522879
research-article2014
JTRXXX10.1177/0047287514522879Journal of Travel ResearchMohd-Any et al.
Research Article
Measuring Users’ Value Experience on a
Travel Website (e-Value): What Value Is
Cocreated by the User?
Journal of Travel Research
2015, Vol. 54(4) 496­–510
© The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0047287514522879
jtr.sagepub.com
Amrul Asraf Mohd-Any1, Heidi Winklhofer2,
and Christine Ennew3
Abstract
Despite the widespread use of travel websites, our understanding of how best to capture users’ value experiences when
using such websites is limited. This article introduces a multidimensional measurement of a user’s value experience on a
travel website (e-Value). We then assess the extent to which website users contribute to their own value experience. Based
on 175 UK survey respondents, e-Value is formed mainly by cognitive effort, utilitarian value/control, and to a lesser extent
by perceptions of emotional value and value for money. Social value experiences do not contribute to e-Value. A user’s
own activities on a website (i.e., participation) affect most value dimensions but at different magnitudes. Our findings suggest
that website “participation” should be seen as phenomenologically determined by the user as perceived participation affects
e-Value dimensions more strongly than actual participation.
Keywords
value experience measurement, customer participation, travel websites, value dimensions
With the popularity of e-travel services, customers have
become far more powerful, sophisticated, and experienced
and are increasingly able to determine elements of their tourism products. Intense competition among travel websites
means that companies need to understand how users compare across sites (Kim, Kim, and Han 2007). Maximization
of customer value is widely accepted to be the ultimate goal
for firms (Woodruff 1997), as it drives customer loyalty and
repurchase intention. Users’ value perceptions are consequently crucial in choosing a website for travel planning and
booking. To assist businesses, we need answers to the following questions: how best can we capture a user’s value
perception from using a travel website? What are its components and how do they contribute to the overall value perception of using a specific site? Despite extensive research on
tourism website evaluation (see Law, Qi, and Buhalis 2010
for an overview) to understand better how customers rate the
quality and functionality of such websites (e.g., Kaynama
and Black 2000; Ho and Lee 2007; Kim and Lee 2004), our
understanding of a customer’s value experience and its subdimensions is still underdeveloped. Website quality is only
seen as an antecedent to value in the now widely accepted
“quality-value-satisfaction-loyalty chain” (Kashyap and
Bojanic 2000; Gallarza and Gil-Saura 2006), while value is
seen as a richer measure (Prebensen et al. 2013) and better
predictor of loyalty (Cronin, Brady, and Hult 2000). In line
with research on website effectiveness, our focus is on the
following service activities and functions undertaken by an
individual on a travel website: searching for travel information, performing transactions, using it as a communication
forum, and receiving personalized services (e.g., itinerary
design) (see also Ho and Lee 2007). Our first objective is to
introduce a multidimensional measurement of a user’s value
experience when using a travel website (e-Value). Such a
generic measure provides a valuable contribution to work on
tourism website evaluation. As Law, Qi, and Buhalis (2010)
concluded in their meta-analysis, more work on website
evaluation is needed; in particular, we need to develop mutually agreed standards and techniques.
Recent literature has stressed the salient role of the customer in cocreating their own value experience (Prahalad
and Ramaswamy 2004; Vargo and Lusch 2004). Within the
Service Dominant (S-D) logic literature, the customer is seen
as having a dual role as cocreator: contributing to the experience, as well as assessing its value (Vargo and Lusch 2004;
Gummerus 2013). In the context of using a travel website,
1
University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Nottingham University Business School, Nottingham, United Kingdom
3
University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus, Selangor, Malaysia
2
Corresponding Author:
Heidi Winklhofer, Nottingham University Business School, Wollaton
Road, Nottingham, NG8 1BB, United Kingdom.
Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on February 29, 2016
497
Mohd-Any et al.
customers contribute to their value experience by using the
features of that site (Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004).
Despite our abstract understanding of the customer as a
cocreator of value, little empirical evidence is available to
demonstrate how a customer’s own activities affect their
value perceptions. For example, do website users derive
more fun (i.e., emotional value) by using more of its features;
do users who make more extensive use of the website perceive that they get better value for money? Against this background, our second objective is to establish the extent to
which individual value dimensions are affected by a user’s
own activities on a travel website.
Perceived Value and Value Experiences
Scholars in tourism, marketing, and management have for
some time tried to understand the value concept.
Conceptualizations and operationalizations of value as an
outcome have predominantly taken place in interpersonal
contexts (e.g., Lin, Sher, and Shih 2005; Ruiz et al. 2008);
rather less attention has been paid to self-service contexts,
despite their increasing importance. Because of the complex,
rich, and subjective nature of the value construct, scholars
have viewed it in different ways. Three broad perspectives
have been employed to try to understand how customers
determine the value of an outcome. The means–end theory
(Woodruff 1997) links product evaluations to use consequences but has been criticized as making it difficult to
define and operationalize value (Parasuraman 1997).
Literature building on Zeithaml’s (1988, p. 14) work regards
value as a cognitive assessment, that is, “an overall assessment of the utility of a product based on perceptions of what
is received and what is given.” It compares functional and
economic benefits versus sacrifices (see Kashyap and
Bojanic 2000; Hutchinson, Lai, and Wang 2009). The most
comprehensive perspective is to define value as an experience outcome (Hirschman and Holbrook 1982; Holbrook
and Hirschman 1982) which supplements the cognitive
assessment by adding affect and defining value as an “interactive relativistic preference experience” (Holbrook 1994,
p. 27). As pointed out in an extensive review of the value
literature by Gummerus (2013), examining holistic experiences might justify a phenomenological approach to value
research. Nevertheless, the dominant approach is to examine
value perceptions as a multidimensional outcome incorporating cognitive and a range of sociopsychological value dimensions such as emotional value, social value, and epistemic
value (Sheth, Newman, and Gross 1991; Sweeney and Soutar
2001; Sánchez et al. 2006). This differs from a benefit versus
sacrifice perspective that is more aligned with a purely cognitive assessment (Sánchez et al. 2006). Useful overviews of
value dimensions are developed by Smith and Colgate (2007)
and Holbrook (1999). As Sánchez et al. (2006) explain in
detail, such a multidimensional perspective captures the
experiential view of value, which has conceptual support
from the cognitive–affective–behavior paradigm. This is the
approach employed most widely in tourism and service
research as can be seen in studies examining, for example,
the change in timeshare owners’ value perceptions (Bradley
and Sparks 2012), adventure tourism (Williams and Soutar
2009), or festival tourism (Lee, Lee, and Choi 2011). To capture the multidimensionality of the construct, Petrick (2002)
developed the SERV-PERVAL scale to measure the value
perceptions of cruise travelers (Petrick 2003, 2004) and golf
travelers (Petrick and Backman 2002), while Sánchez et al.
(2006) developed GLOVAL, which captures the consumption and purchase experience of a tourism product.
The value construct is also central to the S-D logic literature, where work on value is mainly theoretical and concentrates on “value-in-use,” which is defined by the user (Vargo
and Lusch 2004). To accommodate better the phenomenological nature of value, “value-in-use” was subsequently
relabeled as “value-in-context” (Vargo et al. 2010). Helkkula,
Kelleher, and Pihlström (2012, p. 59) argue that the phenomenological perspective of value is best captured by actual or
even imagined experiences of a customer and coined the
term “value in the experience,” which is framed by “service
customers’ broader lifeworld contexts.” From a strict phenomenological perspective, value experiences need to be
examined in terms of their deeper meaning for an individual;
however, Gummerus (2013) argues that Vargo and Lusch
(2008, p. 150) are vague as to their phenomenological perspective, regarding value as created when the customer’s
“wellbeing has somehow been improved.” Such a perspective can be reconciled with the literature that regards value as
an experience outcome (Gummerus 2013) and is consistent
with the multidimensional view of value, combining cognitive and affective dimensions.
The dearth of research on customer perceived value from
the context of technology-based services, such as travel websites, has been highlighted in the literature (Heinonen 2004,
2009), where the focus has tended to be on understanding
e-service quality (e.g., Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Malhotra
2005; Ho and Lee 2007) and website usability and effectiveness (Law, Qi, and Buhalis 2010). Although this work overlaps with the functional dimension of value, as well as with
the cognitive effort involved, it fails to cover the richness of
a user’s value experience that ultimately affects loyalty.
e-Value and Modeling Its Constituent
Dimensions
Empirical research has mainly studied value by examining
value perceptions at the dimensional level (e.g., Petrick and
Backman 2002; Prebensen et al. 2013), but has not yet developed a mutually agreed set of dimensions (Bradley and
Sparks 2012). There is also confusion as to the ways in which
these various value dimensions are modeled (see Lin, Sher,
and Shih 2005 and Mayr and Zins 2012 for a review).
