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

net/publication/330753343

Value get, value give: The relationships among perceived value, relationship
quality, customer engagement, and value consciousness

Article  in  International Journal of Hospitality Management · July 2019

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.01.014

CITATIONS READS

171 2,911

2 authors:

Omar S Itani Sandra Maria Correia Loureiro

University of Texas at Arlington ISCTE-Instituto Universitário de Lisboa
36 PUBLICATIONS   1,364 CITATIONS    351 PUBLICATIONS   6,356 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

CUSTOMER JOURNEY DESIGN: TOUCHPOINT AUTOMATION THROUGH ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI-SERVICES) View project

I am working on Exploring the Power of Electronic Word-of-Mouth in the Services Industry View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Omar S Itani on 27 February 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Hospitality Management xxx (2019) xxx-xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Hospitality Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com

F
OO
Value get, value give: The relationships among perceived value, relationship quality,
customer engagement, and value consciousness
Omar S. Itania⁠ ,⁠ ⁎⁠ , Abdul-Nasser Kassarb⁠ , Sandra Maria Correia Loureiroc⁠

PR
a
Hospitality Management and Marketing Department, Adnan Kassar School of Business, Lebanese American University, Beirut, Lebanon
b
Information Technology and Operations Management Department, Adnan Kassar School of Business, Lebanese American University, Beirut, Lebanon
c
Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL), Business Research Unit (BRU/UNIDE), Av. Forças Armadas, 1649-026, Lisbon, Portugal

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

D
Keywords: In today’s market, firms expect customers to not only consume their offerings, but also to market these offerings
Customer engagement indirectly through different engagement behaviors. This study is conducted to examine factors that may drive
Customer value customers to engage with restaurants. The research builds on the theory of engagement and relationship market-
Relationship quality
ing literature to propose that customer perceived value (CPV) and relationship quality (RQ) are antecedents of
TE
Value consciousness
CE. In addition, a mediated relationship between CPV and CE through RQ is examined to better understand the
Restaurant
Satisfaction effects of CPV on CE. Customer value consciousness (CVC) is incorporated into the model as a boundary condi-
Trust tion of the hypothesized positive impacts of CPV on CE and RQ. Findings demonstrate support to the relation-
Commitment ships hypothesized. Further, the study develops the ‘value get, value’ framework to extend research on customer
relationship and engagement. Findings are discussed in detail with implications for theory and practice.
EC

1. Introduction restaurants, specialized in Mexican food, releases animated videos, short

The power in today’s market is more and more shifting toward cus-
tomers. With the intense competition between firms, digital business
models, and ease of interaction between customers themselves, firms
RR
films (e.g., A Love Story, Talk of the Town), and games (e.g., The Scare-
crow, Spot the Imposter) to promote new items and encourage cus-
tomers to participate in its reward program. Chipotle, Denny’s, Starbucks,
Which Wich, and many other restaurants are trying to implement differ-

are devoting their resources to build an engaged customer base. In such
an engagement-based market, customers are not only consuming firms’
offerings, but also marketing them. Firms through CE can gain a sus-
tainable competitive advantage (Kumar and Pansari, 2016) and drive
value from customers to the firm (Kumar et al., 2010). CE can cre-
ate sustainable competitive advantage through less customer turnover,
CO
ent tactics to supercharge CE.
Marketers are operating in a new era where customer participation,
co-creation, and engagement are important to achieve marketing and
business success. Firms are required to develop “engagement orienta-
tion” to ensure all of its tactics and strategies focus on engaging its
customers along a value maximization approach for all stakeholders

highly involved customers, value creating customers, stronger loyal cus-
tomer base, and more sales. This is why CE has been a priority not only
for practitioners, but also for scholars (Ahn and Back, 2018; Bowden,
2009a; Hollebeek et al., 2016)1⁠ .
It is important to highlight the impending role of CE as a new
golden rule for driving firms’ marketing and sales performance, specif-
ically when it comes to firms operating within the hospitality sector,
UN
(Kumar and Pansari, 2016). Pizza Hut has recently launched its mobile
app with the help of a CRM-system in favor of successfully engaging its
customers. The platform allows customers to experience exceptional ser-
vice, engage in referral program, and participate in bands’ social media
actions. The outcomes evaluated have shown that Pizza Hut’s sales have
increased because of such strategy. Measuring CE allows firms to evade
overvaluation and undervaluation of customers (Kumar et al., 2010) and

including food and beverages, travel and tourism, and lodging. For ex- better evaluate their marketing efforts.
ample, Chipotle, the American chain of quick-service and fast-casual CE is pertinent to the hospitality sector (So et al., 2014; Wei et al.,
2013), particularly restaurants (e.g., Bowden, 2009a; Romero, 2017).2⁠
According to a recent study by Gallup (2107), fully engaged diners do

⁎ Corresponding author.
Email addresses: omar.itani@lau.edu.lb (O.S. Itani); abdulnasser.kassar@lau.edu.lb (A-N Kassar); sandramloureiro@netcabo.pt (S.M. Correia Loureiro)

