Transformative Service Research

Abstract

We must all work to make the world worthy of its children.

—Pablo Casals

As humans and consumers, we spend much of our time immersed in an array of services and service systems (e.g., telecommunications, education, financial, government, and health care) that affect almost every aspect of our lives. Our continuous connection with and usage of services and the implications they have for our lives go far beyond questions related to traditional service dependent measures such as service quality, customer satisfaction, and loyalty. Service fundamentally affects our lives and our well-being as individuals, employees, families, and communities. Given this, we are honored to be the guest coeditors for this special issue on transformative service research (TSR). First conceptualized by Anderson (2010), today we regard TSR as any research, regardless of academic discipline, that, at its core, investigates the relationship between service and well-being. More specifically, TSR represents research that focuses on creating “uplifting changes” aimed at improving the lives of individuals (both consumers and employees), families, communities, society, and the ecosystem more broadly (Anderson et al. 2013). What distinguishes TSR from other service work is often the outcomes under investigation. With TSR, indicators of both increasing and decreasing well-being take center stage. These metrics may focus on assessing aspects of well-being, such as physical health (objective and subjective perceptions), mental health (e.g., resilience, stress, and burnout), financial well-being, discrimination, marginalization, literacy, inclusion, access, capacity building, and decreased disparity among others (Anderson et al. 2013; Rosenbaum et al. 2011). Although the term “transformative service research” is relatively new, prior service, consumer, and marketing research has emphasized service and well-being. In a review we undertook to examine prior research that we considered TSR (see Ostrom, Mathras, and Anderson 2014), we identified eight TSR-related themes—cocreation, employee well-being, vulnerable consumers, social support, access, service literacy, service design, and service systems—highlighting the breadth of research that has investigated service and well-being. Since TSR was spotlighted as a research priority by Ostrom et al. (2010; i.e., “Improving Well-Being through Transformative Service”), there has been increased interest in the service community in undertaking research that examines the intersection of service and well-being. Research has attempted to better conceptualize the domain (e.g., Anderson et al. 2013; Rosenbaum et al. 2011) as well as tackle important service-related issues centered on well-being (e.g., how organization socialization can promote coproduction behaviors that influence financial well-being [Guo et al. 2013]; how systemic restricted choice related to financial services affects minority business owners [Bone, Christensen, and Williams 2014]; customer health-oriented cocreation practice styles [McColl-Kennedy et al. 2012]). In the most recent service research priority-setting effort completed by Ostrom et al. (2015), not only was “Improving Well-Being through Transformative Service” spotlighted again as a research priority based on input from 23 roundtable discussions conducted by 19 different service centers/networks located around the world, but, in a global survey of academic service researchers, it was ranked as the most important of the 12 identified priorities by the largest percentage of respondents.

Given the interest of the service research community, we hope that the emerging, interdisciplinary subfield of service, TSR, will lead to the investigation of important but understudied service contexts and issues and that it will be inclusive of diversity of discipline and method/approach as well as the unit of analysis, focusing not only on individuals but on collectives as well. In addition, we hope that the term “transformative service research” itself will make it easier to identify service research that makes contributions to our understanding of well-being. As we discuss subsequently, we want the impact of TSR to go beyond publications to measurable positive improvements in the lives of consumers. To advance these objectives, our goals for this special issue are to be a catalyst for continued momentum in the area, to further the conceptualization of the domain of TSR, and to provide new theoretical insights related to service and well-being that have the potential for positive impact. We were gratified by the response to the call for the special issue, not only the large number of submissions (n = 85) but also the diversity of the research submitted in terms of the nature of the well-being under investigation and the novelty of the insights identified.

We are also excited about the breadth of the 10 articles that are a part of this special issue. They are incredibly diverse in the service and well-being issues under investigation, the nature of consumers and their vulnerability, theoretical foundations, methods used, and unit of analysis. Table 1 spotlights the diversity of the research across these and other dimensions. The articles demonstrate both the broad tent that is the TSR arena and new conceptual development that can be gained by examining service through a TSR lens. Although some overlap exists, the articles focus on three broad and insightful themes that add substantially to the conceptual development of TSR: codestruction/negative service and its relationship to well-being, the role of collectives and social phenomena in affecting well-being, and, finally, how customers’ activities related to coproduction and cocreation affect their well-being.