Modeling these dimensions as predictors of a generic value
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on February 29, 2016
498
Journal of Travel Research 54(4)
measure (e.g., Al-Sabbahy, Ekinci, and Riley 2004; Duman
and Mattila 2005; Petrick 2004) is theoretically unparsimonious, while a generic value measure lacks validity (Woodruff
and Gardial 1996). Even more problematic is the use of a
unidimensional overall value measure (Chen and Chen 2010;
Prebensen et al. 2013) as it cannot capture the complexity of
the value construct. Lin, Sher, and Shih (2005) argue that
theoretical parsimony can only be achieved when the overall
abstraction of perceived value is conceptualized within the
model and is “specified as formative in the second-order”
(Lin, Sher, and Shih 2005, p. 324; see also Sánchez et al.
2006; Ruiz et al. 2008; Mayr and Zins 2012). SánchezFernández and Iniesta-Bonillo (2007, p. 444) stressed the
need to “clarify the formative nature of the relationship
between this multi-dimensional construct and its constituent
dimensions.”
With this in mind, we undertook an extensive literature
review to identify constituent dimensions capturing the value
experience of travel website users (e-Value). Dimensions
were derived from the theory of consumption value (Sheth,
Newman, and Gross 1991), as it contains both cognitive and
affective aspects of consumption (i.e., use), as well as from
technology adoption theory. We propose six integral firstorder dimensions that together constitute e-Value, that is, a
customer’s value experience when using travel websites.
These include utilitarian value, emotional value, social value,
perceived control and freedom, value for money, and user’s
cognitive effort.
Utilitarian value is consistently included in all value
typologies (e.g., Babin, Darden, and Griffin 1994; Sigala
2006). Utilitarian or functional value is derived from effective task fulfillment (Sheth, Newman, and Gross 1991;
Sánchez et al. 2006), or from efficient and timely service
delivery (Childers et al. 2001). It is also seen to be closely
related to the concepts of perceived usefulness in the
Technology Acceptance Model (TAM; Davis 1989) and
website usability literature (Kim and Eom 2002; Ranganathan
and Ganapathy 2002), as well as relative advantage in perceived characteristics of innovations (Rogers 2003).
Emotional value refers to affective states generated from
a product or service such as fun and enjoyment (Holbrook
1994; Mathwick, Malhotra, and Rigdon 2001; Richins 1997;
Lee, Lee, and Choi 2011). It captures the feelings of pleasure/enjoyment a customer/user gains from using the product/service, which is particularly relevant within the context
of holiday travel (Williams and Soutar 2009; Lee, Lee, and
Choi 2011), described as a pleasure-seeking activity (Gnoth
1997). Drawing from work on online purchasing of services,
emotional value may be realized as part of the process of
searching and purchasing travel services (e.g., Mathwick,
Malhotra, and Rigdon 2001; Heinonen 2009; Sánchez et al.
2006). Emotional value is widely included in conceptual
value typologies and empirical studies (Sheth, Newman, and
Gross 1991; Sweeney, Soutar, and Johnson 1999; Sweeney
and Soutar 2001).
Social value. Sheth, Newman, and Gross’s (1991) theory of
“consumption value” advocates that customers can also
experience “social value” as part of their consumption experience, as “the very act of participation and performance of
the relevant tasks can yield experiences that provide psychological benefits” (Etgar 2008, p. 102). Sweeney and Soutar
(2001) defined social value as the utility derived from the
constructs of esteem, fashion, and sociability (see also Holbrook 2006; Williams and Soutar 2009; Sánchez et al. 2006).
Work on the diffusion of innovations has shown that consumers’ use of electronic innovations can enhance a person’s
status and image (Pura 2005; Sigala 2006). By analogy, the
use of Internet self-service technologies may be expected to
have a similar impact.
Perceived control and freedom. One of the key features of
interactive technology such as the Internet is user control
(e.g., Meuter et al. 2000), since the performance of online
services is independent of employees’ involvement, location, and time. Perceived control and freedom in the context
of Self-Service Technology (SST) environments has been
defined as the “subjective assessment of control over a task”
(Zhu et al. 2007, p. 494). Studies within the SST context
have highlighted that users regard being in control as one of
the benefits when using, for example, mobile services (e.g.,
Kleijnen, De Ruyter, and Wetzels 2007) or completing
transactions on the Internet (e.g., Wolfinbarger and Gilly
2001).
Value for money. The foundation for the notion of value as a
trade-off between benefits and sacrifices is based on economic theory of exchange where quality is associated with
benefits and price paid is associated with monetary sacrifice
(Zeithaml 1988). Lin, Sher, and Shih (2005) and Sigala
(2006) used this terminology in the context of online shopping and mobile services. Multidimensional measures of
value vary in terminology, including “functional value due to
price” (Sweeney and Soutar 2001), monetary price (Petrick
2002), economic value (Mathwick, Malhotra, and Rigdon
2001), or value for money (Williams and Soutar 2009). Mayr
and Zins (2012) even differentiated between price assurance
and unreasonable price. Despite these terminological differences, the common idea is to assess the relative price with
respect to the service/goods received.
User’s cognitive effort. Based on the complexity of innovation
characteristics (Rogers 2003) and ease of use in TAM (Davis
1989), user’s cognitive effort is a widely applied component
of value measures (e.g., Kleijnen, De Ruyter, and Wetzels
2007; Mayr and Zins 2012). Meuter et al. (2005) found a
significant relationship between complexity and the propensity to try a particular SST. Website users were also found to
want to limit their cognitive effort in comparing prices across
online offers (Tanford, Baloglu, and Erdem 2012). In line
with Kleijnen, De Ruyter, and Wetzels (2007), we associate
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on February 29, 2016
499
Mohd-Any et al.
Utilitarian
value
Emotional
value
Social
value
Perceived control
and freedom
Customer
perceived value
(e-Value)
Value for money
Users’ cognitive
effort
First-order
e-Value
components/dimensions
Second-order formative
conceptualization
Figure 1. The e-Value Construct.
cognitive effort with the complexity of using a specific
website.
Following the multidimensional–formative approach recommended by Lin, Sher, and Shih (2005) and Sánchez et al.
(2006), the six proposed dimensions are regarded as the integral parts (first-order dimensions) that form e-Value in the
context of a travel website (see Figure 1); this allows us to
quantify the contribution of each value dimension towards
overall e-Value.
Customer Participation
In the context of travel websites, customers participate
directly in service creation through utilization of the features
and functionalities of websites and consequently cocreate
service experiences (e.g., Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004)
as they think, act and sense when using these features
(Gummerus 2013). Customer participation has been linked
to a whole range of concepts such as customer satisfaction
with service delivery (Ennew and Binks 1999), contribution
to quality (Sigala 2006), self-serving bias (Bendapudi and
Leone 2003), new product development processes (Fang
2008; Shaw, Bailey, and Williams 2011), and customer loyalty (Auh et al. 2007). The concept of customer participation
is well established (see Bendapudi and Leone 2003 for a
review) and has received new momentum through the perspective of customers cocreating their value experience
(Vargo and Lusch 2004). For example, Prebensen et al.
(2013) examined tourists’ motivation and involvement as
antecedents to perceived value of their destination experience, implying that tourists cocreate their own value experience. Customer participation has been studied from the
perspective of human-to-human interaction, and in an online
setting, as is the case in travel communities (e.g., Wang and
Fesenmaier 2004; Casaló, Flavián, and Guinalíu 2010–11).
Recently researchers have begun to explore how customer
participation affects value perceptions in an Internet SelfService Technology (ISST) context (Dong, Evans, and Zou
2008; Heinonen 2009) such as a travel website. However,
these studies were either exploratory (Heinonen 2009) or
centered on service recovery (Dong, Evans, and Zou 2008).
To gain more insights on the crucial role the customer
plays in cocreating their value experience in an ISST context,
we also consulted the extensive research on TAM (Davis
1989), Diffusion of Innovations (Rogers 2003) and
Technology Readiness (TR) (Parasuraman 2000), which
attempted to understand consumer behavior relative to technology adoption, acceptance, and usage.
Participation has so far almost exclusively been defined
as a behavioral concept. Silpakit and Fisk (1985, p. 117)
referred to customer participation as “the degree of consumers’ effort and involvement, both mental and physical, necessary to participate in production and delivery of services.”
Definitions have generally been context specific, for example, in response to a service failure (Dong, Evans, and Zou
2008) or a customer’s involvement in the organization’s
NPD process (Fang 2008; Shaw, Bailey, and Williams 2011).
