Anda di halaman 1dari 35



JHTXXX10.1177/1096348015597034Journal of Hospitality & Tourism ResearchMorosan / COCREATING VALUES USING MOBILE DEVICES

An Empirical Analysis of
Intentions to Cocreate Value in
Hotels Using Mobile Devices
Cristian Morosan
University of Houston
Value cocreation represents a critical element of the service-dominant logic paradigm,
which is currently becoming increasingly important in hospitality. A number of recent
studies are pointing to the criticality of examining the value cocreation mechanisms
in hotels. While value can be cocreated using a variety of methods, mobile commerce
offers unique opportunities to lay the foundation of value cocreation in hotels, which
can bring substantial benefits for all stakeholders of this process. To understand the
how hotel guests develop intentions to cocreate value in hotels using their mobile
devices, a conceptual model was developed and validated empirically based on data
from U.S. hotel guests. Guests perceptions of personalization, trust in the hotel, and
their personal innovativeness were found to influence their degree of involvement with
mobile devices in hotels, which are instrumental in the development of intentions to
engage in specific cocreation behaviors.
Keywords: service-dominant logic; value cocreation; mobile-commerce; hotels

Mobile technology and its associated business ecosystemgenerically called

mobile (m-) commercehave seen remarkable growth in the hotel industry
(Bilgihan, Okumus, Nusair, & Kwun, 2011). Characterized by ubiquity, personalization, portability, and convenience (Wang & Wang, 2010), m-commerce can
uniquely and comprehensively mediate the consumerfirm experience, and,
thus, can extend the traditional consumerfirm interactions to spheres that are
not feasibly replicable outside m-commerce. Such rich interactions represent the
fundamental building blocks of value creation in service settings (Vargo &
Lusch, 2008), according to the mechanisms defined by the service-dominant
logic (SDL) paradigm (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). The SDL paradigm purports that consumers and firms are always cocreators of value, as they can be
involved in a process of continuous innovation and learning (Gouillart, 2014).
Accordingly, within the SDL, value is defined as value-in-use, and is created by
Authors Note: The author gratefully acknowledges insightful comments and suggestions in the
development of this article from Dr. Agnes DeFranco and Frank Wolfe. This research has been
conducted with the support of Hospitality Financial and Technology Professionals (HFTP).
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 201X, Vol. XX, No. X, Month 2015, 135
DOI: 10.1177/1096348015597034
2015 International Council on Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Education
Downloaded from at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 12, 2015


users while using resources, processes, and outcomes (Grnroos & Voima,
2013). In turn, value cocreation represents the activities of all stakeholders
resulting in value, given that some actions contribute independently to value
creation while others reflect the actions of stakeholders jointly creating value for
one or more stakeholders (Grnroos, 2012).
Since the pioneering work of Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004) and Vargo
and Lusch (2004) challenged the orthodoxy of the marketing thought (Ballantyne
& Varey, 2008), the academic literature on SDL and value cocreation followed a
continuous evolutionary path (Yi & Gong, 2013), paralleling the development of
industrial cocreative practices (e.g., Disney, Microsoft, Aloft; Durugbo & Pawar,
2014). Such abundant research underscores the significance of cocreation to the
management and marketing of services in various areas, such as retail (Fujioka,
2009), health (Gill, White, & Cameron, 2011), or transportation (Gebauer,
Johnson, & Enquist, 2010). Most research crystalized into one of the three distinct but complementary themes, which, taken together, offer a comprehensive
perspective on cocreation.
First, there is a substantial stream of research theorizing the core mechanisms
and environments that make cocreation possible. Specifically, research in this
stream focuses on the holistic context of cocreation, as it is facilitated by interactions, dialogue (Prahalad & Ramawamy, 2004; Tynan, McKechnie, & Chhuon,
2010), governance mechanisms (Zwass, 2010; Zwick, Bonsu, & Darmody,
2008), processes (Gebauer etal., 2010; Payne, Storbacka, & Frow, 2008), and
innovative management techniques (Fujioka, 2009; Lusch & Nambisan, 2015)
that give stakeholders access to resources (Andreu, Snchez, & Mele, 2010).
Most notably, within this stream, recent work emphasizes the role of information
technology (IT) in facilitating the interactions leading to cocreation (Durugbo &
Pawar, 2014; Ind & Coates, 2013).
Second, there is a growing research stream focusing on the outcomes of
cocreation, beyond the established ability of firms to develop competitive
advantages (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). Specifically, cocreation was found
to influence consumers service evaluations (Heidenreich, Wittkowski, Handrich,
& Falk, 2014), satisfaction (Ranjan & Read, 2014), attitudes (Navarro, Andreu,
& Cervera, 2014), and intentions to purchase (Payne etal., 2008) and repurchase
(Dong, Evans, & Zou, 2008). Accordingly, cocreation positively affects not only
firms (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004) and consumers (Ranjan & Read, 2014)
but also a variety of other stakeholders (Oliveira & Panyik, 2015).
The third, and arguably the most critical theme (Durugbo & Pawar, 2014)
aims to elucidate the antecedents of cocreation. While the literature examined
mostly service settings (Ranjan & Read, 2014), scholars have illustrated how
cocreation is influenced by certain consumer typologies (Fuller, Matzler, Hutter,
& Hautz, 2012), perceptions of persuasive marketing communications (Gebauer
etal., 2010), and collaborative/design efforts or self-service (Prahalad, 2004).
Such antecedents were studied from a variety of perspectives, typically by developing and sometimes empirically validating conceptual models that integrate
Downloaded from at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 12, 2015


evaluative artifacts of service encounters (e.g., value in use, coproduction; Ranjan

& Read, 2014), assessments of benefits (Lorenzo-Romero, Constantinides, &
Brunink, 2014), and supply-chain artifacts (Chakraborty & Dobrzykowski,
2014). Although recognized as a useful business philosophy (FitzPatrick, Davey,
Muller, & Davey, 2013; Lugosi, 2014; Prebensen, Vitters, & Dahl, 2013;
Schmidt-Rauch & Schwabe, 2014), the cocreation literature in tourism and hospitality is mostly conceptual (Chathoth, Altinay, Harrington, Okumus, & Chan,
2013; Neuhofer, Buhalis, & Ladkin, 2014). Except for a few empirical efforts
(e.g., Grissemann & Stockburger-Sauer, 2012), there is limited insight into
the antecedents of cocreation, and virtually no insight into the m-commerce
processes leading to cocreation in hotels.
Reviewing this vast body of knowledge uncovered three important lacunae.
First, there is a major lack of empirical research, especially in examining the
antecedents of cocreation in highly experiential settings such as hotels. Most
research found it difficult to conceptualize and operationalize such antecedents
within the envelope of empirical research, to date leaving some of the proposed
theoretical processes unconfirmed (Terblanche, 2014). In this context, an
increasing number of scholars (e.g., Cabiddu, Lui, & Piccoli, 2013; Fller etal.,
2012; Grissemann & Stokburger-Sauer, 2012; Hoyer, Chandy, Dorotic, Krafft,
& Singh, 2010; Yi & Gong, 2013) called for more empirical research that examines the drivers and behavior of individual consumers leading to cocreation.
Second, while research is flourishing in size and scope (Chathoth etal., 2013;
Navarro etal., 2014; Park & Allen, 2013), the domain-specific perspectives integrated within this body of knowledge make the theoretical foundations of cocreation become ambiguous (Ranjan & Read, 2014). There is an acute lack of
research clarifying the roles of specific consumers characteristics and their
perceptions of firm attributes that influence cocreation.
Third, while the importance of IT is emphasized in the cocreation process
(Cabiddu etal., 2013), there is little research that explicates how technologymediated environments facilitate cocreation, especially when technology blends
within highly experiential face-to-face interactive service settings, as is the case
of m-commerce in hotels. Yet the cocreation paradigm seems to be well aligned
with the current hotel m-commerce ecosystem, as it uniquely facilitates rich
interactions that represent the locus of value cocreation (Grnroos, 2012). Such
interactions are especially critical to value cocreation during the actual hotel stay,
when m-commerce facilitates the dialog, access, transparency, and risk-reward
evaluations necessary for cocreation better than in other stages of the hotel consumption experience. While there are several studies addressing the role of IT in
cocreation (e.g., Handrich & Heidenreich, 2013), there is no research elucidating
how the m-commerce environment facilitates value cocreation.
Addressing these critical lacunae, and grounded in the well-established thesis
that consumer participation is crucial to cocreation (Fuller, Hutter, & Faullant,
2011; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004), which in turn is highly beneficial to consumers and firms, this study draws from the vast cocreation and information
Downloaded from at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 12, 2015


systems (IS) literature in order to answer the primordial question: How do consumers develop cocreation intentions in m-commerce in hotels? To this end,
this study validated a conceptual model that explicates consumers cocreation
intentions in the context of m-commerce in hotels based on several antecedents.
This study followed two specific objectives: (1) examine the role of consumer
involvement as a central element of cocreation and (2) understand the roles of
the antecedents of involvement such as perceived security, trust, perceived personalization, personal innovativeness, and need for interaction in shaping
consumers involvement in using mobile devices to cocreate value.
Review of Literature
Review of Key Concepts

