Revisiting the influence of choice and culture on customer participation in services
Dissertation / Master’s Thesis AIBM&M Newcastle University – University of Groningen
Newcastle University Business School – Faculty of Economics and Business
Author: Joris Bakker
Student number: B190257514 and S2759578
Supervisors: Dr J. Go-Jefferies and Dr R. Slager
Submission date: 24-05-2020
2
Table of contents
1. Introduction ... 3
2. Methodology ... 6
3. Literature review ... 8
3.1. Trends in CP literature over time ... 10
3.1.1. Focus on co-production and firm benefits (before 2004) ... 10
3.1.2. A positivist perspective (2004 and after) ... 10
3.1.3. A critical perspective (2007-2009) ... 11
3.1.4. Exploring CP nuances empirically (2010-2015)... 13
3.1.5. Conceptual confusion (2016-2017)... 15
3.2. What is missing in CP literature?... 17
3.2.1. A lack of empirical studies ... 17
3.2.2. A lack of consistent findings... 17
4. Conceptual framework development ... 22
4.1. Customer participation and service outcomes ... 23
4.1.1. Service outcomes ... 24
4.1.2. Proposition development ... 25
4.2. Cultural contingency ... 26
4.2.1. The relevance of culture ... 26
4.2.2. Operationalizing culture ... 27
4.2.3. Prior CP studies incorporating culture ... 28
4.2.4. Justice theory ... 30
4.2.5. Proposition development ... 32
4.3. Testing the proposed framework ... 34
4.3.1. Studying the differential effects of ECP and RCP ... 34
4.3.2. Capturing individual cultural value orientations ... 35
5. Discussion and conclusion ... 36
5.1. Theoretical implications... 36
5.2. Limitations and avenues for future research ... 37
5.3. Practical implications ... 38
6. References ... 40
3 ABSTRACT – The purpose of this paper is to contribute to gaps in customer participation research by reviewing its literature base, identifying key trends and current gaps, and synthesizing it with literature on culture and justice theory in order to explore how these research streams relate with each other. Our review sheds light on two key gaps in CP literature: a lack of empirical studies and mixed findings from past research. The gaps are addressed by proposing a more refined typology of CP that may counter past mixed findings and by proposing a crucial contingency for CP that resulted in a framework that future empirical studies can test. Implications are derived for future studies in CP, as well as for current service practitioners. The study reinforces the importance of cultural values in service encounters, especially in relation to different types of CP.
1. Introduction
A key trend in services marketing today is the phenomenon of customer participation. Customer participation refers to the involvement of the customer into the delivery of a service in order to allow for increased customization and control over the service, while simultaneously alleviating some of the workload of service employees. This trend has become the “beating heart” of marketing (Fast Company, 2012) and is “the future for all of us” (Forbes, 2014). Large international firms such as Cisco, Dell, Procter & Gamble, Sony, Starbucks and Unilever have all embraced customer participation in some shape or form (Ramaswamy & Gouillart, 2010), while academics suggest that customer participation could be the next frontier in competitive effectiveness (Bendapudi & Leone, 2003; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004).
In today’s increasingly competitive and specialized global market, the success of service firms
largely depends on their ability to deliver consumption experiences that consistently satisfy the
customer (Patterson et al., 2006). What better way to achieve this consistency in customer
satisfaction by letting the customer take the wheel? Customer participation can be applied in
different ways. Technology-heavy forms of customer participation have infiltrated the frontline
of services through self-service technologies such as pay-at-the-pump, automated hotel
checkout, telephone banking (Meuter et al, 2000). Alternatively, customer participation can be
applied in a way that stimulates increased collaboration with the service employee, for example
by having employees discuss the customer’s preferences more in-depth with them to deliver a
more customized, focused service. This form of customer participation has gained popularity in
sectors like financial service (Auh et al., 2007).
4 Although the practice of customer participation has been embraced by firms throughout the world, even by globally operating businesses (Ramaswamy & Gouillart, 2010), this does not imply that it is universally applicable. Its nuances need not be discounted. For example, considering the globalization of markets and the ease with which services can now cross national boundaries, understanding the impact of customers’ cultural value orientations on the extent to which customer participation practices have been received well becomes increasingly important (Maheswaran and Shavitt, 2000; Patterson et al., 2006), especially for service firms operating internationally. While it may be incredibly normal to ask customers to collaborate with the employee in service delivery in collectivist cultures, due to the relationship building it fosters, customers in individualist cultures may be skeptical and perceive this request as exploitation (Chan et al., 2010).
There are several things we do not know yet regarding the relationship between customer participation practices and the consequences it has on customers’ satisfaction, and especially how this relationship is impacted by customers’ cultural values. Two gaps established in customer participation (CP) literature are the mixed empirical evidence that has been found so far, and the lack of empirical studies conducted to develop our understanding of the ways in which CP affects customers across service contexts.
The present study aims to respond to this by improving our understanding about the implementation of customer participation practices across cultures. This is done by reviewing, analyzing and synthesizing the literature in the streams of customer participation (CP) and culture. As such, this study aims to contribute to CP literature and international business management literature by analyzing different kinds of CP from the perspective of the relevance to international business; how should internationally operating service firms implement different forms of CP in their services? Should they take into account the cultural values of when choosing a strategy or could CP be implemented in a centralized manner? By scrutinizing these CP contingencies, this study also provides practical implications for service practitioners aiming to join in on the trend of CP. The research question is:
What do we know about customer participation in service encounters, and how could we develop our understanding of its differential effects across service settings by studying it in
combination with research on cultural value orientations and justice theory?
5
The study continues as follows. First, the relevant published literature on customer participation,
service outcomes and culture will be critically analyzed and reviewed. Based on that, the gaps in
our current knowledge on the subject will be identified and presented. Following from that, we
suggest several propositions which together build a framework with which said gaps could be
studied more thoroughly with empirical testing. Finally, we discuss the importance of studying
these gaps in the future, what implications they could have for service practitioners in IB, and
limitations to the present study that lead to avenues for future research.
6
2. Methodology
In accordance with prior literature reviews (Ranjan & Read, 2016; Chang & Taylor, 2016;
Mustak et al., 2016), customer participation literature was examined. Table 2.1 illustrates the papers, time periods and types of research examined in the review.