The S-D logic literature refers to customer participation
as cocreation activities. Customers create experiences when
engaging in these activities (Prahalad and Ramaswamy
2004), and consequently reflect on these experiences
(Gummerus 2013); these then result in value assessments
(Helkkula and Kelleher 2010). As a result, customers form a
perception about both the cocreation/customer participation
process as well as the outcome experience. Research in organizational behavior already distinguishes between actual and
perceived participation when studying an individual’s participation in decision-making. Results show that perceived
participation, “the extent to which the individual feels that he
or she has influenced the decision” (Vroom and Jago 1988, p.
15), can occasionally be much higher than actual participation on the basis that people believe that their impact on the
decision is substantially greater than it actually is.
Empirical work measured participation predominantly
through multi-item measures with a Likert-type scale
response format and consequently captured perceived participation (e.g., Chan, Yim, and Lam 2010). An exception is
Heinonen’s (2009) work in an ISST context which inquired
about the use of specific features with a yes/no response format. The sum of the features employed represented an actual
measure of participation (see also Barki and Hartwick 1994).
In summary, the construct of customer participation can be
measured from two different perspectives (i.e., actual and
perceived participation). In the context of travel websites
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on February 29, 2016
500
Journal of Travel Research 54(4)
where customers actively participate in cocreating the service, the above discussion has shown that the act of participating in creating the service experience can also be uniquely
and phenomenologically perceived by the customer. As a
consequence, the magnitude of the effect of perceived participation on various value components might differ from the
effect of actual participation.
Hypotheses: The Effect of Customer
Participation on e-Value Dimensions
Customer Participation and Utilitarian Value
Utilitarian value is defined as effective task fulfilment
(Sheth, Newman, and Gross 1991); in the context of a travel
website, utilitarian value then relates to convenience, speed,
access, and efficiency of accessing information and booking
travel arrangements (Christiansen 1990). This is consistent
with work on e-quality (Zeithaml 2002), since performance/
quality is seen by some authors as functional value (Sweeney,
Soutar, and Johnson 1999; Sweeney and Soutar 2001). There
is reason to argue that customers who participate more
widely and thus make extensive use of the features and functionality of the website will gain more utilitarian value from
the website.
Hypothesis 1: A customer’s participation level (actual and
perceived) positively influences utilitarian value
perceptions.
Customer Participation and Emotional Value
Experience derived from using SST (Dabholkar and Bagozzi
2002) and online services are reported to result in emotional
responses such as fun and enjoyment (Mathwick, Malhotra,
and Rigdon 2001; Pura 2005; Sigala 2006). These responses
will not be experienced unless users participate. Heinonen
(2009) highlighted the importance of emotional aspects
when considering a service such as online travel. Bloch,
Pigneur, and Steiner (1996) claimed that travelers (or customers generally) develop a self-service mentality through
the experience of gathering together relevant travel services
such as transportation, accommodation and leisure on the
Internet. The multifunctional nature of these websites is
aimed at providing fun and enjoyment as well as functional
value to its users.
Hypothesis 2: A customer’s participation level (actual and
perceived) positively influences emotional value
perceptions.
Customer Participation and Social Value
Within the context of SST, social and psychological factors
resulting from the use of technology such as self-control
(Bateson 1985), social anxiety and need for social interaction
(Dabholkar and Bagozzi 2002) have been identified as being
of importance. Etgar (2008, p. 102) argued that “the very act
of participation and performance of the relevant tasks can
yield experiences that provide psychological benefits…”.
For example, it was found that customer participation in
online coproduction (e.g., codesigning a motorbike) can
offer social benefits (Sawhney, Verona, and Prandelli 2005).
However, these arguments may be strongest in an environment where a select few customers are participating, or
opportunities for interaction with the firm and other customers are high, e.g., social networking. Although participation
in the context of a travel website is now widespread, we
argue that social benefits still occur as users who explore a
larger proportion of its features are likely to come across
aspects that more basic users would not have explored, and
consequently can discuss their searches and purchases with
peers and derive social value from these discussions.
Hypothesis 3: a customer’s participation level (actual and
subjective)
positively
influences
social
value
perceptions.
Customer Participation and Perceived Control and
Freedom
Literature on technology-based services and SST has highlighted the salience of perceived control derived from a customer’s participation in the service (e.g., Bateson 1985;
Meuter et al. 2000). While this approach regards perceived
control as an outcome of participation, the technology adoption and diffusion literature posits that greater controllability of a service by a user will lead to a higher intention to
adoption. This suggests that perceived control can either be
a driver or an outcome of people’s use of technology (i.e.,
customer participation). Based on the S-D logic perspective
of value-in-use where customers derive benefits from their
participation, we subscribe to the latter argument and propose customer participation as a driver of perceived
control.
Hypothesis 4: A customer’s participation level (actual and
perceived) positively influences perceived control and
freedom perceptions.
Customer Participation and Value for Money
Studies on online consumer behavior reported monetary savings as one of the key factors contributing to the use of the
Internet (e.g., Kim, Kim, and Han 2007). It is expected that
customers who participate more extensively on travel websites will benefit from monetary savings and hence perceive
that they obtain value for money.
Hypothesis 5: A customer’s participation level (actual and
perceived) is positively related to value-for-money
perceptions.
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on February 29, 2016
501
Mohd-Any et al.
Customer Participation and User’s Cognitive
Efforts
Table 1. Demographics of the Sample.
Travel websites offer a multitude of functions (e.g., booking,
information search, seat reservation). Given that ease of use
(Davis 1989) and perceived complexity (Rogers 2003) are
key in whether consumers adopt innovations, and that more
participative customers are those who are more experienced
(Uzkurt 2010), we propose that more participative users will
find the website easier to use and, consequently, have to
devote less cognitive effort in exploring its various features.
Gender
Male
Female
Age
18–24
25–34
35–44
45–54
55–64
≥65
Education level
High school
Certificate/diploma
Bachelor’s degree
Postgraduate diploma/master’s
Doctorate degree
Others
Personal annual gross income (£)
<15,000
15,000–19,999
20,000–24,999
25,000–29,999
30,000–49,999
≥50,000
Choose not to disclose
Hypothesis 6: A customers’ participation level (actual and
perceived) is inversely related to their perception of cognitive effort.
Methodology
Sample and Data Collection
Online travel websites represent an ISST context whereby
customers participate in cocreating the service experience
and consequently derive value from using such websites. A
computer-generated random sample of 3,000 UK consumers
experienced in using online travel websites was obtained
from Experian UK. We selected this company because of its
reputation as one of the most reliable marketing intelligence
companies in the UK (Shao 2009; Xiang and Gretzel 2010).
Our mail survey includes a personalized cover letter, a questionnaire, and a freepost return envelope; 213 questionnaires
were returned undelivered, leaving 2,787 potential respondents. A total of 197 questionnaires were returned of which
175 were usable, resulting in a 6% response rate.
Respondents were prompted to identify and evaluate one
travel website that they had used most frequently during the
past 12 months from a list of popular sites based on a keyword search in Google UK and a popularity report from
Experian Hitwise UK (see Appendix A). All questions related
to a website were asked within the context of the respondents’ chosen travel website. This method of asking respondents to report their experience with providers has been
commonly applied by scholars in the area of marketing and
information systems (e.g., Mano and Oliver 1993; Ganesh,
Arnold and Reynolds 2000; Li, Browne, and Chau 2006).
The questionnaire underwent extensive pretesting involving
22 online travel purchasers.
Our respondents were considered representative of the
UK online travel purchaser after comparing the sample with
data from the UK Office for National Statistics and Nielsen’s
Online report on Internet usage by income (see Table 1).
Using the time trends extrapolation method (Armstrong
and Overton 1977), an independent-samples t-test on items
of the key constructs demonstrated that nonresponse bias
was not a major cause of concern.
Variable
Frequency
75
100
11
11
35
53
45
20
34
60
40
24
8
9
39
23
17
17
38
28
13
Percentage
42.9
57.1
6.3
6.3
20.0
30.3
25.7
11.4
19.4
34.3
22.9
13.7
4.6
5.1
22.3
13.1
9.7
9.7
21.7
16
7.4
Measurements
Actual participation was captured by a tick list of 24 website
features. The sum of features used at any point in time on
their most frequently used website measured actual participation. The tick list was based on Heinonen (2009) and further supplemented by features derived from a web-content
analysis of 13 popular travel websites in the UK. Following
guidance provided by Weare and Lin (2000), our sampling
frame was initially based on popularity of a website and then
cross-checked via a search engine. The sample of “Top 10
Travel Websites” ranked by search clicks was obtained from
the Experian Hitwise UK website. Google UK was then used
as a tool to double-check the consistency of the samples from
Experian Hitwise UK. Keywords such as “online travel websites” and “online travel service” were used and the search
was limited to the first 10 websites on the first page of Google
UK. As the study focused on commercial travel websites,
websites listed under the categories of media companies
(e.g., Timesonline.co.uk) and Internet portals were removed
from further analysis. Next, we identified on each of the
selected online travel websites features/activities available
for customer participation, resulting in a list of 24 features
(see Appendix B).
