Tourism Management 65 (2018) 69e86

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

Co-created value: Multidimensional scale and nomological network

James A. Busser a, *, Lenna V. Shulga b
a
William F. Harrah College of Hotel Administration, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, 4505 Maryland Parkway, Box 456021, Las Vegas, NV 89154-6021, USA
b
School of Travel Industry Management, University of Hawaiʻi at Ma
noa, 2560 Campus Road, George Hall 219, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA

h i g h l i g h t s

The multi-stage multi-step method was used to develop the new co-created value scale.

The co-created value scale is multi-dimensional construct with 5 dimensions and 25 items.

The co-created value measure positively correlates with customer loyalty.

The positive predictors of co-created value are openness and brand authenticity.

The significant outcomes of co-created value are wellbeing, service advantage and trust.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Although, increasing interest is given to value co-creation in service industries, including tourism and
Received 10 March 2017 hospitality, there is a lack of a valid and reliable instrument that measures value from the co-created
Received in revised form perspective. Study addresses a research gap by developing conceptually grounded and psychometri-
14 September 2017
cally sound scale of co-created value. Derived from service-dominant logic and theory of value, co-
Accepted 17 September 2017
created value is conceptualized as a personal appraisal of the meaningfulness of a service based on
what is contributed and what is realized through collaboration. The scale development and validation
followed multi-step multi-stage methodology and verified the measure in different tourism and hos-
Keywords:
Co-created value
pitality contexts. The analyses resulted in 25-item 5-dimension original scale representing: meaning-
Scale development fulness, contribution, collaboration, recognition and emotional response. The co-created value scale was
Service-dominant logic tested for concurrent validity using consumer loyalty as a part of the nomological network, with ante-
Wellbeing cedents operationalized as openness and authenticity and consequences as well-being, competitive
Service advantage advantage, commitment, and trust.
Trust © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction explore a “virtual travel experience” through the virtual travel

