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

net/publication/263675923

The Role of Customer Engagement in Building Consumer Loyalty to Tourism

Brands

Article in Journal of Travel Research · July 2014

DOI: 10.1177/0047287514541008

CITATIONS READS
619 11,895

4 authors:

Kevin Kam Fung So Ceridwyn King

Purdue University West Lafayette Temple University
97 PUBLICATIONS 7,846 CITATIONS 86 PUBLICATIONS 6,119 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Beverley Anne Sparks Ying Wang

Griffith University Griffith University
122 PUBLICATIONS 12,497 CITATIONS 41 PUBLICATIONS 3,332 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Kevin Kam Fung So on 06 August 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

541008
research-article2014
JTRXXX10.1177/0047287514541008Journal of Travel ResearchSo et al.

Research Article

Journal of Travel Research

The Role of Customer Engagement in

2016, Vol. 55(1) 64­–78
© The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
Building Consumer Loyalty to Tourism sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0047287514541008

Brands jtr.sagepub.com

Kevin Kam Fung So1, Ceridwyn King2, Beverley A. Sparks3, and

Ying Wang3

Abstract
Customer engagement has recently emerged in both academic literature and practitioner discussions as a brand loyalty
predictor that may be superior to other traditional loyalty antecedents. However, empirical inquiry on customer engagement
is relatively scarce. As tourism and hospitality firms have widely adopted customer engagement strategies for managing
customer–brand relationships, further understanding of this concept is essential. Using structural equation modeling, this
study investigates the linkages of customer engagement with traditional antecedents of brand loyalty. Results based on 496
hotel and airline customers suggest that customer engagement enhances customers’ service brand evaluation, brand trust,
and brand loyalty. The results show that service brand loyalty can be strengthened not only through the service consumption
experience but also through customer engagement beyond the service encounter. This study contributes to the literature
by providing an empirical evaluation of the relationships between customer engagement and key brand loyalty development
factors.

Keywords
customer engagement, brand loyalty, brand management, customer interaction, tourism, hospitality

For many years, brand loyalty has been considered a signifi- the rise of new media channels and the growing popularity of
cant indicator of marketing success of firms in many indus- the Internet (Xiang et al., forthcoming) have provided tourism
tries, including tourism and hospitality (Yoo and Bai 2012). and hospitality firms with new opportunities to connect with
Previous brand loyalty studies have mainly examined key their customers through interactions other than the service
marketing concepts such as service quality (e.g., Bloemer, experience (e.g., reading newsletters, writing reviews, joining
de Ruyter, and Wetzels 1999; Hsu, Oh, and Assaf 2012; Nam, a Facebook community, or blogging). The increasing usage of
Ekinci, and Whyatt 2011), perceived value (e.g., Sirdeshmukh, smartphones (Wang, Xiang, and Fesenmaier, forthcoming)
Singh, and Sabol 2002; Ryu, Han, and Kim 2008; Petrick and the emergence of online social media also enable custom-
2004), customer satisfaction (e.g., Back and Parks 2003; ers to interact easily with other consumers outside of actual
Li and Petrick 2008; Back and Lee 2009), and trust (e.g., service consumption (Verhoef, Reinartz, and Krafft 2010),
Chaudhuri and Holbrook 2001; Han and Jeong 2013) as loy- thus allowing firms to encourage their customers to become
alty antecedents. Such determinants are often described as effective advocates for the brand (Malthouse et al. 2013).
evaluative judgment variables (Butcher, Sparks, and Such beyond-purchase interactions are the behavioral mani-
O’Callaghan 2001) or service evaluation factors (Lai, Griffin, festation of customer engagement (CE) (van Doorn et al.
and Babin 2009) determined primarily through consumers’ 2010; Verhoef, Reinartz, and Krafft 2010).
evaluation of the actual service experience. While trust is
considered as a relational variable (Sirdeshmukh, Singh, and
1
Sabol 2002), the trust image of a brand is based mainly on University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA
2
Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA
past experiences with that brand (Delgado-Ballester and 3
Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
Munuera-Alemán 2001; Ravald and Gronroos 1996; Rempel,
Holmes, and Zanna 1985). Thus, from a customer’s perspec- Corresponding Author:
Kevin Kam Fung So, School of Hotel, Restaurant, and Tourism
tive, brand loyalty depends largely on the consumer’s assess-
Management, Center of Economic Excellence in Tourism and Economic
ment of the consumption experience with a particular brand. Development, University of South Carolina, 701 Assembly Street,
The significant role of the service consumption experience Columbia, SC 29208, USA.
in establishing brand loyalty remains indisputable. However, Email: kevinso@hrsm.sc.edu

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on July 20, 2016

So et al. 65

The tourism and hospitality literature widely supports the with a brand (i.e., CE) and the effects these connections have
potential benefits of CE. For example, online user-generated on the development of loyalty.
reviews influence the number of online bookings (Ye, Law,
and Gu 2009), the intentions to book and perceptions of trust
in the hotel (Sparks and Browning 2011), as well as consum- Literature Review
ers’ attributions of service quality (Browning, So, and Sparks
2013). In addition, leveraging CE behaviors may allow tour-
Customer Engagement
ism organizations to attract and retain more customers, con- Customer engagement has emerged in the marketing litera-
vert browsers to buyers, and gain additional insight into their ture as an important concept defined with a strong behavioral
business (Wang and Fesenmaier 2004). Recent research sug- focus. For example, the MSI (2010) identifies CE as a prior-
gests that engaging tourists posttrip could facilitate visitors ity topic and describes the concept as “customers’ behavioral
become advocates and ambassadors for the destination by manifestation toward a brand or firm beyond purchase,
talking to other users and asking their opinions (Mistilis, which results from motivational drivers including: word-of-
Buhalis, and Gretzel, forthcoming). Practitioners also mouth activity, recommendations, customer-to-customer
increasingly recognize the importance of CE. For example, interactions, blogging, writing reviews, and other similar
Econsultancy (2011) surveyed more than 1,000 companies activities” (p. 4). The academic (e.g., van Doorn et al. 2010;
and agencies across various industries worldwide, including Bijmolt et al. 2010; Verhoef, Reinartz, and Krafft 2010) and
the travel sector, and found that 50% of the companies regard practitioner (e.g., Shevlin 2007) literature also demonstrate a
CE as “essential” for their organizations, and 33% consider behavioral orientation.
CE as “important.” However, several scholars argue that the conceptualiza-
Recognizing the benefits of building CE, global tourism tion of CE needs to go beyond a pure action focus to incor-
brands such as the Marriott and Cathay Pacific have estab- porate both psychological and behavioral dimensions (e.g.,
lished their company page on major social network sites Patterson, Yu, and de Ruyter 2006; Hollebeek 2009, 2011a;
(e.g., Facebook and Twitter) and have begun engaging with Vivek 2009; Brodie et al. 2011). In particular, support for
their customers through interactions beyond purchase. broadening the conceptual domain of CE is grounded in the
According to the Marketing Science Institute (MSI) (2010), thinking that pure behavioral participation in CE activities
firms increasingly see nontransactional activities, such as does not necessarily mean true CE with a brand. A customer
word of mouth, recommendations, customer-to-customer may engage in a brand discussion forum to acquire product
interactions, blogging, and writing reviews, as a route for information or reduce perceived risks (Brodie et al. 2013),
creating, building, and enhancing customer–firm relation- rather than to be connected to the brand. As the truly engaged
ships. Recent research reinforced the relevance of engage- customer must have an enduring psychological connection
ment in brand management (Keller 2003) by demonstrating with the brand in addition to behavioral participation (So,
that CE, incorporating both psychological and behavioral King, and Sparks, forthcoming; Hollebeek 2011b), a multidi-
customer–brand connections outside of the purchase situa- mensional approach captures the full conceptual domain of
tion, significantly predicts customers’ behavioral intention of the CE concept.
loyalty toward tourism brands (So, King, and Sparks, While several multidimensional conceptualizations of CE
forthcoming). have been proposed (e.g., Brodie et al. 2013; Hollebeek
Despite the growing interest in fostering CE, empirical 2011b, van Doorn et al. 2010, So, King, and Sparks, forth-
research is relatively limited (Bolton 2011; Gummerus et al. coming), which provide a significant conceptual foundation
2012), and very little is known about the role CE plays in for CE, this study adopts the conceptualization proposed by
brand loyalty development and how it interacts with estab- So, King, and Sparks (forthcoming) because it focuses spe-
lished loyalty determinants. More specifically, previous aca- cifically on tourism services and offers a validated measure-
demic efforts focus mainly on the conceptualized ment scale to operationalize the concept. Following a
relationships between CE and consumer–brand relationship multidimensional approach, So, King, and Sparks (forth-
factors such as trust and loyalty (Vivek, Beatty, and Morgan coming) define CE as a customer’s personal connection to a
2012; van Doorn et al. 2010; Hollebeek 2011a). This investi- brand as manifested in cognitive, affective, and behavioral
gation, building on prior conceptual work (Hollebeek 2011a; responses outside of the purchase and conceptualize CE as a
Vivek, Beatty, and Morgan 2012), empirically examines higher-order construct comprising five first-order factors,
CE’s associations with several critical factors underpinning including enthusiasm (or vigor), attention, absorption, inter-
the development of loyal customer–brand relationships in action, and identification. Enthusiasm represents an individ-
the context of tourism, where CE behaviors are considered to ual’s strong level of excitement and interest regarding the
be prevalent (Wang and Fesenmaier 2004). This study places focus of engagement, such as a brand, whereas attention
CE in a wider nomological framework (Hollebeek 2011a). In describes a consumer’s attentiveness to the brand. Absorption
doing so, this research advances current understanding of is a pleasant state in which the customer is fully concen-
beyond-purchase psychological and behavioral connections trated, happy, and deeply engrossed while playing the role as