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.01.014
Received 26 March 2018; Received in revised form 9 January 2019; Accepted 24 January 2019
Available online xxx
0278-4319/ © 2019.
O.S. Itani et al.
visit their restaurants more by 56% than disengaged customers.3⁠ The
study shows that highly engaged customers will visit their fast food
restaurant more frequently, with 28% more visits compared to disen-
gaged ones. Similarly, yearly average spending of engaged hotel guests
is higher by 46% compared to the spending of disengaged guests. The
study directs restaurants and hotels to develop their marketing strate-
gies to drive higher CE.
Despite the vital role CE is playing in the hospitality sector, specif-
ically restaurants, only little empirical research has been conducted in
related area (Romero, 2017). The need for more research to understand
the CE phenomenon is highlighted in the literature (Bowden, 2009a;
Chathoth et al., 2016; Romero, 2017). According to a recent study by
Marketo conducted in 2017, eighty two percent of marketers believe
that they totally understand how customers want to be engaged while
most customers think that marketers are trying to engage customers pri-
marily on the basis of the transactions taken place and not taking the
time to understand how to build relationships with customers and rec-
ognize well the appropriate engagement practices4⁠ . While marketing re-
quires firms to engage customers and manage profitable relationships
with them (Kotler and Armstrong, 2010), planning, implementing, and
measuring CE tactics could hold different challenges and problems to
firms (Kumar and Pansari, 2016). The lack of enough empirical studies
targeted at better understanding the strategies restaurants can utilize to
engage their customers is restricting restaurants from taking all advan-
D
tages of CE.
The main objective of this study is to empirically examine the role
CPV and RQ play in relation to CE in the restaurants sector while taking
into consideration the different value consciousness levels between cus-
TE
tomers. We conduct this study to understand some of the mechanisms
through which CPV can impact CE through the lens of relationship mar-
keting. This is important as value and relationships are essential to in-
crease the direct and indirect benefits to customers, who can bring back
things of value to restaurants. In our research, we take into consider-
ation the boundary condition role of CVC, which is suggested to mod-
EC
erate the effects of CPV on RQ and CE. This study helps better under-
stand the tactics restaurants can use to drive more CE. The model pro-
posed in this study is mainly based on the theory of engagement (Kumar
et al., 2010; Kumar and Pansari, 2016; Pansari and Kumar, 2017) and
relationship marketing literature (Crosby et al., 1990; Palmatier et al.,
2006). Further, we suggest on the basis of the norm of reciprocity that
RR
the value customers receive from a firm will drive them to create some
kind of value and benefits to the firm in return through engagement
behaviors. We refer to this customer-related concept (Fig. 1) as “value
get, value give”, which is facilitated by the value-laden exchange cus-
tomer-firm relationship (Kotler and Armstrong, 2010) and the sense of
relationship-based reciprocity (e.g., Bowden, 2009a).
CO
This study holds theoretical and practical contributions. First, multi-
ple researchers have called for more empirical studies that examine CE
phenomena, specifically in the hospitality sector (e.g., Bowden, 2009a;
Romero, 2017; So et al., 2014). We meet these calls by examining two
major antecedents of CE: CPV and RQ. Second, we test the mechanisms
through which these antecedents affect CE. Third, we incorporate value
consciousness of customers as a boundary condition to the hypothe-
sized effects of CPV on RQ and CE. Findings provide better understand-
UN
ing of the role CPV plays across different customers’ segments. In addi
1 In this study we use the terms ‘firm’, ‘brand’, and ‘restaurant’ interchangeably.
2 A summary of the main customer engagement studies conducted in the hospitality
(mainly) restaurants industry is provided in Appendix A.
3 http://news.gallup.com/businessjournal/172637/
why-customer-engagement-matters.aspx
4 https://www.marketo.com/analyst-and-other-reports/the-state-of-engagement/
2
International Journal of Hospitality Management xxx (2019) xxx-xxx
tion to the empirical findings provided, the study provides the ‘value
get, value give’ framework that merges between relationship marketing
and customer engagement. This framework contributes to the theory by
providing many opportunities to extended related research.
2. Theoretical background
F
2.1. Customer engagement
OO
Engaged customers account for growth in revenues, while disen-
gaged ones are found to decrease revenues according to a recent study
conducted by Gallup5⁠ . CE is an abstract concept and defined “as a
second-order construct consisting of four dimensions: customer pur-
chases, customer references, customer influence, and customer knowl-
edge/feedback” (Kumar and Pansari, 2016, p. 505). Kumar et al. (2010)
argue that firms will overvalue or undervalue their customers if CE is
PR
not accounted for. Through their current and future purchases, engaged
customers directly contribute to firms’ performance (Kumar, 2008;
Kumar and Pansari, 2016). Also, engaged customers can indirectly con-
tribute to the firms’ business success through the new customers they
refer, social influence they act upon, and knowledge and feedback they
share back with firms (Pansari and Kumar, 2017). Prior studies suggest
that CE holds favorable impacts on key business outcomes. Accordingly,
CE is said to boost the firm’s long-term reputation (Verhoef et al., 2010)
and help decrease customer attrition (Chathoth et al., 2016; Hollebeek,
2011), a problem restaurants face more frequently (Kim et al., 2005;
Pizam and Ellis, 1999). Restaurants, cafes, and hotels need to boost CE
(Romero, 2017) for the benefits it holds for firms operating within the
hospitality sector (So et al., 2014).
CE results from motivational drivers and is manifested in the behav-
iors customers take toward a firm (Van Doorn et al., 2010). Engagement
behaviors include customer retention, renewals, and repeat purchases
as suggested by 63% of the marketers surveyed by Marketo.6⁠ The the-
ory of engagement provides a multidimensional conceptualization of CE
to capture the complexity associated with such construct (Kumar and
Pansari, 2016). This conceptualization includes: “customer purchases,
customer referrals, customer social influence, and customer knowledge
sharing”, in line with previous theorizing that approves the multidimen-
sional conceptualization of CE construct (e.g., Bowden, 2009a; Brodie
et al., 2011; So et al., 2014). CE includes customers’ non-transactional
(relational) and transactional interactions with a firm, other customers,
and/or prospects (Pansari and Kumar, 2017). Engaged customers inter-
act with firms with the possibility of creating value directed back to
the firms. Customer purchases — repeat purchases, renewals, up-selling,
and cross-selling — are the kind of transactional interactions that hold
a direct effect on business sales and profits (Kumar and Pansari, 2016).
Whether through their purchases or other indirect activities, engaged
customers are essential for future performance and growth of firms.
Customers engage with a given firm through non-transactional or re-
lational interactions — customer referrals, social influence, and knowl-
edge sharing — that can indirectly improve the marketing and sales out-
comes of a firm as it is the case for customer referrals. Firms are progres-
sively employing customer referral programs as a valuable customer ac-
quisition tactic (Jin and Huang, 2014). Referral programs lead to more
satisfied customer base because of some benefits targeted toward cur-
rent customers participating in such programs.
5 http://news.gallup.com/businessjournal/172637/
why-customer-engagement-matters.aspx
6 https://blog.marketo.com/2015/02/
its-all-about-engagement-in-the-next-era-of-marketing.html
O.S. Itani et al.
Fig. 1. "Value get, value give" (VGVG) framework.
Customers are at first social creatures that have intentions to make
social influence and change. The social influence takes place mainly in
the networks and communities the customer belongs to. Customer social
influence is related to CE and can indirectly contribute to the market-
ing and sales outcomes of the firm. According to the theory of engage-
D
ment, social influence is a non-transactional form of CE (Pansari and
Kumar, 2017). This form of CE is related to influence-marketing strategy
that focuses mainly on persuasion and compliance in a social environ-
TE
ment. Customers differ on how they share their experience, information,
and know-how about the firm’s offerings to influence others’ behaviors
through online and offline channels — recommendations, use of social
media, blogs, ratings, and reviews — in favor of advocating the firm’s
offerings (Kumar et al., 2010; Pansari and Kumar, 2017). Customers en-
gage with the firm through the social influence they exert on new and
EC
existing customers’ attitudes and behaviors in favor of increasing firm’s
sales and share-of-wallet (Kumar et al., 2010). For example, Social influ-
ence can highly affect customers’ decision to try a new restaurant and
revisit it in future (Tussyadiah et al., 2018). The influence customers
have on others’ attitudes and behaviors toward a given firm is amplified
with the advancement of Web 2.0 and the social networks that allow
RR
easier, faster, and better tools to communicate, seek knowledge, and in-
spire others.
In today’s competitive market, firms depend on customers’ feedback
and suggestions to gain relevant insights, improve customer overall ex-
perience, enhance existing offerings, and develop new ones. Whether
online or offline, data and information sharing is considered a main di-
mension of CE. The advancement of information and digital technol-
CO
ogy — customer relationship management technology, online and of-
fline communities — is making information and feedback sharing ac-
tivities much easier. Despite that, firms are still struggling in this area
because not all customers do provide feedback, suggestions, and knowl-
edge with the firms. This is why marketers are increasingly interested in
knowing how to make customers share their experiences with the firms.
UN
The consumption of the different firm’s offerings allows customers to
gain expertise and the know-how about these offerings, which in turn
results in making them a great source of knowledge and ideas to the
firm. Customer feedback shared with the firm is considered a valuable
intangible asset or resource that can be used to gain sustainable com-
petitive advantage through transforming the feedback and information
exchanged to knowledge (Vargo and Lusch, 2008). The more knowl-
edge customers share with firms, the more they are said to be engaged.
When customers share information — experience feedback, improve-
ment suggestions, and complaints — with the firm, they will be help-
ing the firm understands their specific needs, which in turn will al
3
International Journal of Hospitality Management xxx (2019) xxx-xxx
F
OO
PR
low the firm to adapt and customize its offerings to fulfill customers’
specific needs. This practice is important to retain customers.
Based on the theory of engagement and relationship marketing liter-
ature, we develop the “value get, value give” framework (Fig. 1). From
a customer perspective, the framework suggests that a customer will
give back certain benefits of value to the firm through his/her firm-re-
lated engagement behaviors (e.g., referrals and knowledge sharing).
This happens after customers receive offerings of value from the firm.
The process applied within the framework is consistent with the social
norm of reciprocity and other social exchange mechanisms between cus-
tomers and firms. Moreover, the process is partially facilitated through
developing and nurturing customer-firm relationship. The framework
includes factors such as the offering type and micro/macro variables
that are suggested to moderate the value get-value give process. Some of
the moderators may have direct effects on some of the variables within
the process. The theory of engagement proposes that customers-firm re-
lationship built on the bases of satisfaction, trust, and commitment is
able to drive customers to engage more with the firm, causing an en-
gaged customer-firm partnership in which customers interact more fre-
quently with the firm and speak for the firm (Pansari and Kumar, 2017).
Prior theorizing in the area of CE suggests that pre-established levels of
relational mediators such as satisfaction, commitment, and trust — RQ
— with a firm, can act as antecedents of CE (Bowden, 2009a, 2009b;
Brodie et al., 2011; Van Doorn et al., 2010).
2.2. Customer perceived value
Relationship marketing literature is centralized around the concept
of customer value, placing it at the center and as one of the main
approaches when serving customers (e.g., Christopher et al.,
2013; (Sunny) Hu et al., 2009). Firms do realize well that their cus-
tomers are highly empowered and will only buy offerings with supe-
rior value capable of providing high satisfying experience (Flint et al.,
2011). CPV is defined as “consumer’s overall assessment of the utility
of a product based on the perceptions of what is received and what is
given” (Zeithaml, 1988, p. 14). The value is assessed based on the per-
ception of individual customer. The same offering might be perceived to
hold different value levels among customers. Slater and Narver (2000)
explain that value is maximized when the benefits from the firm’s offer-
ings are more than the related costs (e.g., price, search, time, and psy-
