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

net/publication/367269268

The role of trust in tourists’ motivation to participate in co-creation

Article  in  Tourism Review · January 2023

DOI: 10.1108/TR-08-2021-0399

CITATIONS READS

5 229

6 authors, including:

Reşat Arıca Betül Kodaş

Batman Üniversitesi Mardin Artuklu Üniversitesi
75 PUBLICATIONS   248 CITATIONS    13 PUBLICATIONS   25 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Cihan Cobanoglu M. Omar Parvez

University of South Florida University of South Florida
141 PUBLICATIONS   5,465 CITATIONS    6 PUBLICATIONS   104 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

innovation in museums and heritage sites View project

innovation in tourism business View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Reşat Arıca on 23 January 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The role of trust in tourists’ motivation to
participate in co-creation
Resat Arıca, Betül Kodas, Cihan Cobanoglu, M. Omar Parvez, Viput Ongsakul and
Valentina Della Corte

Resat Arıca is based at

Abstract
Faculty of Tourism, Batman
Purpose – Intention to re-participate in co-creation (IRCC) is an essential indication of customers to their
University, Batman, Turkey.
deal proneness. Therefore, this study aims to focus on the role of trust in the relationship between tourists’
motivation for IRCC activities and the perceived service outputs in the tourism research. Betül Kodas is based at
Design/methodology/approach – This study applies a quantitative method approach to achieve Faculty of Tourism, Mardin
perceptions into this unfamiliar phenomenon of IRCC. A total of 305 valid questionnaires were collected Artuklu University, Mardin,
from October 10 to October 30, 2020 in Istanbul, then analyzed with covariance-based structural Turkey. Cihan Cobanoglu is
equation modeling using the linear structural relations (LISREL) software package. based at Muma College of
Findings – The findings of the study showed that the tourists’ IRCC is categorized under four factors: Business, University of
learning benefit, social interaction benefit, hedonic benefit and financial benefit. In the context of IRCC, South Florida Sarasota-
organizational trust partially mediates the relationship between tourist intention and deal proneness Manatee, Sarasota, Florida,
motivation for IRRC. USA. M. Omar Parvez is
Research limitations/implications – The scope of research was limited to domestic tourists visiting based at Faculty of
Istanbul. Research must be conducted on tourists visiting other destinations and who differ in terms of Tourism, Eastern
cultural features to make assessments on a larger scale. Furthermore, when considering that co-creation
Mediterranean University,
is the consequence of the collaboration between the business and the customers, researching
Famagusta, Turkey.
businesses’ initiatives based on promoting the participation in co-creation will make a contribution both
for the managers and to the literature to formalize the co-creation process. In addition, social networks Viput Ongsakul is based at
are one of the main platforms where tourists motivation to participate in co-creation, but tourists can both National Institute of
create and destroy value on social media regarding the businesses and touristic experience. In this Development
respect, future research should analyze tourists’ motivation elements that urge them to co-create and co- Administration, Bangkok,
destroy value on social networks, contributing to understanding and evaluating the co-creation process Thailand.
in all aspects. Valentina Della Corte is
Practical implications – In contrast with prior research, this study offers a model that integrates the based at University
antecedents and consequences of the IRCC process. In this perception, insight tourist motivational Federico II of Naples,
factors to IRCC activities provides a path for tourism businesses to strategically manage their activities. Napoli, Italy.
This study mostly uncovers the role of organizational trust positively in effect the re-participation.
Originality/value – IRCC is an issue that should be evaluated with its antecedents and outputs. In the
literature, several studies evaluate co-creation outputs but research on antecedents promoting IRCC is
limited. In this study, the antecedents (motivation to re-participate) and outputs of co-creation (trust and
perceived benefit) are evaluated together.
Keywords Service-dominant logic, Tourism, Expectancy theory, Co-creation, Motivation
Paper type Research paper

信任在游客参与共创动机中的角色

摘要
设计和科研方法: 应用量化分析方法研究再参与共创这一不熟悉的现象。2020年10月10日
30日在土耳
Received 28 August 2021
其搜集了305份调查问卷。使用LISREL软件, 通过协方差结构方程模型（CB-SEM）进行分析。 Revised 7 January 2022
25 May 2022
目的: 再参与共创（IRCC）的意向是了解顾客交易倾向的重要标志。本文聚焦信任在游客再参与共创活 19 September 2022
动的动机与旅游研究方面的服务产出的关系之间所扮演的角色。 Accepted 20 September 2022

DOI 10.1108/TR-08-2021-0399 © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1660-5373 j TOURISM REVIEW j

 研究成果: 研究成果表明游客再参与共创的意向分为四个因素：1. 学习收益; 2. 社会互动收益; 3. 享乐收
益 4. 财务收益。组织信任一定程度上调解了对于再参与共创的意向而言游客意向和交易倾向之间的关
系。

研究局限: 本研究的范围仅限于访问伊斯坦布尔的国内游客。未来研究需对到访其他目的地、文化特征
不同的游客进行研究, 以进行更大范围的评估。此外, 当考虑到共创是企业与客户合作的结果时, 研究企业
在促进共创参与的基础上的举措将有助于管理者和学者将共创过程具体化。此外, 社交网络是游客
MPCC 的主要平台之一, 但游客可以在社交媒体上创造和破坏关于商业和旅游体验的价值。在这方面, 未
来的研究应该分析游客在社交网络上共创和共毁价值的动机因素, 有助于从各个方面理解和评估共创过
程。
实践启示: 不同于以前的研究, 本研究建立了综合再参与共创过程因果关系的模型。洞察游客再参与共创
活动动机的因素为旅游业战略管理提供了一个路径。本研究基本上揭示了组织信任角色与再参与正向影
响的关系。

原创性（价值）: 再参与共创意向问题应该基于其因果进行评估。以前的研究虽然评估了共创产出, 但是,

对于促进再参与共创原因的研究有局限。本文同时研究了原因（再参与的动机）和共创的结果（信任与
收益）

关键词 预期理论, , 动机, , 自我主导逻辑, , 共创, , 旅游业,

文章类型 研究型论文

de los turistas Para participar en la cocreacion

El papel de la confianza en la motivacion

Resumen
Diseño/metodología/enfoque: Se aplica una metodologı´a cuantitativa para analizar las percepciones
de un nuevo concepto, intencion
de volver a participar en la co-creacion
(Intention to Re-participate in
Co-Creation, IRCC). Se recogieron un total de 305 cuestionarios validos,
en el perı´odo comprendido
entre el 10 y 30 de octubre de 2020 en Estambul, y se analizaron con un modelo de ecuaciones
estructurales basado en la covarianza (CB-SEM) utilizando el software LISREL.
Objetivo: La intencion
de volver a participar en la cocreacion
(IRCC) es un indicador esencial de los
clientes para su propension
al trato. Por tanto, la finalidad de este estudio es centrarse en el papel de la
confianza en la relacion
entre la motivacion
de los turistas para las actividades de IRCC y los resultados
percibidos del servicio en la investigacion
en turismo
Conclusiones: Los resultados del estudio mostraron que el IRCC de los turistas se agrupa en cuatro
factores: (i) beneficio del aprendizaje, (ii) beneficio de la interaccion
social, (iii) beneficio hedonico

y (iv)
beneficio financiero. En el contexto del IRCC, la confianza organizativa media parcialmente en la relacion


del turista y la motivacion
entre la intencion
de propension
al trato para el IRCC.
Limitaciones/implicaciones de la investigacio
n: El alcance de la investigacion
se limito
a los turistas
nacionales que visitan Estambul. Es necesario investigar a los turistas que visitan otros destinos y que
difieren en cuanto a sus caracterı´sticas culturales para realizar evaluaciones a mayor escala. Ademas,
al
considerar que la cocreacion
es la consecuencia de la colaboracion
entre la empresa y los clientes, el


analisis de las iniciativas de las empresas basadas en la promocion
de la participacion
en la co-creacion

supondra
una contribucion
tanto para los gestores como para la literatura para formalizar el proceso de
co-creacion.
Ademas,
las redes sociales son una de las principales plataformas en las que los turistas

motivados para participar en co-creacion
estan
de valor (MPCC), pero los turistas pueden tanto crear
como destruir valor en los medios sociales en relacion
con las empresas y la experiencia turı´stica. En
este sentido, futuras investigaciones, deberı´an analizar los elementos de motivacion
de los turistas que
les impulsan a co-crear y co-destruir valor en las redes sociales, contribuyendo a la comprension
y
evaluacion
del proceso de co-creacion
en todos sus aspectos.
Implicaciones pra
cticas: A diferencia de las investigaciones anteriores, el estudio ofrece un modelo
que integra los antecedentes y las consecuencias del proceso del IRCC. En esta percepcion,
el
conocimiento de los factores de motivacion
de los turistas hacia las actividades de IRCC proporciona


una vı´a para que las empresas turı´sticas gestionen estrategicamente sus actividades. Este estudio se
centra en el papel de la confianza organizativa en el efecto de la re-participacion.

