Cocreation as Moderator between the Experience Value and Satisfaction Relationship

Abstract

The article explores the concept of cocreation of value, defined as the tourist’s interest in mental and physical participation in an activity and its role in tourist experiences. Based on the theoretical perspective of “the new service-dominant logic,” customer participation in tourist experiences is explored and tested as a moderating variable on the perceived value – satisfaction relationship. In essence, the customer partakes mentally and physically in an experience, which moderates the role that experience value has on overall satisfaction. The study thus hypothesizes that the higher the level of participation, the stronger the experience value–satisfaction link becomes and vice versa. Using a sample drawn from tourists in Norway, the results confirm that experience value is an effective predictor of tourist satisfaction. The study reveals that the level of cocreation moderates the effect between the experience value of winter tourism activities and satisfaction.

Keywords

perceived value experience satisfaction cocreation

Introduction

The purpose of the present work is to explore and test the role of the customer as an active versus passive agent in tourist experiences. The evidence in existing literature for the relationship between perceived customer value and satisfaction of experiences has been clearly identified (Gallarza and Gil-Saura 2006; Prebensen, Woo, et al. 2013; Sànchez et al. 2004; Williams and Soutar 2009). Research shows that individuals who engage in self-production positively bias their evaluations of an outcome and an input product (Troye and Supphellen 2012). However, despite the great strides made in recent years, our understanding of the specific nature of the customer’s active versus passive role in the relationship between tourist-perceived value and satisfaction has received little attention. Participation in creating experience value, that is, cocreation, will accordingly be explored and tested as a moderator for the value–satisfaction relationship in the present work.

Tourism is about people moving to experience well-being in nonresidential settings (Prebensen, Woo, and Uysal 2014). The tourist participation and presence in creating experience value is vital (Ryan 1997; Vargo and Lusch 2004; Bradley and Sparks 2012). As a vacation is typically produced and consumed at the destination, the tourist has to deal with various people and situations (Ryan 1997). The degree and ability to cope and cocreate with these situations and people affect the overall satisfaction with the journey (Prebensen and Foss 2011). Lusch, Vargo, and Tanniru (2010, 22) even proclaim that “the firm can only make and follow through on value propositions rather than create and add value.” Grönroos (2008) suggests that value creation takes place through experiential perceptions of the value-in-use that emerges from usage, possessions, or even from mental states.

Customer participation is defined as “the degree to which the customer is involved in producing and delivering the service” (Dabholkar 1990, 484). Consumer participation in value-creation activities has been considered in different terms and concepts, such as coproduction (Auh et al. 2007; Bendapudi and Leone 2003; Firat, Dholakia, and Venkatesh 1995; Firat and Venkatesh 1993) and self-service (Dabholkar 1990; Meuter et al. 2000; Van Birgelen, Dellaert, and de Ruyter 2012). Following the lead of Toffler (1980), focusing on prosumption, that is, consumers partaking in both consumption and production, Xie, Bagozzi, and Troye (2008) define prosumption as a “process rather than a single act . . . consists in an integration of physical activities, mental effort, and socio-psychological experiences.” The notion of cocreation in the present work is understood as the customer’s mental and physical participation in the experience-creation process. Physical participation is acknowledged as the customer’s own perception of the degree of active participation in the activity experienced. Mental participation is recognized as the customer’s level of interest in an activity. It is expected that interest and physical participation in a tourist activity will moderate the effect between experience value and satisfaction, that is, the more active participation the stronger the effect between experience value and satisfaction, and vice versa.

The results of the present study will add to theory by recognizing the tourist’s role as an active versus a passive agent in tourist experiences and its subsequent effect on the relationship between experience value and satisfaction. It is hoped that the findings will help the tourism industry to facilitate the right level of customer involvement in the process of creating value to enhance experience and satisfaction.

Literature Review

Perceived Value of Tourist Experience and Satisfaction

Relationships between perceived value and satisfaction have occupied researchers in recent decades (e.g., Cronin, Brady, and Hult 2000; Holbrook 1999; Woodruff and Gardial 1996; Bajs 2013). Their objective has been to develop an improved understanding of the value construct and its relationship with satisfaction. Hallowell (1996, 29) defined satisfaction as the result of a customer’s perception of the value received “where value equals perceived service quality relative to price.” Fornell et al. (1996, 9) emphasize perceived value, claiming that “the first determinant of overall customer satisfaction is perceived quality . . . the second determinant of overall customer satisfaction is perceived value.” Satisfaction is thus an evaluation of the value received.

The perceived value as delineated in research is different from satisfaction in that it occurs at various stages of the purchase process, including the prepurchase stage (Woodruff 1997), while satisfaction is generally defined as a postpurchase and postuse evaluation (e.g., Hunt 1977; Oliver 1981). Accordingly, value perceptions also reflect prepurchase and preuse evaluations, while satisfaction builds on an experience of having used the product or service (Cronin, Brady, and Hult 2000). Customer perceived value is defined as a critical element in consumption and decision-making behavior (Bolton and Drew 1991; Sweeney, Soutar, and Johnson 1999; Zeithaml 1988; Al-Sabbahy, Ekinci, and Riley 2004) and is revealed to affect tourist satisfaction and future intentions (Gallarza and Gil-Saura 2006; Williams and Soutar 2009; Gardiner, King, and Grace 2012).