chic cost). Firms should deliver more value to customers by providing
them more benefits and fewer expenses. Failing to do so will lead firms
to lose the probability of gaining a competitive advantage while making
customers search for new alternatives.
O.S. Itani et al.
Though CPV influences the decision making in the pre-purchase
stage of the buying journey, it also influences satisfaction and be-
havioral intentions of customers (e.g., referral, customer-to-customer
interactions, and repurchase behavior) at the post-purchase stage
(Parasuraman and Grewal, 2000). In line with that, Bowden (2009a)
suggest that CE is highly affected by the value customers perceive from
restaurants’ offerings. Bowden has provided anecdotal evidence — (e.g.,
“value for money” and “That’s not value”) — that highlights the key
role CPV plays in driving customers to engage with restaurants (p. 583).
2.3. Relationship quality
RQ involves the evaluation of various facets of customer-firm re-
lationship (Jap et al., 1999) in order to assess the overall strength of
the relationship (e.g., Grégoire et al., 2009; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2002;
Smith, 1998). Despite the different approaches to study RQ, Johnson
(1999) reports that the RQ concept could not be defined by one sin-
gle dimension. RQ construct is important in relationship marketing lit-
erature since no individual relational mediator is capable of capturing
the full essence of the relationship between the firm and its customers
(Palmatier et al., 2006). For that, customer-firm relationship is concep-
tualized as a higher-order construct that comprises satisfaction, trust,
and commitment (Crosby et al., 1990; Ha and (Shawn) Jang, 2009; Itani
and Inyang, 2015). These three factors are of the most used dimensions
D
to represent the strength of customer-firm relationship (e.g., Crosby et
al., 1990; Dwyer and Oh, 1987; Morgan and Hunt, 1994).
The notion of relationship marketing is based on the assumption
that developing and sustaining quality relationships with customers
TE
will result in positive firm-related outcomes such as customer coop-
eration, word-of-mouth (WOM), and sales performance (Palmatier et
al., 2006). CE research stresses on the importance of the relation-
ships between the customers and the firms in the engagement process
(Bowden, 2009a; Hollebeek, 2011). According to the theory of engage-
ment, relational mediators — trust, commitment, and satisfaction —
EC
are suggested to drive higher CE levels (e.g., Bowden, 2009a; Kumar
and Pansari, 2016). In this vein, RQ can drive customers to engage
with the firm. Satisfaction is defined as “pleasurable level of consump-
tion-related fulfillment” (Oliver, 1997, p. 13), while trust is customer’s
“willingness to rely on an exchange partner in whom one has con-
fidence” (Moorman et al., 1993, p. 82). Commitment is said to take
RR
place when “an exchange partner believing that an ongoing relation
CO
UN
Fig. 2. Conceptual model.H4: Mediated Relationship (Customer Perceived Value → Relationship Quality → Customer Engagement).
4
International Journal of Hospitality Management xxx (2019) xxx-xxx
ship with another is so important as to warrant maximum efforts at
maintaining it” (Morgan and Hunt, 1994, p. 23).Customers are less
likely to exert efforts and engage in activities in favor of giving firms if
they have no quality relationships with. Pansari and Kumar (2017) “ar-
gue that customers become engaged with the firm when a relationship
based on trust and commitment is satisfying and has emotional bond-
F
ing.” Despite the effects RQ may have on CE, Hollebeek (2011) exten-
sive literature review didn’t find relevant studies that examine the pos-
sible association between both constructs.
OO
2.4. Customer value consciousness
CVC is defined as customer’s “concern for paying low prices, subject
to some quality constraint” (Lichtenstein et al., 1990, p. 56). A customer
may not necessarily buy the product/service with the maximum ratio
PR
of quality to price because it might not be of the best value to him/her
(Lichtenstein et al., 1990). Certain benefits and quality levels are be-
yond the desires of some customers (Zeithaml, 1988). Value-conscious
customers sometime expect unique benefits from a product/service (Bao
and Mandrik, 2004). As a concept, value consciousness is related to ac-
quisition utility because it addresses the intrinsic need-satisfying bene-
fits of the product/service (Lichtenstein et al., 1990). A value-conscious
customer is inspired to look for more information, ponder, think deeply,
and take precise decisions (Pillai and Kumar, 2012).
Value consciousness affects customers’ mode of information process-
ing and the way they make their decisions (Delgado-Ballester et al.,
2014). Value consciousness was found to positively affect customer in-
volvement and price/product knowledge (Lichtenstein et al., 1990). Be-
cause of their high involvement, value-conscious customers exert more
efforts when making judgments, thus favoring systematic processing
over heuristic processing (Chen and Chaiken, 1999; Pillai and Kumar,
2012). They check multiple options and assure a maximized value of
their purchases by critically differentiating between the options. More-
over, value-conscious customers are more self-assured in their persuad-
ing knowledge of pricing strategies and calibration of such knowledge
(Pillai and Kumar, 2012). These customers are enthused to enhance
their acquisition and transaction value compared to low value-conscious
customers (Dutta and Biswas, 2005). Despite the importance of CVC, it
is still an overlooked construct in the hospitality literature. The concep-
tual model proposed and tested in this study is provided in Fig. 2
O.S. Itani et al.
3. Hypothetical development
3.1. Customer perceived value, relationship quality, and customer
engagement
Firms are required to create and deliver offerings of value to cus-
tomers by adding benefits and reducing costs associated with their prod-
ucts and services. According to Patterson and Spreng (1997), CPV links
the cognitive element of the perceived benefits versus sacrifices and
customer’s behavioral intentions. When it comes to customer purchas-
ing behavior, perceived value is not only influential at the pre-purchase
stage, but also at the post-purchase stage in which satisfaction, refer-
ral, and repurchase take place (Parasuraman and Grewal, 2000). When
it comes to services, customers perceive a certain level of value from a
service based on their overall service experience (Kumar and Pansari,
2016; Meyer and Schwager, 2007). The more positive the overall ex-
perience is, the more customers are to engage in behaviors to mar-
ket the service brand, thus, outlaying more resources and interactions
with a firm (Maslowska et al., 2016) in favor of sharing personal expe-
riences with others (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004). Using meta-analytic
techniques, Vieira (2013) has found positive relationships between CPV
and satisfaction, commitment, positive WOM, and other behavioral in-
tentions. The power of CPV also lies in its ability to prevent customer
switching behaviors (Chiu et al., 2014).
D
The theory of engagement suggests that a “customer would be en-
gaged with the firm if he/she gets a lower price and derives maximum
benefit, even if the firm is not realizing its potential profit” (Pansari
and Kumar, 2017, p. 298). Customers engage with a firm when they
TE
derive certain level of value associated with the firm’s offerings. Liu
and Jang (2009) found that customers’ perceptions of “the value for
the money” of Chinese restaurants operating in the United States posi-
tively relate to customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions such as
repeat patronage, recommendation, and favorable WOM. In line with
EC
Bowden (2009a) qualitative evidence, Brodie et al. (2011) suggest that
CPV could drive CE. In another study, Brodie et al. (2013) explain that
customers are motivated to engage with service providers who deliver
services with more value. The authors suggest that customers do engage
with the service providers because of psychological reasons or as a way
to look for future value.
With respect to the food and beverage sector, prior research has
RR
found that CPV, created by adding benefits and providing better experi-
ence to customers, can build stronger customer-restaurant relationship
(e.g., Hyun, 2010; Wu and Liang, 2009). According to social identity
theory, the benefits customers collect from brands such as better per-
ceived value can drive customers to engage more with brand through
identification (e.g., Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003; Tajfel, 1974). Other
CO
studies have found customers to be more satisfied and engaged in differ-
ent behavioral intentions (e.g., repurchase, recommending the restau-
rant to others, and frequently visiting the restaurant) when they expe-
rience higher value with the restaurant’s offerings (Hyun, 2010; Ryu
et al., 2012). Customers are expected to buy more, spread positive in-
formation about the service provider, and share their feedback and ref-
erences with the firm when experiencing more benefits from the ex-
UN
change (Kumar and Pansari, 2016). This is in line with the wide no-
tion that value affects behavioral intentions of customers (Cronin et
al., 2000). The same notion is also evident in the restaurant context
(e.g.,Ha and (Shawn) Jang, 2010; Ryu et al., 2008). Customers are
more likely to increase their purchases, refer others they know to try
or purchase firms’ products, and share positive info about the firms’ of-
ferings if these offerings are of certain value to them. Customers will
think about their image and trustworthiness within their networks or
between friends before recommending or talking positively about a
restaurant of low customer value offerings. The arguments presented in
5
International Journal of Hospitality Management xxx (2019) xxx-xxx
this section highlight the positive effects CPV may have on CE and RQ.
As a result, we propose:
H1. CPV has a positive effect on CE
H2. CPV has a positive effect on RQ
Trust, satisfaction, and commitment constitute the three major pil-
F
lars of customer-firm RQ (Dorsch et al., 1998). The theory of engage-
ment suggests that “when a firm achieves trust, commitment, and a sat-
isfied and emotional relationship with the customer, we can say that the
OO
firm and the customer are engaged with each other” in an betrothed re-
lationship (Pansari and Kumar, 2017, pp. 298–299). Engagement is con-
sidered as one of the facets of how a customer-firm relationship evolves.
According to Pansari and Kumar (2017), the customer engages with a
firm after a relationship is formed. The role of RQ in prompting CE in
highlighted by different researchers (e.g., Bowden, 2009a; Hollebeek,
2011). This is in agreement with Chathoth et al. (2016) who suggest
PR
that CE evolves from quality relationships between the customer and
the firm. Hence, developing and nurturing relationships with customers
help firms in their CE management.
Pre-established relationships based on satisfaction, commitment, and
trust act as antecedent to CE (Hollebeek, 2011; Van Doorn et al., 2010).
Similarly, Bowden (2009a) argues that different relational mediators
— satisfaction, trust, and commitment — operate to engage customers
with restaurants. Xie and Heung (2012) have found positive effects of
RQ on customers’ future behavioral intentions — WOM and repurchase
intentions — in the hotel industry. Customers who assess their rela-
tionships with a firm as positive and strong tend to contribute to the
firm’s marketing and sales efforts through different engagement behav-
iors targeted toward the firm (Romero, 2017). While relational media-
tors are important to drive CE, it is hard to accept that in the absence of
strong-bonds between the customer and the firm CE will not take place.
This why, we propose that RQ will partially mediate the positive effect
of CPV on CE. Further, Kim and Han (2008) show that CPV is positively
related to two relational mediators, namely, customer satisfaction and
trust. Both factors were found to partially mediate the impact of per-
ceived value on customers’ intention to dine again in the restaurant and
recommend/share positive things about the restaurant. In this study,
we argue that besides CPV, strong customer-restaurant relationship can
drive CE. Further, we suggest that part of the positive effect of CPV on
CE takes place through building stronger relationships with customers.
For that, we hypothesize the following:
H3. RQ has a positive effect on CE
H4. RQ partially mediates the positive effect of CPV on CE
3.2. Moderating role of customer value consciousness
Customer’s purchase decision is, in most of the time, driven by the
promised value a product/service holds. Pre and post stages of the pur-
chasing decision are affected by how much value-conscious a customer
is about the benefits and costs of a product or service. Lichtenstein et
al. (1990) suggest that a given customer may have high or low degrees
of value consciousness. Moreover, they claim that value-conscious cus-
tomers are more “value prone” (Lichtenstein et al., 1990). Value con-
sciousness affect customers’ mode of information processing and can de-
termine the way customers make their decisions (Delgado-Ballester et
al., 2014). As a psychological characteristic, value consciousness can be
used to segment customers.
Value consciousness, as a customer-related characteristic, plays the
role of a moderating variable in many studies (e.g., Delgado-Ballester
et al., 2014; Pillai and Kumar, 2012). For example, CVC is found to
negatively impact the positive relation between loyalty intentions and
buyback behaviors (Zheng et al., 2017). Other studies show CVC to
moderate the relation between low price-guarantee and customer post-
O.S. Itani et al. International Journal of Hospitality Management xxx (2019) xxx-xxx

