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

net/publication/353937897

Analysing the factors influencing customer engagement and value co-

creation during COVID-19 pandemic: the case of online modest fashion SMEs
in Egypt

Article  in  Journal of Islamic Marketing · August 2021

DOI: 10.1108/JIMA-09-2020-0294

CITATIONS READS

5 499

3 authors:

Kesmat Abdelaziz Nor Hasliza Md Saad

Arab Academy for Science, Technology & Maritime Transport Universiti Sains Malaysia
4 PUBLICATIONS   17 CITATIONS    25 PUBLICATIONS   146 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

T. Ramayah
Universiti Sains Malaysia
731 PUBLICATIONS   25,964 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

tourism View project

Crowdsourcing , Consumer and Brand Engagement View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nor Hasliza Md Saad on 22 December 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/1759-0833.htm

Factors
Analysing the factors influencing influencing
customer engagement and value customer
engagement
co-creation during COVID-19
pandemic: the case of online
modest fashion SMEs in Egypt Received 26 September 2020
Revised 22 April 2021
6 June 2021
Kesmat AbdelAziz 9 July 2021
Accepted 9 July 2021
School of Management and Technology,
Arab Academy for Science Technology;
Maritime Transport – Heliopolis, Cairo, Egypt and
School of Management, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia
Nor Hasliza Md Saad
School of Management, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia, and
Ramayah Thurasamy
Department of Operation Management,
Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia;
Department of Management, Sunway University Business School (SUBS),
Petaling Jaya, Malaysia;
Faculty of Economics and Business, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak,
Kota Samarahan, Malaysia and
Faculty of Accounting and Management,
Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman (UTAR), Kampar, Malaysia

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to analyse the factors which influence value co-creation intention
through customer engagement during the COVID-19 pandemic. This paper studies the online modest fashion
small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Egypt as a Muslim country.
Design/methodology/approach – This paper is based on the social cognitive theory (SCT) and
the literature to develop a theoretical framework of the factors influencing customers’ value co-creation
intention on social media. The framework is then tested quantitatively through structural equation modelling
based on partial least squares method (SEM-PLS) approach using the SmartPLS software.
Findings – The empirical analysis supported the SCT through the following conclusions: first, regarding the
subject factors, self-efficacy has a positive significant effect on all dimensions of customer engagement and outcome
expectation has a positive significant effect on cognitive customer engagement. Concerning the environmental
factors, community experience has a positive significant effect on affective and behavioural customer engagement,
whereas content quality has a positive significant effect on affective customer engagement. Second, customer
engagement is a significant mediator through the dimensions of affective and behavioural customer engagement.
Practical implications – The findings of this study can help online modest fashion SMEs better
comprehend the factors which influence the customers’ engagement for value co-creation intention whether it
is subject factors or environmental factors. Therefore, they can better operate online and encourage customers Journal of Islamic Marketing
to contribute to the development of new products and services and hence achieve a competitive advantage © Emerald Publishing Limited
1759-0833
and survive in times of COVID-19. DOI 10.1108/JIMA-09-2020-0294
JIMA Originality/value – Most of the existing studies focused on the value co-creation behaviour and output.
However, there is limited research focusing on what contributes to the customers’ engagement for value co-
creation intention, especially for online modest fashion and Muslim countries. Therefore, this study attempts
to examine and bridge this research gap.
Keywords Value co-creation, Social cognitive theory, Customer engagement, COVID-19,
Online modest fashion
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) has first appeared in China and then spread rapidly all
over several countries in 2019, causing an outbreak of acute infectious pneumonia (Bao et al.,
2020). According to Worldometer (2021) report on March 30, 2021, there are nearly 122 million
confirmed cases globally with over 2 million deaths, and the cases are steadily increasing.
This infectious global health concern imposed substantial global economic crisis owing to the
lockdown enforced by most countries (Karpen and Conduit, 2020). Besides, people had to
significantly alter their daily life and purchase behaviour being confined to home lockdown
for extended periods. Therefore, many firms were obligated to alter their business processes to
face the emerged new buying and shopping habits of customers (Donthu and Gustafsson,
2020; Kim, 2020; Sheth, 2020). Nevertheless, the most influenced sectors are those in the
category of non-essential spending. One of the industries in this category is fashion apparel
and footwear. Globally owing to the spread of COVID-19, customers are trying to avoid
interpersonal interactions such as the physical interactions encountered at physical stores.
Therefore, purchases through websites and social media have witnessed dramatic increases
(Watanabe and Omori, 2020). One sector of retail apparel is modest fashion, which has become
an emerging industry globally (DinarStandard, 2020), and is being marketed through online
channels (Sharma, 2019). Modest fashion refers to clothing of looser garments and more
coverage in different styles (Rai, 2018). Modest fashion serves the needs of the global Muslim
population, who are the second largest population in the world, with more than 60% under the
age of 30 (Hassan et al., 2018). Therefore, prominent designers, such as DKNY, Zara, Tommy
Hilfiger and Dolce and Gabbana, are trying to provide modest fashion designs, as well as other
designers who are presenting modest fashion to Muslim customers. Additionally, social media
is said to play a role in the development of modest fashion (Aisyah, 2017).
Modest fashion is popular in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, which
represented 41.2% of the global market share in terms of revenue in 2017, according to the
State of the Global Islamic Economy Report (Flandersinvestmentandtrade, 2017). Specifically,
Egypt and United Arab Emirates have been estimated to drive the original demand of modest
fashion (Reuters, 2017). However, Egypt was regarded as one of the top five countries in terms
of investment activity and top number of deals in modest fashion in 2019/2020 (DinarStandard,
2021). Therefore, this study focuses on Egypt, as it has the largest population and hence the
largest Muslim customer base in the MENA region (Varrella, 2020). Furthermore, modest
fashion has been growing recently in Egypt. This is since many Egyptian small- and medium-
sized enterprises (SMEs) have decided to satisfy the demand and offer modest fashion clothing.
Accordingly, they exploit the social media as an online platform for sales and marketing.
In fact, Egypt was among the countries most affected by COVID-19 appearing first in
February 2020 reaching 17,265 cases on May 25, 2020 reporting the highest number of cases
in Africa then (Radwan, 2020). Since Egypt witnessed a steady increase in positive cases,
partial curfew was implemented for almost three months and was slightly lifted in June 2020
to limit the economic impact of COVID-19 (Beschel, 2021). The situation in Egypt continued
to elevate with 192,195 confirmed cases and nearly 11,384 deaths on March 30, 2021 (WHO, Factors
2021). Therefore, the scaled preventive measures and lockdown implemented to hinder the influencing
spread of infection had several economic consequences on firms. However, Egypt has
managed to operate under a slower pace of economic activity through a partial lockdown
customer
and avoided a full lockdown (Breisinger et al., 2020). In response to COVID-19, Egyptian engagement
customers’ top purchases were directed towards grocery-related products, such as food, and
hygiene-related products (Wahish, 2020). Hence, some sectors were shocked by the
pandemic within the Egyptian economy such as textiles and apparel sector (Breisinger et al.,
2020). Accordingly, the Egyptian economy has witnessed some deficiencies as the apparel
retail sector dominates the Egyptian retail market. It was estimated that the apparel sector
in Egypt will suffer a hard hit with a decline in spending levels of over 40% owing to
COVID-19 pandemic (Hamada, 2020). Moreover, some firms are closing their doors while
others are searching for opportunities to exploit, and still others are trying to sustain and
adapt to the new customer behaviour, especially SMEs (Emarketing-Egypt, 2020). Despite
the importance of SMEs in the economy, SMEs normally face challenges concerning the lack
of access to financial resources, high competition and technological changes. Consequently,
online modest fashion SMEs in Egypt were faced with unpredictable challenges and
customer preference shifts during the COVID-19 pandemic. This resulted in loss of sales,
disruption in daily operations, price increases and material shortages (Ratten, 2020).
However, online modest fashion SMEs exploited the fact that Egypt is witnessing a shift
towards digitization and online shopping (Emarketing-Egypt, 2020). They used social media
as a platform for gaining influence and for setting up online stores, especially after suffering
from the lack of interpersonal interactions (Cortez and Johnston, 2020).
To overcome COVID-19 challenges, more innovation and an entrepreneurial approach
are required to overcome the increasing threat of COVID-19 (Ansell and Boin, 2019). Despite
the unpleasant experience of the pandemic, more innovative thinking is required to
accommodate the new situation and respond to the crisis. This means focusing on
innovation through value co-creation. Thus, SMEs need to develop conditions that stimulate
customers to participate in the co-creation of products to survive the COVID-19 challenges
(Muninger et al., 2019). Value co-creation is defined as “the process in which the customer
and the firm are intimately involved in jointly creating value that is unique to the individual
customer and sustainable to the firm” (Prahalad and Rasmaswamy, 2004). To maintain
relevance in these unprecedented times, firms are considering new ways to engage with
their customers (Karpen and Conduit, 2020) and stimulate co-creation. During, and likely
after, a great uncertainty period with social and business disruption, many customers aim to
engage with firms and interact in different approaches than before (Charm et al., 2020).
Therefore, the purpose of this study is to discuss and examine the factors that influence
customer engagement for value co-creation on social media during the COVID-19 pandemic
for online modest fashion SMEs in Egypt as a Muslim country. Consequently, the study
investigates the possibility of facilitating value co-creation intention through customer
engagement on social media through the environmental and subject factors. It addresses the
growing challenge that SMEs face during COVID-19 pandemic, while at the same time
enhancing the understanding of why customers co-create in times of crisis. Several research
gaps were found in the literature regarding the effect of COVID-19 on customers’ behaviours
especially towards fashion products (Mehta et al., 2020). Besides, there is a need to
investigate the subject and environmental factors which influence customer engagement
and co-creation intention (Zhao et al., 2018), specifically for Muslim countries. Finally,
customer engagement’s role as a mediator needs to be investigated including the effect of
JIMA each dimension (Chepurna and Criado, 2018). Hence, the study aims to investigate the
following questions:

RQ1. Regarding online modest fashion, which factors will influence customer
engagement to stimulate value co-creation intention during COVID-19 pandemic?
RQ2. How does customer engagement mediate the relationship between the influencing
factors and customers’ co-creation intention?
Section 2 presents a literature review and the theoretical framework. This will be followed
by the methodology, data collection and analysis and results. Finally, discussion of results is
presented followed by conclusion, implications and future research recommendations.