Originalidad/valor: El IRCC es un tema que debe ser evaluado con sus antecedentes y resultados. En
la literatura, varios estudios evaluan
los resultados de la cocreacion,
pero la investigacion
sobre los
antecedentes que promueven el IRCC es limitada. En este estudio se evaluan
conjuntamente los
antecedentes (motivacion
para volver a participar) y los resultados de la cocreacion
(confianza y
beneficio percibido).
Palabras clave Teorı´a de la expectativa, Motivacion,
Logica

dominante del servicio, Cocreacion,

Turismo
Tipo de papel Trabajo de investigacion

j TOURISM REVIEW j
1. Introduction
Customer co-creation, representing the resource integration and collaboration between the
business and the customer, helps businesses manage their service outputs (Gemser and
Perks, 2015). The collaboration and the relationship roles between the production
stakeholders have changed in the tourism sector. With their increasingly informed, pro-
active, empowered, connected and complex in the market place, customers are no longer
passive audience and take on the role of active co-producer. This situation makes it
essential for tourism businesses to determine and implement customer-oriented ideas and
production strategies toward maintaining and developing their competitive power (Vargo
and Lusch, 2004).
Co-creation enables businesses to learn customer requests and needs and to offer
appropriate suggestions to customers. In this way, businesses could improve their service
performance outputs, while at the same time improving the customers’ perceptions of the
service outputs. Because of the increasing attention paid to co-creation, the term has been
used increasingly in the literature. According to Grissemann and Stokburger-Sauer (2012),
co-creation improves financial indicators and brand value, such as sale and profit figures, of
the businesses as they better satisfy customers’ needs. Also Arıca and Çorbacı (2020) state
that, co-creation improves the experience outputs such as benefit, quality, value and
increase satisfaction and loyalty of customers. The studies that, despite the developmental
function of customer co-creation regarding the customers’ experience output focused on
supply and demand, it would not be possible to improve service outputs if the customer co-
creation behavior is not motivated (Constantinides et al., 2015). Accordingly, the studies
underlined that it is only possible to actualize created in concordance with the customers
and to improve service outputs by increasing the motivation for co-creation (Sadjadi and
Menhaj, 2020).
Examining the studies on tourism regarding customer co-creation shows that they are
focused on the outputs created by the customer co-creation for the tourism businesses
(Font et al., 2021; Grissemann and Stokburger-Sauer, 2012) and tourists (Arıca and
Çorbacı, 2020; Campos et al., 2018; Yi and Gong, 2013) and that an economic perspective
is adopted in the analyses. In the literature, few studies focused on the factors of motivating
the tourists to participate or re-participate in co-creation (Fernandes and Remelhe, 2016;
Lorenzo-Romero and Constantinides, 2019). Trust plays an important role to motivate
customers in co-creation and in a greater management context co-creation has been
examined widely. For example, Jiang et al. (2021) studied this phenomenon in a sports
tourism context. Lei et al. (2021) examined the context of mobile-based value co-creation.
Besides, Prebensen et al. (2018) reported this phenomenon is needed to be examined in a
tourism and tourist context. Also, Fernandes and Remelhe (2016) and Sugathan and Ranjan
(2019) examined the consumer’s role in light of the customer experience in tourism, but the
researchers have limited understanding of the effects that customer co-creations have on
the tourism experience. Also, Palma et al. (2019) suggest that future studies can focus on a
specific group of customers. Therefore, in our study, we are looking at this phenomenon
from a local tourist perspective. Furthermore, previous studies used a single framework to
evaluate customer co-creation on experience outputs and tourists’ motivation to participate
in co-creation (MPCC). This situation makes it necessary to seek an answer to the following
questions:
Q1. To what extent are customers willing to participate in their own co-creation process?
Q2. How can tourism businesses motivate their customers to participate in co-creation
process?
Q3. How do motivation and the outputs interact with each other?
An examination of the literature shows that these questions have yet to be answered. This
research, which has these questions as a starting point, assesses the structural

j TOURISM REVIEW j
 relationships between the factors motivating tourists to re-participate and the experience
outputs. In this context, this research presents a model and examines the relationship
among tourists’ MPCC, the benefit perceived, the organizational trust and the tourists’
intention to re-participate. In addition, it examines the mediating role of organizational trust
in the relationship between the tourists’ MPCC and the perceived benefit (PERCB) as well
as the tourists’ intention to re-participate evaluated.

2. Theoretical background and hypotheses development

2.1 Expectancy theory
Since the beginning of the 20th century, scholars have used the perception of motivation to
examine and explain behavior in the occupational psychology field. In this circumstance,
Vroom (1964) presented the “expectancy theory of motivation” to consolidate and
assimilate obtainable knowledge (Lee, 2007). Vroom’s expectancy theory of motivation
expressed customers’ co-creation in an equation of three mental components Motivation =
expectancy (belief in the possibility of outcome)  instrumentality (belief in results of
outcome)  valence (desirable or undesirable outcomes)
Expectancy: In Vroom’s equation, expectancy is the prospect of people’s (entrepreneurs,
employees and customers) strength to achieve the desired goals. According to Pinto et al.
(2020), expectancy also refers to the persons’ self-confidence and particular action to
accomplish the task and achieve certain outcome. Customers’ MPCC is based on their
previous experiences, communication, organizations’ response and rewards (Gatewood,
1993). Lee (2007) said that, because expectancy is the combination strength and
performance, its value range is between 0 and 1. Therefore, when customers realize their
efforts have zero possibility of succeeding, they will not be motivated to participate.
Conversely, when they realize the higher probability of success, they will put additional
effort to contributing and accomplishing the desired outcome.
Instrumentality: Vroom’s explained that instrumentality is the person’s awareness of the
possibility that effort will lead to an unambiguous conclusion (Lee, 2007) and that more effort
will lead to more reward. Instrumentality ranges are: þ1 (powerfully positive-performing a
task), 0 (task and outcome has no relation) and
1 (sturdily negative-performing a task).
Valence: In general, valence is the outcome of the attraction to the individual and strength of
the performance in the preference of reward, attractiveness and value. But from person-to-
person valance has variations, so it is not the reward’s value but the reward’s perceived
value (Filimonov, 2017). According to Zaniboni et al. (2011), the valence of attractiveness
and desirability is the anticipation of the outcomes, which can be defined as perceived
value and rewards. Vroom (1964) also explained valence is zero when people are in
between of accepting or reject situation, in other words, in other words, the valence is zero
when a person is indifferent about purchasing (Lee, 2007).
In the co-creation context, tourists’ motives to participate in online value co-creation are
based on desire, positive valence and reward’s (Constantinides et al., 2015), because
reward’s enhance engagement, trust and positive intention to relate to an activity (Lorenzo-
Romero and Constantinides, 2019; Ferm and Thaichon, 2021). So, when tourists are willing
to participate with time, skills and knowledge, their main concern is to achieve a goal and
improve their knowledge and skills through practice (Lorenzo-Romero and Constantinides,
2019). The amount of time and effort they are willing to contribute depends on their
motivation, intention, PERCB and trust.

2.2 Value co-creation

In making digital purchases of goods and services, customers are not only receivers but
also actively participate in exchanges that co-create value (Ferm and Thaichon, 2021). In

j TOURISM REVIEW j
value co-creation, customers communicate with other customers, share an idea or new
concept, cooperate and engage to highlight brand value, sharing destination images,
helping attract new customers and ensure customers’ satisfaction (Mohammadi et al., 2020;
Lei et al., 2021; Shi et al., 2022). Service-dominant (S-D) logic based value co-creation by
the customers is an established model in the marketing and management literature (Vargo
and Lusch, 2017). Even though various aspects of co-creation have been studied, for
example, marketing, management and strategy, it is also applied in tourism and hospitality
and has become an essential inspiration in tourism research (Mohammadi et al., 2020)
because the tourism industry is known for selling experiences, not only products and
services (Campos et al., 2018).
Binkhorst and Den Dekker (2009) emphasized that customers are a vital resource to add
value to tourism organization. According to Mohammadi et al. (2020), tour operators
coordinate co-creation processes to create sustainable market expansions. But the
relationship between customers and service providers is complex. Therefore, we have
focused on the output of customer co-creation and intention to re-participation in a model
and tested the complex relationship mechanisms based on trust and motivation.