purchase search intentions, such that the relationship is stronger with
the rise in CVC (Dutta and Biswas, 2005).
CVC can clarify some of the differences in the possible impacts of
perceived value on RQ and CE. Value-conscious customers are more
knowledgeable about the price, quality, and other benefits of the prod-
uct/service (Delgado-Ballester et al., 2014). The knowledge value-con-
part of the statements/questions unanswered. Participants’ characteris-
tics are summarized in (Table 1).
4.2. Measures
A structured questionnaire with scales adapted from prior articles

F
scious customers acquire is not only related to the product/service they was utilized to gather the data. We adapted the scale developed by
buy, but also to other competing products/services. Value-conscious Kumar and Pansari (2016) to measure CE. In this scale, CE is concep-
customers are in an ongoing learning manner of discovering the best of- tualized as a second-order factor consisting of four different but re-

ferings of value to them in the market. Value-conscious customers are
motivated to enhance the value derived from a product/service (Dutta
and Biswas, 2005). They form a segment of customers that is highly
interested in value-based marketing. The more knowledgeable and in-
volved a customer is, the weaker the effect of CPV is in driving cus-
tomer’s positive attitudes and behaviors toward a firm, such as RQ and
engagement. For that, they are less likely to be influenced by a given
level of value perceived when compared to low value-conscious cus-
OO
lated dimensions — “customer purchases, referrals, social influence, and
sharing knowledge”. Similarly, RQ is conceptualized as a second-or-
der factor with three dimensions: satisfaction, trust, and commitment
(Hennig-Thurau et al., 2002; Morgan and Hunt, 1994). To measure CVC,
we adopted the measure developed by Lichtenstein et al. (1990). Appen-
dix B provides detailed information about the measures.
In terms of control variables, prior studies have shown that restau-

tomers. We expect that the increase in CVC will alter the effects of CPV
on RQ and CE at the post-purchase stage. Thus, we hypothesize:
H5a. The positive effect of CPV on CE is weakened at higher levels of
CVC
H5b. The positive effect of CPV on RQ is weakened at higher levels of
CVC
PR
rant quality can affect RQ and CE related factors (e.g., Hyun, 2010).
Hence, we included a measure of restaurant quality (Hess et al., 2003).
In our analysis we controlled for the effects of quality, customer-restau-
rant relationship duration, income level, and age on all endogenous fac-
tors in the model (e.g., Pansari and Kumar, 2017; Romero, 2017). We
used a 7-point agreement scale for all items.
4.3. Measurement model

4. Method

4.1. Sample
D A two-step approach was applied to test the model hypothesized in
TE
For this study, an online survey was utilized to collect information
using convenience sampling method from dinners who had experience
with different restaurant-brands across the United States. According to
the National Restaurant Association (2017), the restaurant industry is
one of the biggest in the U.S. with projected sales of $ 798.7 billion in
EC
Fig. 2. At first, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to
evaluate the properties of the latent variables. After that, we ran mul-
tiple structural models to examine the relationships hypothesized (H1⁠ ,
H2⁠ , H3⁠ , H4⁠ , and H5⁠ a, & b). In the original measurement model tested, fit
indices were not in the acceptable ranges due to few low loading items
[χ² = 1949.22, df = 383; CFI = .84; IFI = .85; RMSEA = .10]. The three
items loaded poorly (< .6) on the measure each one represents. Af-
ter removing these items, we retested the model. The fit indices in the

2017 employing around 10% of the U.S. workforce.7⁠ On the other side,
competition between restaurants is skyrocketing with the fast growth in
the industry leading to more pressure for survival (Han et al., 2016),
which in turn is forcing restaurants to look for new strategies to remain
competitive.
Before collecting the data, the survey was first examined by two mar-
RR
modified model reveal an acceptable measurement model [χ² = 777.02,
df = 224; CFI = .94; IFI = .92; RMSEA = .07] (Hu and Bentler, 1999).
We then moved to check for the reliability and validity of the measures.
As shown in Appendix B, reliability was assured with all Cronbach al-
phas and composite reliabilities being greater than .7 level.
The average variance extracted (AVE) of the different measures uti-

keting researchers expert in survey research and two experienced practi- lized was above the recommended .5 level. To test for discriminant va-
tioners working in the restaurant industry. After receiving the feedback, lidity, we compared the square root of the AVE of a given latent con
we added slight changes to improve the wording of some items. Before
the final launching of the questionnaire, a pretest was conducted with Table 1
Sample Characteristics.
twenty-two respondents to check the clarity of the questionnaire. Pretest
respondents were not included in the final sample. Variable Category Frequency Percentage (%)
Participants were directed to answer the questions/statements fo-
CO

cusing on a restaurant of their selection. The questionnaire included Age < 20 4 1.0
(Years) 20-30 125 31.5
measures of CPV, RQ (satisfaction, trust, and commitment), CE (cus-
30-40 138 34.8
tomer purchases, referrals, social influence, and knowledge sharing), 40-50 62 15.6
and CVC. The questionnaire also included measures of restaurant qual- > 50 68 17.1
ity, customer-restaurant relationship duration, and other demographic Education High school graduate 40 10.1
variables. Once they accept the invitation to participate, participants Some college but no degree 78 19.6
College degree 217 54.7
were asked to fill the questionnaire after thinking and naming a restau-
UN

Graduate Degree 54 13.6

rant they have visited in the last six months. This method can maxi- Other 8 2
mize the variation between responses (Line et al., 2018). The final sam- Income < 25000 62 15.6
ple utilized for data analysis consisted of 397 customers after removing ($/Year) 25001 – 50000 99 25
8 responses due to incomplete responses. The responses removed show 50001 – 75000 112 28.2
75001 – 100000 54 13.6
that participants dropped out before completing the survey leaving big
> 100001 70 17.6
Martial Married 210 52.9
Status Never Married 139 35
Other 48 12.1
7 https://www.restaurant.org/News-Research/Research/soi Gender Male 179 45.1
Female 218 54.9

6
O.S. Itani et al.
struct with all the correlations the construct has with the remaining la-
tent constructs. In all the comparisons done, the square root of the AVE
was greater than the correlations compared with (Fornell and Larcker,
1981). No cross-loading was found, providing evidence of convergent
reliability (Gefen and Straub, 2005). To check for common method vari-
ance bias, we utilized procedural and statistical remedies. In addition to
the procedural remedies (e.g., measures separation, the use of existing
scales), Harman’s single factor method was conducted — single factor
measurement model (CFA). The single factor measurement model re-
sulted in a bad fit and accounted for far less than 50% variance among
the variables in the model. Table 2 shows the correlations, square root
of AVE, and other descriptive statistics of the latent constructs.
5. Results
To examine the hypothesized relationships, multiple models were
analyzed using AMOS 22. The three main models used to test the hy-
potheses are provided in the Table 3. The first two models (direct effects
model and mediated effects model) were used to examine hypotheses
(H1⁠ , H2⁠ , H3⁠ , & H4⁠ ). A third model is the moderated model or hypoth-
esized model that was tested to examine all the hypotheses including
the moderating effects of value consciousness (H5⁠ a & H5⁠ b) are included.
The direct-effects model and mediated-effects model provide support to
the positive effects (H1⁠ & H2⁠ ) of CPV on CE (β = .58, p < .01) and RQ
D
(β = .62, p < .01). Further, the mediated-effects model tested provides
support to the positive effect of RQ on CE (β = .52, p < .01) (H3⁠ ). The
comparison between the results of the direct-effects model and that of
the mediated-effects model shows that the standardized coefficient of
TE
the effect of CPV on CE has dropped in size (βd⁠ irect-effects model = .58 vs.
βm⁠ ediated-effects model = .24; ΔB
⁠ is significant at p < .01). Despite the drop
in size, the standardized coefficient of CPV effect on CE is still signifi-
cantly positive (β = .24, p < .05), suggesting a partially mediated rela-
tionship between CPV and CE through RQ. For further analysis of H4⁠ ,
we retested the mediated relationship using bias-corrected bootstrap-
EC
ping technique8⁠ . The results from the bootstrapping technique provide
support to the partially mediated relationship. Further, the Sobel Test
statistic was used examine the significance of the partially mediated re-
lationship. The test was significant at p < .05, suggesting that RQ sig-
nificantly carries the effect of CPV on CE.
The moderated structural model tested shows acceptable levels of fit
RR
[χ² = 723.23, df = 187; CFI = .93; IFI = .92; RMSEA = .07]. The results
of this model support, one more time, the effects of CPV on CE (β = .31,
p < .01) (H1⁠ ), and on RQ (β = .58, p < .01) (H2⁠ ). As hypothesized, CE
and RQ are positively affected by CPV. Also, the positive effect of RQ
on CE (H3⁠ ) was again supported (β = .39, p < .01). As expected, the in-
crease in customer-restaurant RQ leads to increase in CE. Similar analy-
CO
ses to the ones conducted earlier were conducted to check (H4⁠ ). The re-
sults provided additional support in favor of H4⁠ . RQ partially mediates
the positive relationship between CPV and CE. In other words, while
CPV can directly increase CE with the restaurant, it also, indirectly, does
so by building stronger customer relationship.
The testing of the third model allowed us to examine the moderat-
ing role of CVC on the effects CPV has on CE (H5⁠ a) and RQ (H5⁠ b). Af-
UN
ter including the value consciousness construct to the model, we calcu-
lated an interaction term of the standardized factors of CPV and CVC.
The standardized coefficients of the estimated interaction term were
significant. This suggests that the effects of CPV on CE and on RQ do
vary significantly across the levels of CVC. This provides support in fa-
vor of H5⁠ a and H5⁠ b as results demonstrate CVC negatively moderates
8 We thank one of the anonymous reviewers for this suggestion.
7
International Journal of Hospitality Management xxx (2019) xxx-xxx
the effect of CPV on CE (β = -.08, p < .05), and the effect of CPV on
RQ (β = -.10, p < .05). The slopes of the relationships between CPV
and CE, and CPV and RQ are weaker at higher levels of CVC. For further
examination, the moderating effects of CVC are graphically represented
(Fig. 3a⁠ ,b) following the methods recommended by Aiken et al. (1991).
F
6. Discussion
In the current study, findings reassure that customer’s main inter-
OO
est is to receive offerings of higher perceived value. In turn, these cus-
tomers are likely to build stronger relationships with restaurants dri-
ving them to act in way that drives value to restaurants through their
engagement behaviors. With this study, additional support is provided
regarding the importance of firms applying value-based strategies re-
volved around customer value and relationships. Using the restaurant
industry as a context, we found perceived value to highly contribute
to the firms’ CE management. Firms providing offerings of high value
PR
can motivate customers to engage more in social influence (e.g., dis-
cussing benefits with others), knowledge sharing (e.g., providing feed-
back/suggestions for performance improvement), and referrals behavior
(e.g., promoting/referring the restaurant to friends), and increase they
purchases. As a tactic, engaging customers leads to favorable marketing
and business outcomes. As reported before, engaged customers are more
likely to visit their restaurants leading to higher spending. The boundary
condition examined in this study is characterized by the level of value
consciousness a customer has. Value consciousness is found to weaken
the positive effects of CPV on RQ and CE. Thus, CVC acts as a boundary
condition to some of the marketing strategies restaurants implement to
engage customers and build relationships with them. These results are
in line with the value-based marketing.
In general, the segment of customers that looks for more benefits
compared to costs or the ‘value-conscious segment’ is big relatively
to other segments. Serving this segment may come with certain risks
as this segment is more likely to demand extra amount of resources
from restaurants. This study opens the debate of whether serving high
value-conscious customers is applicable and feasible for all firms. This is
important as some restaurants might find that the investment required
to serve high value-conscious customers is much more than the return.
In addition to the study’s empirical findings, a customer-related
framework based on the theory of engagement and relationship market-
ing is developed and referred to as “value get, value give” framework,
which is in line with the general definition of marketing “as the process
by which companies create value for customers and build strong cus-
tomer relationships in order to capture value from customers in return”
(Kotler and Armstrong, 2010, p. 29). In the framework, a mutual process
of dual-value exchange between customers and firms is provided. The
process is affected by different moderating factors as proposed. Future
studies are encouraged to apply this framework when studying relation-
ship marketing and/or CE.
7. Theoretical contribution
Our study holds significant contribution to the hospitality and mar-
keting literature by examining the process through which restaurants
can motivate customers to engage with their brands resulting in cus-
tomers acting as marketers of these brands. While CE is critical for busi-
ness success, it is still an overlooked concept when it comes to CE with
restaurants. Testing the effects of CPV on CE through RQ while tak-
ing into consideration the moderating role of CVC contributes to the
growing research on the drivers of CE and their moderators. Moreover,
the mediation role of RQ within the positive relationship between CPV
and CE contributes to relationship marketing theory in the hospitality
literature and provides additional evidence in support of the need for
O.S. Itani et al. International Journal of Hospitality Management xxx (2019) xxx-xxx