As the number of available features varies slightly across
websites, the index of actual participation per respondent
was based on the proportionate use of possible features on a
particular website. Our analysis only includes respondents
that ticked features available on their chosen website. On
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on February 29, 2016
502
Journal of Travel Research 54(4)
Table 2. Correlation Matrix and Descriptives for Measurement Scales.
Mean
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Utilitarian/control value
Social value
Emotional value
Value for moneyb
Users’ cognitive effort
Satisfaction
Behavioral intentions
Perceived participation
Actual participationc
5.26
2.72
3.88
2.96
2.34
5.40
5.86
3.97
57.78
SD
1.14
1.33
1.39
1.42
1.17
1.09
1.14
1.40
20.95
CR
.84
.83
.76
n/a
.84
.93
.88
.87
n/a
AVE
.566
.629
.617
n/a
.592
.816
.591
.463
n/a
1
.752
.260
.525
–.588
–.566
.713
.580
.252
.240
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
.680
.378
n/a
a
.793
.649
–.028
–.012
.146
.018
.391
.151
.785
–.317
–.343
.558
.305
.662
.356
n/a
.711
–.627
–.686
–.261
–.105
.770
–.707
–.620
–.355
–.147
.903
.736
.330
.203
.769
.296
.145
Note: CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted.
a. Values in bold are square root of AVE.
b. Single-item measure.
c. Percentage of possible features used.
average, respondents utilized 57.8% (SD = 20.95) of possible features.
Perceived participation was captured by a six-item measure, derived from Searfoss and Monczka (1973) and Vroom
and Jago (1988); it measures the extent to which individuals
perceive that they have participated on the website through
the use of its features or activities. Based on a seven-point
response format (1 = fully disagree to 7 = fully agree),
respondents’ average perceived participation was 3.97 (SD =
1.40). Actual and perceived participation were only moderately correlated (r = .378).
The first-order value dimensions, which together form the
second-order formative measure of a customer’s value experience when using a travel website (e-Value), were drawn
from existing multi-item measurement scales. Utilitarian
value was captured by a five-item scale based on Sigala
(2006); emotional value on a four-item scale by Agarwal and
Karahanna (2000); social value by three items based on Pura
(2005) and Sigala (2006); perceived control and freedom by
four items from Kleijnen, De Ruyter, and Wetzels (2007);
value for money by three items by Sigala (2006); and user’s
cognitive effort by four items from Meuter et al. (2005) and
Kleijnen, De Ruyter, and Wetzels (2007). A seven-point
response format (1 = fully disagree to 7 = fully agree) was
used for all items except actual participation. Appendix C
details the measurements included in this study after
purification.
To demonstrate the nomological validity of the secondorder formative value measure, we included a five-item measure for customer satisfaction (based on Ruiz et al. 2008) and
a three-item measure for behavioral intention (based on
Cronin, Brady, and Hult 2000).
Analysis and Findings
Measure Validation
We ran exploratory factor analysis followed by confirmatory
factor analysis in LISREL 8.54 to assess validity and reliability of the value dimensions and our validation constructs
(i.e., customer satisfaction and behavioral intention). The
initial results indicated a lack of discriminant validity
between the constructs “perceived control and freedom” and
“utilitarian value.” Although the literature differentiates
between these dimensions, given the nature of the chosen
context it appears reasonable to assume that control and freedom are seen as key utilitarian value and not as a distinct
value dimension. We consequently merged these constructs.
After eliminating further items, the purified measurement
model fitted the data well: χ2 = 308.3, df = 186, p = .000, χ2/
df = 1.66; root mean square error of approximation = .062,
comparative fit index = .972, nonnormed fit index = .965;
average variance extracted (AVE) for all constructs ranged
from .463 to .816 and composite reliability (CR) from .76 to
.93, demonstrating convergent validity of all measurements
(see Table 2). The measurements also display discriminant
validity, since the square root of the AVE of each construct is
higher than any correlation with a respective construct
(Fornell and Larcker 1981). We also set construct correlations for each possible combination at unity, and in each case
the fit worsened, confirming that the measurements display
discriminant validity (Bagozzi and Phillips 1982).
Validity of the second-order formative measurement of
e-Value was assessed following Diamantopoulos and
Winklhofer (2001). First, to capture fully the domain of the
construct, we undertook a review of the value literature (see
above). Second, indicator collinearity was established (variance inflation factor for each value dimension ranging from
1.24 to 1.61). Third, external validity of the e-Value construct
was checked by linking it to behavioral intention and satisfaction. Higher value perceptions should lead to increased
levels of satisfaction (Bradley and Sparks 2012; Cronin,
Brady, and Hult 2000) and stronger behavioral intentions
(e.g., Petrick and Backman 2002; Gallarza and Gil-Saura
2006). The results of the partial least squares (PLS) analysis
show that the model fits the data well. Both the path from
e-Value to satisfaction (β = .770, R2 = 59.3%, p < .01) and
behavioral intention (β = .598, R2 = 35.8 %, p < .01) show
strong positive relationships with substantial amounts of
variance explained, confirming the external validity of the
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on February 29, 2016
503
Mohd-Any et al.
Utilitarian/control
value
Emotional value
Social value
.438**
.239**
.082 (n.s).
-.168*
Value for money
R2= .593
-.490**
.770**
Customer
perceived
value
(e-Value)
Customer
satisfaction
R2= .358
.598**
Users’ cognitive
effort
Behavioral
intentions
Figure 2. Assessment of external/nomological validity.
second-order e-Value measurement. Using the weightings of
the first-order dimensions of e-Value as indications of their
importance in forming a customer’s overall value experience, we find cognitive effort to be most influential (–.490, p
< .01), followed by utilitarian/control value (.438, p < .01),
emotional value (.239, p < .01), and value for money (–.168,
p < .05). The link between social value and e-Value (.082)
was not significant (see Figure 2).
Structural Model and Hypotheses Testing
We tested the proposed hypotheses linking participation to
individual value dimensions using SmartPLS 2.0 (Ringle,
Wende, and Will 2005). The proposed model explains a considerable proportion of the variance in emotional value (R2 =
33%), social value (R2 = 12.3%), and user’s cognitive effort
(R2 = 10%), but showed only a weak link to utilitarian/control value (R2 = 8%) and no link to value for money perceptions (R2 = 2.5%). The predictive power of the overall model
is considered acceptable, as indicated by a Stone-Geisser’s
Q2 value of .10 (Stone 1974).
Our hypotheses link actual and perceived participation to
the proposed value dimensions. The moderate correlation of
.378 between these two measurements of participation suggests that customers’ actual use of features (percentage of
possible features) on a travel website might not necessarily
be a good proxy for how they perceive their participation. As
a consequence, differences in how actual and perceived participation affect the various value dimensions are to be
expected. Most of our hypothesized relationships are supported (see Table 3). Actual participation increases utilitarian/control value (βactual participation = .185, p < .05) as proposed
in hypotheses 1 and 4, while the effect of perceived participation on utilitarian/control value is somewhat marginal
(βperceived participation = .154, p < .10). Hypothesis 2 is also supported as actual participation and perceived participation
(βactual participation = .178, p < .01; βperceived participation = .483, p <
.01) enhance emotional value perceptions. With regard to
hypothesis 3, only perceived participation is positively associated with social value (βperceived participation = .343, p < .01),
whereas the relationship between actual participation and
social value is not significant (βactual participation = .018, n.s.). No
support could be found for hypothesis 5; actual/perceived
participation does not appear to affect value for money perceptions (βactual participation = –.057, n.s.; βperceived participation =
–.127, n.s.). Finally, our data only partially support hypothesis 6; that is, while increased levels of perceived participation are associated with lower levels of cognitive effort
perceptions (βperceived participation = –.289, p < .01), actual participations are not linked with users’ cognitive effort perceptions (βactual participation = –.045, n.s.).
Only utilitarian/control value is more strongly associated
with actual participation while emotional, social, and user’s
cognitive effort perceptions are more affected by the user’s
perception of their participation compared to their actual
behavior. In our chosen context, value-for-money perceptions are not affected by any form of customer participation.
Discussion
This research sets out to identify relevant value dimensions
employed by customers to evaluate their travel website experience in order to conceptualize e-Value, and to examine how
users’ own activities (i.e., participation) on a travel website
affect their value experience (e-Value).
Measurement of e-Value
We conceptualized e-Value (value experience when using a
travel website) as a formative second-order construct, with
utilitarian value, emotional value, social value, freedom and
control, value for money, and users’ cognitive efforts as firstorder value dimensions. Respondents regarded freedom and
control as an integral part of the functionality of a travel website (see also Kim, Kim, and Han 2007). Having merged
these dimensions, our conceptualization of e-Value has
nomological validity; it explains 59.3% of customer satisfaction and 35.8% of behavioral intention.