2.3 Motivation to participate in co-creation

Motivation is a psychological procedure of directing and uplifting customers’ person’s inner
desire to act positively and achieve the goal (Waseem et al., 2020). Customers’ co-creation
behavior has been used to discover the engagement between consumers and
organizations to generate value (Ind et al., 2020). According to Vroom’s (1964) expectancy
theory, motivation is the procedure that inspired customers to involve in co-creation action.
And organization can be concerned about value creation based on customers’ desires.
Vroom’s theory recommends that motivation is the combination of expectancy,
instrumentality and valence components.
In the literature, value co-creation can be found in numerous domains of management,
marketing and strategic areas. Chikweche and Shindi (2022) highlighted the role of
motivation as interaction in strengthening resources and rise capabilities in the process.
Besides, Fernandes and Remelhe (2016) mentioned motivation can influence customers’
participation in co-creation based on their expectations. Therefore, understanding
customers’ expectations enables any organization to motivate a community to participate in
co-creation (Ind et al., 2020). The authors also mentioned that in the co-creation process,
customers’ motivations primarily focus on “offers” and “financial compensation.”
Accordingly, S-D logic, value co-creation is the multi-actor phenomenon and the process of
the multiple actors where one benefits another, in this process possibly relating various
diverse levels of collaboration and value creation (Waseem et al., 2020). Vargo and Lusch
(2004) specified value co-creation as a core module of mutual and reciprocally beneficial
affiliation, where both parties share finance as well as couchsurfing in individual. As a result
of different parties’ interaction, value co-creation emerges in active participation and
collaborative effort. Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis:
H1. MPCC has a positive and significant influence on the intention to re-participate in co-
creation.

2.4 Trust in co-creation

Trust is significant in the service industry because it keeps customers engaged and loyal. If
the trust between customer and service provider is strong, customer loyalty, engagement
and collaboration with the organization are positively influenced (Ferm and Thaichon, 2021).
In the breadth of marketing, loyalty and commitment have been predicated on trust
(Franklin and Marshall, 2019). According to Higuchi and Yamanaka (2017, p. 1458), “the
trust in good faith, especially, encourages the recipient to more accurately disclose the

j TOURISM REVIEW j
 current level of his/her understanding.” Customer characteristics have identified trust as
influencing the customers’ attitude toward engagement and participation, which are the
antecedents of co-creation, but trust had no explicit impact on co-creation (Ferm and
Thaichon, 2021).
Motivation can be extrinsic and essential to understanding customers’ behavior of
involvement. Because different customers have different desires or levels of satisfaction,
rewards like money, price and discounts may convene individual customers differently
(Assiouras et al., 2019; Skourtis et al., 2019). To motivate an individual, Vroom (1964)
pointed out three criteria: first, they must value the behavioral outcome valence. Second,
they must believe that the desired behavior is instrumental in achieving the clean outcome.
In other words, the individuals must expect that if they behave in a certain way, they will
receive certain things. Finally, trust in an organization influence customers and (Lee, 2007,
p. 790). Drawing on these arguments, we proposed this hypothesis:
H2. MPCC influences trust in a positive and significant way.

2.5 Perceived benefit and co-creation

Perceive benefit is defined as the observation of the positive outcomes which is affected by
a particular activity (Leung, 2013). The construct of perceived benefits is mostly applied in
behavioral science to understand a person’s motive and describe the individual’s
motivations for presenting behavior and intention toward a specific task (Alves and
Mainardes, 2017). In co-creation, the phrase perceived benefit is commonly applied to
describe a customer’s motivations for positive perceptions (Cheung et al., 2021). For
instance, in tourism operations, perceived benefits of co-creation include a tourist’s beliefs
about obtaining benefits from deal proneness. Theoretically perception of benefits relates to
an individual’s beliefs about his/her outcomes, which influence others’ intention toward a
positive movement of co-creation (Jaworski and Kohli, 2006). Consequently, participants
could feel that co-creation would assist to obtain the best opportunity to be benefited as a
customer.
According to Bimonte and Punzo (2016), consumer and service organizations can involve in
value co-creation, particularly when perceived benefits include financial and social-cultural
benefits. Similarly, Cheung et al. (2021) mentioned “consumers are thus motivated to
participate in value co-creation activities when their perceived benefits, as manifested by
shared information and useful and entertaining experiences, are deemed to exceed their
participation costs, as manifested in the amount of time, energy and effort invested in the
activities.” So perceived benefits can categorize into positive impacts on consumers to
participate vigorously and willingly in co-creation (Yi and Gong, 2013). Based on S-D logic,
customers’ characteristics, motivation and perceived service may resolve customer
involvement in co-creation characteristics. In this consequence, we propose the following
hypothesis to be tested in a general context:
H3. MPCC has a positive and significant influence on perceived benefit.

2.6 Trust and intention to re-participation

Wang et al. (2014) declared, trust helps consumers to have faith in deal proneness, overall,
increases their intention to support others and be trustworthy when consumers and service
organizations build up a trustable relationship then consumers are willing to contribute and
re-participate. Similarly, Lei et al. (2020) and Shulga et al. (2021) mentioned, trust has a
special role as a precondition to value co-creation, as well as re-participation functions.
From the perspective of Alves and Mainardes (2017), trust represents the main variable for
describing loyalty as well as consumer motivation as a mediating variable in the relationship
between trust and loyalty. These authors also confirm that trust is the main fundamental

j TOURISM REVIEW j
between consumer and organization, therefore the more an organization is active with the
intention of gaining the consumers’ trust, the more consumers will be active in establishing
their loyalty toward the company. Therefore, whenever consumers participate in co-creation
activities, their ability and awareness match the organization’s individual resources and, in
that way, consumers obtain several kinds of benefits, which increase their trust in the
organization and re-participation intention. Correspondingly, Morgan and Hunt (1994) said
that constant collaboration and value sharing are necessary to generate trust between
consumer and service provider companies. In re-participation consumers are interactively
involved and keenly engaged required to upsurge trust among them. So, we suggested the
following hypothesis:
H4. The trust has a positive and significant influence on intention to re-participate in co-
creation.
In a competitive environment, consumers’ trust and commitment are identified as an
essential contributing factors in a business (Russo-Spena and Mele, 2012), besides missing
trust and its significance can be the reason for consumers’ uncertainty and a higher level of
risk (Alves and Mainardes, 2017). Sirdeshmukh et al. (2002) describe trust as an
established fundamental variable for clarifying reliability, and loyalty, which can enhance by
consumers’ perceived benefits in the mediation of trust and co-creation. As stated by
Vlachos et al. (2009) the relationship among perceived benefits, trust and co-creation is
based on mutual benefit; in this relationship how far a company is devoted to achieving the
trust of consumers, that many consumers will prove their loyalty by performance to the
company. So trust between consumers and a company is based on their provided service
experience, perceived benefits and value, which develops consumers’ loyalty and trust in
the company and its service and products (Vlachos et al., 2009). Based on the above
discussion, it would seem logical to propose the following hypothesis:
H5. The trust has a positive and significant influence on perceived benefit.
Nambisan and Baron (2009) said that the consumers’ antecedents of participation in value
co-creation are perceived benefits such as personal and social integration, knowledge and
pleasure-seeking. Likewise, Parrish et al. (2020) suggest that, in co-creation actions,
perceived benefits may be performed as motivations to participate, and seems that in the
relationship with a company, the better benefits perceived by consumers, the better the
level of interest participate in co-creation actions. This would support the idea that higher
benefits increase the understanding and trust between the customers and a company
(Russo-Spena and Mele, 2012). Shah et al. (2021) said that perceived value and trust
establish a mediating variable for the relationship between motivation of co-creation and
loyalty, as well as the relationship between trust and loyalty. Besides, trust offers an
assurance of reliability and capability of the organization, guaranteeing that customers carry
on achieving value in future transactions with the same provider (Alves and Mainardes,
2017). Based on the discussion, we propose the following hypothesis to be tested:
H6. Trust positively mediates the relationships between the MPCC and perceived
benefit.
In an inter-organizational relationship, trust and co-creation motivation can be correlated,
where trust is one of the greatest projecting domination mechanisms (Villena et al., 2019).
And trust as a mediator of the MPCC and intention to re-participate in co-creation can play a
major role by functioning as a central facilitator in social manners (Berenguer-Contrı́ et al.,
2020). Villena et al. (2019, p. 780) cited that, in the trust–performance relationship,
counterproductive outcomes arise and outweigh positive outcomes because, in the
relationships between motivation and re-participation, trust is a strong variable. Hence, trust
as an effect of co-creation can play a significant role concerning willingness to participate in
future co-creation. From the perspective of Alves and Mainardes (2017), trust encourages
rationality between the consumers’ values and the supportive organizations. Moreover,

j TOURISM REVIEW j
 Shulga et al. (2021) mentioned the growth of trust between participants and the
organizations’ fosters mutuality and contributes to the relational commitment to re-
participation in co-creation. Besides, trust provides an assurance of a stable and proficient
relationship between consumers and organizations, which enhances the manner of co-
creation in repeated practice, therefore, it would seem logical to propose that:
H7. Trust positively mediates the relationships between the MPCC and intention to re-
participate in co-creation.