Zeithaml (1988, 14) suggests that perceived value can be regarded as a “consumer’s overall assessment of the utility of a product (or service) based on perceptions of what is received and what is given.” She refers to this assessment as the comparison of a product or service’s “get” and “give” components. A definition of value that is often referred to is the trade-off between quality and price, as in the concept of value-for-money (Sweeney and Soutar 2001). However, recent research claims that a single-item scale does not address the whole concept of perceived value (e.g., Gallarza and Saura 2006; Sheth, Newman, and Gross 1991; Sweeney, Soutar, and Johnson 1999). A multiple-component scale of perceived value has therefore been suggested (e.g., Holbrook 1999; Sheth, Newman and Gross 1991). The perceived value scale proposed by Sheth, Newman, and Gross (1991) includes four distinct dimensions—emotional, social, quality/performance, and price/value for money—and is adopted in the present work. The perceived value scale has also been tested in tourism settings as well: student group travels (Gallarza and Gil-Saura 2006), tourist attraction visitors (Prebensen, Woo, et al. 2013), city tourism (Sànchez et al. 2004), and adventure tourism (Williams and Soutar 2009). Williams and Soutar (2009) suggested an epistemic value dimension in addition to the perceived value scale proposed by Sheth, Newman, and Gross (1991).

Experiential consumption, such as traveling during one’s vacation, involves “a steady flow of fantasies, feelings” (Holbrook and Hirschman 1982, 132) because these feelings are valued by the tourists. Holbrook (1999) defines consumer value as a relativistic preference characterizing a consumer’s experience of interacting with some object (i.e., any goods, service, thing, place, event, or idea). In the relativistic view, consumer value is comparative, personal, and situational. Following this line of thinking, researchers have studied key factors, such as role clarity, motivation, and ability, affecting consumer participation in self-service technologies (Meuter et al. 2000). Further, research (Troye and Supphellen 2012) shows that when consumers engage in self-production, they positively bias their evaluations of an outcome (a dish) and an input product (a dinner kit). The study by Troye and Supphellen has further revealed that perceived self-integration (perceived link between self and an outcome, that is, partaking in cooking) partly mediates the positive effect of self-production on outcome evaluation. Consequently, partaking in an experiential consumption practice is mental or physical and is expected to positively affect evaluation of the experience. Thus, the following hypothesis is stated to examine the above relationships.

Hypothesis 1: Perceived value of a tourist experience is likely to have a positive predictive effect on satisfaction with vacation experience.

Cocreation as Emotional and Physical Impacts

Recent research reveals that consumers more often enjoy creating value for herself or himself, in particular, in experiential consumption (Babin, Darden, and Griffin 1994). Following the lead of Holbrook’s (1999) discussion of intrinsic versus extrinsic value, Babin, Darden, and Griffin (1994) suggest that intrinsic value is different from extrinsic or utilitarian value in that it results from the “fun and playfulness” of an experience, rather than from task completion. Traveling in leisure time is more often done because it is expected to give enjoyable and memorable experiences (Kim, Brent Ritchie, and McCormick 2012). In addition, recent research shows that in tourism contexts the consumer even sees spending time and effort as affecting positively on overall satisfaction (Prebensen, Vittersø, and Dahl 2013).

Consumer participation is outlined to reflect a state of involvement (Cermak, File, and Prince 1994). Involvement is defined as a motivational state of mind that is goal directed (Mittal 1995). The extent to which people are interested in—and participate in—tourist activities ranges from watching passively to active enactments. The activity may further be mental portrayal and/or physical performance. As Vargo and Lusch (2004) advocated that consumers should always be acknowledged as cocreators of value, they suggest that firms can only propose or facilitate for customer value through customer participation in such creation. The degree of participation and the way customers participate may nonetheless vary (Holbrook 1999; Pine and Gilmore 1999). According to Pine and Gilmore, a consumer experience with an on-site activity may be consumed differently in different settings such as (1) entertainment (passive, absorption), (2) educational (active, absorption), (3) aesthetic (passive, immersion), and (4) escapist (active, immersion), exemplified correspondingly by (1) music festivals, (2) museums, (3) hiking, and (4) working holidays. The environmental interactions that relate the customer to the event or performance are absorption and immersion.

The new service-dominant logic (S-D logic) in marketing currently focuses on interaction and customer participation in creating value (Vargo and Lusch 2008), in which a “customer participate[s] as co-producer” to cocreate customized offerings (Grönroos 2008, 307), and customers play an active role in managing the relationships. Accordingly, tourists are no longer objects for relationships, rather the subjects, who voluntarily collaborate with firms and other guests to build relationships and participate in value cocreation. Degree of participation is therefore a core moderator in the perceived value–satisfaction relationship, especially in experiential consumption such as that of tourist experiences.

Interest, delineated as liking and wilful engagement in a cognitive activity, can be displayed in several ways, including active engagement, paying attention, and learning (Silva 2006). Interest affects our emotional engagement in a task and the extent to which we engage in deeper processing (Schiefele 1996, 1999; Schraw 1998).

Interest is related to the construct of involvement, which is commonly defined as a consumer’s enduring perceptions of the importance of the product category based on the consumer’s inherent needs, values, and interests (e.g., de Wulf, Odekerken-Schröder, and Lacobucci 2001; Mittal 1995; Zaichkowsky 1985). Product involvement has been extensively used as an explanatory variable in consumer behavior (Dholakia 1997, 1998). It has been established that the level of involvement determines the depth, complexity, and extensiveness of cognitive and behavioral processes during the consumer choice process (e.g., Chakravarti and Janiszewski 2003; Laurent and Kapferer 1985). Interest as part of the involvement construct is therefore a central framework, vital to understanding the value enhancement processes in consumption (Chakravarti and Janiszewski 2003). Theories of interest split into two fields: (1) interest as part of emotional experience, curiosity, and momentarily motivation and (2) interest as a part of personality, individual differences, and people’s hobbies, goals, and occupations (Silva 2006). While personal, individual interest develops slowly over time and tends to have long-lasting effects on a person’s knowledge and values, situational interest is usually evoked more suddenly by something in the environment and may have only a short-term effect, marginally influencing an individual’s knowledge and values (Krapp, Renninger, and Hidi 1991). As the present work refers to a context-specific activity, which is environmentally and spontaneously activated (Hidi and Anderson 1992), the situational aspect of interest is in particular focus.