2. Literature review
2.1 Value co-creation
Previous research has stated that knowledge is the key source of competition in the current
technological and dynamically changing environment (Papa et al., 2018). In addition,
customers’ demands for products and services have become more complex, which has
pushed firms to search for outside sources, such as customers and other stakeholders, for
ideas concerning new product and service development (Opata et al., 2019). In response,
firms have shifted towards the use of social media networks (Chepurna and Criado, 2018;
Scuotto et al., 2017). As such, firms have become increasingly oriented towards intangible
resources such as information, customer relationships and value co-creation (Chepurna and
Criado, 2018). Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004) discussed service dominant logic (SDL) in
marketing as a starting point for value co-creation research. SDL posits that “value is
defined and co-created by customers rather than being embedded in the output product or
service” (Yazdanparast et al., 2010). According to SDL, customers are seen as active
participants in value co-creation instead of passive receivers (Vargo and Lusch, 2008),
positioning customers as an important source of firm competence. In fact, Prahalad and
Rasmaswamy (2004) argued that firms should deploy an infrastructure that supports
customer interaction because customer interaction, whether physical or mental, is
considered a critical feature of value co-creation (Opata et al., 2019). Additionally, value co-
creation is considered an activity of a social nature (Achrol and Kotler, 2012) based on
collaboration and dialogue (Grönroos and Ravald, 2011; Vargo and Lusch, 2008), which
implies the importance of engagement, willingness and ability for both firms and customers
(Prahalad and Rasmaswamy, 2004). In fact, value co-creation can be explained through a set
of behaviours including customer participation behaviour and customer citizenship
behaviour (Yi and Gong, 2013). It was proposed by Yi et al. (2011) that customer
participation behaviour is the behaviour required for the value co-creation to be successful.
The customer participation behaviour includes some customer activities such as
information seeking, information sharing, responsible behaviour for customers to be
cooperative and personal interaction. Additionally, Yi et al. (2011) defined customer
citizenship behaviour as voluntary behaviour providing additional benefits to the firm.
However, customer citizenship behaviour is not critical for value co-creation (Yi et al., 2011).
The customer citizenship behaviour includes customer activities such as feedback, advocacy
and firm recommendation to others through positive word of mouth, helping and assisting
other customers, as well as tolerance and patience when the service or product does not meet
the customers’ expectations. The explanation of value co-creation behaviour through these
activities highlights the importance of customer interaction. The customers’ role in value co-
creation then depends on their interactive engagement (Edvardsson et al., 2011), as value co- Factors
creation is considered impossible without engagement (Prahalad and Rasmaswamy, 2004). influencing
Customer engagement can be improved by using internet and digital technologies that
connect customers with firms and other customers (Chepurna and Criado, 2018). These
customer
technologies facilitate user-friendly and user-generated content and interoperability engagement
(DiNucci, 1999). User-generated content can include user opinions, sentiments,
recommendations and other contextual information which functions as a valuable reference
for firms (Moe and Schweidel, 2011). Consequently, social media has evolved into a set of
highly interactive platforms where customers and firms are continuously engaged and
interacting with one another to share, co-create and discover prospects for innovation (Pillar
et al., 2011). Social media can be defined as “internet based applications that build on
ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0 and allow co-creation and exchange of
user generated content” (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010). Previous studies have noted that value
co-creation can be achieved through social networks (Cayla and Arnould, 2008; Simon and
Tossan, 2018). Others have considered that social media possesses specific properties such
as a limitless timeframe, unbounded connections, transparency of communication and
information sharing (Muniz and Schau, 2005). Additionally, social media has been shown to
offer opportunities for value co-creation projects and effortless interactions between
customers and firms (Chepurna and Criado, 2018). The same study found that social media
co-creation improved customer–firm relationships and generated a brand community
atmosphere (Chepurna and Criado, 2018).
On social media, customers create value by interacting with firms and other customers to
discuss product design, manufacturing and consumption (Zhao et al., 2018). While the way
that co-creation is carried out in online environments is clear, the reasons of customers’
participation in online co-creation has been shown to receive less research attention (Tajvidi
et al., 2018). As such, it is crucial to identify the reasons or factors influencing why
customers co-create and interact with firms and one another. There are few past studies
investigating the factors affecting customers’ intentions to co-create considering the
customer, environment and brand (Zhao et al., 2018). Through the lens of social cognitive
theory (SCT), this paper explores the subject and environmental factors impacting
customers’ intentions to engage in co-creation.

2.2 Social cognitive theory

SCT has recently been used to comprehend and forecast the behaviour of individuals and
groups (Carillo, 2010). Consequently, it could be used to analyse factors that influence
customers’ intentions to co-create on social media. SCT is an expansion of Albert Bandura’s
social learning theory. It has been used by academics in diverse disciplines such as
therapeutic research (Bandura, 1997), mass media (Bandura, 2001a) and public health
(Bandura, 1998). Additionally, SCT is used to draw insight from mass media and marketing,
which has situated SCT as an influential and highly cited social-scientific theoretical
framework (Bryant and Miron, 2006). Bandura (2001b) described SCT as “an agentic
conceptual framework within which to analyse the determinants and psychosocial
mechanisms through which symbolic communication influences human thought, affect, and
action” (p. 265). SCT has recognized the influence of mass media, which is viewed as
mediated communication that can affect individuals directly as well as through linking them
to social networks (Bandura, 2001b). SCT states that human behaviour is the interaction
output of the person (human), behaviour and environment, which in return creates the
collaborative decision association (Bandura, 1986). Bandura (1986) stated that specific
factors are “associated with impacts probabilistically rather than inevitably” as a result of
JIMA “many factors[. . .][being] needed to create a given effect” (p. 24). Therefore, SCT recognizes
the composite variables that have been demonstrated to impact the effects of media, whether
through mediation or moderation. Few studies have examined value co-creation through the
lens of SCT. Shang et al. (2012) studied the factors that influence information sharing
between online customers using SCT; similarly, Zhao et al. (2018) analysed virtual
community knowledge input concerning the environmental and cognitive aspects that
influence knowledge input behaviour. Zhao’s study used SCT to study the factors that
influence customers’ willingness to participate in a virtual brand community’s value co-
creation.
SCT was used in this paper for several reasons. First, SCT is a broad theory which states
that several factors and interactions affect an individual’s behaviour. Second, SCT
highlights the cognitive effect of environmental and behavioural factors (Bandura, 1986). In
fact, Bandura (1999) emphasized that cognition is important for understanding human
behaviour in SCT. The model posits that there are certain determinants which affect
customer engagement for value co-creation, including personal determinants like self-
efficacy and outcome expectation (Zhao et al., 2018), and environmental factors like
community experience and content quality .

2.3 Hypothesized model

This paper used SCT to develop a framework (Figure 1). The framework assumes that the
antecedents of value co-creation intention mediated by customer engagement are divided
into subject factors, such as self-efficacy and outcome expectation. In addition,
environmental factors such as community experiences and content quality were examined.
The remainder of this section discusses the relationships among the framework elements
and formulates possible hypotheses for guiding the empirical investigation.
2.3.1 Influence of subject factors on customers’ engagement for value co-creation inten-
tion on social media
2.3.1.1 Self-efficacy. In SCT, subject factors are viewed as the characteristics an individual
possesses that alter their subsequent behaviour, which could be described as cognitive,

Figure 1.
Proposed theoretical
model
affective or biological events (Schunk and Pajares, 2002). Amongst subject factors, self- Factors
efficacy and outcome expectation have proved to be important in literature (Prasad et al., influencing
2010). Self-efficacy is defined as “the perception of what [an individual] can do with the skills
customer
they possess” – is especially important (Zhao et al., 2018). It reflects the customers’ ability to
take part in co-creation processes (Zhang et al., 2019). Zeekaf (2018) concluded that engagement
people with high self-efficacy are motivated to undertake challenges and set new goals
because self-efficacy serves the basis for the motivation, well-being and
accomplishment of individuals (Schunk and Pajares, 2002). This may be because,
unless people are certain of their actions’ beneficial results, they are less encouraged to
act and to face challenges (Schunk and Pajares, 2002). Alves and Mainardes (2017)
stated that high levels of self-efficacy lead to greater engagement in co-creation
activities. Zhang et al. (2019) explained that self-efficacy has a positive influence on
customers’ participation in value co-creation and knowledge sharing as individuals
with high self-efficacy feel more responsible to contribute high-quality content to the
community (Lin and Hwang, 2014; Zhang et al., 2019). Chen (2020) described self-
efficacy as a significant factor affecting co-creation intention in online communities.
Besides, Bravo et al. (2019) believed that self-efficacy is an important antecedent of
customer behaviour such as customer engagement .
However, this is unclear in the context of online modest fashion in Muslim countries.
Hence, the following propositions were formulated:

H1. Self-efficacy has a positive effect on cognitive engagement for co-creation intention
for modest fashion customers in Egypt.
H2. Self-efficacy has a positive effect on affective engagement for co-creation intention
for modest fashion customers in Egypt.
H3. Self-efficacy has a positive effect on behavioural engagement for co-creation
intention for modest fashion customers in Egypt.
2.3.1.2 Outcome expectation. Outcome expectation can be defined as personal beliefs in the
effect of an action to achieve a particular outcome (Lippke, 2017). Furthermore, it can be
described as the positive or negative judgment of an individual concerning as expected
outcome, is another important factor in SCT (Zhao et al., 2018). Additionally, outcome
expectation is regarded as important in determining a behavioural change (Lippke, 2017).
Accordingly, Lin (2007) linked outcome expectation to customer engagement in online
environments such as social media and online communities, whereas Zhao et al. (2018)
concluded that outcome expectation affected the willingness of customers to participate in
value co-creation in online virtual communities. Wu and Gao (2019) believed that customers’
outcome expectation encourages co-creation intention.
Therefore, outcome expectation may be important in value co-creation intention in the
context of online modest fashion. Hence, the following propositions were formulated:

H4. Outcome expectation has a positive effect on cognitive engagement for co-creation
intention for modest fashion customers in Egypt.
H5. Outcome expectation has a positive effect on affective engagement for co-creation
intention for modest fashion customers in Egypt.
H6. Outcome expectation has a positive effect on behavioural engagement for co-
creation intention for modest fashion customers in Egypt.
JIMA 2.3.2 Influence of environmental factors on customers’ engagement for value co-creation
intention on social media. Environmental factors can either motivate or hinder an individual
to engage in a suggested behaviour. SCT considers an individual’s past experiences in the
context understudy, as they serve as an influential component that can influence a person’s
motivations, reinforcements and expectations in executing a behaviour. Moreover, SCT
considers environmental factors to be of a twofold nature. First, they include social factors
that involve issues regarding the impact of relatives, friends or colleagues, such as
encouragement, usage feedback from others stressing the notions of imitation and social
effect of SCT in affecting others’ behaviours. Factors obtained from various theories, like
social norms or social support, could be placed under this category as well (Prasad et al.,
2010). Second, environmental factors include situational factors that are concerned with
issues which characterize the learning task itself. All factors related to the system and
technology fall under this sub-category.
2.3.2.1 Brand/firm factors: brand community experience. The brand community
experience is defined as the overall experience derived by the customer from his or her
interactions with an online brand community (Nambisan and Watt, 2011), and it can have
two possible effects on the brand: customer behaviours and organizational service quality
(Nambisan and Watt, 2011). Firms need to provide a positive engaging customer experience,
as it is critical for encouraging participation (Brakus et al., 2009; Brodie et al., 2011;
Hollebeek et al., 2014). Research has found that online customer experience affects customer
behaviour such as customer engagement (Loureiro et al., 2017) or value co-creation (France
et al., 2018; France, Merrilees et al., 2015; Zhao et al., 2018). Casalo Ariño et al. (2007) found
that when customer experience is aligned with customer expectations, it yielded positive
attitudes towards the brand’s marketing activities. So et al. (2019) believed that customer
experience influences customer engagement in tourism. Besides, Wu and Gao (2019) stated
that customer experience affected value co-creation. In the context of online services, Khan
et al. (2019) explained that brand experience positively affects customer engagement and
loyalty. Moreover, Prentice et al. (2019) proposed that brand experience is an antecedent of
customer engagement. Finally, Yasin et al. (2020) stated that brand experience affects
customer engagement online.
Therefore, the study proposes that community experience may be significant in online
modest fashion. Hence, the following hypotheses are presented:

H7. Community experience has a positive impact on cognitive engagement for value co-
creation intention.
H8. Community experience has a positive impact on affective engagement for value co-
creation intention.
H9. Community experience has a positive impact on behavioural engagement for value
co-creation intention.
2.3.2.2 Content quality. Different studies on website service quality in retailing and virtual
communities have suggested that content quality positively influences customers’ attitudes
and behaviours (Carlson and O’Cass, 2010). This influence has been validated by empirical
results in the brand page environment (Carlson, Mohammad et al., 2018; Zhang, Lu et al.,
2015). Within the brand page context, customers mostly interact with a brand when they are
searching for information related to the brand such as brand attributes, feedback, and
benefits (Ho and Wang, 2015). Customers perceive content quality as the extent to which the
content corresponds to their expectations and satisfies their requirements of the activity in
which they are engaged (Eppler, 2009). Content with high-quality offers customers a chance
to enhance their positive brand influence and engagement intentions (Dessart et al., 2015). Factors
Furthermore, customers’ perceptions of a website/page’s content quality can influence influencing
customer satisfaction (Kim et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2010), online shopping intentions (Jones
and Kim, 2010) and value co-creation (Carlson et al., 2018; Kang, 2014). Informative and well-
customer
planned content affects co-creation intention (Barreto and Martinez, 2018). Additionally, engagement
Dolan et al. (2019) proved that informational content and its level of entertainment and
relevance affected customer engagement behaviours. Meire et al. (2019) stated that content
informative quality influences customer engagement. Additionally, Fan et al. (2020)
explained that the higher the content quality, the higher it affects customer engagement and
provides smart experience quality. Similarly, Dabbous and Barakat (2020) believed that
content quality affects customer engagement mediated by hedonic motive. Moreover, Duong
et al. (2020) studied the effects of online brand page characteristics on customer engagement
online. The study revealed that content quality is a determinant of customer engagement.
Besides, Busalim et al. (2021) believed that content and information quality affects customer
engagement through customer satisfaction.
Drawing upon the above discussion, this study argues that positive perceptions of
content quality on the brand page in online modest fashion will enhance, and lead to, higher
levels of customers’ engagement yielding value co-creation intention.
Therefore, the following propositions were formulated:

H10. Content quality has a positive impact on cognitive engagement for value co-
creation intention.
H11. Content quality has a positive impact on affective engagement for value co-
creation intention.
H12. Content quality has a positive impact on behavioural engagement for value co-
creation intention.
2.3.3 Influence of behavioural factors on customers’ engagement for value co-creation inten-
tion on social media. Within the dimension of behavioural factors, information systems
research has focused on topics such as usage, adoption or functioning of users or customers
(Prasad et al., 2010). Regarding co-creation and customer engagement, various studies have
associated customer engagement with value co-creation. France et al. (2015) linked customer
engagement with brand co-creation as a factor that directly influences customers to co-
create. In another study, France et al. (2018) concluded that customer engagement was an
antecedent of value co-creation. This result was similar to the findings of Dolan et al. (2019),
who argued that co-creation was a behaviour that could be considered a result of customer
engagement. Within social media marketing context, Jaakkola and Alexander (2014)
proposed that there is a relationship between customer engagement and value co-creation
within the setting of service firms. However, Zhang (2017) stated the dimensions of customer
engagement (participation and enthusiasm) are positively related to customer value.
Therefore, these findings support the possibility of a significant effect between customer
engagement and value co-creation intention. Building on the premises of previous studies’
hypotheses, the possibility that customer engagement could serve as a mediator between
customer engagement antecedents and co-creation intention may exist. A strong relation has
been shown between customer engagement and brand co-creation, and value co-creation has
been identified as important in the customer engagement context (Brodie et al., 2011;
Hollebeek et al., 2014). Fu et al. (2018) studied online customer engagement and value co-
creation and proved that online customer engagement mediated value co-creation
antecedents and behaviour relationships. Cheung et al. (2019) studied factors driving
JIMA customer engagement and value co-creation and concluded that customer engagement
significantly influences value co-creation behaviour. Similarly, An and Han (2020) proved
that customer engagement is an important factor affecting value co-creation in experience-
based retail environment. Molinillo et al. (2020) in analysing customer engagement on social
commerce websites concluded that customer engagement is an important antecedent
of customers’ willingness to co-create. Moreover, Alimamy and Nadeem (2021) studied
customer engagement and value co-creation through augmented reality and stated that
customer engagement is significantly related to value co-creation intentions. Previous
studies concluded the fact that through engagement, customers can co-create with the
brands and learn about their offerings, thereby providing themselves with complete
information (Alimamy and Nadeem, 2021; Markard and Holt, 2003; Molinillo et al., 2020).
This paper thus proposes that online modest fashion customers possessing high
engagement levels will be more enthusiastic to take part in value co-creation. Besides, this
study explores the effect of each customer engagement dimension as a mediator between
subject and environmental factors with value co-creation intention.
Therefore, the following propositions were formulated:

H13. Cognitive customer engagement has a significant effect on value co-creation

intention.
H14. Affective customer engagement has a significant effect on value co-creation
intention.
H15. Activation/behavioural customer engagement has a significant effect on value co-
creation intention.

3. Research method
3.1 Measurement variables
To ensure the reliability and validity of the research model, all measurement items are
adopted from existing literature. The definitions of all the variables are listed in Table 1
with references. This study examines the independent variables that are categorized as
subject factors (self-efficacy and outcome expectation), environmental factors (community
experience and content quality) and behavioural factors (customer engagement) to produce a
behavioural change (value co-creation intention). The measurement scales for subject factors
are adapted from extant literature. Self-efficacy was adopted from Kankanhalli (2005) citied
from Zhao (2018) with a five-point Likert scale. Outcome expectation five-point Likert scale
was adopted from Kalman (1999) citied from Zhao (2018). The environmental factors scale
was adopted from Schmidt (1999) cited from Zhao (2018) for the community experience as
seven-point Likert scale. Additionally, a seven-point Likert scale was adopted for content
quality from Carlson (2018). Regarding the behavioural factors of engagement, a seven-point
Likert scale was adopted from Hollebeek et al. (2014). Finally, a seven-point Likert scale was
adopted from Liu (2016) citied from Zhao (2018) for value co-creation intention.

3.2 Data collection and pre-processing

An online questionnaire was used to collect data from customers of online modest fashion on
Instagram. Instagram was selected for the study among the other social media platforms
because it is believed that Instagram offers a fertile environment for fashion industry owing
to its dependence on visual content and images (Bjurling and Ekstam, 2018). Additionally, it
Variable type Variable
Dependent variable Value co-creation intention
Independent variable Self-efficacy
Outcome expectation
Community experience
Content quality
Mediator Affective engagement
Cognitive engagement
Behavioural engagement
Definition and reference
Factors
influencing
The degree to which customers want to participate customer
in virtual brand community’s value co-creation
activities, and it is usually directly related to their engagement
actions (Zhao et al., 2018)
The perception of people about what they can do
with the skills they possess (Zhao et al., 2018)
The judgment of people’s expected outcome of their
behaviour (Zhao et al., 2018)
The overall feeling of customers in this community,
including amenities, products, services and
interaction (Zhao et al., 2018)
Customer’s perception of the quality of information
presented on an online page (McKinney et al., 2002)
A customer’s degree of positive brand-related affect
in a particular customer/brand interaction (Hollebeek
et al., 2014)
A customer’s level of brand-related thought
processing and elaboration in a particular customer/
brand interaction (Hollebeek et al., 2014)
Brand-related activity may be expressed through a Table 1.
customer’s level of energy exerted in interacting with Definitions of
a focal brand (Hollebeek et al., 2014) research variables

was stated by Barnhart (2021) that Instagram has the highest engagement rates among
social media platforms.
The questionnaire was formed by adopting measurement scales from extant existing
literature. Although random sampling offers the best chance for minimum selection effects,
Hultsch et al. (2002) stated that random samples are not necessarily representative of the
population. This is attributed to the fact that not all individuals approached will agree to
participate, and refusal rates may vary across different types of individuals and different
contexts. Additionally, owing to the reasons for inaccessibility and cost, researchers can
examine only a portion of the possible observations that could be made (Hultsch et al., 2002).
Therefore, in this research, the approach followed was the convenience sampling. The study
examined the most purchased from online modest fashion SMEs’ pages on Instagram
(Hossam, 2019) and approached the followers of these pages. To recruit respondents, several
trending posts on the online modest fashion pages were followed, selected, then direct
messages were sent to the respondents of those posts to ensure their interactivity with the
page. Additionally, screening questions were asked to ensure the respondents had already
purchased from the online modest fashion SME and interacted with it within the past six
months. The Instagram followers of Egyptian online modest fashion SMEs were contacted
and asked the following screening questions: Have you purchased from this brand within
the past six months? Have you interacted with this brand and provided any input/
suggestions? Each respondent was asked to answer the screening questions and approval
for participation. Then, a link in an Instagram direct message with a brief introduction to the
study and definition of terms were sent to eligible participants.
The framework is then tested quantitatively using structural equation modelling based
on partial least squares method (SEM-PLS) through SmartPLS software. To avoid any
semantic problems, a pilot test was conducted before data collection with customers of
online modest fashion on Instagram to ensure the validity and reliability of the study. The
JIMA pilot study was conducted with 100 customers to acquire their feedback on the questionnaire
clarity and validity. The overall Cronbach’s alpha of all variables was above 0.7 which
suggested that the questionnaire has high internal consistency, and the results are reliable.
Additionally, the heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio values were lower than 0.85 which
satisfies the discriminant validity requirement.
After that, the data were collected by sending out the questionnaire during the COVID-19
pandemic lockdown in Egypt from March to April 2020 through SurveyMonkey. As the
followers of these pages included both males and females, the study was keen on
considering all types of followers to reach a more holistic perspective. Therefore, both male
and female customers were included in the study. The minimum sample size calculated by
the G*power software is 74. Therefore, 300 surveys were distributed, while 230 were
collected. After filtering out invalid questionnaires (questionnaires filled with the same
answers, blank answers, extreme choices), 200 out of 230 questionnaires were valid.
Additionally, the demographic information is shown in Table 2.

