Running head: EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIONSHIP
EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIONSHIP IN PEER TO PEER
MARKETPLACE: CO-CREATION CAPABILITY AS A MODERATOR
A Thesis
Presented to the Faculty
Of ISM University of Management and Economics
In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of International Marketing
By
Ausra Griksaite
May 2016
EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 2
Abstract
The research study explores the role of co-creation capability as a moderator on experiential value – satisfaction relationship. Co-creation capability is defined as ability to facilitate and enhance mutually beneficial interaction and resource integration processes with individual actors in peer to peer marketplace. Based on the theoretical perspective of Service - Dominant logic as an emerging marketing paradigm, value co-creation is considered to be at the core marketing activity yet value is derived from unique customer experiences and experiential value is rooted in interactions. In essence, interactions in peer to peer marketplaces are inevitable part of the service exchange process while experiential value compiled of four dimensions namely aesthetics, playfulness, service excellence and customer return on investment is induced by usage of the service. Defining customer satisfaction as the attitude change from the consumption experience the study hypothesizes that co-creation capability moderates experiential value – satisfaction relationship. Using data sample gathered from peer to peer marketplace Vinted, the findings of the study indicate that two dimensions of experiential value, i.e. aesthetics and customer return on investment are significant predictors of customer satisfaction in peer to peer marketplace. Furthermore, the results reveal that co-creation capability only moderates the relationship between customer return on investment and satisfaction in such a way that higher co-creation capability weakens the aforementioned relationship.
Keywords: experiential value, co-creation capability, peer to peer marketplace, customer satisfaction, Service Dominant Logic.
EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 3
Table of Contents
List of Figures ...... 5
List of Tables ...... 6
Introduction ...... 7
Literature review ...... 13
Sharing economy, retail industry and peer-to-peer marketplaces ...... 13
Satisfaction definition ...... 17
Importance of satisfaction ...... 19
Experiential value: development and definition ...... 23
Experiential value and satisfaction relationship ...... 28
The rise of Service Dominant logic ...... 31
From value co-creation to co-creation capability ...... 35
Links between customer satisfaction, experiential value and co-creation capability...... 39
Conclusions of literature review ...... 41
Research Methodology ...... 43
Theoretical framework...... 43
Research design ...... 47
Research context and data sample ...... 50
Instrumentation ...... 51
Ethical considerations ...... 56 EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 4
Validity and reliability ...... 57
Empirical research results ...... 61
Profile of the respondents ...... 61
Descriptive statistics ...... 66
Correlations...... 67
Hierarchical multiple regression analysis ...... 70
Discussion and conclusions ...... 80
Satisfaction – experiential value relationship ...... 80
Co-creation capability as a moderator ...... 85
Theoretical and managerial implications ...... 88
Limitations of the research and recommendations for future research ...... 89
Conclusions...... 90
References ...... 95
Appendices ...... 115
Appendix 1. Co-creation as a moderator...... 115
Appendix 2. Original research questionnaire in Lithuanian ...... 116
Appendix 3. Correlation matrix ...... 118
Appendix 4. Regression coefficients and multicollinearity statistics ...... 119
Appendix 5. Normal P-P Plot of Regression Standardized Residuals ...... 120
Appendix 6. Scatterplot of Standardised Regression Residuals ...... 120 EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 5
List of Figures
Figure 1. Total venture capital funding for major clothing resale start-ups……………….….…16
Figure 2. The Cycle of Good service………………………………………………….….……..21
Figure 3. Cycle of Good P2P Service……………………………………………………………23
Figure 4. Theoretical model of the research……………………………………………….…….44
Figure 5. Moderator effect……………………………………………………………….………46
Figure 6. The interrelationship between the building blocks of research developed……………48
Figure 7. Distribution of respondents by age……………………………………………….……63
Figure 8. Distribution of respondents by place of residence…………………………………….64
Figure 9. Distribution or respondents by place of residence…………………………………….64
Figure 10. Distribution of respondents by income………………………………………………65
Figure 11. Distribution of respondents by purchase frequency………………………………….65
Figure 12. Means of research variables…………………………………………………….……66
Figure 13. Linear relationship between satisfaction and customer return on investment……….77
Figure 14. Final model of the research………………………………………………………..…79
EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 6
List of Tables
Table 1 Typology of Customer Value……………………………………………………25
Table 2 Typology of Experiential Value………………………………………………..26
Table 3 The research of experiential value relative to satisfaction …………………29
Table 4 The main constructs and measures of the current research …………….…..53
Table 5 Reliability of main measures ………………………………………….…….…59
Table 6 Reliability of co -creation capability dimensions ………………………….…59
Table 7 Profile of the respondents ………………………………………………………62
Table 8 Descriptive statistics of research variables ……………………………….…66
Table 9 Correlations……………………………………………………………….……67
Table 10 Correlation coefficient and correlation strength …………………….…….68
Table 11 Multiple regression analysis predicting satisfaction (Step 1, 2 and 3)….73
Table 12 Multiple regression analysis predicting satisfaction (Step 4 and 5)…..…75
Table 13 Results of testing the hypotheses ………………………………………….…78
EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 7
Introduction
“ The customer is king, again” is argued in The Economist Intelligence Unit research report (Baker, 2013, p. 4). The growing access to information and ability to connect to the internet from anywhere at any point of time has enabled the consumer to reach the global market and increased the number of options for consumers to choose from, thus leading to more sensitive and yet more powerful consumers when it comes to buying decision (Mathwick,
Malhotra, & Rigdon, 2001). The rise of the internet has created potential for growth for the retailers by taking into account such aspects as worldwide reach, flexibility as well as speed and cost efficiency. (Doherty & Ellis-Chadwick, 2010; Pyle, 1996; Jones & Vijayasarathy, 1998).
However, while the rise of industrial revolution allowed companies to enhance the efficiency of production and stimulated the consumption growth, communication revolution enabled by internet technology had fostered the efficiency of access to goods as well as increasing competition (Lessin, 2014). As more people are connecting to online platforms, the interconnectedness of users allow the whole new markets and networks to emerge where people can swap, share, sell or rent their goods without participation of the “ middle man”. This new wave often noted as “sharing economy” exploded only during the last decade and new business models such as peer-to-peer marketplaces started to emerge quite expeditiously (Cusumano,
2015). Therefore, as the peer-to-peer business model is relatively young compared to traditional business models, the research in the field of peer-to-peer marketplaces is still limited.
Furthermore, in the time of such fierce competition satisfied and returning customers should be highly appreciated and valued in every company. “ To satisfy the customer is the mission and purpose of every business” (Drucker, 1973, p. 83) has been argued nearly half a century ago and according to Baker (2013), today these words are as relevant as they were when EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 8 first published. Churchill and Suprenant (1982) proposed that customer satisfaction is at the core of marketing and can stimulate attitude change, repurchase intention and increase loyalty. Oliver
(1981) suggested that satisfaction is perceived as a feeling of achievement as well as acknowledgement and evaluation of consumer experience, therefore resulting in an attitude change from the consumption experience. Therefore, it could be proposed that customer experience influence customer satisfaction. However, according to Spiegelman (2000) it is fundamental that experience would deliver value in order to cherish customer loyalty and help to increase the number of returning customers. “ Creation of customer value must be the reason for firm’s existence and certainly for its success” - has been argued by Slater (1997, p. 166). What is more, Holbrook (1994) defined customer value as “interactive relativistic preference experience” and therefore based on his notion of customer value, the construct of experiential value has been develop by Mathwick, Malhotra & Rigdon (2001). The relationship between satisfaction and perceived value was of interest of many scholars for more than a decade (Cronin,
Brady & Hult, 2000; Holbrook 1999; Woodruff & Gardial, 1996), yet the research on the relationship between experiential value and customer satisfaction is not as extensive although some studies proved the existing links and demonstrated positive relationship between two constructs (e.g. Wu & Liang, 2009; Lee & Bang, 2004; Shieh & Cheng, 2007).
Furthermore, considering the new wave of the “ sharing economy” some authors claim that it reflects the broader “servitization” trend and refers to the companies which provide the service support or supplement the usage of the products instead of selling products (Cusumano,
2015). This goes in line with a Service-Dominant (S-D) marketing logic developed in the last decade which supersedes previously prevailing Goods-Dominant (G-D) logic (Vargo & Lush,
2004). S-D logic is focused on intangible or operant resources, dynamic exchange processes, EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 9 relationships and value co-creation while operand resources (goods) are treated as transmitters of operant recourses (Vargo & Lush, 2004). Therefore, Vargo and Lusch (2004, p. 6) argued that
“a service-centered dominant logics implies that value is defined by and co-created with the consumer rather than embodied in output”. Hence, customer value is considered to be idiosyncratic, experiential, contextual, and meaning laden as well as interactional (Vargo &
Lusch, 2008, p. 7). What is more, Vargo & Lush (2004) supported the view of Gronroos (2000) that “value for customers is created throughout the relationship by the customer, partly in interactions between the customer and the supplier or service provider” (p. 24). The 9th foundational principal of S-D logic implies that value co-creation requires to interact with all network partners and integrate resources to reach the reciprocal betterment (Gronroos, 2008;
Vargo, Maglio, & Akaka, 2008). Karpen, Bove & Lukas (2011) considered value co-creation from a strategic perspective and suggested that the concept of co-creating value “refers to assisting customers in co-constructing and engaging in superior experiences” (p.2). Hence, companies concentrating on valuable interaction experiences and the process of mutual recourse integration efforts establish primary foundation for successful future strategies (Karpen et al.,
2011). Interaction therefore becomes the core aspect of recourse integration and lead to value- driving experiences (Karpen et al., 2011; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). Hence, such strategic objective requires that “all co-creative management processes be enabled and supported by interaction-centric capabilities” (Ramaswamy, 2009, p. 37). Provided this notion, Karpen and collegues (2011) developed the concept of S-D orientation which is interpreted as co-creation capability and compiled of six interaction capabilities. Hence, by interacting and combining resources interdependently market actors individually determine the value of the associated experience (Karpen, Bove, Lukas, & Zyphur, 2015). Therefore, as previously mentioned EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 10 concept of experiential value has been constructed to capture the experience-based value
(Mathwick et al., 2001) and provided that satisfaction is an attitude change resulting from consumption experience (Oliver, 1981) , the role of co-creation capability is to be considered a moderator of experiential value and satisfaction relationship. However, as co-creation capability is quite recently developed concept, thus there is no empirical research which has validated this notion and the literature gap has been identified.
Taking everything into consideration and addressing the research gaps mentioned previously, the central research question is identified as follows: to what extent co-creation capability moderates the experiential value and satisfaction relationship in peer-to-peer marketplace? The research goal is to analyse the moderating effect of co-creation capability on experiential value and satisfaction relationship in peer-to-peer marketplace. Previously defined goal will be achieved through specific objectives, therefore the objectives of this research are:
1. To analyse academic literature on customer satisfaction, experiential value and co-
creation capability in order to grasp the essence of the constructs and identify the
definitions.
2. To examine the links between co-creation capability, experiential value and
satisfaction and identify research gaps to determine the need for the research.
3. To perform empirical research and investigate the gathered data in order to assess to
what extent co-creation capability moderates the relationship between experiential
value and satisfaction.
4. To examine and discuss the results of the empirical research in the light of the
existing literature in order to suggest managerial and theoretical implications as well
as recommendations for further research. EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 11
Considering the practical implications of the proposed research – this research will provide some insights for companies using P2P business model and will allow to gain deeper understanding of the relationship between experiential value and satisfaction and the effect of co- creation capability on this relationship.
Theoretical significance of this research lies in empirical investigation of co-creation capability as a moderator affecting experiential value and satisfaction relationship in peer to peer marketplace. Therefore, co-creation capability is relatively new concept and still requires empirical research to be tested, hence this study will extend S-D literature and will be a pioneering work analysing co-creation capability in the context of peer-to-peer marketplace.
The research is designed by employing a quantitative approach to test the hypothesis through surveying users of peer-to-peer marketplace Vinted who bought any piece of clothing within the last six months. The users who bought within the identified period will be asked to evaluate the derived experiential value, co-creation capability of the other participants from whom they have bought clothing and indicate their personal satisfaction.
To achieve the goal of the research identified previously, the data will be collected by using structured questionnaire (with an exception regarding few demographical questions).
Therefore, the questionnaire will be compiled of several parts measuring each variable separately: experiential value, co-creation capability of other users and satisfaction. Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) will be used to process and analyse the data gathered.
The thesis is organized and constructed to lead the reader through the process of the research and thus is divided into five separate chapters. The first chapter presents the literature review and is structured by topics. Literature review chapter begins with analysis of the research EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 12 context discussing the sharing economy, retail industry and peer-to-peer marketplaces. The following parts confer the overview of satisfaction and its importance, development and definition of experiential value and present the prior research which examined the relationship between the aforementioned constructs. The co-creation capability is introduced subsequently and thus is analysed by providing the reader with the foundational background of the concept through overview of S-D logic development and its foundational premises, identification of value co-creation, thus leading to the development and definition of co-creation capability.
Finally, the links between the co-creation capability, experiential value and satisfaction are examined and the conclusions of literature review drawn up.
Literature review is followed by research methodology chapter which provides detailed information of the chosen research design through presenting description of the problem, hypothesis and theoretical framework. Further, the reasoning behind the chosen research method is provided. The research methodology chapter also covers the topics of research setting and participants, instrumentation as well as ethical and validity considerations. The empirical research results are presented in the fourth chapter and the fifth final chapter of the thesis provides the discussion and conclusions of the research study.
EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 13
Literature review Sharing economy, retail industry and peer-to-peer marketplaces
“ Today’s smart choice: Don’t own. Share.” – was announced in Times Magazine article which proposed “10 ideas that will change the world” claiming that collaborative consumption as a different form of consumption involving “ renting, lending and even sharing goods instead of buying them” is becoming one of those trends (Walsh, 2011). Yet, there is no one common name and definition which should be given to this phenomenon. PricewaterhouseCoopers produced a report named “The sharing economy” (2015) and therefore indicated that even between the industry specialist there was no common agreement how the movement should be named. In the report compiled by Nesta Innovation Charity and called “Making sense of the UK collaborative economy”, the authors refer to the phenomena as “ an economy with many names” (Stokes,
Clarence, Anderson, & Rinne, 2014, p. 9).
Sharing as natural behaviour is around us as long as the human race exists, yet the
“sharing economy” developed in the age of the internet and is still growing (Belk, 2013). The rise of internet created an opportunity to make sharing extremely simple and beneficial by offering consumers a chance to cooperate for cost reduction, benefit augmentation, convenience and environmental care (Matzler, Veider, & Kathan, 2014). Stokes, Clarence, Anderson and
Rinne (2014) provide a detailed list of definitions which have been used for describing the trend.
Originally, the phenomenon was named “collaborative consumption” (Stokes, Clarence,
Anderson, & Rinne, 2014) and defined as “those events in which one or more persons consume economic goods or services in the process of engaging in joint activities with one or more others” (Felson & Spaeth, 1978, p. 614). “Sharing economy” is a younger term and according to
Botsman (2013) “it includes the shared creation, production, and distribution, trade of human and EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 14 physical assets”. Sharing is a key part of collaborative consumption (Albinsson & Perera, 2012).
Belk (2013) compares “sharing” and collaborative consumption by defining sharing as “the act and process of distributing what is ours to others for their use and/or the act and process or receiving or taking something from others for our use” (Belk, 2007, p. 126) which is associated with gift giving rather than commercial exchange, while collaborative consumption is defined as
“people coordinating the acquisition and distribution of a resource for a fee or other compensation” (Belk, 2013, p. 1598). Matzler, Veider and Kathan (2014) proposed that sharing
“can be anything to which access is enabled through pooling of resources, products or services”.
Other related terms mentioned by Stokes, Clarence, Anderson and Rinne (2014) include peer
(P2P) economy which is based on the business model where people use various platforms “to rent, sell, lend or share things with others without the involvement of shops, banks or agencies”
(p. 9); “ mesh” – which is related to the aspect of the interconnectedness fostered by the digital technology (Gansky, 2010); “gig economy” which emphasize the emerging platforms which offer flexible work; “access economy” which mainly concentrates on access as more preferred form of consumption than individual ownership (Rifkin, 2000). Stokes, Clarence, Anderson and
Rinne (2014) offer the new term “ collaborative economy” and propose that “collaborative economy as we define it involves using internet technologies to connect distributed groups of people to make better use of goods, skills and other useful things” (p. 10).
Yet, it is important to note that Rachel Botsman and Roo Rogers (2010a) were the first to reinvent the concept of collaborative consumption and identified four key drivers of the movement including a renewed belief in the importance of community; a torrent of peer-to-peer social networks and real-time technologies; pressure of environmental concerns; and a global recession that has influenced consumer behaviours (Botsman, 2010). Sustainability and climate EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 15 change are often identified as reasons behind the movement as well (Albinsson & Perera, 2012).
What is more, Botsman (2010) identified that consumers are changing from passive actors to highly enabled collaborators as the internet is removing the “ middle man” and allowing people to buy and sell peer to peer (P2P), calling it “peer to peer revolution”. Stokes, Clarence, Anderson and Rinne (2014, p. 9) refer to P2P market as “ a business model which allows people to rent sell, lend or share things with others without the involvement of shops, banks or agencies, but by using the provided platform for the exchange”. Therefore in this study the term peer to peer
(P2P) is employed as best representing the context which is being investigated.
Therefore, the number of articles and publications in the field of sharing economy and
P2P markets is growing as the new business model is gaining the attention from business world.
PricewaterhouseCoopers estimated that by 2025, five main sectors of sharing economy including peer to peer (P2P) finance, online staffing, P2P accommodation, car sharing and music/video streaming could represent $335 billion in revenue worldwide (Carson, 2014). Although P2P retail is not included in the list compiled by PwC, yet more recently Business Insider has published an article claiming that “used clothing is the hottest thing in retail right now – and even Goldman Sachs is taking notice” (Schlossberg, 2015). Goldman Sachs - American multinational investment banking firm, has invested $81 million dollars into second-hand fashion marketplace ThredUp. According to Bhasin (2015), more than $400 million have been invested into fashion resale during the last five years. ThredUp, RealReal, Vestiare Collective, Poshmark,
Vinted, Threadflip – the list of clothing resale start-ups gaining the investors’ attention is growing (figure 1). EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 16
Figure 1. Total venture capital funding for major clothing resale start-ups. From “Why Is Silicon Valley Pouring Millions of Dollars Into Old Clothes?” by K. Bhasin, 2015, Bloomberg.