Research reveals the importance of perceived experience value on evaluations such as satisfaction (Bradley and Sparks 2012; Chen and Tsai 2008; Chen and Chen 2010; Gallarza and Saura 2006; Hutchinson, Lai, and Wang 2009; Petrick and Backman 2001; Baker and Crompton 2000; Williams and Soutar 2009; Mohd-Any, Winklhofer, and Ennew 2014) and behavioral intention (Kashyap and Bojanic 2000; Petrick 2004).

A recent study by Mathis (2013) indicated that tourists’ satisfaction with cocreation experience positively affects satisfaction with vacation experience and loyalty to service providers. Furthermore, the level of involvement and engagement of cocreation experience intensifies the level of satisfaction with that experience. In addition, customer engagement is crucial for understanding customers’ behaviors such as loyalty to brands (So et al. 2014). In this respect, if a tourist is able to cocreate value actively, then his or her satisfaction with the relationship is likely to be amplified, spilling over to tourist’s satisfaction with travel experience. Andrades and Dimanshe (2014) argued that tourists’ state of feeling physically, mentally, and emotionally engaged with tourism activity make their experience memorable.

Participation explicated as interest and physical activity level in a tourist experience is hypothesized to moderate the effect between perceived experience value and satisfaction. A moderator variable is delineated to affect the direction and/or the strength of the relation between an independent or predictor variable and a dependent or criterion variable (Baron and Kenny 1986). By including situational mental interest and physical participation as indicators of customer level of cocreation, the present work aims to include both mental and physical aspects of the construct. Thus, the following hypothesis will be tested (figure 1):

Hypothesis 2: The relationship between perceived value of tourist experience and satisfaction with vacation experience is moderated by level of cocreation experience in travel. (Those more interested and more physical partaking will show a significantly stronger relationship between perceived value and satisfaction than those less interested and less active.)

Figure 1.

Theoretical model and hypotheses.

Methodology

Study Population and Data Collection

Tourists visiting one of four winter tourism firms in northern Norway made up the study cohort through a guest survey. The firms chosen involved winter tourist activities in nature, such as dog sledding, sea rafting, an ice hotel visit, and snow scooter activities. Tourists visiting one of the four winter tourist companies in a three-month period (from mid-January to mid-April) were asked to complete the questionnaire. The survey was conducted by a professional consulting company and well-trained research assistants.

To ensure a feasible sample size for the purpose of advanced analysis, the data collectors were instructed that a minimum of 150 valid questionnaires should be secured at each visitor attraction. The questionnaires were randomly handed out to respondents visiting the companies on days with a certain tourist flow, and were collected immediately on their completion. The collectors also provided the respondents with a brief description of the importance of answering all the questions if possible. Out of 700 distributed questionnaires, a total 553 were fully completed and usable, resulting in a response rate of approximately 80%. These were used for the data analysis.

Measurement of Constructs

The questionnaire was composed of two sections. The first section aimed to understand each respondent’s personal background and demographics. The second section measured respondent agreement about each construct in the research model. All items were assessed using seven-point Likert scales from 1 = “to a very little extent” to 7 = “to a great extent.”

The data collection instrument was based on existing scales in English and translated into Norwegian and German. The questions were further refined in Norwegian and tested on a group of 15 academics and 10 practitioners, and they were translated into English and German. Also, professional translators were included in the process. The questionnaire employed in the present work was designed according to related literature (e.g., Williams and Soutar 2009; Sweeney and Soutar 2001; Bello and Etzel 1985; Weber 2001; Oliver 1997), and the list of items was further refined with the opinions of experts. A pretest of the questionnaire was performed by experts, scholars in tourism and marketing research, who were particularly familiar with constructs such as cocreation, value perception, and satisfaction. The reliability coefficient of the constructs (Cronbach’s alpha) exceeded the recommended reliability score of .70 (Hair et al. 2009) (see items in the appendix).

Perceived value of winter tourism experience was measured using scales developed by Williams and Soutar (2009), who generally mirrored the work of Sweeney and Soutar (2001) and partially Bello and Etzel (1985) and Weber (2001) with semantic scales from 1 = “to very little extent” to 7 = “to a great extent.” Examples of items include “This winter activity had consistent quality” and “This winter activity was exciting.”

Satisfaction was measured through six satisfaction items (Oliver 1997) adjusted to the empirical study, that is, “I am satisfied with the decision to participate in this experience,” “It was a wise choice,” “It has been a good experience,” and “I will participate in similar types of experiences in the future,” “I will recommend this experience to others,” and “I enjoy discussing this type of holiday with my friends.”

Cocreation was measured by two concepts, interest and participation, measured on such items as “I’m an active participant in this experience” and “I’m interested in this winter experience.” The items were combined to reflect mental and physical cocreation and subsequently function as moderators in the model, low versus high degrees of cocreation.

Analysis and Findings

Demographic Information

Of the respondents, 47.0% were female visitors, 33.1% had a bachelor’s degree, and 27.1% had a master’s degree. In terms of annual household income, 39.1% of the respondents earned from $90,001 to 180,000, 29.4% earned less than $90,000, and 15% earned more than $180,000. The age distribution was almost evenly spread across three age groups: more than one third (39.4%) of the respondents were between 40 and 49 years old, 35.6% between 30 and 39 years old, and 24.1% between 20 and 29 years old. Tourists under the age of 18 were not targeted, and very few tourists older than 49 years participated in these trips.

Data Analysis

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and a structural equation modeling (SEM) procedure were chosen to perform the data analysis. The properties of the two research constructs (perceived values of winter travel experience and satisfaction) were tested with AMOS 20.0 software with the maximum likelihood technique.