Hospitality and tourism service providers are engaging cus-
tomers in co-creation activities with the aim of reciprocally
achieving positive outcomes. Marriott launched the website
travelbrilliantly.com in 2013 centered on collaboration with its
many customers. Marriott used a contest on the website to
encourage customers to submit “ideas” and “co-create with us”
(https://travel-brilliantly.marriott.com). Grand prize contest win-
ners were announced and their ideas implemented across the
complex Marriott business network. Marriott has since stimulated
sharing “ideas for healthier travel” and offered opportunities to
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: james.busser@unlv.edu (J.A. Busser), shulga@hawaii.edu
(L.V. Shulga).
teleporter (Shayon, 2014). In 2014, TripAdvisor announced video-
advertisement contests open to its fan base to submit best and
worst travel experiences (www.tripadvisor.com). Recent AirBnB
commercials include customers and hosts in the creation of travel
destination promotions (www.aribnb.com).
Despite increasing interest in co-creation between consumers
and service providers, how consumers appraise such co-creation
activities and the outcomes of value co-creation remain unclear.
However, understanding how value is created and how it should be
offered are imperative strategic issues for achieving superior ser-
vice advantage (O'Cass & Ngo, 2011). Researchers suggest a growing
need for a conceptually grounded understanding of value as an
appraisal of collaborative creation between a service provider and
consumer (Karababa & Kjeldgaard, 2014). Although scales have
been developed measuring value co-creation as a process (e.g.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.09.014
0261-5177/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
70 J.A. Busser, L.V. Shulga / Tourism Management 65 (2018) 69e86
Jamilena, Pen ~ a, & Molina, 2016), customer and employee partici-
pation in co-creation (e.g. Mathis, Kim, Uysal, Sirgy, & Prebensen,
2016), and customer co-creation behavior (e.g. Yi & Gong, 2013),
there is a dearth of psychometrically sound measures focused on
value as the main construct reflecting the nature of co-creation.
The process of co-creation adds an imperative aspect to un-
derstanding contemporary tourism (Suntikul & Jachna, 2016).
Fundamentally, tourists need to be personally and actively involved
in the creation of their experiences to subsequently evaluate the
service positively (Binkhorst & Dekker, 2009), which influences
perceived value (Prebensen & Xie, 2017). Co-creation assists in the
construction of memorable and unique experiences (Shaw, Bailey,
& Williams, 2011), and helps shape future travel planning and
purchase behaviors through online travel communities and
consumer-centric designs (Grissemann & Stokburger-Sauer, 2012;
Hsiao, Lee, & Chen, 2015). Tourists in particular are eager to
consume experiences and take an active role in producing and
mastering psychological co-creation (Prebensen & Xie, 2017).
Overall, for a tourism service provider, value co-creation offers a
potentially new and indispensable outlet to ensure organizational
vitality and sustainability (Hsiao et al., 2015). However, researchers
note the lack of research on value co-creation specifically focused
on tourism and hospitality (e.g., Grissemann & Stokburger-Sauer,
2012; Shaw et al., 2011; Prebensen & Xie, 2017).
Historically, perceived value has been defined as the overall
utility of a product or service based on the difference between what
is received and what is provided (Zeithaml, 1988). Research has
shown negative consequences, damaging effects, and decreases in
value when consumers spend too much time, money, and effort in
the purchasing process (Petrick, 2002; Sweeney & Soutar, 2001).
Based on these findings, businesses actively integrated practices to
reduce consumers’ resources needed in the process, such as online
booking, single-click purchase systems, and self-check-in kiosks.
However, with the emergence of service-dominant logic (SDL)
(Vargo & Lusch, 2004) and the collaborative economy, increasing
evidence suggests that when consumers invest their resources they
feel more compelled to purchase and repurchase and express loy-
alty to the brand and provider (Jamilena et al., 2016; Lala &
Chakraborty, 2015). The more time and effort consumers invest,
the greater their willingness to buy and pay a higher price (Lala &
Chakraborty, 2015). Norton, Mochon, and Ariely (2011, pp. 11e91)
studied the “Ikea effect” and found that consumers place signifi-
cantly higher value on products they partially create. This suggests
that consumer consideration of value has evolved and, therefore,
how value is currently appraised should be examined.
Value as a construct, has been defined as “an interactive rela-
tivistic preference experience” (Holbrook, 1999, p. 5), and the
combination of physical and service attributes, experience, social
rewards, competence, and technical support (Petrick, 2002). In
today's collaborative economy, along with the growing importance
of social media, value reflects social, collaborative, and shared
perspectives. Grounded in SDL, value co-creation as a process is
defined as a joint, collaborative, concurrent, peer-like process of
producing new value, both materially and symbolically, through
the voluntary contributions of multiple actors resulting in recip-
rocal well-being (Galvagno, Dalli, & Mele, 2014; Vargo & Lusch,
2016). Consequently, we position co-created value as a value
construct defined as a personal appraisal of the meaningfulness of a
target (product or service, further referred to as service) based on
what is contributed and what is realized through the process of co-
creation. Researchers and practitioners have called for a better
understanding of the co-created value construct, what it means for
consumers and service providers, and how it fits into consumer
value systems (i.e., Gronroos, 2012; Karababa & Kjeldgaard, 2014;
Verleye, 2015).
Therefore, the overarching aim of this study is to address the
limitations of current measures by developing a psychometrically
sound multi-dimensional scale of co-created value following the
method used by Churchill (1979) and DeVellis (2012). The objec-
tives of the study are to examine co-created value (CCV) as a
construct in various tourism and hospitality contexts, explore as-