What is more, the growth of P2P marketplaces can also be considered as a potential competition to traditional retailers as providing a substitute. Cova and White (2010) analysed new trends in online community behaviour, and based on case studies investigated, they proposed that consumer groups can grow into competing forces with little or no assistance from business organizations which signifies a risk for traditional businesses. Furthermore, as fashion resale platforms are emerging one after another, Bhasin (2015) claims that investors and analysts have a common view that with growing competition between P2P second-hand clothing marketplaces - not all of them might survive. Well executed business strategy can be identified as one of potential determinants of the survival (Bhasin, 2015). Therefore, more comprehensive understanding of consumer behaviour and what satisfies them could help companies to gain the competitive advantage as customer satisfaction is recognized to play key role in successful business strategy (Gomez, McLaughlin, & Wittink, 2004; Drucker, 1973; Baker, 2013; Cochran,
2003). EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 17
Satisfaction definition
The concept of customer satisfaction emerged as a subject of research in the early 1970s
(Churchill & Suprenant, 1982). One of the first studies to provide empirical investigation was carried out by the US Department of Agriculture and measured Index of Consumer Satisfaction
(Plaff, 1972). Since the concept gained the attention from the scholars, numerous studies had been performed analysing the antecedents and consequences of the customer satisfaction and various definitions were provided. Cochran (2003) claimed that satisfaction can involve price, lead time, conformance, responsiveness, reliability, professionalism, and convenience comprising complex mix of all these or even more factors. Yet, the largest contributor to customer satisfaction was claimed to be customer perceptions which can be based in fantasy, fiction or other state of unreality (Cochran, 2003). Kotler, Wong, Saunders, & Armstrong (2005) suggested that customer satisfaction is based on product’s perceived performance relative to buyer’s expectations. Thus, expectations are based on past experiences, opinions of relatives, promises of the organisation and its competitors as well as information provided (Kotler, Wong,
Saunders, & Armstrong, 2005). In a similar manner, Hill & Alexander (2006) provided a definition of customer satisfaction as “a measure of how your organisation’s total product performs in relation to a set of customer requirements” (p. 2). Grigoroudis & Siskos (2009) argued, that various aspects of satisfaction make it complicated to define the concept due to its close relationship with consumption experience. Therefore Grigoroudis & Siskos (2009) refer to the extensive study of customer satisfaction performed by Yi (1990), who defined satisfaction in two ways:
1. Satisfaction as an outcome – end-state resulting from consumption experience. EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 18
2. Satisfaction as a process – perceptual, evaluative and psychological process
contributing to satisfaction.
Yet, Oliver (1997) identified three different aspects of satisfaction:
Satisfaction with events that happen during consumption.
Satisfaction with final result.
Satisfaction with level of satisfaction received.
What is more, Oliver (1981) suggested that satisfaction in the retail context is conceived as a fulfilment response employed to understand and evaluate the consumer experience, thus consumer satisfaction is a change in attitude which is a consequence from the consumption experience. Yi (1990) emphasised that satisfaction was not “just the pleasure of a consumption experience, but the evaluation that the experience is as pleasurable as it was supposed or expected to be” (p. 75). Hill, Roche and Allen (2007) argued that “word ‘satisfaction’ is the most appropriate label for the range of attitudes and feelings that customers hold about their experiences with an organisation” (p. 2). Therefore, as this research is aimed at investigating the moderating effect of co-creation capability on the relationship between experiential value and satisfaction, the most applicable definition is recognised to be the one provided by Oliver (1981), thus in this research we define satisfaction as a judgement and/ or an attitude change resulting from the consumption experience. The definition is chosen in regards to the acknowledgement that both experiential value and co-creation capability can shape customer experiences.
Consequently, the current study use the measure of consumer satisfaction developed by Oliver
(1997) and applied for related research of consumer satisfaction (Prebensen, Kim, & Uysal,
2015). EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 19
Importance of satisfaction
The significant weight of customer satisfaction for business success has been recognised by researchers up to date (Drucker, 1973; Gomez, McLaughlin, & Wittink, 2004; Baker, 2013;
Cochran, 2003; Hill, Roche, & Allen, 2007). Hill, Roche and Allen (2007) provide four main reasons how more comprehensive understanding of customer satisfaction can help to improve relationship with customers.
1. Customers’ attitudes anticipate their behaviour.
Customer satisfaction is the major indicator of customer future behaviours towards company which consequently will determine the potential profitability of the business, thus it is important to measure customer satisfaction (Hill, Roche, & Allen, 2007). The suggestion that customer satisfaction positively influence company’s profitability has been also recognised by other researchers (Kotler, 1991; Oliver, 1997; Halowell, 1996; Anderson et al., 1994; Heskett et al., 2004; Angelova & Zekiri, 2011; Vavra, 2002).
2. Customer satisfaction affects loyalty.
Acknowledgement of the differences between customers’ attitudes and behaviours and how this relationship between them works is essential for any customer management specialist.
While it is generally considered that satisfaction positively affects loyalty by numerous scholars
(Hallowell, 1996; Gronholdt, Martensen, & Kristensen, 2000; Gallarza & Gil-Saura, 2006;
Verhagen et al., 2011), the levels of satisfaction might significantly vary in diverse contexts which in turn can have a different effect considering diverse range of specific real world cases
(Hill, Roche and Allen, 2007). EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 20
3. Satisfaction is the main driver of loyalty.
In the 21st century most of the companies perform at the adequate level to deliver reasonable level of customer satisfaction, however “good enough” customer satisfaction is not the same as high level of satisfaction (Hill, Roche, & Allen, 2007). The research has identified that even satisfied customers might not be loyal, therefore merely satisfying experience is not enough for today’s demanding consumer. In order to foster customer loyalty the levels of satisfaction have to be so high that no thoughts of shifting towards other service provider would occur (Hill, Roche, & Allen, 2007).
4. Maintaining satisfaction requires action.
Maintaining high levels of satisfaction requires continues improvement of the service provided (Hill, Roche, & Allen, 2007). Hence, any customer research it is important to understand that the knowledge gained should not only used to identify the trend, but also be useful in offering insights for managers so they can make better decisions. Actionable information on how to better satisfy consumers is the central outcome (Hill, Roche, & Allen,
2007).
Other authors identify that customer satisfaction is important for businesses as it stimulates re-purchase intention (Yi, 1990; Gupta et al., 2007; Sivadas & Baker-Prewitt, 2000,
Bradley & Sparks, 2012), recommendation behaviour as well as word-of-moth (Hallowel, 1996;
Sivadas & Baker-Prewitt, 2000; Verhagen et al., 2011; Vavra; 2002). Vavra (2002) offered
“philosophical” reasons to invest in customer satisfaction and named it Win-Win-Win situation which is based on The Cycle of Good Service (figure 2) developed by Schlesinger and Heskett
(1991). EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 21
Figure 2. The Cycle of Good service developed by Schleisinger and Heskitt (1991). From Customer Satisfaction Measurement Simplified by T. G. Vavra, 2002, p. 8.
Vavra (2002) suggest, that The Cycle of Good Service applied in the traditional business model indicates that satisfied consumers would be more tolerant to the higher pricing which would lead to higher margins and allow companies to pay higher salaries; the increase in salary would potentially help the company to keep their employees from leaving, thus experienced and satisfied employees would supposedly provide better service which could result in higher customer satisfaction (Schlesinger and Heskitt, 1991 cited in Vavra, 2002). Although the critics claim that such philosophy is nearly utopian, Vavra (2002) argues that it is definitely worth considering when setting business objectives, as such strategy has high potential of fostering successful and profitable business. Yet the major criticism towards The Cycle of Good Service was expressed with the regard to the relationship between the company and employee (Vavra,
2002), which can therefore be associated with organisations’ attitude towards paying higher salaries as the labour cost often amount for the significant part of the total operating cost, thus increasing salaries means increasing operating costs (Lashley, 2012).
When analysing peer to peer marketplaces it needs to be recognised that one of the defining features of these marketplaces is that the customer is also the supplier or the provider of EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 22 the service. Therefore, application of Cycle of Good Service in the context of peer to peer marketplace suggest interesting insights regarding the aspects of consumer satisfaction in P2P marketplaces. As the individuals who sell, buy or swap clothes using the P2P platform can be considered as “partial employees” forming the frontline of the service, it must be acknowledged that these people, i.e. the members of the platform form the major part of other customers’ experiences which precedes satisfaction. Thus, in regards to The Cycle of Good Service
(Schlesinger and Heskett, 1991) it could be suggested that in peer to peer marketplace one satisfied customer leads to another satisfied customer as they both perform the role of partial employees. Furthermore, satisfied customer is more likely to return and use the service again.
Therefore, the owners of peer to peer marketplace platforms can monetise their service by charging the agreed percentage of every sale made on the platform, which is the case with Vinted in the UK, US, Germany and expanding, yet in Lithuania it is free to use the service. Therefore, the platform owners ought to be highly concerned with the customer experience which is influenced by other members of the platform.
Furthermore, customer experiences which can lead to satisfaction also include the experiential value derived from the usage of the platform. It has been proved that Web site design factors, such as layout and product presentation, can foster the pleasant and remarkable experiences (Constantinides, 2004). Singhal and Mehta (2015, p. 1306) suggested that “the interface between the firm and the consumer is becoming the locus of value creation and is the subsequent practice in value creation”. Hence, The Cycle of Good Service was adjusted and adapted to be utilised in peer to peer marketplace and is presented in figure 3. Yet, this conceptual model considers all P2P marketplace platform users as service providers and consumers and the same time. EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 23
Satisfied prosumer
Reinvest / Lower churn retain profits
Higher profits margin
Figure 3. Cycle of Good P2P Service developed by the author (2016) based on The Cycle of Good service (Schlesinger and Heskitt, 1991).
Experiential value: development and definition
Considering P2P marketplaces as alternative for a traditional retailers, the literature of customer behaviour in the retail context is further overviewed. It has been identified that retail industry is no more restricted only to economic or financial gains but is also becoming a platform for social interaction, amusement, experience and enjoyment (Filser, 2001; Amine & Lazzaoui,
2011; Shamim & Ghazali, 2014). The prevailing topic of customer experience aspects can be strongly associated with the emergence of “ Experience Economy” which impelled to view customer experience as a distinct economic offering (Shamim & Ghazali, 2014; Pine & Gilmore,
1998). Mathwick, Malhotra and Rigdon (2001) suggested that due to this trend “we find retailers redefining themselves as a source of memories, rather than goods”. According to Shaw and
Ivens (2005), 85% of senior business executives think that traditional differentiation components such as price, product and quality is not enough to obtain sustainable competitive advantage and believe that customer experience is significant factor which can influence their position in the EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 24 competitive landscape. Therefore, Grewal, Levy, & Kumar (2009) argued that low prices and innovative products do not ensure the survival of the business in contemporary retail environment. Thus, compelling retail management strategies have been associated with successful development of customer experience both in offline and online retail environment
(Rose, Clark, Samouel, & Hair, 2012; Puccinelli, et al., 2009; Grewal, Levy, & Kumar, 2009;
Elliot & Fowell, 2000; Rose, Clark, Samouel, & Hair, 2012). Therefore, it is fundamental that experience would deliver value to customers to cherish the loyalty and foster the number of returning customers (Spiegelman, 2000). Moreover, value has been considered as the central objective of organisation (Slater, 1997), significant part of a firm’s strategy (Porter, 1998; Slater and Narver, 1998), the major factor allowing to differentiate (Cooper, 2001) as well the core concept of marketing (Woodruff, 1997).
Experiential value as a concept was first recognised and argued for by Holbrook and
Hirschman (1982). The authors (Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982) claimed that consumer research has tended to disregard the importance of experiential aspects of consumption such as fantasies, feelings and fun, thus limiting the understanding of consumer behaviour. Most of consumer behaviour research during the 1970s was largely based on the “information processing model”
(Bettman, 1979) which emphasized the rational decision making process and regarded consumer as a logical thinker who makes purchase decisions by solving problems and engaging in goal- directed activities (Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982). Holbrook & Hirschman (1982) contrasted this model with experiential consumption view which involves recognising task as oriented toward hedonic response. Therefore, information processing view was considered to be related to mental activities which are the result of socialization and is called “secondary process” thinking by Hilgard (1962) while experiential view stress the importance of “primary thinking” activities EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 25 referring to natural human orientation towards pleasure or satisfaction since birth (Hilgard, 1962 cited in Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982). According to the information processing view, the success of purchasing decision is utilitarian in nature, i.e. derived from the usefulness of the product, while based on the experiential view – successful consumption is perceived in terms of the induced enjoyment and feeling of pleasure (Klinger, 1971 cited in Holbrook & Hirschman,
1982).
More than a decade later after the first work arguing that experiential value is important aspect of consumer behaviour was published, Holbrook (1996) expanded on the notion of experiential value and developed Typology of Customer Value (table 1). The suggested typology included Extrinsic versus Intrinsic value dimensions which were directed at motivation behind value assessment; Self-versus Other-Orientated value dimensions considered orientation of value assessment and Active versus Reactive value dimension represented the nature of value assessment (Holbrook, 1996). Holbrook (1996), therefore defined customer value as an
“interactive relativistic preference experience” (p. 138).
Table 1
Typology of Customer Value
EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 26
Note. From “ Customer Value - A Framework For Analysis and Research” by M. B. Holbrook, 1996, Advances in Consumer Research, 23, p. 139. Extrinsic value is derived from utilitarian benefits which often means that „a product is purchased in a deliberant and efficient manner“ (Babin & Darden, 1994, p. 646) while intrinsic value emerges from playfulness and fun (Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982). Active value results from consumer‘s manipulation of shopping resources to satisfy needs, whereas reactive value occurs when consumer positively reacts to personnel or surroundings (Kim, 2002; Keng, Huang,
Zheng, & Hsu, 2007).
Therefore, provided the growing demand of retailers to comprehend and find ways to adapt to the “ Experience Economy” Mathwick, Malhotra, & Rigdon (2001) developed the
Typology of Experiential Value which has led to the development of experiential value scale
(EVS). The experiential value scale was designed to measure experience-based value and was originally constructed to evaluate retail shopping experience. Typology of Experiential Value was developed based on the Customer Value Typology suggested by Holbrook (1994), yet focused only on self-oriented dimensions of experiential value (table 2).
Table 2
Typology of Experiential Value
EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 27
Note. From “ Experiential value: conceptualization, measurement and application in the catalog and Internet shopping environment” by C. Mathwick, N. Malhotra and E. Rigdon, 2001, Journal of Retailing, 77, p. 42. The typology of experiential value developed by Mathwick, Malhotra and Rigdon (2001) was compiled of four dimensions as following:
1. Playfulness
Describing playfulness Mathwick, Malhotra and Rigdon (2001) adopts the idea proposed by Huizinga (1955) and Unger & Kerman (1983) suggesting that “playful exchange behaviour is reflected in the intrinsic enjoyment that comes from engaging in activities that are absorbing, to the point of offering an escape from the demands of the day-to-day world” (cited in Mathwick,
Malhotra & Rigdon, 2001. p. 44). Playfulness also involves escapism which is described as an opportunity “to get away from everything” (Huizinga, 1955). Playfulness can be a part of any activity in which consumer engage in with free will (Mathwick, Malhotra & Rigdon, 2001)
2. Aesthetics
Aesthetics is considered to deliver a reactive intrinsic value in the retail context and therefore is compiled of visual appeal and entertaining aspects of the service performance
(Mathwick, Malhotra & Rigdon, 2001). Design, physical attractiveness and beauty can lead to visual appeal (Holbrook, 1994), while entertainment is formed by comprehension of the “retail spectacle” (Mathwick, Malhotra & Rigdon, 2001).
3. Consumer return on investment (CROI)
Consumer return on investment (CROI) captures the “active investment of financial, temporal, behavioural and psychological resources that potentially yield a return” (Mathwick,
Malhotra & Rigdon, 2001, p. 41). This value represents the utilitarian aspects of shopping such EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 28 as economic and efficiency utilities gained (Hoolbrook, 1994 cited in Mathwick, Malhotra &
Rigdon, 2001).
4. Service excellence
Service excellence reflects “an inherently reactive response in which the consumer comes to admire a marketing entity for its capacity to serve as a means to a self-oriented end”
(Holbrook & Corfman, 1985 cited Mathwick, Malhotra & Rigdon, 2001, p. 42). Service provider’s ability to keep the promises given to the consumers through demonstrating expertise and task-related performance create value from perceived service excellence (Zeithaml, 1988).
Therefore, in the subsequent work Mathwick, Malhotra, & Rigdon (2002) provided the definition of experiential value which is applied in the context of the current research and is described as “perceived, relativistic preference for product attributes or service performances arising from interaction within a consumption setting that facilitates or blocks achievement of customer goals or purpose” (p. 53).
Experiential value and satisfaction relationship
Interrelationship between perceived value and satisfaction has occupied many scholars for more than a decade (Cronin, Brady & Hult, 2000; Holbrook 1999; Woodruff & Gardial,
1996). More recently, experiential aspects of value have gained researchers’ attention. Therefore, the overview of the previous studies investigating the relationship between experiential value and satisfaction is provided in table 3. Based on these findings, the current investigation hypothesizes that satisfaction increases with experiential value were developed and therefore will be tested in the context of peer to peer marketplace. EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 29
Table 3
The research of experiential value relative to satisfaction
Authors Summary of research Summary of findings Keng C. J., Huang, Zheng, The study aimed at The findings provided that & Hsu, (2007) understanding the influence of personal interaction affected service encounters on customer perceptions of efficiency and experiential value and in turn service excellence positively, on customer behavioural while playfulness and intention in Taiwan shopping aesthetics were influenced by mall. physical environment encounters positively. All dimensions of EV were identified to have positive impact on behavioural intentions. Behavioural intentions are positively associated with satisfaction (Soderlund & Ohman, 2005)
Keng & Ting, (2009) Research aimed at examining Results revealed that emotional experiences gained interpersonal interaction while reading blogs and strengthens aesthetic evaluate attitude towards blog experience and playfulness. A usage. positive correlation proved to prevail between user attitudes and experiential value in three of the dimensions: aesthetics, playfulness and service excellence.
Jeong, Fiore, Niehm, & The objective of the research It was identified that website Lorenz, (2009) was to investigate how web site features affected all 4Es, thus features influence four only entertainment, escapist experience realms (4Es - and aesthetic experiences had educational, entertainment, impact on pleasure and/or escapist, aesthetic) and how arousal. 4Es affected pleasure and/or arousal.
EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 30
Shieh & Cheng, (2007) The study investigated how The research suggested the consumers, particularly causal relationship between Taiwanese adolescents, transfer experiential value constructs value of experience and (social function; empathy and lifestyles into satisfaction. escapism) and satisfaction.