3.3 Data analysis and results

3.3.1 Assessment of measurement model. This study used SEM-PLS using the Smart PLS
software. The reliability and validity of the construct were examined using outer factor
loading, composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE). As presented in
Table 3, all outer loadings met the threshold of 0.708, except SE4 and OE2 (Hair et al., 2017).
However, these indicators were retained as the AVE was greater than 0.50, as suggested by
Hair in 2017. Therefore, all items were retained. AVE values were above the minimum value
of 0.5, and these results confirm the convergent validity (Table 3). Finally, CR was examined
to test the internal consistency (Werts et al., 1974). All CRs were above the minimum value of
0.7, therefore indicating an internal consistency reliability of the research. Finally,
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were evaluated for the reliability of the variables in the study.
All the individual values of Cronbach’s alpha were evaluated as having values greater than
the suggested value of 0.7 (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994).
The Fornell-Larcker, cross-loadings and HTMT ratios were used to evaluate
discriminant validity. Different studies suggested that to establish the discriminant validity,

Demographic item Categories Frequency (%)

Gender Female 157 78.5

Male 43 21.5
Age Under 18 10 5.0
18-25 95 47.5
25-35 52 26.0
35-45 24 12.0
45-55 7 3.5
Over 55 12 6.0
Education Student 80 40.0
Diploma 18 9.0
Bachelor’s degree 66 33.0
Master’s degree 28 14.0
PhD 6 3.0
Frequency of connection to Instagram 0-2 times 16 8.0
Table 2. 3-5 times 66 33.0
Demographic 6-8 times 66 33.0
information More than 8 times 51 25.5
 AVE CR Cronbach’s alpha
Factors
Construct Items Loadings (>0.5) (>0.7) (>0.7) influencing
customer
Self-efficacy SE1 0.727 0.574 0.842 0.752
SE2 0.810 engagement
SE3 0.835
SE4 0.644
Outcome expectation OE1 0.716 0.567 0.867 0.814
OE2 0.694
OE3 0.824
OE4 0.730
OE5 0.792
Community experience CEX1 0.772 0.637 0.897 0.859
CEX2 0.767
CEX3 0.771
CEX4 0.844
CEX5 0.832
Content quality CQ1 0.788 0.696 0.873 0.786
CQ2 0.908
CQ3 0.802
Affective engagement AE1 0.883 0.723 0.912 0.871
AE2 0.863
AE3 0.867
AE4 0.784
Behavioural engagement BE1 0.824 0.723 0.910 0.852
BE2 0.910
BE3 0.900
Cognitive engagement CE1 0.861 0.793 0.920 0.870
CE2 0.908
CE3 0.901
Value co-creation intention VCI1 0.827 0.740 0.919 0.883
VCI2 0.877
VCI3 0.872
Table 3.
VCI4 0.863 Results of
measurement model
Notes: AVE = Average variance extracted; CR = Composite reliability; a = Cronbach’s alpha assessment

the HTMT should be used to overcome the limitations of cross-loadings and the Fornell-
Larcker criterion in accordance with multitrait-multimethod matrices. Following the
guidelines for HTMT by Hair in 2016, the HTMT values were calculated and reported in
Table 4. The table shows that the HTMT values as being lower than 0.85 which satisfies the
discriminant validity requirement.
3.3.2 Assessment of structural model. Prior to the assessment of the structural model, it is
essential to ensure that there were no lateral collinearity issues in the structural model (Hair
et al., 2017). Table 5 presents the results of the lateral collinearity test. All inner variance
inflation factor (VIF) values are less than 5 indicating that lateral collinearity is not a problem in
this study (Hair et al., 2017). Regarding the hypothesis testing, Table 5 shows the direct
relationship results. Regarding the subject factors, self-efficacy has a significant effect on
affective engagement ( b = 0.229, t-values = 3.244, P < 0.001), behavioural engagement (b =
0.188, t-values = 3.005, P < 0.001) and cognitive engagement ( b = 0.186, t-values = 2.717, P <
0.05). However, outcome expectation has a significant influence on cognitive engagement only
( b = 0.235, t-values = 3.067, P < 0.001) and an insignificant impact on behavioural and
JIMA affective engagement. For the environmental factors, community experience has a significant
influence on affective engagement and behavioural engagement, with (b = 0.217, t-values =
3.128, P < 0.001) and (b = 0.256, t-values = 3.108, P < 0.001), respectively and an insignificant
influence on cognitive engagement ( b =
0.062, t-values = 0.716, P = 0.237). Additionally,
content quality has a significant effect on affective engagement (b = 0.139, t-values = 2.002,
P < 0.001) and an insignificant effect on behavioural engagement and cognitive engagement,
with (b = 0.004, t-values = 0.054, P = 0.479) and (b = 0.101, t-values = 1.271, P = 0.102),
respectively. Regarding the effect of customer engagement dimensions on value co-creation
intention, affective engagement (b = 0.284, t-values = 3.753, P < 0.001) and behavioural
engagement (b = 0.348, t-values = 4.391, P < 0.001) were proven to have a significant effect on
value co-creation intention, and the influence of cognitive engagement on value co-creation
intention was insignificant (b = 0.099, t-values = 1.397, P = 0.081).

AE BE CE CEX CQ OE SE VCI

AE
BE 0.644
CE 0.590 0.547
CEX 0.440 0.372 0.143
CQ 0.438 0.282 0.224 0.741
OE 0.300 0.243 0.329 0.415 0.369
Table 4. SE 0.421 0.336 0.322 0.314 0.419 0.371
Heterotrait-monotrait VCI 0.595 0.635 0.456 0.387 0.454 0.299 0.309
ratio (HTMT) results Notes: Key: AE: Affective engagement; BE: Behavioural engagement; CE: Cognitive engagement; CEX:
for discriminant Community experience; CQ: Content quality; OE: Outcome expectation; SE: Self-efficacy; VCI: Value co-
validity creation intention

Relationship Std beta Std error t-value p-value LL UL VIF Decision F2

CEX ! AE 0.217 0.069 3.128 0.001 0.103 0.331 1.679 Supported 0.037
CEX ! BE 0.256 0.082 3.108 0.001 0.113 0.385 1.679 Supported 0.046
CEX ! CE
0.062 0.087 0.716 0.237
0.208 0.078 1.679 Not supported 0.003
CQ ! AE 0.139 0.069 2.002 0.023 0.020 0.246 1.697 Supported 0.015
CQ ! BE 0.004 0.081 0.054 0.479
0.128 0.133 1.697 Not supported 0.000
CQ ! CE 0.101 0.079 1.271 0.102
0.034 0.229 1.697 Not supported 0.007
OE !AE 0.085 0.063 1.354 0.088
0.025 0.181 1.214 Not supported 0.008
OE ! BE 0.074 0.074 1.002 0.158
0.061 0.186 1.214 Not supported 0.005
OE ! CE 0.235 0.077 3.067 0.001 0.093 0.346 1.214 Supported 0.052
SE ! AE 0.229 0.071 3.244 0.001 0.104 0.336 1.185 Supported 0.058
SE ! BE 0.188 0.062 3.005 0.001 0.081 0.286 1.185 Supported 0.035
SE ! CE 0.186 0.068 2.717 0.003 0.074 0.297 1.185 Supported 0.034
AE ! VCI 0.284 0.076 3.753 0.000 0.159 0.409 1.641 Supported 0.080
BE ! VCI 0.348 0.079 4.391 0.000 0.218 0.479 1.550 Supported 0.126
CE ! VCI 0.099 0.071 1.397 0.081
0.014 0.217 1.461 Not supported 0.011
Predictive relevance/accuracy R2 Q2
AE 0.243 0.166
BE 0.155 0.099
Table 5. CE 0.132 0.094
Direct effects results VCI 0.382 0.273
Relationship Std beta Std error t-value p-value LL UL Decision
Factors
influencing
CEX ! AE ! VCI 0.062 0.027 2.340 0.019 0.021 0.131 Supported customer
CEX ! BE ! VCI 0.089 0.035 2.526 0.012 0.031 0.171 Supported
CEX ! CE ! VCI
0.006 0.011 0.539 0.590
0.043 0.007 Not supported engagement
CQ ! AE ! VCI 0.039 0.024 1.665 0.096 0.002 0.098 Not supported
CQ ! BE ! VCI 0.002 0.030 0.050 0.960
0.056 0.064 Not supported
CQ ! CE !VCI 0.010 0.013 0.793 0.428
0.004 0.049 Not supported
OE ! AE ! VCI 0.024 0.020 1.210 0.226
0.009 0.071 Not supported
OE ! BE ! VCI 0.026 0.029 0.894 0.372
0.026 0.087 Not supported
OE ! CE ! VCI 0.023 0.019 1.215 0.224
0.008 0.067 Not supported
SE ! AE ! VCI 0.065 0.026 2.458 0.014 0.025 0.129 Supported Table 5.
SE ! BE ! VCI 0.065 0.027 2.436 0.015 0.020 0.125 Supported Indirect effects
SE ! CE ! VCI 0.018 0.016 1.123 0.261
0.004 0.060 Not supported results

3.3.3 Mediating effect analysis. This study adopts the bootstrapping analysis method to test
the mediating effect of customer engagement (affective, behavioural and cognitive
engagement) between the independent factors and value co-creation intention. The sampling
size was 5,000, and the confidence interval was 95%. The results of the mediating effect
analysis indicated that first, affective engagement was proven to mediate the relationship
between community experience ( b = 0.062, t-values = 2.340, P < 0.05) and self-efficacy ( b =
0.065, t-values = 2.458, P < 0.05) for value co-creation intention (Table 6). However, it did not
mediate the relationship between outcome expectation, content quality, with value co-
creation intention.
Second, behavioural engagement was proven to mediate the relationship between community
experience (b = 0.089, t-values = 2.526, P < 0.05), self-efficacy (b = 0.065, t-values = 2.436, P <
0.05) and value co-creation intention. Finally, cognitive engagement was proven not to mediate
any relationship in the model.