Table 2
Correlation Matrix and Descriptive Statistics.

CPV RQ CE CVC QU IN RD AG

Customer Perceived Value (CPV) .81

Relationship Quality (RQ) .63*⁠ * .83
Customer Engagement (CE) .50*⁠ * .58*⁠ * .72

F
Customer Value Consciousness (CVC) −.37*⁠ * .51*⁠ * .29*⁠ * .77
Quality (QU) .62*⁠ * .55*⁠ * .46*⁠ * .51*⁠ * .83
Income $ (IN) −.06 −.03 .05 −.03 −.13*⁠ –

OO
Relationship Duration (RD) .02 .05 .01 .10*⁠ .08 −.03 –
Age (AG) .06 .11*⁠ −.16*⁠ * .16*⁠ * .12*⁠ −.05 .18*⁠ * –
Mean 5.84 6.05 5.07 5.84 6.21 64277 9.16 37.98
Standard Deviation .89 .81 .96 .87 .82 41093 6.96 12.25

Significance level: *p < .05; **p < .01; Diagonal elements are square roots of factors’ average variance extracted.

Table 3
Results.

PR
Direct Effects Mediated
Relationships Model Effects Model Hypothesized Model Hypothesis Support

Customer Perceived Value → Customer Engagement .58*⁠ * .24*⁠ .31*⁠ * H1⁠ ✓

Customer Perceived Value → Relationship Quality .62*⁠ * .58*⁠ * .58*⁠ * H2⁠ ✓
Relationship Quality → Customer Engagement – .52*⁠ * .39*⁠ * H3⁠ ✓
Customer Value Consciousness x Customer Perceived Value → Customer Engagement – – −.08*⁠ H5⁠ a ✓
Customer Value Consciousness → Customer Engagement – – .07

D
Customer Value Consciousness x Customer Perceived Value → Relationship Quality – – −.10*⁠ * H5⁠ b ✓
Customer Value Consciousness → Relationship Quality – – .09*⁠
Controlled Links
Quality → Relationship Quality .36*⁠ * .39*⁠ * .29*⁠ *
TE
Quality → Customer Engagement .49*⁠ * .32*⁠ * .29*⁠ *
Relationship Duration → Customer Engagement .01 .01 .02
Relationship Duration → Relationship Quality −.01 −.01 −.01
Income → Customer Engagement .11*⁠ .09*⁠ .09*⁠
Income → Relationship Quality .05 .05 .04
Age → Customer Engagement −.01 −.04 −.04
Age → Relationship Quality .06 .06 .04
EC

Significance level: *p < .05; **p < .01; H4⁠ was supported with relationship quality partially mediating the relationship between customer perceived value and customer engagement.

hospitality firms to invest more in nurturing relationships with cus-
tomers.
The study shows that value consciousness levels vary between din-
ers, which, in turn, affect the direct relationships found. Specifically,
RR
Marketo (2017)9⁠ . A restaurant strategy focused on creating more value
to and building quality relationships with customers is effective in dri-
ving CE. Moreover, managing customers’ relationships should be con-
sidered as a long-term perspective because trust and commitment need

findings demonstrate that the positive effects of CPV on CE and RQ are
weakened with the increase in the levels of CVC. Researchers should
take into consideration the interrelated role of CVC when studying the
effects of CPV. Research on how to drive customers to take part in the
service process through co-production and co-participation strategies
may help overcome the negative effects of value consciousness.
CO
time to be attained. Managers should make sure to create value-centered
strategies when planning their menu items, service quality, and man-
aging relationships with customers because the segment of value-con-
scious customers is relatively big compared to other segments. Restau-
rants should carefully evaluate high value-conscious customers. At the
same time, it is recommended to carefully assess the return on serving

With this study, we add to the knowledge on CE available in the
hospitality and marketing literature. Two main antecedents of CE were
identified. Further, we found value-consciousness to act as a boundary
condition to the effects of CPV. With this study, we hope we provide an-
swers to multiple research calls by several scholars regarding the need
for more empirical studies that examine CE in the hospitality industry,
specifically restaurants (e.g., Bowden, 2009a; Romero, 2017; So et al.,
UN
high value-conscious customers because they are more likely to demand
additional resources from restaurants.
Restaurants can segment their customers on behavioral bases re-
lated directly to the level of CE. Restaurants are encouraged to dif-
ferentiate between their marketing strategies (e.g., segmentation, tar-
geting, differentiation, and positioning) based on how much customers
are engaged. Firms sometimes do fail to take CE into consideration,

2014). Moreover, while Sweeney et al. (2016) have called for research
to find some of the service attributes that relate to CE, we think our
study provides one answer to their call. Our results suggest CPV as a
major service attribute that can increase CE.
8. Managerial implications
While marketers understand the importance of CE, the discrepan-
cies between customers’ perceptions and expectations and those of mar-
keters still exist as customers think that marketers are not actively
listening to them and not being open and transparent according to
which can result in overvaluing or undervaluing customers (Kumar et
al., 2010). Managers are required to implement different strategies to
engage their customers by investing in building stronger relations and
bonds with their customers through providing additional benefits com-
pared to expenses. Benefits to customers can be created by motivat-
ing them to co-create the service with restaurants. At the same time,
restaurants should work with customers to minimize the costs linked to
their offerings. For example, restaurants can facilitate the ordering pro-
cedures (e.g., online ordering) and speed up the food preparation and
delivery. Restaurants will lose a possible competitive advantage when
9 https://www.marketo.com/analyst-and-other-reports/the-state-of-engagement/

8
O.S. Itani et al.
D
TE
Fig. 3. Moderating effect of customer value consciousness on.(a) Customer value
perceived – Customer engagement relationship.(b) Customer value perceived –
Relationship quality relationship.VP = value perceived, VC = value consciousness.
EC
failing to deliver enough value to customers. The value experienced by
customers should be more than that of competitors. In addition to the
functional value that customers perceive from restaurants’ food and ser-
vices, it is important for managers to implement certain tactics that can
support a value-based marketing strategy such as making sure employ-
RR
ees are knowledgeable about the products served and that they possess
required soft skills (e.g., sociable, active, outgoing, and kind) that all
together are suggested to hold positive impact on the customer overall
experience with the restaurant. For example, a knowledgeable waiter
will better describe the restaurant’s menu items, food nutrition facts,
and possible ways to customize the food and service. The same waiter
is more capable of understanding the specific demands of diners and,
CO
thus, providing recommendations that fulfill these demands. The overall
value perceived by customers will be enriched because of such practices.
Assessment of value consciousness levels is to be made in order to
guard restaurants against the need to deliver more benefits to value-con-
scious customers in favor of building better relationships and increas-
ing engagement levels. Restaurants should make sure to understand
the exact needs of customers in order to provide offerings of adequate
UN
value using all possible resources. Indeed, one-to-one marketing, per-
sonalization, and non-standardized services should be implemented by
restaurants when serving customers. Pillai and Kumar (2012) recom-
mend specific pricing and targeting strategies that focus on decreas-
ing the perceptions of unfairness in favor of increasing the goodwill of
highly value-conscious customers. From the strategic side, restaurants
have to start segmenting their customers based on the engagement and
9
International Journal of Hospitality Management xxx (2019) xxx-xxx
value consciousness levels, thus, utilizing multi-segmentation strategy
by combining psychological and behavioral segmentation.
9. Limitations and future research
In this study, only RQ — satisfaction, trust, and commitment — was
F
tested as a mechanism through which CPV drives CE with restaurants.
Researchers are encouraged to examine additional mechanisms through
which CPV can impact CE. This could be done by discovering new out-
OO
comes of CPV. Also, the focus on one type of CPV limits the findings.
While CPV is found to play a key role in driving CE with restaurants, it is
vital to further examine this role in detail while testing different types of
customer value (e.g., utilitarian and hedonic) that can be related to CE.
Outcomes of different customer value types take place at the customers’
cognitive, conative, and affective states. Some of these outcomes (e.g.,
arousal, customer identification, brand love, and switching barriers) can
PR
be said to mediate the relationship between CPV and CE. The “value get,
value give” framework (Fig. 1) provides many research ideas, specifi-
cally, when it comes to possible outcomes of customer value. Moreover,
researchers examining CE are asked to find additional drivers (e.g., cus-
tomer self-expression) and outcomes (e.g., psychological ownership) of
CE. The relationships found should be tested in different settings, coun-
tries, and cultures for generalizability. Despite that, we believe that the
relationships found will hold in major services settings.
The study has defined CE based on the theory of engagement
(Pansari and Kumar, 2017). We encourage researchers on CE to try to
unify the different definitions and conceptualizations found within the
literature. This is very important for the advancement of CE literature.
Researchers are required to think about CE as a multifaceted construct
that can’t be explained using a single dimension scale. In addition to the
four dimensions examined here, there still an opportunity to find new
ones.
CVC is found as a boundary condition to the positive impacts CPV
holds. Future studies are always encouraged to discover some of the
boundary conditions to the relationships they test. Some of these bound-
ary conditions may be related to customers’ personality traits and spe-
cific setting/context characteristics as suggested in the ‘value get-value
give’ framework. Testing different boundary conditions is important to
the theory and can be critical to practice. Future studies are encouraged
to examine additional mechanisms and multiple boundary conditions of
the direct relationships hypothesized in this study using moderated me-
diation or moderated moderation analysis1⁠ 0. Researchers are highly en-
couraged to find solutions to overcome the negative effects of value con-
sciousness. For example, having customers take additional part in the
service process through co-participation may be a solution. From the
practical side, a related question arises on whether targeting value-con-
scious customers is a cost-effective strategy or not. Value-conscious cus-
tomers are more demanding and require more from firms’ resources.
Thus, it is important for researchers to examine the return on serving
value-conscious customers.
This study has examined antecedents of CE that are mutual between
customers and restaurants. For that, it is beneficial that future studies
examine customers’ psychological factors that can affect CE such as per-
sonality traits, mindset, and beliefs of customers. In general, literature
has overlooked customer self-role in CE. The many differences between
customers should be looked at as drivers of the variation between en-
gaged and disengaged customers.
10 We thank one of the anonymous reviewers for this suggestion.
O.S. Itani et al. International Journal of Hospitality Management xxx (2019) xxx-xxx

