality tour/ set up the Internet successfully
Enjoyment—provide me with feelings of enjoyment
F3: Role Identification (1 ¼ strongly disagree, 7 ¼ strongly agree) a ¼ .880; AVE ¼ .806 a ¼ .893; AVE ¼ .824
I am glad to perform some service roles that would normally be provided by the .812 4.71 1.46 .919 5.29 1.65
university/the cable company
I enjoy serving myself by being involved in tour design/Internet setup .846 5.00 1.47 .880 5.40 1.65
I am happy to take on some service roles to replace a university tour planner/an .836 4.57 1.61 .777 4.87 1.87
employee’s work
I think I have the responsibility to be involved in this service .730 4.75 1.57 .719 5.20 1.75
F4: Service quality (1 ¼ extremely poor, 7 ¼ extremely good)a
Overall, how would you rate the service quality of the X experience?
F5: Satisfaction (1 ¼ strongly disagree, 7 ¼ strongly agree) a ¼ .936; AVE ¼ .911 a ¼ .943; AVE ¼ .848
Overall, how satisfied are you with the tour design/Internet setup? (1 ¼ dissatisfied, .886 4.95 1.37 .933 5.19 1.57
7 ¼ satisfied)
I am satisfied with the outcome of the service .901 4.89 1.43 .880 5.00 1.54
I am satisfied with the process of the service .947 4.92 1.38 .949 5.18 1.53
w2 Square 60.440 (df ¼ 32, p < 61.627 (df ¼ 32, p <
.002) .001)
Bentler–Bonett non-normed fit index .972 .981
CFI .980 .986
Bollen (IFI) fit index .980 .989
Standardized RMR .045 .031
RMSEA .069 .063
Note. CFI ¼ comparative fit index; IFI ¼ incremental fit index; RMR ¼ root mean square residual; RMSEA ¼ root mean square error of approximation;
CFA ¼ confirmatory factor analysis.
a
Measured with a single item; therefore, not included in CFA.

the entire sample, a common method used in the literature
(e.g., Jaworski and Kohli 1993; Sujan, Weitz, and Kumar
1994). Table 5 summarizes the results that lend overall sup-
port to the moderating effects of CP readiness factors. Panel
A in Figure 2 depicts the comparisons of service quality and
satisfaction across three CP levels.
We found significant interaction effects of all three modera-
tors for both service outcomes (ability  CP  SQ: F ¼ 5.49,
p < .01; SAT: F ¼ 6.78, p < .001; benefit  CP  SAT: F ¼
4.67, p < .01; role  CP  SQ: F ¼ 12.43, p < .001; SAT:
F ¼ 18.77, p < .001), except that the significance for perceived
benefit of participation on service quality was at p ¼ .06
level, F ¼ 2.87. None of the covariates significantly affects
service outcomes. Consistent with Hypotheses 1 and 2, for
customers with high ability, service quality and satisfaction
increase significantly (p < .05) when CP increases from low
(SQhigh ability, low CP ¼ 3.69; SAThigh ability, low CP ¼ 3.86) to
medium (SQhigh ability, medium CP ¼ 5.07; SAThigh ability,
medium CP ¼ 5.18) to high participation levels (SQhigh ability,
high CP ¼ 5.86; SAThigh ability, high CP ¼ 5.95). However, for
customers with low ability, customers report significantly better
service quality and greater satisfaction when moving from low
(SQlow ability, low CP ¼ 4.50; SATlow ability, low CP ¼ 4.42) to medium
participation (SQlow ability, medium CP ¼ 5.27; SATlow ability, medium
CP ¼ 5.19; p < .05); when CP increases from medium to high par-
ticipation, the effects of CP are weakened (insignificant, p > .05)
and the mean values of service quality and satisfaction actually
decrease (SQlow ability, high CP ¼ 5.19; SATlow ability, high CP ¼
4.97). Further, satisfaction in the high CP condition is not signif-
icantly better than that in the low CP condition (p > .05), suggest-
ing the tapering off of CP advantage.
Though the moderating effect of perceived benefit of par-
ticipation on service quality is not significant (SQ: F ¼ 2.87,
p ¼ .06), the pattern is consistent with Hypothesis 3, such that
with high perceived benefit of participation, service quality
increases significantly (p < .05); however, for customers with
low perceived benefit, service quality significantly increases
(p < .05) from low to medium CP levels but has no significant
 Table 5. MANCOVA Results for the Moderating Effects of Customer Participation Readiness Factors.
F Statistics Comparison of Dependent Variable Means

Low Ability High Ability

Previous
CP Ability CP  Ability Gender Age Experience Low CP Medium CP High CP Low CP Medium CP High CP

A. Study 1

SQ 22.59*** .33 5.49** 1.71 .33 0.75 4.50ab 5.27a 5.19b 3.69a 5.07a 5.86a
SAT 21.83*** .56 6.78*** 1.32 .20 1.48 4.42a 5.19a 4.97 3.86a 5.18a 5.95a