Service-Dominant Logic. The traditional service models are characterized by

a major weakness: Consumers become directly involved in the service only after
the completion of the service design process, which was accomplished without
consumer input or knowledge of their purchasing patterns (Grnroos & Voima,
2013). In contrast, the newer service models that are based on the SDL encourage
consumers to become actively involved in defining, customizing, and interacting
with the consumption experiences according to their own terms, as they create
value for themselves, firms (Chathoth etal., 2013) and others (Fyrberg Yngfalk,
2013). In the hotel industry, the m-commerce service ecosystem distinguishes
itself from e-commerce (desktop computer based) and traditional commerce by
a series of features, such as portability, ubiquity, and personalization (Chong,
Chan, & Ooi, 2012). Taken together, such features reflect underlying mechanisms that uniquely support value creation. As SDL was able to explain value
creation grounded in such unique mechanisms, it became the leading approach to
study value creation in the marketing theory (Fyrberg Yngfalk, 2013).
Despite the increasing popularity of the SDL, some of its fundamental tenets
have recently been challenged, in an effort to rethink the theory and provide an
augmented theoretical base that would lend itself to simpler operationalization
(Vargo, Maglio, & Akaka, 2008). For example, how firmconsumer interactions
predict cocreation remains unknown (Grnroos, 2011). This is attributable to the
traditional SDL view, according to which participants to interactions (e.g., firms,
consumers, other stakeholders) have convergent goals, thus they coexist in harmony (Echeverri & Skln, 2011). Yet the harmonious coexistence view was
criticized, as it allows certain sociocultural competencies and evolving interests
to remain concealed, thus rendering an incomplete depiction of the process by
which interactions lead to cocreation (Fyrberg Yngfalk, 2013). Another implicit
tenet of the SDL was that participants interactions are uniform (Echeverri &
Skln, 2011). This tenet was also challenged recently, as interaction uniformity
precludes from understanding a rather valenced value that can result from using,
but also possibly misusing resources during cocreation (Fyrberg Yngfalk, 2013).
Yet while addressing the challenges discussed above provide a fertile ground for
Downloaded from at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 12, 2015


the exploration of the fundamental factors leading to cocreation, to date most

research has focused holistically on the soundness of the SDL theory, without a
systematic effort to understand the explicit antecedents of cocreation.
Value Creation. Regarded as the core concepts in the SDL, value and its
creation were given particular attention during the past two decades, during which two key advancements were noted. First, several authors called for
properly defining value and value creation. Thus, despite the conceptual clutter
caused by various individual perspectives taken to define value (e.g., benefits
vs. costs; Zeithaml, 1988), recent conceptualizations within the context of the
SDL approached it from a more holistic and experiential perspective, anchoring value in consumers evaluations of their experiences (Helkkula, Kelleher,
& Pihlstrm, 2012), especially when such experiences involve monetary gains
resulting from the mutual effort of business partners (Grnroos & Helle, 2010).
Accordingly, in hotels, going beyond the traditional benefitcost perception of
value, consumers are likely to form perceptions of value-in-use by assessing
the fit between various components of the holistic hotel stay experience (e.g.,
room atmospherics, foodservice options, ancillary service choices), which can
be mediated by the use of their mobile devices and the overall m-commerce ecosystem (Strandvik, Holmlund, & Edvardsson, 2012). Such perceptions of value
represent direct consequences of consumers ability to access, deploy, and integrate resources (Moran & Goshal, 1999) within a consumption environment that
allows for a comprehensive understanding of the interplay between consumers
needs, roles, resources, and ecosystems (Grnroos & Voima, 2013).
Second, while initially characterized by academic dissent, a principal thesis
gained substantial support: that true value creation involves the juxtaposition of
the provider and consumer value creation spheres, leading to the development of
a joint value sphere, remained central (Grnroos & Voima, 2013). This sphere
facilitates joint value creation by consumers inviting providers to interact, and
thus assuming both coproducer and value creator roles (Grnroos & Ravald,
2011), which are dialogical at their core. Moreover, some of the fundamental
premises of the SDL have also been modified to recognize that (1) the firms role
moves beyond the provider of an initial value proposition and (2) value is accumulating throughout the value-creation process. Accordingly, the symbiotic relationship between the general hotel consumption environment and the m-commerce
ecosystem creates an environment that could be attractive to consumers (e.g.,
trustworthy, secure, facilitating personalization), which allows for the two spheres
to converge toward the joint sphere, in which value is uniquely and fundamentally cocreated and accumulated as a result of interactions via m-commerce.
Cocreation. Cocreation is predicated on multisided interactions, founded on
four distinct but interrelated elements: dialog, access, risk-benefits, and transparency (DART; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). First, dialog involves deep
engagement and willingness to act by both parties (Prahalad & Ramaswamy,
Downloaded from at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 12, 2015


2004), which are founded on mutual trust and a willingness to share risk (Terblanche, 2014). The hotel m-commerce ecosystem seamlessly facilitates broad
and deep dialog, as it is uniquely positioned to develop faster, more accurate, comprehensive, and personalized guesthotel information flows. Second, guesthotel
interactions are predicated on guests access to new tools facilitating such interactions (Ramaswamy, 2008). m-Commerce provides tools that offer guests unprecedented levels of access that could lead to a complex set of interactions. For
example, many hotels are moving from providing asynchronous (differential network parameters between download and upload tasks) to synchronous (similar
parameters for both download and upload tasks), thus reducing guests frustrations related to uploading digital content online (e.g., self-made videos uploaded
by guests on social networking websites while staying in hotels; Phillips, 2014).
The third constitutive dimension of interactions is represented by the risk
reward dyads, reflecting the extent to which the participants in cocreation are in
position to assess the riskreward associated with their interactions. A guesthotel
interaction characterized by dialog, access, and transparency should allow both
parties to be in a better position to evaluate the risks and rewards of interacting
(Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). Finally, the interactions between guests and
hotels must be characterized by transparency (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004), as
it enhances the partnerships that are necessary to value cocreation by reflecting the
extent to which participants in cocreation exhibit mutual trust (Chakraborty &
Dobrzykowski, 2014). In hotels, m-commerce can facilitate transparency better
than any other commercial context. For example, mobile devices can provide preference and consumption information to the hotel at the level of the individual
guest, in contrast to the most common method used currently of collecting such
information at the traveling party or room level. Such rich information can be
more valuable to hotels and guests. Recently, several notable hotel IT vendors,
such as Lodging Interactive, Maestro, and ZDirect developed solutions gravitating
around the transparency dimension of guesthotel interactions via mobile devices.
While cocreation reflects the nature of contemporary consumerfirm interactions in hotels via the m-commerce ecosystem, it becomes imperative to understand how consumers adopt their active cocreative roles and act toward creating
value together with the firm (Kohler, Fueller, Matzler, & Stieger, 2011). Such
cocreative roles are characterized by elements like participation, interactions,
and self-service, and span from production to fulfillment and consumption
(Kristensson, Matthing, & Johansson, 2008), which together offer a comprehensive view of the process by which value originates, evolves, and is appropriated.
Moreover, cocreation is useful in illustrating how various actors behaviors are
linked to the actors innate social structures (Lusch & Vargo, 2006). Cocreation,
therefore, constitutes the most appropriate overarching conceptual lens, through
which the consumerfirm interactions facilitated by the m-commerce ecosystem
leading to a superior value proposition in hotels can be uniquely conceptualized
and analyzed (Ranjan & Read, 2014).

Downloaded from at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 12, 2015


Research Hypotheses Development

The conceptual underpinnings of the cocreation literature in mainstream business (Grnroos, 2012, Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Vargo & Lusch, 2004, 2008)
and travel/hospitality (Chathoth etal., 2013; Grissemann & Stokburger-Sauer,
2012; Prebensen, Vitters, & Dahl, 2013) constituted the main theoretical foundation for this studys conceptual model. However, apart from the four original
DART dimensions of interactions of Prahalad and Ramaswamys (2004) conceptualization, the SDL literature does not include truly native conceptual or operational artifacts or point to a unique set of antecedents of cocreation. Unfortunately,
the existing dimensions cannot be automatically applied to specific research contexts, as they do not capture the full mechanisms of cocreation within those specific contexts (Yi & Gong, 2013). This shortcoming is attributable to the inherent
difficulty of scholars to converge toward unified conceptual definitions of the
main SDL constructs (Grnroos & Voima, 2013) and the challenges associated
with developing sound operationalizations of such constructs (Grnroos, 2012),
which resulted in scarce empirical research in SDL (Payne etal., 2008).
Although authors considered different antecedents of cocreation (e.g., consumer coping in Prebensen & Foss, 2011; macro-environmental, consumer-,
product-, and situationally linked conditions in Etgar, 2008; empowerment,
enjoyment, and trust in Fuller, Muhlbacher, Matzler, & Jawecki, 2009; peer feedback and firm responsiveness in L. Chen, Marsden, & Zhang, 2012) in their conceptual and empirical work, the extant literature does still not provide a set of
unequivocal antecedents that are capable of predicting cocreation of value, but
rather a disparate list of antecedents that are assumed but rarely empirically validated as influencing cocreation within their respective industrial and task contexts. Yet to be able to capture the main cocreation mechanisms in those specific
contexts, native constructs needed to be adapted to other contexts in which cocreation was examined. For example, Grissemann and Stockburger-Sauer (2012)
conceptualized cocreation within the context of tourism by using constructs that
are innate to tourism marketing, such as satisfaction with a company, loyalty, and
customer service expenditures. Similarly, Lorenzo-Romero etal. (2014) studied
value cocreation using IS-related benefits to predict consumers attitudes toward
cocreation, while Olsen and Mai (2013) built their conceptualization of cocreation from a foundation of consumer psychology constructs.
Following a similar approach, as this study conceptualized value cocreation
interactions within the explicit context of m-commerce in hotels, the constructs
and the set of relationships that form the conceptual model originated in the IS
literature (e.g., Vatanasombut, Igbaria, Stylianou, & Rodgers, 2008; Walczuch,
Lemmink, & Streukens, 2007; Xu, Lu, Carroll, & Rosson, 2011). While recognizing that cocreation in hotels can extend beyond the particular context of
m-commerce, the specific focus of this study on the cocreation mechanisms that
are innate to m-commerce warrants the approach taken here to use IS-specific
artifacts in the conceptual model. However, such constructs were adapted to
reflect the theoretical dimensions of consumerfirm interactions, as originally
discussed by Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004).
Downloaded from at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 12, 2015