Prior to the main analyses, a data-screening procedure was conducted by checking multivariate normality, missing values, and influential outliers. Finally, the moderating effect of cocreation was tested using the multiple group analysis approach.

Exploratory Factor Analysis

Perceived value of winter travel experience was measured through 20 observed variables. Prior to SEM analysis, EFA was conducted only for the purpose of reducing the number of items. The underlying structure of the relatively large set of variables was detected using varimax rotation (Hair et al. 2009). Kaiser’s criterion, scree tests, item community, and factor loadings were used to assist in the decision to retain a number of factors (Pallant 2011).

The final results of the EFA show five groupings of perceived value factors: Physical Value, Emotional Value, Social Value, Economical Value, and Learning Value. These five components explained 74.3% of the variance in the perceived value of winter travel experiences. The items within a factor were calculated to create a summated factor score. These summated factor scores were used as observed variables to measure the perceived value of winter travel experiences. Table 1 summarizes the results of the EFA.

Table 1.

The Results of EFA (Perceived Value of Winter Travel Experience).

Perceived Value of Travel Experience	Factor Loading	Eigen Value	Value Explained
Physical value		7.9	17.16
This winter experience has a consistent level of quality	.84
This winter experience is well formed	.87
This experience has an acceptable standard of quality	.88
This experience is well organized	.86
Emotional value		3.0	15.8
This winter experience gives me a feeling of well-being	.67
This winter experience is exciting	.72
This winter experience is stimulating	.76
This winter experience makes me happy	.78
Social value		2.0	14.8
Participating in this winter experience enables me to create a good impression	.85
Participating in this winter experience enables me to impress other people	.91
Participating in this winter experience makes me feel more socially accepted	.88
Economic value		1.5	14.1
The price paid for this experience is reasonable	.71
The prices for additional services are acceptable	.90
This experience represents “value” for money	.74
This winter experience is correctly priced	.87
Learning value		1.0	13.4
This winter experience makes me feel like an adventurer	.57
This winter experience satisfies my curiosity	.56
This winter experience provides authentic/genuine experiences	.47
This winter experience is unique	.76
This is a once-in-a-lifetime experience	.85
Total variance			74.3

Note: Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin index = .884, Bartlett’s test of sphericity = 4266.586, df = 190 (p = .000).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

CFA was performed to confirm the measurement model specifying the relationships of observed indicators with the latent constructs and to check the reliability and validity of the constructs (Byrne 1998).

First, a separate CFA of each construct was conducted to check their measurement scale properties (perceived values of winter travel experience and satisfaction). Two observed indicators of satisfaction constructs that did not load well on the construct were deleted. After deleting two indicators and retesting the data, the final results of the CFA confirmed the unidimensionality of each construct. Subsequently, the overall measurement model with the two constructs with nine indicators was tested to examine the goodness of fit of the overall model. As shown in Table 2, the results indicated that the data successfully fit the model, with root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .077, goodness of fit (GFI) = .97, nonnormed fit index (NNFI) = .95, and comparative fit index (CFI) = .96 (Hair et al. 2009).

Table 2.

Goodness-of-Fit Indices for the Original and Modified Measurement Model.

	χ²	df	Absolute Fit Measures			Incremental Fit Measures		Parsimonious Fit Measures
	χ²	df	GFI	RMR	RMSEA	AGFI	NNFI	CFI	IFI	RFI
Overall measurement model	399.05 (p = .0)	26	.97	.06	.07	.93	.95	.96	.96	.91

Note: GFI = goodness of fit; RMR = root mean square residual; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; AGFI = adjusted goodness-of-fit index; NNFI = nonnormed fit index; CFI = comparative fit index; IFI = incremental fit index; RFI = relative fit index.

Based on the CFA results, the reliability and validity of all items was analyzed (Table 3). The completely standardized factor loadings of all measurement indicators were statistically significant, ranging from 0.48 to 0.83. The squared multiple correlations (R²) ranged between .26 and .69. These coefficient scores also serve as indicator reliabilities (Bollen 1989). The average variance extracted of the perceived value of the winter travel experience construct, and the satisfaction construct revealed values of .51 and .40, respectively. Composite reliability of each measurement scale ranged from .71 to .76, assuring internal consistency of each construct. Overall, the perceived value of winter travel experience with five observed indicators, and of satisfaction with four indicators, retained five observed indicators with satisfactory of fit indices results. The significance of the relationships between the two constructs were thus tested by SEM.

Table 3.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis for the Measurement Model.

Construct, Indicators	Completely Standardized Loading	t Value	Composite Reliability	Average Variance Extracted Estimate
Perceived value of winter travel experience			.76*	.51**
Learning value	.672	–
Social value	.410	8.251**
Emotional value	.831	15.051**
Economic value	.498	10.240**
Physical value	.682	13.385**
Satisfaction with winter travel experience		–	.71*	.40**
I am satisfied with the decision to participate in this experience	.760	–
It was a wise choice	.712	13.648**
It has been a good experience	.481	9.038**
I will participate in similar types of experiences in the future	.505	10.291**

p < .05, **p < .001.

Findings of the SEM and Construct Relationships

Structural equation modeling was used to test the hypothesis in the proposed model. The results show that the proposed model explained the data reasonably (χ² = 399.05, df = 26, GFI = .97, RMSEA = .07, NNFI = .95, and CFI = .96). The estimate of the structural path showed the basis for hypothesis testing, and the proposed hypothesis was significantly supported.

Specifically, hypothesis 1 predicted that the perceived value of winter travel experience would have a positive influence on tourist satisfaction with winter travel experiences. Our finding shows that the perceived value of the winter travel experience significantly affects tourist satisfaction with travel (t = 12.062, p < .00); thus, hypothesis 1 was supported. Figure 2 summarized the hypothesized relationships with their associated statistics.