2.7 Research framework

Based on the literature review, this research proposed the above hypotheses and
conceptualizes them in a model presented in Figure 1. The figure shows that MPCC
positively influences on intention to re-participation in co-creation (H1) and trust (H2). It also
shows that MPCC positively influences perceived benefit (H3). In addition, it is stated that
trust positively influences intention to re-participate in co-creation (H4) and perceived
benefit (H5). On the other hand, it is assumed that trust has a mediating effect on the MPCC
of perceived benefit (H6) and trust has a mediating effect on the effect MPCC of intention to
re-participate in co-creation (H7).

3. Method
3.1 Sampling and data collection
The data to be used in this research were collected using the survey method. The data were
collected from the tourists visiting Istanbul, which is one of Turkey’s top tourist destinations.
The sample consists of local tourists who purchased tours from travel agencies through the
co-creation. Tourists who participate in any stage of co-creation and who buy private tours
from travel agencies were chosen. The data were collected from 305 tourists identified with
the convenience sampling method. While determining which tourists to participate in the
research, their co-creation status was evaluated by asking whether they participated with
the travel company to plan their tour; whether they participated in this process individually;
and whether they based their plan on their own experience. The technical details of data
collection are shown in Table 1.

Figure 1 Research model

IRCC

MPCC TRUST

PERCB

Notes: MPCC, Motivation to Participate in Co-Creation; PERCB,

Perceived Benefit; IRCC, Intention to Re-Participate in Co-Creation

j TOURISM REVIEW j
 Table 1 Technical details of data collection
Populations Tourists visiting Istanbul

Data collection method Paper-based survey

Sampling frames Tourists that purchase any product through the co-creation
Population size Unknown
Sampling technic Convenience sampling
Fieldwork October 10–30, 2020
Valid data 305

3.2 Instrument
A 14-unit scale of MPCC was taken from Constantinides et al. (2015), Fernandes and
Remelhe (2016) and Lorenzo-Romero and Constantinides (2019). The perceived benefit of
tourist was measured with four items adapted from studies by Nambisan and Baron (2009)
and Hastari et al. (2020). Tourists’ trust was measured with three items adapted from Kinard
and Capella (2006) and Hastari et al. (2020). Intention to re-participate in co-creation was
evaluated using the four-item scale developed by Grissemann and Stokburger-Sauer
(2012) and Arıca and Kozak (2018). All items were measured using a five-point Likert scale,
ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.

3.3 Data analysis

A covariance-based structural equations model (CB-SEM) approach was used to test the
validity of the research model and the hypotheses because it is especially well suited to test
and confirm the well-founded theoretical models (Hair et al., 2011). The CB-SEM model was
used with linear structural relations (LISREL) software to examine the relationship between
latent variables, namely, to test the hypothesis. In addition, as the data is >200, CB-SEM
was used to analyze data. First, to avoid problems of non-normality of the data, a
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed with a robust maximum-likelihood method
of estimation, because the data did not satisfy the condition of multivariate normality. Next,
CFA because the data did not satisfy the condition of multivariate normality. Next, CFA was
conducted for each construct separately. Subsequently, CFA was applied to estimate the
measurement model. Finally, SEM was used to examine the hypotheses and mediation
testing.

4. Results
4.1 Characteristics of the sample
As shown in Table 2, the majority of the respondents was male (52.5%), between 26 and
35 years old (41.0%) and married (55.7%). More than half of the respondents (57.4%) had
an average monthly household income between US$500 and US$999. The respondents
were highly educated, with a large percentage (65.6%) having received a bachelor’s,
master’s and doctoral degree. About half of the respondents (45.9%) traveled once or twice
a year, 31.5% traveled for rest, 22.6% traveled for cultural reasons, 16.4% traveled for
entertainment and 10.8% traveled for business.

4.2 Measurement model testing

A bias can occur in research in social sciences, as is especially the case when data were
collected through a questionnaire. For this reason, common method variance was
controlled before the estimation of measurement model. To do this, Harman’s one-factor
test was used to evaluate whether common method variance was present. According to
the result of this test, the common factor explains 45% of the total variance in the

j TOURISM REVIEW j
 Table 2 Profile of the respondents (n = 305)
Characteristics Frequency (%)

Gender
Male 160 52.5
Female 145 47.5
Age
20–25 years old 37 12.1
26–35 years old 125 41.0
36–45 years old 83 27.2
46–55 years old 45 14.8
56 years old and older 15 4.9
Marital status
Married 170 55.7
Single 135 44.3
Education
Less than high school degree 21 6.9
High school graduate 50 16.4
Associate degree in college (2-year) 34 11.1
Bachelor’s degree in college (4-year) 157 51.5
Master’s and doctoral degree 43 14.1
Monthly household income
US$0–499 106 34.8
US$500–999 175 57.4
US$1,000 and above 24 7.8
Travel frequency
Once or twice 140 45.9
3–4 times 78 25.6
5–6 times 30 9.8
7 times or more 57 18.7
Travel purpose
To rest 96 31.5
Cultural 69 22.6
Entertainment 50 16.4
Business 33 10.8
To visit family and relatives 27 8.8
Education 14 4.6
Others (sports, adventure, health, to visit family and relatives) 16 5.3
Total 305 100

research model. This result indicates that there was no problem of common method bias
in the model since the values are under the recommended threshold of 50% (Podsakoff
et al., 2003). After evaluating the common method bias, reliability and validity of each
construct were evaluated using CFA. CFA analysis showed we needed to remove two
items (10 and 11 items) of MPPC, one item of perceived benefit (PERCVB) and one item
of intention to re-participate in co-creation (IRCC) constructs, because of increasing chi-
square value. Finally, 18 items of MPCC under four motivational factors, three items of
PERCVB, three items of IRCC and three items of TRUST remained to be tested with the
measurement model.
The goodness-of-fit statistics, standardized factor loading of items, composite reliability
(CR), t-statistics (>2.58) and average variance extracted (AVE) values were satisfactory for
each construct. Goodness-of-fit indexes of other scales have perfect values. Cronbach’s a
of internal consistency reliability, CR and AVE for the other construct were satisfied before
measurement model testing. And, as shown in Table 3, the results support the reliability and
convergent validity of the MPCC scale.

j TOURISM REVIEW j
 Table 3 Reliability and validity
Constructs A CR AVE

PERCVB 0.869 0.87 0.69

TRUST 0.754 0.76 0.51
IRCC 0.780 0.79 0.56

After first-level CFA for the MPCC, which is reflective construct, second-order confirmatory
analysis was applied to construct validity and to identify MPCC structure. The goodness-of-
fit indices were acceptable. Four dimensions, namely, learning benefit, social integrative
benefit, hedonic benefit and economic benefit which constitute MPCC, were verified.
Table 5 summarizes the second-order CFA results for MPCC.
After confirming each construct, the data were analyzed using a two-step approach
suggested by Anderson and Gerbing (1988). Firstly, the overall measurement model was
confirmed using CFA, and then the structural model was applied to test relationships
among proposed variables. Cronbach’s alphas, CR and the AVE were calculated to assess
the reliability and validity of measurement model. Table 4 summarizes the measurement
model results.
The goodness-of-fit indices met the recommended values in the measurement model.
Regarding CR, values which range from 0.75 to 0.87 are satisfactory for each construct and
reliability, because they pass the threshold of 0.7 (Hair et al., 1998). Moreover, AVE for each
construct was calculated to ensure convergent validity. AVE values of all constructs are
above 0.50 except for MPCC construct, but it is not a big problem for hypothesis testing.