The antecedents of cocreation in this study were chosen given that they capture
best the full context of the m-commerce ecosystem in hotels from a number of
angles. From a task environment viewpoint, there are certain inherent characteristics
of the m-commerce ecosystem that act as facilitators of consumers involvement.
For example, the whole ecosystem is characterized by security concerns (Wu &
Wang, 2005). Moreover, building trust in the organization that is perceived to have
deployed such ecosystems is paramount (Lin, Lu, Wang, & Wei, 2011). This is
why perceived security and trust were added as antecedents of involvement. Also,
to characterize the unique capability of the m-commerce ecosystem of facilitating
access to only relevant experiences via personalization, perceived personalization
was added (Xu etal., 2011). In addition, based on the premise that not all consumers approach a technology-mediated consumption environment similarly because
of their inherent differences, two consumer characteristics were added, namely
personal innovativeness and the need for interaction.
The dependent constructs used in this study were chosen based on how well
they reflect the core interactions that are fundamental to cocreation. Specifically,
reflecting primarily dialog and access (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004;
Ramaswamy, 2008), consumers involvement in accessing hotel products via
their mobile devices when staying in hotels is instrumental to developing the
interactions that facilitate cocreation (Kristensson etal., 2008). Cocreation intentions were chosen to capture the true character of cocreation (Prahalad &
Ramaswamy, 2004), as they comprehensively reflect the dimensionality of value
cocreation in hotels using mobile devices (e.g., effort, personalization, information sharing; Handrich & Heidenreich, 2013; Yi & Gong; 2013; Zwass, 2010). In
line with the work of Hess, McNab, and Basoglu (2014), Legris, Ingham, and
Collerette (2003) and Montazemi and Qahri-Saremi (2015), intentions were used
instead of actual behaviors as they have been overwhelmingly validated as the
best surrogates of actual behavior. The following sections illustrate in detail the
development of this studys conceptual model and its hypotheses.
Perceived Security. As an increasing amount of information is exchanged in
e-/m-commerce, the IS infrastructure must be able to fend off attacks/intrusion
(C. Kim, Tao, Shin, & Kim, 2010). Security reflects the extent to which an IS
is able to protect the integrity of resources from attacks/intrusion (Shin, 2009).
As consumers rarely have the knowledge required to assess the true IS vulnerabilities, security was often conceptualized as perceived security in research
using self-reported data, reflecting the extent to which IS users view it as secure
(Vatanasombut etal., 2008). The literature validated strong links between the
perceptions of security and their prerequisites to engage in behaviors oriented
toward an entity or the entire m-commerce ecosystem, especially trust (McCole,
Ramsey, & Williams, 2010) and intentions to use IS (Shin, 2009). Such relationships were found to be valid in the context of travel. For example, a relationship
between perceived security of mobile devices and trust in airlines has been validated in m-commerce in air travel (Morosan, 2014).
Downloaded from at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 12, 2015


Consumers perceptions of security play a critical role in the riskreward

dimension of cocreation interactions, as they offer consumers and firms an
opportunity to evaluate accurately the riskreward relationships stemming from
such interactions. m-Commerce ecosystems are characterized by relatively high
security concerns, as consumers and firms believe that m-commerce hardware
are relatively more vulnerable to breaches as they are radio frequencybased and
their small size makes them prone to theft or misplacement (Wu & Wang, 2005).
Todays mobile service protocols and the paralleled consumer habits, such as
information synchronization across devices and storage of payment information,
facilitate the continuous accumulation and exchange of personal/transaction
information stored on mobile devices. The amount of information exchanged
during a hotel stay as a result of guesthotel interactions is also increasing, given
the highly fragmented nature of the hotel industry and the transaction density that
characterize the hotel stay experience, which can exacerbate consumers security
concerns (Morosan, 2014). Yet firms can alleviate such concerns by providing
secure transaction protocols, technical protections, and security statements (C.
Kim etal., 2010), increasing consumers trust. Thus, using m-commerce systems
that are perceived to be secure and allow for incident-free interactions in hotels
should lead to the perception that firms can deploy secure systems that are appropriate for m-commerce interactions, therefore worthy of trust. Thus, on grounds
presented above, the following hypothesis was developed:
Hypothesis 1: A hotel guests perceived security of mobile devices positively influences his or her trust in hotels offering information/services, or tasks via m-commerce

Trust refers to the willingness of a party to accept being vulnerable to the

actions of another (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995). Trust has important
connotations in e-/m-commerce, as it helps mediate relationships between parties that transact without prior association (Morosan, 2014) and acts as a buffer
addressing the inherent uncertainties of the m-commerce ecosystem (Lin etal.,
2011). Most literature accepts the original dimensionality of Mayer etal. (1995),
which viewed organizational trust based on ability (skills to exercise influence
over the trustor/consumer), benevolence (the trustee organization is interested in
the trustor/consumers welfare), and integrity (the trustees degree of adherence
to acceptable principles). While several authors used trust with conceptually
similar or reduced dimensions (e.g., credibility and benevolence in Doney &
Cannon, 1997; sincerity and competence in Sung & Kim, 2010; benevolence/
integrity and ability in J. Chen & Dibb, 2010), most IS research conceptualized
trust alongside the three original dimensions and used scales that often combined such dimensions (e.g., Jarvenpaa, Tractinsky, & Vitale, 2000; D. J. Kim,
Ferrin, & Rao, 2008; San Martn, Camarero, & San Jos, 2011), eventually
Downloaded from at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 12, 2015


validating trust a strong antecedent of behavior toward a brand (M.-J. Kim,

Chung, & Lee, 2011) or a specific IS (Teo & Liu, 2007).
Within SDL, trust is related to the dialog and transparency of interactions
(Durugbo & Pawar, 2014) as consumers and firms are able to cocreate based on
interactions characterized by integrity and shared risk (Terblanche, 2014).
Several authors suggested adding trust as a dimension to cocreation, on which
customerfirm connections could be actually founded (Prahalad & Ramaswamy,
2004; Randall, Gravier, & Prybutok, 2011). In the absence of high familiarity
with brands and their offering, the multitude of fragmented services, information, and tasks that form the basis of consumerfirm interactions in m-commerce
in hotels are inherently regarded with a certain degree of skepticism by consumers. Such skepticism is driven by the innate perceptions of risk of m-commerce
(M. C. Lee, 2009). Consumers, however, are likely to engage with the products,
services, and experiences as the degree of risk associated with such products/
purchases decreases and as trust becomes the mediating mechanism that allows
consumers to attenuate their risk perceptions (Teo & Liu, 2007). Thus, trust has
a particular connotation to the context of interactive services, as it influences
consumers to go on a path leading to behavior toward the service/information or
task that contribute to a consumption experience (Randall etal., 2011). That is,
using trust as a catalyst, consumers are likely to approach such services, information, tasks via their mobile devices, resulting in direct involvement within the
value cocreation environment. Based on these theoretical grounds, the following
hypothesis was developed:
Hypothesis 2: A hotel guests trust in hotels positively influences his or her level of
involvement with information, services, and tasks using mobile devices in hotels.
Perceived Personalization

Fundamentally, personalization refers to the extent to which IS are used to

treat consumers on an individual basis by adapting the attributes of a product/
service bundle and its corresponding interactions uniquely to individual consumers (Peppers & Rogers, 1996). In the IS literature, perceived personalization
reflects users perceptions that they can tailor the attributes of an offer to suit
their personal specific needs (Xu etal., 2011). Founded on the general belief that
personalized services are more valuable for consumers, personalization has
important connotations in the hotel industry (C.-H. Lee & Cranage, 2011). For
example, personalization can reduce guest misfit costs when guests do not find
all attributes of a product/service bundle to be equally relevant to their needs
(Syam & Kumar, 2006). Personalization, therefore, stays at the foundation of
cocreation of value (Ranjan & Read, 2014), especially via IS, as unprecedented
information flows occur between consumers providing personal information
and firms modifying the services according to that personal information

Downloaded from at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 12, 2015


(Ramaswamy & Ozcan, 2014, as cited in Leavy, 2014), thus facilitating the consumerfirm dialog (Prahalad & Ramswamy, 2004).
The contemporary m-commerce ecosystem offers extraordinary opportunities for personalization in hotels. On the guests side, most of todays mobile
devices have been specifically designed to offer personalization opportunities
to users, primarily by allowing users to store and easily retrieve use preferences (Zarmpou, Saprikis, Markos, & Vlachopoulou, 2012). On the hotels
side, the current software applications, including mobile apps and website
interfaces are characterized by superior levels of personalization (Nayer,
2012). It is likely that in consumption contexts characterized by high levels of
personalization such as the context of m-commerce in hotels, consumers personalization could result in value. Therefore, viewing personalization as facilitating a potential benefit (Kristensson etal., 2008), guests are likely to become
involved with information, services, and tasks and, thus, become involved in
the process of cocreation of value. Accordingly, the following hypothesis was
Hypothesis 3: A hotel guests perceived personalization of hotel services via mobile
devices positively influences his or her level of involvement with information, services, and tasks using mobile devices in hotels.
Personal Innovativeness

Personal innovativeness is a characteristic of humans reflecting the extent to

which they accept novelty (Midgley & Dowling, 1978). As it helps explain consumers adoption of innovative products, services, and technologies, personal
innovativeness has been used extensively in the marketing literature, especially
in segmentation, providing tools for marketers to distinguish between innovative versus noninnovative consumers (Agarwal & Prasad, 1998). It has been
conceptualized as either global innovativeness, representing an innate trait of
consumers, or as domain-specific innovativeness, which regulates a consumers
involvement with novel product/services in specific domain contexts. However,
the mainstream marketing literature eventually found domain-specific innovativeness to be a better concept in explicating consumers use of new products in
specific contexts (Goldsmith & Hofacker, 1991), such as the one discussed in
this study.
To date, no conceptualizations of personal innovativeness were found within
the SDL literature. However, prior conceptualizations of personal innovativeness in the IS literature gravitate toward the thesis that innovative consumers
simplify their system of beliefs regarding new IS and their corresponding business settings (Walczuch etal., 2007). Thus, as innovative consumers tend to be
more responsive to firms offerings than noninnovative consumers (Walczuch
etal., 2007), the theoretical insights provided by Prahalad and Ramaswamy
(2004) and the subsequent literature (e.g., Terblanche, 2014) seem to suggest
that a concept such as personal innovativeness could reflect the dialog and
Downloaded from at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 12, 2015


access dimensions of interactions. Accordingly, in a hotel m-commerce context,

guests who have an inclination toward IS become likely to use their mobile
devices to complete hotel-related tasks, or to engage in an information exchange
with the hotel, according to a link between innovativeness and involvement
within the task environment. Based on the discussion above, the following
hypothesis was developed:
Hypothesis 4: A hotel guests personal innovativeness toward IS positively influences his or her level of involvement with information, services, and tasks using
mobile devices in hotels.
Need for Interaction

In business contexts with extensive deployment of self-service technologies,

most consumerfirm interactions become dominated by IS (Meuter, Ostrom,
Bitner, & Roundtree, 2003). Yet the automated processes by which IS facilitate
service fulfillment sometimes fail to provide the benefits otherwise obtainable
via traditional person-to-person interactions. As a result, even in highly immersive technology environments, some consumers still express a need to interact
with service staff (Dabholkar & Bagozzi, 2002). While the emerging literature
in SDL and IS is still developing, it does not clearly differentiate between the
interactions occurring exclusively within and those outside the IS context of
service. That is, while IS facilitate new levels of consumerfirm interactions,
such general interactions with the firm via staff or its IS (in lieu or addition to
staff) can both be instrumental to value cocreation (Ntti, Pekkarinen, Hartikka,
& Holappa, 2014). As traditionally in hotels, guesthotel interactions originally
manifest in direct gueststaff interactions, they are likely to extend as opportunities to interact more deeply become available via service settings in which the
staff is replaced or complemented by IS. As a result, guests who like to interact
with the hotel via its staff are also likely to extend their interactions with the
hotel in the m-commerce context, thus enhancing the dialog that is fundamental
to cocreation (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). Accordingly, the following
hypothesis was developed:
Hypothesis 5: A hotel guests need for interaction with service staff positively influences his or her level of involvement with information, services, and tasks using
mobile devices in hotels.
Involvement and Intentions