The formative nature of the e-Value construct allows us to
identify the subdimensions that are most influential in driving a user’s overall value experience when using a travel
website. The latter is mostly affected by a user’s perception
of the cognitive effort involved, by the utilitarian/control
value gained, and the emotional value, that is, the level of
enjoyment and fun derived by using the website. Descriptive
analysis (see Table 2) also showed that respondents rated
their most frequently used travel website very high in terms
of utilitarian/control value (mean = 5.26, SD = 1.14; 1 = fully
disagree to 7 = fully agree), fairly high on emotional value
(mean = 3.88, SD = 1.39) and low in terms of cognitive effort
involved (mean = 2.34, SD = 1.17). The latter clearly highlights that website users see themselves as cocreating the
value experience (Vargo and Lusch 2004), and their most
preferred travel website is one that is easy to understand and
use. This is consistent with work on mobile service delivery
(Kleijnen, De Ruyter, and Wetzels 2007) and work on
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on February 29, 2016
504
Journal of Travel Research 54(4)
Table 3. Results of Hypotheses Test (Standardized Coefficients and R2).
Utilitarian/Control
Value (hypothesis 1 +
hypothesis 4)
Actual participation
Perceived participation
R2
Emotional Value
(hypothesis 2)
.185**
.154*
.080
.178***
.483***
.330
Social Value
(hypothesis 3)
.018 (n.s.)
.343***
.123
Value for Money
(hypothesis 5)
–.057 (n.s.)
–.127 (n.s.)
.025
User’s Cognitive Effort
(hypothesis 6)
–.045 (n.s.)
–.289***
.100
*p < .10; **p < .05; ***p < .01.
diffusion of innovation (Rogers 2003). Value for money was
found to be less influential in forming overall value perceptions; the mean value of 2.96 (SD = 1.42) is likely to be a
reflection of the competitive nature of travel websites, which
leads to almost identical prices. Travel website users appear
to see insufficient price differences across sites. Social value
is by far the least important aspect feeding into e-Value, with
a low respondent rating (mean = 2.72; SD = 1.33).
Considering that social value reflects enhancement of selfimage in his or her social system (Sheth, Newman, and Gross
1991), usage of a travel website does not assist in raising a
person’s status and image. Although the social value component has strong theoretical grounding in diffusion of innovation theory, the results are likely a reflection of the widespread
utilization of travel websites.
The Effect of Customer Participation on the
Various Value Dimensions
Although recent literature advocates the active role of customers in value creation (Vargo and Lusch 2004), this debate
has so far referred to a somewhat abstract level of value. To
our best knowledge, this is the first study quantifying the
extent to which customers cocreate their experience on a
travel website and how this translates into their value perception of a travel website. By examining levels of cocreation
activities (i.e., actual customer participation) and a customer’s reflection on those activities (i.e., perceived participation) we were able to see which value dimensions are most
impacted by a customer’s own activities. This provides richer
insights for website developers and travel websites.
Actual participation is an index based on the number of
features used on a travel website, while perceived participation relates to the user’s perception of the extent to which
they have made use of the features on their most frequently
used travel website.
The results demonstrate that (1) the extent to which customer participation affects their e-Value experience varies
greatly in magnitude across dimensions, and (2) there are
distinct differences in the effects of actual and perceived customer participation, hence providing support to the different
operationalizations of the construct.
As expected, customers who make more use of features
(i.e., actual participation) gain more utilitarian/control value
and also derive more emotional value from their most frequently used travel website. Only utilitarian/control value
was predicted better by actual website usage compared to
perceived participation. Conversely, increased levels of perceived participation better explain users’ emotional and
social value perceptions. About one-third (R2 = 33%) of the
fun and enjoyment users experience can be attributed to their
own activities, followed by social value (R2 = 12.3%).
Clearly, a significant proportion of fun and enjoyment of
using a travel website is derived from customers’ own activities on the website (i.e., researching and creating their own
holidays, searching, mixing, and matching various travel
components). This finding supports the importance of emotional aspects reported in the context of experience-based
online services (Mathwick, Malhotra, and Rigdon 2001;
Pura 2005; Sigala 2006) such as online travel services.
In terms of perceived participation, more participative
users felt that less cognitive effort was involved when using
their favorite travel website, while actual participation levels
were unrelated to cognitive effort perceptions. Cognitive
effort is a key contributor to overall value experience (R2 =
10%). Since value is uniquely determined by the user, cognitive effort perceptions also will be personal. A form of confirmation bias would lead those who believe they are
participating to a high degree also to believe that the effort
involved is relatively low. Accordingly, the higher the perceived participation, the lower the assessment of cognitive
effort. Although actual participation does not significantly
affect social value, the impact of perceived participation is
strong and significant. Use of travel websites is not visible to
others; it is widespread and no longer regarded as innovative
or novel. Nevertheless, those who perceive their activities on
such sites as more extensive also derive more social value,
perhaps because of their ability to describe their perceived
participation to others. However, the magnitude of social
value derived appears to be too low to contribute substantively towards e-Value.
Users’ levels of participation (actual or perceived) on
their most frequently used travel website do not affect valuefor-money perceptions. In summary, users’ actual activities
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on February 29, 2016
505
Mohd-Any et al.
on the web are less relevant in shaping their value experiences; perceptions of their participation levels are crucial. An
exception is functional/control value, which is slightly better
explained by actual participation levels. These are the first
results that quantify the extent to which customers contribute
to their own value experience, as proposed by Prahalad and
Ramaswamy (2004) and Vargo and Lusch (2004). Our conceptualization of e-Value allows us to be more specific and
pinpoint which components of the value experience are
directly influenced by a customer’s own activities on a
website.
Evaluation of the Study and Recommendations
for Future Research
The study is not without limitations. Grouping together
responses from a range of websites might have masked distinct difference across websites. Nevertheless, our overall
conceptualization and measure of e-Value is sufficiently
broad to have shown convergent and nomological validity.
The above results clearly show that customers contribute
to their value experience by their use (actual or perceived) of
website features. However, such general statements only
offer a partial picture of the effect of customer participation
for both researchers and practitioners. The limited explanation offered by participation levels on the key drivers of
value (i.e., cognitive effort and utilitarian/control value) suggests that adopting the e-Value conceptualization offers
future opportunities to explore further factors to explain
value experiences at the dimension level that go beyond the
firm-based offering. We would also encourage researchers to
validate further the conceptualization of e-Value in specific
contexts, such as on social-networking sites (e.g.,
TripAdvisor), which is likely to show differences in the relative importance of value dimensions driving overall value.
This would confirm the dimensionality of the e-Value construct and its adaptability to commercial and noncommercial
tourism contexts.
Managerial Implications
Practitioners in the travel sector can utilize the e-Value conceptualization and associated measurements of first-order
dimensions to benchmark how customers perceive a specific website in comparison to competitors. Identifying the
key drivers of value in a particular context and linked to the
magnitude of how well a website performs on this dimension allows companies to make more informed choices
about how to develop their websites. In our context, the
main building blocks of e-Value on their favorite travel
website are lack of cognitive effort involved and the utilitarian/control value gained. The results also show that
developing travel websites to trigger emotional
value experiences might offer the best way to raise e-Value
perceptions. Currently, users rate their emotional value
experience at 3.88 (on a 1–7 scale); however, even with
such a low average score, it is the third highest contributor
to e-Value perceptions, indicating that users gain intrinsic
value from the experience itself.
Second, e-Value offers a powerful tool to segment customers that can be employed in a range of contexts (e.g.,
test attractiveness of additional functionality of the website). Third, the findings show clearly that objectively
measured customer participation through, for example,
clickstream data might offer a distorted picture of customers’ own perception of participation. We advise web
designers and travel companies to think of customer participation also as a subjective process to open up new
avenues in understanding and engaging customers. For
example, actual use of a website (i.e., the diversity of
features used) has no effect on users’ perceptions of cognitive effort involved; conversely, perceived participation
levels are negatively related to perceptions of cognitive
effort.
Contribution
We provide a theoretically grounded and empirically validated measurement of e-Value of travel websites. Unlike
other measurements of value, this approach takes into
account the multidimensional nature of this construct and
models how individual dimensions affect overall value perceptions (e-Value). Our findings have supported calls for not
only conceptualizing value as a multidimensional construct
but also specifying it in a formative way at a higher level of
abstraction (Lin, Sher, and Shih 2005; Sánchez et al. 2006;
Sánchez-Fernández and Iniesta-Bonillo 2007; Ruiz et al.