The first phase of the literature review consisted of searching for papers using keywords in the digital library of the University of Groningen, which assembles literature from 42 different academic databases, such as EBSCO’s Business Source Complete, Annual Review, and WorldCat. Initially “customer participation” was used as the search keywork, but upon learning that “value co-creation”, “co-production”, “customer involvement” and “working consumers”
are terms often used interchangeably with the same phenomenon, additional search queries for these terms were ran (Mustak et al., 2016).
Papers from a variety of journals were selected to promote the validity of the papers studied through theoretical triangulation. At the same time, the journals considered had to be linked to services marketing, management and/or consumer behavior in some way in order to maintain a focus and scope. Examples of journals considered are Journal of the Academy of Marketing, Journal of Service Research, Developments in Marketing Science and Science and Journal of Consumer Research. Besides electronic database searches, additional papers were also selected through snowballing of references mentioned in the initially selected papers. In selection of papers to study, the aim was to strike a balance between conceptual papers, literature reviews and empirical studies. Similarly a balance was sought between papers with a positivist, a critical and a neutral perspective towards the phenomenon of customer participation. In the end, 73 articles were included.
For the second phase of the literature review, empirical studies regarding CP were collected and
examined. The goal of this phase was to analyze different types of CP studied in the research
design in comparison with the relationship found with independent variables. Results are
illustrated in Table 3.2. As customer participation is a term used across research streams, the
abstract of each examined paper was assessed for pertinence (i.e. relation to services marketing
and management). Furthermore, studies for this phase of the review were only selected if the CP
element analyzed in the study was part of the core service, and crucial to the service being
7 delivered. If the CP element studied was not strictly necessary for service completion and at the sole discretion of customers, the article was not considered further.
The review of relevant literature provided deeper understanding of the studied themes and showed evidence for the gaps present in the current literature base. In the following sections, the research conducted in each area is elaborated on.
Period Number of articles Empirical papers Theoretical papers
1990s 19 0 19
2000s 42 7 35
2010s 22 14 8
Total 73 21 52
Table 2.1: The articles included in the literature review distributed by the period in which they were published and whether it was a theoretical or an empirical paper.
8
3. Literature review
Customer participation (CP) is defined as “the extent to which consumers are involved in service production and delivery by contributing effort, knowledge, information, and other resources”
(Dabholkar, 1990: 484). A variety of literature streams discuss this phenomenon in some shape or form, however this paper focuses on areas close to services, marketing, management and consumer behaviour (Cova & Dalli, 2009).
Examples of CP activities include preparing for a service, exchanging information during a service encounter, building relationships with provider and intervening when a service is perceived to not go well (Youngdahl & Kellogg, 1997). These CP activities are mostly at the own discretion of customers, however, and not always crucial for delivery of the core service (Youngdahl et al., 2003). For example, a consumer may do additional research about local sightseeing hotspots in preparation of their travels in order to enhance the trip, but it is not strictly necessary for the trip to occur. In recent decades, however, firms have increasingly tried to deliberately incorporate CP at the core of their service processes (Meuter et al., 2005).
Potential firm benefits from doing this include improved productivity (by shifting some of the workload) and better service quality, as the customer’s input helps customize the service toward their needs (Lovelock & Young, 1979). CP can provide advantages not just for the service provider, but for the customer experience too (Ajitha et al, 2019). Customers may enjoy the relationships built from increased collaboration and interaction with the service provider (Fleming et al., 2005). In other cases, CP can entail activities that reduce the interaction with service employees (e.g. self-service checkouts). Then, customers may benefit from faster service delivery, more consistent service quality due to the absence of human error at the end of the service provider (Kelly & Davis, 1994). Additionally, intrinsic rewards, such as feelings of accomplishment, may be derived from CP (Ajitha et al., 2019).
Next, key themes discussed in CP literature over time are identified and will be dissected
chronologically. These trends have also been summarized in Table 3.1. Afterwards, gaps in CP
literature will be established and addressed.
9
Period Key themes* Sample articles
Before 2004
Co-production; CP primarily used as a means of efficiency and productivity; objective firm value created through CP.
Lovelock & Young, 1979 Mills et al., 1983
Kelly & Davis, 1994.
After 2004
Value co-creation; service-dominant logic;
more attention given to customer benefits of CP; value is mostly determined subjectively;
consumers like CP because they have control over service delivery and feel accomplishment.
Vargo & Lusch, 2004
Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004 Fleming et al., 2005
Auh et al., 2007 Payne et al., 2008 2008 –
2009
Critical studies of CP; shed light on possible exploitation of consumers (e.g. working consumers); potential consumer resistance against CP; CP can create and destroy value.
Zwick et al., 2008
Bonsu & Darmody, 2008 Cova & Dalli, 2009 Plé & Cáceres, 2010 After
2009
Nuanced empirical studies that acknowledge CP can have both positive and negative effects on outcomes; contingencies identified and studied to improve understanding of when CP is perceived favorably; mixed findings found.
Chan et al., 2010
Echeverri & Skålén, 2011 Yim et al., 2012
Flores & Vasquez-Parra., 2015 Dong et al., 2015
2016 – 2017
Scrutiny on the variety of CP-related terms used interchangeably in response to mixed empirical findings; boundaries and distinctions identified; conceptual clarity improved.
Ranjan & Read, 2016 Chang & Taylor, 2016 Mustak et al., 2016 Dong & Sivakumar, 2017 After
2017
Empirical studies based on more refined conceptualizations of CP aiming to reconcile past mixed findings; contingencies are examined in relation to specific types of CP.
Wei et al., 2018 Zhang & Zhu, 2018 Zolfagharian et al., 2018 Ajitha et al., 2019
Table 3.2: Key themes in customer participation literature in chronological order. *: although key themes were established, this does not imply that no overlap exists across time periods (e.g., a few empirical studies examining possible negative effects of CP were conducted before 2009)
10
3.1. Trends in CP literature over time
3.1.1. Focus on co-production and firm benefits (before 2004)
Early studies on CP focused mainly on its productivity impact, and thereby mostly on the consequences it has for the firm. CP was argued to lower costs by reducing the workload of employees (Lovelock & Young, 1979). Especially for labor-intensive service firms with a limited ability to ‘stockpile’ its customers, introducing CP was seen as a key strategy to cut costs (Mills et al., 1983). Only few studies addressed the customer side of CP around this time. Topics considered included customers’ motivation to engage in CP (Bateson, 1985) and convincing customers to try CP despite barriers to adopt it (Meuter & Bitner, 1999; Bendapudi & Leone, 2003).