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on July 20, 2016

66 Journal of Travel Research 55(1)

a consumer of the brand, and interaction refers to a custom- Zahorik, and Keiningham 1995). This results from cognitive
er’s online and offline participation with the brand, or other and memory processes where global evaluations synthesize
customers, outside of the purchase transaction. Identification many experiences and perceptions (Garbarino and Johnson
is an individual’s perceived oneness with, or belongingness 1999). Furthermore, scholars have combined different types
to, the brand. The five underlying dimensions collectively of cumulative evaluations (e.g., trust and satisfaction) to
reflect the psychological and behavioral aspects of CE. form a single global construct, such as relationship quality
(Crosby, Evans, and Cowles 1990). On this basis, the combi-
Customer Engagement and Service Brand Loyalty nation of perceived service quality, perceived value, and cus-
tomer satisfaction to form a higher-order construct of service
Development brand evaluation appears to be conceptually appropriate.
Scholarly efforts have identified several key consumer–
brand relationship concepts that are potentially related to CE The effect of customer engagement on service brand evalua-
(Patterson, Yu, and de Ruyter 2006; Hollebeek 2009, 2011a; tion. Although empirical research on the conceptual relation-
Brodie et al. 2011; van Doorn et al. 2010; So, King, and ship between CE and service brand evaluation is currently
Sparks, forthcoming; Bowden 2009; Vivek, Beatty, and lacking, the employee engagement literature provides some
Morgan 2012). These factors include customer satisfaction, insight into the potential relationship between the two theo-
brand trust, perceived value, and service quality, which are retical constructs. Specifically, research on engagement from
fundamental to development of brand loyal relationships an employee’s perspective has found that job satisfaction is a
(Harris and Goode 2004; Cronin, Brady, and Hult 2000). significant consequence of job and organization engagement
However, limited empirical evidence exists to establish a (Saks 2006). Similarly, scholars have reported a positive
clear understanding of the connection between CE and fac- relationship between employee engagement and employee
tors underlying the development of loyal customer–brand satisfaction (Harter, Schmidt, and Hayes 2002). Given that
relationships. Such knowledge is important to both market- employee engagement and CE are both characterized by
ing practitioners and academics owing to organizations’ feelings of passion, energy, enthusiasm, and activation (Hol-
increasing adoption of CE strategies and because of the sig- lebeek 2009, 2011a; Patterson, Yu, and de Ruyter 2006;
nificant amount of academic attention afforded to this emerg- Macey and Schneider 2008; So, King, and Sparks, forthcom-
ing concept as a superior predictor of brand loyalty. ing), the nature of these relationships may be transferable to
Therefore, an effort to enhance understanding of the role CE a consumer context.
plays in the brand loyalty development process requires a In the emerging CE literature, however, scholars appear to
systematic approach to conceptualizing the linkages between support two opposite predictions concerning the relationship
the key components in service brand loyalty development. between service brand evaluation and CE. On the one hand,
customer-based evaluative factors, such as satisfaction, trust,
Service brand evaluation. Prior research indicates that the perceived costs/benefits (i.e., value), and brand performance
development of brand loyalty rests largely on consumer eval- perceptions, have been described as influencing CE behavior
uation of the key aspects of services, including the perceived (Verhoef, Reinartz, and Krafft 2010). Therefore, enhanced
level of service quality (Bloemer, de Ruyter, and Wetzels service brand evaluation may induce CE. However, this
1999; Lee and Cunningham 2001; Zeithaml, Berry, and Para- directional relationship is unlikely to be linear. While supe-
suraman 1996; Aydin and Ozer 2005; Rauyruen and Miller rior service brand evaluation is vital to the success of service
2007), the perceptions of value for money (e.g., Chen and Hu brands, to assume that all customers who evaluate the service
2010; Sirdeshmukh, Singh, and Sabol 2002), and customer experience positively will become engaged with the brand is
satisfaction with the purchase (Butcher, Sparks, and unreasonable. Thus, superior service brand evaluation is nec-
O’Callaghan 2001; Li and Petrick 2008; Harris and Goode essary but insufficient to establish strong CE.
2004; Rauyruen and Miller 2007; Bridson, Evans, and Hick- On the other hand, scholars contend that CE affects cus-
man 2008). Consumers assess these factors primarily by tomers’ evaluations of a product or service. For example, the
evaluating the service encounter during their service con- potential effect of CE on service brand evaluation is apparent
sumption experience (So et al. 2013). Although early studies in Hollebeek’s (2009) conceptual model, which proposes
examined these concepts as distinct constructs, the market- that CE exerts a direct influence on satisfaction and an indi-
ing literature suggests that these closely related concepts rect effect on customer value. In addition, other marketing
could be combined to form a higher level of abstraction, investigators argue that CE leads to favorable attitudes
given that they all represent higher-order mental constructs toward a product, company, or brand (Vivek, Beatty, and
summarizing consumers’ knowledge of, and experiences Morgan 2012). Furthermore, researchers in the social psy-
with, a particular firm (Garbarino and Johnson 1999). chology literature suggest that the more strongly an individ-
Research shows that these global evaluation factors often ual is engaged, the more intensely the individual experiences
have a strong statistical relationship, described as a halo the motivational force (Higgins and Scholer 2009). Therefore,
effect (Crosby and Stephens 1987) or multicollinearity (Rust, an individual who is more strongly engaged in pursuit of a