2008; Mayr and Zins 2012). From an online travel viewpoint, the multidimensional approach is ideal as customers’
value experience derived from using a particular website is
multifaceted, including both cognitive and affective elements as supported by the notion of human-to-technology
interaction in the ISST environment. Second, we provide the
first empirical investigation that quantifies the effects of customer participation on the components that comprise e-Value.
Managers will benefit from knowing which components of
value are affected by customers’ own use of a website. The
magnitude and direction of the effect will assist travel websites in better tailoring their websites to the demands of their
customers. In line with the notion that value perceptions are
phenomenologically defined, we also differentiate between
customers’ actual and perceived participation on a travel
website and demonstrate that objective data on website usage
are insufficient as users’ perceptions about their participation
levels generally explain customers’ value experiences
better.
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on February 29, 2016
506
Journal of Travel Research 54(4)
Appendix A. List of Travel Websites.
Appendix C. Items and Standardized Factor Coefficients.
Company
Perceived
participation
Easyjet
Ryanair
Thomas Cook
Expedia (US)
Expedia (UK)
First Choice
Flybe
Travelocity (US)
Travelocity (UK)
Jet2
Bmibaby
Ebookers
Lastminute
Website
http://www.easyjet.com
http://www.ryanair.com
http://www.thomascook.com
http://www.expedia.com
http://www.expedia.co.uk
http://www.firstchoice.co.uk
http://www.flybe.com
uk http://www.travelocity.com
http://www.travelocity.co.
http://www.jet2.com
http://www.bmibaby.com
http://www.ebookers.com
http://www.lastminute.com
Customer
satisfaction
Behavioral
intentions
Utilitarian
value/Control
Appendix B. Website Features.
Items
Source
1. Browse for information about travel destinations in a
specific country
2. Browse for information about travel destinations by
holiday type (e.g., beach, city, ski, etc.)
3. Find specific information (e.g., payment method, baggage
allowance, passport information, airport, health and
safety, child/baby affairs, flight timetable, onward journey/
connection, etc.)
4. Search for travel services (e.g., hotel, car rental, flight,
travel insurance, airport parking, etc.)
5. Book a flight only
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
Book a hotel only
Book a car (rental) only
Book a flight + hotel / flight + hotel + car / flight + car
Book a package holiday/tour
Book miscellaneous services (e.g., bus/coach service,
taxi service, travel insurance, airport parking, tickets for
places of interest or event such as museum or theatre,
etc.)
Make a payment for flight only
Make a payment for hotel only
Make a payment for car (rental) only
Make a payment for flight + hotel / flight + hotel + car /
flight + car
Make a payment for package holiday/tour
Make a payment for miscellaneous services (e.g., bus/
coach service, taxi service, travel insurance, airport
parking, tickets for places of interest or event such as a
museum or theatre, etc.)
Search for travel offers
Search for contact information
Search for direction to destination using map
Manage my booking (a feature that allows retrieval of
booking details, making additional payments, etc.)
Check-in online for flights
Read other consumers’ travel diary/review
Write about my own travel experience in the review column
Write/give feedback
Heinonen (2009)
User’s cognitive
effort
Social value
Value for
money
Emotional value
On this website I like to use as many features as
possible
I believe I have used the full potential of the features on
this website
I think I have used only a minimal amount of features
available on this website
I think I have significantly used the features available on
this website
I am happy with this website
My choice to use this website was a wise one
Overall, I am satisfied with this website
The probability that I will use this website again is . . .
The likelihood that I would recommend this website to
others is . . .
If I had to do it over again (i.e., to browse and/or
purchase travel services online), I would make the
same choice
Using this website makes it easier to meet my travel
needs
I value the convenience of using this website for my
travel needs
Using this website helps me accomplish tasks related to
my travel needs more quickly
Using this website for my transactions allows me to
make a lot of decisions on my own
I believe that this website is difficult to use
It takes a lot of effort to understand how to use this
website
Other people will be impressed that I use this website
Using this website improves the ways I am perceived
by others
Using this website helps me to feel accepted by others
I feel that the service(s) I purchase from this website is/
are expensive
I have fun interacting with this website
Using this website provides me with a lot of enjoyment
.792
.822
.745
.794
.900
.860
.947
.855
.748
.903
.796
.753
.761
.695
.690
.814
.810
.878
.678
.732
.751
.818
Expanded from
Heinonen (2009)
based on the web
content analysis
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Heinonen (2009)
Web content
analysis
Heinonen (2009)
Scale: Yes / No, e.g., if the respondent has the experience of booking a flight, he/she
will tick Yes.
References
Agarwal, Ritu, and Elena Karahanna (2000). “Time Flies When
You’re Having Fun: Cognitive Absorption and Beliefs about
Information Technology Usage.” MIS Quarterly, 24 (4):
665-94.
Al-Sabbahy, Hesham Z., Yuksel Ekinci, and Micheal Riley.
(2004). “An Investigation of Perceived Value Dimensions:
Implications for Hospitality Research.” Journal of Travel
Research, 42 (3): 226-34.
Armstrong, J. Scott, and Terry S. Overton. (1977). “Estimating
Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys.” Journal of Marketing
Research, 14 (3): 396-402.
Auh, Seigyoung, Simon J. Bell, Colin S. McLeod, and Eric Shih.
(2007). “Co-production and Customer Loyalty in Financial
Services.” Journal of Retailing, 83 (3): 359-70.
Babin, Barry J., William R. Darden, and Mitch Griffin. (1994).
“Work and/or Fun: Measuring Hedonic and Utilitarian
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on February 29, 2016
507
Mohd-Any et al.
Shopping Value.” Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (4):
644-56.
Bagozzi, Richard P., and Lynn W. Phillips. (1982). “Representing
and Testing Organizational Theories: A Holistic Construal.”
Administrative Science Quarterly, 27 (3): 459-89.
Barki, Henri, and Jon Hartwick. (1994). “Measuring User
Participation, User Involvement, and User Attitude.” MIS
Quarterly, 18 (1): 59-82.
Bateson, John E. (1985). “Self-Service Consumer: An Exploratory
Study.” Journal of Retailing, 61 (3): 49-76.
Bendapudi, Neeli, and Robert P. Leone. (2003). “Psychological
Implications of Customer Participation in Co-Production.”
Journal of Marketing, 67 (1): 14-28.
Bloch, Michael, Yves Pigneur, and Thomas Steiner. (1996). “The
IT-enabled Extended Enterprise, Applications in the Tourism
Industry.” In Information and Communication Technology in
Tourism, edited by S. Klein, B. Schmid, A. M. Tjoa, and H.
Werthner. Wien: Springer, pp. 113-20.
Bradley, Graham L., and Beverley A. Sparks. (2012). “Antecedents
and Consequences of Consumer Value: A Longitudinal Study
of Timeshare Owners.” Journal of Travel Research, 51 (2):
191-204.
Casaló, Luis V., Carlos Flavián, and Miguel Guinalíu. (2010–2011).
“Antecedents and Consequences of Consumer Participation
in Online Communities: The Case of the Travel Sector.”
International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 15 (2): 137-67.
Chan, Kimmy Wa, Chi Kin (Bennett) Yim, and Simon S. K. Lam.
(2010). “Is Customer Participation in Value Creation a DoubleEdged Sword? Evidence from Professional Services across
Cultures.” Journal of Marketing, 74 (3): 48-54.
Chen, Ching-Fu, and Fu-Shian Chen. (2010). “Experience Quality,
Perceived Value, Satisfaction and Behavioral Intentions for
Heritage Tourists.” Tourism Management, 31 (1): 29-35.
Childers, Terry L., Christopher L. Carr, Joann Peck, and Stephen
Carson. (2001). “Hedonic and Utilitarian Motivations for
Online Retail Shopping Behavior.” Journal of Retailing, 77
(4): 511-35.
Christiansen, D. R. (1990). “Adventure Tourism.” In Adventure
Education, edited by J. C. Miles and S. Priest. State College,
PA: Venture.
Cronin, J. Joseph, Michael K. Brady, and G. Tomas M. Hult.
(2000). “Assessing the Effects of Quality, Value, and Customer
Satisfaction on Consumer Behavioral Intentions in Service
Environments.” Journal of Retailing, 76 (2): 193-218.
Dabholkar, Pratibha A., and Richard P. Bagozzi. (2002). “An
Attitudinal Model of Technology-based Self-service:
Moderating Effects of Consumer Traits and Situational
Factors.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30 (3):
184-201.
Davis, Fred D. (1989). “Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of
Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology.” MIS
Quarterly, 13 (3): 318-40.
Diamantopoulos, Adamantios, and Heidi M. Winklhofer. (2001).
“Index Construction with Formative Indicators: An Alternative
to Scale Development.” Journal of Marketing Research, 38
(2): 269-77.