Table 1.

Diversity of Research in the Special Issue.

Authors	Key Insights/Contributions	Well-Being Outcomes	Unit of Analysis	Conceptual Foundation	Method	Focal Population	Industry
Skålén, Aal, and Edvardsson	Identification of contention and codestruction between incumbents and challengers in service systems and transformation of service systems	Challengers developed replacement genre systems in face of removal of existence of services	Systems	Strategic action field	Netnography	Syrian activists	Politics/Government
Blocker and Barrios	A definition of transformative value based on structuration theory	Contestation and transformation of biases regarding homeless	Community	Structuration	Ethnography	Homeless and Community	Religion
Spanjol, Cui, Nakata, Sharp, Crawford, Xiao, and Watson-Manheim	Nested system of coproduction behaviors based on time and scope	Medication adherence	Individual	Coproduction: temporal and scope	Interviews	Chronically ill	Health care
Zayer, Otnes, and Fischer	An examination of consumers’ framing of service failure that is beyond the control of provider	Experiential framings of failure	Individual	Cultural models of goal pursuit and service failure	Interviews	Women/couples experiencing fertility issues	Health care
Sweeney, Danaher, and McColl-Kennedy	Introduce concept of customer effort in value cocreation activities and demonstrate its link to quality of life	Quality of life	Individual	Dynamic theory of action and ego depletion	Interviews, Rasch modeling, structural equation modeling	Chronically ill	Health care
Mirabito and Berry	Organizations’ use of social movement principles	Employee engagement in company wellness programs	Organization	Social movement theory	Interviews, focus groups, artifacts, and observations	Service employees	Multiple industries
Mende and van Doorn	Financial literacy, involvement, and attachment styles influence coproduction which affects objective and subjective financial well-being	Objective financial well-being (credit scores) and subjective financial well-being (financial stress)	Individual	Self-determination theory	Longitudinal survey research	In-debt consumers	Financial counseling
Yao, Zheng, and Fan	Impact of online support on stigmatized patients’ quality of life related to feelings of social exclusion	Quality of life	Individual	Social exclusion, social support	Survey	Stigmatized patients (hepatitis)	Health care
Winterich and Nenkov	Impact of open-mindedness (deliberative mind-set) on the effect of social information on saving behavior	Saving decisions	Individual	Deliberative mind-set and open-mindedness, social influence	Experiments	Consumers concerned with financial security	Financial services
Martin and Hill	Saving improves well-being more in high-poverty societies	A combined measure of overall happiness and life satisfaction	Individual with societal level moderator	Income smoothing in subsistence markets	Hierarchical linear modeling	BoP	Financial services

Note. BoP = base of the pyramid.

Theme 1: Destruction of Value and Negative Service

The focus on well-being issues in services also arises when harm has occurred through services—sometimes unknowingly, sometimes unintended, and sometimes intended. Because much of service research and theory is based on the cocreation of value, we have not focused as much on the destruction of value or negative service (for an exception, see Echeverri and Skålén 2011). Issues with regard to codestruction/negative service may arise because of various elements, including the consumer’s lack of desire to be in a position to need the service, the chronic nature of the consumer’s status or ill-being, power dynamics, prejudices, trade-off decisions regarding service design that may disadvantage one consumer group over another, marginalization, and/or stress. Three articles in this issue delve into this theme of codestruction/negative service in particular.

Skålén, Aal, and Edvardsson conduct amazing research in the context of the Arab Spring in Syria. Their focus is on contention within a strategic action field in which incumbent actors make existing service systems unavailable to challengers. The challengers’ creative transformation and creation of four service systems (the media, the social movement, health care, and the financial service systems) in response to this destruction and to better their position in the strategic field is examined. This research advances our understanding of contention and strife within service systems, destruction of service systems, triggers of and motivations for transformation of service systems, and the integration of resources and tools in the transformation of service systems. We also recognize the value of research in Syria, outside the usual cultural contexts appearing in most service research.