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on July 20, 2016

So et al. 67

goal will evaluate a positive target more positively and a 2003; Delgado-Ballester and Munuera-Alemán 2001; Rem-
negative target more negatively. On this basis, we hypothe- pel, Holmes, and Zanna 1985; Ravald and Gronroos 1996).
size that In the context of brand management, trust includes an infer-
ence that the organization will act benevolently in the best
Hypothesis 1: Customer engagement is positively related interests of the customer based on shared goals and values
to service brand evaluation. (Doney and Cannon 1997; Chaudhuri and Holbrook 2001).
Therefore, prior experience with the service brand provides
The effect of service brand evaluation and customer engagement an important basis for establishing and reinforcing the cus-
on brand loyalty. Despite limited empirical evidence directly tomer’s perception of benevolence.
supporting the association between service brand evaluation, Although trust can be a potential antecedent of CE (Brodie
CE, and loyalty, research suggests that in evaluating the et al. 2011), trust is more likely to be an outcome of CE
product or service offerings of a brand, consumers develop (Hollebeek 2011a). According to social exchange theory,
attitudes or satisfaction judgments about the purchase that trusting relationships evolve over time as both parties experi-
justify their loyal relationship with the brand (Fullerton ence the continuation of favorable reciprocal exchange
2005; Yuksel, Yuksel, and Bilim 2010; Nam, Ekinci, and (Cropanzano and Mitchell 2005; Saks 2006). Thus, individu-
Whyatt 2011), resulting in favorable behavioral intentions als who are more engaged are likely to be in more trusting,
such as loyalty to the company (Zeithaml, Berry, and Para- high-quality relationships with an organization. The market-
suraman 1996). Similarly, previous studies show that ing literature also suggests that positive interactions in extra-
enhanced evaluation of service quality leads to positive out- exchange relationship interactions enhance trust levels
comes such as repurchase intention (Rauyruen and Miller (Ganesan 1994; Lambe, Spekman, and Hunt 2000; Sashi
2007), willingness to recommend (de Ruyter, Wetzels, and 2012). Therefore, higher engagement is expected to produce
Bloemer 1998), and customer loyalty (e.g., Zeithaml, Berry, more trust in the relationship.
and Parasuraman 1996; Aydin and Ozer 2005). Enhanced by a positive evaluation of the brand, brand
Brand loyalty represents a customer’s deeply held com- trust engenders brand loyalty as a result of creating highly
mitment to rebuy or repatronize a preferred brand consis- valued exchange relationships with the firm or brand
tently (Oliver 1999). In contrast, CE summarizes customers’ (Morgan and Hunt 1994). Furthermore, trust enhances a cus-
beyond-purchase connections with the brand (Vivek, tomer’s commitment to a relationship by reducing the level
Beatty, and Morgan 2012; So, King, and Sparks, forthcom- of perceived risk associated with the exchange partner’s
ing). Marketing scholars argue that CE may enhance loy- opportunistic behaviors. In doing so, trust increases the con-
alty and purchase decisions (e.g., Hollebeek 2009; fidence of the customer that short-term inequities will be
Patterson, Yu, and de Ruyter 2006) through a strong, endur- resolved over a long period, thereby reducing the transaction
ing psychological connection accompanied by interactive costs in an exchange relationship (Ganesan and Hess 1997).
brand experiences beyond purchase (Brodie et al. 2011). Based on the previous discussion, we hypothesize:
CE with a brand influences consumer outcomes such as
brand perceptions and brand attitudes, and therefore influ- Hypothesis 4: Service brand evaluation is positively
ences brand loyalty (Sprott, Czellar, and Spangenberg related to brand trust.
2009). Furthermore, an engaged individual is likely to Hypothesis 5: Customer engagement is positively related
develop more favorable attitudes toward a product, com- to brand trust.
pany, or brand, leading to loyalty toward the entity (Vivek, Hypothesis 6: Brand trust is positively related to brand
Beatty, and Morgan 2012; So, King, and Sparks, forthcom- loyalty.
ing). Therefore, we hypothesize
In summary, the preceding section presents the research
Hypothesis 2: Service brand evaluation is positively hypotheses developed for this study. The proposed integra-
related to brand loyalty. tive model of service brand loyalty formation is presented in
Hypothesis 3: Customer engagement is positively related Figure 1.
to brand loyalty.

The mediating role of brand trust. In addition to having a direct Method

effect on brand loyalty, service brand evaluation and CE con-
tribute significantly to the development of consumers’ trust
Data Collection
in a service brand. While trust can result from indirect con- To test the research hypotheses, we used a quantitative
tact with the firm (e.g., advertising or publicity), the most method that included a survey questionnaire to measure cus-
critical factor is evaluation of the consumption experience tomers’ perceptions with respect to the constructs of
(Delgado-Ballester, Munuera-Alemán, and Yague-Guillen interest.

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on July 20, 2016

68 Journal of Travel Research 55(1)

Service
Quality

Perceived Service Brand

Value Evaluation
H2

Customer H4
Satisfaction

Brand H6 Brand
H1
Trust Loyalty
Identification

H5
Enthusiasm
H3

Customer
Attention Engagement

Absorption

Interaction

Figure 1. Proposed integrative model of service brand loyalty formation.

Procedure (Fabrigar, Porter, and Norris 2010; Bagozzi and Yi 2012;

Hair et al. 2006) and was therefore considered appropriate.
This study was conducted in Australia. To access potential
respondents, we drew a sample from a privacy law–compli-
ant online consumer panel consisting of more than 500,000
Survey Instrument
members, thus providing a reasonable representation of the The survey instrument was compiled using measurement
population of this study, which includes general Australian items generated from the literature. The use of existing scales
consumers of travel services. Given the plethora of CE initia- ensured the reliability and validity of the survey instrument.
tives employed by tourism and hospitality organizations, the We asked respondents to indicate a hotel or airline brand
sampling frame of this study consisted of only individuals that they had most recently used and then to indicate their
who had traveled domestically or internationally in the past responses to brand trust and brand loyalty items on a 7-point
12 months. Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree)
We then used systematic random sampling to obtain a list and their responses to service quality, perceived value, and
of 5,000 potential respondents, with equal representation of customer satisfaction on a 7-point semantic differential scale.
males and females. We selected hotels and airlines as the Item wording was slightly modified to reflect the context of
sample brand categories because they represent two major this study.
components of the travel experience and have traditionally To measure CE, we used 25 items from So, King, and
adopted brand strategies. Each respondent received an invi- Sparks (forthcoming) to measure the five underlying dimen-
tational e-mail with a click-through survey link. sions of CE. To assess customers’ perceived quality of ser-
In a two-week data collection period, 556 respondents vices provided by the brand, we adapted three overall service
completed the survey, yielding a response rate of approxi- quality items from Cronin, Brady, and Hult (2000). We used
mately 11.12%. As the relatively low response rate could four items from Sirdeshmukh, Singh, and Sabol (2002) to
potentially introduce nonresponse bias into the research data, measure customers’ value perceptions and adapted four
a nonresponse bias analysis was conducted in the results sec- affective items from Spreng, MacKenzie, and Olshavsky
tion. After inspecting the data, we eliminated 76 cases owing (1996) to capture customers’ overall satisfaction with the
to incomplete responses, leaving 496 usable cases. The sam- brand. Finally, from Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001), we
ple size was in line with the level recommended in the litera- adapted four items measuring brand trust, along with four
ture for structural equation models with similar complexity items capturing both attitudinal and behavioral loyalty.

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on July 20, 2016

So et al. 69

Table 1. Descriptive Summary of Participants. Measurement Model: First-Order CFA

Sociodemographic Variable n % As the literature review suggests, service brand evaluation
Industry (n = 496) and CE are second-order constructs, implying that the two
Hotel 207 41.7 multidimensional concepts consist of more concrete (or first-
Airline 289 58.3 order) subdimensions or components. Analysis of the mea-
Age (n = 473) surement model with higher-order factor structures requires
18–29 38 8.0 the use of hierarchical (or higher-order) CFA, for which a
30–39 67 14.2 well-defined first-order factor measurement model is a pre-
40–49 110 23.3 requisite (Marsh 1991). Therefore, we estimated a first-order
50–59 137 29.0 measurement model on all scales used in this study, followed
≥60 121 25.6 by a second-order CFA to assess the proposed second-order
Gender (n = 484) factor structure of service brand evaluation and CE.
Male 144 29.8 To assess the measurement model, we first conducted a
Female 340 70.2 CFA on the overall sample data (n = 496) using AMOS 19.0
Annual income (AU$; n = 473) with all first-order constructs modeled simultaneously as cor-
<20,000 113 23.9 related factors with the maximum likelihood estimation
20,001–50,000 180 38.1 method. As the analysis suggests that the data were multivari-
50,001–80,000 108 22.8 ate nonnormal, we used bootstrapping to generate parameter
>80,000 72 15.2 estimates for subsequent model analysis. In specifying the
Education (n = 483)
model, we included an error covariance for items BL1 (“If
Primary school 4 .8
available, I will fly/stay with this brand the next time I travel”)
High school 152 31.5
and BL2 (“I intend to keep flying/staying with this brand”)
Technical and trade 115 23.8
given that they both measure consumers’ behavioral aspects of
Diploma 74 15.3
Undergraduate degree 91 18.8
brand loyalty. The results of the analysis indicated a good fit
Postgraduate degree 47 9.7 for the sample data, with χ2 = 2234.97, df = 856, χ2/df = 2.61,
p < .05; comparative fit index (CFI) = .95, normed fit index
(NFI) = .92, Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI) = .94, root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .057, and standard-
Results
ized root mean residual SRMR = .0508, as Table 2 shows.
As Table 1 indicates, within the sample 70.2% of the respon- Construct validity was evaluated through convergent
dents were female and 66.5% were between ages 30 and 60, validity and discriminant validity. Convergent validity was
with 25.6% older than age 60, and 8% younger than age supported with statistically significant (p < .01) item factor
30 years. Annual income levels varied, with 23.9% of the loadings (Anderson and Gerbing 1988). Standardized factor
sample earning under AU$20,000, 38.1% earning between loadings for all 44 items achieved the suggested threshold of
AU$20,000 and AU$50,000, and 38% earning over .70 (Hair et al. 2006), and the critical ratios for all standard-
AU$50,000. In terms of the highest education level achieved, ized factor loadings were well above 2.57 (Netemeyer,
28.5% of the respondents had university degrees, 39.1% held Bearden, and Sharma 2003), providing strong support for
other types of tertiary qualifications, 31.5% were high school convergent validity.
qualified, and 0.8% had completed primary school. As suggested by Fornell and Larcker (1981), we assessed
In accordance with Armstrong and Overton (1977), we the discriminant validity of the measured constructs. The
evaluated nonresponse bias by comparing early and late results presented in Table 3 show that the square root of the
respondents on demographic variables and scale measures. average variance extracted (AVE) for each factor was greater
The chi-square tests indicate no significant differences than its correlations with other factors except for perceived
between early (top 10%) and late (bottom 10%) respondents in value, which had a square root of AVE equal to its correlation
terms of respondent characteristics. In addition, the t-tests with customer satisfaction. Therefore, we furthered tested
results show that all measured items were not significantly whether the correlation between constructs is significantly
different (α = .01) between early and late respondents. These less than one (Bagozzi and Heatherton 1994; Anderson and
analyses indicate no serious nonresponse bias in this study. Gerbing 1988). Discriminant validity is evidenced if the
The research data were analyzed through structural equa- value of one is not contained within 2 standard errors of the
tion modeling (SEM) according to Anderson and Gerbing correlation. As Table 3 shows, the highest correlation
(1988), with an initial examination of the measurement between constructs was .86 (between SAT and PV). The
model via confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) followed by associated confidence interval was .84 to .88. Therefore, on
testing of the hypothesized structural relationships among the basis of the two analysis tests, discriminant validity was
the four constructs contained in the conceptual model. supported for all pairs of constructs.

