Consequences of Consumer Engagement in Service ...

2 downloads 0 Views 759KB Size Report
Apr 16, 2018 - Companies are increasingly seeking consumer engagement with their services or products. The current study investigates the ...
Journal of Global Marketing

ISSN: 0891-1762 (Print) 1528-6975 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wglo20

Consequences of Consumer Engagement in Service Marketing: An Empirical Exploration Raouf Ahmad Rather To cite this article: Raouf Ahmad Rather (2018): Consequences of Consumer Engagement in Service Marketing: An Empirical Exploration, Journal of Global Marketing To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08911762.2018.1454995

Published online: 16 Apr 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wglo20

JOURNAL OF GLOBAL MARKETING , VOL. , NO. , – https://doi.org/./..

Consequences of Consumer Engagement in Service Marketing: An Empirical Exploration Raouf Ahmad Rather Faculty of Business Studies, University of Jammu, Jammu, India

ABSTRACT

KEYWORDS

Companies are increasingly seeking consumer engagement with their services or products. The current study investigates the interrelationships among consumer engagement and higher order marketing constructs including trust, satisfaction, commitment and customer loyalty within hospitality industry. The perceptions from hotel customers were used to examine the interrelationships among the constructs. The data set was analyzed using descriptive analysis, confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling. Empirical results reveal that consumer engagement has the most influential impact on satisfaction, followed by commitment, loyalty and trust. Likewise, trust contributes more towards loyalty followed by satisfaction and commitment. Commitment, satisfaction and trust mediate the relationship between consumer engagement and loyalty. Hence, results suggest that consumer engagement increases satisfaction, commitment, trust, and loyalty. Based on social exchange theory and relationship marketing theory, this study analyzes from a theoretical and empirical perspective the influence of the consumer engagement on satisfaction, commitment, trust, and loyalty.

Commitment; consumer engagement; customer loyalty; customer satisfaction; customer trust; hospitality industry; social exchange theory

Introduction Initially, engagement was proposed in a human resource management context as a psychological connection to enhance employee loyalty (Saks, 2006; Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma, & Bakker, 2002). Recently, researchers have been investigating consumer or customer engagement (CE) in a marketing context. From a service marketing perspective, the construct of consumer engagement is conceptualized as a customer’s psychological connections with a specific service provider and/or brand (Brodie, Hollebeek, Juric, & Ilic, 2011; Hapsari, Clemes, & Dean, 2107). CE has gained more interest in recent literature. Researchers propose that the psychological connection allows a customer to engage with a specific brand/provider and become more loyal to the provider/brand (Hapsari et al., 2107; Moliner, Monferrer, & Estrada, 2018; Vivek, Beatty, & Morgan, 2012). Engaged customers may contribute to organizational innovation processes, value creation, create brand referrals and co-create experience (Brodie, Ilic, Juric, & Hollebeek, 2013; Hoyer, Chandy, Dorotic, Krafft, CONTACT Raouf Ahmad Rather India. ©  Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

r.raouf@gmail.com

& Singh, 2010). Today, CE signifies a strategic imperative for creating superior corporate performance, superior competitive advantage, sales growth, and profitability (Brodie et al., 2011). CE has been considered a successful retention and acquisition strategy for establishing and sustaining competitive benefits (Brodie et al., 2013; Hollebeek, Conduit, & Brodie, 2016; Hollebeek, Glynn, & Brodie, 2014; Islam, Rahman, & Hollebeek, 2017). More recently, CE has been predicted to be among the top priorities for service marketing companies (Marketing Science Institute, 2016). Furthermore, the hospitality literature broadly corroborates the likely gains of CE. For instance, online user-generated reviews can influence the number of online bookings in a hotel (Ye, Law, & Gu, 2009), intentions to book and perceptions of trust in the hotel (Sparks & Browning, 2011), and customer’s traits concerning customer evaluation such as satisfaction and service quality (Browning, So, & Sparks, 2013) (Figure 1). Hence, hospitality companies have to follow strategies that steer CE beyond transactions to nurture and sustain the loyal customer base.

ICSSR Doctoral Fellow, Research Scholar, The Business School, University of Jammu, Jammu ,

2

R. A. RATHER

H1

Consumer engagement

Customer commitment

H4 H2 H3

H5 H8

Customer satisfaction

H10

H9 H6

H8

H7 Customer trust

H9

Customer loyalty

Figure . Conceptual framework.

As the number of tourists continues to grow globally, the hospitality industry players inevitably face more challenges. High competition amongst the competitors and the emergence of new technologies, like online booking and/or social media platforms, expanded portfolios of products and services and changes in customers, who now tend to have more diverse needs and requirements to be met, make the competition more intense among players in the hospitality context (Liat, Mansori, Chuan, & Imrie, 2017). In such a turbulent environment, maintaining long-lasting sustainable relationships with clients becomes a critical challenge for hotels, even more so than in the past (Moliner et al., 2018; Rather & Sharma, 2017a; So, King, Sparks, & Wang, 2014). Hospitality is part of the services sector, and as such, four of its main defining characteristics are intangibility, variability, perishability, and inseparability (Adamson, Chan, & Handford, 2003; Liat et al., 2017). In this view, several studies suggest that hotels should steer their marketing efforts toward intangible variables like brand management, allowing them to strengthen positive consumer behaviors and attitudes (Adamson et al., 2003; Liat et al., 2017; Moliner et al., 2018). In this line, the hospitality sector is presently giving greater priority to maintaining and building sustainable connections with its consumers, creating a kind of brand-based psychological and emotional attachment because of the guiding paradigm of relationship marketing (Adamson et al., 2003; Moliner et al., 2018; Narteh, Agbemabiese, Kodua, & Braimah, 2013; Vivek et al., 2012). Recently, CE has also been acknowledged as an essential component of relationship marketing’s extended domain (Bowden, 2009b; Brodie et al., 2011; Vivek et al., 2012). Van Doorn et al. (2010) assert that if a firm can keep its customers highly engaged, the engagement will strengthen

the firm’s long-standing relationship with their customer base approach, which generally results in customer profitability accruing from an increase in loyal customers. Hence, retaining present customers, and developing robust customer relationships, are more cost-efficient methods than repeatedly looking for and gaining new customers (Anderson & Mittal, 2000; Liat et al., 2017). CE is a phenomenon and a branding practice that demonstrates the value of relationship marketing (Ashley, Noble, Donthu, & Lemon, 2011; Brodie et al., 2011). Hence, cultivating and assessing engagement play important roles in marketing practice. Therefore, important higher-order marketing constructs such as satisfaction, commitment, trust, and brand image are commonly noted as antecedents of customer loyalty (Bowden, 2009b; Clemes, Gan, & Ren, 2011; Hapsari, Clemes, & Dean, 2017; So et al., 2014). The interrelationships among these constructs have also been examined in comprehensive studies on many service industries (Clemes et al., 2011; Martinez & Rodriguez del Bosque, 2014; Narteh et al., 2013; So, King, Sparks, & Wang, 2013), although the exact fit of the CE construct as an antecedent of loyalty, and its interrelationship with the other higher-order constructs, have not been investigated particularly in the hospitality (four- and five-star hotel) industry. CE influence on customer loyalty has been discussed and explored by utilizing qualitative as well as quantitative methods of utilitarian, hedonic brands and virtual brand community (Brodie et al., 2013; Dessart, Veloutsou, & Morgan-Thomas, 2016; Hollebeek, 2013; Islam et al., 2017), in tourism social media brands (Harrigan, Evers, Miles, & Daly, 2017), fashion apparel brands (Islam & Rahman, 2016), and by combining airline and hotel services using the perceptions from a generic sample (So et al., 2014). Researchers also investigated CE in Indonesian airline passengers (Hapsari et al., 2107), and Japanese heritage tourism sites (Bryce, Curran, Gorman, & Taheri, 2015), although it remains unexplored in the hospitality sector. Despite the increasing attention in building CE, empirical research has been comparatively scarce and has been poorly recognized concerning CE in increasing customer behaviors such as loyalty and satisfaction (Hapsari et al., 2017; Hollebeek et al., 2016; Islam et al., 2017; Rather & Sharma, 2017a; Sharma & Rather, 2016; So et al., 2014). Since limited research has been conducted in CE with respect to hospitality (Bowden, 2009b; Rather

JOURNAL OF GLOBAL MARKETING

& Sharma, 2016b; So et al., 2014), further understanding of this concept is essential, despite its recent emergence as an important marketing construct (Dessart et al., 2016; Hapsari et al., 2017). In the hotel sector specifically, existing theoretical and empirical research bases still do not provide practical directions on CE (Oyner & Korelina, 2016). In particular, a need exists to explore the directionality and strength of relevant constructs’ theoretical link to CE, hence identifying and empirically validating particular CE consequences (Hollebeek, 2011; Hollebeek et al., 2016; Islam et al., 2017; Moliner et al., 2018; Rather & Sharma, 2017a; Sharma & Rather, 2017), as undertaken in this research. Drawing on social exchange theory and relationship marketing, the study explores the role of CE in effects on satisfaction, trust, commitment, and customer loyalty. Research has also focused on relationship marketing (Brodie et al., 2013), social exchange theory (Harrigan et al., 2017), or service dominant logic (Brodie et al., 2011), as relevant theoretical prisms to investigate CE within relevant broader nomological networks. Nevertheless, a need exists to explore CE from diverse theoretical perspectives (Brodie et al., 2013; Hapsari et al., 2017; Hollebeek et al., 2016; So et al., 2014; Vivek et al., 2012), including social exchange theory and relationship marketing. Furthermore, prior literature emphasizes the need to study CE across countries and contexts (Brodie et al., 2011; Calder, Malthouse, & Maslowska, 2016; Hollebeek et al., 2016; Islam et al., 2017; So et al., 2014). However, relevant literature relating to CE has been more from the Western perspective; specifically, from the US and Europe. Moreover, so far, no studies have investigated the consumer engagement construct and its association with the other higher-order marketing constructs in non-Western contexts like India. To address these gaps, the present research enriches the literature by investigating CE from a social exchange theory and relationship marketing perspective, and proposes a theoretical model of CE in offline contexts of hospitality based on this perspective. Specifically, this research investigates how CE influences satisfaction, trust, commitment, and loyalty within the hospitality industry. Thus, the current study investigates the interrelationships among CE and higher-order marketing constructs, including trust, satisfaction, commitment, and loyalty, within the hospitality industry. To the best of our knowledge, this research represents an initial attempt to include an Indian sample to investigate CE from a