Some studies even argued that CP does not add to productivity, but instead reduced it (Chase, 1978). The argument was presented that involving customers in service delivery rather than presenting every customer with a standardized service delivery meant that service delivery would be less efficient and demanded too much flexibility for personal needs. In hindsight, this argument is seen as a very Fordist perspective on service delivery, with too much focus being on efficiency and not on effectiveness (Vargo & Lusch, 2004).
The main term used in this period to describe CP was ‘co-production’, (McColl-Kennedy et al., 2012). Although the term technically implies that both the customer and the service provider are involved in the ‘production’ of the service, the term has been used more freely (Vargo & Lusch, 2008). Value derived from introducing CP into service processes was mostly considered using objective measures, such as cost reduction, productivity improvements or increased service quality . Little attention was given to differing subjective evaluations of CP service delivery that may impact its effectiveness, both for service employees and customers (Ranjan & Read, 2016).
3.1.2. A positivist perspective (2004 and after)
In contrast to the focus on objectively produced value derived from CP before 2004, more recent articles focused on how value from services is determined subjectively. This began with the introduction of the influential service-dominant logic of marketing by Vargo and Lusch (2004).
According to service dominant logic, value is never objectively embedded in a service. Instead,
it is always co-created with customers (Vargo & Lusch, 2004) and can only be determined by
11 the customer (Lusch & Vargo, 2006). Since services are highly social and experiential, each customers derives value from them differently.
The service-dominant logic is customer-centric; not service providers, but customers are proactive value creators who participate in order to create value. Firms are merely facilitators of value co-creation, rather than producers of standardized value (Payne et al., 2008). Furthermore, it puts a focus on peaceful relationships between the customer and the service provider. Every interaction between employees and customers represents an opportunity to co-create relational value for both parties (Fleming et al., 2005). Interaction with the customer is important in order to develop and deliver a customized solution (Davis & Manrodt, 1996: 6).
Since the introduction of the service-dominant logic, a big portion of CP literature has adopted it as an argument in favor of CP (Ranjan & Read, 2016). As a result, due to its customer-centric premise, more academics started to pay attention to the consequences of CP for customers. CP was argued as having to always deliver value to both customers and firms (Auh et al., 2007).
Due to the harmonious customer-provider relationship suggested by the service-dominant logic, the majority of papers considered only CP’s positive consequences for customers, however (Cova & Dalli, 2008). For example, CP was seen as a way of 'empowering' customers, by giving them the space and control to customize their services by participating (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Auh et al., 2007). Additionally, consumers have certain innate and higher order needs, such as autonomy, competence and self-fulfillment; contributing to service delivery helps to fulfill those needs (Vargo & Lusch, 2004; Ajitha et al., 2019).
3.1.3. A critical perspective (2007-2009)
In their influential article that portrays the consumers and service providers as co-existing
harmoniously, Vargo and Lusch (2004) also acknowledge that the locus control of the CP process
(i.e. how it is designed) resides with the firm. The firm defines the nature and extent of the
customer’s participation. This indicates the service dominant logic’s assumption that customers
are always willing to participate due to the value that is co-created, regardless of the effort
required by them. This optimistic, positivist assumption has been criticized by various authors a
few years later, when they aimed to shed light on the negative sides of CP.
12 Similar to CP studies based on the service-dominant logic, this critical literature also acknowledges the active role and participation of consumers in the production of consumption experiences, which can be culturally, symbolically, productively or subjectively (Firat &
Dholakia, 2006; Cova & Dalli, 2008). However, critical studies question why positivist studies do not address why consumers are not being rewarded for their participation monetarily, since they practically act as partial employees and contribute to a service provider’s profits (Cova &
Dalli, 2009). On top of that, customers are willing to pay more for services when they participated in its delivery (Franke & Piller, 2004). Therefore, if customers participate in service delivery without getting paid while simultaneously being willing to pay a price premium due to their, critical literature argues that double exploitation of customers occurs (Cova & Dalli, 2008; Zwick et al., 2008).
This potential for exploitation of customers through CP received increasing attention in the late 2000s. Revisiting the idea that the consumer always determines the value of services, critics use the post-Marxist notion of immaterial labor to illustrate the possibilities of exploitation through CP (Berthon et al., 2008; Grönroos, 2008). Immaterial labor entails consumers’ continuous creation of socioeconomic added value, by assigning substance and meaning to elements of their daily lives (Lazaratto, 1997). This value can be cultural and affective (Hardt & Negri, 2004:
108). Consumers are always working immaterially, consciously or not (Cova & Dalli, 2009).
As soon as affective and cultural value is produced through consumers’ immaterial labor, firms then try to appropriate it by identifying it and selling it on the market for economic value. CP can be argued as an example of this (Cova & Dalli, 2009). Postmodern consumers have increasingly started valuing things like self-expression, defining their identity and feeling empowered (Inglehart & Baker, 2000; Vargo & Lusch, 2004; Firat & Dholakia, 2006). This can be viewed as a product of postmodernist consumers’ immaterial labor. CP is a perfect device for self-expression and identity definition. By providing input and involving themselves in service delivery, they are producing their identity on the market (Firat & Dholakia, 1998). Firms are taking advantage of this product of postmodern consumers’ immaterial labor by indulging them through CP service delivery (Cova & Dalli, 2009).
Besides criticism for the little attention given to the exploitation potential of CP, criticism arose
regarding the lack of acknowledgement that CP service encounters are not guaranteed to lead to
positive outcomes (Bonsu & Darmody, 2008; Zwick et al., 2008). Interactions between service
13 providers and customers are not always pleasant, and not every customer enjoys the co-creation process (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). As a result, more nuance was proposed by critical academics. For example, Plé and Cáceres (2010) introduced the concept of value co-destruction.
They argue that value can be co-created or co-destroyed during service encounters, depending on the interaction between the customer and the service provider. If they do not get along or share certain practices, a risk of value co-destruction appears (Echeverri & Skålén, 2011).
Finally, critics warn that postmodern consumers’ desire for feelings of empowerment and autonomy may not just be an advantage when introducing CP. Rather than offering participation in a service to enhance the outcome, consumers may explicitly resist market ploys they do not condone to enhance the offerings on a long term basis (Roux, 2007; Cova & Dalli, 2008). As such, if empowered consumers become more critical and increasingly perceive CP to be exploitative, service firms would have to find ways to circumvent this exploitative image of CP (Cova & Dalli, 2009).