Spanjol, Cui, Nakata, Sharp, Crawford, Xiao, and Watson-Manheim illuminate extremely useful dimensions of prolonged, complex, and negative service contexts. They use medication adherence by chronically ill individuals as their specific context, illustrating that much of the prolonged coproduction occurs outside the service organization sphere and inside the consumer sphere. They especially contribute to TSR theory in their development of a novel framework of adherence as a “nested system of coproduction behaviors” (p. 284) with temporal and scope elements. This incorporation of the temporal element contributes to addressing a gap in service research in this area while specifically making the connection with well-being in prolonged service experiences.

Zayer, Otnes, and Fischer examine high-risk service contexts and the interesting aspect of service failure when, despite service providers’ best efforts and through no fault of the providers, consumers are unable to attain their goals. They use the context of infertility treatment services to investigate this type of service failure. Complementing recent research on how cultural models regarding service provider relationships influence consumers’ perceptions of and responses to service failure (Ringberg, Odekerken-Schröder, and Christensen 2007), this research examines how cultural models of goal pursuit inform consumers’ experiences of service failures. The authors develop a typology of four consumer experiential framings of failure (failure as a route to success, as a mobilizing frustration, as a cue to reevaluate, and as fated) across three dimensions (implicit cultural model related to goal pursuit, implicit cultural model of relationship with service provider, and consumers’ perceptions of appropriate responses to failure).

Theme 2: Social and Collective Levels Related to Service and Well-Being

Moving beyond the usual focus in service research on the (consumer-provider) dyad and responding to a call for additional research in this area (Anderson et al. 2013), the second novel theme of this issue revolves around social phenomena and, often, a collective as the unit of analysis. This social and collective level is a much-ignored area of service research that has considerable influence on well-being. Because humans are immersed in services and service systems, services operate as a social phenomenon. The sociocultural ecosystems that services and customers function within are a critical and underresearched area of well-being. Without incorporating this aspect, we possess only a partial picture of well-being.

Blocker and Barrios examine the collective level of community and focus on social transformation. Under the broad tent of TSR perspectives, they contribute to this theme by adopting a social perspective in their conceptualization of transformative value and defining transformative value as a “social dimension of value creation that illuminates uplifting changes among individuals and collectives in the marketplace” (p. 265). In particular, they view transformation as occurring when actors “make new, imaginative choices to challenge dominant” (p. 268) social patterns. Their research context of the Church Under the Bridge, a religious service that serves the homeless as well as nonvulnerable populations, provides a vivid example of the service design and service practices that have brought about transformative value creation within both the micro- and the macro-level social structure spheres.

Mirabito and Berry add to the breadth of this TSR issue with their attention to service employees. Adding an innovative approach to well-being, they find that the workplace wellness programs that are most effective in terms of employee engagement use the tenets of social movements: endorse firmly held beliefs to fashion an inspirational wellness ideology, use social capital to recruit participation, and construct the environment to signal the importance of and reduce challenges to healthful behaviors. Their research further incorporates four aspects of a social movement frame that provide the basis for the movement’s belief system and its plan for action: the grievance, the responsible party or adversary, the goal, and the solution.

Yao, Zheng, and Fan examine social exclusion of people—in this case, as a result of a chronic disease. Recognizing the strong connection of social support and well-being (see Cohen and Syme 1985), they examine a technological solution to this social exclusion: online peer-to-peer support. They find that the impact of this online support on stigmatized patients’ quality of life relates to their perceptions of how socially excluded they feel. Importantly, this research occurs in China, which provides a cultural perspective of services and social exclusion in a large and influential country often not the focus of published service research.