3

social exchange theory and relationship marketing perspective in offline contexts of hospitality. The study also investigates the consequent effect of CE on loyalty, trust, and satisfaction in hospitality service marketing. Theoretical background and hypotheses development

The need for relationship marketing in current business environments cannot be underestimated, particularly in an era of global competition and market turbulence. In order to remain competitive, various firms are recognizing the need to build and maintain relationships with their customers. The theoretical foundations of the emerging concept of consumer engagement are rooted in theory addressing relationship marketing and interactive service experiences (Brodie et al., 2011; Vivek et al., 2012). Customer relationship marketing theory (Gronroos, 1996), as a relationship marketing approach, is used to strengthen customer-company or customer-brand relationships so as to boost customer equity and increase a firm’s profitability. In the hospitality sector, the aim of relationship marketing proposals has been to develop long-term relationships with valued customers (So et al., 2013). Social exchange theory (SET)

Social exchange theory supports this notion of investment, which holds that individuals assess the intangible and tangible benefits and costs of engaging in relationships (Guo, Gruen, & Tang, 2017; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). For consumer engagement to persist, customers must at least attain a balance in these benefits and costs over time (Brodie et al., 2011; Hollebeek, 2011). For instance, customers may demonstrate attention and enthusiasm in engaging with a provider/brand to receive benefits (for example, product offers, news), through to a sense of belonging (Blau, 1964; Harrigan et al., 2017). Contemporary marketing thought considers both relationship marketing and service-dominant perspectives, which, when combined, posit that consumers are now partners with marketers, creating exchanges through a co-creation process (Vargo & Lusch, 2008). Consumers exchange with marketers cognitive, emotional, social, economic, and physical resources (Blau, 1964; Harrigan et al., 2017. For CE to continue, both the consumer and marketer must perceive that it is equitable (Brodie et al., 2011; Hollebeek, 2011), defining CE as a social exchange.

4

R. A. RATHER

Expectation disconfirmation theory

The customer satisfaction model of expectation disconfirmation theory advocates that consumers are more likely to be satisfied when the actual firm performance confirms or outshines past expectations (e.g., Oliver, 1997). On the basis of Brodie et al. (2011, 2013), the consequences of consumer engagement can be customer satisfaction, trust, commitment, perceived value, and loyalty. In the tourism and hospitality industry particularly, consumer engagement has been found to increase, trust, brand evaluations, and loyalty (So et al., 2014). All of these are central measures of sustainable customer relationships as well. In this study, referring to the purpose of the research, our focus remains on four factors: customer satisfaction, commitment, trust, and loyalty. Hence, it is essential, theoretically as well as managerially, that consumer engagement is not treated as an outcome but rather a process, which leads to more measurable outcomes; for example, customer satisfaction or loyalty (Harrigan et al., 2017). The explanation of constructs and hypotheses development will be further explored later.

Consumer engagement

Consumer engagement is an innovative concept in marketing that comes from the social sciences, specifically organizational behavior, psychology, sociology, and political science (Hollebeek, 2011). Brodie et al. (2011) carried out a review of the concept in order to establish a valid definition of consumer engagement— CE is a psychological state that occurs by virtue of interactive, co-creative customer experiences with a focal agent/object (e.g., a brand) in focal service relationships. Sprott, Czellar, and Spangenberg (2009) defend the emotional nature of CE in their definition of brand engagement as an individual difference representing consumers’ propensity to include important brands as part of how they view themselves. This approach is also taken by Van Doorn et al. (2010), who link CE with self-schema theory and attachment theory. CE can thus be defined as the emotional bond established between consumer and brand, as a consequence of the accumulation of consumer experiences that assumes a favorable and proactive psychological state. CE is a psychological state or, in other words, an attitude that builds certain behaviors and/or consequences like

referrals and/or recommendations of specific products, services, and/or brands (Brodie et al., 2011). So et al. (2014)) identified five dimensions of CE: (1) the level of interest and passion with the brand (enthusiasm); (2) the level of a consumer’s sense of belonging or perceived unanimity with the brand (identification); (3) a pleasurable condition for being very happy, rigorous, and deeply absorbed when playing the role of customer of the brand (absorption); (4) the various levels of participation that a customer has with the brand (interaction); and (5) the level of attention which focuses and links with the brand (attention). Thus, this research builds on So et al.’s (2014) conceptualization of CE, which includes five dimensions that jointly reveal psychological, or emotional, and behavioral perspectives of CE. All eight items of CE indicate psychological, or emotional, and behavioral perspectives. Important to the conceptualization of CE is to provide the unique characteristics that differentiate it from other related concepts and constructs. CE appears to be a related concept, though is theoretically different from many similar other marketing concepts (Bowden, 2009a; Van Doorn et al., 2010). There has been a clear difference between engagement and other, more wellknown relational constructs (Bowden, 2009a; Brodie et al., 2011; Hollebeek, 2011; Mollen & Wilson, 2010; So, King, & Sparks, 2012; Vivek et al., 2012). CE and involvement seem similar on the basis of customer values and needs that motivate people toward a particular object, like a brand (Hollebeek, 2011). Vivek et al. (2012) proposed that involvement differs from CE because involvement is a psychological concept that doesn’t study behaviors. They argue that involvement may be an antecedent of the behavioral domain of CE. Mollen and Wilson (2010) differentiated involvement, as it involves more passive allocation of mental resources, while engagement involves an active relationship with the consumption object. Engagement requires both achievement of instrumental value because of utility and relevance, as well as a specific level of emotional bonding, which may be attained due to satisfying and pleasant experiences. Nonetheless, the growth of particular CE levels require few levels of involvement with the object (Hollebeek, 2011). Apart from customer involvement, Bowden (2009a) contrasts CE with commitment. Customer commitment has been frequently expressed as an emotional attachment connected with attitude; a customer is thought to be committed when their attitudes, self-image,

JOURNAL OF GLOBAL MARKETING

5

and value are strongly related to certain substitutes (Bowden, 2009a). In this sense, commitment doesn’t specify the similar extent of immersion, activation, passion, and interactivity which is evident in engaged customers. Commitment repeatedly includes some sort of psychological attachment; it does not encapsulate the interactive or behavioral dimension of engagement (Bowden, 2009a; Brodie et al., 2011).

center concepts in marketing that can be recognized as key to a firm’s long-standing competitive advantage (Heitmann, Lehmann, & Herrmann, 2007). Hence, hotel brands, by increasing the satisfaction level of customers, can have a competitive edge over competitors (Mittal & Kamakura, 2001). Customer satisfaction acts as an important mediator in various loyalty studies in hospitality (Liat, Mansori, & Uuei, 2014).

Customer loyalty

Customer trust

Original studies on customer loyalty have defined the construct as a behavioral manifestation which includes re-buying or re-patronizing products/services (Jacoby & Kyner, 1973; Kandampully & Suhartanto, 2000). It is a process of retaining or increasing consumers’ patronage over the long term, thus increasing the value of the consumer to the company (Marshall, 2010). It is implied that a loyal customer is a customer who repurchases from the same service provider when possible, and who recommends or retains a positive attitude to the provider (Kandampully & Suhartanto, 2000; Rather & Sharma, 2017b; Sharma & Rather, 2017). Scholars have proposed the composite or contingency approach to loyalty that incorporates behavioral and attitudinal measures, since the contingency view offers a complete understanding of the concept of loyalty and it has been investigated and supported in many loyalty studies (such as Harris & Goode, 2004; Rather & Sharma, 2017b; Sharma & Rather, 2017; So et al., 2013). Thus, this study measures customer loyalty as a composite approach of the customer’s intention to repurchase, recommend, or re-patronize a service or business and remain loyal to the organization.

Trust has been defined as the level of confidence in an exchange partner’s integrity and reliability, and has been revealed due to relational qualities such as honesty, benevolence, consistency, and competency (Morgan & Hunt, 1994). Trust is the most crucial element in the enlargement of a successful relationship among brands or service providers and their customers (Garbarino & Johnson, 1999; Morgan & Hunt, 1994). Both satisfaction and trust concepts are considered similar, as they epitomize overall evaluations, feelings, or attitudes about individuals involved in a relationship (Selnes, 1998). Similarly, Urban and Qualls (2000) note that trust-based practices are important components in developing positive relationships with customers and increasing a company’s market share and profits. Preceding studies have established that trust is an essential mediator between CE and loyalty in hospitality settings (So et al., 2014).