Low Benefit High Benefit

Previous
CP Benefit CP  Benefit Gender Age Experience Low CP Medium CP High CP Low CP Medium CP High CP
y ab a b a a
SQ 24.20*** 2.03 2.87 .50 .30 2.70 4.2 4.98 5.18 3.92 5.29 5.96a
SAT 22.92*** 2.28 4.67** .08 .42 2.86y 4.36a 4.90 5.12a 3.89ab 5.44a 5.87b

Low Role High Role

Previous
CP Role CP  Role Gender Age Experience Low CP Medium CP High CP Low CP Medium CP High CP
a a
SQ 21.99*** 0.17 12.43*** 1.43 0.02 1.03 4.62 5.02 4.90 3.55 5.22 6.00a
SAT 21.26*** 2.28 18.77*** .51 2.04 1.36 4.68 4.94 4.66 3.63a 5.34a 6.07a

Low Ability High Ability

Previous
CP Ability CP  Ability Gender Age Experience Education Low CP Medium CP High CP Low CP Medium CP High CP

B. Study 2

SQ 3.99* 10.37*** 2.59y 3.38y .14 .29 2.74y 5.04 5.38 5.10 5.20ab 5.86a 6.18b
SAT 7.40*** 10.04*** 3.19* 3.11y .36 .20 3.59* 5.18a 5.49b 4.33ab 5.26a 6.00a 5.48

Low Benefit High Benefit

Previous
CP Benefit CP  Benefit Gender Age Experience Education Low CP Medium CP High CP Low CP Medium CP High CP
ab a
SQ 4.37* 5.63* 5.54** 1.83 .03 .74 1.75 5.16 5.55 5.09 5.07 5.69 6.27b
SAT 6.96*** 11.94*** 4.71** 1.78 .01 .04 2.58y 5.20a 5.52b 4.30ab 5.26a 5.96a 5.62

Low Role High Role

Previous
CP Role CP  Role Gender Age Experience Education Low CP Medium CP High CP Low CP Medium CP High CP

SQ 4.14* 4.18* 6.74*** 1.63 .09 1.23 2.23 5.32 5.48 5.13 4.97ab 5.75a 6.27b
SAT 6.68** 20.87*** 11.30*** 1.92 .14 .00 3.41 5.30a 5.48b 4.10ab 5.24ab 6.03a 5.90b

Note. MANCOVA ¼ multivariate analysis of covariance; CP ¼ customer participation. SQ and SAT stand for service quality and satisfaction. Means in the same row sharing the same letter superscript (a, b) differ at p < .05.
***p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05. yp < .1.

169
170 Journal of Service Research 18(2)