Winterich and Nenkov explore the role of informational social influence in affecting consumers’ decisions that impact their well-being. Focusing on the context of saving, they show that when consumers possess a deliberative mind-set, emphasizing the positive saving behavior of others can lead to increased consumer saving. Although prior work has shown that social information affects customer behavior in service settings (e.g., Goldstein, Cialdini, and Griskevicius 2008), through a series of experiments, Winterich and Nenkov demonstrate that “open-mindedness associated with the deliberative mind-set” enhances the influence of information concerning others’ high savings rates on consumers (p. 384). This research has implications for how service firms can provide information to customers in a way that may enhance consumer behavior that fosters well-being.

Theme 3: Consumer Activities (Coproduction and Cocreation) and Well-Being

There has been considerable interest in investigating customers’ roles and activities in service delivery and, more broadly, in their value creation—specifically, what drives these behaviors and their impact on consumers themselves, employees, and firms’ service outcomes (e.g., Chan, Yim, and Lam 2010; Dong et al. 2014; Gallan et al. 2013; Yim, Chan, and Lam 2012). Although research has focused on the drivers of coproduction and how effective coproducing customers benefit the firm, only a few studies have examined the effect of coproduction on customers’ (and employees’) well-being-oriented outcomes (e.g., financial well-being [Guo et al. 2013]; participation enjoyment [Yim, Chan, and Lam 2012]). Given the increasing coproduction role of customers and the centrality of consumers in value creation, there is still much to learn by exploring the nature of the activities and the role of consumers as part of value creation and cocreation activities and their impact on consumer well-being, the third theme of this special issue.

Building on the work of McColl-Kennedy et al. (2012) and others, Sweeney, Danaher, and McColl-Kennedy conceptualize a new construct, “effort in value cocreation activities” (EVCA), which they define as “the degree of effort that customers exert to integrate resources, through a range of activities of varying levels of perceived difficulty” (p. 318). As they hypothesize, an examination of health-related cocreation activities of those living with one or more of three chronic diseases (heart disease, diabetes, and cancer) finds that consumers undertake activities that require less effort more than more challenging activities that necessitate greater effort expenditure. They also demonstrate the relationship between EVCA and outcomes such as quality of life. Their research advances our understanding of how we might measure cocreation activities and the importance of viewing these activities “within the customer’s service network” (p. 318). As the authors conceptualize, this network goes beyond the focal service to include resources gained from other firms, individuals, and the consumer himself or herself.

Also focusing on the actions of consumers, this time in the context of financial counseling services, Mende and van Doorn examine the relationship between coproduction and well-being. More specifically, they examine the effectiveness of financial counseling services through a longitudinal investigation of the roles of consumer involvement, attachment styles, and financial literacy in influencing customer coproduction, credit scores, and financial stress. Using self-determination theory as the foundation for their conceptualization, they find not only that coproduction improves well-being (improves credit scores and decreases financial stress) but also that both objective and subjective financial literacy predict coproduction. Importantly, they find a negative interaction between customer involvement and literacy, such that greater customer involvement removes coproduction differences between those high and low in financial literacy. Their research adds to our understanding of the drivers of coproduction and coproduction’s impact on well-being but also underscores our need to better understand the implications of differing levels of service literacy of customers who are expected to coproduce services.

A context that deserves additional focus by service researchers is the base of the pyramid (BoP), which constitutes the approximately two-thirds of the world’s population that live on less than US$9 per day (Arnold and Valentin 2013). Although a substantial body of research has focused on BoP issues (for a review, see Kolk, Rivera-Santos, and Ruffin 2014), there remains much to be studied in BoP service research (Fisk et al. forthcoming; Ostrom et al. 2015; for a service research agenda related to BoP, see Gebauer and Reynoso 2013). Contributing to this area, Martin and Hill investigate the relationship between saving and well-being using data that span 38 countries and 50,000 consumers. While, as expected, they find that well-being decreases as societal poverty increases, interestingly, they show that it is in societies characterized by higher levels of poverty where saving most greatly enhances well-being. This work highlights the role of consumer activities around the topic of saving but also provides a discussion of the implications for the development of financial services at the BoP.