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on July 20, 2016

70 Journal of Travel Research 55(1)

Table 2. Results of the Measurement Model.

Construct and Item M SD SL SE CR R AVE SMC

Perceived Service Quality (SQ) 5.42 1.14 .95 .87
As a customer, how would you rate the level of service quality you receive from [insert brand name]?
SQ1. “Poor” 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 “Excellent” .90 .03 N/A .81
SQ2. “Inferior” 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 “Superior” .95 .01 36.52 .90
SQ3. “Low Standards” 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 “High Standards” .95 .01 37.14 .90

Perceived Value (PV) 5.40 1.02 .92 .74

Please evaluate [insert brand name] on the following factors:
PV1. For the prices you pay for traveling with this airline/staying with .81 .02 N/A .66
this hotel, would you say traveling on this airline/staying at this hotel is a
“Very poor deal” 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 “Very good deal”
PV2. For the time you spent in making a purchase with this airline/hotel, .85 .04 22.28 .72
would you say traveling on this airline/staying at this hotel is “Highly
unreasonable” 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 “Highly reasonable”
PV3. For the effort involved in traveling with this airline/staying with this .88 .02 23.58 .77
hotel, would you say traveling on this airline/staying at this hotel is “Not
at all worthwhile” 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 “Very worthwhile”
PV4. How you would rate your overall experience with this airline/hotel? .90 .02 24.26 .81
“Extremely poor value” 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 “Extremely good value”

Customer Satisfaction (SAT) 5.62 1.08 .96 .87

As a customer, how would you rate your overall experience with [insert brand name] on the following scales?
SAT1. “Very dissatisfied” 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 “Very satisfied” .96 .01 N/A .92
SAT2. “Very displeased” 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 “Very pleased” .97 .01 57.28 .94
SAT3. “Frustrated” 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 “Contented” .91 .02 40.39 .83
SAT4. “Terrible” 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 “Delighted” .89 .02 36.77 .79

Brand Trust (BT) 5.50 .98 .92 .74

Thinking about [insert brand name], please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.
BT1. I trust this brand. .89 .02 N/A .79
BT2. I rely on this brand. .76 .03 21.11 .58
BT3. This is an honest brand. .90 .01 29.42 .81
BT4. This brand is safe. .88 .02 27.73 .77

Brand loyalty (BL) 4.69 1.14 .86 .62

Thinking about [insert brand name], please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.
BL1. If available, I will fly/stay with this brand the next time I travel. .76 .03 N/A .58
BL2. I intend to keep flying/staying with this brand. .78 .02 32.49 .61
BL3. I am committed to this brand. .89 .02 19.55 .79
BL4. I would be willing to pay a higher price for this brand over other .70 .03 15.43 .49
brands.

Identification (ID) 3.48 1.39 .93 .76

Thinking about [insert brand name], please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.
ID1. When someone criticizes this brand, it feels like a personal insult. .80 .02 N/A .64
ID2. When I talk about this brand, I usually say we rather than they. .84 .02 21.60 .71
ID3. This brand’s successes are my successes. .91 .02 24.33 .83
ID4. When someone praises this brand, it feels like a personal .94 .01 25.22 .88
compliment.

Enthusiasm (EN) 3.51 1.47 .96 .82

Thinking about [insert brand name], please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.
EN1. I am heavily into this brand. .89 .01 N/A .79
EN2. I am passionate about this brand. .93 .01 34.27 .86
EN3. I am enthusiastic about this brand. .90 .02 31.15 .81
(continued)

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on July 20, 2016

So et al. 71

Table 2. (continued)

Construct and Item M SD SL SE CR R AVE SMC

EN4. I feel excited about this brand. .94 .01 35.04 .88
EN5. I love this brand. .86 .02 27.74 .74

Attention (AT) 3.78 1.32 .94 .75

Thinking about [insert brand name], please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.
AT1. I like to learn more about this brand. .82 .02 N/A .67
AT2. I pay a lot of attention to anything about this brand. .91 .02 25.82 .83
AT3. Anything related to this brand grabs my attention. .88 .02 24.34 .77
AT4. I concentrate a lot on this brand. .86 .02 23.50 .74
AT5. I like learning more about this brand. .86 .02 23.69 .74

Absorption (AB) 2.87 1.38 .97 .85

Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements when interacting with [insert brand name]
AB1. When I am interacting with the brand, I forget everything else .91 .01 N/A .83
around me.
AB2. Time flies when I am interacting with the brand. .90 .02 32.92 .81
AB3. When I am interacting with brand, I get carried away. .95 .01 40.03 .90
AB4. When interacting with the brand, it is difficult to detach myself. .97 .01 42.17 .94
AB5. In my interaction with the brand, I am immersed. .96 .01 41.32 .92
AB6. When interacting with the brand intensely, I feel happy. .83 .02 27.42 .69

Interaction (IT) 3.51 1.46 .97 .87

Thinking about your interactions and connections with [insert brand name] and other customers, please indicate how much you agree
or disagree with each of the following statements.
IT1. In general, I like to get involved in brand community discussions. .90 .01 N/A .81
IT2. I am someone who enjoys interacting with like-minded others in the .96 .01 38.28 .92
brand community.
IT3. I am someone who likes actively participating in brand community .97 .01 39.91 .94
discussions.
IT4. In general, I thoroughly enjoy exchanging ideas with other people in .96 .01 38.38 .92
the brand community.
IT5. I often participate in activities of the brand community. .88 .02 30.01 .77

Note: χ² = 2234.97 (p < .05, df = 856); χ²/df = 2.61; comparative fit index = .95; normed fit index = .92; Tucker–Lewis index = .94; root mean square
error of approximation = .057; square root mean residual = .0508; M = factor mean; SD = standard deviation; SL = bootstrap standardized loadings;
SE = bootstrap standard error; CR = critical ratio; R = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted; SMC = squared multiple correlation.