Figure 2. Customer participation and service outcomes: moderating role of customer participation readiness.
Note. SQ and SAT stand for service quality and satisfaction. Values on the same line sharing the same letter superscript (a, b) differ at p < .05.
Interaction effects: ***p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05.
effect (p > .05) from medium to high CP levels. In support of Regarding role identification, consistent with Hypotheses 5
Hypothesis 4, we found with high perceived benefits of partic- and 6, when customers strongly identify with their role, CP sig-
ipation, satisfaction is significantly lower (p < .05) in the low nificantly increases service quality and satisfaction (p < .05)
CP condition (SAThigh benefit, low CP ¼ 3.89) than the medium from low (SQhigh role, low CP ¼ 3.55; SAThigh role, low CP ¼
(SAThigh benefit, medium CP ¼ 5.44) and high CP conditions 3.63) to medium (SQhigh role, medium CP ¼ 5.22; SAThigh role,
(SAThigh benefit, high CP ¼ 5.87), with the latter two not differ- medium CP ¼ 5.34) to high levels (SQhigh role, high CP ¼ 6.00;
ing from each other (p > .05); while with low benefits of par- SAThigh role, high CP ¼ 6.07). However, the positive effect of
ticipation, satisfaction is significantly lower between the low CP is significantly attenuated when role identification is low, such
CP (SATlow benefit, low CP ¼ 4.36) and high CP conditions that no significant differences occur (p > .05) across the three CP
(SATlow benefit, high CP ¼ 5.12; p < .05); however, the medium conditions for either service quality (SQlow role, low CP ¼ 4.62;
CP condition (SATlow benefit, medium CP ¼ 4.90) is in the middle SQlow role, medium CP ¼ 5.02; SQlow role, high CP ¼ 4.90) or satisfac-
and not significantly different from the other two (p > .05). tion (SATlow role, low CP ¼ 4.68; SATlow role, medium CP ¼ 4.94;
Dong et al.
Figure 2. (continued).
Note. SQ and SAT stand for service quality and satisfaction. Values on the same line sharing the same letter superscript (a, b) differ at p < .05.
Interaction effects: ***p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05. yp < .1.
SATlow role, high CP ¼ 4.66), suggesting increasing CP no longer
yields desirable effect.
Study 1 Discussion
The results indicate that the effect of CP depends on CP
readiness. For high-CP-readiness customers, the positive
effects of CP persist throughout the range of CP, which is
consistent with previous CP literature (e.g., Bitner et al.
1997; Kelley, Donnelly, and Skinner 1990). However, for
low-readiness customers, the positive effects of CP are
171
weakened (e.g., insignificant when moving from medium
to high levels), suggesting a deviation from the monotonic
relationship as reported in previous research (e.g., Auh
et al. 2007; Claycomb, Lengnick-Hall, and Inks 2001;
Ennew and Binks 1999). Study 2 takes one step further in
covering a wider range of CP levels from very low such
as employee-assisted service to very high such as self-
service, so that we can examine the entire CP spectrum.
Further, the flexibility of choices may vary across the CP
conditions in Study 1; though greater flexibility is a natural
outcome of some types of participation, it may still bring in
172
a potential confounding concern;2 hence, we address this
issue in Study 2 by keeping flexibility of choices constant
across CP conditions.
Study 2
Research Design
Again, we conducted a scenario-based, between-subjects experi-
ment. Participants were recruited through Amazon’s Mechanical
Turk (mTurk) online subject pool. Recent research has found
that mTurk represents a viable source of high-quality data that
are representative of general population and thus is superior to
traditional convenience samples (Buhrmester et al. 2011). Inter-
net setup is selected because of its appropriateness as a familiar,
realistic, and important service context; its ability to involve
diversified CP types such as customization in tour design used
in Study 1 versus labor in Internet setup; its advantage in cover-
ing a wide range of CP levels; and its use in prior research (e.g.,
Dong, Evans, and Zou 2008).
The scenario read, ‘‘You have signed up for a new Internet
service with a cable company.’’ Participants first read some
background information about the steps taken to complete
Internet setup and their readiness levels were assessed for such
a task. Then they were randomly assigned to one of the CP con-
ditions. In this context, CP was manipulated at three levels
based on the degree of effort a customer spent in setting up the
Internet (Online Appendix C). More specifically, in the low
participation condition, a technician set up the Internet for the
customer; in the medium participation condition, the technician
and the customer worked together to set up the Internet; in the
high participation condition, the customer followed the manual
and set up the Internet on his or her own. At the end, service
outcomes were measured.
After we cleaned the data for obvious problems such as
incomplete responses, the cell sizes for low, medium, and high
levels of participation were 75, 71, and 86, respectively, for a
total of 232 usable responses. Only U.S. residents were quali-
fied to participate in the study. Among them, 35.8% were
women; age ranged from 18 to 77 years with a mean of
29.59 years; and all 50 U.S. states were represented. Respon-
dents were geographically dispersed with16.8% living in rural