(Gallarza & Gil-Saura, Two main goals of the study The authors indicate that 2006) were identified by authors – to research confirm the presence investigate consumer value of quality-value, satisfaction- dimensions in travel context loyalty chain. and investigate relationships between perceived value, satisfaction and loyalty.
Verhagen, Felberg, van den The authors described and Results indicated that a set of Hoof, Meents, & Merikivi, empirically examined an intrinsic and extrinsic (2011) integrated model of experiential values is experiential system value as a significant driver of determinant of satisfaction with satisfaction with virtual virtual world. world.
Sung & Lee, (2015) The research analysed the Findings of the study impact of convention centre indicated that basic and services on centre’s attendees’ excitement aspects of services experiential values, satisfaction positively impact attendees’ and loyalty. experiential value and in turn enhance satisfaction with the centre.
Wu & Liang, (2009) The research aimed at The results demonstrated that identifying how experiential environmental aspects as well value influence customer as interactions with satisfaction with service employees and other encounters in the setting of customers has a positive high-class hotel restaurants. impact on experiential value. However, only interactive relationships directly and positively influence customer satisfaction.
EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 31
Li & Cai, (2014) The focus of the study was on The results of the research the relationships between suggested that extrinsic experiential value, satisfaction dimension of experiential and E-loyalty. value positively influence customer satisfaction, yet the intrinsic value does not. Therefore, both factors – satisfaction and experiential value significantly influence e-loyalty.
Prebensen, Kim, & Uysal, The study focused on the level The results of the study (2015) of customer participation indicated that level of co- (which is considered as co- creation moderates the creation) as the moderating relationship between value factor of value-satisfaction derived from the experience link. and satisfaction.
Note. Developed by author.
The rise of Service Dominant logic
Service-Dominant (S-D) logic and its foundational premises are further introduced in this section as the foundational assumptions required to fully understand the essence of co-creation capability.
The birth of service dominant (S-D) logic as a new marketing paradigm is mostly associated with the study published by Vargo & Lush (2004) who have recognized the changing perspectives of marketing logic and proposed that these changes are forming a new dominant logic. Vargo & Lush (2004) argued that new dominant logic implies that service provision rather than goods are at the core of economic exchange in contrast to the previously prevailing economic basis of marketing which focused on the distribution and exchange of commodities
(Marshall, 1927; Smith, 1904). The S-D logic is based on the view that intangible resources, co- EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 32 creation of value and relationships are at the core of marketing and is noted that goods dominant view might have had partly withholded a complete comprehension of marketing overall (Vargo
& Luch, 2004). Although Vargo & Lush (2004) were the first to suggest the “ title” for the changing perspective in marketing, literature review reveals earlier works identifying the changing view, fo r instance Gummesson (1995) was arguing that:
Customers do not buy goods or services - they buy offerings which render services which
create value.… The traditional division between goods and services is long outdated. It is
not a matter of redefining services and seeing them from a customer perspective;
activities render services, things render services. The shift in focus to services is a shift
from the means and the producer perspective to the utilization and the customer
perspective. (p. 250 – 251)
Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2000) also indicated that managers have to understand that customers are not interested in buying a product, hence “ the product, in fact, is no more than an artefact around which customers have experiences” (p. 83). However, the conceptualization of new marketing logic proposed by Vargo & Lush (2004) was the one that gained most significant attention and their article “Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing” became the most cited article published in the Journal of Marketing since 2000. In the aforementioned study,
Vargo & Lush (2004) proposed eight foundational premises (FPs) of S-D logic which were later revised with the regards to the critical commentary (Vargo & Lush, 2008). Therefore 10 FPs were defined in the subsequent work by Vargo & Lush (2008) as described below.
1. The fundamental basis of the exchange is service. EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 33
Service is defined as “application of knowledge and skills” (Vargo & Lush, 2008, p.6).
Knowledge and skills are described as operant resources, i.e. resources that produce effects
and are used to act upon operand resources, while goods are considered to be operand
resources, i.e. resources on which an operation or act is performed (Constantin & Lush,
1994).
2. Indirect exchange masks the fundamental basis of exchange.
Due to the hierarchical and bureaucratic nature of companies, marketing specialists do
not directly communicate with customers, which implies that “service-for-service” exchange
has been masked (Vargo & Lush, 2004).
3. Goods are a distribution mechanism for service provision.
Customers often buy goods to gain higher order benefits such as pleasure, self-esteem,
satisfaction which is beyond the basic functions of the products. Therefore, goods are
considered as platforms which support the process of providing benefits (Vargo & Lush,
2004).
4. Operant resources are the fundamental source of competitive advantage.
Differential application and handling of information and knowledge by firm exercised
together with other members participating in the service chain enable companies to offer
propositions of great worth to customers and allow to gain competitive advantage (Varrgo &
Lush, 2004).
5. All economies are service economies. EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 34
Services and operant resources reflect the core of economic activity. Economies may be
seen as macro specializations each described by some specific sort of operant recourse
(competence) that can be exchanged. Arguably, services are not becoming important just
nowadays, but because of growing specialisation they are becoming more evident nowadays
(Vargo & Lush, 2004).
6. The customer is always co-creator of value.
The value received during the service exchange process always involves combination of
recourses of both sides and is never created one-sidedly. The determined value is always
unique and customer is primarily an operant resource involved in value creation process
(Vargo & Lush, 2004; Vargo & Lush, 2008)
7. The enterprise cannot deliver value, but only offer value propositions.
Company cannot create and deliver value solely by itself. Both - the company putting
forward its offering and the receiver collaboratively create value (Vargo & Lush, 2008). This
is in line with the proposition by Gummeson (1998, p. 247) that “if the consumer is the focal
point of marketing, value creation is only possible when a good or service is consumed.”
8. A service-centered view is inherently customer orientated and relational.
Creation of value is interactive process and both – the provider and the beneficiary must
be involved in this process. A service-centered view implies that humans are at the core of
the exchange process due to dynamic and participatory nature of the relationship emerging
between the parties (Vargo & Lush, 2004; Vargo & Lush, 2008).
9. All social and economic actors are resource integrators. EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 35
Originally, the 9th foundational premise was presented by Vargo and Lush in 2006 and
suggested that “ organisations exist to integrate and transform micro specialized competences
into complex services” (p. 53). However, Vargo and Lush, (2008) revised it, as they realised
that all entities have to integrate resources to foster the exchange. Creation of value requires
all parties, i.e. not only the provider to incorporate resources, thus value creation was defined
as “ a process of integrating and transforming resources, which requires interaction and
implies networks” (Lusch & Vargo, 2006, p. 285).
10. Value is always uniquely and phenomenologically determined by the beneficiary.
This premise is in line with previously described FP6 and FP7, which implies that every
customer integrate the unique resources into the exchange, therefore as value is co-created
during the process of exchange, it is idiosyncratic and determined by the individual who
receives the service. The word “phenomenological” is used to capture the experiential nature
of value (Vargo & Lush, 2008).
From value co-creation to co-creation capability
S-D logic implies that value co-creation is central to business strategy and therefore challenges the previously prevailing view of value provision as the central aspect (Karpen, Bove,
Lukas, & Zyphur, 2015). Since the first article which introduced S-D logic (Vargo & Lush,
2004), co-creation was mentioned more than 890 times in the title of the seminal articles
(Neghina, Caniëls, Bloemer, & Birgelen, 2014) and the managerial benefits of value co-creation have been widely discussed (e.g., Payne, Storbacka, & Frow, 2007; Prahalad & Ramaswamy,
2004; Karpen, Bove, & Lukas, 2011). EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 36
Primarily, the notion of value co-creation was used in line with S-D logic which implies that all customers are value co-creators. Each service actor is resource integrator as the 9th foundational principle of S-D logic has indicated (Vargo & Lush, 2008). However, Grönroos
(2012) argued that the term value co-creation is highly metaphorical in nature and sets barriers for empirical research in the field. In the later work, Grönroos and Voima (2013) suggested that the notion of value as “perceived and determined by the customer on the basis of value-in-use”
(as it was claimed by Vargo & Luch, 2004, p. 7) is not explicit enough thus arguing that “it cannot be value-in-use, because the service provider’s activities are involved” (p. 35) Hence,
Grönroos and Voima (2013) suggested the distinction between “value creation” and “value co- creation”, proposing that the former reflects customers’ creation of value-in-use, while co- creation is the function of interaction. This distinction provided by Grönroos and Voima (2013) was considered to bring some clarity into the micro analytical processes of the value creation processes of S-D logic (Galvagno & Dalli, 2014).
However the concept of value co-creation still carries ambiguity and confusion in the academic literature (Neghina, Caniëls, Bloemer, & Birgelen, 2014). Some authors have regarded value co-creation as a set of different dimensions, however, possibly due to the sophisticated nature of the construct there is no consensus in what are the actual dimensions of value co- creation (Neghina, Caniëls, Bloemer, & Birgelen, 2014). The study by Randall, Gravier and
Prybutok (2011) examined the relational aspects of co-creation with the regard to marketing concepts, suggesting that connection, trust and commitment are the dimensions of co-creation.
Yi and Gong (2013) considered value co-creation through the customer behaviour perspective and developed Customer value co-creation behaviour scales. The authors (Yi & Gong, 2013) identified two types of co-creation behaviour – customer participation behaviour, which is EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 37 necessary for value co-creation and customer citizenship behaviour which is rather voluntary behaviour and is not required for value co-creation, yet adds exceptional value to the firm.
However, Neghina, Caniëls, Bloemer and Birgelen (2014) claimed that dimensions and measurements proposed by Yi & Gong (2013) and Randal et al. (2011) fail to address the core aspect of value co-creation which is service interactions. Therefore, Neghina, Caniëls, Bloemer and Birgelen (2014) argued that value co-creation can be comprehended through better understanding of direct interactions between the service actors aiming of creating value for at least one of the parties involved and conceptualized value co-creation as a “joint activity between two or more economic actors with the purpose of creating value beyond what each actor can achieve independently” (p. 3) during direct service interactions in line with Grönroos (2012).
The role of customer as value co-creator implies that company can only facilitate value creation by participating in value creation process and integrating its resources in line with the 7th foundational premise suggested by Vargo & Lush (2004). Hence, considering this notion from the strategic point of view, companies have to think of how to become better facilitators of value co-creation processes (Karpen, Bove, & Lukas, 2011). Therefore, in order to enact the S-D logic, organisations need to understand what strategic behaviours are required. Yet, Vargo &
Lush (2004, p. 11) has suggested that “interactivity, integration, customization, and coproduction are the hallmarks of a service-centered view and its inherent focus on the customer and the relationship.’’ Therefore, building on the notion that service is conceptualised as a value creating process provided by Vargo and Lush (2008), interaction is considered to become the main determinant of the resource integration efforts as well as value-driving experiences
(Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004 cited in Karpen, Bove, & Lukas, 2011). Neghina, Caniëls,
Bloemer and Birgelen (2014) has therefore indicated that the only article which has addressed EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 38 the importance of interactions and proposed co-creation dimensions reflecting S-D logic perspective, was the study by Karpen, Bove and Lukas (2011) who identified six types of value creating interactions, that is to say – individuating, relating, empowering, ethical, developmental and concerted interactions. Karpen, Bove and Lukas (2011) have considered these interactions from the firm’s perspective as constituting a “ co-creation capability” which is a strategic capability required to support value co-creation processes. The concept of S-D orientation was introduced and interpreted as co-creation capability which can enable firms to co-create value through the service exchange process with other service actors (Karpen, Bove, & Lukas, 2011).
“S-D logic provides service-driven premises that are reflected in S-D thinking. In contrast, S-D orientation directs firms’ attention to strategic capabilities that are service-driving and manifested in organizational actions” (Karpen, Bove, & Lukas, 2011, p. 3). Therefore, in the subsequent article by Karpen, Bove, Lukas and Zyphur (2015), six strategic capabilities which form the co-creation capability were identified as follows:
- Individuated interaction capability. Ability to acknowledge the resource integration
processes, individual circumstances and the desired results by each party.
- Relational interaction capability. Ability to strengthen social and emotional bonds
with service network partners through relationship and connection.
- Ethical interaction capability. Ability to foster confidence in the service network
partners that it will be acted fairly and in their best interest throughout the exchange.
- Empowered interaction capability. Ability to enable service actors to form and shape
their experiences and the service received for their own interest. EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 39
- Developmental interaction capability. Ability to educate and help other service actors
become more knowledgeable and skilful in order to better utilise the resources
provided.
- Concerted interaction capability. Ability to provide synchronized and integrated
service processes between the service network partners.
The overall S-D orientation which is represented by co-creation capability is defined as
“ability to facilitate and enhance mutually beneficial interaction and resource integration processes with individual actors within the service system” (Karpen, Bove, Lukas, & Zyphur,
2015, p. 91). Therefore, this definition of co-creation capability is applied in this research and the provided measurement scales developed is used.
Links between customer satisfaction, experiential value and co-creation capability
The prior section has identified that in this study customer satisfaction is defined as a judgement and /or an attitude change resulting from the consumption experience in line with
Oliver (1981). Nevertheless, in order to deliver the beneficial results for the organisation, i.e. to foster loyalty and have returning customers, experience must deliver value (Spiegelman, 2000).
Yet, value co-creation is considered to be at the core of S-D marketing logic. The10th foundational principle of S-D logic states that “value is always uniquely and phenomenologically determined by the beneficiary” (Vargo and Lusch, 2008, p.7). Hence, in line with this premise of
S-D logic, Helkkula, Kelleher and Pihlström (2012) proposed to conceptualize value as “value in the experience’’, which is based on Woodruff Smith (2007) conceptualization characterizing phenomenology as study of phenomena as they appear in an individual’s experiences. Hence,
“value in the experience” is comprised of individual customer’s experiences of value. It goes in EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 40 line with Payne, Storbacka and Frow (2007) view that ‘‘value resides not in the object of consumption, but in the experience of consumption’’ (p. 87). Hence, customers co-create idiosyncratic experiences during the service interactions (Verhoef et al., 2009; Teixeira et al,
2012). Karpen, Bove, Lukas and Zyphur, (2015, p. 90) suggest that in line with S-D logic
“ market actors interact with and combine resources interdependently while individually determining the value of the associated experiences in terms of personal betterment”. Yet, conceptualization of the service as a value creating process (Vargo & Luch, 2008) implies that interaction becomes the basis of resource integration efforts and value driving experiences
(Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004 cited in Karpen, Bove, & Lukas, 2011).
According to Mathwick, Malhotra, & Rigdon (2001), the perception of experiential value is grounded in the interactions including direct usage and distanced evaluation of goods and services. Therefore, while the Typology of Experiential Value developed by Mathwick,
Malhotra, & Rigdon (2001) allows to evaluate the experiential value derived from the usage of the service platform, however, the role of interactions which are experiential in nature is disregarded, although the interaction during the service encounter is a principal managerial concern in service companies (Solomon et al., 1985) and service encounter elements are considered as the antecedents of experiential value (Wu & Liang, 2009). Hence, taking into account that experiential value is experience-based value which is derived from usage of the service platform and satisfaction is an attitude change from the consumption experience, it is argued that the co-creation capability compiled of the experiential interaction capabilities is a moderator in the relationship between experiential value and satisfaction relationship.
Yet, before the concept and the measurement instrument of co-creation capability was developed, Prebensen, Kim, and Uysal (2015) have attempted to evaluate the role of co-creation EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 41 as the moderator in the relationship between perceived value of experience and satisfaction in the travel context (the theoretical model is provided in the Appendix 1). Prebensen, Kim, and Uysal
(2015) have grounded their study on the notion that S-D logic focuses on interaction and participation as prerequisites of value co-creation, hence they equated co-creation to the level of participation, but did not consider the interaction capabilities. Therefore, the author of the current study argues that value co-creation induced by resource integration process firstly needs to be enabled by co-creation capability of service actors participating in the exchange. Thus, the level of co-creation capability compiled of interaction capabilities precedes the level of participation, because the level of participation can be affected by prior experiences including interactions.
Conclusions of literature review
As the literature review identified, customer satisfaction is the ultimate goal of any company aiming to prosper in the today’s competitive environment (Baker, 2013). After investigation of the variety of possible antecedents of customer satisfaction it was suggested that this research study will employ the definition provided by Oliver (1981) who described customer satisfaction and a judgment or attitude change from consumption experience as best suited in the context of the current study.
Furthermore, it was identified that retailers have acknowledged that conventional differentiation components such as price, product price and quality is not enough to gain the competitive advantage and customer experience gained the attention as crucial part of compeling retail strategy (Rose, Clark, Samouel, & Hair, 2012; Puccinelli, et al., 2009; Grewal, Levy, &
Kumar, 2009; Elliot & Fowell, 2000; Rose, Clark, Samouel, & Hair, 2012). However,
Spiegelman, (2000) suggested that customer experience must deliver value in order to bring competitive advantage. Therefore, Mathwick, Malhotra, & Rigdon (2001) developed EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 42
Experiential Value Typology aimed at capturing experience-based value. The relationship between experiential value and satisfaction relationship has been studied by number of researchers and positive relationship between the two constructs was recognised although the variation in the strength of experiential value dimensions has been noted across different contexts (e.g. Shieh & Cheng, 2007; Wu & Liang, 2009; Gallarza and Gil-Saura, 2006;
Verhagen, Felberg, van den Hoof, Meents, & Merikivi, 2011; Keng & Ting, 2009).
What is more, in line with S-D logic value co-creation is considered at the core or marketing activity (Vargo & Luch, 2008). Hence, value is derived from the experience
(Helkkula, Kelleher, & Pihlström, 2012) and consumers create unique experiences during service interactions (Verhoef et al., 2009; Teixeira et al, 2012) where service is defined as resource integration process (Vargo & Luch, 2008). Therefore, considering that experiential value is experience-based value which is derived from usage of the service platform and satisfaction is an attitude change from the consumption experience, it is argued that the co-creation capability compiled of the interaction capabilities is a moderator in the relationship between experiential value and satisfaction relationship. However, the construct of co-creation capability is relatively recently developed, thus there is a lack of investigation of the concept, which signifies a clear research gap in the existing literature. No prior studies analysing the relationship between experiential value and satisfaction relationship in peer to peer marketplaces exists either.
Therefore, the analysis of the literature which helped to identify research gaps encourages the author to raise the research question – to what extent co-creation capability moderates the relationship between experiential value and satisfaction relationship in peer to peer marketplace? The further empirical investigation will attempt to suggest answer to the identified research problem. EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 43
Research Methodology
Research methodology chapter is devoted to presenting the structure and methodology of the empirical research which will be executed in order to answer the research question. Firstly, the theoretical framework is identified and the hypothesis are formulated. Secondly, research method, sample of the respondents and the context of the study is discussed. Thirdly, the instruments used to collect the data and data collection method is explained. Ethical considerations as well as internal and external validity assumptions are presented in the last part of this chapter.