3.1.4. Exploring CP nuances empirically (2010-2015)
Rather than identifying particular service settings in which the application of CP would likely be received poorly by most customers, the critical papers in CP literature mainly aimed to establish more nuance. That is, in every service encounter, some customers’ satisfaction might be influenced positively by the presence of CP service delivery, while other customers’ satisfaction might be influenced negatively (Plé & Cáceres, 2010). CP can be perceived both as a cooperative act of joy and satisfaction, and as an exploitative ploy of a profit-maximizing firm (Arvidsson, 2011). After all, value (in this case the value of CP service delivery) can only be determined by the consumer (Lusch & Vargo, 2006). Consequently, the next important step for CP academics and practitioners would be to identify what factors exist that steer customers towards a more positive or a more negative perception of CP.
As such, a variety of empirical studies followed that aimed to explore the potential contingencies
that moderate the relationships between CP and service outcomes, which are any positive or
negative opinions a customer might have following service completion, such as customer
satisfaction. These studies could give insights into when customers are either happy to participate
(as suggested by positivist CP literature), or are instead skeptical (as emphasized by critical CP
literature). Once more is known about when CP is perceived positively (or negatively), there will
14 be a greater understanding of why CP is perceived positively (or negatively) (Brockner et al., 2001).
Up until this point, very little empirical studies existed in CP literature; the majority of studies had been conceptual (Chan et al., 2010). Echeverri and Skålén (2011) adopted the concept of value co-creation and co-destruction to empirically analyze instances of social interactions between service providers and customers. By applying practice theory, they found that the extent to which value was either co-created or co-destroyed highly depended on the congruence of the practices used by both parties. Practices are combinations of mental frames, discourse, values and symbols (Orlikowski, 2007; Schatzki, 2006). For example, if the customer and provider use very similar methods to greet each other, this interaction will likely co-create value. In contrast, when a service provider chooses to offer a customer help while the customer feels the help is unwarranted, value may be co-destroyed as a result of the customer perceiving the service provider to be condescending. This study illustrates the importance of congruence between the service provider in CP interactions.
Furthermore, Chan et al. (2010) also found that CP can be a double-edged sword. Customers responded positively to CP due to the increased control, the possibility to customize the service and the subsequent higher service quality. However, service employees responded negatively to the introduction of CP, since their job became much more demanding as customers’ gained control over the service process, which ultimately increased job stress. Meanwhile, Yim et al.
(2012) found that service outcomes were influenced increasingly positive by CP if the customers had greater ability to participate in the service. Blinda et al. (2019) discovered that CP’s influence on customer service outcomes greatly differed between hedonic and utilitarian service settings (i.e. services aimed at facilitating pleasure versus services aimed at practical matters).
Overall, these studies each contribute to CP literature by developing our understanding of the contingencies that influence how CP is perceived or experienced by customers and employees.
Nonetheless, mixed findings also appeared in empirical studies studying the relationship between
CP and service outcomes (Ranjan & Read, 2016). Some studies found a positive relationship
(e.g. Gallan et al., 2013), some studies found a negative relationship (e.g. Haumann et al., 2015),
while others found insignificant results (e.g. Wu, 2011).
15 3.1.5. Conceptual confusion (2016-2017)
The term ‘customer participation’ has been widely used in academic literature (Mustak et al., 2016). However, other terms have simultaneously been used to describe roughly the same phenomenon. Examples of this are: co-production, value co-creation, customer engagement and working consumers (Cova & Dalli, 2009; Ranjan & Read, 2016; Dong & Sivakumar, 2017).
These terms all have slightly different definitions. Co-production implies that both the customer and the provider are to some extent involved in the service delivery, whereas customer participation does not require the involvement of the service provider (i.e. CP also includes self- service). Value co-creation, on the other hand, is much broader, and is not tied to a service encounter: value is always co-created, whether a consumer is aware of this or not (Vargo &
Lusch, 2016). Customer engagement goes beyond single service encounters; it pertains to discretionary customers behaviors that focus on the interaction with the firms (van Doorn et al., 2010). Finally, working consumers refers to the immaterial labor continuously carried out by consumers to produce cultural and affective value (Cova & Dalli, 2009).
Despite these slight conceptual differentiations and overlaps, some authors in CP literature noticed that these terms were often used interchangeably by academics (Chang & Taylor, 2016;
Mustak et al., 2016; Ranjan & Read, 2016; Dong & Sivakumar, 2017). They suggest that the lack of distinctions made has led to conceptual confusion, and may be a cause of the mixed findings in prior empirical studies conducted in CP research. Dong and Sivakumar (2017) reviewed past empirical studies and found that many of them did not study what they said to be studying according to the terminology applied. In response to this conceptual confusion and to mixed findings, several literature reviews were published to stimulate conceptual clarity for future research.
For empirical studies, Dong et al. (2015) propose that customer participation is the best term to
use: it causes the least confusion, is not too broad and abstract like value co-creation, and it can
involve active and passive participation (i.e. actively providing input or merely being present for
service delivery).Ranjan and Read (2016) suggest a distinction be made between the two main
types of value co-created in CP settings: co-production value, which is objective, quantifiable
and tied to an exchange; and value-in-use, which is subjective value that is produced after the
exchange based on experiential evaluations beyond service attributes. Value-in-use studies focus
on effectiveness, while co-production studies focus on efficiency (Ranjan & Read, 2016).
16 This distinction shows the previously discussed divide between early CP studies focusing on objective value and efficiency (e.g. Lovelock & Young, 1979), and later CP studies focusing on subjective value and effectiveness (e.g. Payne et al., 2006). Previous studies have made similar distinctions. Vargo and Lusch (2004) distinguished between value-in-exchange (the equivalent to co-production value) and value-in-use, while Echeverri and Skålén (2011) distinguish between non-interactive value formation (the equivalent to co-production value) and interactive value formation (the equivalent to value-in-use).
Furthermore, Dong and Sivakumar (2017) promote conceptual clarity by advising against studying CP as a holistic construct. Instead, they propose a CP typology that distinguishes three types of CP along two dimensions: whether CP is part of the core service, and who can deliver the service. If CP is not tied to the core service and is instead used at the own discretion of customers to enhance the core service, this is referred to as voluntary customer participation (VCP). For example, a customer can engage in VCP by asking a waiter for a table by the window.