Going Forward

Editing this special issue, as well as our TSR journey and experiences through doctoral seminars at multiple universities, service center meetings around the world, special sessions, tracks at dialogical conferences, work on service research priorities, research collaborations, and other discussions, have made evident areas in which further research is warranted for the development of theory, knowledge, and impact related to well-being and service. We now briefly mention a few of these issues:

One notable need is for additional research focused on poverty contexts, especially the BoP (Fisk et al. forthcoming; Gebauer and Reynoso 2013). This area is important not only because of these consumers’ vulnerability and the sheer size of the population but also because it is likely that services and service systems have an even greater impact on poor consumers’ well-being than on those with more resources and alternatives.

Today’s technological-oriented world spotlights additional key issues worthy of greater TSR, including privacy and the effect of monitoring. With the advent of the Internet, electronic information, and sensors, some basic services (e.g., medical and financial services) may expose consumers to risks related to privacy that could negatively affect their well-being. Further research could examine the relationships among service, privacy, and well-being. Technology has also enabled continuous health and behavior monitoring. There is much to be learned about the potential positive and/or negative well-being-oriented effects of monitoring (Tian et al. 2014).

Although research has examined potential drivers of stress experienced by service employees (e.g., Chan, Yim, and Lam 2010), there is more to learn about how services can influence stress experienced by customers. We can look at services from two sides of the same coin with regard to consumer stress. On the one hand, consuming certain services may be stressful because of the very reason they are being consumed (medical or legal services). Even some services that we do not immediately recognize as stressful may be so because of complexity, processes, and the expectations, judgments, and experiences of the consumer and others in the service ecosystem. On the other hand, some services are specifically meant to ameliorate or repair the wear and tear of stress (e.g., disaster, education, and medical services). Stress affects emotional, mental, and physical well-being. Research is clear that stress takes a physical toll (Thoits 2010), but it may also be embodied (Krieger 2005) such that it has a negative impact on the next generation’s well-being (see Bierer et al. 2014; Yehuda et al. 2014). The issue of stress in service well-being research raises questions about consumer coping methods, emotional, and stress contagion (see Christakis and Fowler 2013), strategies that reduce stress, the toll of stress, and developmental and situational crises (e.g., Aguilera 1998).

Our call for papers for this special issue emphasized the importance we place on interdisciplinary research. We continue to believe that the most profound and impactful findings often come from interdisciplinary research. To be able to evaluate a well-being problem from many different angles rather than through a narrow disciplinary scope illuminates many more interrelationships and possible solutions. Spanjol et al.’s research in this issue (whose team included marketing and health science researchers) provides a model for this effort. We discern great opportunities to expand this interdisciplinarity with academics and practitioners from service practice fields such as medicine, nursing, pharmacy, education, law, and government, as well as some untapped disciplines that can provide important additions and contributions to TSR, including evolutionary biology (especially as we delve into more collective levels of analysis), neurological science, dynamic systems modeling, nanotechnology, and bioethics. The biological sciences in particular are active in and have expressed concern with the social and cultural impact of their technology. For example, Arizona State University’s Center for Nanotechnology in Society is based on a focus that emphasizes “linking science and technology to social needs” (https://cns.asu.edu/).

We conclude with a plea. Part of what drew us to the field of TSR was the transformative element—the opportunity to have an impact on well-being. The question is how we do that. We see three different types of efforts at impact that provide inspiration and models: dissemination, activation, and action. We discuss exemplars of each of these types of effort subsequently, though there are many other impressive efforts that we are not able to include.

Transformative consumer research has called for dissemination of research results for several years (see Mick et al. 2012); however, in service research, we have such an advantage with regard to dissemination! Often our research takes place in the trenches—with service consumers, with service providers, and with service organizations. We have eager ears in organizations that are calling for TSR (Ostrom et al. 2010). Many opportunities and structures for dissemination exist: organizations that seek out our research, service centers with active service organization members and networks of service practitioners and academics, and numerous websites (e.g., TSR Facebook page and service centers). We need to make better use of these to convey the results of our research to those who can implement them.