Theoretical framework
The previous chapter of literature review identified the research problem of the current study which was formulated as follows: the role of co-creation capability as the moderator on the relationship between experiential value and satisfaction relationship in peer to peer marketplace. Sekaran and Bougie (2010) suggested that theoretical framework forms the basis of any research project and hence, the literature review provides the foundation for developing the theoretical framework which leads to testable hypotheses. Therefore, in the light of the performed literature analysis the current research framework was formed on the basis provided by examining relationships between experiential value construct developed by Mathwick,
Malhotra and Rigdon, (2001); customer satisfaction construct proposed by Oliver (1981); and co-creation capability construct developed by Karpen, Bove, Lukas, & Zyphur (2015). The proposed theoretical framework for this research is presented in figure 4.
EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 44
EXPERIENTIAL VALUE
Aesthetics
Playfulness H2a SATISFACTION H2b Service excellence H2c
H2d Customer Return on Investment CO-CREATION CAPABILITY
Figure 4. Theoretical model of the research (developed by the author in respect to Mathwick, Malhotra and Rigdon, 2001; Oliver 1981; Karpen, Bove, Lukas, & Zyphur, 2015).
The components of the theoretical model are defined as follows:
Customer satisfaction (dependant variable). In this research, definition proposed by
Oliver (1981) is adapted, therefore customer satisfaction is defined as a judgement
and/ or an attitude change resulting from the consumption experience.
Experiential value (independent variable). Experiential value is defined as “perceived
relativistic preference for product attributes or service performances arising from
interaction within a consumption setting that facilitates or blocks achievement of
customer goals or purpose” as proposed by Mathwick, Malhotra, & Rigdon, (2001, p.
53) and is compiled of four dimensions:
o Aesthetics. It represents visual elements of the retail environment and the
aspects providing amusement or enjoyment of service performance
(Mathwick, Malhotra, & Rigdon, 2001). EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 45
o Playfulness. It represents the feeling of enjoyment that comes from
activities, which are so absorbing that allows to get away from the day-to-
day reality (Huizinga, 1955; Unger & Kerman, 1983).
o Service excellence. It represents customer’s appreciation of professionalism
and the expected level of performance of service provider (Zeithaml, 1988;
Mathwick, Malhotra, & Rigdon, 2001).
o Customer Return on Investment (CROI). It reflects the return in terms of
economic utility – the affordable quality as well as utility derived from the
efficiency of the exchange (Thaler, 1985; Zeithaml, 1988; Mathwick,
Malhotra, & Rigdon, 2001).
Co-creation capability (moderator variable). In line with S-D logic co-creation
capability is defined as “ability to facilitate and enhance mutually beneficial
interaction and resource integration processes with individual actors within the
service system” as proposed by Karpen, Bove, Lukas, & Zyphur (2015, p. 91).
The positive relationship between experiential value and satisfaction relationship has been recognised by previous researchers (e.g. Verhagen, Felberg, van den Hoof, Meents, &
Merikivi, 2011; Shieh & & Ming-Sung, 2007; Sung & Lee, 2015; Hsi-Jui Wu & Liang, 2009), thus, based on the findings of previous studies the hypotheses were raised:
H1a: Aesthetics dimension of experiential value has a positive relationship with
satisfaction in peer to peer marketplace.
H1b: Playfulness dimension of experiential value has a positive relationship with
satisfaction in peer to peer marketplace. EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 46
H1c: Service excellence dimension of experiential value has a positive relationship with
satisfaction in peer to peer marketplace.
H1d: Customer Return on Investment dimension of experiential value has a positive
relationship with satisfaction in peer to peer marketplace.
Fairchild and MacKinnon (2009) suggested that the relationship between variables can often be more complicated than straightforward bivariate relations, thus the third variable included in the research design can provide additional insights in regards to the relationship.
Moderator variables has become increasingly popular during the last decade and have been recognised for predicting consumer behaviour (McMullan, 2005; Walsh, Evanschitzky, &
Wunderlich, 2008). Frazier, Tix, & Barron, 2004 suggested that moderator variable can strengthen or weaken the relationship between the predictor (experiential value) and the outcome variable (satisfaction) as presented in figure 5. The significance of moderator variables was acknowledged due to their capacity to broaden the understanding between dependent and independent variables (Walsh, Evanschitzky, & Wunderlich, 2008). Most commonly, moderation effects are considered as interaction between variables, when the influence of one variable depends on the level of the other – i.e. moderator variable (Walsh, Evanschitzky, &
Wunderlich, 2008).
Predictor Outcome
Variable (X) Variable (Y)
Moderator Variable (Z)
Figure 5. Moderator effect. From “Testing moderator and mediator effects in counselling psychology research” by P. A. Frazier, A. P. Tix, & K. E. Barron, 2004, Journal of counselling psychology, 51(1), p. 116. EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 47
The literature review identified that the changing perspectives of marketing paradigm, from the Goods - Dominant to the Service - Dominant logic implies, that value is co-created during the service interactions (Verhoef et al., 2009; Teixeira et al, 2012) and experiential value is rooted in interactions (Mathwick, Malhotra, & Rigdon, 2002).Therefore, taking into consideration that experiential value is experience-based value which is derived from usage of the service platform and satisfaction is an attitude change from the consumption experience, it is argued that the co-creation capability compiled of the interaction capabilities is a moderator in the relationship between experiential value and satisfaction relationship. Hence, the hypotheses were raised:
H2a: The relationship between Aesthetics dimension of experiential value and
satisfaction is moderated by co-creation capability.
H2b: The relationship between Playfulness dimension of experiential value and
satisfaction is moderated by co-creation capability.
H2c: The relationship between Service excellence dimension of experiential value and
satisfaction is moderated by co-creation capability.
H2d: The relationship between Customer return on Investment dimension of experiential
value and satisfaction is moderated by co-creation capability.
Research design
Grix (2002) suggested that social research is comprised of the building blocks, namely, ontology, epistemology, methodology, methods and sources which are crucial to acknowledge in order to understand the entire research process (figure 6). EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 48
Figure 6. The interrelationship between the building blocks of research developed by Hay (2002). From “Introducing Students to the Generic Terminology of Social Research” by J. Grix, 2002, Politics 22(3), p. 180.
Ontological claims reflect what is believed to constitute the social reality (Blaikie, 2000).
Two ontological perspectives are widely discussed – objectivism and constructivism.
Objectivism ontological position presumes that social reality exist autonomously of social actors while constructivism suggests that social phenomena is constantly being complemented by social actors (Grix, 2002). Therefore, in the present study we apply the constructivism approach, due to the nature of the relationship between the service actors which is considered to be constantly affected by social factors (Jaakkola, Helkkula, & Aarikka-Stenroos, 2015). Epistemology reflects the theory of knowledge and is concerned with the process of knowledge-gathering as well as birth of new theories (Grix, 2002). Positivism and interpretivist are the two opposing views of epistemology, thus the former view suggest “the application of the methods of the natural sciences to the study of social reality and beyond” while the latter “respects the differences between people and the objects of the natural sciences and therefore requires the social scientist to grasp the subjective meaning of social action” (Bryman, 2001, p. 12 -13 cited EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 49 in Grix, 2002). As the current research is considered to be an attempt to enhance the predictive understanding of the co-creation capability as a moderator on the relationship between experiential value and satisfaction relationship by performing a structured literature review and developing hypotheses, therefore, the positivist approach is chosen in line with the suggestion of
Myers (1997). Therefore, Bryman (1984) suggested that a research which employs positivist approach to investigate social phenomena - quantitative methodology is regularly presented as the manner in which social research is executed, hence survey is commonly used as an instrument of preference in the research within this position (Bryman, 1984).
Furthermore, the quantitative research strategy can also be supported by the argument provided by Lipsey & Wilson (2001) who suggest that quantitative method is typically applied to test the hypothesis using deductive reasoning, whereas qualitative research method is more appropriate when the research aims to use the information gathered for development of new knowledge and theories. Holton and Burnett (2005, p. 33) suggested that “one of the real advantages of quantitative methods is their ability to use smaller groups of people to make inferences about larger groups that would be prohibitively expensive to study”. Thus, taking everything into account, the quantitative research method was chosen to be applied in the current study and the hypothesis of the research will be empirically tested by using online survey data.
Furthermore, Wright (2005) indicates that online survey method has been used to study variety of areas including but not limited to interpersonal, group, organisational and mass communication. The growth of virtual communities and increase in the engagement has made internet platforms a rich domain for performing survey research (Wright, 2005). Access to participants in distant locations, convenience of data collection, and wider reach as well as time and cost of data collection are considered to be main advantages of survey method, while the EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 50 higher uncertainty with the validity of data collected, sampling issues as well as design, execution and assessment is considered to be the weaknesses of online survey (Wright, 2005).
However, as the current research is concerned with peer to peer marketplace which is formed online and can be considered as a virtual community, survey method is considered to be the most relevant method to reach the required respondents.
Research context and data sample
As literature review indicated, peer to peer marketplaces are considered to represent the wider trend of servitization(Cusumano, 2015), however no research has attempted to investigate co-creation capability in this context up to date. Therefore, peer to peer marketplace was chosen as the research context and was defined as “a business model which allows people to rent, sell, lend or share things with others, without the involvement of shops, banks or agencies, but by using the provided platform for the exchange” (Stokes, Clarence, Anderson, & Rinne, 2014, p.
9). Therefore, the target audience of this research was defined as individuals who have purchased any piece of clothing from the peer to peer marketplace Vinted during the last six months.
The population of the research has been provided by the Vinted marketing officer, who indicated that Vinted has 438 500 registered members in Lithuania. Therefore, the typical goal of the survey is to gather data representative of population (Barlett, Kotrlik, & Higgins, 2001).
Therefore, the minimum sample to be representative of the population has been calculated using the equitation (1) as proposed by Krejcie and Morgan (1970):
Equitation 1:
푋2푁푃(1−푃) S = 푑2(푁−1)+푋2푃(1−푃) EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 51
S = required sample size
푋2 = the table value of chi-square for 1 degree of free at te desired confidence level (when confidence level is 0,05, 푋2 = 3,841)
N = population size (which is 438 500 in this study)
P = population proportion (to provide the most reliable suggestion, population proportion is assumed to be 0,50) d = degree of accuracy expressed as a proportion (0.05)
Therefore, the numerical meanings of variables have been entered in the proposed equitation and the results suggested that required sample size is 384 respondents as calculated by equitation 2.
Equitation 2:
3,841∗438 500∗0,50(1−0,50) S = = 384 (approximated) 0,052(438 500−1)+3,841∗0,50(1−0,50)
Structured online questionnaire was compiled using Google Forms and the link
(http://goo.gl/forms/8NnMpkAf8B) was spread by different channels – social media (Facebook), email messages and communicating directly with random members of Vinted platform by contacting them individually. Yet, the number of respondents has exceeded the required amount of 384 and 448 questionnaires were filled. After filtering data by screening question, 421 answers remained and were recognised as viable for the purpose of further empirical research.
Instrumentation
As previously identified – online questionnaire was chosen as the most appropriate research instrument for this empirical study. The questionnaire consisted of three separate parts EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 52 and was designed with close-ended questions directed towards evaluating experiential value dimensions; co-creation capability of the service actors, i.e., people from whom the respondent bought any piece of clothing within the past 6 months; and customer satisfaction. All constructs were measured in multi-item manner in order to increase the validity and reliability of the results.
Demographic questions were included at the end of the questionnaire.
Experiential value was measured with Experiential Value Scales (EVS) developed by
Mathwick, Malhotra, & Rigdon, (2001) and recognised to be valid by other researchers who investigated the concept of experiential value in different contexts (e.g. Li & Cai, 2014; Hsi-Jui
Wu & Liang, 2009; Park, Lim, & Kim, 2013). Twelve questions measuring experiential value were introduced in the first section of the questionnaire, thus 4 questions were devoted to measure aesthetics dimension of experiential value, 3 questions measuring playfulness dimension, 2 questions devoted to service excellence and 3 questions asking to evaluate customer return on investment. Co-creation capability was measured with the instrument developed by Karpen, Bove, Lukas, & Zyphur (2015) and therefore adapted to fit the context of the current research. 24 questions constituting co-creation capability (which is compiled of six interaction capabilities, namely - individuated, ethical, relational, developmental, empowered and concerted interaction) were presented in the second part of the questionnaire. The final section of the survey was devoted to satisfaction measurement. Satisfaction was assessed through six satisfaction items suggested by Oliver (1997) and adjusted to the current empirical study. All questions measuring constructs were designed as statements, thus the respondents were asked to identify how strongly they agree or disagree with each of the provided statements using seven- point Likert sensitivity scale ranging from 1 – “totally disagree” through 4 – “neutral” to 7 –
“fully agree”. The table 4 presents the constructs and their measurements used in the current EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 53 study. Once the full questionnaire was compiled, it was translated into Lithuanian language and the pilot study was performed with a small group of respondents in order to test if the questions are clear and all of the respondents understand them equally. After the pilot tests, several questions were revised and rephrased to eliminate any possible ambiguity and also reviewed with a public relations specialist to ensure that all questions are presented explicitly. The original
Lithuanian version of questionnaire which was used for the study is presented in the Appendix 2.
Table 4
The main constructs and measures of the current research
Constructs Questions Developed by authors
Experiential value Aeasthetics Mathwick, Malhotra, & (independent The way Vinted.lt displays its products is Rigdon, (2001) variables) attractive. Vinted.lt Internet site is aesthetically appealing. I like the way Vinted.lt Internet site looks. I think Vinted.lt internet site is very entertaining. Playfulness Shopping from Vinted.lt “gets me away from it all”. Shopping from Vinted.lt makes me feel like I am in another world. I get so involved when I shop at Vinted.lt that I forget everything else. Service excellence When I think of Vinted.lt, I think of excellence. I think that Vinted.lt is an expert in the field it operates. Customer Return on Investment EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 54
The products sold through the Vinted.lt platform are a good economic value. I am happy with with the prices of the products sold on Vinted.lt platform. I believe, that the prices of products which I bought from Vinted.lt are too high given their quality. (Reverse question)
Co-creation The participants1 of Vinted platform (Karpen, Bove, Lukas, capability Relational interaction & Zyphur, 2015) (moderator variable) Make me feel at ease during our dealings. Try to establish friendly relationship with me. Encourage two-way communication with me. Show genuine interest in engaging me. Ethical interaction Do not try to take advantage of me. Do not pressure me in any way. Do not mislead me in any way. Do not try to manipulate me. Individuated interaction Make an effort to understand my individual needs. Are sensitive to my individual situation. Make an effort to find out what would be most useful to me. Seek to identify my personal expectations. Developmental interaction Share useful information with me in regards to the product they sell. Help me become more knowledgeable about the product. Provide me with the advice I need to use the product they sell successfully. Offer me additional information about the product.
1 The participant was defined as the person, from whom the goods were bought or in other words, the person who sold the products to the respondent. EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 55
Empowered interaction Invite me to provide ideas or suggestions during our dealing. Encourage me to shape the service I receive using Vinted.lt platform. Provide me with control over my experiences in regards to my purchase. Let me communicate with them in my preferred way. Concerted interaction Seamlessly work together with vinted.lt in serving me, i.e. by providing me an opportunity to purchase the product The participants of the platform together with vinted.lt act as one unit together when dealing with me. The participants of the platform together with vinted.lt provide messages to me that are consistent with each other. The participants of the platform together with vinted.lt ensure the processes which are needed for smooth interaction with me.
Satisfaction I am satisfied with my decision to (Oliver, 1997) (dependent variable) participate in Vinted.lt considering my shopping experience. It was a wise choice. It was a good experience. I will participate in the similar type of opportunities to shop in this way. I will recommend to shop in this way considering my shopping experience. I enjoy discussing this type of shopping experience with my friends
Note. Compiled by the author.
EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 56
Ethical considerations
The main concern of the field of ethics is “proper behaviour of humans” as suggested by
Jacobs (1980, p. 371), thus ethical behaviour is based on “should’s” or “should not’s” and is equally relevant in everyday life as well as in the life of the researcher. Ethical responsibilities penetrate researchers’ life and can often enmesh them in unpleasant situations if the information needed to execute the study requires intimate information such as respondents’ thoughts, experiences, felling or indication of other aspects of respondents’ life (Tisdale, 2004). Jacobs
(1980) identified four types of ethics that might be of interest of the researcher:
- Utilitarian Ethics considers that the results of the action taken can be measured by
the “rightness of the action” (p. 373).
- Kantian Ethics imply that people must be treated as autonomous individuals and
with respect to their opinion no matter how diverse their views or values are.
- Conventional Ethics involves arranging the agreement and establishing the
responsibilities to be adhered with the group.
- Situational Ethics is concerned with ethical issues emerging in the contextual
situations, for example “I might confuse people if I tell the truth”. (p. 373)
Furthermore, ethical issues which are often touch upon by social researchers include matters of voluntarily participation, informed consent, no harm to participants and confidentiality/ anonymity (De Vaus, 2001). Voluntarily participation implies that respondents cannot be forced into the participation of the research (Trochim, 2006), hence, the current research is considered to be in line with this principal as the decision to participate in the research has been suggested to be fully by the preference of the respondents. Informed consent is EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 57 related to the voluntarily participation and means that respondents must be informed about the potential threats and procedures of the research and provide their consent to participate
(Trochim, 2006). Thus, the participants of this research were informed about the motives which prevail this research as well as the intentions of how the data will be used prior to undertaking the survey, which was used to collect the data. Risk of harm to participants including psychological as well as physical harm is unacceptable in line with the ethical standards
(Trochim, 2006). Yet, the online survey method allows participants to choose any convenient location and time to fill the questionnaire, hence no physical harm is relevant in this context. As the data collection was fully based on the voluntarily participation and informed consent, author of the study is inclined to believe that no ground or conditions which could induce psychological harm could have been constituted either. The ethical standard of confidentiality suggest that the provided information will not be shared with anyone who is not directly involved in the research, yet anonymity indicates that each respondent will be preserved as an anonymous participant
(Trochim, 2006). Therefore, the author of the current study is dedicated to maintain these ethical standards prior, during and after the conducted study, so no ethical violations could arise regarding this research. Furthermore, the research instrument used in this study (online survey) implies that no information indicating the identity of the respondents is collected allowing to reduce the chances of data being used unethically.