Customer satisfaction

Customer satisfaction has been at the heart of marketing for a relatively long time because of its central status for the survival of a business (Pizam & Ellis, 1999). It has been an indispensable marketing concept (Rather, 2017; Rather & Sharma, 2017b). It is viewed as a customer’s overall evaluation of the performance of a product or service (Johnson & Fornell, 1991). It has been related to the overall performance of a company and is perceived as a prime objective for managers (Anderson, Fornell, & Lehmann, 1994). It has been a locus of marketing for several decades; customer satisfaction and dissatisfaction have been developed as

Customer commitment

From its root in social identity theory, commitment is one of the imperative concepts in relationship marketing research (Hennig-Thurau, Gwinner, & Gremler, 2002; Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Su, Swanson, Chinchanachokchai, Hsu, & Chen, 2016). Researchers have observed that commitment has been the most important dependent variable used in buyer-seller relationship studies (Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Narteh et al., 2013). The majority of researchers have studied commitment as a global construct that measures the intention to continue the relationship, which usually comprises affective factors (Cater & Zabkar, 2009). The three components of commitment that are included are affective, calculative or continuance, and moral or normative (Cater & Zabkar, 2009; Geyskens, Steenkamp, Scheer, & Kumar, 1996). Affective commitment means that firms want to stay in the relationship because they

6

R. A. RATHER

like their partner, enjoy the partnership, and feel a sense of loyalty and belongingness. Calculative commitment is the extent to which partners perceive the need to maintain a relationship due to the significant anticipated switching costs or lack of alternatives. Normative commitment means that partners stay in relationships because they feel they ought to (Geyskens et al., 1996). Based on the literature, this study defines commitment as an exchange partner’s willingness to continue an essential long-term relationship (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2002; Morgan & Hunt, 1994). As shown in Appendix 1, commitment is measured by four survey items that measure a customer’s desire to continue a long-term relationship. Commitment has been defined as “an enduring desire to maintain a valued relationship” (Moorman, Zaltman, & Deshpande, 1992, p. 316). Similarly, Morgan and Hunt (1994) defined it as an enduring desire to continue an attachment (relationship). It acts as an essential mediator between trust and loyalty in the hospitality sector (Martinez & Rodriguez del Bosque, 2014). Influence of consumer engagement on customer loyalty

Scholarly efforts have recognized various vital concepts of the customer relationship which are potentially linked to consumer engagement (Hapsari et al., 2017; So et al., 2014; Van Doorn et al., 2010; Vivek et al., 2012). These constructs include satisfaction, brand trust, commitment, and service quality, all of which are essential to the development of loyal relationships (Harris & Goode, 2004; Narteh et al., 2013). Nevertheless, very scant empirical confirmation exists to provide a clear understanding of the relationship between consumer engagement and factors underlying the development of loyal customer relationships. Such knowledge is crucial to both academics and marketing practitioners, given companies’ growing adoption of consumer engagement strategies and owing to the significant amount of academic interest afforded to this emerging concept as a superior predictor of loyalty. Moreover, CE can support flourishing marketing outcomes like share of wallet, loyalty, crossselling, and word of mouth (Vivek et al., 2012). CE influences behavior intensions of loyalty significantly in the hospitality and tourism brands of hotels and airlines (Rather & Sharma, 2016b; Sharma & Rather, 2016;

So et al., 2014), but further empirical investigation of this relationship in different contexts has been suggested (Brodie et al., 2011, 2013; Hapsari et al., 2017). Marketing researchers propose that CE can increase purchase decisions, attitudes, and loyalty (Dwivedi, 2015; Sharma & Rather, 2017) due to a robust, longterm psychological connection supplemented by interactive brand experiences beyond the purchase (Brodie et al., 2011). Those attitudes are also more likely to be favorable, which should lead to enhanced brand usage intent and/or brand loyalty (Harmeling et al., 2017). This hypothesis is supported by social exchange theory, where the intangible and tangible resources accrued by a consumer through engaging cognitively, affectively, and behaviorally with a brand/provider will lead them to interact further with that brand/provider. Based on this, the following hypothesis is proposed: H1: Consumer engagement has a positive association with customer loyalty.

Influence of consumer engagement on customer satisfaction

Customer satisfaction can be a potential driver of consumer engagement (Brodie et al., 2011; So et al., 2014; Van Doorn et al., 2010); satisfaction is more likely to be a consequence of consumer engagement (Hapsari et al., 2017; Hollebeek, 2011). Researchers also argue that consumer engagement influences a customer’s evaluations of a service or product. For instance, the potential influence of consumer engagement on service brand evaluation is apparent in Hollebeek’s (2011) theoretical model, which suggests that consumer engagement exerts a direct effect on satisfaction. Further, other marketing researchers contend that consumer engagement leads to favorable attitudes toward a brand, product, or company, such as satisfaction (Hapsari et al., 2017; Vivek et al., 2012). In the social psychology literature, scholars also suggest that the more strongly an individual is engaged, the more intensely the individual experiences the motivational force (Higgins & Scholer, 2009). Therefore, an individual who is more strongly engaged in pursuit of a goal will evaluate a positive target more positively and a negative target more negatively. On this basis, the following hypothesis is given: H2: Consumer engagement is positively related with customer satisfaction.

JOURNAL OF GLOBAL MARKETING

Influence of consumer engagement on customer trust

Even though customer trust can be a potential antecedent of consumer engagement (Brodie et al., 2011; So et al., 2014), trust is expected to be a consequence of consumer engagement (Hollebeek, 2011). With reference to social exchange theory, trusting relationships develop over time as both parties experience the continuation of favorable reciprocal exchange (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Saks, 2006). Hence, persons who are more engaged are expected to be in more trusting, high-quality relationships with a company. The marketing literature also proposes that positive interactions in extra-exchange relationship interactions increase trust levels (Sashi, 2012; So et al., 2014). Thus, higher engagement is likely to generate higher trust in the relationship. Hence, based on this, the following hypothesis is proposed: H3: Consumer engagement is positively associated with trust.

Influence of consumer engagement on customer commitment

The relationships with commitment investigated in this study were previously underexplored. Vivek, Beatty, Dalela, and Morgan (2014) investigated the influence of CE on commitment. Recently, Rather and Sharma (2017a) suggested that CE can act as an important driver of commitment in hospitality. Hence, further research can be developed from these perspectives. Like loyalty, commitment is also considered a basic construct for the development of long-term customer relationships (Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Su et al., 2016). The interactivity represented by consumer engagement also facilitates the process of building enduring, intimate relationships that engender trust and commitment between the customer and the seller or brand, making emotional bonds in relationship exchanges with them (Sashi, 2012). The higher the affective attachment, the higher is the consumer engagement towards a service provider (Brodie et al., 2011). Other investigators also suggest that consumer engagement results in favorable attitudes toward a product, company, or brand, such as commitment (Vivek et al., 2012). Based on this, H4 is given as: H4: Consumer engagement is positively associated with customer commitment.

7

Influence of customer satisfaction on customer commitment

Customer satisfaction has been strongly associated with commitment development (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2002; Johnson, Gustafsson, Andreassen, Lervik, & Cha, 2001; Rather & Sharma, 2017b). Furthermore, the existing literature has proposed that there is a positive relationship between satisfaction and commitment (Morgan & Hunt, 1994). Recently, Sharma and Rather (2015) also examined the positive and significant influence of satisfaction on commitment in “A”-category hotels. Therefore, it is proposed that satisfaction has a positive and significant influence on commitment: H5: Customer satisfaction has a positive relationship with customer commitment.

Influence of customer trust on customer commitment

Previous research acknowledges trust as a preceding state for the development of commitment and a prerequisite to develop valuable relationships with customers (Moorman et al., 1992; Morgan & Hunt, 1994). Several studies consistently support the theory that trust leads to commitment (Keh & Xie, 2009; Morgan & Hunt, 1994). Researchers have found that trust acts as an essential antecedent of relationship commitment and affects it positively in a hotel context (Bowen & Shoemaker, 1998; Martinez & Rodriguez del Bosque, 2014). Thus, it is anticipated that trust leads to commitment in the hospitality sector: H6: Trust has been positively linked with customer commitment.

Influence of customer satisfaction on customer trust

Customer satisfaction and trust perform a vigorous role in describing how ongoing relationships develop (Selnes, 1998). In maintaining an ongoing relationship, satisfaction is generally expectedly to be used as a source to establish trust, and satisfaction impacts trust positively (Hashima & Tan, 2015). Customer satisfaction is an essential driver of trust, as it affects it positively (Bowden, Dagger, & Elliott, 2013). Hence, this research proposes that satisfaction is an important driver of trust: H7: Customer satisfaction has been positively related with customer trust.

8

R. A. RATHER

Influence of customer satisfaction on customer loyalty

Several authors have examined how the level of satisfaction relating to a service/brand is ascertained by the level of satisfaction and/or dissatisfaction experienced by the customer (Rather, 2017). Earlier research has demonstrated the empirical support of a positive relationship between satisfaction and customer loyalty (Mittal & Kamakura, 2001; Rather & Sharma, 2016a, 2017b). There is a positive relationship between satisfaction and loyalty, and the strength of it varies across product categories and from customer to customer (Dong, Ding, Grewal, & Zhao, 2011). According to Liat et al. (2017), only by strengthening customer loyalty can hotels be profitable. As the cost of attracting new customers is higher than retaining existing ones, hotels should do all that is necessary to strengthen customer loyalty. Expecting the same in the context of the current study, the author proposes the following hypothesis: H8: Customer satisfaction has been positively related with customer loyalty.

Influence of customer trust on customer loyalty

Prior literature documented trust as the central indicator of customer exchange relationships, thus contributing to loyalty (Narteh et al., 2013; Rather, 2017). More recently, Martinez and Rodriguez del Bosque (2014) determined that trust positively influences loyalty towards hotel service providers. Previous research has establish that brand trust leads to brand loyalty, because trust generates the ongoing process of continuing as well as maintaining an important and valued relationship that accentuates brand loyalty (Morgan & Hunt, 1994). Therefore, it is proposed that trust has a significant influence on customer loyalty: H9: Trust has a positive relationship with customer loyalty.