Within the SDL paradigm, involvement was deemed critical in understanding

consumers behavior, as excessive emphasis seems to have been placed on consumers responses to products rather than on factors that drive consumers toward
products (Grnroos & Voima, 2013). Yet very little research has been conducted
to investigate the role of involvement in service settings (Alam, 2006). Generally,
Downloaded from at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 12, 2015


involvement has been defined based on (1) cognitive grounds, reflecting the
relevance of a product/task as a psychological tie to a consumer, (2) individual
state grounds, reflecting the extent to which a given situation may elicit concern
of an individual for his or her behavior, and (3) response-based grounds, reflecting individuals information processing relative to a product/task (Laaksonen,
1994). The conceptualization of involvement becomes increasingly complex,
especially as new types of products and product environments emerge and new
ways to interact with product stimuli become available to consumers (San
Martn etal., 2011). Although scholars used selectively the definitions presented
above to conceptualize involvement in specific e-commerce contexts (San
Martn etal., 2011), the conceptualization of involvement with services/tasks
using mobile devices in hotels requires all three viewpoints to be considered.
Thus, as the cognitive-based (e-commerce involvement reflects a relatively stable response to shopping stimuli) and response-based grounds (responses to
stimuli can drive a guest in a hotel to different purchasing paths (Dholakia,
2001)) should be inherently invoked, the unique context of the hotel stay experience required for the individual-state approach needs to be included as well
within the conceptualization of involvement in this study.
In hotels, the consumption experience is designed to be unique, and is increasingly characterized by attributes that are adaptable to guests specific needs. Such
adaptations are becoming norm within the m-commerce ecosystem, where the
variety of guest requests and disclosure of personal consumption preferences/
information and the corresponding service responses of hotels set up a foundation
for cocreation of innovations (Kristensson, Gustafsson, & Archer, 2004). Yet the
success of the cocreation process lies in the extent to which guests become
involved with hotels in their interactions (Kristensson etal., 2008), as reflected
by the dialog and access dimensions of such interactions (Prahalad & Ramaswamy,
2004), and which result in value in use (Grnroos & Voima, 2013). Thus, as
guests become increasingly involved with the use of their mobile devices in
hotels to interact with the service ecosystem, they increase the likelihood of
cocreating value via such interactions (Kristensson etal., 2008). Yet such behavior is often conceptualized as intentions, given that intentions to conduct a behavior are the strongest predictors of actual behavior (Legris etal., 2003), especially
when the task environment is not mature yet (Lu, Liu, Yu, & Wang, 2008).
What actually constitutes cocreation behavior seems to be a subject of continuous academic dissent (Chathoth etal., 2013), as scholars developed various
conceptualizations of cocreation behavior (e.g., Handrich & Heidenreich, 2013;
Ranjan & Reed, 2014). Grounded in the basic premises of Prahalad and
Ramaswamy (2004), cocreation of value has been viewed as characterized by
behaviors that allow both firms and consumers to interact to produce uniquely
created value within the consumers contextual consumption experience, which,
at its core, is dependent on the level of consumers involvement (Chathoth etal.,
2013). Thus, the literature has converged toward a number of dimensions (e.g.,

Downloaded from at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 12, 2015


product/service assessment, effort, personalization, and information sharing)

that comprehensively represent cocreation behaviors.
First, the literature views cocreation as reflected by consumers approach and
assessment of new products/services (Zwass, 2010). In hotels, at the moment of stay
the core product has already been purchased, and thus the products/services likely to
be bought using mobile devices while on the property represent ancillary products/
services, which have the role of enhancing the value of the consumption experience
via personalization, eventually helping to assess the viability of customized ancillary
products/services (Zwass, 2010). Second, consumers cocreate value via their
mobile devices by offering online reviews and updates while staying in hotels.
This represents autonomous cocreation, as consumers contribute to the development of declarative content, which is further aggregated, used, and presented
systematically (Oliveira & Panyik, 2015; Zwass, 2010). Third, the effort and personalization dimensions of cocreation discussed by Handrich and Heidenreich
(2013) and others (e.g., McColl-Kennedy, Vargo, Dagger, & Sweeney, 2009;
Oliveira & Panyik, 2015) are also present in the hotel m-commerce ecosystem.
For example, creating their own computer networks in the hotel rooms using
mobile devices and connecting the devices to other in-room technologies requires
effort (e.g., materialbeing in the possession of the device and software; intellectual effortknow how), representing cocreation (Handrich & Heidenreich,
2013; McColl-Kennedy etal., 2009). Moreover, controlling room atmospherics
and accessing specifically designated areas using mobile devices reflects the personalization aspect of cocreation (Handrich & Heidenreich, 2013).
In addition, all mobile device behaviors aimed at interacting with the hotel
and accessing products/services have information-sharing connotation, which is
representative of cocreation (Handrich & Heidenreich, 2013; Yi & Gong; 2013;
Zwass, 2010). Mobile devices are capable of providing geographic location
information, information about the type of device, its operating system, and can
reveal network broadband consumption (Garvin, 2014). Also, when staying in
hotels, consumers are likely to connect their devices to the hotels network,
relinquishing their connections from their default carrier, which has critical
implications for the type and volume of data they exchange (McGarvey, 2014).
In sum, the information exchanged using the mobile devices and thus reflecting
a consumers behavior on the property can lead to generating knowledge about
the experiential purposes and latent drivers of behaviors (Srensen & Jensen,
2015), which allow for a better informational platform to be created with the
hotel (Yi & Gong, 2013), allowing the hotel to provide an experience tailored to
consumers needs and wants (Chathoth etal., 2013).
Thus, within the context of m-commerce in hotels, the following hypothesis
was developed:
Hypothesis 6: A hotel guests level of involvement with information, services, and
tasks using mobile devices in hotels positively influences his or her intentions to
engage in cocreation behaviors using mobile devices.
Downloaded from at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 12, 2015


Figure 1
Conceptual Model and Hypotheses

Summarizing the prior discussion, the conceptual model of this study is illustrated in Figure 1.
Instrument Design

Scales were developed based on the existing literature on IS and cocreation.

The scales, illustrated in the appendix, were adapted to capture the mechanisms
of cocreation in the hotel industry using mobile devices. The three-item scale for
security was adapted from Vatanasombut etal. (2008) and Walczuch etal.
(2007). Trust was measured with three items, reflecting its core dimensions,
adapted from the work of Jarvenpaa etal. (2000) and D. J. Kim etal. (2008).
Perceived personalization was measured via three items adapted from Xu etal.
(2011). Personal innovativeness was measured with three items based on the
work of Goldsmith and Hofacker (1991), whereas the need for interaction was
measured using three items adapted from Dabholkar and Bagozzi (2002).
Involvement was measured with three items adapted from San Martn etal.
The scale used to measure intentions to cocreate value was developed using
the following procedure. Examples of cocreation behaviors outlined in the earlier (e.g., Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004) and more recent literature (e.g.,
Handrich & Heidenreich, 2013; Prebensen & Foss, 2011; Yi & Gong, 2013;
Shaw, Bailey, & Williams, 2011; Zwass, 2010) were instrumental in developing
an initial list of potential cocreation behaviors in hotels. Such behaviors fit three
Downloaded from at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 12, 2015


important criteria: (1) they have to be located far along within the guesthotel
service encounter in hotels (Shaw etal., 2011), (2) guests have to be active operant resources in the cocreation process (Shaw etal., 2011), and (3) they have to
be feasibly transferrable to the m-commerce context in hotels in such a way that
guests can interact with hotels, while hotels can understand and negotiate such
interactions (Etgar, 2008). The initial list included 14 activities, but only 7 items
were included in the final analysis, as they fit all three criteria presented above
and thus capture well the concept of value cocreation using mobile devices.
Items 1 through 3 reflected the evaluation and declarative content development
aspects of cocreation (Zwass, 2010). Items 4 through 7 addressed the effort and
personalization aspects of cocreation (Handrich & Heidenreich, 2013). All
intention items reflected the critical information sharing aspect of cocreation
(Handrich & Heidenreich, 2013; Yi & Gong, 2013). In sum, all seven items
contributed to comprehensively capturing the cocreation behaviors in hotels
using mobile devices.
All constructs were measured using 5-point Likert-type scales, with values
ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. The instrument
included a scenario, defining the terms and offering examples of potential information, services, or tasks that could be accessible in hotels via m-commerce to
facilitate value cocreation. The survey instrument concluded with two sections
including common hotel stay behavior and demographics measures.
Data Collection and Management

The data collection instrument was hosted online by the Qualtrics survey
environment. Access services to a panel of general population of U.S. consumers were purchased from a reputable consumer panel company. On a pilot test,
an invitation link to the survey was sent to a total of 4,400 potential respondents,
of which 357 followed the invitation link. The survey had a filtering question,
asking respondents whether they had stayed in a hotel during the past 12 months
prior to the study. On filtering and removing the records containing systematic
missing values, a total of 317 respondents were kept for further analysis. Since
the net response rate was 7.2%, the data set was subjected to nonresponse bias
analysis, which was conducted by examining the differences between the
responses of early versus late respondents. As no significant differences were
found, it was concluded that nonresponse bias was not an issue in this data set
(Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, 1996).
Descriptive Analyses

Table 1 illustrates the demographic characteristics of the respondents. Most

respondents were male (58.9%) and relatively mature, with most respondents
being equally divided throughout the income category spectrum. Most respondents had household incomes relatively higher than the average U.S. values, as
Downloaded from at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 12, 2015


Table 1
Demographic Profile of Respondents


Age (years)
Annual household income ($)
Highest level of education
High school
BS degree or equivalent
Masters degree of equivalent
Doctoral degree or equivalent


45.4% had incomes between $50,000 and 100,000. Most respondents were also
educated, with more than half of them having at least a bachelors degree. The
behavioral profile of respondents is illustrated in Table 2. Most respondents
traveled almost exclusively for leisure (a total of 55.8%) and stayed in upper
midscale hotels (36%). Most respondents also had short stays in hotels, as 59.7%
of them stayed for 2 to 3 nights, and only 3.5% stayed for more than 8 nights. In
terms of their mobile device behavior, almost half of respondents brought at
least one mobile device on the property when staying in hotels, whereas about
24% of respondents brought three devices.
Measurement Model Analysis