Dong, Beibei, Kenneth R. Evans, and Shaoming Zou. (2008).
“The Effects of Customer Participation in Co-created Service
Recovery.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36
(1): 123-37.
Duman, Teoman, and Anna S. Mattila. (2005). “The Role of
Affective Factors on Perceived Cruise Vacation Value.”
Tourism Management, 26 (3): 311-23.
Ennew, Christine T., and Martin R. Binks. (1999). “Impact of
Participative Service Relationships on Quality, Satisfaction
and Retention: An Exploratory Study.” Journal of Business
Research, 46 (2): 121-32.
Etgar, Michael. (2008). “A Descriptive Model of the Consumer
Co-production Process.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 36 (1): 97-108.
Fang, Eric. (2008). “Customer Participation and the Trade-off
between New Product Innovativeness and Speed to Market.”
Journal of Marketing, 72 (4): 90-104.
Fornell, Claes, and David F. Larcker. (1981). “Evaluating
Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and
Measurement Error.” Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (1):
39-50.
Gallarza, Martina G., and Irene Gil-Saura. (2006). “Value
Dimensions, Perceived Value, Satisfaction and Loyalty:
An Investigation of University Students’ Travel Behavior.”
Tourism Management, 27:437-52.
Ganesh, Jaishankar, Mark J. Arnold, and Kristy E. Reynolds. (2000).
“Understanding the Customer Base of Service Providers:
An Examination of the Differences between Switchers and
Stayers.” Journal of Marketing, 64 (3): 65-87.
Gnoth, Juergen. (1997). “Tourism Motivation and Expectation
Formation.” Annals of Tourism Research, 24 (2): 283-304.
Gummerus, Johanna. (2013). “Value Creation Processes and Value
Outcomes in Marketing Theory.” Marketing Theory, 13 (1):
19-46.
Heinonen, Kristina. (2004). “Reconceptualizing Customer
Perceived Value—The Value of Time and Place.” Managing
Service Quality, 14 (2/3): 205-15.
Heinonen, Kristina. (2009). “The Influence of Customer Activity on
E-service Value-in-Use.” International Journal of Electronic
Business, 7 (2): 190-214.
Helkkula, Anu, and Carol Kelleher. (2010). “Circularity of
Customer Service Experience and Customer Perceived Value.”
Journal of Customer Behaviour, 9 (1): 37-53.
Helkkula, Anu, Carol Kelleher, and Minna Pihlström. (2012).
“Characterizing Value as an Experience Implications for
Service Researchers and Managers.” Journal of Service
Research, 15 (1): 59-75.
Hirschman, Elizabeth C., and Morris B. Holbrook. (1982).
“Hedonic Consumption: Emerging Concepts, Methods and
Propositions.” Journal of Marketing, 46 (3): 92-101.
Ho, Chaang-Iuan, and Yi-Ling Lee. (2007). “The Development of
an E-travel Service Quality Scale.” Tourism Management, 28
(6): 1434-49.
Holbrook, Morris B. (1994). “The Nature of Customer Value:
An Axiology of Services in the Consumption Experience.”
In Service Quality: New Directions in Theory and Practice,
edited by Roland T. Rust and Richard L. Oliver. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 21-71.
Holbrook, Morris B. (1999). Consumer Value: A Framework for
Analysis and Research. London: Routledge.
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on February 29, 2016
508
Journal of Travel Research 54(4)
Holbrook, Morris B. (2006). “Consumption Experience, Customer
Value, and Subjective Personal Introspection: An Illustrative
Photographic Essay.” Journal of Business Research, 59 (6):
714-25.
Holbrook, Morris B., and Elizabeth C. Hirschman. (1982). “The
Experiential Aspects of Consumption: Consumer Fantasies,
Feelings, and Fun.” Journal of Consumer Research, 9
(September): 132-40.
Hutchinson, Joe, Fujun Lai, and Youcheng Wang. (2009).
“Understanding the Relationships of Quality, Value, Equity,
Satisfaction, and Behavioral Intentions among Golf Travellers.”
Tourism Management, 30 (2): 298-308.
Kashyap, Rajiv, and David C. Bojanic. (2000). “A Structural
Analysis of Value, Quality, and Price Perceptions of Business
and Leisure Travellers.” Journal of Travel Research, 39 (1):
45-51.
Kaynama, Shohreh A., and Christine I. Black. (2000). “A Proposal
to Assess the Service Quality of Online Travel Agencies:
An Exploratory Study.” Journal of Professional Services
Marketing, 21 (1): 63-88.
Kim, Dong Jin, Woo Gon Kim, and Jin Soo Han. (2007). “A
Perceptual Mapping of Online Travel Agencies and Preference
Attributes.” Tourism Management, 28 (2): 591-603.
Kim, Eyong B., and Sean B. Eom. (2002). “Designing Effective
Cyber Store User Interface.” Industrial Management and Data
Systems, 102 (5): 241-51.
Kim, Woo Gon, and Hae Young Lee. (2004). “Comparison of Web
Service Quality between Online Travel Agencies and Online
Travel Suppliers.” Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 17
(2/3): 105-16.
Kleijnen, Mirella, Ko De Ruyter, and Martin Wetzels. (2007). “An
Assessment of Value Creation in Mobile Service Delivery
and the Moderating Role of Time Consciousness.” Journal of
Retailing, 83 (1): 33-46.
Law, Rob, Shanshan Qi, and Dimitrios Buhalis. (2010). “Progress
in Tourism Management: A Review of Website Evaluation in
Tourism Research.” Tourism Management, 31:297-313.
Lee, Jin-Soo, Choong-Ki Lee, and Youngjoon Choi. (2011).
“Examining the Role of Emotional and Functional Values
in Festival Evaluation.” Journal of Travel Research, 50 (6):
685-96.
Li, Dahui, Glenn J. Browne, and Patrick Y. K. Chau. (2006). “An
Empirical Investigation of Web Site Use Using a CommitmentBased Model.” Decision Sciences, 37 (3): 427-44.
Lin, Chien-Hsin, Peter J. Sher, and Hsin-Yu Shih. (2005). “Past
Progress and Future Directions in Conceptualizing Customer
Perceived Value.” International Journal of Service Industry
Management, 16 (4): 318-36.
Mano, Haim, and Richard L. Oliver. (1993). “Assessing the
Dimensionality and Structure of the Consumption Experience:
Evaluation, Feeling, and Satisfaction.” Journal of Consumer
Research, 20 (3): 451-66.
Mathwick, Charla, Naresh Malhotra, and Edward Rigdon. (2001).
“Experiential Value: Conceptualization, Measurement
and Application in the Catalog and Internet Shopping
Environment.” Journal of Retailing, 77 (1): 39-56.
Mayr, Thomas, and Andreas H. Zins. (2012). “Extensions on the
Conceptualization of Customer Perceived Value: Insights
from the Airline Industry.” International Journal of Culture,
Tourism and Hospitality Research, 6 (4): 356-76.
Meuter, Matthew L., Amy L. Ostrom, Robert I. Roundtree,
and Mary Jo Bitner. (2000). “Self-Service Technologies:
Understanding Customer Satisfaction with Technology-based
Service Encounters.” Journal of Marketing, 64 (3): 50-64.
Meuter, Matthew L., Mary Jo Bitner, Amy L. Ostrom, and Stephen
W. Brown. (2005). “Choosing among Alternative Service
Delivery Modes: An Investigation of Customer Trial of Selfservice Technologies.” Journal of Marketing, 69 (2): 61-83.
Parasuraman, Ananthanarayanan. (1997). “Reflections on Gaining
Competitive Advantage through Customer Value.” Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 25 (2): 154-61.
Parasuraman, Ananthanarayanan. (2000). “Technology Readiness
Index (TRI) a Multiple-Item Scale to Measure Readiness to
Embrace New Technologies.” Journal of Service Research, 2
(4): 307-20.
Parasuraman, Ananthanarayanan, Valarie A. Zeithaml, and Arvind
Malhotra. (2005). “ES-QUAL—A Multiple-Item Scale for
Assessing Electronic Service Quality.” Journal of Service
Research, 7 (3): 213-33.
Petrick, James F. (2002). “Development of a Multi-dimensional
Scale for Measuring the Perceived Value of a Service.” Journal
of Leisure Research, 34 (2): 119-34.
Petrick, James F. (2003). “Measuring Cruise Passengers’ Perceived
Value.” Tourism Analysis, 7 (3): 251-58.
Petrick, James F. (2004). “The Roles of Quality, Value, and
Satisfaction in Predicting Cruise Passengers’ Behavioral
Intentions.” Journal of Travel Research, 42 (4): 397-407.