pects of CCV appraisal, define the dimensions of CCV, identify
dependent variables to verify the validity of the CCV scale, and test
the scale's nomological network, including potential antecedents
and outcomes. This research contributes to the literature by
expanding the application of SDL and theory of value to consumer
perceived value justification.
2. Theoretical framework
2.1. Theory of value
Theory of value (TOV) serves as the foundation and conceptu-
alization of CCV as a value construct. TOV, also referred to as
axiology, is a philosophical and moral theory concerned with the
predominant question of what is of value (Hartman, 1967). The
axiological process of justifying the importance of the target to an
individual, established TOV as the most broadly applied theory to
conceptualize various types of consumer value (i.e., Holbrook,
1999). TOV philosophers differentiate instrumental and intrinsic
value (Bradley, 2006). When an individual, or an agent in TOV
terms, judges a service, he or she starts with instrumental value,
drawing a conclusion that the service is only good to the degree
that it leads to something of greater value. Money is only good for
buying, for example, an airplane ticket. Intrinsic value is just good
for its own sake (non-instrumental). Therefore, an airplane ticket is
good for traveling to a vacation resort, which is good for relaxation
and pleasure, which is good for well-being and happiness. Axiol-
ogists argue that happiness might be that single, monistic, intrinsic
value (i.e., Fletcher, 2008). According to TOV, agents evaluate the
value of a service higher when the connection between instru-
mental and intrinsic value is strong, thus requiring less time and
effort to achieve. Following TOV's and SDL's understanding of the
nature of value, CCV supports intrinsic and instrumental value co-
creation, linking it with well-being, which is often measured as
agent's state of life satisfaction and happiness (Diener, Scollon, &
Lucas, 2003), as well as the vitality of social and personal net-
works (Lusch & Vargo, 2014).
TOV also addresses the tenet of incomparability of constructs in
value appraisal. Researchers have compared constructs to appraise
what is of more or equal value, keeping the order of accrual as a
moderator (Chang, 2002; Schroeder, 2016). For example, what is of
more value, a vacation at a destination resort or a service from a
professional accountant? Consequentialism can be utilized to
resolve some of the issues of incomparability. In TOV, consequen-
tialism assists with understanding what action is best to perform
first (Sen, 1982). Based on this viewpoint, one should always do
what is most meaningful. For example, by evaluating what is most
imperative, going on vacation or filing taxes, an individual can act
accordingly. However, this axiology is possible only from the
standpoint of the agent who is making such an appraisal. Thus,
consequentialism links the action with one's axiology, leading to
agent-centered understanding of value (Wedgwood, 2009).
Based on consequentialism and agent-centric understanding of
value, the agent should always do what will bring forward the
result that is of most value relative to him or her as a beneficiary.
Therefore, grounded in TOV and SDL the agent is always a co-
creator, a beneficiary of value, as value is always agent-relative or
agent-centered (Schroeder, 2016; Vargo & Lusch, 2016). The
appraisal of the meaningfulness of co-created effort or target is
 J.A. Busser, L.V. Shulga / Tourism Management 65 (2018) 69e86
viewed as the focal point of the co-created value construct. The
current study utilizes TOV's instrumentality, consequentialism, and
agent-centricity to explain how agent-consumers’ appraisal of
value co-creation affects their perceptions of personal and collab-
orative well-being.
2.2. Service dominant logic
SDL currently consists of 11 fundamental propositions that serve
as a foundation for co-created value conceptualization (Vargo &
Lusch, 2016). SDL refers to many actors that participate in the
process of creating value, as well as actor-to-actor interactions
(Lusch & Vargo, 2014). However, within SDL value is always
determined by the beneficiary, often understood as a consumer,
thus it is beneficiary-centric (Vargo & Lusch, 2016). In this study, we
focus on actors-beneficiaries: service providers and customers,
with the understanding that many service providers (including
partner networks, vendors and intermediaries) and many cus-
tomers (including social networks, friends and family) participate
in value creation to various degrees (Edvardsson, Tronvoll, &
Gruber, 2011).
Lusch and Vargo (2014) offered three practices that may assist in
understanding how value is co-created: representing, normalizing,
and integrating. Specifically these practices may include meaning
making through interactions, terms and images, collaboration,
guidelines for interfacing and reciprocity of exchanges, job perfor-
mance evaluation and integration of resources. By implementing
these practices in service-for-service exchanges actors, both service
providers and customers, should achieve mutual gain, service
advantage and improve the viability of the service system.
“The personal meaning derived from the co-creation experience
is what determines the value to the individual” (Prahalad &
Ramaswamy, 2003, p. 14). SDL postulates that when customers
are involved in social exchanges through personalized social in-
teractions such as the value co-creation process, they are actively
creating meaning from the process and, therefore, creating value
(Edvardsson et al., 2011; Vargo & Lusch, 2008). Meaning making
occurs in interactions through communications with the help of
terms and images (Lusch & Vargo, 2014). Furthermore, customers
are driven to co-create with a service provider when they expect
the outcome of the process to be valuable not only for them but also
others (Roberts, Hughes, & Kertbo, 2014).
Vargo and Lusch (2016) argue that value is co-created through
collaboration, and “collaboration is the central focus of SDL” (Lusch
& Vargo, 2014, p. 143). Collaboration is occurring at the relationship
level between service providers and customers involved at “the
intersection of the offerer … the customer, and other value-creation
partners” (Lusch, Vargo, & O'Brien, 2007, p. 11). Collaboration, in the
context of value co-creation, is referred to as marketing with, rather