Assessment of construct reliability was via AVE and com- brand trust and brand loyalty were assessed in the first-order
posite reliability (Netemeyer, Bearden, and Sharma 2003). CFA, this analysis focused primarily on the evaluation of
All composite reliability estimates exceeded the recom- the two second-order factors, namely, service brand evalua-
mended level of .70 (Hair et al. 2006), and the AVEs of all tion and CE.
constructs were well above the .50 threshold (Fornell and As Table 4 shows, the standardized loadings of three
Larcker 1981), providing support for construct reliability of dimensions of service brand evaluation were all significant
the measurement scales. at the α = .01 level. Similar results were also produced for the
five dimensions of CE. The large critical ratios indicate that
these first-order factors were significant and strong indica-
Measurement Model: Second-Order CFA tors of their respective second-order constructs (p < .01).
In the second-order measurement model, we tested a hierar- Furthermore, the AVEs of both service brand evaluation and
chical CFA with service brand evaluation, CE, brand trust, CE well exceeded .50 (Hair et al. 2006), supporting conver-
and brand loyalty being modeled as correlated constructs. gent validity.
The measurement model achieved a good fit for the sample Discriminant validity of the two second-order factors and
data, with χ2 = 2376.29, df = 887, χ2/df = 2.679, p < .05, two other first-order factors (i.e., brand trust and brand loy-
CFI = .95, NFI = .92, TLI = .94, RMSEA = .058, and alty) was supported, as the square root of the AVE for each
SRMR = .0629. As the construct validity and reliability of factor was greater than its correlations with other factors

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on July 20, 2016

72 Journal of Travel Research 55(1)

Table 3. Discriminant Validity Analysis from First-Order Table 4. Second-Order Measurement Model for Service Brand
Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Evaluation and Customer Engagement.

PV SAT BT BL ID EN IT AT AB SQ Components and Manifest

Variables SL CR AVE R
PV .86
SAT .86 .93 Service brand evaluation .81 .93
BT .70 .74 .86 Perceived service quality .84 N/A
BL .63 .63 .69 .78 Perceived value .89 17.59*
ID .35 .41 .44 .52 .87 Customer satisfaction .97 22.90*
EN .45 .49 .51 .65 .79 .90
IT .22 .21 .30 .47 .47 .58 .93 Customer engagement .68 .91
AT .36 .38 .47 .64 .69 .82 .62 .87 Identification .81 N/A
AB .26 .28 .30 .54 .69 .75 .59 .75 .92 Enthusiasm .93 17.11*
SQ .71 .82 .71 .57 .40 .46 .22 .36 .27 .93 Attention .89 15.49*
Absorption .82 15.89*
Note: The bold diagonal elements are the square root of the variance Interaction .66 12.99*
shared between the constructs and their measures. Off diagonal elements
are the bootstrap correlations between constructs. PV = Perceived Value; Note: SL = bootstrap standardized loadings; CR = critical ratio;
SAT = Customer Satisfaction; BT = Brand Trust; BL = Brand Loyalty; ID = R = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted.
Identification; EN = Enthusiasm; IT = Interaction; AT = Attention; AB = *p < .01.
Absorption; SQ = Perceived Service Quality.

(Fornell and Larcker 1981). Furthermore, the composite reli- 97.95, p < .001), which confirms that the addition of CE sig-
ability values for service brand evaluation and CE exceeded nificantly improved model prediction. Tests for multicol-
.70 (Hair et al. 2006) and their AVEs were also well above linearity indicate that variance inflation factor (VIF) values
the .50 threshold (Fornell and Larcker 1981). ranged from 1.31 to 2.26, well below the conservative thresh-
old of 5.3 (Hair et al. 2006), suggesting that the findings of
the regression models are not substantially influenced by any
Structural Model multicollinearity effect.
Results of the test of the overall structural model, presented
in Table 5, indicate a good model fit with χ2 = 2376.29, df =
Discussion and Implications
887, χ2/df = 2.679, p < .05, CFI = .95, NFI = .92, TLI = .94,
RMSEA = .058, and SRMR = .0629. Further examination of The literature has recognized the emerging importance of CE
the structural path coefficients suggests that all seven paths as a strategic imperative for building customer–brand rela-
are supported. The results indicate that CE is a significant tionships (Wang and Fesenmaier 2004; MSI 2010). In testing
predictor of service brand evaluation with moderate effect the role of CE in developing service brand loyalty, this study
size (β = .48, t = 9.65, p < .001), explaining 22.9% of its vari- has addressed calls for more research on CE to further the
ance. In addition, both CE (β = .18, t = 4.43, p < .001) and understanding of this emerging construct (Bolton 2011; MSI
service brand evaluation (β = .69, t = 14.61, p < .001) signifi- 2010). Findings provide insight into the relationships
cantly predict brand trust, accounting for 63.2% of the vari- between the focal constructs that underlie the process of ser-
ance in brand trust. Furthermore, CE (β = .43, t = 8.87, p < vice brand loyalty formation and afford a greater apprecia-
.001), service brand evaluation (β = .23, t = 3.83, p < .001), tion of how CE interacts with existing key drivers of loyalty
and brand trust (β = .29, t = 4.50, p < .001) are significant in generating truly committed and loyal customers. The
predictors of service brand loyalty, collectively explaining overall model results support the conceptualized model.
65.4% of its variance. Figure 2 graphically depicts the results The results of the model also support the argument that
of hypotheses testing. CE affects customers’ evaluations of a product or service
To assess the incremental predictive power of CE, we also (Hollebeek 2009; Vivek, Beatty, and Morgan 2012; Higgins
examined whether the inclusion of CE in the model would and Scholer 2009), demonstrating that CE contributes to the
improve the variance explained in brand loyalty. Given the creation of favorable attitudes toward a brand. In addition,
impossibility of conducting a direct test in SEM for the results show the linkage between CE and brand trust to be
improvement in R2, we performed a hierarchical regression statistically significant, supporting prior conceptual research
analysis after creating composite scores for service brand proposing that trust is a likely outcome of CE for both new
evaluation, brand trust, CE, and brand loyalty. Service brand and existing customers (Hollebeek 2011a).
evaluation and brand trust were entered as the first block of The positive effect of CE on brand trust is unsurprising,
predictor variables for brand loyalty, followed by CE as the since positive extra-exchange interactions have been
second block. Results of the analysis revealed a significant described as enhancing trust levels in the exchange relation-
increase in model predictive power (R2 change = .088. F = ship between partners (Ganesan 1994; Lambe, Spekman, and

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on July 20, 2016

So et al. 73

Table 5. Results for Structural Model Analysis.

Dependent Variables Independent Variables Hypotheses Regression Weights CR Result R²

Brand loyalty Service brand evaluation Hypothesis 2 .23 3.83* Supported .654
Brand trust Hypothesis 6 .29 4.50* Supported
Customer engagement Hypothesis 3 .43 8.87* Supported
Brand trust Service brand evaluation Hypothesis 4 .69 16.41* Supported .632
Customer engagement Hypothesis 5 .18 4.43* Supported
Service brand evaluation Customer engagement Hypothesis 1 .48 9.65* Supported .229

Note: Regression weights = bootstrap standardized estimates; CR = critical ratio.

*p < .001.

Service
Quality .84 R² = .229

.89 Service Brand

Perceived
Value Evaluation
.23
.97
Customer .69
Satisfaction R² = .632 R² = .654

Brand .29 Brand

.48
Trust Loyalty
Identification

.81
.18
Enthusiasm
.93 .43

.89 Customer
Attention Engagement
.82

Absorption
.66

Interaction

Figure 2. Graphical depiction of the structural relationships.

Hunt 2000), such as those between the brand and a customer. Although superior service brand evaluation and enhanced
Results also revealed that customers’ beyond-purchase con- brand trust are vitally important for building loyalty, in a
nections with the brand significantly influence the formation highly competitive business environment positive service
of service brand loyalty, supporting the argument that CE brand evaluation and brand trust are the expected standard,
enhances customers’ loyal relationship with a brand (e.g., rather than the driving factors, for service brand success. In
Hollebeek 2009; Patterson, Yu, and de Ruyter 2006). contrast, CE represents a strong customer–brand relationship
Of the three direct predictors of service brand loyalty (i.e., beyond purchase (Brodie et al. 2011), making it a stronger
service brand evaluation, brand trust, and CE), CE, with the contributor to establishing truly committed loyal customers.
highest standardized regression weight, was found to be the The conceptualization and empirical validation of a more
strongest predictor of customers’ level of loyalty to the brand. comprehensive brand loyalty model results in a number of
This finding supports the thinking that CE may represent a theoretical and practical implications that warrant further
superior explanatory factor for service brand loyalty. discussion.