Petrick, James F., and Sheila J. Backman. (2002). “An Examination
of the Construct of Perceived Value for the Prediction of Golf
Travelers’ Intentions to Revisit.” Journal of Travel Research,
41 (1): 38-45.
Prahalad, Coimbatore K., and Venkat Ramaswamy. (2004). The
Future of Competition: Co-creating Unique Value with
Customers. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Prebensen, Nina K., Eunju Woo, Joseph S. Chen, and Muzaffer
Uysal. (2013). “Motivation and Involvement as Antecedents of
the Perceived Value of the Destination Experience.” Journal of
Travel Research, 52 (2): 253-64.
Pura, Minna. (2005). “Linking Perceived Value and Loyalty in
Location-based Mobile Services.” Managing Service Quality,
15 (6): 509-38.
Ranganathan, C., and Shobha Ganapathy. (2002). Key Dimensions
of Business-to-Consumer Websites.” Information and
Management, 39:457-65.
Richins, Marsha. (1997). “Measuring Emotions in the Consumption
Experience.” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (September):
127-46.
Ringle, Christian M., Sven Wende, and Alexander Will. (2005).
“SmartPLS 2.0 (Beta).” SmartPLS, Hamburg (available at
www.smartpls.de)
Rogers, Everett M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovation. New York:
Free Press.
Ruiz, David Martín, Dwayne D. Gremler, Judith H. Washburn, and
Gabriel Cepeda Carrión. (2008). “Service Value Revisited:
Specifying a Higher-order, Formative Measure.” Journal of
Business Research, 61 (12): 1278-91.
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on February 29, 2016
509
Mohd-Any et al.
Sánchez, Javier, Luis Callarisa, Rosa M. Rodriguez, and Miguel
A. Moliner. (2006). “Perceived Value of the Purchase of a
Tourism Product.” Tourism Management, 27 (3): 394-409.
Sánchez-Fernández, Raquel, and M. Ángeles Iniesta-Bonillo.
(2007). “The Concept of Perceived Value: A Systematic
Review of the Research.” Marketing Theory, 7 (4): 427-51.
Sawhney, Mohanbir, Gianmario Verona, and Emanuela Prandelli.
(2005). “Collaborating to Create: The Internet as a Platform
for Customer Engagement in Product Innovation.” Journal of
Interactive Marketing, 19 (4): 4-17.
Searfoss, D. Gerald, and Robert M. Monczka. (1973). “Perceived
Participation in the Budget Process and Motivation to Achieve
the Budget.” Academy of Management Journal, 16 (4): 541-54.
Shao, Guosong. (2009). “Understanding the Appeal of UserGenerated Media: A Uses and Gratification Perspective.”
Internet Research, 19 (1): 7-25.
Shaw, Gareth, Adrian Bailey, and Allan Williams. (2011). “Aspects
of Service-Dominant Logic and Its Implications for Tourism
Management: Examples from the Hotel Industry.” Tourism
Management, 32 (2): 207-14.
Sheth, Jagdish N., Bruce I. Newman, and Barbara L. Gross. (1991).
“Why We Buy What We Buy: A Theory of Consumption
Values.” Journal of Business Research, 22 (2): 159-70.
Sigala, Marianna. (2006). “Mass Customization Implementation
Models and Customer Value in Mobile Phones Services:
Preliminary Findings from Greece.” Managing Service
Quality, 16 (4): 395-420.
Silpakit, Patriya, and Raymond P. Fisk. (1985). “Participatizing’
the Service Encounter: A Theoretical Framework.” In Service
Marketing in a Changing Environment, edited by T. M. Block,
G. D. Upah, and V. A. Zeithaml. Chicago: American Marketing
Association, pp. 117-21.
Smith, J. Brock, and Mark Colgate. (2007). “Customer Value
Creation: A Practical Framework.” Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice, 15 (1): 7-23.
Stone, Mervyn. (1974). “Cross-validatory Choice and Assessment
of Statistical Predictions.” Journal of the Royal Statistical
Society, 36:111-47.
Sweeney, Jillian C., and Geoffrey N. Soutar. (2001). “Consumer
Perceived Value: The Development of a Multiple Item Scale.”
Journal of Retailing, 77 (2): 203-20.
Sweeney, Jillian C., Geoffrey N. Soutar, and Lester W. Johnson.
(1999). “The Role of Perceived Risk in the Quality-Value
Relationship: A Study in a Retail Environment.” Journal of
Retailing, 75 (1): 77-105.
Tanford, Sarah, Seyhmus Baloglu, and Mehmet Erdem. (2012).
“Travel Packaging on the Internet: The Impact of Pricing
Information and Perceived Value on Consumer Choice.”
Journal of Travel Research, 51 (1): 68-80.
Uzkurt, Cevahir. (2010). “Customer Participation in the Service
Process: A Model and Research Propositions.” International
Journal of Services and Operations Management, 6 (1): 17-37.
Vargo, Stephen L., and Robert F. Lusch. (2004). “Evolving to a
New Dominant Logic for Marketing.” Journal of Marketing,
68 (1): 1-17.
Vargo, Stephen L., and Robert F. Lusch. (2008). “Service-Dominant
Logic: Continuing the Evolution.” Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 36 (1): 1-10.
Vargo, Stephen L., Robert F. Lusch, Melissa Archpru Akaka,
and Yi He. (2010). “Service-Dominant Logic: A Review and
Assessment.” In Review of Marketing Research, Vol. 6, edited by
Naresh K. Malhotra. Bingley, WA: Emerald Group, pp. 125-67.
Vroom, Victor H., and Arthur G. Jago. (1988). The New Leadership:
Managing Participation in Organizations. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Wang, Youcheng, and Daniel R. Fesenmaier. (2004). “Modeling
Participation in an Online Travel Community.” Journal of
Travel Research, 42 (3): 261-70.
Weare, Christopher, and Wan-Ying Lin. (2000). “Content Analysis
of the World Wide Web: Opportunities and Challenges.”
Social Science Computer Review, 18 (3): 272-92.
Williams, Paul, and Geoffrey N. Soutar. (2009). “Value, Satisfaction
and Behavioral Intentions in Adventure Tourism Context.”
Annals of Tourism Research, 36 (3): 413-38.
Wolfinbarger, Mary, and Mary C. Gilly. (2001). “Shopping Online
for Freedom, Control, and Fun.” California Management
Review, 43 (2): 34-55.
Woodruff, Robert B. (1997). “Customer Value: The Next Source
for Competitive Advantage.” Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 25 (2): 139-53.
Woodruff, Robert B., and Sarah Gardial. (1996). Know Your
Customer: New Approaches to Customer Value and
Satisfaction. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Xiang, Zheng, and Ulrike Gretzel. (2010). “Role of Social Media
in Online Travel Information Search.” Tourism Management,
31 (2): 179-88.
Zeithaml, Valarie A. (1988). “Consumer Perceptions of Price,
Quality and Value: A Means-end Models and Systems of
Evidence.” Journal of Marketing, 52 (3): 2-22.
Zeithaml, Valarie A. (2002). “Service Quality in E-Channels.”
Managing Service Quality, 12 (3): 135-38.
Zhu, Zhen, Cheryl Nakata, K. Sivakumar, and Dhruv Grewal.
(2007). “Self-Service Technology Effectiveness: The Role
of Design Features and Individual Traits.” Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 35 (4): 492-506.
Author Biographies
Amrul Asraf Mohd-Any is lecturer in marketing at the University
of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. He completed his MSc at the
University of Strathclyde, Scotland, and his PhD at the University
of Nottingham, United Kingdom. His research interests focus on
services marketing and Internet marketing including customer participation/consumer engagement behavior in self-service technology, customer perceived value, and consumption and practice theory. He is currently involved in several local and international
research projects under the Service Research and Innovation Centre
(ServRI) and the Social Security Research Centre (SSRC),
University of Malaya.
Heidi Winklhofer is professor of marketing at Nottingham
University Business School. Her current research interests lie in
the area of services marketing focusing on value cocreation and
customer learning. She has published in a number of leading
international journals, including Journal of Marketing Research,
Journal of Service Research, The International Journal of
Research in Marketing, Journal of Business Research, Journal
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on February 29, 2016
510
Journal of Travel Research 54(4)
of Interactive Marketing, and International Journal of
Forecasting.
Christine Ennew is professor of marketing and provost at the
University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus. Her research interests
lie in the area of services marketing and specifically financial services, tourism, and higher education. She has focused her research
on key strategic themes, including service quality and delivery,
loyalty and retention, and service failure and recovery. She has
also undertaken business-oriented research specifically in the
areas of customer satisfaction, marketing relationships, and trust,
including on behalf of a number of major banking organizations.
She has published more than 100 articles in refereed journals,
presented over 60 refereed conference papers and produced 5
books.
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Universiti Malaya (S141/J/2004) on February 29, 2016