First, the data set was checked for multivariate normality. Although the analysis indicated that the distribution of each variable used in the model did not
depart from univariate normality (West, Finch, & Curran, 1995), checks based
on Mardias coefficients using Mplus v.5 revealed that the data were not necessarily following a multivariate normal distribution (Mardia, 1970). Thus,
Downloaded from at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 12, 2015


Table 2
Behavioral Profile of Respondents


Exclusively business
Mostly business
Combined business/leisure
Mostly leisure
Exclusively leisure
Hotel type
Upper midscale
Length of stay (no. of nights)
Frequency of stay (no. of times a year)
Number of devices brought
No device


subsequent confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation model analyses

were conducted using the maximum likelihood estimation and mean-adjusted
chi-square tests statistics, which are not sensitive to violations of the assumption
of multivariate normality (Muthn & Muthn, 2007). In addition, common
method bias was analyzed using a procedure involving loading all items on a
single latent factor and assessing fit suggested by Morgan, Kaleka, and Katsikeas
(2004), and disconfirmed as a problem in this data set.
The psychometric properties of the measurement model were tested using a
confirmatory factor analysis conducted with Mplus v.5 (Muthn & Muthn,
2007). To assess the models goodness of fit, a series of absolute and relative
indexes were calculated, and compared with recommended benchmarks. The
Downloaded from at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 12, 2015


Table 3
Reliability and Validity Analysis
Latent Construct/Items




Need for interaction


Cocreation intentions














Note: SMC = Square MULTIPLE correlations; CCR = composite construct reliability.

model had a chi-square of 405.01, df = 230 (p < .001), and a normed chi-square
of 1.76, and thus indicating good fit (Toh, Lee, & Hu, 2006). Two incremental
fit indicators were calculated, namely the comparative fit index (CFI) and the
TuckerLewis Index (TLI) at .96 and .95 respectively, exceeding the recommended .9 value and thus supporting the good fit of the model (Hair, Black,
Babin, & Anderson, 2009). Finally, the root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA) was calculated at .053, and thus situated below the .08 recommended
threshold (Browne & Cudeck, 1992). In sum, given the above goodness-of-fit
indexes, the model was deemed as fitting properly.
To assess its appropriateness for hypothesis testing, the measurement model
was subjected to a test of its psychometric properties, namely reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity (Hair etal., 2009; Tables 3 and 4). As a
measure of reliability, the composite construct reliability values were calculated
for all latent constructs. The lowest value was .833, indicating that the scales had
high reliabilities (Hair etal., 2009). The minimum criterion for convergent
Downloaded from at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 12, 2015


Table 4
Validity Analysis
Latent constructs
1. Security
2. Trust
3. Personalization
4. Innovativeness
5. Need for interaction
6. Involvement
7. Cocreation intentions








Note: The values on the diagonal (in boldface) represent the AVEs (average variances
extracted) of the latent constructs. The values below the diagonal represent the squared
interconstruct correlations.

validity is to have factor loadings for all the items higher than .5 and significant
(Hair etal., 2009). The initial confirmatory factor analysis revealed that one of
the items measuring need for interaction had a loading lower than .5. As a result,
the item was removed from the model, and the model was respecified. On
respecification, all items displayed values higher than .5 and were significant,
thus demonstrating appropriate convergent validity. In addition, the square multiple correlations (SMC) corresponding to each measurement item were greater
than .4, reinforcing the good convergent validity of the model (Hair etal., 2009).
Finally, the average variance extracted (AVE) values from each construct were
compared with the .5 benchmark, and were found to exceed it (Fornell &
Larcker, 1981). Thus, it was concluded that the model had good convergent
The discriminant validity was assessed by comparing the AVE values to the
corresponding squared interconstruct correlations. Table 4 illustrates the AVE
values corresponding to each latent construct (on the main diagonal, in bold) and
the squared interconstruct correlations (below the diagonal). As all constructs
AVE values were greater than their corresponding constructs squared correlations with all other constructs, it was determined that all constructs had appropriate discriminant validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
Structural Model Analysis

The model was subjected to a goodness-of-fit analysis using the Mplus v.5
package (Figure 2). The model displayed good fit, with a chi-square of 533.56
and df = 239 (p < .001), corresponding to a normed chi-square of 2.23. The CFI,
TLI, and RMSEA were computed at .93, .92, and .068, respectively, all being
situated within their accepted ranges and, thus, supporting the good fit of the
model (Hair etal., 2009). The model validated approximately 52% of the

Downloaded from at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 12, 2015


Figure 2
Model Testing Results

variability of value cocreation intentions, indicating that this model is appropriate for the prediction of hotel guests cocreation behavior.
The models hypotheses were validated in their predicted directions, except
for Hypothesis 5, which suggested a relationship between guests need for interaction and involvement. Perceived security was found to be a significant predictor of trust ( = .86, p < .001), thus validating this relationship in the context of
mobile devices used for cocreation activities in hotels (R2 = 74%). All hypothesized predictors, except for the need for interaction, were found to be significant
antecedents of involvement, and explained 53% of the variability in involvement. The strongest predictor was personalization ( = .42, p < .001), followed
by trust ( = .23, p < .001), and personal innovativeness ( = .18, p < .01). The
fact that personalization was the strongest predictor of involvement reinforces
the thesis that a highly interactive, prone to personalization hotel m-commerce
environment is likely to stimulate guests involvement in cocreative activities
using mobile devices. Finally, the relationship between involvement and intentions to cocreate value was found to be valid and strong ( = .72, p < .001), and
indicating the strong involvement of guests with their mobile devices could lead
to specific cocreative behaviors in hotels.

This study set out to examine how guests form intentions to cocreate value
in the context of m-commerce in hotels. The conceptual model used to test a set
of relationships that together explain cocreation intentions was successfully
validated, providing evidence that a series of guest perceptions and reflectors of
Downloaded from at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 12, 2015


innate characteristics of m-commerce consumption can be used to predict the

manner in which guests become involved in value cocreation in highly interactive service ecosystems such as hotels. The validation of this current model
extends to m-commerce a fundamental thesis of the SDL, that consumers should
be viewed as operant resources in m-commerce as they interact with firms, and
the manner in which they integrate operand resources is critical to the success of
value cocreation. Moreover, by validating constructs that reflect all four DART
dimensions of interactions as antecedents of consumers intentions to cocreate
value, this study emphasizes that the examination of value cocreation should not
divide it conceptually into its constitutive elements, but rather view it holistically through its multiple dimensions.
One critical objective of this study was to examine the role of guest involvement
as a central element in cocreation. The relationship between involvement and intentions to cocreate has been validated and found to be strong, which emphasizes the
critical role of involvement in the development of cocreative behaviors mediated by
mobile devices. It also reinforces the notion that involved guests tend to act as integral parts of the value chain, acting on value propositions initially deployed by
hotels, but later codeveloped into hotel stays that aim to be memorable. Moreover,
involving guests with direct behavioral consequences signifies that hotel environments fostering cocreation can benefit from developing a culture in which guest
behaviors targeting resources commonly integrated by both guests and hotels can
lead to value, and further guide stakeholders to superior levels of performance. In
turn, such behaviors can eventually be used to drive innovative processes, which
could result in novel hotel services, such as sustainable consumption and shared
economy. Altogether, this result goes beyond the current SDL literature, as the prior
research purporting the role of involvement facilitating cocreation through access
and dialog remains to date rather conceptual (Grnroos & Voima, 2013).
Another objective of this study was to examine the role of the antecedents of
involvement. The hypothesized predictors (except need for interaction) were
validated as significant antecedents of involvement. While the scant literature
only validated disparate elements of the full array of antecedents validated in
this study, the validation of these relationships simultaneously help extend the
theoretical views according to which participation to cocreation reflects (1) the
openness of a consumer to move beyond the traditional passive role of receiver
of the value proposition (Hutter, Hautz, Fueller, Mueller, & Matzler, 2011) and
(2) the capability of the firmconsumer setting (reflected by elements of mcommerce conceptualized in this study) to draw the consumer in the cocreation
process (Gebauer etal., 2010). Moreover, the fact that perceived personalization
stood out as the strongest predictor of involvement underscores dialog as perhaps the most critical dimension of interactions in the specific context of
m-commerce in hotels. Also, the multitude of ways in which personalization can
be achieved using mobile devices showcases the role of guests talent in finding
innovative ways to develop new value from their interactions with hotels. Thus,
somewhat surprising, this result attests that in highly experiential service settings where traditional service models and m-commerce ecosystems
Downloaded from at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 12, 2015


symbiotically coexist, the core dimensions of cocreation (i.e., DART) are not
uniformly converging toward creating unique synergies, but are rather emulating the complex service environment to produce differential effects. Finally, a
surprising result was the lack of support for the hypothesized relationship
between the need for interaction and involvement, which highlights that consumers various levels of attraction toward traditional interactions may not contribute to shaping their cocreation intentions.
Finally, the relationship between perceived security and trust was validated
as hypothesized, underscoring the importance of designing a secure system that
fosters guests engagement with the firm. However, in contrast to the existing
literature (McCole etal., 2010; Morosan, 2014), the high magnitude of the effect
of security on trust, as well as the high percentage of the variability of trust
explained by security (as its sole predictor) was surprising. That is, strong perceptions of security associated with mobile devices used for m-commerce contribute strongly to the development of a platform of trust, which is directly
related to the transparency dimension of interactions formative of value cocreation. This finding has unique connotations, as a number of recent electronic
security breaches seemed to have affected the trust in the ability of the ecommerce system in hospitality to maintain its integrity. Yet despite the innate
perceptions of security attributable to any mobile device, guests would eventually link such perceptions to the corresponding targets of their m-commerce
behavior: the direct commercial partnerthe hotel, modifying their relative perceptions of trust based on the manner in which they can subjectively assess the
security of the commercial setup to which they cocontribute. Furthermore, the
strong relationship between security of mobile devices and trust in the business
entity also enhances the riskreward dimension of guesthotel interactions,
leading to value cocreation.