Appendix A. Review of Customer Engagement Studies in the Hyun and

Empiri- Customer Cus- A new multi-dimen-
Restaurant/Hospitality Industry Perdue,
cal, de- acquisi- tomer sional scale of cus-
2017
veloping tion (en- engage- tomer relationship in
and test- gage- ment is the restaurant and ho-
ing a ment, concep- tel sectors was devel-
multi-di- motiva- tualized oped. The multidimen-
Cus- men- tion, & as a sub- sional scale of cus-

F
tomer sional commit- dimen- tomer relationship in-
engage- measure ment), sion of clude customer en-
ment of hospi- and cus- customer gagement. The engage-
tality cus- tomer re- relation- ment sub-dimension

OO
concep-
Study in- Variables tualiza- tomer re- lationship ship focuses on customer
Author(s) formation examined tion Key findings lationship expan- scale. impressions toward
including sion staff, environment, and
Bowden, Concep- Satisfac- NA A conceptual model of customer (cross- atmosphere of the
2009a tual, five tion, cal- the process of full en- engage- buying, restaurant or hotel.
focus culative gagement with a ment. customer Customer engagement
groups commit- restaurant brand is de- defection, dimension is positively
and nine ment, veloped. Customer- & word- correlated with service
in-depth trust, in- brand relationships of- performance and cus-

PR
inter- volve- evolve as customer ex- mouth). tomer lifetime financial
views ment, af- perience increases. value.
with cus- fective Enriched emotional Odoom et al., Empiri- Rela- The Social benefit, enter-
tomers in commit- bonds drive positive 2017 cal, sur- tional eight- tainment, and explo-
the ment, word-of-mouth and re- vey re- benefits item ration affect customer
restau- and loy- peat patronage. Satis- search de- (enter- scale of engagement with
rants sec- alty. faction is not enough sign, 500 tainment, the gen- restaurant brand.
tor. on its own to form customers explo- eral mea- These effect vary
strong bonds with cus- of 25 ration, sure of across customers with

D
tomers. restau- monetary brand different levels of
Chathoth et al., Concep- Con- NA Four categories of bar- rants. savings, engage- brand engagement.
2014 tual, field sumer en- riers – consumers, recogni- ment in
inter- gage- technology, strategy, & tion, & self-con-
TE
views and ment, or- management culture/ social cept is
focus ganiza- structure) toward en- benefits), utilized.
groups tional gaging customers in and
with barriers, the context of upscale brand en-
twenty value, co- hotels are discovered. gage-
managers creation, The lack of using an ment.
and exec- technol- orientation based on Organ et al., Empiri- Food in- A four- Customer food engage-
2015 cal, ques- volve- item ment was driven by lo-
EC

utives in ogy, and service dominant logic

the con- organiza- is reflected in inferior tionnaire ment, scale is cal food involvement.
text of tional level of customer en- based sur- customer used to Engagement and posi-
upscale culture. gagement in the hotels. vey of engage- measure tive emotions are posi-
hotels. Intra-organizational 646 visi- ment, customer tively related to cus-
factors hinder success- tors from positive food en- tomer food purchasing
ful adoption of cus- seven emotions, gage- behavior after six
tomer engagement food festi- satisfac- ment. months. Engagement
RR

platforms that facilitate vals, time tion, neg- The scale decreases negative
co-participation and lagged ative measures emotions of customers,
co-creation activities. data with emotions, cus- which, in turn, is re-
Chathoth et al., Concep- Customer NA A dynamic framework 246 as fi- behav- tomers’ duced over time. En-
2016 tual, an engage- of customer engage- nal sam- ioral in- activities gagement increases
extensive ment, co- ment and co-creation ple. tentions, of tast- positive emotions &
literature creation, in hospitality and and loy- ing, satisfaction, and de-
review of co-pro- tourism services is pro- alty. learning creases negative emo-
CO

co-cre- duction, vided. Co-creation and dis- tions, of customers to-

ation and satisfac- customer engagement cussing ward food festivals.
engage- tion, de- are conceptualized as food and
ment is light, ex- second order con- drink
con- periential structs. products.
ducted. value, Oyner and Empiri- Customer NA Five activities (feed-
and loy- Korelina, cal, engage- back, co-production,
alty. 2016 multi- ment in firm-driven service in-
Gallaugher and Case Inter-cus- NA Megaphone, Magnet, method value co- novation, customiza-
UN

Ransbotham, study, in- tomer in- and Monitor (3-M) approach creation, tion and co-creation)
2010 depth teraction, framework of cus- (content feedback, of customer engage-
case customer- tomer-firm dialog/ analysis, co-pro- ment in value co-cre-
study of firm in- communication secondary duction, ation are identified.
Star- teraction, through social media is data, an- service Upscale hotels use cus-
bucks. social lis- developed. The frame- nual re- innova- tomization while hos-
tening work developed is used ports, and tion, cus- tels implement value
and mon- to study the concept of inter- tomiza- co-creation with
itoring. social media communi- views) of tion, co- clients.
cation and engagement hotels’ creation,
between customers and clients. satisfac-
Starbucks. tion, and
loyalty

10
O.S. Itani et al. International Journal of Hospitality Management xxx (2019) xxx-xxx

Taheri et al.
Empiri- Visitor A new The scale developed is
Romero, 2017 (2014)
Empiri- Customer Cus- Four antecedents of cal, a new engage- scale of used to test some of
cal, five engage- tomer customer engagement scale of ment, engage- the drivers of visitor
customer- ment engage- behaviors are found. visitor en- prior ment is engagement. Visitor
based an- (word-of- ment Self-enhancement and gagement knowl- devel- engagement with the
tecedents mouth was con- company identification with edge, oped museum is driven by
of cus- and co- ceptual- affect customer en- tourist at- recre- based on recreational motiva-

F
tomer en- creation ized as a gagement (word-of- tractions ational eight for- tion, prior knowledge,
gagement [user construct mouth and co-cre- is devel- motiva- mative and cultural capital.
with on- generated that in- ation). Relationship oped and tion, re- indica- Reflective motivation
line travel content cludes quality and social inte- tested. flective tors. has no effect on level

OO
agency and sug- word-of- gration do not influ- Data is motiva- engagement.
are exam- ges- mouth ence customer engage- collected tion, and
ined with tions]), and co- ment. Unlike money from a cultural
data col- relation- creation availability, time avail- sample of capital.
lected ship qual- (cus- ability has no moderat- 625 visi-
from 466 ity, com- tomer ing effect on the rela- tors at
cus- pany sugges- tionships found. museum
tomers. identifi- tions & is used to
cation, user gen- test some

PR
self-en- erated of the an-
hance- content). tecedents
ment, so- of en-
cial inte- gage-
gration, ment.
and Wei et al., Mixed re- Trust, Cus- Potential customers ob-
money & 2013 search ap- commu- tomer serve the online con-
time proach, nication engage- versations between fo-
availabil- unstruc- quality, ment is cal customer and hotel