4. Discussion
As online shopping and social media are becoming more dominant since COVID-19,
customers are increasing their online purchases and interaction with online modest fashion
SMEs. However, the SMEs need to focus on developing customers’ co-creation behaviour to
achieve competitive advantage and sustainable growth. This study provides guidelines
regarding which subject, environmental and behavioural factors affect the co-creation
intention behaviour of online modest fashion customers.
The empirical analysis results have the following conclusions (Figure 2). First,
customers’ value co-creation intention is influenced by subject factors, environmental
factors and behavioural factors. Besides, some dimensions of customer engagement mediate
the relationship between subject factors, environmental factors and value co-creation
intention.
First, subject factors have significant effect on value co-creation intention. Self-efficacy is
more significant than outcome expectation in influencing customer engagement and value
co-creation intention. This phenomenon means that customers with higher self-efficacy will
be more willing to engage affectively, behaviourally and cognitively for value co-creation
intention. This is in line with past studies proving that self-efficacy and social interaction
positively affect value co-creation behaviours. Such studies proved that these two variables
are motivators for knowledge sharing (Alves and Mainardes, 2017; Zhang et al., 2019; Zhao
et al., 2018). More recent studies have acknowledged that self-efficacy positively influences
JIMA Hypotheses number Description Decision

H1 Self-efficacy has a positive effect on cognitive engagement for co- Supported

creation intention for modest fashion customers in Egypt
H2 Self-efficacy has a positive effect on affective engagement for co- Supported
creation intention for modest fashion customers in Egypt
H3 Self-efficacy has a positive effect on behavioural engagement for Supported
co-creation intention for modest fashion customers in Egypt
H4 Outcome expectation has a positive effect on cognitive Supported
engagement for co-creation intention for modest fashion
customers in Egypt
H5 Outcome expectation has a positive effect on affective engagement Not supported
for co-creation intention for modest fashion customers in Egypt
H6 Outcome expectation has a positive effect on behavioural Not supported
engagement for co-creation intention for modest fashion
customers in Egypt
H7 Community experience has a positive impact on cognitive Not supported
engagement for value co-creation intention
H8 Community experience has a positive impact on affective Supported
engagement for value co-creation intention
H9 Community experience has a positive impact on behavioural Supported
engagement for value co-creation intention
H10 Content quality has a positive impact on cognitive engagement for Not supported
value co-creation intention
H11 Content quality has a positive impact on affective engagement for Supported
value co-creation intention
H12 Content quality has a positive impact on behavioural engagement Not supported
for value co-creation intention
H13 Cognitive customer engagement has a significant effect on value Not supported
co-creation intention
H14 Affective customer engagement has a significant effect on value Supported
Table 6. co-creation intention
Results of H15 Activation/behavioural customer engagement has a significant Supported
hypotheses testing effect on value co-creation intention

co-creation and knowledge sharing (Chen, 2020; Shang et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2019).
Additionally, previous researches stated that self-efficacy influences customer engagement
(Bravo et al., 2019; Liu, Li et al., 2017). Therefore, these studies are in line with the paper’s
argument regarding the effect of self-efficacy on customer engagement and value co-
creation.
However, outcome expectation for Egyptian customers regarding online modest fashion
SMEs was proven to be insignificant on the affective and behavioural dimensions of
customer engagement. On the other side, outcome expectation was proven to be significant
on cognitive engagement. However, cognitive engagement was proven to not influence
value co-creation intention, and therefore it was concluded that outcome expectation is
insignificant in the context of online modest fashion SMEs interactions with Egyptian
customers.
The outcome expectation results are in line with studies such as Chrisdira et al. (2020)
who proved that outcome expectation is not significant for co-creation in Indonesian denim
brand community.
However, the results are contradicting with previous studies such as Wu and Gao (2019)
studying co-creation in luxury hotels and Zhao et al. (2018) studying co-creation in online
communities. This could be attributed to the difference in culture from one country to
 Factors
influencing
customer
engagement

Figure 2.
Framework
significant and
insignificant results

another. Customers from different countries have different levels and impact of outcome
expectation because they are different in culture (Bahhouth et al., 2012; Briley and Aaker,
2006; Datta, 2009; Franco and Meneses, 2020; Gentina et al., 2014; Legohérel et al., 2009;
Moon et al., 2008). This is because culture changes customers’ behaviour and attitudes
(Donthu and Yoo, 1998). Examining the Egyptian culture, Egyptian customers rely on
centralization of authority through the visible differences in social class, education and
occupation (Hofstede-insights, 2021). Therefore, some customers may be more likely to
tolerate failure from some brands (Dash et al., 2009). This view of power and authority in the
Egyptian culture leads to lower outcome expectations (Dash et al., 2009). Additionally,
Egyptian customers prefer to avoid ambiguity while stressing on stability and predictability
(Hofstede-insights, 2021). Besides, Egyptian customers are attracted to in-group belonging
and loyalty to their known trusted brands to which they feel they belong to (Hofstede-
insights, 2021). Hence, Egyptian customers set low level of overall outcome expectation as
they are more loyal to the brands they follow and trust, besides they are less likely to switch
to other brands to avoid any ambiguous situations (Ramzy and Eldahan, 2016). This is in
line with previous literature stating that countries characterized by in-group belonging,
ambiguity avoidance and authority centralization are more prone to set lower outcome
expectation, which is the case in the Egyptian culture (Asamoah and Chovancova, 2016;
Dash et al., 2009; Donthu and Yoo, 1998; Kanoushi, 2005; Overby, 2015).
Additionally, to gain better understanding of outcome expectation, the following
literature is referred to which is Lippke (2017). Lippke (2017) stated that outcome
expectation is a subjective estimate of how likely a specific behaviour is followed by specific
JIMA consequences. Therefore, outcome expectation can be influenced by individual differences.
Additionally, Lippke (2017) noted that outcome expectation is less influential in behaviour
change than self-efficacy which is in line with the paper results.
Second, customers’ value co-creation intention is influenced by environmental factors.
Community experience was proven to be significant on affective and behavioural
engagement. This result is consistent with other studies proving that customer experience
leads towards an emotional customer engagement (Hollebeek et al., 2014; Merrilees, 2016).
Other studies support the paper’s results such as Zhao et al. (2018) and Wu and Gao (2019)
stating that customer experience is a determinant of value co-creation in online
communities. Other studies are in line with the results explaining that customer experience
is a significant factor affecting customer engagement such as Harmeling et al. (2016),
Prentice et al. (2019); and Yasin et al. (2020).
Additionally, content quality was significant on affective engagement. This means that
the more the quality of the content witnessed by the customers in terms of products, services
and interactions, the more the customer is willing to engage affectively and have the
intention for value co-creation. On the other side, content quality influences the behavioural
engagement dimension which expresses the customer’s efforts in interacting with the brand.
This is in line with Meire et al. (2019), Duong et al. (2020); and Busalim et al. (2021) which
studied customer engagement in online platforms. they proved that content quality has a
significant effect on customer engagement.
Regarding the customer engagement mediation effect, most scholars found that customer
engagement has a positive effect on customer behaviour (Zhang et al., 2019; Zhao et al.,
2018). This study found that affective and behavioural engagement mediate significantly
the relationship between subject and environmental factors and value co-creation intention.
This is in line with previous studies stating that emotional engagement is more dominant in
the context of brands such as fashion and cosmetics (Merrilees, 2016). Additionally, in
fashion brands, customers are motivated to give feedback and interact with the brands they
love. However, cognitive engagement was proven to have insignificant effect on value co-
creation intention in the context of online modest fashion. Prior studies have confirmed the
significant effects of customer engagement on value co-creation in different online contexts
(Alimamy and Nadeem, 2021; An and Han, 2020; Cheung et al., 2019; France et al., 2018;
Merrilees, 2016; Zhao et al., 2018). However, the effects of each dimension of customer
engagement on value co-creation as a mediator are neither clear nor investigated (Chepurna
and Criado, 2018). Therefore, the current study addresses this gap through examining the
research model.
The results of the study concur that Egyptian customers are more encouraged by
affective and behavioural engagement to participate in value co-creation intentions with
online modest fashion SMEs. This could be because of the fact that the more customers
spend time online in their daily life, which was the situation during the COVID-19 pandemic,
the more they are affectionate to engage and spend their money on online shopping (Bellman
et al., 1999; Tahawy, 2019). Besides, Egyptian customers are more prone to depend on their
affection rather than logic in their online shopping behaviours (Tahawy, 2019). Besides, they
engage with the content and brands they love (EgyptInnovate, 2017).
Consequently, online modest fashion SMEs should focus on emotional activity and
exerted energy in the interactions with Egyptian customers for affective and behavioural
engagement rather than the customers’ level of concentration in the brand which does not
affect the customers’ intention to value co-create. For example, online modest fashion SMEs
can provide videos and informative content such as videos on fashion lessons and advice, or
videos supporting a cause. This can help the online modest fashion SMEs to build
passionate, engaged customers, who may initiate their own brand-supportive co-creation Factors
behaviour. Additionally, sometimes the co-creation is seamlessly immersed into the influencing
community experience. For example, online modest fashion SMEs can facilitate co-creation
participation through online campaigns and through social support via different lifestyle
customer
and clothing brand communities. engagement