than marketing to, customers (Lusch & Vargo, 2014). As a result,
collaboration facilitates the removal of barriers, opens access to
new opportunities and resources, increases the understanding of
how to integrate resources effectively, creates new resources, im-
proves service quality, and decreases errors in service delivery
(Lusch & Vargo, 2014).
SDL suggests that value is co-created through the resource
integration of all actors involved, always including the customer
(Vargo & Lusch, 2016). The key assumption of SDL is that resources
do not “have” value; rather, value is co-created by customers when
resources are used (value-in-use) and then customers evaluate
their experience with goods and services as value-in-context
(Vargo & Lusch, 2008). Moreover, SDL is concerned with operant
and operand resources. Operant resources are invisible and intan-
gible (e.g., skills, ideas, knowledge); they produce effects and add
value to natural or operand resources. Operand resources are
71
tangible resources on which an operation or act is performed to
produce an effect (e.g., money, land, animal life, minerals, other
natural resources) (Vargo & Lusch, 2004). SDL postulates that
mainly operant resources affect a service provider's vitality (Lusch
& Vargo, 2014).
As a service provider contributes by making a value proposition,
customers actualize the value by using provider resources, invest-
ing personal resources and resources of others available in their
social network (Aarikka-Stenroos & Jaakkola, 2012; Jaakkola &
Hakanen, 2013). However, customers play a central role in the
value co-creation process by integrating resources beyond the firm-
customer exchange, including customers’ self-generated activities
(Edvardsson et al., 2011). Furthermore, researchers note that if
parties fail to invest resources and integrate them in a collaborative
process, the value potential is not realized and can even be
appraised negatively (Aarikka-Stenroos & Jaakkola, 2012). In
contrast, the positive sum of resource contribution produces ad-
vantages for all actors (Lusch & Vargo, 2014), which should lead to
positive appraisal of co-created value. .
Although, customers are investors of their operant and operand
resources, value realization depends on their participation in the
service process. SDL's normalizing practices include norms and
guidelines for social exchanges, job evaluations, and coordination
of efforts that make collaboration easier (Lusch & Vargo, 2014). In
reality service providers are focused on building long-lasting re-
lationships through co-creation of value with customers (Vargo &
Lusch, 2016). As customers' personal contribution is evaluated
positively through a sense of accomplishment, the creative process
is also perceived positively and complements the subjective value
attached to the product (Franke, Schreier, & Kaiser, 2010).
Holbrook’s (1999) notion of social value corresponds with factors
contributing to the need for recognition, reputational gains,
building community ties, being valued by others, belongingness,
friend-making, and reciprocal learning. Therefore, the element of
relationship building through social recognition by multiple actors
and the emotional appraisal of the processes are integral compo-
nents of conceptualizing co-created value.
SDL researchers discovered that recognition, together with fun,
better product outcomes, and passion, was one of the factors
contributing to value co-creation success, when driven by expec-
tations of valuable and meaningful outcomes for all parties
involved (Roberts et al., 2014). Jaakkola and Alexander (2014)
pointed to recognition as part of the value experienced by local
patrons engaged in co-creating railroad station experiences.
Recognition has also been attributed to relationship value between
customers and companies participating in co-creation that enabled
cost reduction, easy access, quick response time, and long-term
relationships (O'Cass & Ngo, 2011).
Emotional appraisal of value co-creation influences behavioral
intention, overall appraisal of service, satisfaction, and loyalty
(Gallan, Jarvis, Brown, & Bitner, 2013; Jones, Reynolds, & Arnold,
2006). Gallan et al. (2013) argued that affective response before
and during service co-production should be incorporated in the
value co-creation line of research as part of consumers' evaluation
of the service encounter. Moreover, customers’ emotional effort can
be treated as a resource to be contributed in service co-production
(Berry, Seiders, & Grewal, 2002).
Largely, both SDL and TOV highlight value as beneficiary-specific
(SDL terms) and agent-centric (TOV terms). Theoretically, value is of
special meaning to the beneficiary that is consequently linked with
positive personal outcomes, both instrumental and intrinsic.
However, SDL offers specific insights into the nature of co-created
value, through collaboration, resource integrating and normal-
izing practices, such as recognition and affective response.
Furthermore, SDL introduces the networked effect of co-created
72 J.A. Busser, L.V. Shulga / Tourism Management 65 (2018) 69e86
value, bringing together actor-to-actor service systems, where
“mutualism and positive sum collaborative relationships, provide
collaborative advantage that can lead to competitive advantage and
improved system viability” (Lusch & Vargo, 2014, p. 149 e p.150).
3. Literature review
While operationalizing value co-creation processes continues to
evolve several scales have been brought forward to measure
various aspects of the process. Table 1 provides an overview of
studies that include a measure of value co-creation in various
contexts. These measures are centered on attempts to operation-
alize the process of value co-creation and measure various aspects
of that process. Thus, the existing value co-creation scales may not
reflect customers’ appraisal (axiology) of value co-creation. In
general, interactions, exchanges, relationships, participative
behavior and levels or degrees of direct participation are included
most frequently in aforesaid scales. The level of participation and
the displayed behavior do not necessarily lead to justification of
customer value perceptions. Altogether, these challenges have
resulted in continuous calls in the literature for more focused
research on operationalizing value co-creation.