The service could have been performed without CP, but it could enhance the service. If CP is part of the core service, it can be either mandatory customer participation (MCP) or replaceable customer participation (RCP). With the former, there is absolutely no option in which the service could be delivered without CP. For example, a hairdresser cannot give customers a haircut without their physical presence. With the latter, customers have a choice: they can choose between service delivery modes that involve CP or not. For example, customers often have the ability to choose between self-checkout or checkout by a service employee in a grocery store.
By urging academics to adopt these distinctions in future empirical research, the authors aimed
to provide a starting point for counteracting mixed findings from the past. The present study
adopts the typology by Dong and Sivakumar (2017) to shed light on potential contingencies in
relation to specific types of CP, as defined by their distinctions. By applying the typology rather
than CP as a holistic construct, stronger, more meaningful relationships are expected to be found.
17
3.2. What is missing in CP literature?
Following from the review and dissection of CP literature over time, two key gaps in the current literature base emerged:
1. A lack of empirical studies conducted that would help improve our understanding of the influence of different types of CP in a variety of service settings.
2. A lack of consistent findings across existing empirical studies that would solidify the reliability of prior findings, and thereby make evidence more convincing and applicable in practice.
Now that these gaps have been identified, the present study continues as follows. First, each gap is addressed in more detail. Afterwards, a conceptual framework and propositions are presented to be adopted by future empirical CP studies, in order to fill the two gaps.
3.2.1. A lack of empirical studies
Although some empirical research studying CP and potential moderating contingencies has been conducted, there is much more to be learned. This can be argued especially when considering the fact that conceptual confusion was not addressed or resolved until a few years ago (Ranjan
& Read, 2016). Most empirical studies conducted prior to this employed very broad or boundary- lacking operationalizations of CP (Dong & Sivakumar, 2017). Consequently, different findings may surface once empirical CP studies from before 2016 are replicated now, using clearer and more distinct operationalizations of CP.
Focusing on the field of international business management, the presents study aims to identify and conceptualize contingencies affecting the relationship between different kinds of CP and service outcomes relevant to service firms operating internationally and across cultures. This is done by synthesizing CP literature with literature concerning consumers’ cultural value orientations and justice theory.
3.2.2. A lack of consistent findings
Empirical studies regarding CP have often resulted in mixed findings. Considering the use of a
variety of terms interchangeably without making clear distinctions, the aforementioned
conceptual confusion may play a role in this. Most studies have studied different types of CP
18 simultaneously without explicitly pointing out the differences, while there are hardly any studies examining the differential effect of CP types (Gallan et al., 2013; Yim et al., 2012).
To address this gap, the present study adapts the CP typology by Dong & Sivakumar (2017).
They found that especially prior studies that examined replaceable CP (RCP) have lead to mixed findings. Since customers have a choice between CP or no CP in RCP service settings, most studies expect outcomes to be positively influenced by CP (Mochon et al., 2012; Nagpal et al, 2015). Since customers can choose, those who do perceive CP negatively can simply pick the non-CP alternative.
In response to the mixed findings surrounding RCP studies, we propose a refined version of Dong and Sivakumar’s (2017) CP typology. The aim of the typology was to improve on prior CP conceptualizations that were too descriptive (e.g. Bitner et al., 1997; Mustak et al., 2013;
Chang and Taylor, 2016), making conceptual boundaries clearer and thereby improving the ability to operationalize CP in empirical studies. Nonetheless, RCP and MCP, according to their definitions, are still not conceptually exhaustive. Put differently, there are still scenarios where CP is part of the core service, for which neither RCP nor MCP fit the description. Replaceable CP is strictly for settings where customers have a choice between CP service delivery and traditional alternatives (i.e. multichannel service settings). Mandatory CP is strictly for situations where it is impossible for the customer not to participate; neither the provider or the customer has any control over this fact (e.g. getting a haircut).
However, recent studies suggest that service firms having used a multichannel RCP strategy for a long time may switch to CP-only service delivery (Ajitha et al., 2019). If, after some time, the majority of customers has started using the CP option over the traditional service option in an RCP setting, reducing the number of alternatives may lower costs (Reinders et al., 2008). Since customers have had plenty of time to get used to the CP option, their resistance to this change will likely be smaller than if the traditional alternative had been removed straight after introduction of CP service delivery. This cycle might be the future of CP for many firms currently offering a multichannel service with a choice between CP and traditional service delivery, such as airlines, grocery stores, and restaurants.
Although this could be the next step in customer participation, this scenario cannot be attributed
to either RCP nor MCP. Instead, to describe it, we introduce the additional typology of enforced
19 customer participation (ECP), which is conceptually positioned between RCP and MCP. With ECP, the customer does not have a choice to not participate anymore. At the same time, there is key difference with MCP. With MCP, customers acknowledge that the service cannot be delivered without their participation. To illustrate: no customer will resent their hairdresser for having to participate for the service to take place. In contrast, with ECP, customers are likely aware that the service they now have no choice but to participate in could also be performed by an employee, and likely used to be. Reactance theory suggests that customers may respond negatively following this realization (Brehm, 1966). It is not just about who can perform the service anymore, it is also about who could perform the service. The refined CP typology is depicted in Figure 3.1.
Dong and Sivakumar (2017) labelled both MCP and ECP settings as ‘MCP’. However, we argue that the distinction is crucial: in ECP settings, it is much more likely for customers to feel exploited and as if their freedom of choice has been compromised (Cova & Dalli, 2009). Given
Figure 3.1: Refined CP typology based on justice theory and Dong and Sivakumar (2017)’s typology.
20 this, ECP service settings are likely to be much more polarizing among consumers than the other CP types. Therefore, empirically studying contingencies that moderate which consumers respond favorably or unfavorably to enforced CP (given certain circumstances), is crucial.
Based on the refined CP typology that incorporates the service provider’s ability to deliberately reduce the customer’s freedom of choice, a selection of empirical CP studies were reviewed and assessed. To get a hint of the effect of ECP, we examined whether the study’s procedure could be defined as MCP (CP is unavoidable), RCP (the customer chooses between CP or non-CP), or ECP (customer has no choice but to use CP due to deliberate firm decisions). Additionally, for each study we assessed whether the type of CP examined was addressed explicitly. Then, the CP type of each study was compared to customer’s service outcomes being positive, negative or insignificant, in order to analyze whether ECP in fact has a worse influence on service outcomes than MCP or RCP. Results are shown in Table 3.2.