Figure 2.

Results of the estimated structural mode.

Moderating Effect of Cocreation

To investigate the moderating effect of level of cocreation experience, a multiple-group analysis was applied. The study divided the total sample into two subgroups based on the level of respondent cocreations of winter travel experiences (i.e., low vs. high cocreation). Cocreation experience items are initially measured on a scale. Then, the study created a categorical measurement to have a low / high group of cocreation experience. This was accomplished by examining the distribution of the scale and, then, assigning individuals to the low group if the mean score was less than or equal to 5.52 (SD = 0.79); otherwise, individuals would be in the high group. In the end, the respondents were divided into the low (n = 289) and high (n = 259) cocreation experience groups.

The basic premise of the moderating effect is that responses to variations in the relationship between the perceived value of winter travel experience and satisfaction depend on the level of cocreation. The baseline model was run by including the proposed path among the study variables, which means that an unconstrained model was run, with no equivalence across parameters. The model presented a satisfactory fit to the data (χ² = 403.0, df = 52, RMSEA = .071, CFI = .90, NFI = .90). This baseline model was compared with nested model using a chi-square difference test. In particular, the equality of a particular parameter (between two groups) was tested by constraining a specific path of interest to be equal across groups in sequence (nested models). The path between the perceived value of the winter travel experience and satisfaction was constrained. The results showed that χ² = 435.5, df = 53, RMSEA = .069, CFI = .90, NFI = .89. The result of a chi-squared comparison of unconstrained and constrained models suggests that the paths between the high and low cocreation groups was significantly different (Δχ²/ Δdf = 35.55(1), p < .00). Table 4 summarizes the results of an invariance test for the paths.

Table 4.

Results of the Invariance Test for the Paths.

	Fit of the Model with the Path		χ² Difference Test
	Baseline Model (Freely Estimate)	Nested Model (Constrained to Be Equal)	χ²/Δdf = 35.55(1), (significant)
Perceived value → Satisfaction	Low group: β = .25**	χ² = 435.5, df = 53
	High group: β = .73**
	χ² = 403.0, df = 52

p < .001.

Furthermore, a critical ratio for group differences in regression weights also shows that level of cocreation moderates the effect between the perceived value of the winter travel experience and satisfaction, such that the effect is much stronger for those with high cocreation than for those with low cocreation. In other words, the perceived value of a winter travel experience is a stronger predictor of satisfaction for those who are mentally and physically involved in the activity. Table 5 summarizes the results of critical ratio difference tests.

Table 5.

The Critical Ratio Difference Test for the Path.

	Low Level		High Level
	Estimate	p	Estimate	p	z Score
Perceived value → Satisfaction	0.18	.00	1.47	.00	4.53**

p < .001.

Conclusion and Discussion

This study represents, to the knowledge of the authors, the first attempt to examine the moderating role of cocreation on the relationships between perceived experience value and satisfaction. The tests show that cocreation as a function of interest and physical participation may be employed as a moderating variable in experiential consumption processes.

The initial analysis of the study reveals that tourists’ perceived value of winter travel experiences consists of dimensions such as “learning value,” “social value,” “emotional value,” “economic value,” and “physical value.” Furthermore, the study shows that the tourist perceived experience value also positively affects tourist satisfaction, in a winter tourism setting. The result supports the existing literature (Gallarza and Gil-Saura 2006; Prebensen, Woo, et al. 2013; Williams and Soutar 2009).

The fundamental result of the present study reveals that customer’s cocreation strongly moderates the perceived value–satisfaction relationship. The moderating effect of cocreation includes both mental and physical participation. From a theoretical perspective, our framework integrates cocreation practices in experiential consumption processes and supports the hypothesis that the customer is imperative within the evolving S-D logic literature (Vargo and Lush, 2004). The present work more specifically develops and tests a model including cocreation as a moderator of the link between experience value and overall travel satisfaction. As a result, the study suggests that cocreation should be treated as mentally and physically partaking in the tourist experience, and that cocreation moderates the experience value – satisfaction link positively.

The research reported here provides evidence for the psychological and physiological impacts of a customer’s participation in creating valued and satisfying experiences. The moderating effect of cocreation experience results reveal that a tourist who is interested and partakes physically and actively in an experiential activity moderates the value–satisfaction relationship positively. For those less interested and less active, the relationship between value and satisfaction is weaker. In other words, the effect of the perceived value of winter tourism on satisfaction is likely to be amplified under high rather than low involvement conditions.

Previous research into customer cocreation is mostly conceptual; the present study is a first step in acknowledging how cocreation actually influences the experience value–satisfaction relationship for the customer.

From a managerial perspective, the present work has conceptualized a key variable: cocreation in tourist experiences and its moderating effect between experience value and satisfaction. The study thus pinpoints the importance of encouraging the customer to be mentally and physically involved in cocreating experience value. The tourist industry needs to consider how they can involve the customer before and during an experience in order to enhance interest and participation; as a result, experience value will more strongly affect overall satisfaction. Tourism management should also recognize the strong effect that experience values exert on tourist satisfaction in general and hence acknowledge and facilitate value cocreation according to the needs of their customers. Moreover, it is important that managers know this effect of cocreation on satisfaction. For example, service providers now have a foundation to reexamine how they can facilitate tourism experiences and the setting. As a result, they can change strategies and implement a platform for creating unique experiences, allowing tourists to become more physically and emotionally engaged, thus encouraging cocreation. This would also mean that service providers need to keep abreast of the market trends and design experience settings accordingly. This would surely be good business for the financial viability of the service providers. Furthermore, service providers and tourists should cocreate together in order to provide tourists with benefits from their own cocreation experiences (Edvardsson and Oskarsson, 2011). Therefore, when developing a platform for cocreation, service providers should be aware of the individual comfort level of each tourist, and adjust the environment accordingly. The more satisfied a tourist is with his or her experience, the more likely it is that he or she will return to the same service provider and recommend the service provider to others. The resulting implications lead to increased profits for the service provider and a more loyal client base (Grissemann and Stokburger-Sauer, 2012). Also, companies who implement internal cocreation can gain a competitive advantage by inventing new methods of business that will generate more value, and these strategies will be harder to imitate as outside companies will not understand how the new practices came to be (Cova, Dalli, and Zwick 2011). As in today’s society, everyone is about more value and more personalized products and services, collaboration is expected to gain momentum and receive more attention from both tourists and service providers in the years to come (Mathis 2013).