5. Conclusion and implications

Fashion can be viewed as a portal into the social world, bound by a set of rules, customs and
rituals that guide social interactions. However, little academic research has investigated the
influence of COVID-19 on behaviours towards fashion, particularly among customers of
online modest fashion SMEs. In the light of this literature gap, the purpose of this study is to
examine what motivates customers to engage with online modest fashion SMEs for the
purpose of value co-creation intention. Importantly, the results provide evidence that
Egyptian customers are more influenced to value co-create through affective and
behavioural engagement. This means that Egyptian customers are stimulated by emotional
reactions, enjoyment and preferences as well as by behavioural engagement involving
actions such as loyalty. However, the cognitive dimension of customer engagement was
proven to have no significant or mediation effect on value co-creation intention. This result
is consistent with the nature of the Egyptian customers who are thought to be emotional
rather than depending on rational reasoning (Nosseir, 2017). Additionally, this paper focuses
on the examination of the factors influencing customers’ co-creation intention and the role of
customer engagement. Consequently, it offers contribution to the body of knowledge in this
area by addressing the gap related to the mediation of customer engagement with value co-
creation intention. Therefore, the proposed model provides a foundation for future research
that combines different relevant concepts to address research gaps in this area. Finally,
these findings significantly support the Egyptian Government initiatives to support SMEs
and encourage online social and business transactions as well as to improve the SMEs
performance. Accordingly, the study supports the online modest fashion SMEs in their
struggle owing to the COVID-19 crisis to achieve sustainability and competitiveness. On the
other side, the study can help online modest fashion SMEs practically to grasp customers’
engagement, value co-creation intention, adapt to market environment and improve
customers’ experience. First, online modest fashion SMEs should identify customers’ types
and self-efficacy level to pinpoint customers with high levels of self-efficacy and motivate
them to engage and co-create. Second, online modest fashion SMEs should provide a good
environment with community experience to give customers a motivation for customer
engagement and value co-creation through tools such as layout design, content interactivity
and richness.
This paper offers several practical implications for online modest fashion SMEs
regarding their social media strategy. Practically, this study can help in formulating social
media customer engagement strategy. Thus, solving the problem of low participation in
customer engagement and value co-creation activities. The findings direct online modest
fashion SMEs’ efforts towards motivating affective and behavioural customer engagement
to stimulate value co-creation intention, which can be achieved through the antecedents
presented in the framework. Additionally, this paper encourages social media marketing
managers to attach importance to other dimensions which may not be fully explored, such
as environmental or individual attributes that could create synergy between the firm and
customers. Moreover, online modest fashion SMEs can be directed in terms of content
creation and quality as well as providing an interactive customer experience to encourage
customer engagement and value co-creation. Hence, this paper will help online modest
JIMA fashion SMEs in an emerging economy such as Egypt to foster the benefits of customer
engagement and value co-creation to withstand the challenges and obstacles they face
owing to lack of resources and competition.
The framework offers a theoretical basis for future exploration of the application of
factors across diverse environments and categories of customers. However, this study has
potential limitations. There are several subject and environmental factors that can be
studied such as personality and loyalty, as well as environmental factors such as brand trust
and brand interactivity among others. Therefore, future researches could investigate
additional factors which may influence value co-creation intention. Another limitation is
that the study focused on value co-creation without the possible outcomes in times of
COVID-19. Hence, studies can highlight the effect of value co-creation intention on
customers’ generated content, product/service development, competitive advantage among
other possible outcomes to overcome COVID-19 challenges. Furthermore, future studies on
product co-creation as well as service co-creation could be studied to highlight the
similarities and differences of each context. Another future research direction might involve
examining co-creation in various online environments, such as blogs, innovation websites
and communities, taking into consideration more variables like customers’ loyalty, risk
taking and mediators such as involvement or attitude towards value co-creation online.
Future research in this area may investigate the potential antecedents of value co-creation in
online environments as well as the implications of effective value co-creation strategy.
Moreover, scholars could apply the framework in different countries in a comparative
analysis study to highlight the similarities and differences from one culture and economy to
another. Additionally, a gap was found in the literature regarding the influencing factors
and negative outcomes of value co-creation, or “co-destruction,” which should be
investigated as well. The co-destruction concept describes negative customers’ engagement
in which angry customers post negative comments about the firm online which results in
value destruction, a decrease in sales and customer loss (Patterson et al., 2016). The
consequences of co-destruction and co-creation should be studied and emphasized to open
new avenues of research and provide more actionable knowledge which could be exploited
to guide the firm’s value co-creation strategy.