Influence of customer commitment on customer loyalty

Customers who demonstrate greater levels of commitment and who have developed robust relationships with a brand are likely to perceive strong associations between themselves and the brand (Escalas & Bettman, 2003; Rather, 2017). In the hospitality business, customer commitment has been identified as a central

driver of customer loyalty for hotels (Narteh et al., 2013; Rather & Sharma, 2016a; So et al., 2013). Hence, the author proposes that customer commitment to the firm will be an important driver of hotel customer loyalty. Furthermore, in marketing literature, there has been evidence demonstrating that the relationship between trust and loyalty is frequently fully or partially mediated by commitment (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2002; Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Rather, 2017). Similarly, trust mediates the relationship between consumer engagement and loyalty with hospitality and tourism brands (So et al., 2014). In the airline industry, Hapsari et al. (2017) explored the interrelationships among consumer engagement, customer satisfaction, perceived value, service quality, and loyalty. Given that consumer engagement also has an indirect influence on loyalty through commitment, brand trust, and satisfaction, apart from direct effects, hence leading to the following hypotheses: H10: Customer commitment has been positively associated with customer loyalty. H11: Commitment mediates the effect of consumer engagement and hotel customer loyalty. H12: Satisfaction mediates the effect of consumer engagement and hotel customer loyalty. H13: Trust mediates the effect of consumer engagement and hotel customer loyalty.

Methodology

The questions were developed on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 7 (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree). The questionnaire included items designed to measure CE, satisfaction, commitment, trust, and customer loyalty. CE was adopted and modified from Hapsari et al. (2017), Rather and Sharma (2017a), and So et al. (2014), and measured with eight items consisting of psychological, emotional, and behavioral perspectives. Customer satisfaction was adopted from Rather and Sharma (2016a) and was represented with four items. Customer commitment was measured using four items from Martinez and Rodriguez del Bosque (2014), Sharma and Rather (2015), and Su et al. (2016), which included affective, normative, and continuance components. Trust was further represented with four items (Martinez & Rodriguez del Bosque, 2014; So et al., 2013). Customer loyalty was adopted from Hapsari et al. (2017), Rather and Sharma (2017a), and So et al. (2014) and measured with six

JOURNAL OF GLOBAL MARKETING

items. Descriptive statistics was used to compute the mean and standard deviation of the variables. CFA and SEM were used to validate, measure, and test the model and interrelationships among the constructs. Sampling and data collection

The sample of the study consisted of customers visiting four-star and five-star hotels located in the Phalgam, Srinagar, Gulmarg, Jammu, Katra, and Amritsar regions of Jammu and Kashmir and Punjab, India. These regions are the most popular tourist destinations in Jammu and Kashmir, India (Rather, 2017; Sharma & Rather, 2015). In addition, the naturally high level of interaction between hotel service providers and their customers can encourage the occurrence of engagement (Rather & Sharma, 2017a; So et al., 2014). Hotels were selected on the basis of a non-probability convenience sampling technique (Jang & Namkung, 2009; Jani & Han, 2011; Rather, 2017; Sharma & Rather, 2015). After permission had been gained from managers of the hotels, out of the total of 400 distributed questionnaires, 345 usable responses were collected, yielding a response rate of 86%. Results A descriptive analysis of the respondents indicates that 54% were male while 46% were female. A total 37% of the respondents were between 31 and 40 years of age, 27% of the respondents were between 41 and 50 years of age, 21% of the respondents were between 20 and 30 years of age, and 15% of the respondents were above 51 years of age. On the reasons why customers were travelling, an overwhelming 33% and 30% of the customers mentioned leisure and adventure, respectively, followed by 25% religious and 12% business purposes. A total of 65% of the customers were from India and 35% of the customers were foreigners (US, UK, Canada, Bangladesh, etc). The demographic characteristics of respondents are presented in Table 1. Measurement model

A preliminary data analysis was performed, in which data accuracy, normality, missing values, outliers, and multicollinearity of all variables were checked. After that, to assess the measurement model performance, the author performed a confirmatory factor

9

Table . Demographic and travel characteristics of respondents. Demographics Gender Male Female Age (years) – – – Above  Qualification Matriculation Graduation Post-graduation Others Nationality Indian Foreigners

Frequency Percentage (N) (%)  

(%) (%)

   

(%) (%) (%) (%)

   

(%) (%) (%) (%)

 

(%) (%)

Frequency (N)

Percentage (%)

Occupation Business Service Professional Others Reasons for travelling Leisure Adventure Religious Business Hotel brand Four-star Five-star Customer status First-time customer Repeat customer

   

(%) (%) (%) (%)

   

(%) (%) (%) (%)

 (%)  (%)  (%)  (%)

analysis (CFA) with the five constructs measured in this study by applying AMOS 16.0 by means of maximum likelihood estimation. Survey data were examined by applying the two-stage structural equation modelling (SEM) method (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Initially, CFA was conducted on all items. Overall, goodnessof-fit indices of the CFA measurement model indicate that all fits were satisfactory (CFI, TLI, NFI and GFI > 0.90; RMSEA < 0.08 (Bentler, 1992; Bentler & Bonett, 1980), as shown in Table 2. The measurement model of the CFA achieved excellent fit; χ 2 = 572.540, df = 197, χ 2/df = 2.906, p < .000, CFI = 0.96; NFI = 0.94; TLI = 0.95; GFI = 0.88; RMSEA = 0.074; SRMR = 0.47). Reliability and validity of scales

In addition, CFA assessed the reliability as well as validity of all scales. Convergent validity was confirmed by analyzing the conditions suggested by Fornell and Larcker (1981). At first, all CFA factor loadings were statistically significant at p < .05 (see Table 2). After that, the average variance extracted (AVE) for all study constructs were above the value of 0.50. Further, all of the indicators for all measurement constructs were significant (critical values higher than 1.96) and had AVE higher than 0.5, suggesting convergent validity of the scale or unidimensionality of the constructs (Byrne, 2016). Finally, the reliabilities for each construct were above the value of 0.70, fulfilling the general condition of reliability for the research instruments (Table 3). In confirming the discriminant validity, the author evaluated the correlations of the constructs with the

10

R. A. RATHER

Table . Results of the measurement model from confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Construct and Item

M

Consumer Engagement (CE) CE . CE . CE . CE . CE . CE . CE . CE . Customer Trust (CT) CT . CT . CT . CT . Customer Satisfaction (CS) CS . CS . CS . CS . Customer Commitment (COM) CM . CM . CM . CM . Customer Loyalty (CL) CL . CL . CL . CL . CL . CL .

SD

SL

SMC

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

Overall impact: χ  = ., df = , χ /df = ., p < ., CFI = .; NFI = .; TLI = .; GFI = .; RMSEA = .; SRMR = .. Note: SL = standard loadings, M = mean, SD = standard deviation, SMC = squared multiple correlation.

square root of the AVE for each of the constructs (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). As Table 3 indicates, the square root of the AVE for each construct is higher than its correlations with other constructs; hence, the discriminant validity is confirmed. Further, the fitness of the structural model was measured by the squared multiple correlation (SMC). SMC values of all items were over 0.5; i.e., over the threshold criterion of 0.5. Furthermore, from Table 2, all of the items acquired Table . Discriminant validity and reliability values from CFA. Construct α . . . . .

CL CE CS CM CT

. . . . .

CR

AVE

. . . . .

. . . . .











0.882 . 0.854 . . 0.909 . . . 0.870 . . . . 0.899

Note: AVE = average variance extracted, α = Cronbach’s alpha, CR = construct reliability, CE = consumer engagement, CT = customer trust, CS = customer satisfaction, CM = customer commitment, CL = customer loyalty. The bold diagonal factors are the square root of the variance shared among the research factors and its measures. The off-diagonal factors are the correlations among the study constructs.

a mean score more than the mid-scale point of 3.5. The respondents rated overall mean of CT (M = 5.55) the highest, followed by CS (M = 4.98), CL (M = 4.88), CM (M = 4.60); CE (M = 4.43) achieved the lowest score. The mean values of all of the measures are presented in Table 2. Structural equation model (SEM)

The structural model was tested with maximum likelihood estimation using AMOS 16.0 (Table 4) to assess the model fitness and interrelationship among the constructs. The overall model fitness indices χ 2 = 640.338, df = 200, χ 2/df = 3.202, CFI = .95, TLI = .94, NFI = .93, GFI = .86, RMSEA = 0.080, and SRMR = 0.064 reflect good model fit. Test of hypotheses

The first hypotheses were performed to investigate the impact of consumer engagement on customer loyalty. H1 produced standardized regression weight (R2 = 0.80, β = 0.29, p < .05). Hence, H1 is accepted. As can be seen in Table 3, this indicates that the 80% variance of loyalty can be explained by consumer engagement as an independent variable. Further, consumer engagement has significant positive regression weights, signifying that higher consumer engagement can lead to a greater level of intention to recommend, repurchase, and repatronize the service. The second hypothesis was conducted to examine the impact of consumer engagement on customer satisfaction. H2 produced standardized regression weight (R2 = 0.62, β = 0.79, p < .05, t = 4.64); therefore, H2 is supported. The third hypothesis was conducted to investigate Table . Structural equation model (SEM) results.

H H H H H H H H H H

CE → CL CE → CS CE → CT CE → CM CS → CM CT → CM CS → CT CS → CL CT → CL CM → CL

R

β

T value Result (Critical Ratio)

Results

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

Supported Supported Supported Supported Supported Supported Supported Supported Supported Supported

Overall impact: χ  = ., df = , χ /df = ., CFI = ., TLI = ., NFI = ., GFI = ., RMSEA = ., and SRMR = . reflect good model fit. Note: CE = consumer engagement, CT = trust, CS = customer satisfaction, CM = customer commitment, CL = customer loyalty.