D
ity. tured ap- helpful- concep- firm. These conversa-
So et al., 2014 Empiri- Customer Cus- A new second –order proach ness, tualized tions are taken into
cal, a sec- engage- tomer scale of customer en- with credibil- as the consideration by po-
ond-order ment (ab- engage- gagement with hospi- open- ity, posi- online tential customers when
scale of sorption, ment
TE
tality and tourism ended tive & reviews deciding on which ho-
customer attention, scale brands. The scale com- questions negative gener- tel to choose. Potential
engage- enthusi- that in- promises five factors and ex- customer ated by customers perceive
ment asm, cludes (absorption, attention, perimen- engage- users. positive customer re-
with hos- identifi- five fac- enthusiasm, identifica- tal de- ment be- views behaviors as
pitality cation, & tors. tion, & interaction) is sign. The haviors, more credible and
and interac- developed and vali- study fo- and man- helpful that negative
tourism tion), and dated. Customer en- cuses par- agement ones. Moreover, poten-
EC

brands is loyalty gagement is found to ticularly response tial customers take into
devel- be a positive an- on user- to cus- consideration the ho-
oped and tecedent of behavioral generated tomer en- tels’ management ap-
validated. intention of loyalty. hotel re- gagement preciation of customer
So et al. (2016) Empiri- Customer Second- Customer engagement views as behav- engagement behaviors.
cal, sur- engage- order is found to increase one type iors.
vey- ment scale of customers’ service of cus-
RR

based, (identifi- customer brand evaluation (cus- tomer en-

sample of cation, engage- tomer satisfaction, ser- gagement
496 hotel enthusi- ment vice quality, & per- behav-
and air- asm, at- that in- ceived value,), brand iors.
line cus- tention, cludes: trust, and brand loy- Wei et al. Experi- Customer Cus- Results provide evi-
tomers. absorp- identifi- alty. Customer engage- (2017) mental engage- tomer dence of the significant
The study tion, & cation, ment has direct and in- design ment be- engage- impact of error man-
tests the interac- enthusi- direct, through service with 235 haviors ment agement culture on
CO

relation- tion), ser- asm, at- brand evaluation and responses (online/ was con- customer engagement
ships be- vice tention, brand trust, positive ef- of general offline ceptual- behaviors. These im-
tween brand absorp- fects, on brand loyalty. customers positive ized as pacts are mediated by
customer evalua- tion, and recruited word-of- set of be- customer trust. Error
engage- tion (ser- interac- from an mouth, haviors free management is
ment and vice qual- tion. online online/ that in- suggested a tool to at-
tradi- ity, per- panel. offline clude tract customers and
tional an- ceived The hotel negative positive/ drive them to engage
tecedents value, & sector is word-of- negative with the brand.
UN

of brand customer used. mouth, & online/

loyalty. satisfac- revisit in- offline
tion), tentions), word-of-
brand customer mouth
trust, and trust, per- and re-
brand ceived visit in-
loyalty. controlla- tentions.
bility,
and error
manage-
ment cul-
ture.