areas, 47% in suburban areas, and the rest in urban areas. Sixty-
seven percent had a college degree, 11% had a graduate degree,
and the remaining had a high school degree. Regarding income,
39% had income below US$25,000, 28% between US$25,000
and US$49,999, 22% between US$50,000 and US$74,999, and
the rest 11% above US$75,000. Regarding ethnicity, 4.3%
were African American, 80.2% Caucasian, 3.4% Hispanic,
10.7% Asian-Pacific Islander, and 1.4% others. In addition,
50% had participated in a similar Internet setup experience
before; among them, 48% had the experience within the past
year. Approximately 82% had participated in setting up other
similar electronic products before and 71% had the experience
within the past year. Each participant was paid 50 cents for
completing the study.
Journal of Service Research 18(2)
We retained the measures used in Study 1 to measure CP
readiness factors and dependent variables. We added one con-
trol variable—education, which offers greater variance with the
sample of general consumers compared to the student subjects
in Study 1. The descriptive statistics and measurement proper-
ties appear in Tables 3 and 4. The analysis procedure was sim-
ilar to Study 1.
Results
Participants indicated significantly different levels of individ-
ual contributions to the Internet setup across three CP condi-
tions and in the expected direction (F ¼ 630.83, p < .001;
Mhigh ¼ 8.48, Mmedium ¼ 3.35, and Mlow ¼ 1.17), suggesting
the manipulation was successful.
The measurement model showed a good fit (CFI ¼ .986;
IFI ¼ .989; Bentler–Bonett NNFI ¼ .981; SRMR ¼ .031;
RMSEA ¼ .063; w2(32) ¼ 61.627, p < .001). We followed
procedures similar to Study 1 to assess convergent and discri-
minant validity and concluded the internal structure of the
measurement model was sound and the model fit the data
adequately.
Table 5, Panel B, summarizes the MANCOVA results that
demonstrate the effect of CP depends on CP readiness. Figure
2, Panel B depicts the mean comparisons of the outcomes for
the three CP levels. We found significant moderating effects
of perceived benefits and role identification on both outcomes
(benefit  CP  SQ: F ¼ 5.54, p < .01; SAT: F ¼ 4.71, p <
.01; role  CP  SQ: F ¼ 6.74, p < .001; SAT: F ¼ 11.30,
p < .001); however, perceived ability significantly moderates
satisfaction (ability  CP  SAT: F ¼ 3.19, p < .05) but not
service quality (ability  CP  SQ: F ¼ 2.59, p¼ .077). When
comparing the mean values, we find that for customers with
high ability, service quality increases significantly (p < .05)
when CP increases from low (SQhigh ability, low CP ¼ 5.20) to
medium levels (SQhigh ability, medium CP ¼ 5.86) but levels off
from medium to high levels (SQhigh ability, high CP ¼ 6.18;
insignificant but in the increasing direction, p > .05). For
satisfaction, the low-CP condition (SAThigh ability, low CP ¼
5.26) reports significantly (p < .05) lower satisfaction than the
medium-CP condition (SAThigh ability, medium CP ¼ 6.00); the
high-CP condition is in the middle (SAThigh ability, high CP ¼
5.48) but not significantly different from the other two.
For customers with low ability, the effect of CP on ser-
vice quality is substantially weakened such that the effect
of CP on service quality was insignificant, meaning no sig-
nificant difference was found across the three conditions
(SQlow ability, low CP ¼ 5.04, SQlow ability, medium CP ¼ 5.38,
SQlow ability, high CP ¼ 5.10, p >.05); this suggests that
increasing CP no longer yields positive effect on service
quality. Likewise, the effect of CP on satisfaction is wea-
kened (positive but insignificant, p > .05) when CP
increases from low (SATlow ability, low CP ¼ 5.18) to medium
levels (SATlow ability, medium CP ¼ 5.49) and becomes signif-
icantly negative (p < .05) when CP increases from medium
Dong et al.
to high levels (SATlow ability, high CP ¼4.33), consistent with
the qualitative interviews regarding the negative conse-
quences of CP for low-ability customers. We observed sim-
ilar patterns for the other two moderators, perceived benefit
of participation and role identification. Table 5, Panel B,
presents more detailed results.
Discussion
Theoretical Implications
Previous empirical work examines a linear and continuous
effect of CP on service outcomes and reports mixed findings
(e.g., Auh et al. 2007; Claycomb, Lengnick-Hall, and Inks
2001; Ennew and Binks 1999). Our findings offer a contin-
gency framework to capture a more complete picture of the
CP-outcome link; the relationship is contingent on CP readi-
ness and is not monotonic, providing one possible explanation
for the mixed empirical evidence. Although the two studies
provide slightly different results, an overall similar pattern
can be observed—the effect of CP on service quality and
satisfaction is stronger for high-readiness customers than
for low-readiness customers. More specifically, for high-
readiness customers, CP in general positively affects service
outcomes, consistent with previous literature; while for low-
readiness customers, the effect of CP is attenuated and such
attenuation could have a few variations including a weakened
yet positive effect, a positive but insignificant effect, or a sig-
nificant but negative effect. For certain tasks such as Internet
setup in Study 2, which could cover a wider range of readiness
gaps, we expect to observe a more complete spectrum of the