JOURNAL OF GLOBAL MARKETING

the relationship between consumer engagement and trust. H3 produced standardized regression weight (R2 = 0.53, β = 0.20, p < .05). Thus, H3 is supported. The fourth hypothesis (H4) was to investigate the impact of consumer engagement on customer commitment. H4 produced standardized regression weight (R2 = 0.81, β = 0.40, p < .05); hence, H4 is accepted. The fifth hypothesis was conducted to examine the influence of customer satisfaction on customer commitment. H5 produced standardized regression weight (R2 = 0.81, β = 0.44, p < .05). Thus, H5 is supported. The sixth hypothesis was performed to investigate the association between trust and customer commitment. H6 produced standardized regression weight (R2 = 0.81, β = 0.14, p < .05) and thus H6 is accepted. The seventh hypothesis was conducted to investigate the relationship between customer satisfaction and trust. H7 produced standardized regression weight (R2 = 0.53, β = 0.29, p < .05); therefore, H7 is supported. The eighth hypothesis was performed to investigate the influence of customer satisfaction on customer loyalty. H8 produced standardized regression weight (R2 = 0.80, β = 0.21, p < .05) and is supported. The power of satisfaction in determining customer loyalty has been demonstrated. The ninth hypothesis was performed to investigate the impact of trust on customer loyalty. H9 produced standardized regression weight (R2 = 0.80, β = 0.35, p < .05). Thus, H9 is supported. Further, trust has a significant positive regression weight, signifying that higher trust can lead to greater levels of repeated purchases or recommendations. The tenth hypothesis was further conducted to examine the relationship between customer commitment and customer loyalty. H10 produced standardized regression weight (R2 = 0.80, β = 0.16, p < .05). Thus, H10 is also supported. As can be seen from Table 4, this illustrates that the 80% variance in customer loyalty can be explained by commitment as an independent variable. It is also significant to mention that all hypotheses were supported by the analysis. The results are presented in Table 4. Mediation test

In order to test this mediation, following Zhao, Lynch, and Chen (2010), this study carried out a full analysis of the covariance structural model using a bootstrap method. Similarly, in testing the mediation effects, an estimating analysis adopted the method suggested by

11

Table . Mediation analysis.

H H H

Relationship

Direct Effects

Total Effects

Indirect Effects

CE → CC →CL CE → CS→CL CE→ CT→CL

. . .

. . .

. . .

Brown (1997) to establish direct, indirect, and total effects. Mediation takes place when an independent factor affects a dependent variable at the same time, while the independent factor affects the mediator which, in turn, influences the dependent factor. It is worth noting that testing the mediating effect in an SEM framework has previously been carried out in the hospitality and tourism literature (e.g., Hapsari et al., 2017; Martinez & Rodriguez del Bosque, 2014; Rather, 2017; So et al., 2013). As shown in Table 5, all of the indirect/mediating effects are significant. Commitment displays the strongest mediation effect between CE and customer loyalty (H11, β = .51). Customer satisfaction also indicates the higher mediating effect between CE and hotel customer loyalty (H112, β = .27). Brand trust was identified to have a minimal mediating effect between CE and customer loyalty (H13, β = .023). Table 5 collates all results and summarizes the findings. Testing an alternate model

The literature recommends that, given the processbased nature of CE (Bowden, 2009a; Brodie et al., 2011; So et al., 2014), few constructs (e.g., customer loyalty, satisfaction, and trust) acting as CE consequences may form an iterative feedback loop, and thus act as CE drivers in subsequent interactions (Brodie et al., 2011; Van Doorn et al., 2010). Hence, this study examined an alternate model to investigate the impact of customer loyalty, trust, and satisfaction on CE. The alternate model showed an acceptable overall fit (χ 2 = 851.910, p < 0.000, df = 201, χ 2/df = 4.01, CFI = 0.932, GFI = 0.84, IFI = 0.932, NFI = 0.913, TLI = 0.922, and RMSEA = 0.08). The results also reveal the positive influence of customer loyalty on CE (β = 0.21; t = 3.65, p < 0.000). The results indicate a positive impact of customer satisfaction on CE (β = 0.57; t = 11.32, p < 0.000). The results reveal the negative influence of trust on CE (β = –0.1; t = –1.34, p < 0.05). However, these effects are weaker than the effects of CE on customer loyalty, trust, and satisfaction. Further, the influence of trust on CE is insignificant. The results of the alternative model are shown in Table 6.

12

R. A. RATHER

Table . Alternate model results.

H H H

CL→ CE CS→ CE CT → CE

B

T Value (Critical Ratio)

Result

. . − .

. . − .

Supported Supported Not Supported

Overall impact: χ  = ., p < ., df = , χ /df = ., CFI = ., GFI = ., IFI = ., NFI = ., TLI = ., and RMSEA = ..

Discussion and implications

The growing literature on customer management highlights the vital role of CE in enhancing customer relationships. The literature has acknowledged the emerging importance of CE as a strategy necessary for building customer relationships (Marketing Science Institute, 2016; Rather & Sharma, 2017a). Measuring the influence of CE on satisfaction, trust, commitment and, ultimately, customer loyalty in a more comprehensive hierarchical model is an essential development for service marketing, specifically for the hospitality industry. This study reveals that CE predicts a customer’s loyalty towards a hotel service provider, emphasizing the significance of fostering CE. While prior research established the importance of purchaserelated loyalty antecedents, such as trust, commitment, service quality, and satisfaction (Hapsari et al., 2017; So et al., 2014), the findings of this research suggest that CE beyond a purchase can also increase customer loyalty. In today’s highly networked era (Hollebeek et al., 2016), the development of a loyal customer base is a real organizational challenge. The present findings suggest the adoption of a managerial CE orientation to build and maintain customer loyalty (Islam et al., 2017; Rather & Sharma, 2016a). By validating loyalty as a CE consequence, this study empirically validates earlier conceptual findings (Bowden, 2009a; Brodie et al., 2011; Van Doorn et al., 2010). Thus, the construct of CE has only been empirically measured in a small number of studies. Empirical studies on CE have been investigated in social media (Dessart et al., 2016; Hollebeek et al., 2014); in physical goods (Vivek et al., 2012, 2014); a combination of both airline and hotel industries (So et al., 2014); in the airline industry (Hapsari et al., 2017); in heritage tourism sites (Bryce et al., 2015); in tourism social media brands (Harrigan et al., 2017); and with online websites and social media (Hollebeek et al., 2014). Furthermore, CE studies have been performed by using qualitative research methods (Brodie et al., 2013; Hollebeek, 2011). Therefore, the study results are consistent with research of theoretical

studies done by (Bowden, 2009a; Brodie et al., 2011; Van Doorn et al., 2010) and the empirical studies of Dessart et al. (2016), Dwivedi (2015), Hapsari et al. (2017), Sharma and Rather (2016), and So et al. (2014). The CE construct has only recently attracted the interest of marketing scholars as they start to explore the constructs which are important in a service marketing context (Brodie et al., 2011; Dessart et al., 2016; Hapsari et al., 2017; Moliner et al., 2018; Sharma & Rather, 2017; Vivek et al., 2012). This current study validates the measurement items and demonstrates that CE is a crucial predictor of customer loyalty, commitment, satisfaction, and trust. These results suggest that CE is an essential construct for the hospitality industry to incorporate when formulating strategic marketing. Theoretical implications

This study makes significant innovative contributions to the literature in several ways. First, various authors have proposed the conceptual frameworks of CE, but there is a lack of empirical validation for such (Calder et al., 2016; Hapsari et al., 2017; So et al., 2012; Van Doorn et al., 2010; Vivek et al., 2012). The study contributes by developing and empirically validating a research model explaining interrelationships among CE, satisfaction, trust, commitment, and loyalty within the hospitality industry. This study not only investigates the direct relationships, but also the mediating effects among selected higher-order marketing constructs. Therefore, this empirical examination of the relationship between these constructs serves as an essential step toward building further knowledge of CE in the context of customer brand relationship development, hence contributing to the existing literature. Secondly, as mentioned earlier, various studies on CE have been conducted in an online context (Brodie et al., 2013; Dessart et al., 2016; Islam et al., 2017), making the CE construct unexplored in an offline setting, although consumers also engage with product or services brands offline (Hapsari et al., 2017; Islam & Rahman, 2016; Rather & Sharma, 2017a). Thus, studying CE with service settings or product brands in an offline setting is an extra contribution of this research. Therefore, another important theoretical contribution of the present study has been to develop a concept that identifies and responds to the calls for research of the Marketing Science Institute (2016). In addition, earlier studies on customer loyalty variables have

JOURNAL OF GLOBAL MARKETING

primarily focused on trust, satisfaction, and commitment, but have left unexplored the consumer engagement construct (Hapsari et al., 2017; Harrigan et al., 2017; Rather & Sharma, 2017a; So et al., 2014). Hence, CE, as an antecedent, is gathering rising interest for loyalty within service marketing industries (Hapsari et al., 2017; Moliner et al., 2018; Rather & Sharma, 2017a; So et al., 2014). Furthermore, this study has theoretically contributed to work on CE (e.g., Dessart et al., 2016; Harrigan et al., 2017; Hollebeek et al., 2016; Moliner et al., 2018; Rather & Sharma, 2017a; So et al., 2014). Previous literature emphasizes the need to study CE across countries and contexts (Brodie et al., 2011; Hollebeek et al., 2016; Islam et al., 2017; So et al., 2014). This study also responds to calls for context-specific CE scale validation (e.g., Calder et al., 2016). The research has also utilized the more appropriate SEM analysis. So et al. (2014) and Rather and Sharma’s (2017a) CE scale indicated excellent fit in a hospitality context, which reinforces its usefulness. Likewise, the nomological net within which So et al. (2014) and Rather and Sharma’s (2017a) positioned CE is suitable, based on its application to hospitality contexts. The constructs relate well to one another, and the model as a whole explains a large proportion of the variance. Thus, the utilization of social exchange theory as a lens through which to explore CE is also established as useful. Social exchange theory is extensively employed in tourism and hospitality research and proposed as an underpinning theory for CE. Social exchange theory holds that persons enter and maintain relationships with other parties only when the costs are outweighed by expected benefits (Blau, 1964; Guo et al., 2017; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). This is the essence of CE, where consumers devote cognitive, affective, and behavioral resources to engage with brands (Hollebeek, 2011). Engagement, underpinned by relationship marketing and servicedominant logic, only happens when both parties are perceived to be equally investing resources (Brodie et al., 2011; Hollebeek, 2011). The findings indicate that consumers who are involved with a hospitality brand (hotel), having made cognitive and/or affective investments in it, are more likely to continue to engage with the brand (hotel) to accrue further benefits (Blau, 1964; Guo et al., 2017; Harrigan et al., 2017). In turn, this engagement will tend to reinforce satisfaction, trust, commitment, and customer loyalty.