Validity and reliability
The concept of validity was indicated by Kelley (1927, p. 14) who argued that a test is valid if it measures what it declares to measure. Calder, Phillips, and Tybout, (1982) suggested that concept of validity had fundamental effects on how researchers think about their work, therefore the internal and external validities are relevant when assessing the validity of the EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 58 research study. Internal validity can be described as the extent to which identified correlated variation should be regarded as causal relationship. Therefore, there are several aspects which may suggest questioning the validity of the research. Huitt, Hummel and Kaeck (1999) indicate that in experimental research internal validity is related with the execution of the study and the level of certainty that the causal relationship between the variables has not been affected by extraneous variables while in descriptive studies it is more concerned with the accuracy and quality of the study. Therefore, in the current paper internal validity is considered to be ensured by using scales which have been validated by previous researchers. However, as the questionnaire was translated from English to Lithuanian language, it might have increased the threat to the internal validity, yet the pilot study was executed in order to test that all questions are clear. Furthermore, the questionnaire was also reviewed by public relations specialist to ensure that the questions are concise and in line with the rules of Lithuanian language.
External validity is concerned with the extent to which observed causal relationship can be applied in the different settings or with other individuals (Calder, Phillips, and Tybout, 1982).
Therefore, as previously acknowledged, the randomized sampling method was used in this study by individually contacting random members of peer to peer marketplace, thus the gathered sample data is regarded as not homogenous and representative of the whole population. What is more, personality traits, social roles, preferences and expectations can also be considered to have an effect on the external validity of this research and are identified as possible limitations of this study.
Therefore, validity is considered to be closely related with the concept of reliability
(Winter, 2000). While validity of the research is focused on the ability of the measures to measure what is believed to be measured, reliability reflects the ability to measure consistently. EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 59
(Tavakol, Mohagheghi, & Dennick, 2008). Therefore, to test reliability of measurement items
Cronbach’s α was applied. Cronbach’s alpha can be defined as an index of reliability related with variation which is regarded as true score of the construct which is being evaluated (Santos, 1999) and measures the internal consistency of the scale (Tavakol & Dennick, 2011). The alpha coefficient varies between 0 and 1, thus the higher the score, more reliable the scale is considered to be, yet Nunnaly (1978) suggested that values higher than 0,7 are of acceptable reliability.
Therefore, Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for all constructs used in the current research study to examine their reliability (table 5). Yet, as co-creation capability is compiled of six interaction capabilities, each interaction capability was tested separately (table 6).
Table 5
Reliability of main measures
Note. Developed by the author.
Table 6
Reliability of co-creation capability dimensions
Note. Developed by the author. EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 60
The results of the performed reliability tests indicate the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for all measures exceed the value of α=0,800, therefore ranging from good (0,806) to superb
(0.968). Satisfaction (α=0,925) as well a co-creation capability (α=0,968) are identified to have superb level of internal consistency, while Aesthetics (α=0,866), Playfulness (α=0,877), Service excellence (α=0,806) and Customer Return on Investment (CROI) (α=0,827) are suggested to have good internal consistency level. All dimensions of co-creation capability examined separately also indicate superb or good level of consistency considering each aspect independently (table 6).
EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 61
Empirical research results
The central goal of this chapter is to provide suggestions which would help to answer the research question of the thesis. Therefore, this chapter presents empirical research findings derived from the online survey which was carried out by the author. The data gathered from the online survey was first prepared in the Excel format and subsequently questionnaire was coded, processed and analysed by employing IBM SPSS Statistics 21 (Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences), hence the data analysis methods indicated below has been addressed:
- Cronbach’s alpha – used to evaluate the internal consistency of the constructs in the
questionnaire (as already indicated in the prior section Validity and Reliability).
- Profile of the respondents - the part of analysis allowing to acknowledge the features
of the respondents.
- Descriptive statistics – provides the general overview of the collected data.
- Pearson Correlations – the part of analysis enabling the researcher to indicate the
strength of the relationship between the variables.
- Hierarchical multiple regression analysis – five steps of regression analysis are
presented in order to assess the role of co-creation capability as a moderator in the
relationship between experiential value and satisfaction.
Profile of the respondents
A total of 448 respondents participated in the research, yet the screening question was included to confirm that the respondent has bought any piece of clothing within the last six months and was presented in the introduction of the questionnaire to ensure the validity of the responses. Thus, the respondents who have answered “No” to the screening question have not EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 62 been allowed to continue the questionnaire further. Therefore, 27 participants who have opened the survey has answered screening question negatively and were dismissed from continuing the survey. The remnant 421 were deemed as valid and included in the further analysis. The complete profile of the respondents representing the research sample can be found in the table 7 which is presented below.
Table 7
Profile of the respondents
Note. Developed by author. Considering the gender distribution of the sample it must be noted that the great majority of the sample is female respondents who have amounted for 98.34 % (414 respondents), while men have only made up to the 1.66 % (7 respondents). This distribution is considered to be reasonable and acceptable given the nature of the context which is peer to peer marketplace to buy, sell or swap clothing. EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 63
The apportionment of age in the sample identifies that more than half of the respondents (50.35%) is of age between 21 and 30 years old. The second two largest groups are individuals between 31 and 40 comprising 20.19% and members of the platform equal or below
20 years old. Respondents between 41 and 50 were identified to form 8.08% of the sample, while
3.09% declared their age to be over 50. The figure 7 represents detailed distribution of respondents by age.
Figure 7. Distribution of respondents by age. Developed by author.
Furthermore, the data about the place of residence of the respondents who participated in the study has indicated that the great majority of the sample are from the biggest cities in
Lithuania. The detailed overview of respondents by place of residence is presented in figure 8.
Therefore, wide geographical distribution is considered important in terms of providing results that are representative of the whole population of peer to peer marketplace platform users. EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 64
Figure 8. Distribution of respondents by place of residence. Developed by author.
The question of the current status indicated that 53.92% of the respondents are employed,
12.59% - employed but still studying. Students (not working yet) amounted for 13.78%, secondary school students - 9.03% and 10,69% indicated to have other occupation at the moment (figure 9).
Figure 9. Distribution or respondents by place of residence. Developed by author.
The data presenting the distribution of respondents by income is provided in figure 10. Therefore, it was indicated that he large part of the sample comprising of 33.97% have EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 65 average monthly income lower than 300 Eur per month, furthermore 31.83% of the respondents pointed out that their monthly income is between 300 and 599 Eur.
Figure 10. Distribution of respondents by income. Developed by the author.
Considering the purchase frequency, the largest part of the respondents amounting for
42.99% of the sample was found to buy products from the peer to peer marketplace less than once per month. More detailed information of distribution of respondents by purchase frequency presented in figure 11.
Figure 11. Distribution of respondents by purchase frequency. Developed by author. EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 66
Descriptive statistics
Short analysis of the descriptive statistics is further provided to familiarise the reader with the data gathered and gain an overview of the sample. Prior to the analysis, it should be noted that one question indicating customer’s return on investment was recoded due to the reverse scale used in the questionnaire. Hence, minimum and maximum values, mean and standard deviations of variables used in the study are provided in the table 8 and means of all variables is presented in figure 12.
Table 8
Descriptive statistics of research variables
Note. Developed by author.
Figure 12. Means of research variables. Developed by author. EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 67
Therefore, aesthetics dimension of experiential value was identified to have the highest mean (5.579) when compared with all other variables suggesting that the members of Vinted marketplace highly evaluated the aesthetics of the platform. However, playfulness dimension of experiential value has shown the lowest mean (3.547) indicating that users do not believe that the usage is very absorbing in terms of feeling of “getting away from reality”. What is more, satisfaction has been acknowledge to have second highest mean equal to 5.579 out of maximum
7 points possible, which suggest that users of peer to peer marketplace are relatively highly satisfied with their experience. Overall, it is noted that all of the means are higher than the average indicating the relevance and importance of the chosen variables.
Correlations
Correlations between all research variables are presented in table 9 (for full correlation matrix see Appendix 3).
Table 9
Correlations
Note. Developed by author. EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 68
The strength of the correlations is examined in line with the suggestion provided by
Cohen, J., Cohen P., West and Aiken, (2003) as presented in the table 10.
Table 10
Correlation coefficient and correlation strength
Note. From Applied Multiple Regression/Correlations Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences by Cohen, J., Cohen P., S. G. West and S. Aiken, 2003. Routledge. The correlations found between variables will firstly be overviewed from the perspective of the dependent variable - satisfaction. Therefore, satisfaction has been identified to have moderate correlation with aesthetics (0,625), service excellence (0,538), customer return on investment (0, 546) and co-creation capability (0,660) which indicates significant relationship between the satisfaction and the aforementioned variables. Yet, correlation between satisfaction and playfulness has been recognised to be low (0,385) which suggest that the relationship is weak. Furthermore, regarding the relationship between satisfaction and control variables, purchase frequency was identified to have weak relationship with satisfaction (0,245), while other variables such as age, place of residence, education, current status and monthly income have demonstrated insignificant correlation.
Co-creation capability was indicated to have significant relationship with all experiential value dimensions as follows – aesthetics (0,503), playfulness (0,415), service excellence (0,520) EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 69 and customer return on investment (0,462). Yet, the relationship with all of the control variables including purchase frequency was recognised to be insignificant.
Considering experiential value dimensions, the significant relationship was revealed to exist between Aesthetics and Service Excellence (0,612) as well as between Playfulness and
Service Excellence (0.555), yet other relationships between the experiential value dimensions were found to be weak (Aesthetics and Playfulness (0,377); Aesthetics and Customer Return on
Investment (0,353); Playfulness and Customer return on Investment (0,232); Service excellence and Customer return on Investment (0,392)).
Therefore, the interesting insight can be derived from these analysis as it is recognised that co-creation capability has the strongest relationship with satisfaction in comparison to other research variables. Yet, all of the control variables except for purchase frequency are considered to have insignificant relationship with the dependant variable (satisfaction), thus will not be included in further regression analysis. Furthermore, as the moderate correlation has been identified between predictor variables and moderator variable which suggest significant relationship, it is important to note the possibility of multicollinearity. Therefore, as the further analysis include multiple hierarchical regression analysis comprised of five steps, multicollinearity was examined at each step (see Appendix 4). The collinearity statistics identified acceptable levels of the variance inflation factor (VIF) with the highest value of 3.129 and the lowest value of 0.320. Yet, according O’Brien (2007) VIF values above 5 or 10 and lesser than 0.20 or 0.10 can suggest an issue of multicollinearity, thus the author of the research consider that existing VIF values are of acceptable level.
EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 70
Hierarchical multiple regression analysis
The earliest original research of moderator analysis has focused on the correlations between predictor and criterion within different groups of people with such prevailing differences as gender or ethnicity (Saunders, 1956 cited in Champoux & Peters, 1987).
Therefore, it was recognised that the function of moderator between predictor and a criterion is that of affecting the degree of the relationship (Arnold, 1982). Champoux & Peters, (1987, p.
244) suggested that when “moderator variable is continuous, or the research question is concerned with variations in the form of the relationship between variables, the appropriate form of analysis is hierarchical multiple regression analysis”, yet the recommendation was based on the previous work of other researchers including Cohen and Cohen (1975), Peters and Champoux
(1979) and Arnold (1982). Therefore, in line with this recommendation the author of the research further apply hierarchical multiple regression analysis to measure the strength of the effect of moderator variable (co-creation capability) on the relationship between independent variables
(experiential value considering each dimension including aesthetics, playfulness, service excellence and customer return on investment) and dependant variable (satisfaction).
Yet, prior to regression analysis, several assumptions about the variables used for the regression analysis were tested as suggested by Osborne & Waters (2002). The reliability of measures was tested by using Cronbach’s alpha as identified in the section under the name of
Reliability and Validity, hence all measures were found to have Cronbach’s alpha values higher tha 0.8 and identifie as valid. Another assumption is that variables should not be highly correlated, yet the assumption of multicollinearity was tested at each step of regression analysis and no risk of multicollinearity was identified as mentioned in the prior section which discussed
Correlations. Another assumption is that linear relationship exists between the predictor and EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 71 outcome variable (Osborne & Waters, 2002), therefore the Normal P-P Plot of Regression
Standardised Residuals (Appendix 5) indicated that the linear relationship exist between the independent and dependant variables. The assumption of homoscedasticity was also met as the variance of errors was identified to be random based on the scatterplot of Standardised
Regression Residuals (Appendix 6).
Hence, as the hierarchical multiple regression analysis is to be further discussed, it needs to be indicated that analysis is comprised of 5 Steps. Based on the suggestion provided by
Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken (2003) who advised to build multiple regression model step by step, the author of the current study indicates the steps as follows:
Step 1. The dependant and control variables were loaded into the regression model. As it
was previously indicated, the only control variable which was found to have significant
relationship with the dependant variable was purchase frequency, thus only satisfaction
and purchase frequency were loaded in the first step.
Step 2. The independent variables were entered into the regression model building on top
of the previous model. Therefore, this step allows to identify the relationship between
dependant and independent variables before the moderator variable is introduced.
Step 3. The moderator variable (co-creation capability) is entered into the regression
model.
Step 4. The interaction terms are inserted into the regression model.
Step 5. The final model is presented and tested. EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 72
Furthermore, before commencing multiple regression analysis with moderation effects, the continuous variables have to be centered due to potential issues of multicollinearity which can arise if the predictor and moderator variables are highly correlated with the interaction terms
(Frazier et al., 2004; Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken 2003). The interaction terms were created as separate variables by multiplying the chosen independent variable and moderator variable values.
Hence, all of continuous variables including moderator, independent variables and new variables presenting interaction terms were centered to avoid the possible multicollinearity problems by subtracting the sample mean from each individual variable score. Yet, the dependant variable
(satisfaction) has not been centered taking into account the advice by Wu and Zumbo (2008) who suggested that the results of multiple regression analysis are more reliable if the predictor variable is kept consistent with the primary data.
The results of hierarchical multiple regression models are presented in the table 11 and table 12. Thus, the analysis and interpretation of each regression step follows the aforementioned tables. What is more, unstandardized (B) coefficients are provided in each regression model in line with Cohen, Cohen, West and Aiken (2003) who advised that unstandardized B coefficient is more often interpreted than β coefficient in multiple regression analysis. Unstandardized B coefficient helps to predict the relationship between the outcome variable and predictor in original units while standardised β coefficient presents the number of changes in standard deviations.
EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 73
Table 11
Multiple regression analysis predicting satisfaction (Step 1, 2 and 3)
Note. Develop by author.
Step 1: the dependant variable (satisfaction) and control variable (purchase frequency) were entered into the regression model. Hence, purchase frequency was identified to be significant (B=0.372, p<0.001). R² was equal to 0.058 which means that purchase frequency alone explains the variance of satisfaction around its mean by 5.8%.
Step 2: Independent variables were entered into the regression model. Aesthetics dimension of experiential value was identified to have the highest B unstandardized coefficient and was deemed statistically significant (B=0.509, p<0.001). Customer Return on Investment was recognised to be the second strongest and statistically significant predictor (B=0.303, p<0.001). Service excellence was indicated to be weak predictor of the outcome variable but statistically significant (B=0.097, p<0.05), yet with much lower significance level (p=0.017) than EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 74 aesthetics or customer return on investment (p=0.000). Playfulness dimension of experiential value was recognised to be not significant in predicting satisfaction (p>0.05) and also showed the lowest B coefficient (B=0.42). Furthermore, the adjusted R² revealed that this model explains satisfaction by 53.6 %.
Step 3: The moderator variable, i.e. co-creation capability was entered into the model.
Hence, adjusted R² has increased by 7.3% amounting for total 60.9% of satisfaction variability being explained by this model. Therefore, the moderator variable was acknowledged to be statistically significant in predicting satisfaction (B=0.368, p<0.05), however the power of independent variables decreased which might suggest that prediction power was transferred from experiential value dimensions to co-creation capability. Yet, both - aesthetics (B=0.402, p<0.001) and Customer Return on Investment (B=0,215, p<0.001) were recognised as significant, while playfulness (B=-0.005, p>0.05) and service excellence (B=0.046, p>0.05) did not demonstrate acceptable significance level. Yet, F-value (ANOVA) has increased from 97.857 at the second step to 110.026 at step 3.
EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 75
Table 12
Multiple regression analysis predicting satisfaction (Step 4 and 5)
Note. Develop by author.
Step 4: Interaction terms were entered into the regression model. The results of multiple regression analysis presented at this stage indicated the slight increase in adjusted R² by 1.5%, therefore suggesting that 62.4% of the variance of satisfaction can be explained by the model presented at this step. What is more, playfulness (B=0.000, p>0.05) and service excellence
(B=0.060, p>0.05) dimensions of experiential value were confirmed not to be statistically significant. Although unstandardized B coefficients for aesthetics (B=0.351; p<0.001) and customer return on investment (B=0.213, p<0.001) has dropped slightly comparing to the model presented in step 3, yet the statistical significance of the aforementioned variables was acknowledged. Furthermore, the results of multiple regression analysis performed at the fourth step indicated that only Customer return on Investment Interaction with co-creation capability is deemed statistically significant (B=-0.049, p<0.05). Interestingly, the interaction between EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 76 customer return on investment and co-creation capability was revealed to have negative unstandardized B coefficient, which suggest that the increase of co-creation capability is associated with weaker relationship between customer return on investment and satisfaction.
Hence, all other interactions were revealed statistically insignificant. Furthermore, the F-value has decreased once the interaction terms were entered into the regression model.
Step 5: Taking into account the findings revealed at the fourth step of regression analysis, the final model has been devised and tested at step 5. Two independent variables i.e. playfulness and service excellence were eliminated from the final model as the preceding analysis revealed that they were not statically significant. Furthermore, the interactions between co-creation capability and aesthetics, co-creation capability and playfulness as well as co-creation capability and service excellence were not included in the final model due to unacceptable level of significance. Therefore, the final regression model was comprised of two independent variables – aesthetics (B=0.405) and customer return on investment (B=0.226), moderator variable – co- creation capability (B=370) and interaction term between co-creation capability and customer return on investment (B=-0.076). Therefore, all of the variables included in the final model demonstrated high statistical significance (p<0.001) and the moderation effect was identified to be negative. In order to inspect the relationship of experiential value and satisfaction in more detail the author of the thesis used scatterplot presented in figure 13. The scatterplot indicates the linear regression fit lines of customer return on investment and satisfaction relationship at low, moderate and high levels of co-creation capability.2
2 With the regards to the Likert scale from 1 to 7 which was used in the questionnaire, where 1 is considered to be the lowest levels of co-creation capability and 7 is the highest level of co-creation capability, the levels of co- creation capability were formed as follows: between 1 and 2,5 – low co-creation capability; between 2,5 and 5 – moderate co-creation capability; between 5 and 7 – high co-creation capability. EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 77
Figure 13. Linear relationship between satisfaction and customer return on investment
Furthermore, it can be seen from the presented scatterplot that customer return on investment best explains the satisfaction at the low level of co-creation capability, where R² is equal to 0.399 meaning that the variance of satisfaction is explained by 39.9%. When the co- creation is moderate, R² is equal to 0,205 which suggest 20.5% of the predicting power. Yet, at the highest level co-creation capability, R-squared is even lower and equal to 0.152. Therefore, the scatterplot analysis reveals the tendency indicating that the lower the co-creation capability suggests stronger relationships between customer return of investment and satisfaction and visa- versa. Therefore, the results of empirical research hypotheses testing is summarised below in the table 13 and the final model of the research is presented in figure 14.
EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 78
Table 13
Results of testing the hypotheses
Hypotheses Prediction Result
The Aesthetics dimension of experiential value has a positive H1a Supported relationship with satisfaction in peer to peer marketplace
The Playfulness dimension of experiential value has a positive H1b Rejected relationship with satisfaction in peer to peer marketplace.
The Service excellence dimension of experiential value has a
H1c positive relationship with satisfaction in peer to peer Rejected
marketplace.
The Customer Return on Investment dimension of experiential
H1d value has a positive relationship with satisfaction in peer to peer Supported
marketplace.
The relationship between Aesthetics dimension of experiential H2a Rejected value and satisfaction is moderated by co-creation capability.
The relationship between Playfulness dimension of experiential H2b Rejected value and satisfaction is moderated by co-creation capability.
The relationship between Service excellence dimension of
H2c experiential value and satisfaction is moderated by co-creation Rejected
capability. EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 79
The relationship between Customer return on Investment
H2d dimension of experiential value and satisfaction is moderated by Supported
co-creation capability.
Note. Developed by author.
EXPERIENTIAL VALUE
Aesthetics
SATISFACTION Playfulness (Adjusted R²=0,622, Service F-value (ANOVA) = excellence 139,221
B= - 0,076 Customer Return on Investment CO-CREATION CAPABILITY
Figure 14. Final model of the research. Developed by author.
To conclude, the results of empirical research indicate that only two dimensions of experiential value, namely – aesthetics and customer return on investment are meaningful predictors of customer satisfaction, while playfulness and service excellence are not. What is more, the role of co-creation capability as a moderator was recognised to be significant in the relationship between customer return on investment (CROI) and satisfaction presenting a negative moderating effect which means that if the co-creation capability is higher the relationship between the CROI and satisfaction is weaker. EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 80
Discussion and conclusions
The main goal of this research was to investigate the role of co-creation capability as a moderator on the relationship between experiential value and satisfaction relationship in peer to peer marketplace. In order to fulfil this goal, the hypotheses regarding the relationship between experiential value, satisfaction and the co-creation capability as the moderator were raised.
Hierarchical multiple regression analysis was applied to test the hypotheses. Therefore, this chapter of the thesis provides more detailed analysis and discussion of the empirical research results presented in the previous chapter. The results are discussed in relation to the existing literature. Furthermore, the theoretical and managerial implications of the research are presented subsequently and followed by the research limitations. The final section of this chapter provides conclusions where the key points of the research are outlined.
Satisfaction – experiential value relationship
Number of researchers have investigated the subject of customer satisfaction in diverse contexts and it was recognised that satisfaction enhance customer loyalty, stimulate purchase intention and positive word of mouth and is the core business goal (Drucker, 1973; Gomez,
McLaughlin, & Wittink, 2004; Baker, 2013; Cochran, 2003; Hill, Roche, & Allen, 2007).
Various antecedents have been analysed by researchers in the past who have recognised that price, lead time, compliance, reliability, professionalism, convenience can increase or reduce customer satisfaction, yet the most significant element was considered to be customer perceptions, which is most complicated to control for companies (Cochran, 2003). Thus, the relationship between perceived value and satisfaction was widely studied and positive relations were recognised (e.g. Cronin, Brady & Hult, 2000; Holbrook 1999; Woodruff & Gardial, 1996). EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 81
Furthermore, Mathick Malhora & Rigdon (2001) identified the need to measure experience-based value and developed Experiential Value Typology. This interest of experiential value was based on the growing awareness that customer experience is important differentiating factor in the competitive retail environment (Shaw and Ivens, 2005). Therefore, the Typology of
Experiential Value established by Mathwick, Malhotra, & Rigdon (2001) allowing to assess the experience-based was compiled of four dimensions, namely playfulness, aesthetics, customer return on investment and service excellence. The relationship between experiential value and satisfaction was studied in diverse contexts by prior researchers and the positive relationship was recognised, however the strength of experiential value dimensions across different contexts varied (e.g. Shieh & Cheng, 2007; Wu & Liang, 2009; Gallarza and Gil-Saura, 2006; Verhagen,
Felberg, van den Hoof, Meents, & Merikivi, 2011; Keng & Ting, 2009).
The current study results have revealed that two dimensions – aesthetics and customer return on investment have a positive relationship with satisfaction, while playfulness and service excellence were deemed as statistically insignificant in predicting customer satisfaction in peer to peer marketplace. The comparison of current research findings with other studies which investigated the relationship between experiential value and satisfaction relationship can suggest some interesting insights, thus follows below.
Shieh & Cheng, (2007) analysed how experiential value affect satisfaction with online gaming and suggested that escapism dimension of experiential value (which in the current study is included as playfulness) has a positive relationship with satisfaction. Gallarza and Gil-Saura
(2006) also indicated that playfulness dimension of experiential value has strong positive impact on satisfaction in student tourism experience. Both - online gaming and traveling can be regarded as free time activities which are chosen in order to rest or relax and such aspect as playfulness EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 82 which allows to “get away” from everyday life is important to fulfil the customer need.
However, even though participation in peer to peer marketplace can be enjoyable experience, the findings of the research demonstrate that playfulness is not significant in predicting customer satisfaction. Furthermore, experiential value was identified to have the lowest average score given by respondent when compared to other experiential value dimensions which indicates that respondents did not find the experience of using peer to peer marketplace very playful.
Therefore, it can be suggested, that playfulness has a stronger relationship with customer satisfaction in the experiences which are created in order to help the customer “get away” and forget everything else, while peer to – peer marketplace considered as substitute for traditional retail have an obvious utilitarian aspect of acquiring the product.
Furthermore, study by Gallarza and Gil-Saura (2006) revealed that aesthetics dimension of experiential value is significant in predicting satisfaction with tourism experience, yet the predictive power of aesthetics was identified four times lower than the power of playfulness in their study. Verhagen, Felberg, Hoof, Meents, & Merikivi, (2011) have empirically tested how experiential value influence satisfaction with virtual worlds and thus indicated that entertainment value is part of aesthetics dimension of experiential has strong predicting power of satisfaction with virtual worlds. Hence, in line with work of Verhagen, Felberg, van den Hoof, Meents, &
Merikivi, (2011), the results of this research indicated, that aesthetics dimension of experiential value has a significant predictive power of customer satisfaction in peer to peer marketplace.
What is more, aesthetics dimension was identified to have strongest relationship with satisfaction in regards to other experiential value dimensions. Thus, it several interpretations of such results are possible. Firstly, taking into account the nature of the sample and the context which is being investigated, i.e. analysing women sample who join the platform where they can buy clothing, EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 83 the aesthetics could be considered as important as it would be when a women goes to a traditional retail clothing store. Another assumption might be suggested, that is such experiences as traveling and gaming, the individual has ability “to live” through experiences, while in internet sites which are lower in playfulness value, aesthetics gain the significant importance. As both experiential value dimensions – aesthetics and playfulness are intrinsic, it could also be suggested that one dimension compensates the lack of other and in this way gains more importance.
What is more, the study conducted by Keng and Ting (2009) investigated how experiential value influence attitude towards blog usage. Yet, in the aforementioned study service excellence was recognised as having the strongest predicting power in regards to other experiential value dimensions and the importance of professional support and proof of professionalism in blogs was emphasized. What is more, service excellence was also indicated as antecedent of satisfaction in tourism experiences by Gallarza and Gil-Saura (2006). However, the current study has rejected the hypothesis that service excellence has a positive relationship with satisfaction. Even though at the first step of regression analyses service excellence was recognised as statistically significant (p<0.05), after entering the co-creation capability and interaction terms into the regression model, the service excellence was identified as no longer significant. Therefore, considering the context and the nature of the peer to peer marketplace where the service exchange is carried out between the members of the platform without direct interference of the company owning the platform or its employees (unless needed), it is noted that the level of expertise by the people working in the organisation does not directly affect the experience by the platform users. While members of peer to peer marketplace do not have or have little interaction with actual employees of the company which owns the platform, travel EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 84 experience or using blog requires a lot of communication with the company or employees that provide the service, thus it is assumed that when more interaction with the company is required to accomplish the service exchange, more power service excellence has in predicting customer satisfaction.
Furthermore, the current research revealed that customer return on investment has a positive relationship with satisfaction as it was proposed in the hypothesis. Therefore, the results are in line with Verhagen, Felberg, van den Hoof, Meents, & Merikivi, (2011) who proved the economic value positively inflluence satisfaction with virtual worlds. However, Gallarza and
Gil-Saura (2006) revealed that monetary cost does not have positive relationship with satisfaction in student travel experiences as they are not significant enough. Furthermore,
Möhlmann (2015) investigated the determinants of satisfaction of using a sharing economy option and identified that such factors as utility and cost savings were among the most influential aspects affecting satisfaction. Therefore, as the primary goal of peer to peer marketplace Vinted is to provide opportunity for people to buy, share or sell used clothing, it is no surprise that economic value is important for member who join the platform. Good value for money can also be considered as a factor which has prompted the users to join this platform in contrast to travel experiences which are more valued for intrinsic values as identified by Gallarza and Gil-Saura
(2006). Therefore, the findings of the current research confirm that utilitarian economic value is important for people who get involved in sharing economy in line with Möhlmann (2015).
EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 85
Co-creation capability as a moderator
The literature review identified that co-creation capability is grounded in the Service –
Dominant marketing logic which has changed previously prevailing Goods Dominant logic and implied that service rather than goods are central to economic exchange (Vargo & Lush, 2004) and value co-creation is the central concept of business strategy (Karpen, Bove, Lukas, &
Zyphur, 2015). Therefore, Vargo & Lush (2004, 2008) developed 10 foundational premises of S-
D logic proposing that service is the core of exchange (FP1) which is hidden due to indirect communication between marketing specialist and customers (FP2); goods serve as mechanisms of distribution (FP3); skills and knowledge are key elements of competitive advantage (FP4); all economies and service economies (FP5); customer is value co-creator (FP6); companies do not deliver value, but only offer value propositions (FP7); service-centered view is always customer oriented (FP8); all actors are resource integrators (FP9); and value is uniquely determined by the beneficiary (FP10). Furthermore, it was indicated that in line with the ninth foundational premise
– resource integration requires interaction, therefore, interaction is central for value co-creation.
Hence, based on this notion Karpen, Bove & Lukas (2011) developed concept co-creation capability which is compiled of six interaction capabilities and can enable companies to co- create value during the service exchange.
Furthermore, Helkkula, Kelleher and Pihlström, (2012) suggested to conceptualise value as “value in the experience’’ in line with S-D logic. Thus, it was identified in the literature review chapter that unique customer experiences are always created during service interactions
(Verhoef et al., 2009; Teixeira et al., 2012) and interactions are at the core of value creating process (Vargo & Lush, 2008). Mathwick, Malhotra and Rigdon (2001) suggested that the basis of experiential value is rooted in interactions. What is more, the Cycle of Good service EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 86 developed by Schlesinger and Heskett (1991) and adjusted for P2P business model revealed that interactions might strongly affect customer satisfaction considering that each member of the platform is a “partial employee” who forms the “front line” of the service. However, the
Experiential Value Typology aimed at conceptualising experience-based value (Mathwick,
Malhotra & Rigdon, 2001) and applied in retail shopping environment enabled to capture only the intrinsic and extrinsic values derived from the usage of the service platform and did not consider the role of interactions. Thus, acknowledging that experiential value is experience- based value which is derived from usage of the service platform and satisfaction is an attitude change from the consumption experience, it is asserted that the co-creation capability, compiled of the interaction capabilities which are experiential by nature, moderates the relationship between experiential value and satisfaction relationship in peer to peer marketplace. In regards to the current research context it is noted that in peer to peer marketplace interactions are significant part of the process needed for the service exchange to happen. Hence, Karpen, Bove,
Lukas and Zyphur (2015) recognised the importance of interactions as the key element in value co-creation process and in line with S-D logic developed the S-D orientation which is interpreted as co-creation capability. Yet, as the concept of co-creation capability has been developed quite recently there is no research which would allow to examine the role of the construct in regards to experiential value and satisfaction relationship. Nevertheless, prior to the development of co- creation capability construct, Prebensen, Kim and Uysal (2015) has attempted to evaluate the role of co-creation as the moderator on the relationship between perceived value of travel experience and satisfaction (the theoretical model is provided in the Appendix 1). Provided the notion that S-D logic focuses on interaction and customer participation in the value creating prrocess, Prebensen, Kim and Uysal (2015) regarded co-creation as the level of participation, EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 87 however the aforementioned authors did not consider the interaction effects. The results of the research study by Prebensen, Kim and Uysal (2015) suggested that co-creation strongly and positively moderates the relationship between value derived from experience and satisfaction in tourism sector.
The empirical research results of the current study revealed that although co-creation capability was found to have moderate correlation and significant relationship with satisfaction and all of the experiential value dimensions, it was found that only the relationship between customer return on investment and satisfaction is moderated by co-creation capability in a statistically significant way. Yet, even though the interaction effects between co-creation capability and aesthetics, co-creation capability and playfulness as well as co-creation capability and service excellence were found statistically insignificant, the coefficients predicting power of all interaction terms were indicated to be negative, which might potentially suggest that at the higher level of co-creation capability, the relationship between aforementioned experiential value dimensions and satisfaction is weaker. The interaction effect between customer return on investment and satisfaction was also found to be negative as B= -0.076, which suggests that when co-creation capability is higher, the relationship between customer return of investment and satisfaction is slightly weaker. Considering these results in the light of the previously mentioned study by Prebensen, Kim and Uysal (2015), the current empirical study suggest contradicting findings. However, it must be noted that Prebensen, Kim and Uysal (2015) regarded co-creation as the level of participation which measures self-behaviour while co- creation capability is measuring behaviour of other individuals with whom the customer was interacting. What is more, the study conducted by Prebensen, Kim and Uysal (2015) investigated the context of tourist experiences which differs significantly from shopping experience at peer to EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 88 peer marketplace. Therefore, it is considered by the author that the negative moderating effect of co-creation capability on the relationship between customer return on investment and satisfaction might emerge due to strong predictive power of co-creation capability, potentially indicating that co-creation capability is more important for members of peer to peer marketplace and hence when co-creation capability is high, customer return on investment is of lower power in predicting satisfaction. Furthermore, taking into account the specific nature of peer to peer marketplace where interactions are inevitable part of the service exchange process, such findings only emphasize the importance of co-creation capability and interaction as the core element of service systems.
Theoretical and managerial implications
The findings of the current research study has several theoretical implications. First of all, as the literature review revealed, the concept of co-creation capability is still relatively young and yet the empirical evidence of the power and effects of the construct is scarce, therefore this study provides empirical investigation of the construct. Furthermore, even though Service -
Dominant logic has gained significant attention in the last decade, yet, peer to peer marketplaces which can be considered to present the wider servitization trend has not been investigated as much and deeper understanding of the service exchange processes and customer behaviour in this specific field is lacking, therefore this research study also contributes to the body of theory with the empirical investigation provided in this paper. Finally, the role of co-creation capability as the moderator on the experiential value-satisfaction relationship has not yet been investigated, therefore this is first pioneering work of this kind. Consequently, taking into consideration identified theoretical implications, it can be claimed that the body of existing literature was extended by the current research. EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 89
What is more, this research also implies several managerial concerns to be noted. To start with, considering the experiential value and satisfaction relationship, it is suggested by the research findings that aesthetics and customer return on investment have are significant predictors of customer satisfaction in peer to peer marketplace. Therefore, managers working in companies that employ P2P business model, should focus their efforts on improving customer interface, design, ease of use and design of the internet platforms that are used to enable the service exchange process. Furthermore, the potential rules and regulations could be introduced with the regards to quality and price of goods / services that are sold on the platform which could help managers to ensure or at least have some controllability over customer return on investment.
What is more, as the research findings revealed, co-creation capability moderates the relationship between customer return on investment and satisfaction in such a way that when co-creation capability is stronger the relationship between customer return on investment and satisfaction is weaker. Thus, following these findings, managers could be advised to think of ways how to encourage positive interactions between platform members, for example by rewarding the members who demonstrated only positive interaction patters. Therefore, when the co-creation capability is higher, “good value for money” has less power in predicting satisfaction, which might potentially mean that customers would be at least slightly less concerned with economic benefits if the experience derived from interactions would be more positive.
Limitations of the research and recommendations for future research
There is a number of limitations of this study that need to be addressed. To start with, it was mentioned in the section regarding the external validity of the research, that numerous factors such as personality traits, social roles, preferences and expectations can have a potential threat on the external validity of this research. Furthermore, the current research study is based EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 90 on peer to peer marketplace Vinted and represents only Lithuanian market, thus, further research should investigate other markets and cases of peer to peer businesses which would allow to improve the generalizability of the research findings. What is more, future research might address the similarities and differences between the traditional businesses and P2P businesses which would provide more comprehensive understanding of customer behaviour and value co- creation processes in different contexts. Furthermore, as this study is considered to be the first investigating the role of co-creation capability as the moderator on the relationship between experiential value and satisfaction relationship, future researchers could also investigate the interrelationships between constructs.
Conclusions
The main goal of this research study was to investigate the role of co-creation capability as the moderator on the experiential value - satisfaction relationship. In order to fulfil this goal the specific objectives were set and accomplished. The key findings revealed in the process of the research are outlined below in regards to each of the objective.