Table 4 Motivation to participate in co-creation (first-order CFA)

Factor Cronbach’s
Constructs and items loadings alpha CR AVE

Learning benefit 0.884 0.89 0.56

Co-creation. . .. . .
Improve my knowledge about the tourism product 0.70
Improve my knowledge about the tourism products use 0.83
Improve my knowledge about related to innovations tourism products 0.86
Improve my knowledge about related tourism products 0.72
Improve my knowledge of technology usage area 0.69
As consumers, co-creation helps me taking the best decision about tourism product 0.69
Social integrative benefit 0.886 0.87 0.69
Extends my personal online relationship 0.77
Improve personal status/reputation as tourism product expert in my personal network 0.89
Improve the close of my affiliation with the rest of online consumers 0.83
Hedonic benefit 0.855 0.86 0.51
Offers me relaxing time during the experience 0.58
Offers me enjoyable time during the experience 0.79
Offers me more fun during the experience 0.82
Offers me more pleasure during the experience 0.78
Contributes to my experience from problem solving, ideas creation, etc. 0.70
Gives me stimulates my mind 0.58
Personal benefit 0.788 0.80 0.57
Helps me earn some money 0.87
Improves my financial position indirectly (e.g. by buying goods giving me increased personal 0.79
value)
Delivers me non-financial rewards (sometimes receive free product and so on) 0.59
Notes: RMSEA: 0.074; NFI: 0.95; NNFI: 0.96; CFI: 0.97; IFI: 0.97; RMR: 0.057; SRMR: 0.077; GFI: 0.85; AGFI: 0.80; Chi-square (x2)/df:
344/129: 2.666; total estimation of reliability (a): 0.902

j TOURISM REVIEW j
 Because Fornell and Larcker (1981) state that, although the AVE value is below 0.50, if the
CR value of construct is above 0.70, AVE values which are below 0.50 can also be
accepted. For discriminant validity of the measurement model, if square root values of AVE
are greater than correlation coefficients (HAVE> correlations between factors),
discriminative validity is achieved (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). In current research,
intercorrelation of the constructs and square root values of the AVE, which are presented in
Table 5, provide adequate evidence of discriminant validity. Accordingly, because the
square root of AVE is greater than the intercorrelations estimate of constructs, discriminative
validity of the measurement model is ensured. After supporting the convergent and
discriminant validity of the measurement model, SEM is applied to data to test relations
between the constructs (Table 7).

4.3 Structural model testing

Before structural model examined, variance inflation factor (VIF) values between
independent variables (MPCC and Trust) and condition index were calculated. No
violations of multicollinearity were found because the VIF values were not above 10
(Gujarati, 1995). Afterward, SEM was applied for testing structural model. The results
indicated that the first five hypotheses were supported, and all paths are positive and
significant. Regarding the research hypothesis, the SEM results revealed that tourists’
MPCC positively influenced their intention to re-participate (SEs: 0.27; t: 3.52), trust (SEs:
0.53; t: 6.65) and PERCB (SEs: 0.28; t: 3.41). It also showed that tourists’ trust positively
influenced their IRCC (SEs: 0.56; t: 6.22) and PERCB (SEs: 0.34; t: 4.14). Figure 2 illustrates
the path analysis with their associated statistics, and the results of all hypotheses testing are
shown in Table 6. For meditating test, first the relationship between MPCC and Trust
constructs were investigated, finding that direct effects of MPCC on Trust (SEs: 0.59; t =
5.96; RMSEA: 0.065; GFI: 0.97; CFI: 0.98; NFI = 0.97) and PERCB (SEs: 0.47; t: 5.91;
RMSEA = 0.036; GFI = 0.98; CFI = 0.99; NFI = 0.98) are positive and significant (r = 0.59).
Then IRCC and PERCB were added separately into the mediated model. As seen in
Table 6, it can be argued that customer trust partially mediates the effects of customer
MPCC on PERCB and IRCC (Table 8).

5. Conclusion and discussion

5.1 Theoretical implications
The research evaluated the relationship between tourists’ MPCC and the PERCB,
organizational trust and IRCC. Despite a large body of literature examining the relationship
between variables in the conceptual model from various perspectives (or frameworks), this
study makes a contribution on the literature by examining the role of trust in tourists’ MPCC
and fills a gap in the tourism research. Theoretically, it is evident that the research results
will contribute to the literature from different frameworks, since it is examining.

Table 5 Motivation to participate in co-creation (second-order CFA)

Factor loadings R2 CR AVE

MPCC 0.77 0.46

Learning benefit 0.76 0.58
Social ıntegrative benefit 0.68 0.47
Hedonic benefit 0.65 0.42
Personal benefit 0.61 0.37
Notes: RMSEA: 0.077; NFI: 0.94; NNFI: 0.96; CFI: 0.96; IFI: 0.96; RMR: 0.061; SRMR: 0.082; GFI:
0.84; AGFI: 0.80; Chi-square (x2)/df: 366.85/131: 2.80, p < 0.01 (t > 2.58)
Source: Kline (2005), Dash and Paul (2021)

j TOURISM REVIEW j
Figure 2 Results of SEM analysis

Table 6 Result of measurement model

Dimensions and factors Factor loadings R2 a CR AVE

MPCC 0.902 0.75 0.42

Learning benefit 0.70 0.48
Social integrative benefit 0.65 0.42
Hedonic benefit 0.76 0.44
Personal benefit 0.69 0.35
TRUST 0.754 0.75 0.50
I am confident that the company and its employees will correctly provide the service 0.65 0.43
I trust the advice provided by this company and its employee 0.83 0.69
I believe this company and its employees worry about my needs 0.62 0.39
PERCB 0.869 0.87 0.69
I receive a higher quality service 0.86 0.73
Provides me with solutions to specific product usage-related problems 0.86 0.74
Gives me enjoyment from problem-solving, idea generation, etc. 0.77 0.60
IRCC 0.780 0.79 0.56
IRCC 1 0.75 0.56
IRCC 2 0.85 0.73
IRCC 4 0.62 0.38
Notes: RMSEA: 0.086; NFI: 0.93; NNFI: 0.94; CFI: 0.95; IFI: 0.95; RMR: 0.029; SRMR: 0.067; GFI: 0.90; AGFI: 0.84; Chi-square (x2)/df:
191.40/59: 3.244, p < 0.01 (t > 2.58)
Sources: Kline (2005), Dash and Paul (2021)

Table 7 Intercorrelations and discriminant validity for the measurement model

Structures 1 2 3 4 Mean SD VIF

1. PERCB 0.83 4.2262 0.63133 1.599

2. MPCC 0.48 0.64 3.9510 0.51979 1.360
3. IRCC 0.30 0.58 0.74 4.1454 0.51901 1.480
4. TRUST 0.53 0.54 0.71 0.70 4.2557 0.48383 1.423
Note: The diagonal elements (in italic) denotes the square root of AVE

j TOURISM REVIEW j
 Table 8 Result of structural model testing
Standardized estimates Standardized estimates
Hypothesized paths (SEs) Direct effect (SEs) Indirect effect Total effect t-statistics Relations

H1: MPCC ! IRCC 0.27 – 2.64 Supported

H2: MPCC ! TRUST 0.53 – 5.35 Supported
H3: MPCC ! PERCB 0.28 – 3.05 Supported
H4: TRUST ! IRCC 0.56 – 4.95 Supported
H5: TRUST ! PERCB 0.34 – 3.94 Supported
H6: MPCC ! TRUST ! IRCC 0.28 0.31 0.59 2.91 Supported
(Partial)
H7: MPCC ! TRUST ! PERCB 0.20 0.27 0.47 2.18 Supported
(Partial)
Notes:  p < 0.01 (t > 2.58);  p < 0.05 (t > 1.96)