CP-outcome relationship and hence more extreme effects
such as the negative effect of CP due to significant readiness
gaps at high CP levels. Conversely, for other tasks that are less
onerous such as tour design in Study 1, only portions of the
CP-outcome link might be covered and hence less extreme
effects are observed such as tapering off effect for low-
readiness customers. Though the actual empirical manifesta-
tion could vary depending on the specific service in question
and the characteristics of the targeted customers, the two stud-
ies provide consistent evidence to demonstrate that CP is not
uniformly beneficial or harmful but rather presents a nonmo-
notonic pattern.
Further, two findings are particularly interesting: (1) for
low-readiness customers, increasing CP from low to moderate
levels may still be acceptable or beneficial, for example, a pos-
itive effect of CP is seen in Study 1 and an insignificant effect
of CP is seen in Study 2 and (2) the effect of CP depicts a
diminishing return, that is, when CP reaches very high levels
as seen in Study 2, the positive effect of CP tapers off for
high-readiness customers and becomes significantly negative
for low-readiness customers.
In addition, as shown in Table 5, we find slightly different
results for service quality and satisfaction in Study 2. In the
high-CP condition, compared to an insignificant positive effect
of CP on service quality, CP has a stronger negative effect on
173
satisfaction for low-CP readiness and a much stronger tapering
off effect for high-CP readiness. The fact that variability of
satisfaction is greater in the high-CP condition than service
quality offers interesting theoretical insights. It is likely that the
negative effect on service quality may influence if and how
customers participate in a process, while the negative impact
on satisfaction could affect the firm more adversely in terms
of future customer patronage and profitability (Bendapudi and
Leone 2003).
Managerial Implications
Our findings are particularly useful for industries in which the
trend is to outsource services to customers as much as possible
(Reinders, Dabholkar, and Frambach 2008). Our research has
two related implications for such contexts: (1) if indeed
increasing CP is the chosen strategy, firms should be more
selective by targeting their service to customers with high
readiness; (2) if low-readiness customers must be part of the
customer mix, more attention needs to be directed to increase
the CP readiness of these customers. This implication is also
demonstrated by Quotes 4–6, 10–12, and 16–18 in Table 2.
A further nuanced finding is the contingent role of CP
readiness levels. Even for customers with low readiness, CP
is at least tolerable or may still offer some benefits, but only
to a certain level of participation. Hence, eliminating CP
entirely for these customers may not be the best solution;
instead, carefully designing the service to ensure some level
of CP may be beneficial. Customers generally believe they are
more entitled to their own tastes and preferences than service
providers (Moreau and Herd 2010). Service firms could think
about creative ways to solicit customer input, suggestions,
and ideas to better embody idiosyncratic tastes (Moreau and
Herd 2010; Yim, Chan, and Lam 2012). Appropriate service
design will help find the inflection point. For instance, Dell
is best known for its customized laptops; however, instead
of having customers create laptops from scratch, it starts with
standardized models and offers opportunities for upgrades—a
nice balance makes even the low-readiness customers enjoy
the process.
Our Study 2 findings indicate that at high-CP levels, the pos-
itive CP effect tapers off for high-readiness customers and may
even turn negative for low-readiness customers. This nonmo-
notonic relationship suggests that increasing CP beyond a cer-
tain threshold may not be beneficial. Further, satisfaction is
more adversely affected than service quality due to this dimin-
ishing effect. Therefore, companies should be cautious when
forcing customers to use SSTs as the only service delivery
option and be aware of the diminishing returns of CP even for
high-readiness customers (Reinders, Dabholkar, and Frambach
2008). Further, as our two experiments show, the negative
effect of CP at high CP levels may not be observed in all ser-
vice contexts and may largely depend on the complexity of the
service and the distribution of CP readiness in a population.
Firms may need to do more fine-grained segmentation analysis
to determine the exact impact of CP toward their respective
174
service contexts. For example, customers at IKEA may be more
amenable to using self-checkout kiosks than customers of other
retailers such as Tiffany, because the former have already
embraced IKEA’s do-it-yourself value proposition and thus are
‘‘more ready’’ to participate.
Identifying readiness levels of different customer segments
requires systematic marketing research by service providers.
One method is to directly survey customers about their readi-
ness for a particular service. This may be particularly useful for
a new service or a significant improvement to an existing ser-
vice. Another method is to map different dimensions of CP
readiness based on behavioral, demographic, or psychographic
characteristics of customers using longitudinal data from cus-