Therefore, five important aspects of these scales that limit
widespread adoption in value co-creation research were identified.
First, the scales capture the process of value co-creation and
behavioral aspects of customer participation. However, none of the
scales, with the exception of Verleye (2015) addressing the benefits
of co-creation of experience, captures the cognitive and axiological
aspects of consumers’ value systems, uniquely centered on co-
creative characteristics of value. Second, some scales are unidi-
mensional; however, the multi-dimensionality of value has been
widely accepted as a more comprehensive measurement approach
(e.g., Gallarza & Saura, 2006; Karababa & Kjeldgaard, 2014;
Sweeney & Soutar, 2001). Third, existing scales are linked to a
specific context (i.e., co-creation of experience, co-innovation),
lacking other areas of value co-creation such as co-recovery and
co-creation of marketing. Fourth, existing scales are missing a
direct co-created value conceptualization and operationalization,
specifically, a definition of co-created value. None of the scales
conceptualize the definition of the main construct based on value-
related theories. Fifth, researchers point to measure deficiencies of
a fully examined nomological network for consumer value (i.e.,
Zauner, Koller, & Hatak, 2015) and value co-creation in particular
(Karababa & Kjeldgaard, 2014).
Note that most value-related and value co-creation scales are
multi-dimensional (e.g., Hsieh, 2015; Lazarus et al., 2014; Ranjan &
Read, 2016). Multiple value dimensions tend to explain consumer
choice better and marketers use them to develop more compre-
hensive positioning strategies (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001). In addi-
tion, researchers have encouraged the adoption of new value
constructs such as identity and linking value and value resulting
from the co-creation of meaning (Karababa & Kjeldgaard, 2014).
Therefore, unidimensional scales simply do not offer the concep-
tual richness required to wholly represent the understanding of co-
created value.
Co-creation constructs are conceptualized as either reflective
(e.g., Verleye, 2015) or formative (e.g., Lazarus et al., 2014). Reflec-
tive constructs are characterized by a common theme and the po-
tential to substitute dimensions; thus, the factors can be correlated.
In formative constructs, the factors are used as composites of a
specific construct and usually have low correlations (Edwards &
Bagozzi, 2000). Since value appraisal of co-creation causes the
consumer to estimate various aspects of co-creation based on
several observable and correlated factors, co-created value in this
study is conceptualized as a reflective construct.
Therefore, the proposed measure aims to address the limitations
of existing value co-creation scales by measuring the axiological
aspects of co-created value rooted in TOV and SDL. It is focused on
the customers' appraisal of value as a multi-dimensional construct,
rather than the process of value co-creation. The new measure
seeks to achieve greater generalizability and deepen the under-
standing of customers’ value justification when applied to various
instances of value co-creation, including but not limited to co-
innovation, co-creation of experience, co-recovery, and co-
creation of marketing and branding. Finally, based on TOV and
SDL the new CCV measure was tested with antecedents and con-
sequences that relate to both parties in co-creation: service pro-
viders and customers, to introduce and explore the CCV
nomological network.
4. Conceptualization of co-created value
4.1. Co-created value: specifying construct domain
Based on SDL and TOV, CCV should be viewed as agent-centric,
consequential, instrumental, experiential, contextual, and
meaning-laden (Schroeder, 2016; Vargo & Lusch, 2008). Therefore,
we define CCV as the actors' appraisal of the meaningfulness of a
service by assessing what is contributed and what is realized
through collaboration. The proposed delineation of CCV takes into
consideration its collaborative and reciprocal nature, consumers as
actors, actor-to-actor interactions, actor's role as a beneficiary and
resource integrator, and the instrumentality and agent-centric na-
ture of CCV as a construct leading to well-being and happiness.
Overall, we focused on the appraisal of co-creation as an activity
that contributes to understanding value as fundamentally proposed
by TOV.
Built on the multi-dimensionality approach to measuring value
and following the psychometric approach of construct explication
for scale development (Murphy & Davidshofer, 2005), we focused
on new aspects of CCV that reflect the unique characteristics of co-
creation presented in the operational definition. Construct expli-
cation plays a key role in establishing scale validity (Murphy &
Davidshofer, 2005). First, the observable behaviors that relate to
the measure are identified. Next, variables related to the scale in
question are explored. Finally, behaviors related to each variable are
examined to determine the relations among them (Murphy &
Davidshofer, 2005). Based on the construct explication approach
and grounded in a comprehensive literature review focused on SDL
and TOV, and applications in service industries, including tourism
and hospitality five observable behaviors serving as sub-
dimensions to CCV emerged: meaningfulness, collaboration,
contribution, recognition, and affective response. Furthermore,
each dimension of CCV was examined to establish the relations
between the sub-dimensions and their relevance to CCV.
4.2. Co-created value dimensions
4.2.1. Meaningfulness
Combining TOV and SDL, meaningfulness is an individual's
(agent or beneficiary) belief in services' significance, importance,
and worth. Thus, when one believes that the value co-creation
process is meaningful, the resulting outcome bears more value.
Note that value co-creation holds social meaning, specific content
features, and, as a result, consumer value (Edvardsson et al., 2011).
For example, modern travelers seek inspiration, brand authenticity,
belonging to a meaningful community, creation of meaningful and
specific value, and meaning in general (Payne, Storbacka, & Frow,
2008). The literature suggests that the meaningfulness of the ser-
vice as a positive estimate of importance to the consumer indicates
Table 1
Review of the existing value Co-creation scales.