11
O.S. Itani et al.
Appendix B. Measurement, Cronbach's Alpha, Composite
Reliability, AVE, and Items Loadings
Measurements
Customer Perceived Value CR = .89; α = .88; AVE = .66
I feel that I am getting a good deal in eating at this restaurant.
I might continue to eat at this restaurant, even if prices were increased a
little bit.
The services/products provided by this restaurant are worth the cost.
This restaurant provides valuable food options to customers.
Relationship Quality CR = .87; α = .87; AVE = .70
Satisfaction CR = .86; α = .87; AVE = .76
Overall, I am satisfied with this restaurant.
I am happy with this restaurant.
Commitment CR = .76; α = .73; AVE = .62
I am committed to this restaurant.
In future, I will remain a customer of this restaurant.
Trust CR = .88; α = .89; AVE = .79
The restaurant can be trusted.
This restaurant can be relied on to keep its promises.
Customer Engagement CR = .80; α = .73; AVE = .52
Customer Purchases CR = .89; α = .89; AVE = .73
I will continue buying from this restaurant in the near future.
My purchases from this restaurant make me content.
D
I do get my money’s worth when I eat at this restaurant.
Eating at this restaurant makes me feel happy.
Customer Referrals CR = .76; α = .78; AVE = .61
I promote the restaurant because of the benefits it provided by it.
TE
I enjoy referring this restaurant to my friends and relatives whether there
are referral incentives or not.
In addition to the value derived from the restaurant’s products/services, the
other referral incentives also encourage me to refer this restaurant to my
friends and relatives.
Given that I eat at this restaurant, I refer my friends and relatives to this brand
because of the some referral incentives.
EC
Customer Social Influence CR = .88; α = .85; AVE = .70
I love talking about my experience with this restaurant.
I discuss the benefits that I get from this restaurant with others.
I am a part of this restaurant and mention it in my conversations.
I actively discuss this restaurant on different media platforms.
Customer Knowledge Sharing CR = .95; α = .94; AVE = .87
I provide feedback about my experiences with the restaurant.
I provide suggestions for improving the performance of the restaurant’s
RR
products/services.
I provide suggestions/feedbacks about the new product/services by the
restaurant.
I provide feedback/suggestions for developing new products/services for
this restaurant.
Value Consciousness CR = .86; α = .86; AVE = .60
I am very concerned about low prices, but I am equally concerned about
service quality.
CO
I always check prices to be sure I get the best value/benefits for the money
I spend.
When using a service/product, I compare the prices of different options to be
sure I get the best value/benefits for the money.
When I buy products/services, I like to be sure that I am getting my mon-
ey's worth.
When purchasing a product, I always try to maximize the quality and bene-
fits I get for the money I spend.
UN
Note: Indicators in italic were dropped.
References
H.-H. (Sunny) Hu, J. Kandampully, T.D. Juwaheer, Relationships and impacts of service
quality, perceived value, customer satisfaction, and image: an empirical study, Serv.
Ind. J. 29 (2009) 111–125, https://doi.org/10.1080/02642060802292932.
Ahn, J., Back, K.-J., 2018. Antecedents and consequences of customer brand engagement
in integrated resorts. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 75, 144–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhm.2018.05.020.
Aiken, L.S., West, S.G., Reno, R.R., 1991. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting In-
teractions. Sage, CA.
International Journal of Hospitality Management xxx (2019) xxx-xxx
Bao, Y., Mandrik, C.A., 2004. Discerning store brand users from value consciousness con-
sumers: the role of prestige sensitivity and need for cognition. In: Kahn, Barbara E.,
Mary Frances Luce (Eds.), NA - Adv. in C. R. 31. ACR, Valdosta, GA, pp. 707–712.
Bhattacharya, C.B., Sen, S., 2003. Consumer-company identification: a framework for un-
derstanding consumers’ relationships with companies. J. Mark. 67, 76–88.
Bowden, J., 2009. Customer engagement: a framework for assessing customer-brand re-
Load- lationships: the case of the restaurant industry. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 18, 574–596.
ing https://doi.org/10.1080/19368620903024983.
F
Bowden, J., 2009. The process of customer engagement: a conceptual framework. J. Mark.
Theory Pract. 17, 63–74. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679170105.
Brodie, R.J., Hollebeek, L.D., Jurić, B., Ilić, A., 2011. Customer engagement: conceptual
.85
domain, fundamental propositions, and implications for research. J. Serv. Res. 14,
OO
.84
252–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670511411703.
Brodie, R.J., Ilic, A., Juric, B., Hollebeek, L., 2013. Consumer engagement in a virtual
.79
brand community: an exploratory analysis. J. Bus. Res. 66, 105–114.
.77
Chathoth, P.K., Ungson, G.R., Altinay, L., Chan, E.S., Harrington, R., Okumus, F., 2014.
Barriers affecting organisational adoption of higher order customer engagement in
tourism service interactions. Tour. Manag. 42, 181–193.
.91 Chathoth, P.K., Ungson, G.R., Harrington, R.J., Chan, E.S.W., 2016. Co-creation and
.83 higher order customer engagement in hospitality and tourism services: a critical
review. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 28, 222–245. https://doi.org/10.1108/
PR
.73 IJCHM-10-2014-0526.
.84 Chen, S., Chaiken, S., 1999. The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context.
Dual-Process Theor. Soc. Psychol. 15, 73–96.
.86 Chiu, C.-M., Wang, E.T., Fang, Y.-H., Huang, H.-Y., 2014. Understanding customers’ repeat
.92 purchase intentions in B2C e-commerce: the roles of utilitarian value, hedonic value
and perceived risk. Inf. Syst. J. 24, 85–114.
Christopher, M., Payne, A., Ballantyne, D., 2013. Relationship Marketing. Taylor & Fran-
cis, London, UK.
.85 Cronin, J.J., Brady, M.K., Hult, G.T.M., 2000. Assessing the effects of quality, value, and
.51 customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments. J.
.87 Retail. 76, 193–218.
.85 Crosby, L.A., Evans, K.R., Cowles, D., 1990. Relationship quality in services selling: an
interpersonal influence perspective. J. Mark. 54, 68–81. https://doi.org/10.2307/
.73 1251817.
.83 Delgado-Ballester, E., Hernandez-Espallardo, M., Rodriguez-Orejuela, A., 2014. Store im-
age influences in consumers’ perceptions of store brands: the moderating role of value
.34 consciousness. Eur. J. Mark. 48, 1850–1869.
Dorsch, M.J., Swanson, S.R., Kelley, S.W., 1998. The role of relationship quality in the
stratification of vendors as perceived by customers. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 26, 128–142.
.39 Dutta, S., Biswas, A., 2005. Effects of low price guarantees on consumer post-purchase
search intention: the moderating roles of value consciousness and penalty level. J. Re-
tail. 81, 283–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2005.08.001.
Dwyer, F.R., Oh, S., 1987. Output sector munificence effects on the internal political econ-
.90
omy of marketing channels. J. Mark. Res. 347–358.
.85
Flint, D.J., Blocker, C.P., Boutin, P.J., 2011. Customer value anticipation, customer satis-
.76
faction and loyalty: an empirical examination. Ind. Mark. Manag. 40, 219–230.
.58
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18, 39–50.
.57 Gallaugher, J., Ransbotham, S., 2010. Social media and customer dialog management at
.89 Starbucks. MIS Q. Exec. 9, 197–212.
Gefen, D., Straub, D., 2005. A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-Graph: tutorial
.95 and annotated example. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 16, 91–109.
Grégoire, Y., Tripp, T.M., Legoux, R., 2009. When customer love turns into lasting hate:
.96 the effects of relationship strength and time on customer revenge and avoidance. J.
Mark. 73, 18–32.
Ha, J., (Shawn) Jang, S., 2009. Perceived justice in service recovery and behavioral inten-
.70 tions: the role of relationship quality. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 28, 319–327. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2008.12.001.
.64 Ha, J., (Shawn) Jang, S., 2010. Perceived values, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions:
the role of familiarity in Korean restaurants. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 29, 2–13. https://
.56 doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2009.03.009.
Han, S.H., Nguyen, B., Simkin, L., 2016. The dynamic models of consumers’ symbolic
.90 needs: in the context of restaurant brands. Eur. J. Mark. 50, 1348–1376. https://doi.
org/10.1108/EJM-03-2015-0144.
.84 Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K.P., Gremler, D.D., 2002. Understanding relationship mar-
keting outcomes an integration of relational benefits and relationship quality. J. Serv.
Res. 4, 230–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670502004003006.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K.P., Walsh, G., Gremler, D.D., 2004. Electronic
word-of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: what motivates consumers to articu-
late themselves on the internet?. J. Interact. Mark. 18, 38–52.
Hess Jr, R.L., Ganesan, S., Klein, N.M., 2003. Service failure and recovery: the impact of
relationship factors on customer satisfaction. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 31, 127–145.
Hollebeek, L.D., 2011. Demystifying customer brand engagement: exploring the loy-
alty nexus. J. Mark. Manag. 27, 785–807. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2010.
500132.
Hollebeek, L.D., Conduit, J., Brodie, R.J., 2016. Strategic drivers, anticipated and unantic-
ipated outcomes of customer engagement. J. Mark Manag 32 (5-6), 393–398.
Hu, L., Bentler, P.M., 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analy-
sis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J.
6, 1–55.
Hyun, S.S., 2010. Predictors of relationship quality and loyalty in the chain restaurant in-
dustry. Cornell Hosp. Q. 51, 251–267.
Hyun, S.S., Perdue, R.R., 2017. Understanding the dimensions of customer relationships in
the hotel and restaurant industries. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 64, 73–84. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.03.002.
Jap, S.D., Manolis, C., Weitz, B.A., 1999. Relationship quality and buyer–Seller interac-
tions in channels of distribution. J. Bus. Res. 46, 303–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0148-2963(98)00032-0.
O.S. Itani et al.
Jin, L., Huang, Y., 2014. When giving money does not work: the differential effects of
monetary versus in-kind rewards in referral reward programs. Int. J. Res. Mark. 31,
107–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2013.08.005.
Johnson, J.L., 1999. Strategic integration in industrial distribution channels: managing the
interfirm relationship as a strategic asset. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. N. Y. 27, 4–18.
Kim, W., Han, H., 2008. Determinants of restaurant customers’ loyalty intentions: a me-
diating effect of relationship quality. J. Qual. Assur. Hosp. Tour. 9, 219–239. https://
doi.org/10.1080/15280080802412727.
Kim, W.G., Leong, J.K., Lee, Y.-K., 2005. Effect of service orientation on job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, and intention of leaving in a casual dining chain restau-
rant. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 24, 171–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2004.05.004.
Kotler, P., Armstrong, G., 2010. Principles of Marketing. Pearson Education, NJ.
Kumar, V., 2008. Customer Lifetime Value—the Path to Profitability. NOW Publishers Inc,
Netherlands.
Kumar, V., Pansari, A., 2016. Competitive advantage through engagement. J. Mark. Res.
JMR 53, 497–514. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.15.0044.
Kumar, V., Aksoy, L., Donkers, B., Venkatesan, R., Wiesel, T., Tillmanns, S., 2010. Under-
valued or overvalued customers: capturing total customer engagement value. J. Serv.
Res. 13, 297–310.
Lichtenstein, D.R., Netemeyer, R.G., Burton, S., 1990. Distinguishing coupon proneness
from value consciousness: an acquisition-transaction utility theory perspective. J.
Mark. 54, 54–67. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251816.
Line, N.D., Hanks, L., Kim, W.G., 2018. An expanded servicescape framework as the driver
of place attachment and word of mouth. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 42, 476–499. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1096348015597035.
Liu, Y., Jang, S.S., 2009. Perceptions of Chinese restaurants in the US: what affects cus-
tomer satisfaction and behavioral intentions?. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 28, 338–348.
Maslowska, E., Malthouse, E.C., Collinger, T., 2016. The customer engagement ecosystem.
J. Mark. Manag. 32, 469–501. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2015.1134628.
Meyer, C., Schwager, A., 2007. Customer experience. Harv. Bus. Rev. 85, 116–126.
Moorman, C., Deshpandé, R., Zaltman, G., 1993. Factors affecting trust in market research
D
relationships. J. Mark. 57, 81–101. https://doi.org/10.2307/1252059.
Morgan, R.M., Hunt, S.D., 1994. The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing.
J. Mark. 58, 20–38.
Odoom, R., Boateng, H., Asante, B.O., 2017. An empirical investigation of perceived re-
TE
lational benefits and brand engagement in restaurant services. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp.
Manag. 29, 2767–2784. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-01-2016-0040.
Oliver, R.L., 1997. Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer. Routledge, NY.
Organ, K., Koenig-Lewis, N., Palmer, A., Probert, J., 2015. Festivals as agents for behav-
iour change: a study of food festival engagement and subsequent food choices. Tour.
Manag. 48, 84–99.
Oyner, O., Korelina, A., 2016. The influence of customer engagement in value co-creation
on customer satisfaction: Searching for new forms of co-creation in the Russian hotel
EC
industry. Worldw. Hosp. Tour. Themes 8, 327–345.
Palmatier, R.W., Dant, R.P., Grewal, D., Evans, K.R., 2006. Factors influencing the effec-
tiveness of relationship marketing: a meta-analysis. J. Mark. 70, 136–153.
Pansari, A., Kumar, V., 2017. Customer engagement: the construct, antecedents, and con-
sequences. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 45, 294–311.
Parasuraman, A., Grewal, D., 2000. The impact of technology on the quality-value-loyalty
chain: a research agenda. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 28, 168–174.
Patterson, P.G., Spreng, R.A., 1997. Modelling the relationship between perceived value,
RR
satisfaction and repurchase intentions in a business-to-business, services context: an
empirical examination. Int. J. Serv. Ind. Manag. 8, 414–434.
Pillai, K.G., Kumar, V., 2012. Differential effects of value consciousness and coupon prone-
ness on consumers’ persuasion knowledge of pricing tactics. J. Retail. Pricing Global
Marketplace 88, 20–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2011.03.002.
Pizam, A., Ellis, T., 1999. Customer satisfaction and its measurement in hospitality enter-
prises. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 11, 326–339.
CO
UN
13
View publication stats
International Journal of Hospitality Management xxx (2019) xxx-xxx
Romero, J., 2017. Customer engagement behaviors in hospitality: customer-based an-
tecedents. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 26 (6), 565–584.
Ryu, K., Han, H., Kim, T.-H., 2008. The relationships among overall quick-casual restau-
rant image, perceived value, customer satisfaction, and behavioral intentions. Int. J.
Hosp. Manag. 27, 459–469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2007.11.001, Special Is-
sue on Hospitality Management in China.
Ryu, K., Lee, H.-R., Kim, W.G., 2012. The influence of the quality of the physical envi-
ronment, food, and service on restaurant image, customer perceived value, customer
F
satisfaction, and behavioral intentions. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 24, 200–223.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09596111211206141.
Slater, S.F., Narver, J.C., 2000. Intelligence generation and superior customer value. J.
Acad. Mark. Sci. 28, 120–127.
OO
Smith, J.B., 1998. Buyer–seller relationships: similarity, relationship management, and
quality. Psychol. Mark. 15, 3–21.
So, K.K.F., King, C., Sparks, B., 2014. Customer engagement with tourism brands: scale de-
velopment and validation. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 38, 304–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1096348012451456.
So, K.K.F., King, C., Sparks, B.A., Wang, Y., 2016. The role of customer engagement in
building consumer loyalty to tourism brands. J. Travel Res. 55, 64–78. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0047287514541008.
Sweeney, J., Armstrong, R.W., Johnson, L.W., 2016. The effect of cues on service qual-
PR
ity expectations and service selection in a restaurant setting: a retrospective and
prospective commentary. J. Serv. Mark. 30, 136–140. https://doi.org/10.1108/
JSM-01-2016-0010.
Taheri, B., Jafari, A., O’Gorman, K., 2014. Keeping your audience: presenting a visitor en-
gagement scale. Tour. Manag. 42, 321–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.
12.011.
Tajfel, H., 1974. Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Inf. Int. Soc. Sci. Counc. 13,
65–93.
Tussyadiah, S.P., Kausar, D.R., Soesilo, P.K., 2018. The effect of engagement in online so-
cial network on susceptibility to influence. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 42, 201–223.
Van Doorn, J., Lemon, K.N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P., Verhoef, P.C., 2010.
Customer engagement behavior: theoretical foundations and research directions. J.
Serv. Res. 13, 253–266.
Vargo, S.L., Lusch, R.F., 2008. Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution. J. Acad.
Mark. Sci. 36, 1–10.
Verhoef, P.C., Reinartz, W.J., Krafft, M., 2010. Customer engagement as a new perspective
in customer management. J. Serv. Res. 13, 247–252.
Vieira, V.A., 2013. Antecedents and consequences of perceived value: a meta-analyt-
ical perspective. J. Cust. Behav. 12, 111–133. https://doi.org/10.1362/
147539213X13832198548210.
Wei, W., Miao, L., (Joy)Huang, Z., 2013. Customer engagement behaviors and hotel re-
sponses. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 33, 316–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.10.
002.
Wei, W., Hua, N., Fu, X., Guchait, P., 2017. The impacts of hotels’ error management cul-
ture on customer engagement behaviors (CEBs). Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 29,
3119–3137.
Wu, C.H.-J., Liang, R.-D., 2009. Effect of experiential value on customer satisfaction with
service encounters in luxury-hotel restaurants. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 28, 586–593.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2009.03.008.
Xie, D., Heung, V.C.S., 2012. The effects of brand relationship quality on responses to ser-
vice failure of hotel consumers. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 31, 735–744. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ijhm.2011.09.010.
Zeithaml, V.A., 1988. Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end
model and synthesis of evidence. J. Mark. 52, 2–22. https://doi.org/10.2307/
1251446.
Zheng, X., Lee, M., Cheung, C.M.K., 2017. Examining e-loyalty towards online shopping
platforms: The role of coupon proneness and value consciousness. Internet Res. 27,
709–726. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-01-2016-0002.