First and second were order confirmatory factor analysis which revealed the four
dimensions based on the tourist perception of MPCC: i) learning benefit, ii) social interaction
benefit, iii) hedonic benefit and iv) economic benefit. Research results show that a tourist’s
MPCC is based on benefit expectation and is stimulated by extrinsic motivations. The
literature shows various factors influencing MPCC. The current research found that extrinsic
motivations, such as personal benefit, economic benefit, hedonic benefit, learning benefit,
benefit regarding communality and benefit as regards to gaining reputation guide
individuals to co-creation (Constantinides et al., 2015; Im and Qu 2017; Lorenzo-Romero
and Constantinides, 2019; Nambisan and Baron, 2009; Palma et al., 2019). In this respect, it
is possible to state that the research’s results are consistent with the arguments determining
that motivation is based on factors such as extrinsic motivations and benefit and that it
overlaps with the existing literature. Some research, however, found that entertainment and
altruistic motivation are elements of tourists MPCC (Füller, 2010). For example, Hoyer et al.
(2010) said that tourists MPCC because of the psychological factors expressing intrinsic
motivation such as self-expression, assessing qualification and competence and improving
self-esteem and self-confidence. As in these results the current research differs from the
literature. Palma et al. (2019) stated that MPCC can change in accordance with the field of
application and the consumer group. Therefore, our contribution to the literature is not only
to reveal the existence of differences but also to use motivation theory to explain the
reasons for participation in co-creation. The research also examined the direct relationships
between the model variables. In this context, firstly, we evaluated the relationship between
the tourists’ MPCC and organizational trust. The results show a significant positive
relationship between organizational trust and tourists’ motivation toward participation in co-
creation. This is consistent with the literature, which indicated that organizational trust is one
of the prerequisites for motivation to co-create a product (Jaworski and Kohli, 2006). Thus, it
can be stated that the research results overlap with the literature. Results on the relationship
between tourists’ MPCC and PERCB show that there is a significant positive relationship
between the tourists’ MPCC and the PERCB. According to Lin et al. (2017), motivating
tourists’ participation in co-creation enables to increase the perceived benefit. Zhang et al.
(2015) who support this argument determined that the notion that tourists will gain benefit as
a result of participating in the production motivates their co-creation. In this context, it can
be stated that the research results overlap with the literature. Results regarding the
relationship between tourists’ MPCC and the IRCC show that there is a significant positive
relationship between tourists’ MPCC and the IRCC. This result is supported by the literature
(Arıca and Çorbacı, 2020; Fernandes and Remelhe, 2016). According to Huang and Hsu
(2009), motivation is the driving force behind behaviors. Therefore, it is likely that there is a
positive or a negative relationship between motivation to co-creation and the tourists’
intention to re-participation in co-creation. Sugathan et al. (2017) argue that if the effort and
the time customers put in creating experience finds correspondence, this will promote a

j TOURISM REVIEW j
voluntary intention to re-participation in co-creation and that it will have a negative effect on
the intention to re-participation in co-creation in case it does not find correspondence.
Namely, the main purpose for customer co-creation is to create touristic experience in
accordance with the customers’ requests and needs. Businesses creating experiences
compliant with tourists’ requests and needs by customer co-creation enables them to show
high participation in relation to intention to re-participation in co-creation through increasing
customer satisfaction. Based on these findings, it can be stated that the research results
are supported by the literature. When the marketing and tourism literature is examined, it is
observed that the topic of customer co-creation is examined by associating it with outputs
focused on supply and demand and that there are limited studies reviewing the effect of the
factors motivating to participate in co-creation on experience outputs. Our findings enable
researchers to reconsider how service outcomes can be optimized by increasing co-
creation motivation, and together build better studies of the management and performance
implications of consumer value co-creation supported by Morosan and DeFranco (2016).
The research also found that organizational trust has a mediating role in the relationship
between tourists’ MPCC and the PERCB and mediating role in the relationship between
tourists’ MPCC and their IRCC. This finding, again, is supported by the literature (Kim et al.,
2009; Berenguer-Contrı́ et al., 2020; Parrish et al., 2020).

5.2 Managerial implications

Customer-oriented shaping of today’s market structure, in the tourism businesses need to
learn about the wants and needs of their customers. Co-creation is seen as a way to learn
customer wants and needs transfer them to the production stages. Learning and
transforming customer requests and needs of tourism businesses into products contains
outputs for tourism businesses and tourists.
Tourism businesses gain competitiveness and succeed by developing the touristic
experience outputs of their customers through co-creation. Businesses can encourage
consumer co-creation by reinforcing the motivators mentioned earlier. According to current
research results, customers’ MPCC increases as their perceived service outputs also
improve. One of the underlying motivations of tourists to participate in tourism activities is
the desire to renew themselves with experiences suitable for their wishes and needs. At this
point, it is possible that the development of tourists’ motivation for co-production will make it
possible to have a better holiday and positively affect the experience outputs. Research
results show that customers’ MPCC will enable tourism businesses to provide them with
higher quality, valuable and satisfying services. Through the development of service
outputs, the power of destinations and tourism businesses in the market will increase.
In this way, businesses will increase their profit, sales and competitiveness in the market. In
addition, destination planners can maximize the sociocultural and economic benefits of
tourism for local people by co-creation. This not only makes local residents feel happier
about their lives, but also encourages them to develop their perspectives on tourism in a
positive way and to co-create value together with tourists. This encourages local residents
to support tourism. However, co-creation makes it possible for tourists to encounter
personalized products that are compatible with their wishes and needs (Vargo and Lusch,
2017).
The risk inherent to existing and future empirical treatments of consumer motivation to
engage in co-creation is that, devoid of context, motivators could be misinterpreted and
meaningful mechanisms that leverage consumer involvement in co-creation may not
emerge. Put simply, there is a risk in practices that deviate from empirical observations. As
such, this research offers a timely contribution to furthering our understanding of engaging
consumers in co-creation by providing early indicators of possible stumbling blocks.
Tourism businesses achieving the opportunities customer co-creation provides by
increasing their MPCC. This makes it important to understand what factors MPCC. The

j TOURISM REVIEW j
 results show that the tourists’ MPCC is shaped within the frame of benefits – learning
benefit, social interaction benefit, hedonic benefit and economic benefit expectation. The
research also found a positive relationship between tourists’ MPCC and their perceived
service outputs. The nature of expectancy would appear fundamental to understanding the
conversion of motivation into action and output. Specifically, co-creation output is
contingent on a company’s input as much as on consumers’. When instrumentality
(likelihood of an outcome occurring) and valence (actual value of the outcome to the
individual) of the co-creation effort are high, consumers are motivated to initiate co-creation,
as long as the goal is achievable and within their ability. This result signifies that increasing
MPCC will also increase the perceived service outputs. In addition to the improving
characteristic of MPCC on service outputs, Grissemann and Stokburger-Sauer (2012) argue
that businesses’ service quality, brand value and financial indicators will improve as the
perceived service outputs progress. Thus, it is evident that determining and increasing the
factors MPCC will also contribute to the progress of the businesses in terms of improving
they are provided and perceived service outputs, increasing and maintaining their
competitive power.
The research shows that consumers’ motivations to engage in co-creation based on the
social interaction benefit expand customers’ sphere of social interaction and increase their
image on social communication fields. The research also shows that economic benefit,
learning benefit and hedonic benefit are other factors that MPCC. As stated in the
expectancy theory, it is necessary to meet the tourists’ benefit expectations to increase their
motivation. Technology is one of the most important ways of providing social integration and
making learning active and effective (Buhalis and Law, 2008; Zhang et al., 2015), putting
technological tools and systems at the forefront of ways businesses can increase their
customers’ MPCC. Co-creation is a strategy that includes extensive communication and
interaction, which is why technological developments in the product, business structure and
processes are so important. The main priorities are to involve tourists in the production
process, and to provide input to production while informing them about co-creation
opportunities and to enabling them to interact with others. This shows clearly that
establishing contact points, infrastructure and business systems are important ways of
enhancing tourists’ MPCC. Tourism businesses use Web pages, tailor made programs,
mobile applications and social networks to promote and enable co-creation (Lei et al.,
2021). For example, tour operators enable their customers to submit their information,
opinions and experiences to be used in their production processes. This information makes
possible for the tour operators to make their productions compatible with the tourists’
requests and needs, enabling tourists to experience customized and satisfactory
productions meeting their hedonic benefit expectation. Tourists’ ability to customize their
experience to their demands also assures them of financial benefit through affordable and
valuable productions. In addition, providing enriched, quality and reliable information for the
experience through systems enabling customer co-creation makes it possible to satisfy the
learning benefit expectation by increasing their knowledge regarding the experience. In
addition to all these improvements, the technological infrastructure will help increase the
benefit of social integration with its function of providing social interaction between the
businesses and the tourists. Therefore, tourism businesses need to invest in co-creation
systems to increase tourists’ MPCC (learning, social interaction, hedonic and economic
benefit) and service outputs.
The abilities, knowledge and skills of the employees organizing the systems are as critical
as technological systems (Lorenzo-Romero and Constantinides, 2019). Because co-
creation requires satisfying the specific needs of tourists’ and a high level of interaction with
tourists’, employees’ knowledge, training, communication skills, abilities and openness to
innovations are important to motivate their participation in the customer co-creation
process. Accordingly, employees must show participation in the process, be competent
and embark on realizing customer motivations (such as interpreting customers’ requests