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on July 20, 2016

74 Journal of Travel Research 55(1)

Theoretical Implications justification and empirical evidence supporting the linkages

between CE and the traditional components of service brand
An emerging notion in the marketing literature is to initiate loyalty development. The findings of this study contribute to
marketing programs that connect with customers and foster the knowledge of brand management by empirically demon-
CE beyond purchase (MSI 2010). However, empirical strating that CE beyond purchase has a strong influence on
research on CE remains sparse. From a theoretical perspec- consumer loyalty to airline and hotel brands. In addition, CE
tive, this empirical investigation of the linkages between CE significantly influences service brand evaluation and brand
and key loyalty development factors serves as an important trust, which in turn lead to brand loyalty. These results, as
step toward building further knowledge of CE in the context well as the incremental explanatory power of CE in predict-
of customer–brand relationship development, thus contribut- ing service brand loyalty, generate strong support for the
ing to the existing literature. important role of CE in loyalty formation.
CE has been suggested to play a central role in a nomo- Although investigators believe that CE may engender
logical network governing service relationships in which brand loyalty (e.g., Hollebeek 2009; Patterson, Yu, and de
other relational concepts (e.g., trust and loyalty) are anteced- Ruyter 2006), no known studies have examined this relation-
ents and/or consequences in iterative CE processes (Brodie ship. The results of this empirical research suggest that ser-
et al. 2011). However, the literature is predominantly con- vice brand loyalty can be strengthened not only through a
ceptually based and offers no empirical indication of how CE superior experience in the actual service encounter but also
is situated within such a nomological network. Therefore, the through CE. This research therefore provides a meaningful
conceptualization and formal testing of the linkages between synthesis of the service brand loyalty literature as well as the
CE and other components included in the model provide emerging CE literature, yielding a framework that encapsu-
nomological validity for the CE concept, and more impor- lates customer–brand experiences both within and outside of
tantly illustrate its position in the wider nomological network the service encounter.
at least in the airline and hotel environment.
While some relationships hypothesized within the pro-
Practical Implications
posed model have been previously investigated, this study
contributes insights into how service consumption–related This research also has several practical implications for
variables and beyond-purchase connections collectively per- brand management. The knowledge generated from this
form to enhance service brand loyalty. Hotels and airlines are study reinforces the importance of managing the customer’s
increasingly adopting new media channels for managing experience with the brand. However, service brand evalua-
customer relationships beyond purchase, making integration tion may reach a point where incremental improvement is
of these variables into one model necessary for a comprehen- not practically feasible. Therefore, the strong influence of
sive understanding of how customer loyalty develops. The CE on service brand loyalty provides a sound reason for air-
resulting knowledge of this integration advances existing line and hotel brands to also focus on marketing strategies
theory and provides support for the emerging literature on and actions that are likely to engage customers in dialogues
CE that emphasizes the importance of cultivating such a con- and other forms of communication, influencing not only
sumer response. Additionally, the results of the present study their evaluation of the service but also their loyalty to the
contribute to the understanding of the evolving dynamics of brand.
service brand loyalty formation. While previous research demonstrates the importance of
Investigators have traditionally studied customer–brand purchase-related loyalty antecedents such as service quality
relationships in terms of purchase-specific actions. However, and satisfaction (Clemes, Gan, and Ren 2010), this study
the upsurge of new media channels and virtual platforms for suggests that CE beyond purchase can also enhance brand
customer-to-customer and customer-to-brand interactions loyalty. Therefore, the results of this study expand manage-
has enabled tourism firms to connect with their customers rial understanding of CE by substantiating the value of
beyond the service encounter, providing multiple ways to developing strong engagement with their brand. Hotel and
enhance customer relationships. Thus, the purchase-specific airline brand managers should establish or maintain the pres-
approach to customer–brand relationships may not be suffi- ence of their brand on various social media platforms and
cient to understand a consumer’s various connections with connect with their customers regularly via newsletters, cus-
the brand. CE addresses this limitation by encapsulating tomer interactions, and product or offer information. Given
behavioral manifestations with a less direct impact on brand the significant impact and potential reach of social media,
performance (Bijmolt et al. 2010). Therefore, the results of marketers should also encourage sharing and recommenda-
this study not only advance understanding of the customer– tions on social media platforms to complement traditional
brand relationship but also incorporate CE into the brand forms of engagement, such as word of mouth, because some
loyalty discussion, expanding existing theory. engaged customers would enjoy the opportunity to have per-
In testing the proposed integrative model of service brand sonal social interaction to share their experience with others
loyalty formation, this study provides both theoretical and to express the sense of pride derived from the brand

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on July 20, 2016

So et al. 75

(e.g., Engel, Blackwell, and Miniard 1995; Sundaram, Mitra, consumption experience. From a practical point of view, the
and Webster 1998). findings suggest that, in addition to managing the service
consumption experience, hotels and airlines must allocate
Limitations, Future Research, and resources to effectively foster CE to further enhance cus-
tomer loyalty with their brand. In developing the integrative
Concluding Thoughts model of service brand loyalty, this investigation provides
This study contributes to the tourism literature by conceptu- noteworthy insight into the process of building a successful
alizing and examining the relationships of CE with key con- service brand.
structs underlying brand loyalty development. However, the
research findings are subject to several limitations. First, as Declaration of Conflicting Interests
this research collected cross-sectional data, the results can The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
only show associations between the constructs under investi- to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
gation rather than a causal relationship. Second, the sample
of this study comprised only customers who had experience
Funding
with the indicated brands. Therefore, caution is warranted
when generalizing the results to potential customers who The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support
have no experience with a service brand. Third, the relatively for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The
authors acknowledge the Griffith Institute for Tourism for the
low response rate may affect the validity of the study’s find-
financial support of this project.
ings. Furthermore, while the reliability and validity of the
measured constructs indicated sound psychometric proper-
ties of the measurement scales, the use of surveys may intro- References
duce measurement error into the research data. Finally, as Anderson, J. C., and D. W. Gerbing. (1988). “Structural Equation
70% of the 496 respondents were female, the sample may not Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step
be completely representative of the population of the study. Approach.” Psychological Bulletin, 103 (3): 411-23.
This investigation suggests several possible areas for Armstrong, J. S., and T. S. Overton. (1977). “Estimating
Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys.” Journal of Marketing
future research. First, as the study was limited to the hotel
Research, 14 (3): 396-402.
and airline sectors of the tourism industry, further testing of Aydin, S., and G. Ozer. (2005). “The Analysis of Antecedents of
the conceptual model in other tourism settings (e.g., the Customer Loyalty in the Turkish Mobile Telecommunication
cruise sector) may afford greater generalizability of the find- Market.” European Journal of Marketing, 39 (7/8): 910-25.
ings. Second, future research can extend the research model Back, K. J., and J. S. Lee. (2009). “Country Club Members’
by including additional factors that might represent anteced- Perceptions of Value, Image Congruence, and Switching Costs:
ents and outcomes of CE. For example, conceptual work An Exploratory Study of Country Club Members’ Loyalty.”
suggests that involvement is a driver of CE (Hollebeek Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 33 (4): 528-46.
2011a). This factor can be incorporated into the research Back, K. J., and S. C. Parks. (2003). “A Brand Loyalty Model
model and tested in subsequent research to determine the Involving Cognitive, Affective, and Conative Brand Loyalty
relationships with CE. Similarly, the literature suggests that and Customer Satisfaction.” Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Research, 27 (4): 419-35.
CE may affect aspects such as customer equity, long-term
Bagozzi, R. P., and T. F. Heatherton. (1994). “A General Approach to
reputation of the firm, brand recognition, and financial out- Representing Multifaceted Personality Constructs: Application
comes (van Doorn et al. 2010). To further advance brand to State Self-Esteem.” Structural Equation Modeling, 1 (1):
management knowledge, future research could investigate 35-67.
the effects of CE on these factors. Given the globalization of Bagozzi, R. P., and Y. Yi. (2012). “Specification, Evaluation, and
the tourism industry, further examination of the model with Interpretation of Structural Equation Models.” Journal of the
samples from America, Asia, or Europe might advance the Academy of Marketing Science, 40 (1): 8-34.
generalizability of the model in illustrating the loyalty for- Bijmolt, T. H. A., P. S. H. Leeflang, F. Block, M. Eisenbeiss, B. G.
mation process. Finally, as this study did not collect data on S. Hardie, A. Lemmens, and P. Saffert. (2010). “Analytics for
the sample’s consumption behavior or frequency, it is not Customer Engagement.” Journal of Service Research, 13 (3):
clear whether the same findings would emerge if survey 341-56.
Bloemer, J. M. M., K. de Ruyter, and M. Wetzels. (1999). “Linking
respondents were to be differentiated according to frequency
Perceived Service Quality and Service Loyalty: A Multi-
of purchase or use. dimensional Perspective.” European Journal of Marketing, 33
In conclusion, this study has theoretically conceptualized (11/12): 1082-1106.
and empirically investigated the role of CE in building loyal Bolton, R. N. (2011). “Comment: Customer Engagement.” Journal
customers. The results advance customer relationship man- of Service Research, 14 (3): 272-74.
agement knowledge by expanding the current understanding Bowden, J. L. H. (2009). “The Process of Customer Engagement:
of service brand loyalty, which suggests that loyalty is devel- A Conceptual Framework.” Journal of Marketing Theory and
oped primarily through enhancement of the service Practice, 17 (1): 63-74.