tomer panels. For example, Hilton Hotels found that people
who travel frequently are more accustomed to using SSTs than
others. Hence, Hilton installed a kiosk in the Honolulu airport,
so that guests could do their hotel check-in while waiting for
their baggage (Dragoon 2005). Therefore, if customer demo-
graphics are closely related to CP readiness (e.g., usage fre-
quency reflecting perceived ability), then various participation
strategies can be deployed to customer segments based on their
demographic profile.
Limitations and Further Research
We used scenario-based experiments, a method frequently used
to examine CP. Although both contexts in our experiments are
relevant and mirror real tasks, future research could consider
replicating the study with field experiments. Further, the
manipulation of CP in Study 1 was not able to completely tease
out the potential confound between flexibility of choices and
CP, while Study 2 was able to address this concern by keeping
the flexibility of choices constant across the CP levels.
We focused on CP readiness as one boundary condition.
Further research might focus on other boundary conditions
we discovered in the qualitative study. Quotes 19–22 in Table
2 include some of them, such as employee expertise, organiza-
tional support, or service importance. Future research may also
explore antecedents of CP readiness. For example, when cus-
tomers have time constraints, they may have greater readiness
and if the consequences of failure are severe, they may perceive
lower readiness.
Another avenue for further research is to map the nature of
a service (e.g., complexity and newness) with the distribution
of CP readiness in the target market (e.g., uniform distribution
and bimodal distribution). Such a mapping will help service
firms (1) to identify suitable targets based on the service char-
acteristics and (2) to identify specific segments they would
like to target during the introduction and growth stages of the
new service, respectively.
A more fine-tuned understanding of the role of CP can be
obtained by examining CP on a continuum in which multiple
CP levels can be identified, rather than the three-level classi-
fication adopted in our research. Such a fine-grained analysis
will enable more accurate identification of a CP level that
optimizes desired service outcomes. Superimposing such
Journal of Service Research 18(2)
analysis with the cost structure of the firm will enable a
more detailed examination of profitability aspects of the firm.
Our approach provides a starting point for such expanded
explorations.
Acknowledgments
The authors greatly appreciate the guidance of the editor and construc-
tive comments from the three anonymous reviewers.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Notes
1. To further validate our results, we used two other methods: (1) We
categorized the moderators by including cases that the moderator
value was at least one standard deviation below the mean (low
readiness category) or at least one standard deviation above the
mean (high readiness category) and then performed similar multi-
variate analysis of covariance procedures; (2) we used multiple
regression to test the interaction effects. Both analyses yielded
results similar to what we report in the article, further strengthening
the support for our hypotheses.
2. We thank an anonymous reviewer for this observation.
Supplemental Material
The online appendices are available at http://jsr.sagepub.com/
supplemental.
References
Anderson, James C. and David W. Gerbing (1988), ‘‘Structural Equa-
tion Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step
Approach,’’ Psychological Bulletin, 103 (3), 411-423.
Auh, Seigyoung, Simon J. Bell, Colin S. McLeod, and Eric Shih
(2007), ‘‘Co-production and Customer Loyalty in Financial Ser-
vices,’’ Journal of Retailing, 83 (3), 359-370.
Bagozzi, Richard P. and Lynn W. Phillips (1982), ‘‘Representing and
Testing Organizational Theories: A Holistic Construal,’’ Adminis-
trative Science Quarterly, 27 (30), 459-489.
Bendapudi, Neeli and Robert P. Leone (2003), ‘‘Psychological Impli-
cations of Customer Participation in Co-Production,’’ Journal of
Marketing, 67 (1), 14-28.
Bitner, Mary Jo, William T. Faranda, Amy R. Hubbert, and Valarie A.
Zeithaml (1997), ‘‘Customer Contributions and Roles in Service
Delivery,’’ International Journal of Service Industry Management,
8 (3), 193-205.
Bowen, David E. (1986), ‘‘Managing Customers as Human Resources
in Service Organizations,’’ Human Resource Management, 25 (3),
371-383.
Buhrmester, Michael D., Tracy Kwang, and Samuel D. Gosling
(2011), ‘‘Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A New Source of
Dong et al.
Inexpensive, Yet High-quality Data,’’ Perspectives on Psychologi-
cal Science, 6 (1), 3-5.
Cermak, Dianne S., Karen Maru File, and Russ Alan Prince (1994),
‘‘Customer Participation in Service Specification and Delivery,’’
Journal of Applied Business Research, 10 (2), 90-97.
Chan, Kimmy Wa, Chi Kin (Bennett) Yim, and Simon S. K. Lam
(2010), ‘‘Is Customer Participation in Value Creation a Double-
Edged Sword? Evidence from Professional Financial Services
across Cultures,’’ Journal of Marketing, 74 (May), 48-64.
Claycomb, Cindy, Cynthia A. Lengnick-Hall, and Lawrence W. Inks
(2001), ‘‘The Customer as a Productive Resource: A Pilot Study
and Strategic Implications,’’ Journal of Business Strategies, 18