Literature review emphasized the importance of customer satisfaction and it was identified that it has incremental effect on business success due to its influence to customer loyalty, purchase intention and word of mouth. Oliver (1981) defined satisfaction as a judgement and/ or an attitude change resulting from the consumption experience. Thus, this research has applied the definition by Oliver (1981) as best suited for the current research study due to the experiential nature of both – the predictor (experiential value) and moderator (co-creation capability) variables. EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 91
The growing competition in retail environment has prompted growing concerns of experiential value as customer experience was recognised to become the key element of successful differentiation strategy when traditional factors such as price and quality were considered not enough to gain the competitive advantage. Mathwick, Malhotra, & Rigdon (2001) developed Experiential Value Typology which was aimed at measuring experience-based value and provided the definition of experiential value as “a perceived, relativistic preference for product attributes or service performances arising from interaction within a consumption setting that facilitates or blocks achievement of customer goals or purpose” (Mathwick, Malhotra, &
Rigdon, 2001, p. 53) which was recognised to reflect the experiential value components of retail environment and therefore used in the current research.
Co-creation capability was identified to be rooted in the Service - Dominant logic of marketing, which implied that value co-creation is as the core of marketing activities. Hence, interactions are the key elements of resource integration process during which value is co- created. The concept of co-creation capability was developed recently by Karpen, Bove, Lukas,
& Zyphur, (2015) who defined co-creation capability as “ability to facilitate and enhance mutually beneficial interaction and resource integration processes with individual actors within the service system” (p. 91). As the aforementioned study was the first to conceptualise co- creation capability, this definition was applied in the current research.
Examination of the studies concerning the relationship between experiential value and satisfaction in diverse contexts such as traveling, shopping, virtual worlds, convention centre, high class hotel restaurants revealed that positive relationship exists between the constructs, although the strength of experiential value dimensions varied across the contexts. It was also identified, that in line with Service –Dominant logic interactions are central to value co-creation. EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 92
It was also identified that value is derived from experience and hence, experiential value is rooted in interactions. Furthermore, acknowledging that experiential value is experience-based value which is derived from usage of the service platform and satisfaction is an attitude change from the consumption experience, it was proposed that the co-creation capability compiled of the interaction capabilities is a moderator on the relationship between experiential value and satisfaction relationship. No prior research was found to investigate such relationships and research gap was identified.
The empirical research findings have revealed that two dimensions of experiential value, namely Aesthetics and Customer Return on Investment have significant relationship with customer satisfaction in peer to peer marketplace while playfulness and service excellence were found to be not significant predictors of customer satisfaction. Furthermore, it was indicated that co-creation capability negatively moderates the relationship between customer return on investment and customer satisfaction meaning that higher co-creation capability weakens the relationship between customer return on investment and customer satisfaction. Yet, co-creation capability does not significantly affect the relationship between satisfaction and other experiential value dimensions, i.e. aesthetics, playfulness and service excellence.
The research has partially supported the previous studies which suggested that positive relationship exists between experiential value and satisfaction as the findings of current study demonstrated that only aesthetics and customer return on investment are significant in predicting satisfaction in peer to peer marketplace. Prior studies investigating the relationship between experiential value and satisfaction were executed in other contexts such traveling, online gaming, internet blogs and other, therefore it was suggested that the strength of separate dimensions of experiential value depends on the research context. EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 93
Furthermore, the current study is considered to be the first one investigating the moderating effect of co-creation capability on the relationship between experiential value and satisfaction. Nevertheless, Prebensen, Kim and Uysal (2015) investigated the role of co-creation as the moderator on the relationship between value derived from travel experience and customer satisfaction and found that co-creation strengthens the relationship between the predictor and outcome variable. Yet, the current study investigating the moderating effects of co-creation capability reveals contrary results, although it should be noted that in the study by Prebensen,
Kim and Uysal (2015) co-creation was equated to level of participation. Furthermore, the findings of the present research confirm the suggestion from The Cycle of Good Service
(Schlesinger and Heskitt, 1991) that customers who are more satisfied with the experience derived from interaction are potentially less sensitive to higher pricing.
Therefore, the findings of the research has theoretical and managerial implications.
Firstly, it expands the body of existing knowledge as the current research is the first investigating the role of co-creation capability as the moderator in the experiential value – satisfaction relationship in peer to peer marketplace. Furthermore, the managers working in P2P businesses are suggested to pay more attention to aesthetics and customer return on investment as these dimensions of experiential value are significant in affecting satisfaction. Furthermore, possible rules and regulations might be introduced to manage customer interactions as stronger co- creation capability of platform members can potentially lead to improved profits for the company.
Nevertheless, further research is needed to investigate the results of the study across different industries and countries. The investigation of the study findings in the context of traditional business would allow to gain more comprehensive understanding of similarities and EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 94 differences of co-creation in different business models. Furthermore, expectations, social context and personality traits could be included as additional determinants of customer satisfaction into the research model and interrelationships between constructs further investigated in order to provide richer understanding of customer satisfaction.
Taking everything into account, the research study is considered to have achieved all of the objectives which allowed to answer the proposed research question. Despite few limitations which could restrain the expansive application of research results, it is believed that the findings put forward important insights in regards to the role of co-creation capability as the moderator in the experiential value – satisfaction relationship in peer to peer marketplace.
EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 95
References
Aguinis, H. (1995). Statistical power problems with moderated multiple regressuib in
management research. Journal of Management Research, 21(6), 1141 -1158.
Aiken, L., & West, S. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Albinsson, P., & Perera, B. (2012). Alternative marketplaces in the 21st century: Building
community through sharing events. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 11(4), 303 - 315.
Amine, A., & Lazzaoui, N. (2011). Shoppers' reactions to modern food retailing systems in an
emerging country: the case of Morocco. International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management, 39(8), 562 - 581.
Anderson, E., Fornell, C., & Lehmann, D. R. (1994). Customer Satisfaction, Market Share, and
Profitability: Findings from Sweden. Journal of Marketing, 53 - 66.
Angelova, B., & Zekiri, J. (2011). Measuring Customer Satisfaction with Service Quality Using
American Customer Satisfaction Model (ACSI Model). International Journal of
Academic Research in Business & Social Sciences, 1(3), 232 - 258.
Arnold, H. (1982). Moderator variables: A clarrification of conceptual, analytical, and
psychometric issues. Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, 29(2), 143 -
174.
Babin, B., & Darden, W. (1994). Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and utilirtarian shopping
value. Journal of Consumer Research, 644 - 656. EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 96
Baker, N. (2013). The rise of the customer-led economy. The Economist Intelligence Unit
Limited. (G. Stahl, Ed.) Retrieved from
http://www.economistinsights.com/sites/default/files/EIU_Salesforce_Proof-7.pdf
Barlett, J., Kotrlik, J., & Higgins, C. (2001). Organizational research: Determining appropriate
sample size in survey research. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance
Journal, 19(1), 43 - 50.
Belk, R. (2007). Why not share rather than own? Annals of the American academy of political
and social science, 611(1), 126 - 140.
Belk, R. (2013). You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption online.
Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1595 - 1600.
Bettman, J. (1979). An Information Processing Theory of Consumer Choice. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Bhasin, K. (2015, October 28). Why Is Silicon Valley Pouring Millions of Dollars Into Old
Clothes? Retrieved from Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-
28/why-is-silicon-valley-pouring-millions-of-dollars-into-old-clothes-
Blaikie, N. (2000). Designing Social Research. Cambridge: Polity.
Botsman, R. (2010, May). The case for collaborative consumption. Retrieved from TED talks:
https://www.ted.com/talks/rachel_botsman_the_case_for_collaborative_consumption#t-
230675 EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 97
Botsman, R. (2013, November 21). The sharing economy lacks a shared definition. Retrieved
from CO.EXIST: http://www.fastcoexist.com/3022028/the-sharing-economy-lacks-a-
shared-definition
Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2010a). What is mine is Yours: How Collaborative Consumption is
Chaanging the Way We live. New York: Harper Collins.
Bradley, G., & Sparks, B. (2012). Antecedents and Consequesnces of Consumer Value: A
Longitudinal Study of Timeshare Owners. Journal of Travel Research, 51(2), 191 - 204.
Bryman, A. (1984). The debate about Quantitative and Qualitative Rsearch: A Quation of
Method or Epistemology? The British Journal of Sociology, 75 -92.
Bryman, A. (2001). Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Calder, B., Phillips, L., & Tybout, A. (1982). The concept of external validity. Journal of
Consumer Research, 240-244.
Campbell, D., & Stanley, J. (1966). Experimental and Quasi-expermental designs for Research.
Chicago: Rand McNally.
Carson, G. (2014, August 15). Five key sharing economy sectors could generate £9 billion of UK
revenues by 2025. Retrieved from pwc.blogs.com:
http://pwc.blogs.com/press_room/2014/08/five-key-sharing-economy-sectors-could-
generate-9-billion-of-uk-revenues-by-2025.html
Champoux, J. E., & Peters, W. S. (1987). Form, effect size and power in moderated regression
analysis. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 60(3), 243-255. EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 98
Churchill, G., & Suprenant, C. (1982). An Investigation Into the Determinant of Customer
Satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 491 - 504.
Cochran, C. (2003). Customer Satisfaction. Tools, Techniques, and Formulas for success. USA:
Parton Press.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1975). Applied Multiple Regression Correlation Analysis for the
Behavioural Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S., & Aiken, L. (2003). Applied multiple regresion/ correlation
analysis for the behaviourla sciences. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Constantin, J., & Lush, R. (1994). Understanding Resource management. Oxford, OH: The
Planning Forum.
Constantinides, E. (2004). Influencing the online consumer’s behavior: the web experience.
Internet Research, 14(2), 111 - 126.
Cooper, R. G. (2001). Winning at New Products. New York: Perseus.
Cova, B. W. (2010). Counter-brand and alter-brand communities: impact of Web 2.0 on tribal
marketing approaches. Journal of Marketing Management, 26(3-4), 256-270.
Cronin, J., Brady, M., & Hult, G. (2000). Assessing the Effects of Quality, Value, and Customer
Satisfaction on Consumer Behavioral Intentions in Service Environments. Journal of
retailing, 76(2), 193 - 218.
Cusumano, M. (2015). How Traditional Firms Must Compete in the Sharing Economy.
Communications of the ACM, 58(1), 32 - 34. Retrieved from Communications of the
ACM. EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 99
De Vaus, D. (2001). Research Design in Social Research. London: SAGE Publications .
Deighton, J., & Grayson, K. (1995). Marketing and Seduction: Building Exchange Relationships
by Managing Social Consensus. Journal of Consumer Research, 660 - 676.
Doherty, N. F., & Ellis-Chadwick, F. (2010). Internet retailing: the past, the present and the
future. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 38(11/12), 943 - 965.
Drucker, P. F. (1973). Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices. New York: Harper &
Row.
Duarte, J., Siegel, S., & Young, L. (2012). Trsut and Credit: The Role of Appearance in Peer-to-
peer Lending. The society for Financial Studies. Oxford University Press.
Eldridge, S., Ashby, D., Bennett, C., Wakelin, M., & Feder, G. (2008). Internal and external
validity of cluster randomised trials: systematic review of recent trials. Bmj,
36(7649), 876 - 880.
Elliot, S., & Fowell, S. (2000). Expectations versus Reality: A snapshot of Customer Experience
on Internet Retailing. International Journal of Information Management, 20(5), 323 -337.
Elms, J., Canning, C., de Kevenoael, R., Whysall, P., & Hallsworth, A. (2010). 30 years of retail
change: where (and how) do you shop? International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management, 38(11/12), 817 - 827.
Fairchild, A. J., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2009). A general model for testing mediation and
moderation effects. Prevention Science, 10(2), 87 - 99.
Feldman, D. (2004). The devil is in the details: Converting good research into publishable
articles. Journal of management, 30(1), 1 - 6. EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 100
Felson, M., & Spaeth, J. (1978). Community Structure and Collaborative Consumption: A
Routine Activity Approach. The American Behavioural Scientist, 21(4), 614.
Filser, M. (2001). Re-enchanting the shopping experience: case studies from France. European
Retail Digest, 39 - 40.
Frazier, P., Tix, A., & Barron, K. E. (2004 ). Testing moderator and mediator effects in
counseling psychology research. Journal of counseling psychology, 51(1), 115 – 134.
Gallarza, M., & Gil-Saura, I. (2006). Value Dimensions, Perceived Value, Satisfaction and
Loyalty: An investigation of University Students' Travel Behaviour. Tourism
Management, 27(3), 437 - 452.
Galvagno, M., & Dalli, D. (2014). Theory of value co-creation: a systematic literature review.
Managing Service Quality, 24(6), 643 - 683.
Gansky, L. (2010). The mesh: Why the future of business is sharing. New York: Penguin.
Gomez, M., McLaughlin, E., & Wittink, D. (2004). Customer satisfaction and retail sales
performance: an empirical investigation. Journal of retailing, 80(4), 265 - 278.
Grant, L. (1998). Your customers are telling the truth. Fortune, 137, 164 - 164.
Grewal, D., Levy, M., & Kumar, V. (2009). Customer experience management in retailing: An
organizing framework. Journal of Retailing, 85(1), 1 -14.
Grigoroudis, E., & Siskos, Y. (2009). Customer Satisfaction Evaluation. New York: Springer
Science & Business Media.
Grix, J. (2002). Introducing students to the generic terminology of social research. Politics,
22(3), 175 - 186. EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 101
Gronholdt, L., Martensen, A., & Kristensen, K. (2000). The relationship between customer
satisfaction and loyalty: cross-industry differences. Total quality management, 11(4-
6), 509 - 514.
Gronroos, C. (2000). Service Management and Marketing: A Customer Relationship
Management Approach. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Gronroos, C. (2008). Service Logic Revisited: Who Creates Value? And who Co-Creates?
European Business Review, 20(4), 298 - 314.
Grönroos, C. (2012). Conceptualising value co-creation: A journey to the 1970s and back to the
future. Journal or Marketing Management, 28(13-14), 1520 - 1534.
Grönroos, C., & Voima, P. (2013). Critical service logic: making sense of value creation and co-
creation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(2), 133 - 150.
Gummeson, E. (1995). Relationship Marketing: Its Role in the Service Economy". In W. Glynn,
& J. Barnes (Eds.), Uderstanding Service Management (pp. 244 - 268). New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Gummesson, E. (1998). Implementation Requires a Relationship Marketing Paradigm. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 26(3), 242 - 249.
Gupta, S., McLaughlin, E., & Gomez, M. (2007). Guest satisfaction and restaurant performance.
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 48(3), 284 - 298.
Hallowell, R. (1996). The relationships of customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, and
profitability: an empirical study. International Journal of Service Industry Management,
7(4), 27 - 42 . EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 102
Hamari, J., Sjöklint, M., & Ukkonen, A. (2015). The sharing Economy: Why People Participate
in Collaborative Consumption. Journal of the association for information science and
technology, 1-13.
Hay, C. (2002). Political analysis: a critical introduction. Palgrave Macmillan.
Helkkula, A., Kelleher, C., & Pihlström, M. (2012). Characterizing Value as an Experience :
Implications for Service Researchers and Managers. Journal of Service Research, 59 -
75.
Heskett, J., Jones, T., Loveman, G., Sasser, W., & Schlesinger, L. (2004). Putting the service-
profit chain to work. Harward Business Review, 164 - 174.
Hilgard, E. (1962). Impulsive Versus Realistic Thinking: An Examination of the Distinction
Between Primary and Secondary Processes in Thought. Psychological Bulletin,
59(6), 477 - 488.
Hill, N., & Alexander, J. (2006). The Handbook of Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty
Measurement. England: Gower Publishing.
Hill, N., Roche, G., & Allen, R. (2007). Customer Satisfaction: The Customer experience
Through the Customer's Eyes. London: Cogent Publishing.
Holbrook, M. (1994). The nature of customer value: an axiology of services in the consumption
experience. Service quality: New directions in theory and practice, 21, 21-71.
Holbrook, M. (1996). Customer Value - A Framework For Analysis and Rsearch. Advances in
Consumer Research, 23, 138 - 142. EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 103
Holbrook, M. (1999). Consumer Value. A Framework for Analysis and Research. London:
Routledge.
Holbrook, M., & Corfman, K. (1985). Quality and Value in the Consumption Experience:
Phaedrus Rides Again . In J. Jacoby, & J. Olson, Perceived Quality: How Consumers
View Stores and Merchandise (pp. 31 - 57). Lexington: MA: Lexington Books.
Holbrook, M., & Hirschman, E. (1982). The experiential aspects of consumption: consumer
fantasies, feelings and fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 132 - 140.
Holton, E., & Burnett, M. (2005). The Basics of Quantitative Research. In S. R.A., & E. Holton
(Eds.), Research in organisations. Foundations and Methods of Inquiry (pp. 29 - 45). San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Huang, J., & Hsu, C. (2010). The impact of Customer-to-Customer Interactions on Cruise
Experience and Vacation Satisfaction. Journal of Travel Research, 49 -79.
Huitt, W., Hummel, J., & Kaeck, D. (1999, January). Internal and External Validity: General
Issues. Retrieved from Educational Psychology Interactive:
http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/intro/valdgn.html
Huizinga, J. (1955). Homo ludens: A Study of the Play Element in Culture. Boston: MA: The
Beacon Press.
Jaakkola, E., Helkkula, A., & Aarikka-Stenroos, L. (2015). Service experience co-creation:
conceptualisation, implications, and future directions. Journal of Service Management,
26(2), 182 - 205.
Jacobs, S. (1980). Where have we come. Social Problems, 27(3), 371 - 378. EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 104
Jeong, S., Fiore, A. M., Niehm, L. S., & Lorenz, F. O. (2009). The role of experiential value in
online shopping: The impacts of product presentation on consumer responses towards an
apparel web site. Internet Research, 19(1), 105 - 124.
Jones, J., & Vijayasarathy, L. (1998). Internet consumer catalog shopping: findings from an
exploratory survey and directions for future research. Internet Research, 8(4), 322 - 330.
Julian, C., & Ramaseshan, B. (1994). The role of customer-contact presonnel in the mrketing of
a retail bank's services. Journal of Retail and Distribution, 22(5), 29 - 34.
Karpen, I., Bove, L., & Lukas, B. (2011). Linking Service-Dominant Logic and Strategic
Business Practice: A Conceptual Model of a Service-Dominant Orientation. Journal of
Service Research, 1 -18.
Karpen, I., Bove, L., Lukas, B., & Zyphur, M. (2015). Service-Dominant Orientation:
Measurement and Impact on Performance Outcomes. Journal of Retailing, 91(1), 89 -
108.
Keng, C. J., & Ting, H. Y. (2009). The acceptance of blogs: using a customer experiential value
perspective. Internet Research, 19(5), 479 - 495.
Keng, C. J., Huang, T. L., Zheng, L. J., & Hsu, M. K. (2007). Modeling service encounters and
customer experiential value in retailing: An empirical investigation of shopping mall
customers in Taiwan. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 18(4), 349 -
367.