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on July 20, 2016

76 Journal of Travel Research 55(1)

Bridson, K., J. Evans, and M. Hickman. (2008). “Assessing the Econsultancy. (2011). Customer Engagement Report 2010. http://
Relationship between Loyalty Program, Store Satisfaction and econsultancy.com/us/reports/customer-engagement-report.
Store Loyalty.” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Engel, J. F., R. D. Blackwell, and P. W. Miniard. (1995). Consumer
15 (5): 364-74. Behavior, 8th edition. New York: Dryder.
Brodie, R. J., L. D. Hollebeek, B. Juric, and A. Ilic. (2011). Fabrigar, L. R., R. D. Porter, and M. E. Norris. (2010). “Some
“Customer Engagement: Conceptual Domain, Fundamental Things You Should Know about Structural Equation Modeling
Propositions, and Implications for Research.” Journal of but Never Thought to Ask.” Journal of Consumer Psychology,
Service Research, 14 (3): 252-71. 20 (2): 221-25.
Brodie, R. J., A. Ilic, B. Juric, and L. Hollebeek. (2013). “Consumer Fornell, C., and D. F. Larcker. (1981). “Evaluating Structural
Engagement in a Virtual Brand Community: An Exploratory Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and
Analysis.” Journal of Business Research, 66 (1): 105-14. Measurement Error.” Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (1):
Browning, V., K. K. F. So, and B. A. Sparks. (2013). “The Influence 39-50.
of Online Reviews on Consumers’ Attributions of Service Fullerton, G. (2005). “The Impact of Brand Commitment on Loyalty
Quality and Control for Service Standards in Hotels.” Journal to Retail Service Brands.” Canadian Journal of Administrative
of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 30 (1-2): 23-40. Sciences, 22 (2): 97-110.
Butcher, K., B. Sparks, and F. O’Callaghan. (2001). “Evaluative Ganesan, S. (1994). “Determinants of Long-Term Orientation in
and Relational Influences on Service Loyalty.” International Buyer-Seller Relationships.” Journal of Marketing, 58 (2): 1-19.
Journal of Service Industry Management, 12 (4): 310-27. Ganesan, S., and R. Hess. (1997). “Dimensions and Levels of Trust:
Chaudhuri, A., and M. B. Holbrook. (2001). “The Chain of Effects Implications for Commitment to a Relationship.” Marketing
from Brand Trust and Brand Affect to Brand Performance: The Letters, 8 (4): 439-48.
Role of Brand Loyalty.” Journal of Marketing, 65 (2): 81-93. Garbarino, E., and M. S. Johnson. (1999). “The Different
Chen, P. T., and H. H. Hu. (2010). “The Effect of Relational Roles of Satisfaction, Trust, and Commitment in Customer
Benefits on Perceived Value in Relation to Customer Loyalty: Relationships.” Journal of Marketing, 63 (2): 70-87.
An Empirical Study in the Australian Coffee Outlets Industry.” Gummerus, J., V. Liljander, E. Weman, and M. Pihlström. (2012).
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29 (3): 405- “Customer Engagement in a Facebook Brand Community.”
12. Management Research Review, 35 (9): 857-77.
Clemes, M. D., C. Gan, and M. Ren. (2010). “Synthesizing the Hair, J. F., W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, R. E. Anderson, and R. L.
Effects of Service Quality, Value, and Customer Satisfaction Tatham. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th edition. Upper
on Behavioral Intentions in the Motel Industry: An Empirical Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Analysis.” Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 35 (4): Han, H., and C. Jeong. (2013). “Multi-Dimensions of Patrons’
530-68. Emotional Experiences in Upscale Restaurants and Their
Cronin, J. J., M. K. Brady, and G. T. M. Hult. (2000). “Assessing Role in Loyalty Formation: Emotion Scale Improvement.”
the Effects of Quality, Value, and Customer Satisfaction on International Journal of Hospitality Management, 32:59-70.
Consumer Behavioral Intentions in Service Environments.” Harris, L. C., and M. M. H. Goode. (2004). “The Four Levels of
Journal of Retailing, 76 (2): 193-218. Loyalty and the Pivotal Role of Trust: A Study of Online
Cropanzano, R., and M. S. Mitchell. (2005). “Social Exchange Service Dynamics.” Journal of Retailing, 80 (2): 139-58.
Theory: An Interdisciplinary Review.” Journal of Management, Harter, J. K., F. L. Schmidt, and T. L. Hayes. (2002). “Business-
31 (6): 874-900. Unit-Level Relationship between Employee Satisfaction,
Crosby, L. A., K. R. Evans, and D. Cowles. (1990). “Relationship Employee Engagement, and Business Outcomes: A Meta-
Quality in Services Selling: An Interpersonal Influence Analysis.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (2): 268-79.
Perspective.” Journal of Marketing, 54 (3): 68-81. Higgins, E. T., and A. A. Scholer. (2009). “Engaging the Consumer:
Crosby, L. A., and N. Stephens. (1987). “Effects of Relationship The Science and Art of the Value Creation Process.” Journal of
Marketing on Satisfaction, Retention, and Prices in the Life Consumer Psychology, 19 (2): 100-14.
Insurance Industry.” Journal of Marketing Research, 24 (4): Hollebeek, L. D. (2009). “Demystifying Customer Engagement:
404-11. Toward the Development of a Conceptual Model.” Paper
de Ruyter, K., M. Wetzels, and J. Bloemer. (1998). “On the read at ANZMAC 2009 conference, at Monash University,
Relationship between Perceived Service Quality, Service Melbourne, VIC, 30 November-2 December.
Loyalty and Switching Costs.” International Journal of Service Hollebeek, L. D. (2011a). “Demystifying Customer Brand
Industry Management, 9 (5): 436-53. Engagement: Exploring the Loyalty Nexus.” Journal of
Delgado-Ballester, E., and J. L. Munuera-Alemán. (2001). “Brand Marketing Management, 27 (7/8): 1-23.
Trust in the Context of Consumer Loyalty.” European Journal Hollebeek, L. D. (2011b). “Exploring Customer Brand Engagement:
of Marketing, 35 (11/12): 1238-58. Definition and Themes.” Journal of Strategic Marketing, 19
Delgado-Ballester, E., J. L. Munuera-Alemán, and M. J. Yague- (7): 555-73.
Guillen. (2003). “Development and Validation of a Brand Hsu, C. H. C., H. Oh, and A. G. Assaf. (2012). “A Customer-Based
Trust Scale.” International Journal of Market Research, 45 Brand Equity Model for Upscale Hotels.” Journal of Travel
(1): 35-54. Research, 51 (1): 81-93.
Doney, P. M., and J. P. Cannon. (1997). “An Examination of the Keller, K. L. (2003). Strategic Banding Management: Building,
Nature of Trust in Buyer-Seller Relationships.” Journal of Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity, 2nd edition. Upper
Marketing, 62 (1): 35-51. Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on July 20, 2016