The relationships between CP type and the service outcomes are interesting. All of the studies
that yielded a negative influence of CP on service outcomes, involved ECP to some extent. For
example, Zolfagharian et al. (2019) manipulated their study procedure such that participants
either had to participate significantly in service delivery, or not at all; they had no choice. The
activity consisted of setting up a workout plan with a personal trainer. Participants either had to
do most of the work, or none. Since setting up a workout plan is a service that the service provider
(a personal trainer) could have done without the customer’s participation, this procedure entails
ECP. Findings showed that those who had to participate in service delivery experienced worse
service outcomes.
21
R ese arc h fin din gs Pos . N eg . Ins . × ×
× × × × ×
× × × × × × × × ×
E labor ati on
All participants are shown both CP and non-CP alternatives and are asked to give their views on them Some participants were shown RCP, others were shown ECP Choice was manipulated; participants faced either ECP or RCP situation Participants were instructed to either participate or not participate Participants chose between participating and not participating Manipulation put some participants in RCP, and others in ECP situation Participants were instructed to either participate or not participate All study participants were instructed to use the RA (a CP interface) Participants were manipulated in having to provide lots of input for the design, or very little input Participants had an option to not participate, but this would cost them extra money Participants identified to what extent they participated in the process using a scale Participants either had to participate significantly, or had to not participate in service delivery at allE xpli cit ly* addre ssed?
No No Yes No No Yes No No No Yes No YesC P Ty pe
RCP ECP, RCP ECP, RCP RCP RCP ECP, RCP ECP ECP RCP ECP/ RCP RCP, MCP, ECP ECPR ese arc h se tt in g
Comparison of CP options between hedonic and utilitarian service settings College students participating in classes Employee service at a shop or self-service online Value derived from building one’s own belongings Ability to customize food at a food retailer Self-service railway ticket purchase Attitudes toward CP in situations of service failure Participation in online product recommendation services Custom T-shirt design through customer input Getting a hotel room discount for participating in work Customers’ participation with employees in the financial services sector Personal trainers involving their clients in designing workout plansA rti cle
Blinda et al. (2019) Chen (2018) Flores & Vasquez- Parraga (2015 Mochon et al. (2012) Nagpal et al. (2015) Reinders et al. (2008) Roggeveen et al. (2012) Sheng & Zolfagharian (2014) Wei et al. (2018) Xia & Suri (2014) Yim et al. (2012) Zolfagharian et al. (2018) Table 3.2: Past empirical CP studies analyzed for ECP, MCP or RCP procedures, as well as direction of relationships found. *: whether the study explicitly addressed if participants had a choice to participate or not, or if participation was enforced, and possible implications this distinction may have had on results22
4. Conceptual framework development
Based on the review and identified gaps in the CP literature, the refined CP typology, and additional literature concerning cultural value orientations and justice theory, we propose a conceptual framework consisting of several propositions. It is depicted in Figure 4.1. The framework responds to both gaps in CP literature that were previously established. Since a more refined and distinctive typology of CP is applied, empirical studies adopting this typology will likely yield more consistent findings. Additionally, by revisiting a crucial potential contingency on the relationship between CP and service outcomes, our understanding of the influence of CP on service outcomes across varying contexts will advance.
First, the relationship between CP and service outcomes is discussed, while also considering the differences between ECP and RCP. Afterwards, propositions hypothesizing the relative influence of ECP and RCP on service outcomes are developed. Second, the concept of cultural value orientations are discussed, and propositions of the impact of different cultural dimensions on the relationship between ECP and service outcomes are developed. Finally, practical suggestions are presented concerning the testing of the conceptual framework in the future.
Figure 4.1: Proposed conceptual framework.
23
4.1. Customer participation and service outcomes
Substantial research has been conducted into the antecedents of consumers’ usage of CP service delivery: factors that influence consumers’ adoption of and engagement in CP (Meuter et al., 2005). Antecedents inform us about why customers may enjoy participating during service encounters. However, since our conceptual framework focuses mainly on service contexts with enforced CP, in which consumers have no choice but to engage in CP, the present study will not discuss antecedents in much detail.
There are substantial barriers to implementation and adoption of CP, especially getting customers to try. They must change their behavior, become responsible for providing the service and their satisfaction (Bendapudi & Leone, 2003; Meuter & Bitner, 1997). Customers may experience confusion about their new role in the service process (Larsson & Bowen, 1989), or lack the skills and confidence to complete CP tasks (Dellande et al, 2004; Schneider & Bowen, 1995). Even if the CP context consist of simple tasks, customers may feel incapable to participate due to low self-efficacy (Ellen et al., 1991). In this case, they will avoid engaging in CP, even if they acknowledge it to be a superior alternative (Seltzer, 1983). All of these arguments reinforce the idea that customers must become properly familiar with the CP service alternatives before firms decide to transition from RCP to ECP by removing non-CP service delivery options.
Besides being ready to participate, customers must also want to participate (Lengnick-Hall et al., 2000). Customers will not become familiar with CP in an RCP setting if they are not sufficiently motivated to try the CP alternative (Meuter et al., 2005). Customers will likely only want to participate if they anticipate benefits (Ennew & Binks, 1999). A key antecedent reflecting customers’ wanting to participate is motivation (Bettencourt et al., 2002). Motivation can be extrinsic and intrinsic (Meuter et al., 2005). Extrinsic motivation consist of objective rewards such as saving time, increased customization of the service and subsequent improved service quality (Dabholkar, 1996). Intrinsic motivation is driven by desires of accomplishment, self- expression, personal growth, independence and pleasure from participating (Dabholkar, 1996;
Schneider & Bowen, 1995; Rogers, 1995; Inglehart & Baker, 2000). These desires are similar to
the previously discussed characteristics of postmodern consumers (section 3.1.3). The extent to
which consumers possess postmodernist qualities may play a role in their motivation to engage
in CP.
24 4.1.1. Service outcomes
Most studies examining the consequences of CP consider one or more forms of ‘service outcomes’ as the dependent variable, which encompasses any positive or negative opinions or feelings a customer or might have following completion of the service (Ajitha et al., 2019). A variety of service outcomes have been studied before, both from the perspective of customers, such as customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, behavioral intentions, willingness to pay and perceived value (Auh et al., 2007; Ranjan & Read, 2016), and from the perspective of employees, such as job satisfaction and job stress (Brockner et al., 2001; Chan et al., 2010). Given that the present study focuses on customers’ perceptions of CP depending on the type of CP and the cultural context, only customer service outcomes are considered.