(1), 47-69.
Dabholkar, Pratibha A. (1990), ‘‘How to Improve Perceived Service
Quality by Improving Customer Participation,’’ in Developments
in Marketing Science, Vol. 13, Bobbye J. Dunlap, , ed. Cullowhee,
NC: Academy of Marketing Science, 483-487.
Dahl, Darren W. and C. Page Moreau (2007), ‘‘Thinking Inside the
Box: Why Consumers Enjoy Constrained Creative Experiences,’’
Journal of Marketing Research, 44 (3), 357-369.
Dierdorff, Erich C., Eric Surface, and Kenneth G. Brown (2010),
‘‘Frame-of-Reference Training Effectiveness: Effects of Goal
Orientation and Self-Efficacy on Affective, Cognitive, Skill-
Based, and Transfer Outcomes,’’ Journal of Applied Psychology,
95 (6), 1181-1191.
Dong, Beibei, Kenneth R. Evans, and Shaoming Zou (2008), ‘‘The
Effects of Customer Participation in Co-Created Service Recov-
ery,’’ Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36 (1),
123-137.
Dragoon, Alice (2005), ‘‘Six Simple Rules for Building Successful Self-
Service Applications,’’ [available at http://www.cio.com/article/
2448339/enterprise-architecture/six-simple-rules-for-building-succe
ssful-self-service-applications.html (accessed 11 September 2014).
Edwards, Jeffrey R. (1991), ‘‘Person-Job Fit: A Conceptual Integra-
tion, Literature Review, and Methodological Critique,’’ In Inter-
national Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
6th ed., Gerard P. Hodgkinson and J. Kevin Ford, eds. Chichester,
England: John Wiley, 283-357.
Ennew, Christine T. and Martin R. Binks (1999), ‘‘Impact of Partici-
pative Service Relationships on Quality, Satisfaction and Reten-
tion: An Exploratory Study,’’ Journal of Business Research, 46
(2), 121-132.
Fish, Stanley (2007), ‘‘Getting Coffee Is Hard to Do,’’ New York
Times, August 5. [available at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/
05/opinion/05fish.html?_r=0 (accessed 11 September 2014).
Franke, Nikolaus, Peter Keinz, and Christoph J. Steger (2009), ‘‘Test-
ing the Value of Customization: When Do Customers Really Prefer
Products Tailored to Their Preferences?’’ Journal of Marketing, 73
(September), 103-121.
Frei, Frances X. (2006), Managing the Operating Role of Customers.
HBS No. 606-032 Boston, MA: Harvard Business School
Publishing.
Halbesleben, Jonathon R. B. and M. Ronald Buckley (2003), ‘‘Manag-
ing Customers as Employees of the Firm: New Challenges for
Human Resources Management,’’ Personnel Review, 33 (3),
351-372.
175
Jarvis, Cheryl, Scott B. MacKenzie, and Philip M. Podsakoff (2003)
‘‘A Critical Review of Construct Indicators and Measurement
Model Misspecification in Marketing and Consumer Research,’’
Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (2), 199-218.
Jaworski, Bernard J. and Ajay K. Kohli (1993), ‘‘Market Orientation:
Antecedents and Consequences,’’ Journal of Marketing, 57 (3), 53-70.
Jex, Steve and Paul Bliese (1999), ‘‘Efficacy Beliefs as a Moderator of
the Impact of Work-Related Stressors: A Multilevel Study,’’ Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 84 (3), 349-361.
Karmarkar, Uday S. and Richard Pitbladdo (1995), ‘‘Service Markets
and Competition,’’ Journal of Operations Management, 12 (3-4),
397-411.
Kelley, Scott W., James H. Donnelly, and Steven J. Skinner (1990),
‘‘Customer Participation in Service Production and Delivery,’’
Journal of Retailing, 66 (3), 315-335.
Kohli, Ajay K. and Bernard J. Jaworski (1990), ‘‘Market Orientation:
The Construct, Research Propositions, and Managerial Implica-
tions,’’ Journal of Marketing, 54 (2), 1-18.
Kristof, Amy L. (1996), ‘‘Person-Organization Fit: An Integrative
Review of Its Conceptualizations, Measurement, and Implica-
tions,’’ Personnel Psychology, 49 (1), 1-49.
Kristof-Brown, Amy L., Ryan D. Zimmerman, and Erin C. Johnson
(2005), ‘‘Consequences of Individuals’ Fit at Work: A Meta-
analysis of Person-Job, Person-Organization, Person-Group, and
Person-Supervisor fit,’’ Personnel Psychology, 58 (2), 281-342.
Lengnick-Hall, Cynthia A. (1996), ‘‘Customer Contributions to Qual-
ity: A Different View of the Customer-Oriented Firm,’’ Academy
of Management Review, 21 (3), 791-824.
Lovelock, Christopher H. and Robert F. Young (1979), ‘‘Look to Con-
sumers to Increase Productivity,’’ Harvard Business Review, 57
(3), 9-20.
Lusch, Robert F., Stephen W. Brown, and Gary J. Brunswick (1992),
‘‘A General Framework for Explaining Internal vs. External
Exchange,’’ Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 20
(2), 119-134.
McCracken, Grant (1988), The Long Interview. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Meuter, Matthew L. and Mary Jo Bitner (1998), ‘‘Self-Service Tech-
nologies: Extending Service Frameworks and Identifying Issues for
Research,’’ In American Marketing Association Winter Educator’s
Conference Proceedings, Vol. 9, Dhruv Grewal and Connie Pech-
mann, eds. Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association, 12-19.
Meuter, Matthew L., Mary Jo Bitner, Amy L. Ostrom, and Steven W.
Brown (2005), ‘‘Choosing among Alternative Service Delivery
Modes: An Investigation of Customer Trial of Self-Service Tech-
nologies,’’ Journal of Marketing, 69 (2), 61-83.
Moreau, C. Page and Kelly B. Herd (2010), ‘‘To Each His Own? How
Comparisons with Others Influence Consumers’ Evaluations of
Their Self-Designed Products,’’ Journal of Consumer Research,
36 (December), 806-819.
Mustak, Mekhail, Elina Jaakkola, and Aino Halinen (2013), ‘‘Cus-
tomer Participation and Value Creation: A Systematic Review