Future Research

Further research is needed to investigate the dimensions of mental and physical participation in depth. In addition, cocreation as mental involvement, in addition to physically taking part, should also be studied in other settings.

As the present work reveals the importance of cocreation as a moderating effect between the perceived values of travel experience and satisfaction, future research should consider other possible variables that affect satisfaction directly, or possible moderating effects that link perceived value-satisfaction, such as mastering (Tsaur, Yen, and Hsiao 2013) and mood (De Ruyter and Bloemer 1999). For example, attribution theory suggests that when you master a task you will credit your own skills and efforts, if you do not master a task, it will be attributed to the firm or another’s fault. Application of the concept of mastering a travel experience could affect tourist satisfaction. Mood may also have an influence on tourist satisfaction. De Ruyter and Bloemer (1999) indicated that positive mood and value achievement influenced the relationship between customer satisfaction and loyalty. Customers who are in a good mood may be less critical in evaluating the performance of a service and confer a large latitude of acceptable performance; thus, their satisfaction thresholds may be different than those of people who are in a bad mood (Zeithaml et al. 2006). This implies that stimulating good mood, in addition to enhancing knowledge, motivation, and involvement, may influence a tourist’s satisfaction. Moreover, the future study should consider actual behavioral measure such as behavioral intention or loyalty to the destination as the dependent variable to provide stronger implication to practitioners.

Footnotes

Appendix

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Nina K. Prebensen is a Professor of marketing at Vestfold University College, Business School, Norway. She holds a senior researcher position at UiT the arctic university of Norway. Her research interests include consumer experience value, destination marketing and business strategy. She leads a work package in the research programme “Service Innovation and Tourist Experiences in the High North: The Co-Creation of Values for Consumers, Firms and the Tourism Industry”.

Hyelin (Lina) Kim is an Assistant Professor in William F. Harrah College of Hotel Administration, University of Nevada-Las Vegas. She completed her PhD degree at Virginia Tech in 2015. Her research mainly focused on tourist behavior, Quality-of-Life (QOL) research in hospitality and tourism, and convention management.

Muzaffer Uysal is a Professor of tourism in the Department of Hospitality and Tourism Management—Pamplin College of Business, Virginia Tech. His current research interests center on tourism demand/supply interaction, tourism development and marketing, and QOL research in tourism.

References

Al-Sabbahy

H. Z.

Ekinci

Riley

2004. “An Investigation of Perceived Value Dimensions: Implications for Hospitality Research.” Journal of Travel Research 42 (3): 226–34.

Andrades

Dimanche

2014. “Co-creation of Experience Value: A Tourist Behaver Approach.” In Creating Experience Value in Tourism, edited by Prebensen

N. K.

Chen

J. S.

Uysal

, 95–112. Boston, MA: CABI.

Auh

Bell

S. J.

McLeod

C. S.

Shih

2007. “Co-production and Customer Loyalty in Financial Services.” Journal of Retailing 83 (3): 359–70.

Babin

B. J.

Darden

W. R.

Griffin

1994. “Work and/or Fun: Measuring Hedonic and Utilitarian Shopping Value.” Journal of Consumer Research 20:644–56.

Bajs

I. P.

2015. “Tourist Perceived Value, Relationship to Satisfaction, and Behavioral Intentions: The Example of the Croatian Tourist Destination Dubrovnik.” Journal of Travel Research 54 (1): 122–34.

Baker

D. A.

Crompton

J. L.

2000. “Quality, Satisfaction and Behavioral Intentions.” Annals of Tourism Research 27 (3): 785–804.

Baron

R. M.

Kenny

D. A.

1986. “The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51:1173–82.

Bello

D. C.

Etzel

M. J.

1985. “The Role of Novelty in the Pleasure Travel Experience.” Journal of Travel Research 24 (1): 20–26.

Bendapudi

Leone

R. P.

2003. “Psychological Implications of Customer Participation in Co-production.” Journal of Marketing 67:14–28.

10.

Bollen

K. A.

1989. Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York: John Wiley.

11.

Bolton

R. N.

Drew

J. H.

1991. “A Multistage Model of Customers’ Assessments of Service Quality and Value.” Journal of Consumer Research 17:375–84.

12.

Bradley

G. L.

Sparks

B. A.

2012. “Antecedents and Consequences of Consumer Value: A Longitudinal Study of Timeshare Owners.” Journal of Travel Research 51 (2): 191–204.

13.

Byrne

B. M.

1998. Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

14.

Chen

2010. “Experience Quality, Perceived Value, Satisfaction and Behavior Intentions for Heritage Tourists.” Tourism Management 31 (1): 29–35.

15.

Chen

Tsai

2008. “Perceived Value, Satisfaction, and Loyalty of TV Travel Product Shopping: Involvement as a Moderator.” Tourism Management 29 (6): 1166–71.

16.

Cermak

D. S. P.

File

K. M.

Prince

R. A.

1994. “Customer Participation in Service Specification and Delivery.” Journal of Applied Business Research 10 (2): 90–97.

17.

Chakravarti

Janiszewski

2003. “The Influence of Macro-level Motives on Consideration Set Composition in Novel Purchase Situations.” Journal of Consumer Research 30 (2): 244–58.