The most commonly used service outcomes are customer satisfaction and perceived service quality (Ajitha et al., 2019). Customer satisfaction refers to the emotional state of a customer on the evaluation of an interaction experience combining the customer’s affective and evaluative aspects of service encounter (Oliver et al., 1997). Perceived service quality is the global judgment or attitude towards the service encounter based on customers’ beliefs about the service (Parasuraman et al., 1988). Since these service outcomes are most commonly used, are directed at a focal service encounter and are tied to customers’ affective states (which is highly relevant considering the potential polarizing nature of ECP), this study will focus on them.
When empirically studying novel experiences in services, it is important to not just analyze the objective benefits, such as the increased efficiency (Vargo & Lusch, 2004). Regardless of the observable, objective advantages of CP, its success cannot be fully assessed if customers subjective evaluations are considered, such as their level of satisfaction or perceived service quality (Sandström et al., 2008). Value is a function of interaction between subjects, of behaviorally based judgments, attitudes, satisfaction and affections; it is contextual and personal.
(Holbrook, 2006). Marketing literature has argued that profits come from customer satisfaction, not units sold (Kohli & Jaworski, 1990; Narver & Slater, 1990). Customer satisfaction can effectively represent firm performance (Lam et al., 2002; Oliver & Swan, 1989). Furthermore, higher perceived quality leads to higher satisfaction (Ouschan et al., 2006).
Empirical findings from past studies examining the relationship between CP and service
outcomes have been mixed for customer satisfaction (Auh et al., 2007; Bendapudi & Leone,
2003; Ennew & Binks, 1999) and largely positive for perceived service quality (Dong &
25 Sivakumar, 2017). This may suggest that customers can simultaneously acknowledge the increased quality from CP service delivery, while also being skeptical about the concept of CP itself. Alternatively, the mixed findings may indicate that a more refined operationalization of CP (Ranjan & Read, 2016), or a contingency approach to studying the relationship between CP and service outcomes is warranted. The present study attempts to incorporate both.
4.1.2. Proposition development
As has been established up until this point, implementing CP can deliver great benefits to customers. Aside from objective, extrinsic rewards such as time saved, increased customizability and higher service quality, CP also allows customers to feel independent, accomplished and productive (Dabholkar, 1996). At the same time, customers might dislike the effort that is required, or simply do not experience CP positively (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). Also, considering that the firm often controls to what extent CP is implemented into the service process, customers may experience feelings of exploitation (Cova & Dalli, 2009). In line with prior studies, we predict that on balance, the positives will outweigh the negatives (Auh et al., 2007).
However, in order to not ignore the presence of both positive and negative elements of CP, we distinguish between ECP and RCP to add nuance. Customers with more decision power are more likely to be satisfied (Ramani & Kumar, 2008). According to reactance theory (Brehm, 1966), when there is a threat against someone’s freedom to use an alternative of behavior (in this case, a non-CP service delivery option), it becomes more attractive (Ajitha et al., 2019). As such, transitioning from RCP to ECP can hinder the positive effect of CP on service outcomes.
Customer’s choice in service delivery options has been given attention in CP literature, but mostly in relation to antecedents: when and why do customers choose CP service delivery (e.g.
Bettencourt et al., 2002; Meuter et al., 2005). However, it has rarely been studied in relation to
service outcomes: how does the extent to which customers’ have the freedom to choose between
CP and traditional service delivery impact service outcomes? Empowered consumers aim to
maximize their enjoyment of consumption (Cova & Dalli, 2009). The better companies enable
them to do so (by empowering them), the greater will be their satisfaction (Wright et al., 2006).
26 Finally, research regarding CP and self-serving bias tells us that customers are more likely to blame themselves if service failure occurs when they chose a CP service delivery option (Bendapudi & Leone, 2003). Instead, if they have no choice but to complete a service through CP, they are more likely to assign blame to the service provider in case of failure, since they had no option to pick a different service delivery method with which failure may have been prevented.
Proposition 1a: ECP has a positive effect on service outcomes.
Proposition 1b: RCP has a positive effect on service outcomes.
Proposition 1c: The positive relationship between RCP and service outcomes is stronger than the relationship between ECP and service outcomes.
4.2. Cultural contingency
As the moderating variable on the relationship between CP and service outcomes, we consider cultural value orientations. By revisiting a crucial potential contingency on the relationship between CP and service outcomes, our understanding of the influence of CP on service outcomes across varying contexts will advance. Empirical studies based on our propositions could yield findings that help respond to the previously discussed lacking empirical evidence in CP literature.
Since this contingency is about differences in perceptions towards CP across cultures, insights would be especially relevant for international business literature and service firms operating across cultures.
4.2.1. The relevance of culture
Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1985) defined culture based on their study of 160 previous definitions
of culture. They suggest that culture gives its members scripts for behavior, as well as a rationale
behind the script. Culture is transmitted and acquired by artefacts and symbols. Culture is both a
product of past action, as well as something that conditions future action. Traditional ideas and
connected values among members form the core of culture. Thus, culture scripts consumers
behavior and forms their values, which is naturally relevant to how they experience and act
during service encounters. Especially in contexts prone to exploitative perceptions, such as in
ECP service contexts, consumers’ values may strongly influence how they judge the service
encounter.
27 Cross-cultural management of firms is a widely studied topic in management literature (Barmeyer et al., 2019). One of the key challenges in cross-cultural management is being able to enjoy economies of scale by applying standardized strategies across various cultures, while also remaining flexible enough to respond to different demands of customers from different cultures or with different cultural value orientations (Barmeyer et al., 2019). The latter distinction is important; although overall cultural values do differ between nations, individual cultural value orientations significantly also differ within a ‘national culture’. National generalizations of cultural values is an ecological fallacy that ignores differences among individuals with the same nationality (Yoo & Donthu, 2002).
Recognizing different demands of customers with different cultural value orientation is also relevant for service firms. Service encounters are social exchanges, thus the norms, roles and expectations of both customers and service providers will likely be influenced by each party’s cultural value orientations (Patterson et al., 2006). Past cross-cultural market studies have already provided evidence that cultural values strongly influence evaluations of service encounters (Winsted, 1997; 1999), service quality expectations (Donthu & Yoo, 1998), and the nature and strength of relationships (Patterson & Smith, 2003). Specifically, if newly introduced marketing efforts complement consumers’ cultural value orientations, perceived service quality increases.