and Research Implications,’’ Managing Service Quality, 23 (4),
341-359.
Pinquart, Martin, Rainer K. Silbereisen, and Linda P. Juang (2004),
‘‘Buffering Effects of Adolescents’ Self-Efficacy Beliefs on
176
Psychological Responses to Social Change,’’ Journal of Adoles-
cent Research, 19 (3), 340-359.
Reinders, Machiel J., Pratibha A. Dabholkar, and Ruud T. Frambach
(2008), ‘‘Consequences of Forcing Consumers to Use Technology-
Based Self-Service,’’ Journal of Service Research, 11 (2), 107-123.
Saleh, S. D., and James Hosek (1976), ‘‘Job Involvement: Concepts
and Measurements,’’ Academy of Management Journal, 19 (2),
213-224.
Sujan, Harish, Barton A. Weitz, and Nirmalya Kumar (1994), ‘‘Learn-
ing Orientation, Working Smart, and Effective Selling,’’ Journal of
Marketing, 58 (3), 39-52.
Time (2008), ‘‘The End of Customer Service,’’ (accessed January 30,
2014), [available at http://content.time.com/time/specials/2007/
article/0,28804,1720049_1720050_1721684,00.html].
U.S. Department of Education (2013), US Study Abroad Programs.
U.S. Network for Education Information, January 18. http://
www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ous/international/usnei/internatio
nal/edlite-study-abroad.html (accessed January 30, 2014).
Van Beuningen, Jacqueline, Ko de Ruyter, Martin Wetzels, and
Sandra Streuken (2009), ‘‘Customer Self-Efficacy in Technology-
Based Self-Service, Assessing between- and within-person Differ-
ences,’’ Journal of Service Research, 11 (4), 407-428.
Vargo, Stephen L. and Robert F. Lusch (2004), ‘‘Evolving to a New
Dominant Logic for Marketing,’’ Journal of Marketing, 68 (1), 1-27.
Xie, Chunyan, Richard P. Bagozzi, and Sigurd V. Troye (2008), ‘‘Try-
ing to Prosume: Toward a Theory of Consumers as Co-Creators of
Value,’’ Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36 (1),
109-122.
Yen, HsiuJu Rebecca, Kevin P. Gwinner, and Wanru Su (2004), ‘‘The
Impact of Customer Participation and Service Expectation on
Locus Attributions Following Service Failure,’’ International
Journal of Service Industry Management, 15 (1), 7-26.
Yim, Chi Kin (Bennett), Kimmy Wa Chan, and Simon S. K. Lam
(2012), ‘‘Do Customers and Employees Enjoy Service Participa-
tion? Synergistic Effects of Self- and Other-Efficacy,’’ Journal
of Marketing, 76 (6), 121-140.
Zeithaml, Valarie A., Leonard L. Berry, and A. Parasuraman
(1993), ‘‘The Nature and Determinants of Customer Expecta-
tions of Service,’’ Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sci-
ence, 21 (1), 1-12.
Author Biographies
Beibei Dong is an assistant professor of marketing at Lehigh Univer-
sity. She also holds the Thomas J. Campbell ’80 Professorship. Her
Journal of Service Research 18(2)
current research focuses on customer cocreation, service failure and
recovery, and service quality. Her articles have been published in
Journal of Marketing, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
and Journal of International Marketing among others. She has
received several research grants, including Juran Doctoral Award
from the Joseph M. Juran Center for Leadership in Quality at the Uni-
versity of Minnesota. She was an AMA Doctoral Consortium Fellow
in 2008.
K. Sivakumar is the Arthur Tauck Chair and a professor of marketing
at Lehigh University. His research interests include globalization,
innovation, pricing, services, and supply chains. His research appears
in Journal of Marketing, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sci-
ence, Journal of Retailing, Journal of Product Innovation Manage-
ment, and other outlets. He has received the Donald Lehmann
Award from the American Marketing Association (AMA), Distin-
guished PhD Alumni Award from Syracuse University, Dissertation
Award from the Academy of Marketing Science (AMS), Honorable
Mention in the Dissertation Award from AMA, and Best Paper
Awards at AMA and AMS Conferences.
Kenneth R. Evans is the president of Lamar University. He previ-
ously served as the Dean of the Michael F. Price College of Business
and Fred E. Brown Chair at the University of Oklahoma, Associate
Dean, Marketing Department chair and Pinkney C. Walker Professor
in the Trulaske College of Business at the University of Missouri and
as a faculty member at Arizona State University. He has published in
Journal of Marketing, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
International Journal of Research in Marketing, Journal of Business
Research, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management and
many others. His research interests are in sales, sales management, and
services marketing. He previously served as the editor of the Journal
of Personal Selling and Sales Management and was the past president
of the American Marketing Association.
Shaoming Zou is Robert J. Trulaske, Sr. Professor of Marketing at
University of Missouri, and a guest professor at Peking University and
Nankai University. He has published in major marketing and interna-
tional business journals and has won several major awards. In 2003
and 2012, he twice won the American Marketing Association (AMA)
Global Marketing SIG’s ‘‘Excellence in Global Marketing Award’’ for
having had the most significant influence on the direction of global
marketing research in previous 10 years. He is a consulting editor of
Journal of International Business Studies (JIBS) and the Series Editor
of Advances in International Marketing.