In the realm of activating and energizing researchers to accomplish impact, we admire the bold call to action of Fisk and colleagues whose mission inspires and energizes. In their article, they provide “A Vision for the Service Research Community: A Dream with a Deadline” that articulates the following goal: “By 2020, to help improve the lives of the world’s impoverished people in an unrelenting, collaborative, and caring effort by applying our resources (intellectual, financial, and time), social networks … , and professional infrastructures … and become a role model for how an academic research community can make a difference in the world” (Fisk et al. forthcoming). We encourage such bold moves by others and look to this group to demonstrate the implementation of such calls to action.

Most inspiring are impact efforts that take actual action, that walk the talk. We see inspiring opportunities to have an impact through action in three ways: collaborating with consumers and communities, working within the structure of existing organizations and agencies, and developing new initiatives and projects.

Researchers can collaborate with consumers in several ways. In particular, we find two current examples of this and expect more. The first is community action research (e.g., Ozanne and Anderson 2010), which is designed and carried out in collaboration with consumers and communities. The goal is to accomplish well-being actions originating from the community. The second is service design thinking, which also emphasizes understanding the consumer/user, envisioning new service experiences, and prototyping them. Recently, service design has made a valuable addition with its emphasis, beyond the individual consumer experience, on multilevel service systems (Patrício et al. 2011). Collaborative research gains buy in, an accuracy check on cultural and sociological perspectives, a more holistic view, and a greater likelihood that the solutions will be implemented and have an impact.

There are encouraging examples of researchers’ work with existing organizations and agencies, both public and private, which have had well-being impacts. The benefit of working with existing organizations is that they have structures in place and resources to implement transformative changes.

Existing agencies including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, the National Cancer Institute, and the National Endowment for Financial Education supported Punam Keller’s work on consumer communication programs about services and well-being (Keller and Lusardi 2012). The U.S. National Science Foundation has a service initiative on human-centered research and smart service systems and expects other forthcoming efforts in the service science area. At the Service Research Center at Karlstad University, the livable cities, ecology, and public transit work of Margareta Friman and colleagues with the Service and Market Oriented Transport Research Group and the work of Kristensson and Wastlund (2015) on green purchases in grocery retail provide examples of working with public and private organizations in order to accomplish a well-being impact.

We are most impressed to find new initiatives and projects that walk the talk regarding impact. These activities serve as models for others and opportunities for involvement. Madhu Viswanathan at the University of Illinois directs the Marketplace Literacy Project, which delivers education to low-income consumers and subsistence marketplaces. Heiko Gebauer leads a group on Business Innovation for Sustainable Infrastructure Services at the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Research. His research aims to develop sustainable infrastructure services that concentrate on market-based approaches for water, sanitation, and energy services. We encourage TSR researchers to give thoughtful and creative consideration to how they might ensure that their work has impact.

We feel so fortunate as coeditors of this special issue not only to work in an area that we are passionate about and believe can have such an impact but also to see the area grow so rapidly and resonate with so many. We thank Kay Lemon, former editor of Journal of Service Research, for this opportunity and mentoring. We also thank Arizona State University’s Center for Services Leadership for sponsoring the best paper awards for this special issue. We are excited to discover what the future holds for transformative service research!

References

Aguilera

Donna C.

(1998), Crisis Intervention: Theory and Methodology, 8th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Mosby.

Anderson

Laurel

Ostrom

Amy L.

Corus

Canan

Fisk

Raymond P.

Gallan

Andrew S.

Giraldo

Mario

Mende

Martin

Mulder

Mark

Rayburn

Steven W.

Rosenbaum

Mark S.

Shirahada

Kunio

Williams

Jerome D.

(2013), “Transformative Service Research: An Agenda for the Future,” Journal of Business Research, 66 (8), 1203–1210.

Anderson

Laurel

(2010), “Improving Well-Being through Transformative Service,” in “Moving Forward and Making a Difference: Research Priorities for the Science of Service,” by Ostrom

Amy L.

Bitner

Mary Jo

Brown

Stephen W.

Burkhard

Kevin A.

Goul

Michael

Smith-Daniels

Vicki

Demirkan

Haluk

Rabinovich

Elliott

, Journal of Service Research, 13 (1), 4–36.