Author/Year Scale Theoretical base Respondents Type Dimensions Main construct(s) Limitations

Hsieh, 2015 Customer value co- SDL, resource- General consumers, Co-innovation Multidimensional: Process of value Scale measures
creation scale advantage theory participants of online - experience creation (values are co- experience during
brand communities - interpersonal created by the participation in online
interaction interactions, brand community,
- social relationship experiences, and exchange of
relationships of information and
customers, experts, a receiving the response,
company and its actors, personal integration
and other related and social integration
parties) in online brand
community
Jamilena et al., 2016 Value-creation for the SDL, brand equity Tourists-participants Co-creation of Multidimensional: Process of value Scale measures the
experience of the experience value-creation in: creation process of value
tourist destination - pre-visit phase creation through
- during the visit exchange of
- post-visit information, exchange

J.A. Busser, L.V. Shulga / Tourism Management 65 (2018) 69e86

of feedback
Jamilena et al., 2016 Overall value-creation SDL, brand equity Tourists-participants Co-creation of Unidimensional Process of value Scale measures
for the experience of experience creation interactions, time and
the tourist destination effort devoted, invested
and shared before,
during and after the trip
Lazarus, Krishna, & Co-creation willingness SDL, co-creation Students-consumers Co-innovation Multidimensional: Willingness-to-co- Scale measures the
Dhaka, 2014 matrix continuum framework -firm's willingness to create behavioral intention of
co-create the consumer to co-
- consumer's create with the
willingness to co-create company based on
- type of service firm's co-creation offer,
- level of interaction customer's motivation,
- extent of co-creation interaction, and level of
involvement in
collaboration.
Mathis et al., 2016 Co-creation of SDL, bottom-up Tourists-participants Co-creation of Unidimensional Process of co-creation Scale measures the
experience slipover theory experience of experience with perceptions of
travel professional collaboration between
tourist and employee
during co-creation of
travel experience.
O'Cass and Sok, 2015 Customer's perceived SDL, value-based Customers - Co-innovation Multidimensional: Evaluation of the firm Scale measures the role
value-in-use competition theory, participants - service quality as a co-creation partner of the firm in the
transformational - service support creation and delivery of
leadership theory - service delivery the value via co-
- supplier know-how innovation process.
- time-to-market
- personal interaction
- relationship value
Pena et al., 2014 Value co-creation SDL Tourists-participants Co-production Unidimensional B2C interactions during Scale measures the
value co-creation effectiveness of
interactions between
tourism firm and
customers based on
information, time,
transaction and value
exchange.
Ranjan & Read, 2016 Co-production
(continued on next page)

73
Table 1 (continued )

74
Author/Year Scale Theoretical base Respondents Type Dimensions Main construct(s) Limitations

Value co-creation SDL, consumer culture Respondents (students) Multidimensional: Process of co- Scale measures co-
measurement index theory involved in value co- - co-production production, experience production through
creation process with - value-in-use value, personalization, knowledge exchange,
the brand (scenarios relationship equity through access
describing co-creation) to information,
alignment, power
sharing, and
interaction. Value-in-
use is measured
through co-experience,
use value, empathy,
benefits, consumer
orientation of service,
customization,
consumer involvement,
attachment,
engagement, positive