So et al. 77

Lai, F., M. Griffin, and B. J. Babin. (2009). “How Quality, Value, Customer Satisfaction, and Behavioral Intentions.” International
Image, and Satisfaction Create Loyalty at a Chinese Telecom.” Journal of Hospitality Management, 27 (3): 459-69.
Journal of Business Research, 62 (10): 980-86. Saks, A. M. (2006). “Antecedents and Consequences of Employee
Lambe, C. J., R. E. Spekman, and S. D. Hunt. (2000). “Interimistic Engagement.” Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21 (7): 600-
Relational Exchange: Conceptualization and Propositional 19.
Development.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Sashi, C. M. (2012). “Customer Engagement, Buyer-Seller
28 (2): 212-25. Relationships, and Social Media.” Management Decision, 50
Lee, M., and L. F. Cunningham. (2001). “A Cost/Benefit Approach (2): 253-72.
to Understanding Service Loyalty.” Journal of Services Shevlin, R. Customer Engagement Is Measurable 2007. http://mar-
Marketing, 15 (2): 113-30. ketingroi.wordpress.com/2012/10/02/customer-engagement-
Li, X., and J. Petrick. (2008). “Examining the Antecedents of Brand is-measurable/.
Loyalty from an Investment Model Perspective.” Journal of Sirdeshmukh, D., J. Singh, and B. Sabol. (2002). “Consumer Trust,
Travel Research, 47 (1): 25-34. Value, and Loyalty in Relational Exchanges.” Journal of
Macey, W. H., and B. Schneider. (2008). “The Meaning of Marketing, 66 (1): 15-37.
Employee Engagement.” Industrial and Organizational So, K. K. F., C. King, and B. A. Sparks. (Forthcoming). “Customer
Psychology, 1 (1): 3-30. Engagement with Tourism Brands: Scale Development and
Malthouse, E. C., M. Haenlein, B. Skiera, E. Wege, and M. Zhang. Validation.” Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research.
(2013). “Managing Customer Relationships in the Social So, K. K. F., C. King, B. A. Sparks, and Y. Wang. (2013). “The
Media Era: Introducing the Social Crm House.” Journal of Influence of Customer Brand Identification on Hotel Brand
Interactive Marketing, 27 (4): 270-80. Evaluation and Loyalty Development.” International Journal
Marketing Science Institute. (2010). Research Priorities, Marketing of Hospitality Management, 34:31-41.
Science Institute. Boston, MA. Sparks, B. A., and V. Browning. (2011). “The Impact of Online
Marsh, H. W. (1991). “Multidimensional Students’ Evaluations of Reviews on Hotel Booking Intentions and Perception of Trust.”
Teaching Effectiveness: A Test of Alternative Higher-Order Tourism Management, 32 (6): 1310-23.
Structures.” Journal of Educational Psychology, 83 (2): 285-96. Spreng, R. A., S. B. MacKenzie, and R. W. Olshavsky. (1996). “A
Mistilis, N., D. Buhalis, and U. Gretzel. (Forthcoming). “Future Reexamination of the Determinants of Consumer Satisfaction.”
Edestination Marketing: Perspective of an Australian Tourism Journal of Marketing, 60 (3): 15-32.
Stakeholder Network.” Journal of Travel Research. Sprott, D., S. Czellar, and E. Spangenberg. (2009). “The Importance
Morgan, R. M., and S. D. Hunt. (1994). “The Commitment-Trust of a General Measure of Brand Engagement on Market
Theory of Relationship Marketing.” Journal of Marketing, Behavior: Development and Validation of a Scale.” Journal of
58 (3): 20-38. Marketing Research, 46 (1): 92-104.
Nam, J., Y. Ekinci, and G. Whyatt. (2011). “Brand Equity, Brand Sundaram, D. S., K. Mitra, and C. Webster. (1998). “Word-of-
Loyalty and Consumer Satisfaction.” Annals of Tourism Mouth Communications: A Motivational Analysis.” Advances
Research, 38 (3): 1009-30. in Consumer Research, 25 (1): 527-31.
Netemeyer, R. G., W. O. Bearden, and S. Sharma. (2003). Scaling van Doorn, J., K. N. Lemon, V. Mittal, S. Nass, P. Doreén, P. Pirner,
Procedures: Issues and Applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: and P. C. Verhoef. (2010). “Customer Engagement Behaviour:
Sage. Theoretical Foundations and Reserach Directions.” Journal of
Oliver, R. L. (1999). “Whence Consumer Loyalty?” Journal of Service Research, 13 (3): 253-66.
Marketing, 63 (Special Issue): 33-44. Verhoef, P. C., W. Reinartz, and M. Krafft. (2010). “Customer
Patterson, P., T. Yu, and K. de Ruyter. (2006). “Understanding Engagement as a New Perspective in Customer Management.”
Customer Engagement in Services.” Paper read at ANZMAC Journal of Service Research, 13 (3): 247-52.
2006: Advancing Theory, Maintaining Relevance, at Brisbane, Vivek, S. D. (2009). “A Scale of Consumer Engagement.” Doctoral
QLD 4-6 December. dissertation, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.
Petrick, J. F. (2004). “The Roles of Quality, Value, and Satisfaction Vivek, S. D., S. E. Beatty, and R. M. Morgan. (2012). “Customer
in Predicting Cruise Passengers’ Behavioral Intentions.” Engagement: Exploring Customer Relationships Beyond
Journal of Travel Research, 42 (4): 397-407. Purchase.” Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice, 20 (2):
Rauyruen, P., and K. E. Miller. (2007). “Relationship Quality as 122-46.
a Predictor of B2b Customer Loyalty.” Journal of Business Wang, D., Z. Xiang, and D. R. Fesenmaier. (Forthcoming).
Research, 60 (1): 21-31. “Smartphone Use in Everyday Life and Travel.” Journal of
Ravald, A., and C. Gronroos. (1996). “The Value Concept and Travel Research.
Relationship Marketing.” European Journal of Marketing, 30 Wang, Y., and D. R. Fesenmaier. (2004). “Towards Understanding
(2): 19-30. Members’ General Participation in and Active Contribution to
Rempel, J. K., J. G. Holmes, and M. P. Zanna. (1985). “Trust in an Online Travel Community.” Tourism Management, 25 (6):
Close Relationships.” Journal of Personality and Social 709-22.
Psychology, 49 (1): 95-112. Xiang, Z., D. Wang, J. T. O’Leary, and D. R. Fesenmaier.
Rust, R. T., A. J. Zahorik, and T. L. Keiningham. (1995). “Return (Forthcoming). “Adapting to the Internet: Trends in Travelers’
on Quality (ROQ): Making Service Quality Financially Use of the Web for Trip Planning.” Journal of Travel Research.
Accountable.” Journal of Marketing, 59 (2): 58-70. Ye, Q., R. Law, and B. Gu. (2009). “The Impact of Online User
Ryu, K., H. Han, and T. H. Kim. (2008). “The Relationships among Reviews on Hotel Room Sales.” International Journal of
Overall Quick-Casual Restaurant Image, Perceived Value, Hospitality Management, 28 (1): 180-82.

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on July 20, 2016

78 Journal of Travel Research 55(1)

Yoo, M., and B. Bai. (2012). “Customer Loyalty Marketing customer engagement, brand loyalty, electronic word of mouth, and
Research: A Comparative Approach between Hospitality internal branding in the tourism and hospitality industry.
and Business Journals.” International Journal of Hospitality
Ceridwyn King is an Assistant Professor at Temple University,
Management, 33:166-77.
Philadelphia. She holds a PhD in Marketing as well as has several
Yuksel, A., F. Yuksel, and Y. Bilim. (2010). “Destination
years experience of strategic marketing in a range of industries.
Attachment: Effects on Customer Satisfaction and Cognitive,
Ceridwyn has successfully published several papers in the area of
Affective and Conative Loyalty.” Tourism Management, 31
service management and marketing and continues to pursue this area
(2): 274-84.
of research in line with both academic and practitioner interest.
Zeithaml, V. A., L. L. Berry, and A. Parasuraman. (1996). “The
Behavioral Consequences of Service Quality.” Journal of Beverley A. Sparks is a Professor with the Department of Tourism,
Marketing, 60 (2): 31-46. Sport and Hotel Management at Griffith University, Australia. She
is an active researcher, with a strong track record of grants and jour-
Author Biographies nal publications. Her research interests lie in customer experience,
electronic word of mouth and service failure/recovery in the tour-
Kevin Kam Fung So is an Assistant Professor in the School of
ism and hospitality industry.
Hotel, Restaurant and Tourism Management and a Research
Associate in the Center of Economic Excellence in Tourism and Ying Wang is a Lecturer with the Department of Tourism, Sport
Economic Development at the University of South Carolina, and Hotel Management at Griffith University, Australia. Her
Columbia. His research interests lie in services marketing and ser- research interests lie in destination management and marketing,
vice brand management, with a special focus on service experience, tourist experience and hotel management.

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on July 20, 2016

View publication stats