Khalifa, A. (2004). Customer Value: A Review of Recent Literature and an Integrative
Configuration. Journal of Retailing, 42(5), 645 - 666. EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 105
Kim, Y.-K. (2002). Consumer value: an application to mall and Internet shopping. International
Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 30(12), 595 - 602.
Klinger, E. (1971). Structure and Functions of Fantazy. New York: Wiley-Interscience.
Kotler, P. (1991). Marketing Management - Analysis, Planning, Implementation and Control,
(7th Ed. ed.). Englewood Cliffs: NJ: Prentize-Hall, Inc.
Kotler, P. (1997). Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation, and Control
(9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kotler, P., Wong, V., Saunders, J., & Armstrong, G. (2005). Principles of Marketing. England:
Pearson Education Limited.
Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 607 - 610.
Lapierre, J. (2000). Customer-Perceived Value in Industrial Contexts. The Journal of Business &
Industrial Marketing, 5(2/3), 122 - 145.
LaSalle, D., & Britton, T. (2003). Priceless: Turning ordinary products into extraordinary
experiences. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Lashley, C. (2012). Empowerment: HR Strategies for Service Excellence. Routledge.
Lee, C., & Bang, S. (2004). The effects of shopping value on online purchasing intention: focus
on product attribute importance as intervening variables. Korean Marketing Research,
9(2), 41 - 69. EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 106
Lessin, S. (2014, October 6). How the Sharing Economy Threatens the Traditional Economy.
Retrieved from The Information: https://www.theinformation.com/How-Sharing-
Economy-Threatens-the-TraditionalEconomy
Li, G., & Cai, W. (2014). The Effects of Experiential Value on Satisfaction and E-loyalty.
Eastern Academic Forum, 97 - 103.
Lipsey, M., & Wilson, D. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. SAGE Publications Incorporated.
Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2006). Service-dominant logic: reactions, reflections and
refinements. Marketing Theory, 6(3), 281 - 288.
Marketing Science Institute. (2006 - 2008). Retrieved from http://www.msi.org/
Marshall, A. (1927). Principles of Economics. London: Macmillan.
Mathwick, C., Malhotra, N., & Rigdon, E. (2001). Experiential value: conceptualization,
measurement and application in the catalog and Internet shopping environment. Journal
of Retailing, 77(1), 39 - 56.
Mathwick, C., Malhotra, N., & Rigdon, E. (2002). The effect of dynamic retail experiences on
experiential perceptions of value: an Internet and catalog comparison. Journal of
Retailing, 78(1), 51 - 60.
Matzler, K., Veider, V., & Kathan, W. (2014, December 16). Adapting to the Sharing Economy.
Retrieved from Sloan Review: http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/adapting-to-the-sharing-
economy/
McClelland, G., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and
moderator effects. Psychological bulletin, 114(2), 376. EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 107
McColl-Kennedy, J., Vargo, S., Dagger, T., Sweeney, J., & Kasteren, Y. (2012). Health care
customer value cocreation practice styles. Journal of Service Research, 1 - 20.
Mittal, B., & Lassar, W. (1998). Why do customers switch? The dynamics of satisfaction versus
loyalty. Journal of Services Marketing, 12(3), 177 - 194.
Möhlmann, M. (2015). Collaborative consumption: determinants of satisfaction and the
likelihood of using sharing economy oprtion again. Journal of Consumer Behaviour,
14(3), 193 - 207.
Myers, M. (1997). Qualitative research in information systems. Management Information
Systems Quarterly, 21(2), 241 - 242.
Neghina, C., Caniëls, M., Bloemer, J., & Birgelen, M. J. (2014). Value cocreation in service
interactions Dimensions and antecedents. Marketing Theory, 1- 22.
Nunnaly, J. (1978). Psychonometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
O'Brien, R. (2007). A Caution Regarding Rules of Thumb for Variance Inflation Indicators.
Quality and Quantity, 41(5), 673 - 690.
Oliver, R. (1981). Measurement and evaluation of satisfaction processes in retail settings.
Journal of Retailing.
Oliver, R. (1997). Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Onwuegbuzie, A. (2000, November 21). Expanding the Framework of Internal and External
Validity in Quantitative Research. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of The
Association for the Advancement of Educational Research. Florida. EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 108
Osborne, J., & Waters, E. (2002). Four assumptions of multiple regression that researchers should always test. Practical assessment, research & evaluation, 8(2), 1-9.
Park, H., Lim, H., & Kim, Y. K. (2013). Experiential value: Application to innovative consumer
technology products. Journal of Customer Behaviour, 12(1), 7 -24.
Pascale, M. (2000). Online Catalogers. Spending More, Making More, Bringing More Inhouse.
Catalog Age, 7, S8 -S13.
Payne, A., Storbacka, K., & Frow, P. (2007). Managing co-creation of value. Journal of the
Academy of Marketingg Science, 36(1), 83 - 96.
Peters, W., & Champoux, J. (1979). The role and analysis of moderator variables in
organisational research. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear.
Pine, B., & Gilmore, J. (1998). Welcome to the Experience Economy. Harward Business
Review, 76, 97 - 105.
Plaff, A. (1972). An Index of Consumer Satisafaction. Proceedings of the Third Annual
Conference (pp. 713 - 737). Association for Consumer Research.
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co‐creation experiences: The next practice in value
creation. Journal of interactive marketing, 18(3), 5 - 14 .
Prahalad, C., & Ramaswamy, V. (2000). Co-opting Customer Competence. Harward Business
review, 78(1), 79 - 87.
Prebensen, N., Kim, H., & Uysal, M. (2015). Cocreation as Moderator between the Experience
Value and Satisdaction Relationship. Journal of Travel Research, 1 - 12 .
PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2015). The sharing economy. EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 109
Puccinelli, N., Goodstein, R., G. D., Price, R., Raghubir, P., & Stewart, D. (2009). Customer
experience management in retailing: understanding the buying process. Journal of
Retailing, 85(1), 15 - 30.
Pyle, R. (1996). Electronic commerce and the internet.Communications of the ACM, 39(6), 22-24
Ramaswamy, V. (2009). Leading the Transformation to Co-Creation of Value. Strategy and
Leadership, 37(2), 32 - 37.
Randall, W., Gravier, M., & Prybutok, V. (2011). Connection, trust, and commitment:
dimensions of co-creation? Journal of Strategic Marketing, 19(01), 3 -24.
Rifkin, J. (2000). The age of Access: The New Culture of HyperCapitalism. Where All of Life is
Paid-For Experience. New York : Tarcher.
Ritzer, G., & Jurgenson, N. (2010). Production, Consumption, Prosumption The nature of
capitalism in the age of the digital ‘prosumer’ Journal of consumer culture, 10(1), 13-36.
Rose, S., Clark, M., Samouel, P., & Hair, N. (2012). Online Customer Experience in e-Retailing:
An empirical model of Antecedents and Outcomes. Journal or Retailing, 88(2), 308 -
322.
Santos, J. (1999). Cronbach’s alpha: A tool for assessing the reliability of scales. Journal of
extension, 37(2), 1 - 5.
Saunders, D. (1956). Moderator variables in prediction. Education annd Psychological
Measurement, 209 - 222.
Schlesinger, L., & Heskett, J. L. (1991). The service-driven service company. Harvard Business
Review Case Services. EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 110
Schlossberg, M. (2015, October 29). Used clothing is the hottest thing in retail right now — and
even Goldman Sachs is taking notice. Retrieved from Business Insider:
http://www.businessinsider.com/reselling-clothes-is-hot-in-the-tech-world-2015-10
Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2010). Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach
(5th edition ed.). West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.
Shamim, A., & Ghazali, Z. (2014). A Conceptual Model for Developing Customer Value Co-
Creation Behaviour in Retailing. Global Business and Management Research: An
International Journal, 6(3), 185 - 196.
Shaw, C., & Ivens, J. (2005). Building Great Customer Experiences. New York: MacMillan.
Shieh, K., & Cheng, M. (2007). An empirical study of experiential value and lifestyle and their
effects on satisfaction in adolescents: an example using online gaming. Adolescence,
42(165), 199 - 215.
Singhal, S., & Mehta, M. (2015). An Empirical Study of the Dimensions of Customer Value Co-
creation Behaviour. International Journal of Advanced Research and Innovative Ideas in
Education, 255 - 261.
Sivadas, E., & Baker-Prewitt, F. (2000). An examination of the relationship between service
quality, customer satisfaction and store loyalty. International Journal of Retail
&Distribution Management, 28(2), 73 - 82.
Slater, S. (1997). Developing a customer value-based Theory of the Firm. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 25(2), 162 - 167. EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 111
Smith, A. (1904). An Inquiry into the Nature and Cause of the Wealth of Nations. London:
Printed for W. Strahan and T. Cadell.
Smith, J., & Colgate, M. (2007). Customer Value Creation: A Practical Framework. Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, 15(1), 7 - 23.
Soderlund, M., & Ohman, N. (2005). Assessing behavior before it becomes behavior: an
examination of the role of intentions as a link between satisfaction and repatronizing
behavior. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 57(10), 1067 - 1073.
Solomon, M., Surprenant, C., Czepiel, J., & Gutman, E. (1985). A role theory perspective on
dyadic interactions: the service encounter. Journal of Marketing, 99 -111.
Spiegelman, P. (2000). Live Customer Interaction and the Internet Join in ‘Internation’. Direct
Marketing, 63(4), 38 - 41.
Stokes, K., Clarence, E., Anderson, L., & Rinne, A. (2014). Making Sence of the UK
collaborative economy. London: Nesta Innovation Charity.
Sung, H., & Lee, W. (2015). The Effect of Basic, Performance and Excitement Service Factors
of a Convention Center on Attendees' Experiential Value and Satisfaction: A Case Study
of the Phoenix Convention Center. Journal of Convention & Event Tourism, 16(3), 175 -
199.
Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. International journal of
medical education, 2, 53.
Tavakol, M., Mohagheghi, M. A., & Dennick, R. (2008). Assessing the skills of surgical
residents using simulation. Journal of surgical education, 65(2), 77 - 83. EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 112
Teixeira, J., Patricio, L., Nunes, N., Nobrega, L., Fisk, R., & Constantine, L. (2012). Customer
experience modeling: from customer experience to service design. Journal of Service
Management, 23(3), 362 -376.
Thaler, R. (1985). Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice. Marketing Science, 4(3), 199 -
214.
Tisdale, K. (2004). Being Vulnarable and Being Ethical With/ in Research. In K. deMarrais, & S.
Lapan (Eds.), Foundations for Research: Methods of Inquiry in Education and the Social
Sciences (pp. 13 - 30). London: Routledge.
Trochim, W. (2006, October 20). Ethics in Research. Retrieved from Social Research Methods:
http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/ethics.php
Unger, L., & Kerman, J. (1983). On the Meaning of Leisure: An Investigation of Some
Determinants of the Subjective Experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(4), 381 -
392.
Vargo, S. (2011). From Micro to Macro: Stakeholder and Institutions. Journal of
Macromarketing, 125 - 128.
Vargo, S., & Lusch, R. (2008). Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 1 - 10.
Vargo, S., & Lush, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing. Journal of
Marketing, 68(1), 1 -17.
Vargo, S., Maglio, P., & Akaka, M. (2008). On Value and Value Co-Creation: A service Systems
and Service Logic Perspective. European Management Journal, 26(3), 145 - 152. EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 113
Vavra, T. (2002). Customer Satisfaction Measurement Simplified. USA: American Society for
Quality.
Verhagen, T., Felberg, F., van den Hoof, B., Meents, S., & Merikivi, J. (2011). Satisfaction with
virtual worlds: An integrated model of experiential value. Information & Management,
48(6), 201 - 207.
Verhoef, P., Roggeveen, A., Tsiros, M., Lemon, K., Parasuraman, A., & Schleisinger, L. (2008).
Customer Experience Creation: Determinants, Dynamics and Management Strategies.
Journal of Retailing, 85(1), 31-41.
Walsh, B. (2011, March 17). Today's mart choice: Don't own. Share. Retrieved from Time
Magazine:
http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2059521_2059717_20597
10,00.html
Walsh, G., Evanschitzky, H., & Wunderlich, M. (2008). Identification and analysis of moderator
variables: investigating the customer satisfaction-loyalty link. European Journal of
Marketing, 42(9/10), 977-1004.
Winter, G. (2000). A comparative discussion of the notion of'validity'in qualitative and
quantitative research. The qualitative report, 4(3), 1 -14.
Woodruff Smith, D. (2007). Husserl. London, England: Routledge.
Woodruff, R. (1997). Customer Value: The Next Source for Competetive Activity. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(2), 139 - 153. EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 114
Woodruff, R., & Gardial, S. F. (1996). Know Your Customer: New Approaches to Understanding
Customer Value and Satisfaction. Malden: MA: Blacwell Business.
Wright, K. B. (2005). Researching Internet‐based populations: Advantages and disadvantages of
online survey research, online questionnaire authoring software packages, and web
survey services. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(3).
Wu, A., & Zumbo, B. (2008). Understanding and using mediators and moderators. Social
Indicators Research, 87(3), 367 - 392.
Wu, C., & Liang, R.-D. (2009). Effect of experiential value on customer satisfaction with service
encounters. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28(4), 586 - 593.
Yi, Y. (1990). A Critical Review of Consumer Satisfcation. In V. Zeithaml (Ed.), Review of
marketing (pp. 68 - 123). Marketing Classics Press.
Yi, Y. (1990). A crtitical review of consumer satisfaction. In V. Zeithaml (Ed.), Review of
Marketing (pp. 68 - 123). Chicago: American Marketing Association.
Yi, Y., & Gong, T. (2013). Customer value co-creation behavior: Scale development and
validation. Journal of Business Research, 66(9), 1279 - 1284.
Yuan, Y. H., & Wu, C. K. (2008). Relationships among experiential marketing, experiential
value, and customer satisfaction. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 32(3), 387 -
410.
Zeithaml, V. (1988). Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality and Value: A means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence. Journal of Marketing, 2 - 22.
EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 115
Appendices Appendix 1. Co-creation as a moderator.
Note. From “Cocreation as moderator between the experience value and satisfaction relationship” by N. K. Prebensen, H. L. Kim, and M. Uysal, 2015, Journal of Travel Research, p. 4.
EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 116
Appendix 2. Original research questionnaire in Lithuanian
Įvertinkite ar sutinkate su teiginiu, skalėje nuo 1 iki 7 (7 – visiškai sutinku; 1 – visiškai nesutinku)
Produktai vinted.lt interneto svetainėje yra pateikiami patraukliu būdu. Vinted.lt interneto svetainė yra estetiškai patraukli. Man patinka kaip atrodo Vinted.lt interneto svetainė. Aš manau, kad Vinted.lt svetainė yra labai smagi naudotis. Apsipirkimas Vinted.lt leidžia man “nuo visko atitrūkti”. Apsipirkimas Vinted.lt leidžia man jaustis tarsi aš būčiau kitame pasaulyje. Apsipirkdamas Vinted.lt aš taip įsitraukiu, kad pamirštu visa kitą. Kai galvoju apie Vinted.lt, aš galvoju apie profesionalumą. Aš manau kad Vinted.lt yra savo srities profesionalai. Vinted.lt platformoje parduodamos prekės atitinka mano mokamą kainą už jas ( aš tai vertinu kaip ekonomišką pasirinkimą). Aš džiaugiuosi Vinted.lt platformoje parduodamų prekių kainomis. Aš manau, kad prekių, kurias aš pirkau iš Vinted.lt, kainos yra per didelės atsižvelgiant į jų kokybę.
Vinted.lt platformos dalyviai*: *Dalyvis – asmuo iš kurio aš pasirenku pirkti jų parduodamas prekes. Įvertinkite ar sutinkate su teiginiu, skalėje nuo 1 iki 7 ( 7 – visiškai sutinku; 1 – visiškai nesutinku)
...sudaro sąlygas man jaustis laisvai mūsų sandėrio metu. ...bando sukurti draugišką santykį su manimi. ...skatina tarp mūsų abipusę komunikaciją. ...rodo neapsimestinį domėjimąsi manimi ...nebando manimi pasinaudoti. ...jokiu būdu nedaro man spaudimo. ...jokiu būdu manęs neklaidina. ...nebando manimi manipuliuoti. EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 117
...stengiasi suprasti mano individualius poreikius. ...yra jautrūs mano individualiai situacijai. ...deda pastagas, kad išsiaiškintų, kas man būtų naudingiausia. ...siekia išsiaiškinti mano asmeninius lūkesčius. ...dalinasi su manimi naudinga informacija susijusia su jų parduodama preke. ...padeda man tapti daugiau žinančiu apie prekę. ...suteikia man patarimų, kurių man reikia, kad galėčiau sėkmingai naudotis jų parduodamomis prekėmis. ...suteikia man papildomų žinių apie prekę. ...pasiūlo man išreikšti savo idėjas ir pasiūlymus mūsų sandėrio metu. ...skatina mane formuoti savo apsipirkimo patirtį Vinted.lt platformoje. ...suteikia man galimybę kontroliuoti savo patirtį susijusią su mano apsipirkimu. ...suteikia man galimybę bendrauti mano pasirinktu būdu. ...sklandžiai dirba išvien su Vinted.lt teikdami man paslaugas, t.y. suteikdami man galimybę įsigyti prekę. ...platformos dalyviai kartu su vinted.lt veikia kaip vienas vienetas. ...platformos dalyviai ir vinted.lt pateikia man žinutes, kurios yra nuoseklios t.y. neprieštaurja viena kitai. ...platformos dalyviai ir vinted.lt užtikrina procesus, kurie reikalingi sklandžiam bendravimui su manimi.
Įvertinkite ar sutinkate su teiginiu, skalėje nuo 1 iki 7 ( 7 – visiškai sutinku; 1 – visiškai nesutinku) Aš esu patenkinta (-s) savo sprendimu dalyvauti Vinted.lt vertinant savo apsipirkimo (-ų) patirtį. Tai buvo protingas pasirinkimas. Tai buvo gera patirtis. Ateityje aš pasinaudosiu galimybėmis apsipirkti šiuo būdu. Įvertinant savo apsipirkimo patirtį, rekomenduosiu šį apsipirkimo būdą kitiems. Aš mėgaujuosiu diskutuodamas apie šią apsipirkimo patirtį su savo draugais.
EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 118
Appendix 3. Correlation matrix
EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 119
Appendix 4. Regression coefficients and multicollinearity statistics
EXPERIENTIAL VALUE AND SATISFACTION RELATIOSNHIP 120
Appendix 5. Normal P-P Plot of Regression Standardized Residuals
Appendix 6. Scatterplot of Standardised Regression Residuals