13

Finally, this work also contributes to the CE literature through the conduction of its empirical study in a non-Western context, thereby affording an initial understanding of offline-based CE in a collectivist, emerging economy setting (Hapsari et al., 2017; Rather & Sharma, 2017a). Though developing economies like India represent the most rapidly expanding markets with significant business (growth) opportunities for multinational companies (Islam et al., 2017), little CE research has been undertaken in emerging economic contexts (Islam & Rahman, 2016; Rather & Sharma, 2017a; Sharma & Rather, 2016, 2017), as addressed in this research. Managerial implications

Several managerial implications arise from the research results. The present research provides an essential tool for hospitality marketing managers to effectively measure the effectiveness of marketing strategies developed to engage with their customer base. Moreover, measuring the consumer engagement’s influence on loyalty reflects psychological processes and demonstrates the connection between customers and a specific service/brand. The connection drives favorable behavioral and repurchasing intentions, and leads to repatronizing and recommendations of a hotel service. The empirical results indicated that Indian hospitality needs to foster CE in order to retain more loyal customers and improve competitiveness. There are several methods that management can use to enhance CE within the hospitality industry. Generating excitement and passion in customers for a hotel brand enhances CE. Consumers’ excitement and passion towards a particular hotel brand can be created by enhancing brand prestige and customers’ social recognition (Bizman & Yinon, 2002). Once hotels are aware of how important CE is as an antecedent of increased customer loyalty, they should be able to create customer excitement and passion. Star hotels usually have a stable and positive brand image which supports their ranking, and they should be able to take advantage of their position in the hospitality industry to stimulate excitement and passion. Two other essential drivers of CE are customers’ attention and absorption towards the hospitality brand. In order to support customers’ brand attention and absorption, hotel management needs to ensure that positive information, news, and publicity related to the

14

R. A. RATHER

hotel brand are easily accessed by customers. Building a user-friendly website and participating in corporate social responsibility programs are two methods that can be used to gain attention and motivate customers (Hapsari et al., 2017). Hotel companies also need to build strong brand communities and/or social media platforms to further facilitate customers’ interaction as another determinant of CE. Hence, firms need to establish possibilities for interactions and incentives, like reward and recognition schemes, to enhance a customer’s participation. Certainly, repeat interaction between customers and hotel brands/providers provides various opportunities for relationship marketing to exist. These kinds of social interactions should assist in keeping customers engaged within the hospitality industry (Harrigan et al., 2017), and to build solid identification, as identification is another vital determinant of CE. Hotel management should produce distinctive and sound brand identification and identity, focusing on identification preferred by the target customer groups, as it allocates long-term differentiation and helps to boost a customer’s identification with the hotel brand/provider. Social media is the ideal channel to support a customer’s absorption, identification, and interaction with a brand (hotel). However, these are complex cognitive, affective, and behavioral components. Hotel providers/brands should understand how to effectively use various functions of social media, such as reviews, comments, and blogs, all of which can be both marketer- and user-generated, to foster these three different components of engagement with a brand (Hapsari et al., 2017; Harrigan et al., 2017; Rather, 2017). Further, hospitality managers and companies may increase consumer engagement using several strategies. One example is public activities, like sponsorships, charity works, social campaigns, or other corporate social responsibility activities (Martinez & Rodriguez del Bosque, 2014; Rather, 2017). Similarly, public relations, advertising and marketing campaigns can also act as key tools which can further influence the customer’s perception of consumer engagement. In this study, measuring the influence of CE on customer loyalty (R2 = 0.80, β = 0.29, p < .05, t = 4.64) is the most influential and important finding, because this is the first empirical examination that integrates CE with the other higher-order marketing constructs on the basis of hospitality customers’ perception. The influential results illustrate that CE has the most

significant impact on loyalty when contrasted with the other marketing factors. Thus, the empirical results reveal that psychological processes and psychological connection between a customer and a particular provider or brand drive an intention to re-patronize or recommend a hospitality service. Engaged consumers may be passionate about the hotel, and when consumers hear a compliment about “their” hotel, it can act like a compliment for themselves, further enhancing a strong psychological attachment towards the specific hotel brand. These types of connections make it more likely that customers would have a continuous relationship with the brand, and this relationship will inspire them to re-patronize, recommend, and repurchase the hotel service. Hence, engaged customers are more likely to have a higher behavioral intention to recommend the brand and to re-patronize the service to others. Based on SEM analysis, CE is also a vital construct influencing customer satisfaction. The association between CE and customer satisfaction is significant and positive (R2 = 0.62, β = 0.79, t = 16.53), demonstrating that highly engaged customers are expected to be satisfied with the provider or brand. Similarly, there is a need to understand the influence of CE on customer commitment. Based on SEM testing, CE is also a key construct affecting customer commitment. The relationship between CE and commitment is also significant and positive (β = 0.40, t = 7.38), signifying that highly engaged customers are more likely to be committed with the provider or brand. In addition, there is also a great prerequisite to know the impact of CE on customer trust. Based on SEM examination, CE is a key construct affecting customer trust. The relationship between CE and customer trust is significant and positive (β = 0.20, t = 2.83), indicating that highly engaged customers are most likely to develop trust in the relationship with the provider or brand. Likewise, customer satisfaction was found to have a larger positive effect on commitment, followed by trust and customer loyalty. Similarly, trust contributes more towards customer loyalty, followed by satisfaction and commitment. Further, the model relating to these constructs remains scant. While studies have usually found that customer satisfaction persuades customer loyalty (e.g., Liat et al., 2014, 2017; Rather & Sharma, 2017b), few investigators have argued that customer satisfaction does not necessarily lead to customer loyalty (Skogland & Siguaw, 2004). Despite

JOURNAL OF GLOBAL MARKETING

contrasting findings of customer satisfaction in relation to customer loyalty, the findings of this study are in line with other research done in the hotel sector; that is, customers who are satisfied with the services rendered by the hotel would probably be loyal customers (Kandampully & Suhartanto, 2000; Liat et al., 2017; Rather, 2017). The findings confirmed the marketing theory that customer satisfaction has a positive influence on loyalty. Loyalty is a valuable asset for a company, particularly in the hotel industry, where there is a very keen competition. As the cost of successfully attracting a new customer is 6 to 15 times more costly than that of sustaining an existing customer, hotel managers have to adopt marketing approaches which increase customer satisfaction. For instance, suggestion or feedback programs should be emphasized by most hotels, as this method can aid in identifying any weak areas that need improvement in their operation. This can be performed with the use of survey forms, which can be distributed either through email or at the front desk. Effective strategies will facilitate translating customer satisfaction into customer loyalty, beyond attracting potential customers. Similarly, commitment is an essential inclusion in the model, as it is involved with emotional bonds, sense of belonging, competitiveness of the value proposition, and enduring relationships. The empirical result reveals that commitment to hotel customers contributes to customer loyalty in the Indian hospitality industry. The practical implication for star hotel managers in India is that they have to place a lot more importance on the maintenance and building of valued relationships. They should also provide personalized services to meet customer needs where necessary. The finding maintains the view that commitment is an essential driver of customer loyalty in the hospitality sector (e.g., Martinez & Rodriguez del Bosque, 2014; Narteh et al., 2013; Rather, 2017). In addition, trust emerges as equally essential as satisfaction in the development of customer loyalty. The strength of the relationship between trust and customer loyalty in the study model also highlights the need for hoteliers to portray their service as reliable, trustworthy, and as having the customer’s top interests at heart. Similarly, trust has a direct impact on commitment. The empirical results demonstrate that brand trust emerges as an essential driver of commitment in developing valuable and important relationships with customers, consistent with research that establishes

15

trust guides to loyalty and commitment in hospitality settings (Bowen & Shoemaker, 1998; Martinez & Rodriguez del Bosque, 2014; Rather, 2017). This present research not only found a direct relationship between CE and other higher-order marketing constructs, but also explored the mediating roles of commitment, trust, and satisfaction. An appealing finding in this study is the mediating effects of commitment, satisfaction, and trust on the relationship between CE and loyalty. Commitment displays the strongest mediation effect between CE and customer loyalty (H11, β = .51). Customer satisfaction also indicates the higher mediating effect between CE and hotel customer loyalty (H112, β = .27). Trust was identified to have a minimal mediating effect between CE and customer loyalty (H13, β = .023). Therefore, the other main contribution of this research has been to demonstrate how different and/or alternative paths exist among these factors. This study also examined an alternate model to investigate the impact of customer loyalty, trust, and satisfaction on CE. The results reveal the positive influence of customer loyalty on CE (β = 0.21; t = 3.65, p < 0.000). The results also indicate the positive impact of satisfaction on CE (β = 0.57; t = 11.32, p < 0.000). The results reveal a negative influence of trust on CE (β = −0.1; t = −1.34, p < 0.05). However, these effects are weaker than the effects of CE on customer loyalty, trust, and satisfaction. Thus, the other main contribution of this research has been to demonstrate how alternative paths of trust, satisfaction, and loyalty influence CE. Limitations and direction for future research

Despite the theoretical and practical implications, the study is not without limitations. The limitations of this study can guide future research. The results of this study are based on a convenience sample and the perceptions of customers from four- and five-star hotels in India. A convenience sample does not represent the population of all Indian four- and five-star hotel customers. Since the study employed convenience sampling, the generated results cannot be generalized. For instance, the findings of this study should be interpreted with caution when applied to different types of hotels (two- and three-star) and/or different industries in India or other countries. Thus, it is recommended