This study developed and validated empirically a model that conceptualized

value cocreation in hotels using mobile devices. As it contributes to addressing
critical gaps in the current literature, this study offers a number of notable theoretical and managerial contributions.
Theoretical Contributions.Overall, this study conceptualized consumers
involvement with their mobile devices with services, information, and tasks
in hotels as the central element in value cocreation and empirically validated
a model in which the focal element was involvement. Additionally, this study
provided unique insight into the elements of the m-commerce hotel service
ecosystem that facilitate guests involvement in cocreation. While the quantitative empirical literature in cocreation is scarce in generic service settings (e.g.,
Edvardsson, Kristensson, Magnusson, & Sundstrm, 2011) and inexistent in the
hospitality literature, this study helps setting up a unique and strong foundation
addressing the challenges of conceptualizing and validating empirically cocreDownloaded from at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 12, 2015


ation in service settings. Thus, this study contributes to closing the research gap
caused by a preponderance of theoretical research not yet empirically validated,
and represents a response to the numerous calls from hospitality and mainstream
marketing scholars to complement the existing theoretical research by validating it empirically, and thus, to advance the general SDL literature. In addition,
by pursuing a quantitative approach in the examination of value cocreation in
hotels, this study departed from the current predominantly qualitative approach
in studying cocreation in hotels (e.g., Park & Allen, 2013; Shaw etal., 2011) and
extended the literature in SDL in hotels.
This study also makes important theoretical contributions to the SDL body of
knowledge by examining the antecedents of cocreation. Thus, while the SDL
broadens the definition of services, this study represents an initial blueprint for
examining the antecedents of cocreation intentions. This study consolidates a
critical SDL research theme, which aims at explaining cocreation through the
prism of antecedents (Fuller etal., 2012), but which does not document studies
using antecedents that explain concomitantly the consumption environment and
consumer characteristics. For example, by clarifying the role of trust in stimulating consumers involvement, this study addresses important calls from SDL
scholars according to which trust should be considered an additional dimension
to the original DART framework (Randall etal., 2011). In sum, by addressing
the lacuna of the lack of research investigating the role of consumer characteristics, this study advances the literature in SDL and general consumer behavior.
Complementarily, this study addressed another important lacunathat of the
lack of research on the role of technology-mediated environments in cocreation.
By using specific IS artifacts as antecedents of cocreation, and thus validating
the thesis that IS can represent instrumental mechanisms that uniquely facilitate
cocreation in service settings (Cabiddu etal., 2013), this study extends the scope
of the SDL literature. In addition, by investigating for the first time the development of cocreation behaviors using mobile devices, this study makes a substantial contribution to the current literature in m-commerce, which is poised to
become the dominant consumer-facing service ecosystem within the hotel
industry. Thus, approaching SDL from the angle of m-commerce, this study
addresses a critical shortcoming of the SDL literaturethe lack of characterization of the interplay between consumers, firms, and the encounter contexts
(Durugbo & Pawar, 2014). As m-commerce is likely to become even more symbiotic with highly experiential service environments, this study represents a useful theoretical base for understanding the mechanisms for value creation in
services in which human interaction coexists with self-service technologybased
interaction. As m-commerce is increasingly developing in directions congruent
with the creativity of users as the ultimate drivers of value, this study also offers
a blueprint for understanding the nature of the core relationships that characterize m-commerce, viewed from the angle of consumers deployment of interaction talent toward the interactions with the hotels.

Downloaded from at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 12, 2015


Managerial Contributions. In addition to its theoretical contributions, this

study offers hotel decision-makers a number of actionable solutions to stimulate and capitalize on value cocreation. First, the validation of trust, perceived
personalization, and personal innovativeness as significant antecedents of guest
involvement can provide insight into new hotel practices that can result in higher
value appropriated by all stakeholders. Specifically, based on information available from their property management and other systems (e.g., wi-fi networks,
point of sale), hotels may focus on their innovative gueststhose likely to use
mobile apps for check-in/checkout, or use electronic resources extensively on
the propertyand move from simply persuading such guests via promotion to
encouraging them to get actively involved in the consumption of their experiences, thus harnessing their talent.
Second, hotels can intensify guests level of involvement in (1) breadth, by
designing more points of contact with their guests, especially supporting tasks
using self-service technology and blending between IS and human-based interactions, thus incentivizing cocreators (e.g., location-based services, personalization of guest-space atmospherics) and (2) depth, by designing deeper levels of
interaction, allowing guests to fulfill codesigners roles for their own consumption experiences (e.g., problem solving, gamification, giving certain rewards for
completing challenges).
Third, based on the conceptualization of this study in the context of m-commerce, hotel decision-makers can rely on the mobile environment to facilitate the
interactions that encourage cocreation. As the mobile environment is expected to
play a critical role in the broader e-commerce context, hotels can emphasize the
use of mobile devices in interactions that are easily managed by guests, given the
familiarity and ease of use of their devices. For example, designing simple interaction interfaces that mimic the familiar logic and layout of the most popular
mobile operating systems and application tasks would enhance the ability of consumers to become involved, as little additional learning is required.
Fourth, this study outlines the role of personalization when using mobile
devices in hotels. For example, hotels can digitize all aspects of the hotel service
experience, unbundle it, use a variety of marketing techniques (e.g., separate and
package differently the core experience from the ancillary service experiences),
and offer such experiences via mobile apps. Specifically, hotels can involve consumers better in the consumption of ancillary services, which is beneficial to
both the guests (by focusing only on the most relevant experiential attributes)
and the hotels (increasing cost of distribution relative to core service revenues
causing hotels to reorient toward additional revenue streams). Thus, through the
cocreation process, guests then can use their own creative talents, their own
conceptualization of their needs, and their logic, in integrating resources to
repackage and recreate experiences that are relevant to them and can be characterized by value. Moreover, hotels can further develop their mobile apps to offer
personalization across the broader travel horizontal, as they can aggregate

Downloaded from at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 12, 2015


service experiences that add value to the guest, for example, by allowing guests
to obtain mobile boarding passes for airlines using the hotel app.
Limitations and Directions for Further Research

Like all research using self-reported data, this study has a number of limitations.
First, the data were collected in the United States and thus it reflects the service culture of the U.S. hotel industry and its corresponding consumer behavior. While the
U.S. hotel industry represents an environment founded in rich consumer interactions, where consumers and firms are generally willing to engage, an international
perspective will bring to light more complex aspects of value cocreation in hotels.
Second, this study reflects the m-commerce context in the United States (e.g., reliable connectivity, rich availability of services, high rate of penetration). Future
research could replicate this study internationally, in locations characterized by different penetration rates, m-commerce development, and consumer engagement.
Third, while recognizing that value cocreation extends beyond the confines of
m-commerce, this study only examined the unique context of m-commerce to keep
the operationalization of the m-commerce cocreation mechanisms feasible. Fourth,
value cocreation is possible via mobile devices in hotels without guests explicit
actions. For example, automatic communication between guests mobile devices
and the hotels access points can result in new services being developed by hotels,
such as better access to the Internet, better bandwidth and digital entertainment content, and free access to the Internet in lobby. This study has not addressed such issues
to limit the list of cocreation intentions to the sphere of consumers willing interactions. For example, not all consumers know how to turn on/off location based services on their mobile devices, therefore, they can participate to cocreation
unknowingly. Finally, in an effort to represent the general U.S. traveler population,
data were collected by using the services of a marketing panel vendor, and may be
characterized by self-selection bias or possibly causing unexpected group ratios
(e.g., male to female). Therefore, further research should validate the results presented here using replication with different general population samples.
As this study initiates a systematic research agenda that examines value
cocreation in hotels using mobile devices, there are abundant opportunities for
further research, such as examining value cocreation in the context of social
influences or the role of existing pre-cocreation value propositions. As the consumerfirm interactions are dynamic and under continuous evolution, the meaning of value is likely to change as well (Terblanche, 2014). It will be interesting
to reexamine value cocreation as the mobile technology evolves into new types
of interactions, such as wearable IS connected to the Internet of things.

This study presents a comprehensive view of value cocreation in hotels and

confirms that cocreation can emerge from a multitude of permutations and

Downloaded from at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 12, 2015


blending of consumer and contextual factors, which are grounded in guests perceptions of personalization, but influenced by other perceptions and cognitions.
That is, in hotels, in the context of m-commerce, guests could interact with
hotels to appropriate superior value, as the resulting personalized consumption
experience addresses only the attributes that are valuable to the guests, while
disregarding the irrelevant ones. In sum, this study contributed to the extant
body of knowledge in value cocreation, m-commerce, and hotel settings by setting up the foundation for a comprehensive conceptualization of cocreated
Yet while the hotel service environment is characterized by unique marketing
challenges (Morosan, Bowen, & Atwood, 2014), the contributions of this study
extend to adjacent sectors of the broader travel system (e.g., tourism, air transportation, foodservice) and other service industries (e.g., education, health care).
For example, as IS are increasingly prevalent in facilitating tourists interactions
(Oliveira & Panyik, 2015), especially when tourists are present at the destination, the mechanisms leading to cocreation that were validated here can be
adapted to facilitate cocreation at the destination. For example, using virtual
reality, location-based services, encouraging user-generated content, tourist consumption can become more interactive and higher in value. Also, in the air transportation services, IS-based cocreation facilitated by personalization, trust, and
innovativeness can increase consumers involvement not only with the airline
carrier (e.g., by facilitating cocreating value via ancillary services) but also with
the other actors of the value chain (e.g., security and border control agencies by
participation in trusted traveler programs).
Interestingly, although not studied to date from an SDL angle, foodservice
allows IS-based cocreation mechanisms that can be fruitful in the appropriation
of value by various stakeholders. Such approaches might include, for example
using mobile technologies and use more interactive and information-rich electronic menus, which could represent the starting points for personalized interactions leading to product/experiences that are high in value. Similarly, other
service industries can also adapt the framework presented here, as it outlines the
antecedents of involvement and intentions to cocreate. Specifically, if starting
from understanding the consumers via technology (e.g., different learning styles
of students; various treatment and lifestyle decision choices of health care consumers) and allowing for e-/m-commerce ecosystems to safely facilitate consumerorganization interactions, both organizations and consumers can facilitate
the development of a service environment high in value.

Scale Items

PERCEIVED SECURITY: adapted from Vatanasombut, Igbaria, Stylianou, and

Rodgers (2008) and Walczuch, Lemmink, and Streukens (2007):
Downloaded from at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 12, 2015



When used to access hotel-related information/services or to do tasks, my mobile

device(s) represent(s) secure system(s) through which to send sensitive
2. I would feel secure providing personal information via my mobile device(s)
when accessing hotel-related services/information or doing tasks.
3. I am not worried that information I provide over mobile device(s) when accessing hotel-related services/information or doing tasks could be used by other

TRUST: adapted from D. J. Kim, Ferrin, and Rao (2008) and Jarvenpaa,
Tractinsky, and Vitale (2000):
1. The hotels that let me use my mobile device(s) for accessing services/information or to do tasks are generally trustworthy.
2. The hotels that let me use my mobile device(s) for accessing services/information or to do tasks give me the impression that they keep their promises and
3. I believe that the hotels that let me use my mobile device(s) for accessing services/information or to do tasks have my best interests in mind.