References
Achrol, R.S. and Kotler, P. (2012), “Frontiers of the marketing paradigm in the third millennium”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 35-52.
Aisyah, S. (2017), “The role of social media for the movement of modest fashion in Indonesia”, Paper
presented at the International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences.
Alimamy, S. and Nadeem, W. (2021), “Is this real? Cocreation of value through authentic experiential
augmented reality: the mediating effect of perceived ethics and customer engagement”,
Information Technology and People.
Alves, H. and Mainardes, E.W. (2017), “Self-efficacy, trust and perceived benefits in the co-creation of
value by consumers”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 45
No. 11, pp. 1159-1180.
An, M. and Han, S. (2020), “Effects of experiential motivation and customer engagement on customer
value creation: analysis of psychological process in the experience-based retail environment”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 120, pp. 389-397.
Ansell, C. and Boin, A. (2019), “Taming deep uncertainty: the potential of pragmatist principles for
understanding and improving strategic crisis management”, Administration and Society, Vol. 51
No. 7, p. 009539971774765, doi: 10.1177/0095399717747655.
Asamoah, E. and Chovancova, M. (2016), “The effect of cultural orientation on the purchasing decisions Factors
of consumers: a cross cultural comparative study”, International Journal of Contemporary
Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 7-32.
influencing
Bahhouth, V., Ziemnowicz, C. and Zgheib, Y. (2012), “Effect of culture and traditions on consumer
customer
behavior in Kuwait”, International Journal of Business, Marketing, and Decision Sciences, Vol. 5 engagement
No. 2, pp. 1-11.
Bandura, A. (1986), “Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 1.
Bandura, A. (1997), Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control, W.H. freeman and Company, New York, NY.
Bandura, A. (1998), “Health promotion from the perspective of social cognitive theory”, Psychology and
Health, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 623-649.
Bandura, A. (1999), A Social Cognitive Theory of Personality, 2nd ed., Guilford Publications, New York, NY.
Bandura, A. (2001a), “Social cognitive theory of mass communications”, in Bryant, J. and Zillman, D.
(Eds), Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research, 2nd ed., Hillsdale, NJ.
Bandura, A. (2001b), “Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective”, Annual Review of Psychology,
Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 1-26.
Bao, Y., Sun, Y., Meng, S., Shi, J. and Lu, L. (2020), “2019-nCoV epidemic: address mental health care to
empower society”, The Lancet, Vol. 395 No. 10224, pp. e37-e38.
Barnhart, B. (2021), “The most important Instagram statistics you need to know for 2021”, available at:
https://sproutsocial.com/insights/instagram-stats/
Barreto, J.J. and Martinez, S.C. (2018), “Destination website quality, users’ attitudes and the willingness
to participate in online co-creation experiences”, European Journal of Management and Business
Economics, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 26-41.
Bellman, S., Lohse, G. and Johnson, E. (1999), “Predictors of online buying behavior”, Communications
of the ACM, Vol. 42 No. 12, pp. 32-38, doi: 10.1145/322796.322805.
Beschel, R. (2021), “Policy and institutional responses to COVID-19 in the Middle East and North
Africa: Egypt”, available at: www.brookings.edu/research/policy-and-institutional-responses-to-
covid-19-in-the-middle-east-and-north-africa-egypt/
Bjurling, L. and Ekstam, V. (2018), “Influencer marketing’s effect on brand perceptions – a consumer
involvement perspective”.
Brakus, J.L., Schmitt, B.H. and Zarantonello, L. (2009), “Brand experience: what is it? How is it
measured? Does it affect loyalty?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73 No. 3.
Bravo, R., Catalan, S. and Pina, J. (2019), “Intergenerational differences in customer engagement
behaviours: an analysis of social tourism websites”, International Journal of Tourism Research,
Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 182-191.
Breisinger, C., Raouf, M., Wiebelt, M., Kamaly, A. and Karara, M. (2020), Impact of COVID-19 on the
Egyptian economy: economic sectors, jobs, and households, Retrieved from Middle East and
North Africa.
Briley, D.A. and Aaker, J.L. (2006), “When does culture matter? Effects of personal knowledge on the
correction of culture-based judgments”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 43 No. 3,
pp. 395-408.
Brodie, R.J., Hollebeek, L.D., Juric, B. and Ilic, A. (2011), “Customer engagement: conceptual domain,
fundamental propositions, and implications for research”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 14
No. 3, pp. 252-271.
Bryant, J. and Miron, D. (2006), “Theory and research in mass communication”, Journal of
Communication, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 662 -704.
Busalim, A., Ghabban, F. and Hussin, A. (2021), “Customer engagement behaviour on social commerce
platforms: an empirical study”, Technology in Society, Vol. 64.
JIMA Carillo, K. (2010), “Social cognitive theory in is research – literature review, criticism, and research
agenda”, Communications in Computer and Information Science, Vol. 54.
Carlson, J. and O’Cass, A. (2010), “Exploring the relationships between e-service quality, satisfaction,
attitudes and behaviours in content-driven e-service web sites”, Journal of Services Marketing
Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 112-127.
Carlson, J., Rahman, M., Voola, R. and De Vries, N. (2018), “Customer engagement behaviours in social
media: capturing innovation opportunities”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 1,
pp. 83-94.
Casalo Ariño, L., Flavian, C. and Guinalíu, M. (2007), “The influence of satisfaction, perceived
reputation and trust on a consumer’s commitment to a website”, Journal of Marketing
Communications, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 1-17, doi: 10.1080/13527260600951633.
Cayla, J. and Arnould, E.J. (2008), “A cultural approach to branding in the global marketplace”, Journal
of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 88-114.
Charm, T. Grimmelt, A. Jain, A. Robinson, K. Mandel, J. Ortega, M. Yamakawa, N. and Stack, Y. (2020),
“Consumer sentiment is evolving as countries around the world begin to open”, available at: www.
mckinsey.com/business-functions/marketing-and-sales/our-insights/a-global-viewof-how-consumer-
behavior-is-changing-amid-covid-19
Chen, Y.-W. (2020), “Sustainable value co-creation in the virtual community: how diversified co-creation
experience affects co-creation intention”, International Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health, Vol. 17.
Chepurna, M. and Criado, R. (2018), “Identification of barriers to co-create on-line: the perspectives of
customers and companies”, Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 4,
pp. 452-471.
Cheung, M., Pires, G., Rosenberger, P. and Oliveira, M. (2019), “Driving consumer–brand engagement
and co-creation by brand interactivity”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 38 No. 4,
pp. 523-541.
Chrisdira, V., Qastharin, A. and Mayangsari, L. (2020), “An analysis of factors influencing customers’
willingness to participate in value co-creation of Indonesian denim brand community (case
study: Darahku Biru)”, KnE Social Sciences, doi: 10.18502/kss.v4i6.6616.
Cortez, R.M. and Johnston, W.J. (2020), “The Coronavirus crisis in B2B settings: crisis uniqueness and
managerial implications based on social exchange theory”, Industrial Marketing Management,
Vol. 88, pp. 125-135.
Dabbous, A. and Barakat, K. (2020), “Bridging the online offline gap: assessing the impact of brands’
social network content quality on brand awareness and purchase intention”, Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services, Vol. 53.
Dash, S., Bruning, E. and Acharya, M. (2009), “The effect of power distance and individualism on
service quality expectations in banking: a two-country individual- and national-cultural
comparison”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 336-358.
Datta, D. (2009), “Development of a scale to measure the influence of cultural dimensions on purchase
heuristics”, Globsyn Management Journal, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 7-24.
Dessart, L., Veloutsou, C. and Morgan-Thomas, A. (2015), “Consumer engagement in online brand
communities: a social media perspective”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 24
No. 1, pp. 28-42, doi: 10.1108/JPBM-06-2014-0635.
DinarStandard (2020), State of the Global Islamic Economy Report: Driving the Islamic Economy
Revolution 4.0.
DinarStandard (2021), State of the Global Islamic Economy Report: Thriving in Uncertainty, Retrieved
from Dubai.
DiNucci, D. (1999), “Design and new media: fragmented future-web development faces a process of
mitosis, mutation, and natural selection”, Print-New York, Vol. 53, pp. 32-35.
Dolan, R., Conduit, J., Bentham, C., Fahy, J. and Goodman, S. (2019), “Social media engagement Factors
behavior: a framework for engaging customers through social media content”, European Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 53 No. 10.
influencing
Donthu, N. and Gustafsson, A. (2020), “Effects of COVID-19 on business and research”, Journal of
customer
Business, Vol. 117, pp. 284-289. engagement
Donthu, N. and Yoo, B. (1998), “Cultural influences on service quality expectations”, Journal of Service
Research, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 178-186, doi: 10.1177/109467059800100207.
Duong, G., Wu, W. and Le, L. (2020), “The effects of brand page characteristics on customer brand
engagement: moderating roles of community involvement and comedy production contents”,
Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 531-545.
Edvardsson, B., Tronvoll, B. and Gruber, T. (2011), “Expanding understanding of service exchange and
value co-creation: a social construction approach”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 39 No. 2.
EgyptInnovate (2017), “How does the Egyptian consumer form his opinion?”, available at: https://
egyptinnovate.com/en/articles/how-does-egyptian-consumer-form-his-opinion
Emarketing-Egypt (2020), “The impact of coronavirus pandemic on eCommerce in Egypt”, available at:
www.emarketing-egypt.com/impact-of-coronavirus-pandemic-on-ecommerce-egypt/
Eppler, M. (2009), Managing Information Quality. Increasing the Value of Information in Knowledge-
Intensive Products and Processes, Springer Science and Business Media.
Fan, X., Ning, N. and Deng, N. (2020), “The impact of the quality of intelligent experience on smart retail
engagement”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 38 No. 7, pp. 877-891.
Flandersinvestmentandtrade (2017), “Outpacing the mainstream: state of the Global Islamic economy
report 2017/18”, available at: www.flandersinvestmentandtrade.com/export/sites/trade/files/
attachments/State%20of%20the%20Global%20Islamic%0Economy%202017-18.pdf
France, C., Merrilees, B. and Miller, D. (2015), “Customer brand co-creation: a conceptual model”,
Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 848-864.
France, C., Grace, D., Merrilees, B. and Miller, D. (2018), “Customer brand co-creation behavior:
conceptualization and empirical validation”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 36
No. 3.
Franco, M. and Meneses, R. (2020), “The influence of culture in customers’ expectations about the hotel
service in Latin countries with different human development levels”, European Journal of
Tourism, Hospitality and Recreation, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 56-73.
Fu, J., Lu, C., Ko, P.-C. and Lee, W.-L. (2018), “Brand engagement and co-creation in the online
environments- based on the self-determination theory”, Association for Computing Machinery.
Gentina, E., Butori, R., Rose, G.M. and Bakir, A. (2014), “How national culture impacts teenage
shopping behavior: comparing French and American consumers”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 67 No. 4, pp. 464-470.
Grönroos, C. and Ravald, A. (2011), “Service as business logic: implications for value creation and
marketing”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 5-22.
Hair, J., Hollingsworth, C.L., Randolph, A.B. and Chong, A.Y.L. (2017), “An updated and expanded
assessment of PLS-SEM in information systems research”, Industrial Management and Data
Systems, Vol. 117 No. 3, pp. 442-458.
Hamada, A. (2020), “Corona causes a decline in sales of clothes during the holiday, and the stock in
stores exceeds 40%. and the clothing division: men’s prices are down 30% . . . and some resort
to selling two pieces, and they have the 3 gift or electronic marketing in order to stimulate the
movement”, available at: www.youm7.com/story/2020/5/21/%D9%83%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%
88%D9%86%D8%A7-%D9%8A%D8%AA%D8%B3%D8%A8%D8%A8-%D9%81%D9%89-%
D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AC%D8%B9-%D9%85%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%B9%D8%
A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%B3-%D9%81%
JIMA D9%89-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%8A%D8%AF-%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%
85%D8%AE%D8%B2%D9%88%D9%86-%D9%81%D9%89/4785910
Harmeling, C., Moffett, J., Arnold, M. and Carlson, B. (2016), “Toward a theory of customer engagement
marketing”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 45 No. 3, doi: 10.1007/s11747-016-
0509-2.
Hassan, F., Kasi, P., Shaharuddin, N. and Kechil, M. (2018), “Islamic and modest fashion lifestyle”,
Journal of Islamic Management Studies, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 78-88.
Ho, C. and Wang, Y. (2015), “Repurchase intentions and virtual customer relationships on social media
brand community”, Human-Centric Computing and Information Sciences, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 1-16.
Hofstede-insights (2021), “Hofstede insights for Egypt”, available at: www.hofstede-insights.com/
country/egypt/
Hollebeek, L., Glynn, M. and Brodie, R. (2014), “Consumer brand engagement in social media:
conceptualization, scale development and validation”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 28
No. 2, doi: 10.1016/j.intmar.2013.12.002.
Hossam, O. (2019), “Surviving hijab shopping: 18 modest Egyptian brands to your rescue”, available at:
https://fustany.com/en/fashion/hijab-fashion/hijab-fashion-and-modest-clothes-by-local-Egyptian-
brands
Hultsch, D., MacDonald, S., Hunter, M., Maitland, S. and Dixon, R. (2002), “Sampling and
generalisability in developmental research: comparison of random and convenience samples of
older adults”, International Journal of Behavioral Development, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 345-359.
Jaakkola, E. and Alexander, M. (2014), “The role of customer engagement behavior in value co-creation
a service system perspective”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 247-261.
Jones, C. and Kim, S. (2010), “Influences of retail brand trust, off-line patronage, clothing involvement
and website quality on online apparel shopping intention”, International Journal of Consumer
Studies, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 627-637.
Kang, J.-Y.M.K. (2014), “Repurchase loyalty for customer social co-creation e-marketplaces”, Journal of
Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 452-464.
Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B.C. and Wei, K.K. (2005), “Contributing knowledge to electronic knowledge
repositories: an empirical investigation”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 113-143.
Kanoushi, A. (2005), “An empirical investigation of the role of culture on service recovery expectations”,
Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 57-69.
Kaplan, A.M. and Haenlein, M. (2010), “Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of
social media”, Business Horizons, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 59-68.
Karpen, I. and Conduit, J. (2020), “Engaging in times of COVID-19 and beyond: theorizing customer
engagement through different paradigmatic lense”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 31
No. 6, pp. 1161-1174.
Khan, I., Hollebeek, L., Fatma, M., Islam, J. and Rahman, Z. (2019), “Brand engagement and
experience in online services”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 2, doi: 10.1108/JSM-
03-2019-0106.
Kim, J. (2020), “Impact of the perceived threat of COVID-19 on variety-seeking”, Australasian
Marketing Journal (AMJ), Vol. 28 No. 3, doi: 10.1016/j.ausmj.2020.07.001.
Kim, E., Lee, J.A., Sung, Y. and Choi, S.M. (2016), “Predicting selfie-posting behavior on social
networking sites: an extension of theory of planned behavior”, Computers in Human Behavior,
Vol. 62, pp. 116-123.
Legohérel, P., Daucé, B., Hsu, C.H. and Ranchhold, A. (2009), “Culture, time orientation, and exploratory
buying behavior”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 93-107.
Lin (2007), “To share or not to share: modeling knowledge sharing using exchange ideology as a
moderator”, Personnel Review.
Lin, J. and Hwang, M. (2010), “Audit quality, corporate governance, and earnings management: a meta- Factors
analysis”, International Journal of Auditing, Vol. 14 pp. 57-77, doi: 10.1111/j.1099-1123.2009.00403.x.
influencing
Lippke, S. (2017), “Outcome expectation”, pp. 1-2.
customer
Liu, L. (2016), “A study on factors of public intention for engaging in e-government service value co-
creation”, Dissertation, Nanjing University, Nanjing, May (in Chinese).
engagement
Liu, Li, Zhang and Huang (2017), “Gender differences in information quality of virtual communities: a
study from an expectation-perception perspective”, Personality Individ. Differ, Vol. 104 No. 1,
pp. 224-229.
Loureiro, S., Gorgus, T. and Kaufmann, H. (2017), “Antecedents and outcomes of online brand
engagement: the role of brand love on enhancing electronic-word-of-mouth”, Online Information
Review, Vol. 41 No. 7.
McKinney, V., Yoon, K. and Zahedi, F. (2002), “The measurement of web-customer satisfaction: an
expectation and disconfirmation approach”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 13 No. 3,
pp. 296-315, doi: 10.1287/isre.13.3.296.76.
Markard, J. and Holt, E. (2003), “Disclosure of electricity products—lessons from consumer research as
guidance for energy policy”, Energy Policy, Vol. 31 No. 14, pp. 1459-1474, doi: 10.1016/S0301-4215
(02)00201-X.
Mehta, S., Saxena, T. and Purohit, N. (2020), “The new consumer behaviour paradigm amid COVID-19:
permanent or transient?”, Journal of Health Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 291-301, doi: 10.1177/
0972063420940834.
Meire, M., Hewett, K., Ballings, M., Kumar, V. and Poel, D. (2019), “The role of marketer-generated
content in customer engagement marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 83 No. 6, pp. 21-42.
Merrilees, B. (2016), “Interactive Brand experience pathways to customer-brand engagement and value
co-creation”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 402-408, doi: 10.1108/
JPBM-04-2016-1151.
Moe, W.W. and Schweidel, D.A. (2011), “Online product opinions: incidence, evaluation and evolution”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 392-413.
Molinillo, S., Anaya-Sanchez, R. and Liébana-Cabanillas, F. (2020), “Analyzing the effect of social
support and community factors on customer engagement and its impact on loyalty behaviors
toward social commerce websites”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 108, p. 108.
Moon, J., Chadee, D. and Tikoo, S. (2008), “Culture, product type, and price influences on consumer
purchase intention to buy personalized products online”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 61
No. 1, pp. 31-39.
Muninger, M., Hammedi, W. and Mahr, D. (2019), “The value of social media for innovation: a
capability perspective”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 95, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.10.012.
Muniz, A.M., Jr,. and Schau, H.J. (2005), “Religiosity in the abandoned apple newton brand community”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 737-747.
Nambisan, P. and Watt, J. (2011), “Managing customer experiences in online product communities”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 64, pp. 889-895, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.09.006.
Nosseir, M. (2017), “Driven by emotions and interests, Egyptians are deeply polarized”, available at:
https://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2017/03/29/Driven-by-their-emotions-and-
interests-Egyptians-are-deeply-polarized
Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), “The assessment of reliability”, Psychometric Theory, Vol. 3,
pp. 248-292.
Opata, C.N., Xiao, W., Nusenu, A.A., Tetteh, S. and Opata, E.S. (2019), “Customer willingness to
participate in value co-creation: the moderating effect of social ties (empirical study of
automobile customers in Ghana)”, Cogent Business and Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, p. 1573868,
doi: 10.1080/23311975.2019.1573868.
JIMA Overby, J.W. (2015), “The impact of collectivism and individualism on customer expectations”, Paper
presented at the Proceedings of the 1998 Multicultural Marketing Conference, Cham.
Papa, A., Santoro, G., Tirabeni, L. and Monge, F. (2018), “Social media as tool for facilitating knowledge
creation and innovation in small and medium enterprises”, Baltic Journal of Management,
Vol. 13 No. 3.
Patterson, P.G., Brady, M.K. and McColl-Kennedy, J.R. (2016), “Geysers or bubbling hot springs? A
cross-cultural examination of customer rage from Eastern and Western perspectives”, Journal of
Service Research, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 243-259.
Pillar, F.T., Vossen, A. and Ihl, C. (2011), “From social media to social product development: the impact
of social media on co-creation of innovation”, Die Unternehmung, Vol. 66 No. 1.
Prahalad, C.K. and Rasmaswamy, V. (2004), The Future of Competition: Co-Creating Unique Value with
Customers, Harvard Business Press.
Prasad, S.K., Thipakorn, B., Jaiswal, M.P., Sahni, S. and Vin, H.M. (2010), “Information systems,
technology and management”, Paper presented at the 4th International Conference, ICISTM
2010, Bangkok, Thailand.
Prentice, C., Wang, X. and Loureiro, S. (2019), “The influence of brand experience and service quality on
customer engagement”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 50, pp. 50-59.
Radwan, G. (2020), “Epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 in Egypt”, Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal,
Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 768-773.
Rai, B. (2018), “Modest fashion gets its own Dubai platform”, Gulf News, available at: http://gulfnews.
com/life-style/glamour/fashion/modest-fashion-gets-its-own-dubaiplatform-1.2173386
Ramzy, O. and Eldahan, O.H. (2016), “An empirical investigation of E-commerce in Egypt: the impact of
culture on online purchasing”, Global Business Review, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 1011-1025, doi: 10.1177/
0972150916656651.
Ratten, V. (2020), “Coronavirus (Covid-19) and social value co-creation”, International Journal of
Sociology and Social Policy, doi: 10.1108/IJSSP-06-2020-023.
Reuters (2017), “Outpacing the mainstream”, available at: www.slideshare.net/EzzedineGHLAMALLAH/
state-of-the-global-islamic-economy-20172018
Schunk, D.H. and Pajares, F. (2002), “The development of academic self-efficacy”, in Wigfield, A. and
Eccles, J.S. (Eds), A Vol. in the Educational Psychology Series. Development of Achievement
Motivation, John Wiley and Sons, Inc, pp. 15-31.
Schmidt, T. and Hitchon, J. (1999), “When advertising and public relations converge: an application of
schema theory to the persuasive impact of alignment ads”, Journalism and Mass
Communication Quarterly, Vol. 76 No. 3, pp. 433-455.
Scuotto, V., Del Giudice, M., Rosaria della Peruta, M. and Tarba, S. (2017), “The performance
implications of leveraging internal innovation through social media networks: an empirical
verification of the smart fashion industry”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
Vol. 120, pp. 184-194.
Shang, Y.H., Ai, S.Z. and Wang, F.Y. (2012), “Empirical study on knowledge sharing behavior of virtual
community users based on social cognitive theory”, Science and Technology Progress and Policy,
Vol. 29 No. 7, pp. 127-132.
Shang, H., Fu, Q., Zhang, S. and Zhu, X. (2020), “Heating temperature dependence of molecular
characteristics and biological response for biomass pyrolysis volatile-derived water-dissolved
organic matter”, Science of the Total Environment, p. 143749, doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143749.
Sharma, G. (2019), “How modest fashion became a global trend”, available at: www.raconteur.net/retail/
future-retail-2019/modest-fashion
Sheth, J. (2020), “Impact of covid-19 on consumer behaviour: will the old habits return or die?”, Journal
of Business Research, Vol. 117, pp. 280-283.
Simon, F. and Tossan, V. (2018), “Does brand-consumer social sharing matter? A relational framework Factors
of customer engagement to brand-hosted social media”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 85,
pp. 175-184.
influencing
So, K.K.F., Li, X. and Kim, H. (2019), “A decade of customer engagement research in hospitality and
customer
tourism: a systematic review and research agenda”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism engagement
Research, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 178-200, doi: 10.1177/1096348019895562.
Tahawy, M. (2019), “Factors affecting online services shopping behavior: a study of Egyptian
consumers”, Masters, American University in Cairo, Egypt.
Tajvidi, M., Richard, M.-O., Wang, Y. and Hajli, N. (2018), “Brand co-creation through social commerce
information sharing: the role of social media”, Journal of Business Research.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2008), “Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 1-10.
Varrella, S. (2020), “Population in Africa 2020, by country”, available at: www.statista.com/statistics/
1121246/population-in-africa-by-country/
Wahish, N. (2020), “Egypt: consumer trends in lockdown”, available at: http://english.ahram.org.eg/
NewsContent/50/1202/368726/AlAhram-Weekly/Economy/Egypt-Consumer-trends-in-lockdown.
aspx
Wang, Y.J., Hernandez, M.D. and Minor, M.S. (2010), “Web aesthetics effects on perceived online service
quality and satisfaction in an e-tail environment: the moderating role of purchase task”, Journal
of Business Research, Vol. 63 Nos 9/10, pp. 935-942.
Watanabe, T. and Omori, Y. (2020), Online Consumption During the COVID-19 Crisis: Evidence from
Japan, Retrieved from Japan.
Werts, C.E., Linn, R.L. and Joreskog, K.G. (1974), “Interclass reliability estimates: testing structural
assumptions”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 25-33.
WHO (2021), “World Health Organization Egypt COVID-19 situation”, available at: https://covid19.
who.int/region/emro/country/eg
Worldometer (2021), “COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic”, available at: www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
Wu, S.-H. and Gao, Y. (2019), “Understanding emotional customer experience and co-creation
behaviours in luxury hotels”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
Vol. 31 No. 11, pp. 4247-4275.
Yasin, M., Liébana-Cabanillas, F., Porcu, L. and Kayef, R. (2020), “The role of customer online
brand experience in customers’ intention to forward online company-generated content: the
case of the Islamic online banking sector in Palestine”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, Vol. 52.
Yazdanparast, A., Manuj, I. and Swartz, S.M. (2010), “Co-creating logistics value: a service-
dominant logic perspective”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 21
No. 3, pp. 375-403.
Yi, Y. and Gong, T. (2013), “Customer value co-creation behavior: scale development and
validation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 9, pp. 1279-1284, doi: 10.1016/j.
jbusres.2012.02.026.
Yi, Y., Nataraajan, R. and Gong, T. (2011), “Customer participation and citizenship behavioral
influences on employee performance, satisfaction, commitment, and turnover
intention”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 87-95, doi: 10.1016/j.
jbusres.2009.12.007.
Zeekaf, E. (2018), How to co-Create Based on Personality: The Influence of Personality Traits on
Consumers’ Motives of the Willingness to co-Create, Radboud University.
Zhang, P. (2017), “Co-creation experience: measurement development and influence on value in sharing
economy”.
JIMA Zhang, L., Y., Wang, B. and Wu, S. (2015), “The impacts of technological environments and co-creation
experiences on customer participation”, Information and Management, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 468-482.
Zhang, Y., Zhang, M., Luo, N., Wang, Y. and Niu, T. (2019), “Understanding the formation mechanism
of high-quality knowledge in social question and answer communities: a knowledge co-creation
perspective”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 48.
Zhao, Y., Chen, Y., Zhou, R. and Ci, Y. (2018), “Factors influencing customers’ willingness to participate
in virtual brand community’s value co-creation: the moderating effect of customer involvement”,
Online Information Review, Vol. 43 No. 3.