Given that CP challenges previously established customer-provider roles and norms (in which the provider performs the service while the customer passively receives it), cultural values likely contribute in evaluating CP service encounters (Solomon et al., 1985). The extent of value creation through CP may depend on how well customers and employees accept and perform their newly defined roles and scripts, which depends on their cultural value orientations (Youngdahl et al., 2003). Culture moderates customers’ preferences for personalized services (Mattila, 1999) and customers’ perceptions of the extent to which recovery of a failed service succeeded (Patterson et al., 2006), thus whether CP is appropriate likely hinges on participants’ cultural values (Youngdahl et al., 2003).
4.2.2. Operationalizing culture
Prior studies in management literature have largely used Hofstede’s cultural dimensions to
operationalize and measure differences in cultural values (Hofstede, 1980). Hofstede identified
28 four dimensions that were each supposed to capture a significant aspect of a country’s national cultural makeup. They became a widely used instrument in empirical research due to the relative ease with which the dimensions can be measured. Although Hofstede added two more dimensions later on, the present study adopts three of the original dimensions: power distance, uncertainty avoidance and individualism.
Power distance refers to the extent to which a person accepts that power inequality exists between people. People high in power distance value orientations accept that hierarchies exist throughout society, while those low in power distance reject hierarchies and argue that power should be equally distributed. Uncertainty avoidance refers to the extent to which a person accepts uncertain situations. People high in uncertainty avoidance do not handle uncertainty well and refrain from taking risks, instead require a certain level of control over situations, while those low in uncertainty avoidance are not easily stressed out by uncertainty and are fine taking risks.
Individualism refers to the extent to which a person prioritizes their own goals above or below those of the collective. Those high in individualism mostly worry about their own achievements, while those low in individualism (collectivists) accept that their personal goals are subordinate to those of the greater good.
Although Hofstede’s dimensions were initially based on national cultures and averages between countries, national boundaries may not define people’s cultural value orientations, leading to critical paper aimed at empirical studies that drew generalized conclusions about individuals’
cultural value orientation based on national averages (Shenkar, 2001; Yoo & Donthu, 2002).
Instead, analyzing individual value orientations is more effective. They can be measured using Donthu and Yoo (1998)’s CVSCALE, which captures individual Hofstede dimensions at the individual level (Patterson et al., 2006).
4.2.3. Prior CP studies incorporating culture
The moderating effect of cultural value orientations on the relationship between CP and service
outcomes has been studied before. However, findings have been mixed, and operationalizations
of CP of previous studies have not been as refined as those proposed by the present study. These
two gaps might be interrelated. For example, Youngdahl et al. (2003) studied how culture
influenced the type of CP chosen and the service outcomes. They found no significant effect of
culture on CP in their study and subsequently concluded that managers could breathe a sigh of
29 relief, as the implementation of CP service delivery could be done without taking into account cultural differences.
However, the types of CP examined were all forms of VCP: the CP behaviors were never a part of the core service delivery. The authors explicitly differentiated the examined behaviors from required CP behavior. As such, insignificant findings may be attributable to the lack of cruciality CP had to the core service process in question, and we may only conclude that certain VCP behaviors are culturally robust. Furthermore, this study incorporated all of Hofstede’s dimensions, without providing a rationale for this decision. The insignificance of the findings may thus also be attributable to the possibility that some dimensions related significantly, but the effect was weakened due to the presence of other dimensions with no significant effect.
Other studies examining the moderating effect of culture on CP did select specific cultural dimensions. For example, Chan et al. (2010) operationalized individual cultural value orientations using Hofstede’s dimensions of power distance and individualism. Their study gave an example of how culture can explain negative consequences of CP implementation. Service employees low in power distance experienced increased job stress as a result of CP; they did not acknowledge their subordinate role with the customer as a result of low power distance, and given the increased level of control CP gives to customers, these effects were amplified.
However, the study by Chan et al. (2010) solely analyzed the social interaction between customers and employees in CP (ignoring instances of CP without interaction, such as self- service) and how each party’s perceptions of the service encounter are improved if their cultural values are congruent. In other words, it focused on the interactional aspect of cultural values, not internally held beliefs. Additionally, this study did not differentiate between types of CP.
The present study looks at CP and culture from a wider perspective, by considering how cultural values affect their perceptions toward CP not just during the service encounter, and not just for CP service encounters that imply increased interpersonal collaboration with the service provider.
Furthermore, to enrich the concept of culture and to further bridge the gap between customers’
cultural value orientations and service encounters, justice theory is considered.
30 4.2.4. Justice theory
Since our proposed CP typology of ECP brings into question matters of exploitation and fairness towards customers, we adopt justice theory to develop arguments concerning contexts where customers might have different perceptions of justice as a result of their cultural value orientations. Justice theory is one of many theories that has been used in CP literature to describe and scrutinize the relationship between service providers and customers. A selection of these types of theories is summarized and presented in Table 4.1.
Justice theory is based on social exchange theory and equity theory, and examines perceptions of fairness among consumers during a consumption experience (Patterson et al., 2006). This can
Theory Definition Customer/provider relationship
Justice theory (e.g. Bies & Shapiro, 1987)
Explores consumers’ fairness perceptions surrounding consumption experiences.
Customers’ satisfaction with a service provider greatly depend on whether they perceive to be treated fairly by them.
Practice theory (e.g. Orlikowski, 2007)
Examines practices that people employ and expect others to employ in a social interaction.
If customers and providers do not employ complementary social practices when collaborating, the outcome may be unfavorable.
Reactance theory (e.g. Brehm, 1996)
Suggests that people value a behavior more when a threat against using it emerges.
If firms reduce options in a multi- channel service process due to CP, customers may resist this.
Role theory (e.g. Heide &
Wathne, 2006 )
Proposes that people have an understanding of their own and other people’s roles in society.
CP blurs the boundaries between the servant roles of providers and receiving roles of customers.
Self-determination theory (e.g. Ryan &
Deci, 2000)
Implies people have innate needs that need fulfilling, like autonomy and competence.
Using CP lets customers fulfill these needs, thus enhancing their opinions towards the providers.
Social exchange theory
(e.g. Blau, 1964 )
Suggests consumers demand at least as much as they give (i.e.
to get value for money spent)
If customers are not rewarded for offering participation in services, they will likely not cooperate.
Table 4.1: Key theories used in CP literature to describe the relationship between customer and service providers.