j TOURISM REVIEW j
and needs actualizing productions based on the inputs customers provide). The employees
also must be competent in generating solutions for problems experienced during a
presentation as well as evaluating customer complaints and suggestions. Hence,
employees must manage the co-creation process accurately to enable the customers’
MPCC by improving the quality of experience and customer satisfaction and by satisfying
hedonic benefit expectations of the customers. Similarly, in the co-created experiences,
employees’ attitudes and behaviors toward customers will increase their MPCC by meeting
the social interaction benefit expectation of the customers. Therefore, planning for and
investing in recruitment and training is of great importance for the businesses that need of
increase their customers’ MPCC.
One of the ways for tourists MPCC to increase their expectation of benefit from the
experience is to provide continuous interaction and communication with them during the
experience. Namely, tourists can share their feelings and thoughts on the businesses’
website and/or social networks regarding the co-creation process both during and after
their experience. Businesses receiving reviews and responding to feedbacks from tourists
both during and after their experience will increase their MPCC. Sugathan et al. (2017)
argue that if the businesses do not interact with their customers after their experience, they
miss the opportunity to improve their communication with their customers as well as to
enhance and improve service in ways they would not even notice. A possible negative
outcome would occur if the tourists’ the tourists’ expectations for social interaction and
hedonic benefits are not met. Therefore, tourism businesses must contact their customers
(online through (business websites and/or social networks) to directly and actively interact
with them. The businesses also must accept their reviews as a reference and address
criticisms and suggestions to enhance and improve the co-creation process. Taking these
steps will reduce co-creation failures and promote participation. In conclusion, business
managers in need of increasing tourists’ MPCC must concentrate on initiatives focused on
social network management.

5.3 Limitations and future research

The scope of research was limited to domestic tourists visiting Istanbul. Research must be
conducted on tourists visiting other destinations and who differ in terms of cultural features
to make assessments on a larger scale. Furthermore, when considering that co-creation is
the consequence of the collaboration between the business and the customers’,
researching businesses’ initiatives based on promoting the participation in co-creation will
make a contribution both for the managers and to the literature to formalize the co-creation
process. In addition, social networks are one of the main platforms where tourists MPCC,
but tourists can both create and destroy value on social media regarding the businesses
and touristic experience. In this respect, future research, should analyze tourists’ motivation
elements that urge them to co-create and co-destroy value on social networks, contributing
to understanding and evaluating the co-creation process in all aspects.

References
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 & Distribution Management, Vol. 45 No. 11,
pp. 1159-1180.

Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423.
Arıca, R. and Çorbacı, A. (2020), “The mediating role of the tourists’ citizenship behavior between the
value co-creation and satisfaction”, Advances in Hospitality and Tourism Research (AHTR), Vol. 8 No. 1,
pp. 125-150.

j TOURISM REVIEW j
 Arıca, R. and Kozak, R. (2018), “Seyahat acentalarında müs terilerin üretime katılım davranıs
ının algılanan
hizmet çıktılarına etkisi”, Journal of Travel and Hospitality Management, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 684-702.
Assiouras, I., Skourtis, G., Giannopoulos, A., Buhalis, D. and Koniordos, M. (2019), “Value co-creation
and customer citizenship behavior”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 78, p. 102742, doi: 10.1016/j.
annals.2019.102742.
Berenguer-Contrı́, G., Gallarza, M.G., Ruiz-Molina, M.E. and Gil-Saura, I. (2020), “Value co-creation in B-
to-B environments”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 7, pp. 1251-1271.
Bimonte, S. and Punzo, L.F. (2016), “Tourist development and host–guest interaction: an economic
exchange theory”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 58, pp. 128-139.
Binkhorst, E. and Den Dekker, T. (2009), “Agenda for co-creation tourism experience research”, Journal
of Hospitality Marketing & Management, Vol. 18 Nos 2/3, pp. 311-327.
Campos, A.C., Mendes, J., Valle, P.O.D. and Scott, N. (2018), “Co-creation of tourist experiences: a
literature review”, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 369-400.
Constantinides, E., Brünink, L.A. and Lorenzo–Romero, C. (2015), “Customer motives and benefits for
participating in online co-creation activities”, International Journal of Internet Marketing and Advertising,
Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 21-48.
Ferm, L.E.C. and Thaichon, P. (2021), “Value co-creation and social media: investigating antecedents
and influencing factors in the US retail banking industry”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
Vol. 61, doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102548.
Fernandes, T. and Remelhe, P. (2016), “How to engage customers in co-creation: customers’ motivations
for collaborative innovation”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 24 Nos 3/4, pp. 311-326.
Filimonov, D. (2017), “Extrinsic motivation and incentives, programme in hospitality, tourism and
experience management”, Bachelor’s Thesis, University of Applied Sciences.
Font, X., English, R., Gkritzali, A. and Tian, W.S. (2021), “Value co-creation in sustainable tourism: a service-
dominant logic approach”, Tourism Management, Vol. 82, p. 104200, doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104200.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Franklin, D. and Marshall, R. (2019), “Adding co-creation as an antecedent condition leading to trust in
business-to-business relationships”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 77, pp. 170-181.
Füller, J. (2010), “Refining virtual co-creation from a consumer perspective”, California Management
Review, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 98-122.
Gatewood, E.J. (1993), “The expectancies in public sector venture assistance”, Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 91-96.
Gemser, G. and Perks, H. (2015), “Co-creation with customers: an evolving innovation research field”,
Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 660-665.
Grissemann, U.S. and Stokburger-Sauer, N.E. (2012), “Customer co-creation of travel services: the role
of company support and customer satisfaction with the co-creation performance”, Tourism Management,
Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 1483-1492.
Gujarati, D.N. (1995), Basic Econometrics, 3rd ed., The McGraw
Hill.

Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2011), “PLSSEM: indeed a silver bullet”, Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 139-152.

Hastari, R., Adela, Z., Alkhair, H. and Wibowo, A.J.I. (2020), “Direct and indirect effects of operant
resources on co-creation experience: empirical evidence from Airbnb consumers”, Business: Theory and
Practice, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 92-103.

Higuchi, Y. and Yamanaka, Y. (2017), “Knowledge sharing between academic researchers and tourism
practitioners: a Japanese study of the practical value of embeddedness, trust and co-creation”, Journal
of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 25 No. 10, pp. 1456-1473.
Hoyer, W.D., Chandy, R., Dorotic, M., Krafft, M. and Singh, S.S. (2010), “Consumer co-creation in new
production development”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 283-296.

Huang, S. and Hsu, C.H.C. (2009), “Effects of travel motivation, past experience, perceived constraint,
and attitude on revisit intention”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 29-44.

j TOURISM REVIEW j
Ind, N., Coates, N. and Lerman, K. (2020), “The gift of co-creation: what motivates customers to
participate”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 181-194.
Jaworski, B. and Kohli, A. (2006), “Co-creating the voice of the customer”, in Lusch, R. and Vargo, S.L.
(Eds), The Service Dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialogue, Debate, and Directions, Armonk.
pp. 109-117.
Kim, J., Jin, B. and Swinney, J.L. (2009), “The role of e-tail quality, e-satisfaction and e-trust in online
loyalty development process”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 239-47.

Kinard, B.R. and Capella, M.L. (2006), “Relationship marketing: the influence of consumer involvement on
perceived service benefits”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 359-368.
Kline, R.B. (2005), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 2nd ed., Guilford, New York,
NY.

Lee, S. (2007), “Vroom’s expectancy theory and the public library customer motivation model”, Library
Review, Vol. 56 No. 9, pp. 788-796.
Lei, S.I., Wang, D. and Law, R. (2021), “Mobile-based value co-creation: contextual factors towards
customer experiences”, Tourism Review, Vol. 77 No. 4, pp. 1153-1165, doi: 10.1108/TR-10-2020-0504.