J.A. Busser, L.V. Shulga / Tourism Management 65 (2018) 69e86

word of mouth in social
networks.
Verleye, 2015 Co-creation experience SDL, social-exchange Students-participants Co-creation of Multidimensional: Benefits in return for Scale measures
scale theory, self- based on experiment experience, Co- - hedonic experience co-creation experience customer experience
determination theory, innovation - cognitive experience through participation
role theory - social/personal in the new product
experience development task.
-pragmatic/economic
experience
- overall experience
Yi & Gong, 2013 Customer value co- SDL, in-role/extra-role Students-participants Co-production Multidimensional: Consumer behavior Scale measures
creation behavior scale performance domain in service encounter - customer during value co- consumer behavior
framework based on recall participation behavior creation process: in- through participation
- customer citizenship role and extra-role consisting of
behavior information seeking,
information sharing,
responsible behavior,
personal interaction;
citizenship behavior
consisting of feedback,
advocacy, helping, and
tolerance.
 J.A. Busser, L.V. Shulga / Tourism Management 65 (2018) 69e86
an appraisal of co-created value.
4.2.2. Collaboration
Collaboration is a sense of open alliance, cooperation for mutual
gain between two or more actors involved in co-creation. It is
having a mutual understanding, common vision, and functional
interdependence bringing together two or more actors to achieve
shared objectives that are not achievable by one actor alone. Linked
to value creation, the process and outcome become more valuable
when all actors collaborate for mutual benefit, positive sum gain,
system vitality, and strong reciprocal relationships (Lusch & Vargo,
2014). When perceived positively, collaboration creates value, re-
duces negative evaluation of service failures, and influences firm
performance (Roggeveen, Tsiros, & Grewal, 2012). Therefore, based
on SDL collaboration, reflecting the joint input of all actors involved,
is considered an imperative dimension of CCV.
4.2.3. Contribution
In CCV, contribution is a belief regarding the extent to which a
beneficiary shares his or her own resources, both tangible and
intangible, operand and operant, to achieve desired outcomes. In
TOV terms, the more important the resources are to the agent, the
more valuable the outcome will be. In SDL, as consumption and
production are becoming increasingly intertwined, for positive
value justification, consumer integration of both operand and op-
erant resources is imperative for participants’ appraisal of the ul-
timate value (Ordanini, Miceli, Pizzetti, & Parasuraman, 2011). For
example, consumers participating in crowd-sourcing integrate
their financial resources with the ideas and talents of others, skill,
and available technology to promote invested projects, thus
creating value for all (Ordanini et al., 2011). The value co-creation
literature points to a degree or level of operant resources contrib-
uted to the project as indicating a higher CCV appraisal.
4.2.4. Recognition
Recognition is a beneficiaries' acknowledgment, both intrinsic
and extrinsic, of their inherent worth. In SDL, recognition normal-
izes value co-creation practices. In other words, recognition con-
tributes to the positive appraisal of value co-creation outcomes. For
example, in the context of participation in co-creation contests,
some consumers are extrinsically motivated and require compen-
sation for their ideas and feedback, while others may be attention-
or fame-seeking, looking for public recognition (Kumar et al., 2010).
Researchers found that intrinsic recognition, in a non-economic
manner, enhanced the evaluation of co-innovation, as well as
workers’ investment of time and effort in the process (Montes,
Moreno, & Molina, 2004). Recognition is an important dimension
of CCV that reflects the relational and consumer-centered nature of
the construct and is vital to the consumer appraisal system.
4.2.5. Affective response
Affective response is defined as “a feeling state that occurs in
response to a specific stimulus, based on feelings, with a potential
range of cognitive effort” (Compeau, Grewal, & Monroe, 1998, p.
296). In this study, affective response is defined as one's overall
emotional reaction to co-creation. Affective response consists of
such components as interest, joy, happiness, and fun (Compeau
et al., 1998), which are linked with TOV's conceptualization of
intrinsic value. Affective response is related to emotional and he-
donic value, which customarily serves as sub-dimensions of
perceived value (i.e., Sweeney & Soutar, 2001). Higher levels of
hedonic value increase the emotional worth of shopping experi-
ences (Jones et al., 2006). In tourism where value and experience
merge, emotional value has been identified as a sub-dimension of
perceived value (Sanchez, Callarisa, Rodriguez, & Moliner, 2006).
75
Thus, affective response represents an emotional component of
CCV appraisal and an essential dimension of the construct.
5. Co-created value: nomological network
In the final step of construct explication, other constructs related
to CCV were examined with the goal of establishing the nomolog-
ical network, a comprehensive description of relationships be-
tween the main construct and the related constructs (Cronbach &
Meehl, 1955; Murphy & Davidshofer, 2005). The nomological
network was derived from the combination of TOV and SDL
conceptualization of CCV. Both, TOV and SDL postulate agent-
centric understanding of value. Therefore, the nomological
network should include agent-specific traits and agents' percep-
tions of value co-creating partners. Based on TOV's consequential-
ism principle, potential outcomes of CCV should explore
instrumentality and intrinsic understanding of what is of value.
Furthermore, SDL is focused on mutuality, reciprocity, relational
and networked nature of CCV. Thus, the nomological network
should reflect mutual, relational, positive sum outcomes that