PERCEIVED PERSONALIZATION: adapted from Xu, Lue, Carroll, and

Rosson (2011):



Using my mobile device(s) for accessing hotel-related services/information or to

do tasks can provide me with personalized deals/ads tailored to my specific
travel needs.
Using my mobile device(s) for accessing hotel-related services/information or to
do tasks can provide me with more relevant promotional information tailored to
my travel preferences or personal interests.
Using my mobile device(s) for accessing hotel-related services/information or to
do tasks can provide me with the kind of deals/ads that I might like.

PERSONAL INNOVATIVENESS: adapted from Goldsmith and Hofacker

1. If I heard about a new information technology, I would look for ways to experiment with it.
2. Among my peers, I am usually the first to explore new information
3. I can usually figure out new high-tech products and services without help from

NEED FOR INTERACTION: adapted from Dabholkar and Bagozzi (2002):

Downloaded from at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 12, 2015


1. Human contact in providing services makes the process enjoyable for me when
staying in hotels.
2. When staying in hotels, I like interacting with the person who provides the
3. When staying in hotels, it bothers me to use a machine when I could talk to a
person instead.

INVOLVEMENT: adapted from San Martn, Camarero, and San Jos (2011):
1. When staying in hotels, I am very interested in the hotel-related services/information or tasks that I can access using my mobile device(s).
2. When staying in hotels, my level of involvement with the hotel-related services/
information or tasks that are accessible using my mobile device(s) is high.
3. When staying in hotels, I am particularly involved with accessing hotel-related
services/information or completing tasks using my mobile device(s).

COCREATION INTENTIONS: adapted from Prahalad and Ramaswamy

(2004), Handrich and Heidenreich (2013), and Zwass (2010).
When staying in hotels, I will use my own mobile device(s) to . . .

. . . buy products/services to be consumed during the current trip.

. . . make an online review of the current hotel services.
. . . provide updates about my current trip.
. . . create my own computer network within the hotel.
. . . connect to other in-room technologies (e.g., to the TV to view content).
. . . control room atmospherics (e.g., temperature, air flow, lighting, curtains).
. . . access my room (as a room key) and other guest-restricted areas.

Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1998). A conceptual and operational definition of personal
innovativeness in the domain of information technology. Information Systems
Research, 9, 204-215.
Alam, I. (2006). Removing the fuzziness from the fuzzy front-end of service innovations
through customer interactions. Industrial Marketing Management, 35, 468-480.
Andreu, L., Snchez, I., & Mele, C. (2010). Value co-creation among retailers and consumers: New insights into the furniture market. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, 17, 241-250.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L., & Razavieh, A. (1996). Introduction to research in education (5th
ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Ballantyne, D., & Varey, R. J. (2008). The service-dominant logic and the future of marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 11-14.
Bilgihan, A., Okumus, F., Nusair, K., & Kwun, D. J.-W. (2011). Information technology
applications and competitive advantage in hotel companies. Journal of Hospitality &
Tourism Technology, 2, 139-154.

Downloaded from at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 12, 2015


Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit.
Sociological Methods & Research, 21, 230-258.
Cabiddu, F., Lui, T. W., & Piccoli, G. (2013). Managing value co-creation in the tourism
industry. Tourism Management, 42, 86-107.
Chakraborty, S., & Dobrzykowski, D. (2014). Examining value co-creation in healthcare
purchasing: A supply chain view. Business: Theory and Practice, 15, 179-190.
Chathoth, P., Altinay, L., Harrington, R. J., Okumus, F., & Chan, E. S. W. (2013).
Co-production versus co-creation: A process based continuum in the hotel service
context. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 32, 11-20.
Chen, J., & Dibb, S. (2010). Consumer trust in the online retail context: Exploring the
antecedents and consequences. Psychology & Marketing, 27, 323-346.
Chen, L., Marsden, J. R., & Zhang, Z. (2012). Theory and analysis of companysponsored value co-creation. Journal of Management Information Systems, 29, 141-172.
Chong, A. Y.-L., Chan, F. T.-T., & Ooi, K.-B. (2012). Predicting consumer decisions to
adopt mobile commerce: Cross country empirical examination between China and
Malaysia. Decision Support Systems, 53, 34-43.
Dabholkar, P. A., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2002). An attitudinal model of technology-based
self-service: Moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factors. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 30, 184-201.
Dholakia, U. M. (2001). A motivational process model of product involvement and consumer risk perception. European Journal of Marketing, 35, 1340-1360.
Doney, P. M., & Cannon, J. P. (1997). An examination of the nature of trust in the buyerseller relationship. Journal of Marketing, 61, 35-51.
Dong, B., Evans, K. R., & Zou, S. (2008). The effects of customer participation in cocreated service recovery. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 127-137.
Durugbo, C., & Pawar, K. (2014). A unified model of the co-creation process. Expert
Systems With Applications, 41, 4373-7387.
Echeverri, P., & Skln, P. (2011). Co-creation and co-destruction: A practice-theory
based study of interactive value formation. Marketing Theory, 11, 351-373.
Edvardsson, B., Kristensson, P., Magnusson, P., & Sundstrm, E. (2011). Customer integration within service developmentA review of methods and an analysis of in situ
and ex situ contributions. Technovation, 32, 419-429.
Etgar, M. (2008). A descriptive model of the consumer co-production process. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 97-108.
FitzPatrick, M., Davey, J., Muller, L., & Davey, H. (2013). Value-creating assets in tourism management: Applying marketings service-dominant logic in the hotel industry.
Tourism Management, 36, 86-98.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50.
Fujioka, Y. (2009). A consideration of the process of co-creation of value with customers. Artificial Life and Robotics, 14, 101-103.
Fuller, J., Hutter, K., & Faullant, R. (2011). Why co-creation experience matters?
Creative experience and its impact on the quantity and quality of creative contributions. R&D Management, 41, 259-273.
Fller, J., Matzler, K., Hutter, K., & Hautz, J. (2012). Consumers creative talent: Which
characteristics qualify consumers for open innovation projects? An exploration of
asymmetrical effects. Creativity and Innovation Management, 21, 247-262.

Downloaded from at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 12, 2015


Fuller, J., Muhlbacher, H., Matzler, K., & Jawecki, G. (2009). Consumer empowerment
through Internet-based co-creation. Journal of Management Information Systems,
26(3), 71-102.
Fyrberg Yngfalk, A. (2013). Its not us, its themRethinking value co-creation
among multiple actors. Journal of Marketing Management, 29, 1163-1181.
Garvin, M. (2014, October 28). How you engage with guests on their mobile devices
will determine your hotels failure or success. Retrieved from
Gebauer, H., Johnson, M., & Enquist, B. (2010). Value co-creation as a determinant of
success in public transport services: A study of the Swiss Federal Railway operator
(SBB). Managing Service Quality, 20, 511-530.
Gill, L., White, L., & Cameron, I. D. (2011). Service co-creation in community-based
aged healthcare. Managing Service Quality, 21, 152-177.
Goldsmith, R. E., & Hofacker, C. F. (1991). Measuring consumer innovativeness.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19, 209-221.
Gouillart, F. J. (2014). The race to implement co-creation of value with stakeholders:
Five approaches to competitive advantage. Strategy & Leadership, 42(1), 2-8.
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, 1483-1492.
Grnroos, C. (2011). Value co-creation in service logicA critical analysis. Marketing
Theory, 11, 279-301.
Grnroos, C. (2012). Conceptualizing value co-creation: A journey to the 1970s and back
for the future. Journal of Marketing Management, 28, 1520-1534.
Grnroos, C., & Helle, P. (2010). Adopting a service logic in manufacturing. Conceptual
foundation and metrics for mutual value creation. Journal of Service Management,
21, 564-590.
Grnroos, C., & Ravald, A. (2011). Service as business logic: Implications for value
creation and marketing. Journal of Service Management, 22, 5-22.
Grnroos, C., & Voima, P. (2013). Critical service logic: Making sense of value creation
and co-creation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41, 133-150.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. B., & Anderson, R. E. (2009). Multivariate data
analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Handrich, M., & Heidenreich, S. (2013). The willingness of a customer to co-create innovative, technology-based services: Conceptualization and measurement. International
Journal of Innovation Management, 17, 1350011.
Heidenreich, S., Wittkowski, K., Handrich, M., & Falk, T. (2014). The dark side of customer co-creation: Exploring the consequences of failed co-created services. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43, 279-296.
Helkkula, A., Kelleher, C., & Pihlstrm, M. (2012). Characterizing value as an experience: Implications for service researchers and managers. Journal of Service Research,
15, 59-75.
Hess, T. J., McNab, A. L., & Basoglu, K. A. (2014). Reliability generalization of perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and behavioral intentions. MIS Quarterly,
38, 1-28.
Hoyer, W. D., Chandy, R., Dorotic, M., Krafft, M., & Singh, S. S. (2010). Consumer
co-creation in new product development. Journal of Service Research, 13,
Downloaded from at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 12, 2015