Arnold

Denis G.

Valentin

Andres

(2013), “Corporate Social Responsibility at the Base of the Pyramid,” Journal of Business Research, 66 (10), 1904–1914.

Bierer

Linda M.

Bader

Heather N.

Daskalakis

Nikolaos P.

Lehrner

Amy L.

Makotkine

Iouri

Seckl

Jonathan R.

Yehuda

Rachel

(2014), “Elevation of 11β-Hydroxysteroid Dehydrogenase Type 2 Activity in Holocaust Survivor Offspring: Evidence for an Intergenerational Effect of Maternal Trauma Exposure,” Psychoneuroendocrinology, 48 (October), 1–10.

Bone

Sterling A.

Christensen

Glenn L.

Williams

Jerome D.

(2014), “Rejected, Shackled, and Alone: The Impact of Systemic Restricted Choice on Minority Consumers’ Construction of Self,” Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (2), 451–74.

Chan

Kimmy Wa

Yim

Chi Kin (Bennett)

Lam

Simon S. K.

(2010), “Is Customer Participation in Value Creation a Double-Edged Sword? Evidence from Professional Financial Services across Cultures,” Journal of Marketing, 74 (May), 48–64.

Christakis

Nicholas A.

Fowler

James H.

(2013), “Social Contagion Theory: Examining Dynamic Social Networks and Human Behavior,” Statistics in Medicine, 32 (4), 556–77.

Cohen

Sheldon

Leonard Syme

(1985), Social Support and Health, San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

10.

Dong

Beibei

Sivakumar

Evans

Kenneth R.

Zou

Shaoming

(2014), “Effect of Customer Participation on Service Outcomes: The Moderating Role of Participation Readiness,” Journal of Service Research, 18 (2), 160–176.

11.

Echeverri

Per

Skålén

Per

(2011), “Co-Creation and Co-Destruction: A Practice-Theory Based Study of Interactive Value Formation,” Marketing Theory, 11 (3), 351–373.

12.

Fisk

Raymond P.

Anderson

Laurel

Bowen

David E.

Gruber

Thorsten

Ostrom

Amy L.

Patrício

Lia

Reynoso

Javier

Sebastiani

Roberta

(forthcoming), “Billions of Impoverished Deserve to be Better Served: A Call to Action for the Service Research Community,” Journal of Service Management.

13.

Gallan

Andrew S.

Jarvis

Cheryl Burke

Brown

Stephen W.

Bitner

Mary Jo

(2013), “Customer Positivity and Participation in Services: An Empirical Test in a Health Care Context,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41 (3), 338–356.

14.

Gebauer

Heiko

Reynoso

Javier

(2013), “An Agenda for Service Research at the Base of the Pyramid (BoP),” Journal of Service Management, 24 (5), 482–502.

15.

Goldstein

Noah J.

Cialdini

Robert B.

Griskevicius

Vladas

(2008), “A Room with a Viewpoint: Using Social Norms to Motivate Environmental Conservation in Hotels,” Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (3), 472–482.

16.

Guo

Lin

Arnould

Eric J.

Gruen

Thomas W.

Tang

Chuanyi

(2013), “Socializing to Co-Produce: Pathways to Consumers’ Financial Well-Being,” Journal of Service Research, 16 (4), 549–563.

17.

Keller

Punam Anand

Lusardi

Annamaria

(2012), “Employee Retirement Savings: What We Know and Are Discovering for Helping People Prepare for Life After Work,” in Transformative Consumer Research: For Personal and Collective Well-Being, Mick

David Glen

Pettigrew

Simone

Pechmann

Cornelia

Ozanne

Julie L.

, eds. New York: Routledge, 445–464.

18.

Kolk

Ans

Rivera-Santos

Miguel

Ruffin

Carlos

(2014), “Reviewing a Decade of Research on the ‘Base/Bottom of the Pyramid’ (BOP) Concept,” Business & Society, 53 (3), 338–377.

19.