18.

Cova

Dalli

Zwick

2011. “Critical Perspectives on Consumers’ Role as ‘Producers’: Broadening the Debate on Value Co-creation in Marketing Processes.” Marketing Theory 11 (3): 231–41.

19.

Cronin

J. J.

Brady

M. K.

Hult

G. T. M.

2000. “Assessing the Effects of Quality, Value, and Customer Satisfaction on Consumer Behavioral Intentions in Service Environments.” Journal of Retailing 76 (2): 193–218.

20.

Dabholkar

1990. “How to Improve Perceived Quality by Improving Customer Participation.” In Developments in Marketing Science, edited by Dunlap

B. J.

, 483–87. Cullowhee, NC: Academy of Marketing Science.

21.

de Ruyter

Bloemer

1999. “Customer Loyalty in Extended Service Settings.” International Journal of Service Industry Management 10:320–36.

22.

de Wulf

Odekerken-Schröder

Lacobucci

2001. “Investments in Consumer Relationships: A Cross-Country and Cross-Industry Exploration.” Journal of Marketing 65 (4): 33–51.

23.

Dholakia

U. M.

1997. “An Investigation of the Relationship between Perceived Risk and Product Involvement.” Advances in Consumer Research 24 (1): 159–67.

24.

Dholakia

U. M.

1998. “Involvement-Response Models of Joint Effects: An Empirical Test and Extension.” Advances in Consumer Research 25 (1): 499–506.

25.

Edvardsson

I. R.

Oskarsson

G. K.

2011. “Knowledge Management and Value Creation in Service Firms.” Measuring Business Excellence 15 (4): 7–15.

26.

Firat

A. F.

Dholakia

Venkatesh

1995. “Marketing in a Postmodern World.” European Journal of Marketing 29 (1): 40–56.

27.

Firat

A. F.

Venkatesh

1993. “Postmodernity: The Age of Marketing.” International Journal of Research in Marketing 10 (3): 227–49.

28.

Fornell

Johnson

M. D.

Anderson

E. W.

Cha

Bryant

B. E.

1996. “The American Customer Satisfaction Index: Nature, Purpose and Findings.” Journal of Marketing 60 (4): 7–17.

29.

Gallarza

M. G.

Gil-Saura

I. G.

2006. “Value Dimensions, Perceived Value, Satisfaction and Loyalty: An Investigation of University Students’ Travel Behavior.” Tourism Management 27:437–52.

30.

Gardiner

King

Grace

2013. “Travel Decision Making: An Empirical Examination of Generational Values, Attitudes, and Intentions.” Journal of Travel Research 52 (3): 310–24.

31.

Grönroos

2008. “Service Logic Revisited: Who Creates Value? And Who Co-creates?” European Business Review 20:298–314.

32.

Grissemann

U. S.

Stokburger-Sauer

N. E.

2012. “Customer Co-creation of Travel Services: The Role of Company Support and Customer Satisfaction with the Co-creation Performance.” Tourism Management 33 (6): 1483–92.

33.

Hair

J. F.

Black

Babin

Anderson

R. E.

2009. Multivariate Data Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

34.

Hallowell

1996. “The Relationship of Customer Satisfaction, Customer loyalty and Profitability: An Empirical Study.” International Journal of Service Industry Management 7 (4): 27–42.

35.

Hidi

Anderson

1992. “Situational Interest and Its Impact on Reading and Expository Writing.” In The Role of Interest in Learning and Development, edited by Renninger

Hidi

Krapp

, 215–38. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

36.

Holbrook

M. B.

1999. Consumer Value. A Framework for Analysis and Research. London: Routledge.

37.

Holbrook

M. B.

Hirschman

E. C.

1982. “The Experiential Aspects of Consumption: Fantasies, Feelings and Fun.” Journal of Consumer Research 9 (2): 132–39.

38.

Hunt

H. K.

1977. “CS/D—Overview and Future Research Direction.” In Conceptualization and Measurement of Consumer Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction, edited by Hunt

H. K.

, 455–88. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.

39.

Hutchinson

Lai

Wang

2009. “Understanding the Relationships of Quality, Value, Equity, Satisfaction, and Behavioral Intentions among Golf Travelers.” Tourism Management 30 (2): 298–308.

40.

Kashyap

Bojanic

D. C.

2000. “A Structural Analysis of Value, Quality, and Price Perceptions of Business and Leisure Travelers.” Journal of Travel Research 30 (1): 45–51.

41.

Kim

J.-H.

Brent Ritchie

J. R.

McCormick

2012. “Development of a Scale to Measure Memorable Tourism Experiences.” Journal of Travel Research 51 (12): 11–25.

42.

Krapp

Renninger

K. A.

Hidi

1991. “Interest, Learning, and Development: The Questions and Their Context.” In The Role of Interest in Learning and Development, edited by Renninger

K. A.

Hidi

Krapp

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum,.

43.

Laurent

Kapferer

J.-N.

1985. “Measuring Consumer Involvement Profiles.” Journal of Marketing Research 22 (1): 41–53.

44.

Lusch

R. F.

Vargo

S. L.

Tanniru

2010. “Service, Value Networks and Learning.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 38 (1): 19–31.

45.

Mathis

2013. “The Effects of Co-creation and Satisfaction on Subjective Well-Being.” Unpublished master’s thesis, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA.

46.

Meuter

M. L.

Ostrom

A. L.

Rountree

R. I.

Bitner

M. J.

2000. “Self-Service Technologies: Understanding Customer Satisfaction with Technology-Based Service Encounters.” Journal of Marketing 64:50–64.

47.