Further reading
Bradbury-Jones, C. and Isham, L. (2020), “The pandemic paradox: the consequences of COVID-19 on
domestic violence”, Journal of Clinical Nursing, Vol. 29 Nos 13/14, pp. 2047-2049.
Independent (2019), “What is modest fashion and why is it becoming mainstream?”, available at:
www.independent.co.uk/life-style/fashion/modest-fashion-asos-hijab-range-design-islam-
religion-a8875636.html
Nestorovic, C. (2016), Islamic Marketing: Understanding the Socio-Economic, Cultural and Politico-
Legal, Enviroment, Springer International Publishing.
Waninger, K. (2015), “The veiled identity: hijabistas, Instagram and branding in the online Islamic
fashion industry”, Master, Georgia State University.
Yafai, F.A. (2017), “Islamic clothing is changing the fashion world. But it will not dismantle the
desire to judge women [Press release]”, available at: www.thenational.ae/opinion/islamic-
clothing-is-changing-the-fashion-worldut-it-will-not-dismantle-the-desire-to-judge-women-
1.65959

About the authors

Kesmat AbdelAziz is Assistant Lecturer in Arab Academy for Science and Technology and Maritime
Transport in Business Information Systems Department. She holds MBA in e-commerce from Arab
Academy for Science and Technology and Maritime Transport. She is currently pursuing her PhD
from Universiti Sains Malaysia in Technology Management. Kesmat AbdelAziz is the corresponding
author and can be contacted at: kesmat.yehia@aast.edu
Dr Nor Hasliza Md Saad is Lecturer in the Operations Management Section of the School of
Management at the Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM). She received her BA in Computer Information
Systems from Temple University, USA and MSc in Information Technology in Universiti Sains
Malaysia, Malaysia. She received her Doctor of Philosophy in Computer Science from Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia, Malaysia.
Ramayah Thurasamy is currently Professor in the School of Management, Universiti Sains
Malaysia. Additionally, he is currently affiliated with Sunway University, Internet Innovation Research
Center and Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman (UTAR) Malaysia. He has supervised several PhD, MA
and DBA students. He is constantly invited to serve on the editorial boards and program committees of
many international journals and conferences. In addition, Ramayah T. has collaborated with noted
companies from various disciplines of business through multiple consultancy projects.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

View publication stats