Krieger

Nancy

(2005), “Embodiment: A Conceptual Glossary for Epidemiology,” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 59 (5), 350–355.

20.

Kristensson

Per

Wastlund

Erik

(2015), “Influencing Consumers to Choose Environment Friendly Offerings: Evidence from Field Experiments,” working paper, Karlstad University, Karlstad, Sweden.

21.

McColl-Kennedy

Janet R.

Vargo

Stephen L.

Dagger

Tracey S.

Sweeney

Jillian C.

Kasteren

Yasmin van

(2012), “Health Care Customer Value Cocreation Practice Styles,” Journal of Service Research, 15 (4), 370–389.

22.

Mick

David Glenn

Pettigrew

Simone

Pechmann

Cornelia

Ozanne

Julie L.

(2012), “Origins, Qualities, and Envisionments of Transformative Consumer Research,” in Transformative Consumer Research: For Personal and Collective Well-Being, Mick

David Glen

Pettigrew

Simone

Pechmann

Cornelia

Ozanne

Julie L.

, eds. New York: Routledge, 3–24.

23.

Ostrom

Amy L.

Parasuraman

Bowen

David E.

Patricio

Lia

Voss

Christopher A.

(2015), “Service Research Priorities in a Rapidly Changing Context,” Journal of Service Research, 18 (2), 127–159.

24.

Ostrom

Amy L.

Mathras

Daniele

Anderson

Laurel

(2014), “Transformative Service Research: An Emerging Subfield Focused on Service and Well-Being,” in Handbook of Service Marketing Research, Rust

Roland

Huang

Ming-Hui

, eds. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, 557–579.

25.

Ozanne

Julie L.

Anderson

Laurel

(2010), “Community Action Research,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 29 (1), 123–137.

26.

Patrício

Lia

Fisk

Raymond P.

Cunha

João Falcão e

Constantine

Larry

(2011), “Multilevel Service Design: From Customer Value Constellation to Service Experience Blueprint,” Journal of Service Research, 14 (2), 180–200.

27.

Ringberg

Torsten

Odekerken-Schröder

Gaby

Christensen

Glenn L.

(2007), “A Cultural Models Approach to Service Recovery,” Journal of Marketing, 71 (July), 194–214.

28.

Rosenbaum

Mark S.

Corus

Canan

Ostrom

Amy L.

Anderson

Laurel

Fisk

Raymond P.

Gallan

Andrew S.

Giraldo

Mario

Mende

Martin

Mulder

Mark

Rayburn

Steven W.

Shirahada

Kunio

Williams

Jerome D.

(2011), “Conceptualization and Aspirations of Transformative Service Research,” Journal of Research for Consumers, 19, 1–6. [Available at http://jrconsumers.com/academic_articles/issue_19/Transformative_services_academic5.pdf, Access date: 6/4/2015].

29.

Thoits

Peggy A.

(2010), “Stress and Health: Major Findings and Policy Implications,” Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 51 (S), S41–S53.

30.

Tian

Kelly

Sautter

Pookie

Fisher

Derek

Fischbach

Sarah

Luna-Nevarez

Cuauhtemoc

Boberg

Kevin

Kroger

Jim

Vann

Richard

(2014), “Transforming Health Care: Empowering Therapeutic Communities through Technology-Enhanced Narratives,” Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (2), 237–260.

31.

Yehuda

Rachel

Daskalakis

Nikolaos P.

Lehrner

Amy

Desarnaud

Frank

Bader

Heather N.

Makotkine

Iouri

Flory

Janine D.

Bierer

Linda M.

Meaney

Michael J.

(2014), “Influences of Maternal and Paternal PTSD on Epigenetic Regulation of the Glucocorticoid Receptor Gene in Holocaust Survivor Offspring,” American Journal of Psychiatry, 171 (8), 872–880.

32.

Yim

Chi Kin (Bennett)

Chan

Kimmy Wa

Lam

Simon S. K.

(2012), “Do Customers and Employees Enjoy Service Participation? Synergistic Effects of Self- and Other-Efficacy,” Journal of Marketing, 76 (November), 121–140.