Mohd-Any

A. A.

Winklhofer

Ennew

2014. “Measuring Users’ Value Experience on a Travel Website (e-Value): What Value Is Cocreated by the User?” Journal of Travel Research. Published online February 17. doi:10.1177/0047287514522879.

48.

Mittal

1995. “Comparative Analysis of Four Scales of Consumer Involvement.” Psychology and Marketing 12 (7): 663–82.

49.

Oliver

R. L.

1981. Measurement and Evaluation of Satisfaction Process in Retail Settings. Journal of Retailing 57 (Fall): 25–48, 138–39.

50.

Oliver

R. L.

1997. Customer Satisfaction. A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer. New York: McGraw-Hill.

51.

Pallant

2011. SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS, 4th ed. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.

52.

Petrick

J. F.

2004. “The Roles of Quality, Value, and Satisfaction in Predicting Cruise Passengers’ Behavioral Intentions.” Journal of Travel Research 42 (4): 397–407.

53.

Petrick

J. F.

Backman

S. J.

2001. “An Examination of Golf travelers’ Satisfaction, Perceived Value, Loyalty and Intentions to Revisit.” Tourism Analysis 6 (3/4): 223–37.

54.

Pine

B. J.

Gilmore

1999. The Experience Economy: Work Is Theatre and Every Business a Stage. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

55.

Prebensen

N. K.

Foss

2011. “Coping and Co-creating in Tourist Experiences.” International Journal of Tourism Research 13:54–67.

56.

Prebensen

N. K.

Vittersø

Dahl

2013. “Value Co-creation: Significance of Tourist Resources.” Annals of Tourism Research 42:240–61.

57.

Prebensen

N. K.

Woo

Chen

Uysal

2013. “Motivation and Involvement as Antecedents of the Perceived Value of the Destination Experience.” Journal of Travel Research 52 (2): 253–64.

58.

Prebensen

N. K.

Woo

Uysal

2014. “Experience value: Antecedents and Consquences.” Current Issues in Tourism 17 (10): 910–28. doi:10.1080/13683500.2013.770451

59.

Ryan

1997. The Tourist Experience: A New Introduction. London: Cassell.

60.

Sànchez

Callarisa

Rodrìguez

R. M.

Moliner

M. A.

2004. “Perceived Value of the Purchase of a Tourism Product.” Tourism Management 27 (3): 394–409.

61.

Schiefele

1999. “Interest and Learning from Text.” Scientific Studies Reading 3:257–80.

62.

Schraw

1998. “Processing and Recall Differences among Seductive Details.” Journal of Educational Psychology 90:3–12.

63.

Sheth

J. N.

Newman

B. I.

Gross

B. L.

1991. Consumption Values and Market Choice. Cincinnati, OH: South Western Publishing.

64.

Silva

P. J.

2006. Exploring the Psychology of Interest. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

65.

K. K. F.

King

Sparks

B. A.

Wang

2014. “The Role of Customer Engagement in Building Consumer Loyalty to Tourism Brands.” Journal of Travel Research. Published online July 7. doi:10.1177/0047287514541008

66.

Sweeney

Soutar

2001. “Consumer Perceived Value: The Development of a Multiple Item Scale.” Journal of Retailing 77 (2): 203–7.

67.

Sweeney

J. C.

Soutar

G. N.

Johnson

L. W.

1999. “The Role of Perceived Risk in the Quality-Value Relationship: A Study in a Retail Environment.” Journal of Retailing 75 (1): 77–105.

68.

Toffler

1980. The Third Wave. New York: Bantam Books.

69.

Troye

S. V.

Supphellen

2012. “Consumer Participation in Coproduction: I Made It Myself Effects on Consumers’ Sensory Perceptions and Evaluations of Outcome and Input Product.” Journal of Marketing 76 (2): 33–46.

70.

Tsaur

S.-H.

Yen

C.-H.

Hsiao

S.-L.

2013. “Transcendent Experience, Flow and Happiness for Mountain Climbers.” International Journal of Tourism Research 15:360–74.

71.

Van Birgelen

Dellaert

B. G. C.

de Ruyter

2012. “Communication Channel Consideration for In-Home Services. The Moderating Role of Customer Participation.” Journal of Service Management 23 (2): 216–52.

72.

Vargo

S. L.

Lusch

R. F.

2004. “Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing.” Journal of Marketing 68 (January): 1–27.

73.

Vargo

S. L.

Lusch

R. F.

2008. “Service Dominant Logic: Continuing the Evolution.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 36 (1): 1–10.

74.

Weber

2001. “Outdoor Adventure Tourism: A Review of Research Approaches.” Annals of Tourism Research 28 (2): 363–80.

75.

Williams

Soutar

G. N.

2009. “Value, Satisfaction and Behavioural Intentions in an Adventure Tourism Context.” Annals of Tourism Research 36 (3): 413–38.

76.

Woodruff

R. B.

1997. “Customer Value: The Next Source for Competitive Advantage.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 25 (2): 139–53.

77.

Woodruff

R. B.

Gardial

S. F.

1996. Know Your Customer: New Approaches to Understanding Customer Value and Satisfaction. Malden, MA: Blackwell Business.

78.

Zaichkowsky

J. L.

1985. “Measuring the Involvement Construct.” Journal of Consumer Research 12 (3): 341–52.

79.

Zeithaml

Valarie A.

1988. “Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality and Value: A Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence.” Journal of Marketing 52 (3): 2–22.

80.

Zeithaml

V. A.

Bolton

R. N.

Deighton

Keiningham

T. L.

Lemon

K. N.

Petersen

J. A.

2006. “Forward-Looking Focus: Can Firms Have Adaptive Foresight?” Journal of Service Research 9 (2): 168–83.

81.

Xie

Bagozzi

R. P.

Troye

S. V.

2008. “Trying to Prosume: Toward a Theory of Consumers as Co-creators of Value.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 36:109–22.