Hutter, A. M., Hautz, J., Fueller, J., Mueller, J., & Matzler, K. (2011). Communitition:
The tension between competition and collaboration in community-based design contests. Creativity and Innovation Management, 20, 3-21.
Ind, N., & Coates, N. (2013). The meanings of co-creation. European Business Review,
25, 86-95.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., Tractinsky, N., & Vitale, M. (2000). Consumers trust in an Internet
store. Information Technology and Management, 1, 45-71.
Kim, C., Tao, W., Shin, N., & Kim, K.-S. (2010). An empirical study of customers perceptions of security and trust in e-payment systems. Electronic Commerce Research
and Applications, 9, 84-95.
Kim, D. J., Ferrin, D. L., & Rao, H. R. (2008). A trust-based consumer decision-making
model in electronic commerce: The role of trust, perceived risk, and their antecedents.
Decision Support Systems, 44, 544-564.
Kim, M.-J., Chung, N., & Lee, C.-K. (2011). The effect of perceived trust on electronic
commerce: Shopping online for tourism products and services in South Korea.
Tourism Management, 32, 256-265.
Kohler, T., Fueller, J., Matzler, K., & Stieger, D. (2011). Co-creation relation in virtual
worlds: The design of the user experience. MIS Quarterly, 35, 773-788.
Kristensson, P., Gustafsson, A., & Archer, T. (2004). Harnessing the creativity among
users. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21, 4-15.
Kristensson, P., Matthing, J., & Johansson, N. (2008). Key strategies for the successful involvement of customers in the co-creation of new technology-based services.
International Journal of Service Industry Management, 19, 474-491.
Laaksonen, P. (1994). Consumer involvement concepts and research. London, England:
Leavy, B. (2014). Venkat RamaswamyA ten-year perspective on how the value cocreation revolution is transforming competition. Strategy & Leadership, 41(6), 11-17.
Lee, C.-H., & Cranage, D. A. (2011). Personalisation-privacy paradox: The effects of
personalisation and privacy assurance on customer responses to travel web sites.
Tourism Management, 32, 987-994.
Lee, M. C. (2009). Factors influencing the adoption of Internet banking: An integration
of TAM and TPB with perceived risk and perceived benefit. Electronic Commerce
Research and Applications, 8, 130-141.
Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2003). Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information &
Management, 40, 191-204.
Lin, J., Lu, Y., Wang, B., & Wei, K. K. (2011). The role of inter-channel trust transfer in establishing mobile commerce trust. Electronic Commerce Research and
Applications, 10, 615-625.
Lorenzo-Romero, C., Constantinides, E., & Brunink, L. A. (2014). Co-creation: Customer
integration in social media based product and service development. Procedia: Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 148, 383-396.
Lu, J., Liu, C., Yu, C. S., & Wang, K. (2008). Determinants of accepting wireless mobile
data services in China. Information & Management, 45, 52-64.
Lugosi, P. (2014). Mobilising identity and culture in experience co-creation and venue
operation. Tourism Management, 40, 165-179.
Lusch, R. F., & Nambisan, S. (2015). Service innovation: A service-dominant logic perspective. MIS Quarterly, 39, 155-175.
Downloaded from at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 12, 2015


Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2006). Service-dominant logic: Reactions, reflections and
refinements. Marketing Theory, 6, 281-288.
Mardia, K. V. (1970). Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications.
Biometrika, 57, 519-530.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709-734.
McCole, P., Ramsey, E., & Williams, J. (2010). Trust considerations on attitudes towards
online purchasing: The moderating effect of privacy and security concerns. Journal of
Business Research, 63, 1018-1024.
McColl-Kennedy, J. R., Vargo, S., Dagger, T., & Sweeney, J. C. (2009, June). Customers
as resource integrators: Styles of customer co-creation. Paper presented at the 2009
Naples Forum on Services, Service-Dominant Logic, Service Science, and Network
Theory, Capri, Italy.
McGarvey, R. (2014, March 26). How to keep your mobile devices secure. Travel +
Leisure. Retrieved from
Meuter, M. L., Ostrom, A. L., Bitner, M. J., & Roundtree, R. (2003). The influence of
technology anxiety on consumer use and experiences with self-service technologies.
Journal of Business Research, 56, 899-906.
Midgley, D. F., & Dowling, G. R. (1978). Innovativeness: The concept and its measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 4, 229-242.
Montazemi, A. R., & Qahri-Saremi, H. (2015). Factors affecting adoption of online banking: A meta-analytic structural equation modeling study. Information & Management,
52, 210-226.
Moran, P., & Ghoshal, S. (1999). Markets, firms, and the process of economic development. Academy of the Management Review, 24, 390-412.
Morgan, N. A., Kaleka, A., & Katsikeas, C. S. (2004). Antecedents of export venture
performance: A theoretical model and empirical assessment. Journal of Marketing,
68, 90-108.
Morosan, C. (2014). Toward an integrated model of adoption of mobile phones for
purchasing ancillary services in air travel. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 26, 246-271.
Morosan, C., Bowen, J. T., & Atwood, M. (2014). The evolution of marketing research.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 26, 706-726.
Muthn, L. K., & Muthn, B. O. (2007). Mplus users guide (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA:
Muthn & Muthn.
Ntti, S., Pekkarinen, S., Hartikka, A., & Holappa, T. (2014). The intermediator role
in value co-creation within a triadic business relationship. Industrial Marketing
Management, 43, 977-984.
Navarro, S., Andreu, L., & Cervera, A. (2014). Value co-creation among hotels and disabled customers: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Research, 67, 813-818.
Nayer, M. (2012). Ritz-Carlton debuts mobile app packed with personalized info, hotel
insights. Retrieved from
Neuhofer, B., Buhalis, D., & Ladkin, A. (2014). A typology of technology-enhanced
tourism experiences. International Journal of Tourism Research, 16, 340-350.

Downloaded from at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 12, 2015


Oliveira, E., & Panyik, E. (2015). Content, context and co-creation: Digital challenges
in destination branding with references to Portugal as a tourist destination. Journal of
Vacation Marketing, 21, 53-74.
Olsen, S. S., & Mai, H. T. X. (2013). Consumer participation: The case of home meal
preparation. Psychology & Marketing, 30, 1-11.
Park, S.-Y., & Allen, J. P. (2013). Responding to online reviews: Problem solving and
engagement in hotels. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 54, 64-73.
Payne, A., Storbacka, K., & Frow, P. (2008). Managing the co-creation of value. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 83-96.
Peppers, D., & Rogers, M. (1996). The one to one future: Building relationships one
customer at a time. New York, NY: Currency/Doubleday.
Phillips, D. (2014, October 22-25). BYOD/BYOC in hotels. Presentation at the 2014
Annual Convention of the Hospitality Financial and Technology Professionals
(HFTP), New Orleans, LA.
Prahalad, C. K. (2004). The co-creation of value [Invited commentaries on Evolving to
a New Dominant Logic for Marketing]. Journal of Marketing, 68, 23-35.
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation of experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 6-14.
Prebensen, N. K., & Foss, L. (2011). Coping and co-creating in tourist experiences.
International Journal of Tourism Research, 13, 54-67.
Prebensen, N. K., Vitters, J., & Dahl, T. I. (2013). Value co-creation significance of
tourist resources. Annals of Tourism Research, 42, 240-261.
Ramaswamy, V. (2008). Co-creating value through customers experiences: The Nike
case. Strategy & Leadership, 36(5), 9-14.
Randall, W. S., Gravier, M. J., & Prybutok, V. R. (2011). Connection, trust, and commitment: Dimensions of co-creation? Journal of Strategic Marketing, 19, 3-24.
Ranjan, K. R., & Read, S. (2014). Value co-creation: Concept and measurement. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/
San Martn, S., Camarero, C., & San Jos, R. (2011). Does involvement matter in online
shopping satisfaction and trust? Psychology & Marketing, 28, 145-167.
Schmidt-Rauch, S., & Schwabe, G. (2014). Designing for mobile value co-creationThe
case of travel counseling. Electronic Markets, 24, 5-17.
Shaw, G., Bailey, A., & Williams, A. (2011). Aspects of service-dominant logic and its
implications for tourism management: Examples from the hotel industry. Tourism
Management, 32, 207-214.
Shin, D. H. (2009). Determinants of customer acceptance of multi-service network: An
implication for IP-based technologies. Information & Management, 46, 16-22.
Srensen, F., & Jensen, J. F. (2015). Value creation and knowledge development in tourism experience encounters. Tourism Management, 46, 336-346.
Strandvik, T., Holmlund, M., & Edvardsson, B. (2012). Customer needing: A challenge
for the seller offering. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 27, 132-141.
Sung, Y., & Kim, J. (2010). Effects of brand personality on brand trust and brand affect.
Psychology & Marketing, 27, 639-661.
Syam, N., & Kumar, N. (2006). On customized goods, standard goods, and competition.
Marketing Science, 25, 525-537.
Teo, T. S. H., & Liu, J. (2007). Consumer trust in e-commerce in the United States,
Singapore, and China. Omega: The International Journal of Management Science,
35, 22-38.
Downloaded from at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 12, 2015


Terblanche, N. S. (2014). Some theoretical perspectives of co-creation and co-production

of value by customers. Acta Commercii, 14(2), 1-8.
Toh, R. S., Lee, E., & Hu, M. Y. (2006). Social desirability bias in diary panels is evident
in panelists behavioral frequency. Psychological Reports, 99, 322-334.
Tynan, C., McKechnie, S., & Chhuon, C. (2010). Co-creating value for luxury brands.
Journal of Business Research, 63, 1156-1163.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing.
Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1-17.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). Service-dominant logic: Continuing the evolution.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 1-10.
Vargo, S. L., Maglio, P. P., & Akaka, M. A. (2008). On value and value co-creation: A
service systems and service logic perspective. European Management Journal, 26,
Vatanasombut, B., Igbaria, M., Stylianou, A. C., & Rodgers, W. (2008). Information systems continuance of web-based applications customers: The case of online banking.
Information & Management, 45, 419-428.
Walczuch, R., Lemmink, J., & Streukens, S. (2007). The effect of service employees
technology readiness on technology acceptance. Information & Management, 44,
Wang, H.-Y., & Wang, S.-H. (2010). Predicting mobile hotel reservation adoption:
Insight from a perceived value standpoint. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 29, 598-608.
West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: Problems and remedies. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation
modeling: Concepts, issues and applications (pp. 56-75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wu, J.-H., & Wang, S.-C. (2005). What drives mobile commerce? An empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 42,
Xu, H., Lue, X., Carroll, J. M., & Rosson, M. B. (2011). The personalization privacy
paradox: An exploratory study of decision-making process for location-aware marketing. Decision Support Systems, 51, 42-52.
Yi, Y., & Gong, T. (2013). Customer value co-creation behavior: Scale development and
validation. Journal of Business Research, 66, 1279-1284.
Zarmpou, T., Saprikis, V., Markos, A., & Vlachopoulou, M. (2012). Modeling users
acceptance of mobile services. Electronic Commerce Research, 12, 225-248.
Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perception of price, quality and value: A means-endsmodel and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(2), 2-22.
Zwass, V. (2010). Co-creation: Toward a taxonomy and an integrated research perspective. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 15, 11-48.
Zwick, D., Bonsu, S. K., & Darmody, A. (2008). Putting consumers to work: Cocreation
and new marketing govern-mentality. Journal of Consumer Culture, 8, 163-196.

Submitted December 12, 2014

Accepted June 26, 2015
Refereed Anonymously
Cristian Morosan, PhD (e-mail:, is an assistant professor in Conrad
N. Hilton College of Hotel & Restaurant Management at University of Houston, Houston,
Downloaded from at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on October 12, 2015