Lei, S.I., Ye, S., Wang, D. and Law, R. (2020), “Engaging customers in value co-creation through mobile
instant messaging in the tourism and hospitality industry”, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research,
Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 229-251.
Leung, Y. (2013), “Perceived benefits”, in Gellman, M.D. and Turner, J.R. (Eds), Encyclopedia of
Behavioral Medicine, Springer.
Lin, Z., Chen, Y. and Filieri, R. (2017), “Resident-tourist value co-creation: the role of residents’ perceived
tourism impacts and life satisfaction”, Tourism Management, Vol. 61, pp. 436-442.
Lorenzo-Romero, C. and Constantinides, E. (2019), “On-line crowdsourcing: motives of customers to
participate in online collaborative innovation processes”, Sustainability, Vol. 11 No. 12, p. 3479, doi:
10.3390/su11123479.
Mohammadi, F., Yazdani, H.R., Pour, M.J. and Soltani, M. (2020), “Co-creation in tourism: a systematic
mapping study”, Tourism Review, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 305-343.
Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), “The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 20-38.
Morosan, C. and DeFranco, A. (2016), “Co-creating value in hotels using mobile devices: a conceptual
model with empirical validation”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 52, pp. 131-142.
Nambisan, S. and Baron, R.A. (2009), “Virtual customer environments: testing a model of voluntary participation
in value co-creation activities”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 388-406.
Palma, F.C., Trimi, S. and Hong, S.G. (2019), “Motivation triggers for customer participation in value co-
creation”, Service Business, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 557-580.
Parrish, B., Heptonstall, P., Gross, R. and Sovacool, B.K. (2020), “A systematic review of motivations,
enablers and barriers for consumer engagement with residential demand response”, Energy Policy,
Vol. 138, p. 111221, doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2019.111221.
Pinto, L.H., Cabral-Cardoso, C. and Werther, W.B. Jr., (2020), “Expectancies and motivational goals of
self-initiated expatriates as predictors of subjective assignment achievements and success”,
Management Research Review, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 427-445.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.

Russo-Spena, T. and Mele, C. (2012), “Five Co-s’ in innovating: a practice-based view”, Journal of
Service Management, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 527-553.
Sadjadi, E.N. and Menhaj, M.B. (2020), “Service-dominant logic as a foundation for business model
innovation in smart grids”, The Electricity Journal, Vol. 33 No. 5, p. 106737, doi: 10.1016/j.tej.2020.106737.

Shah, S.H.H., Noor, S., Lei, S., Butt, A.S. and Ali, M. (2021), “Role of privacy/safety risk and trust on the
development of prosumption and value co-creation under the sharing economy: a moderated mediation
model”, Information Technology for Development, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 718-735, doi: 10.1080/
02681102.2021.1877604.

j TOURISM REVIEW j
 Shi, H., Liu, Y., Kumail, T. and Pan, L. (2022), “Tourism destination brand equity, brand authenticity and
revisit intention: the mediating role of tourist satisfaction and the moderating role of destination familiarity”,
Tourism Review, Vol. 77 No. 3, pp. 751-779, doi: 10.1108/TR-08-2021-0371.
Shulga, L.V., Busser, J.A., Bai, B. and Kim, H. (2021), “The reciprocal role of trust in customer value co-
creation”, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 672-696.
Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J. and Sabol, B. (2002), “Consumer trust, value, and loyalty in relational
exchanges”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 15-37.

caudin, J.M., Assiouras, I. and Karaosmanoglu, E. (2019), “Does the co-creation of
Skourtis, G., De
service recovery create value for customers? The underlying mechanism of motivation and the role of
operant resources”, European Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 997-1013.
Sugathan, P., Ranjan, K.R. and Mulky, A.G. (2017), “Atypical shifts post-failure: influence of co-creation
on attribution and future motivation to co-create”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 38, pp. 64-81.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004), “Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2017), “Service-dominant logic 2025”, International Journal of Research in
Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 46-67.

Villena, V.H., Choi, T.Y. and Revilla, E. (2019), “Revisiting interorganizational trust: is more always better
or could more be worse?”, Journal of Management, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 752-785.
Vlachos, P.A., Tsamakos, A., Vrechopoulos, A.P. and Avramidis, P.K. (2009), “Corporate social
responsibility: attributions, loyalty, and the mediating role of trust”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 170-180.
Vroom, V.H. (1964), Work and Motivation, Wiley.
Wang, L., Law, R., Hung, K. and Guillet, B. (2014), “Consumer trust in tourism and hospitality: a review of the
literature”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Vol. 21, pp. 1-9, doi: 10.1016/j.jhtm.2014.01.001.
Waseem, D., Biggemann, S. and Garry, T. (2020), “An exploration of the drivers of employee motivation to
facilitate value co-creation”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 442-452, doi: 10.1108/JSM-
11-2019-0458
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.
Zaniboni, S., Fraccaroli, F., Truxillo, D.M., Bertolino, M. and Bauer, T.N. (2011), “Training valence,
instrumentality, and expectancy scale (T-VIES-it): factor structure and nomological network in an Italian
sample”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 133-151.
Zhang, M., Zhao, X., Voss, C. and Zhu, G. (2015), “Innovating through services, co-creation and supplier
integration: cases from China”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 171, pp. 289-300.

Further reading
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, R.E. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.,
Prentice Hall.
Kennedy, E. and Guzman, F. (2016), “Co-creation of brand identities: consumer and industry influence
and motivations”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 313-323.
Meuter, M.L., Bitner, M.J., Ostrom, A.L. and Brown, S.W. (2005), “Choosing among alternative service
delivery modes: an investigation of customer trial of self-service technologies”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 61-83.
Sichtmann, C. (2007), “An analysis of antecedents and consequences of trust in a corporate brand”,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41 Nos 9/10, pp. 999-1015.

About the authors

Resat Arica (PhD) is currently an Associate Professor of Tourism at the Faculty of the
Batman University in Turkey. The researcher completed his master’s and doctoral degrees
at the Department of Tourism Management, Institute of Social Sciences, Anadolu University.

j TOURISM REVIEW j
 He has published several research papers in national and international journals. His
research interests include sustainable tourism, travel agencies, tourism marketing, co-
creation and social media. The researcher has co-editorial and editorial advisory board
positions at international journals.
Betul Kodas (PhD) is currently an Assistant Professor of Tourism at the faculty of the Mardin
Artuklu University, Turkey. She holds a bachelor’s degree from the School of Tourism and
Hotel Management at Adnan Menderes University (Turkey), a master’s degree from Dokuz
Eylul University and PhD from Eskisehir Osmangazi University, Turkey. Her research
interests are tourism management, organizational behavior, gastronomy tourism,
destination management and marketing.
Cihan Cobanoglu is the Dean and McKibbon Endowed Chair Professor of the School of
Hospitality and Tourism Management (SHRM) in the Muma College of Business at the
University of South Florida (USF), who also serves as the Director of the M3 Center for
Hospitality Technology and Innovation. Dr Cobanoglu is a Fulbright Specialist (2018–2021)
and a Certified Hospitality Technology Professional (CHTP). He is the Editor of the Journal
of Hospitality and Tourism Technology (SSCI IF = 4.2). He is serving as the President of
Association of North America Higher Education International (ANAHEI).

M. Omar Parvez is a research fellow at Muma College of Business, University of South

Florida, USA. He holds a doctoral degree in tourism and hospitality management. He has
more than 10 years of professional experience in the tourism and hospitality industry. His
research interests include human resource management, sustainability and tourism
technology.
Viput Ongsakul is a Former Dean at NIDA Business School, National Institute of
Development Administration (NIDA), Thailand. He currently serves as Commissioner of the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Also, he is an advisor affiliate at Center for
Competitiveness at University of Fribourg, Switzerland. He has volunteered to serve as a
chair and member for both AACSB and EFMD accreditation peer review teams for many
schools in China, India, Thailand and Malaysia. Through his teaching, consulting and
research in the fields of competitiveness, business policy, sustainability, competitive
strategy, operations, he has engaged in many consulting works to both public and private
agencies. Viput Ongsakul is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
vongsakul@nida.ac.th
Valentina Della Corte is a Full Professor of Business Management and Academic
Coordinator of the Hospitality Management BA Course. She received PhD at Ca’Foscari
University. She teaches Tourism Business Management and Strategic Management and
Marketing. She is author and reviewer of numerous articles in specialized journals, both
national and International (Tourism Management, International Journal of Tourism
Research), of contributions in books with plural authors and of monographic works. She has
coordinated several research activities and cooperates actively bachelor, master degrees
and PhD programs in Italy and Europe, also promoting international relations with the
entrepreneurial world. She is member of Strategic Management Society and of Academy of
Management.

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

j TOURISM REVIEW j

View publication stats