16

R. A. RATHER

to replicate this study using a random sample. It can be further recommended to conduct research using a diverse sample of nationalities, (as in this study 65% of customers are from India and 35% of customers are foreigners), which can guide hotel managers in identifying customers’ perceptions of CE practices by allowing them to provide customization and strategic implementation. Future research may replicate the theoretical research model used in this research and apply it to predict customer loyalty in other service industries and in other countries with different cultures. A replication of the framework utilized in this research to other industrial contexts would increase the understanding of the factors affecting loyalty, particularly in the area of customer relationship management. In addition, there is a need to certify research models in one context with empirical examinations in another context. Hence, investigating if the theoretical relationships identified in this research can be generalized to all hotel customers, both in four/five star hotels and three/two star hotels, will contribute to extant literature. The literature also recommends that CE can influence other facets, such as internal marketing practices, customer experience, brand image, brand equity, involvement, co-creation, customer equity, service innovation, and customer emotions, which may either act as antecedents or outcomes to CE. The study of the relationship among these variables in service contexts is the subject of future research (Rather & Sharma, 2017a; Sharma & Rather, 2016; Van Doorn et al., 2010). A deeper knowledge of the CE construct may be gained by an exploratory study. Many scholars (Hapsari et al., 2017; Van Doorn et al., 2010) consider that CE is a single construct, while other scholars identify CE as a multidimensional construct (Dessart et al., 2016; Harrigan et al., 2017; Rather & Sharma, 2017a; So et al., 2014; Vivek et al., 2014). An exploratory study may offer new insights into the dimensions of CE construct. The study is based on the adaption of scales by mixing items from different scales. Thus, future research should be examined using qualitative examination to gain new insights about CE and other constructs of the study. Finally, this study model can be tested on most popular hospitality and tourism brands on social media. ORCID Raouf Ahmad Rather

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9242-1165

References Adamson, I., Chan, K. M., & Handford, D. (2003). Relationship marketing: Customer commitment and trust as a strategy for the smaller Hong Kong corporate banking sector. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 21(6/7), 347–358. doi:10.1108/02652320310498492 Anderson, E. W., Fornell, C., & Lehmann, D. R. (1994). Customer satisfaction, market share, and profitability: Findings from Sweden. Journal of Marketing, 5(8), 53–66. doi:10.2307/1252310 Anderson, E. W., & Mittal, V. (2000). Strengthening the satisfaction-profit chain. Journal of Service Research, 3(2), 107–120. doi:10.1177/109467050032001 Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modelling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411 Ashley, C., Noble, S. M., Donthu, N., & Lemon, K. N. (2011). Why customers won’t relate: Obstacles to relationship marketing engagement. Journal of Business Research, 64(7), 749–756. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.07.006 Bentler, P. M. (1992). On the fit of models to covariances and methodology to the bulletin. Psychological Bulletin, 112(3), 400–404. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.3.400 Bentler, P. M., & Bonnett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606. doi:10.1037/00332909.88.3.588 Bizman, A., & Yinon, Y. (2002). Engaging in distancing tactics among sport fans: Effects on self-esteem and emotional responses. The Journal of Social Psychology, 142(3), 381–392. doi:10.1080/00224540209603906 Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Bowden, J. L., Dagger, T. S., & Elliott, G. (2013). Engaging customers for loyalty in the restaurant industry: The role of satisfaction, trust, and delight. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 16(1), 52–75. doi:10.1080/15378020.2013.761025 Bowden, J. L. H. (2009a). The process of customer engagement: A conceptual framework. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 17(1), 63–74. doi:10.2753/MTP1069-6679170105 Bowden, J. L. H. (2009b). Customer engagement: A framework for assessing customer-brand relationships: The case of the restaurant industry. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 18(6), 574–596. doi:10.1080/19368620903024983 Bowen, J. T., & Shoemaker, S. (1998). Loyalty: A strategic commitment. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 39(1), 12–25. doi:10.1177/001088049803900104 Brodie, R. J., Hollebeek, L. D., Juric, B., & Ilic, A. (2011). Customer engagement: Conceptual domain, fundamental propositions, and implications for research. Journal of Service Research, 14 (3), 252–271. doi:10.1177/1094670511411703 Brodie, R. J., Ilic, A., Juric, B., & Hollebeek, L. (2013). Consumer engagement in a virtual brand community: An exploratory

JOURNAL OF GLOBAL MARKETING

analysis. Journal of Business Research, 66 (1), 105–114. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.07.029 Brown, R. L. (1997). Assessing specific mediational effects in complex theoretical models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 4(2), 142–156. doi:10.1080/10705519709540067 Browning, V., So, K. K. F., & Sparks, B. (2013). The influence of online reviews on consumers’ attributions of service quality and control for service standards in hotels. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 30(1–2), 23–40. doi:10.1080/10548408.2013.750971 Bryce, D., Ross, C., Kevin, O. G., & Taheri, B. (2015). Visitors engagement and authenticity: Japanese heritage consumption. Tourism Management, 46, 571–581. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2014.08.012 Byrne, B. M. (2016). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York: Routledge. Calder, B. J., Malthouse, E. C., & Maslowska, E. (2016). Brand marketing, big data and social innovation as future research directions for engagement. Journal of Marketing Management, 32(5–6), 579–585. doi:10.1080/0267257X.2016.1144326 Cater, B., & Zabkar, V. (2009). Antecedents and consequences of commitment in marketing research services: The client’s perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 38(7), 785–797. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2007.10.004 Clemes, M. D., Gan, C., & Ren, M. (2011). Synthesizing the effects of service quality, value, and customer satisfaction on behavioral intentions in the motel industry. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 35(4), 530–568. doi:10.1177/1096348010382239 Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900. doi:10.1177/0149206305279602 Dessart, L., Veloutsou, C., & Morgan-Thomas, A. (2016). Capturing consumer engagement: Duality, dimensionality and measurement. Journal of Marketing Management, 32(5–6), 399–426. doi:10.1080/0267257X.2015.1130738 Dong, S., Ding, M., Grewal, R., & Zhao, P. (2011). Functional forms of the satisfaction loyalty relationship. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 28(1), 38–50. doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2010.09.002 Dwivedi, A. (2015). A higher-order model of consumer brand engagement and its impact on loyalty intentions. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 24, 100–109. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2015.02.007 Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2003). You are what they eat: The influence of reference groups on consumers connections to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3), 339–348. doi:10.1207/S15327663JCP1303_14 Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. doi:10.2307/3151312 Garbarino, E., & Johnson, M. (1999). The different roles of satisfaction, trust and commitment in customer relationships. Journal of Marketing, 63, 70–87. doi:10.2307/1251946

17

Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J., Scheer, L., & Kumar, N. (1996). The effects of trust and interdependence on relationship commitment: A transatlantic study. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13, 303–317. doi:10.1016/S01678116(96)00006-7 Gronroos, C. (1996). Relationship marketing logic. AsiaAustralia Marketing Journal, 4(1), 7–18. doi:10.1016/S13201646(96)70264-2 Guo, L., Gruen, T. W., & Tang, C. (2017). Seeing relationships through the lens of psychological contracts: The structure of consumer service relationships. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45, 357–376. doi:10.1007/s11747-0150462-5 Hapsari, R., Clemes, M. D., & Dean, D. (2017). The impact of service quality, customer engagement and selected marketing constructs on airline passenger loyalty. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 9(1), 21–40. doi:10.1108/IJQSS-07-2016-0048 Harrigan, P., Evers, U., Miles, M., & Daly, T. (2017). Customer engagement with tourism social media brands. Tourism Management, 59, 597–609. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2016.09.015 Harris, L. C., & Goode, M. M. H. (2004). The four levels of loyalty and the pivotal role of trust: A study of online service dynamics. Journal of Retailing, 80(2), 139–158. doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2004.04.002 Hashim, K. F., & Tan, F. B. (2015). The mediating role of trust and commitment on members’ continuous knowledge sharing intention: A commitment-trust theory perspective. International Journal of Information Management, 35(2), 145–151. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.11.001 Heitmann, M., Lehmann, D. R., & Herrmann, A. (2007). Choice goal attainment and decision and consumption satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(2), 234–250. doi:10.1509/jmkr.44.2.234 Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K., & Gremler, D. (2002). Understanding relationship marketing outcomes: An integration of relational benefits and relationship quality. Journal of Service Research, 4, 230–247. doi:10.1177/1094670502004003006 Higgins, E. T., & Scholer, A. A. (2009). Engaging the consumer: The science and art of the value creation process. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(2), 100–114. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2009.02.002 Hollebeek, L. D. (2011). Demystifying customer brand engagement: Exploring the loyalty nexus. Journal of Marketing Management, 27(7/8), 1–23. Hollebeek, L. D. (2013). The customer engagement/value interface: An exploratory investigation. Australasian Marketing Journal, 21(1), 17–24. doi:10.1016/j.ausmj.2012.08.006 Hollebeek, L. D., Conduit, J., & Brodie, R. (2016). Strategic drivers, anticipated and unanticipated outcomes of customer engagement. Journal of Marketing Management, 32(5–6), 393–398. doi:10.1080/0267257X.2016.1144360 Hollebeek, L. D., Glynn, M. S., & Brodie, R. J. (2014). Consumer brand engagement in social media: Conceptualization, scale development and validation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 28(2), 149–165. doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2013.12.002

18

R. A. RATHER

Hoyer, W. D., Chandy, R., Dorotic, M., Krafft, M., & Singh, S. S. (2010). Consumer cocreation in new product development. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 283–296. doi:10.1177/1094670510375604 Islam, J. U., & Rahman, Z. (2016). Examining the effects of brand love and brand image on customer engagement: An empirical study of fashion apparel brands. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, 7(1), 45–59. doi:10.1080/20932685.2015.1110041 Islam, J. U., Rahman, Z., & Hollebeek, L. D. (2017). Consumer engagement in online brand communities: A solicitation of congruity theory. Internet Research (in press). Jacoby, J., & Kyner, D. B. (1973). Brand loyalty vs. repeat purchasing behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 10(1), 1–9. doi:10.2307/3149402 Jang, S. S., & Namkung, Y. (2009). Perceived quality, emotions, and behavioral intentions: Application of an extended Mehrabian-Russell model to restaurants. Journal of Business Research, 62(4), 451–460. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.01.038 Jani, D., & Han, H. (2011). Investigating the key factors affecting behavioral intentions: Evidence from a fullservice restaurant setting. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 23(7), 1000–1018. doi:10.1108/09596111111167579 Johnson, M., Gustafsson, A., Andreassen, T., Lervik, L., & Cha, J. (2001). The evolution and future of national customer satisfaction index models. Journal of Economic Psychology, 22, 217–245. doi:10.1016/S0167-4870(01)00030-7 Johnson, M. D., & Fornell, C. (1991). A framework for comparing customer satisfaction across individuals and product categories. Journal of Economic Psychology, 12(2), 267–286. doi:10.1016/0167-4870(91)90016-M Kandampully, J., & Suhartanto, D. (2000). Customer loyalty in the hotel industry: The role of customer satisfaction and image. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 12(6), 346–351. doi:10.1108/09596110010342559 Keh, H. T., & Xie, Y. (2009). Corporate reputation and customer behavioral intentions: The role of trust, identification and commitment. Industrial Marketing Management, 38, 732– 742. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2008.02.005 Liat, C. B., Mansori, S., Chuan, G. C., & Imrie, B. C. (2017). Hotel service recovery and service quality: Influences of corporate image and generational differences in the relationship between customer satisfaction and loyalty. Journal of Global Marketing, 30(1), 42–51. doi:10.1080/08911762.2016.1262932 Liat, C. B., Mansori, S., & Uuei, C, T. (2014). The associations between service quality, corporate image, customer satisfaction, and loyalty: Evidence from the Malaysian hotel industry. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 23, 314–326. doi:10.1080/19368623.2013.796867 Marketing Science Institute. (2016). Research priorities. Boston, MA: Author. Marshall, N. W. (2010). Commitment, loyalty and customer lifetime value: Investigating the relationships among key

determinants. Journal of Business & Economics Research, 8(8), 67–84. Martinez, P., & Rodriguez Del Bosque Rodriguez, I. (2014). Exploring the antecedents of hotel customer loyalty: A social identity perspective. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 24(1), 1–23. Mittal, V., & Kamakura, A. W. (2001). Satisfaction, repurchase intent and repurchase behavior: Investigating the moderating effect of customer characteristics. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(1), 131–142. doi:10.1509/jmkr.38.1.131.18832 Moliner, M. Á., Monferrer, D., & Estrada, M. (2018). Consequences of customer engagement and customer self-brand connection. Journal of Services Marketing (in press). https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-08-2016-032. doi:10.1108/JSM-08-2016-0320 Mollen, A., & Wilson, H. (2010). Engagement, telepresence and interactivity in online consumer experience: Reconciling scholastic and managerial perspectives. Journal of Business Research, 63(9–10), 919–925. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.05.014 Moorman, C., Zaltman, G., & Deshpande, R. (1992). Relationships between providers and users of marketing research: The dynamics of trust within and between organizations. Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 314–328. doi:10.2307/3172742 Morgan, R., & Hunt, S. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58, 20–38. doi:10.2307/1252308 Narteh, B., Agbemabiese, G. C., Kodua, P., & Braimah, M. (2013). Relationship marketing and customer loyalty: Evidence from the Ghanaian luxury hotel industry. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 22(4), 407–436. doi:10.1080/19368623.2012.660564 Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Oyner, O., & Korelina, A. (2016). The influence of customer engagement in value co-creation on customer satisfaction: Searching for new forms of co-creation in the Russian hotel industry. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 8(3), 327–345. doi:10.1108/WHATT-02-2016-0005 Pizam, A., & Ellis, T. (1999). Customer satisfaction and its measurement in hospitality enterprises. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 11(7), 326–339. doi:10.1108/09596119910293231 Rather, R. A. (2017). Investigating the impact of customer brand identification on hospitality brand loyalty: A social identity perspective. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management (in press). doi:10.1080/19368623.2018.1404539 Rather, R. A., & Sharma, J. (2016a). Brand loyalty with hospitality brands: The role of customer brand identification, brand satisfaction and brand commitment. Pacific Business Review International, 1(3), 76–86. Rather, R. A., & Sharma, J. (2016b). Customer engagement in strengthening customer loyalty in hospitality sector. South Asian Journal of Tourism and Heritage, 9(2), 62–81.

JOURNAL OF GLOBAL MARKETING

Rather, R. A., & Sharma, J. (2017a). Customer engagement for evaluating customer relationships in hotel industry. European Journal of Tourism Hospitality and Recreation, 8(1), 1– 13. doi:10.1515/ejthr-2017-0001 Rather, R. A., & Sharma, J. (2017b). The effects of customer satisfaction and commitment on customer loyalty: Evidence from the hotel industry. Journal of Hospitality Application & Research, 12(2), 41–60. Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600– 619. doi:10.1108/02683940610690169 Sashi, C. M. (2012). Customer engagement, buyer-seller relationships, and social media. Management Decision, 50(2), 253–272. doi:10.1108/00251741211203551 Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71–92. doi:10.1023/A:1015630930326 Selnes, F. (1998). Antecedents and consequences of trust and satisfaction in buyer-seller relationship. European Journal of Marketing, 32(4), 305–322. doi:10.1108/03090569810204580 Sharma, J., & Rather, R. A. (2015). Understanding the customer experience: An exploratory study of “A” category hotels. International Journal on Customer Relations, 3(2), 21–31. doi:10.21863/ijcr/2015.3.2.010 Sharma, J., & Rather, R. A. (2016). The role of customer engagement in ensuring sustainable development in hospitality sector. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Systems, 9(1), 33–43. Sharma, J., & Rather, R. A. (2017). Investigating the role of customer engagement in hospitality sector. Paper presented at the annual conference of emerging markets conference board: Reaching consumers in emerging markets, Lucknow Noida, India, January 5–7. Skogland, I., & Siguaw, J. A. (2004). Are your satisfied customers loyal? Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 45(3), 221–234 doi:10.1177/0010880404265231 So, K. K. F., King, C., & Sparks, B. (2012). Customer engagement with tourism brands scale development and validation. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 38(3), 304– 329. doi:10.1177/1096348012451456 So, K. K. F., King, C., Sparks, B., & Wang, Y. (2013). The influence of customer company identification on hotel brand evaluation and loyalty development. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 34, 31–41. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.02.002 So, K. K. F., King, C., Sparks, B., & Wang, Y. (2014). The role of customer engagement in building consumer loyalty to tourism brands. Journal of Travel Research, 55(1), 64–78. doi:10.1177/0047287514541008 Sparks, B. A., & Browning, V. (2011). The impact of online reviews on hotel booking intentions and perception of trust. Tourism Management, 32(6), 1310–1323. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2010.12.011

19

Sprott, D., Czellar, S., & Spangenberg, E. (2009). The importance of a general measure of brand engagement on market behavior: Development and validation of a scale. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(1), 92–104. doi:10.1509/jmkr.46.1.92 Su, L., Swanson, S. C., Chinchanachokchai, S., Hsu, M. K., & Chen, X. (2016). Reputation and intentions: The role of satisfaction, identification, and commitment. Journal of Business Research, 69(9), 3261–3269. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.02.023 Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Urban, G., L., Sultan, F., & Qualls, W. J. (2000). Placing trust at the center of your internet strategy. Sloan Management Review, 42(1), 39–49. Van Doorn, J., Lemon, K. N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P., & Verhoef, P. C. (2010). Customer engagement behavior: Theoretical foundations and research directions. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 253–266. doi:10.1177/1094670510375599 Vargo, S., & Lusch, R. (2008). Service-dominant logic: Continuing the evolution. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 1–10. doi:10.1007/s11747-007-0069-6 Vivek, S. D., Beatty, S. E., Dalela, V., & Morgan, R. M. (2014). A generalized multidimensional scale for measuring customer engagement. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 22(4), 401–420. doi:10.2753/MTP1069-6679220404 Vivek, S. D., Beatty, S. E., & Morgan, R. M. (2012). Customer engagement: Exploring customer relationships beyond purchase. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 20(2), 122– 146. doi:10.2753/MTP1069-6679200201 Ye, Q., Law, R., & Gu, B. (2009). The impact of online user reviews on hotel room sales. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28(1), 180–182. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2008.06.011 Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., Jr., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197–206.

Appendix: List of items Consumer engagement (CE) I am passionate about this hotel (CE1) I am enthusiastic about this hotel (CE2) Anything related to this hotel grabs my attention (CE3) I am immersed in my interaction with this hotel (CE4) In general, I thoroughly enjoy exchanging ideas with other customers (CE5) When interacting with the hotel, it is difficult to detach myself (CE6)

20

R. A. RATHER

When someone praises this hotel, it feels like a personal compliment (CE7) I am proud of this hotel’s success (CE8) Customer trust (CT) I trust this hotel (CT1) This is an honest hotel (CT2) This hotel is safe (CT3) I feel that this hotel is of very high integrity (CT4) Customer satisfaction (CS) I am satisfied with this hotel and the services provided (CS1) The service of this hotel meets my expectations (CS2) I feel that my experience with this hotel has been enjoyable (CS3) I think I did the right thing by staying at this hotel (CS4)

Customer commitment (CM) I feel committed to this hotel (CM1) I feel emotionally attached to this hotel (CM2) It would be hard for me to not choose this hotel, even if I wanted to (CM3) I would choose this hotel because I have sense of obligation to it (CM4) Customer loyalty (CL) I would recommend this hotel to someone who seeks my advice (CL1) I would encourage friends and relatives to do business with this hotel (CL2) I would say positive things about this hotel to other people (CL3) I will do more business with this hotel in the next few years (CL4) I am a loyal customer of this hotel (CL5) I intend to keep patronizing this hotel (CL6)