improve agents' vitality and overall viability of service systems.
First, to determine the criterion-related validity of the CCV
measure (Murphy & Davidshofer, 2005), the known dependent
variables of perceived consumer value were reviewed along with
the potential consequences of co-creation. The value literature
points to a number of potential measures that can serve as con-
current criteria, such as behavioral intention, satisfaction, loyalty,
word-of-mouth, and repurchase intention (Zauner et al., 2015).
Value is a driver and a mediator of loyalty in various service in-
dustry studies (e.g., Gallarza & Saura, 2006). Loyalty is a behavioral
and attitudinal intention to repatronize a service provider in the
future despite any material, psychological, or normative obstacles
that might prompt customers' switching behavior (Oliver, 1997).
The value-loyalty chain has been successfully tested in co-
innovation (Carlson, O'Cass, & Ahrholdt, 2015). In the study of co-
creation of experience between customers and a travel agency,
loyalty was identified as a positive outcome co-creation
(Grissemann & Stokburger-Sauer, 2012). Therefore, loyalty was
chosen as a dependent criterion variable.
Second, to examine the CCV nomological network, both poten-
tial antecedents and consequences were explored and the re-
lationships predicted. Previous studies suggest co-creation
initiation, cultural differences, company support as antecedents of
co-creation; and customer expenditures, satisfaction, justice per-
ceptions, repurchase intention, customer empowerment, trust, and
commitment as outcomes of value co-creation (Brodie, Ilic, Juric, &
Hollebeek, 2013; Grissemann & Stokburger-Sauer, 2012; Xu,
Marshall, Edvardsson, & Tronvoll, 2014). Overall, both antecedents
and outcomes of value co-creation are an under-researched area in
need of study (FitzPatrick, Varey, Gro € nroos, & Davey, 2015;
Grissemann & Stokburger-Sauer, 2012; Zauner et al., 2015). The
following antecedents and consequences of CCV are reviewed and
proposed for CCV nomological network inclusion.
5.1. Co-created value antecedents
Based on TOV's and SDL's agent-centricity, customers justify the
fit between individual values and business practices of potential
partners in co-creation (Gronroos & Helle, 2010). They determine
the fit based on their understanding of practices and their will-
ingness to personally match such practices. Therefore, customers'
perceptions of brand authenticity have been operationalized as
individuals' understanding of service provider's business practices,
and openness was chosen as the personality match for such
practices.
76 J.A. Busser, L.V. Shulga / Tourism Management 65 (2018) 69e86
5.1.1. Openness
If value is phenomologically determined by the consumer
(Vargo & Lusch, 2008, 2016), then personality traits play an
important role in the appraisal process. Openness was named as an
antecedent of value as it assists with the determination of out-
comes and the process of mutual and reciprocal experiences of
interacting with new objects (Gordon et al., 2013). Personalities
that are high on openness are often described as broad-minded,
imaginative, curious, adaptable, and enjoying new things, knowl-
edge, and experiences (Wang & Yang, 2007). Openness is defined as
the degree of one's willingness to consider, accept, and integrate
new and creative ideas through co-creation. In collaborative pro-
jects, especially where face-to-face communications are critical,
openness is a key facilitating factor of new product development
success (Jahn & Kunz, 2012). Proven to be imperative for innova-
tion, openness assists with knowledge integration and knowledge
sharing in projects where contributors have access to the inputs
and outputs of all involved (Wang & Yang, 2007). Openness is
important for collaborative processes and teamwork as it helps in
resolving dissimilarities, improves joint actions, and brings
together values (Homan, Hollenbeck, Humphrey, Van Knippenberg,
Ilgen, & Kleef, 2008). Thus, we propose the following:
H1. Customers' openness positively influences CCV justification.
5.1.2. Brand authenticity
Consumers seek to validate brands' co-creation claims based on
openness, transparency, and brand authenticity (Dijk, Antonides, &
Schillewaert, 2014). Therefore, the role of the brand is to establish
authenticity to facilitate value creation and enhance brand identity
and brand meaning (i.e., Dijk et al., 2014). Building on the psy-
chological understanding of authenticity as being true to oneself,
brand authenticity is consumers’ appraisal of brand genuineness
(Moulard, Raggio, & Folse, 2016). Two factors of brand authenticity
have been defined: rarity, measured by uniqueness and scarcity,
and stability, measured by longevity and longitudinal consistency
(Moulard, Raggio, Folse, & Garretson, 2016). As a perception, brand
authenticity is subjective, not solely related to attributes of the
brand, and thus is derived (Bruhn, Schoenmüller, Scha €fer, &
Heinrich, 2012). In addition, brand authenticity serves as an ante-
cedent of expected quality appraisal, trust, satisfaction, and overall
image of the brand, affecting attitudes toward the brand and
behavioral intention (Bruhn et al., 2012; Moulard et al., 2016). Thus,
we posit that:
H2. Customers' perception of brand authenticity positively in-
fluences their appraisal of CCV.
5.2. Co-created value outcomes
In the context of co-creation, three spheres of value co-creation
were identified: the service provider, consumer, and joint spheres
(Gronroos & Voima, 2013). In the provider sphere, the firm is
responsible for value creation, producing resources and processes
that potentially can be integrated with consumer resources for
successful value co-creation. In this sphere, the firm takes the role
of value facilitator (Gronroos, 2011). The consumer sphere is a
personal space to create value independently of the provider and
integrate resources into consumers' social networks to create
intrinsic consumer-specific value. This sphere is closed to the pro-
vider and does not allow for direct interactions (Gronroos & Voima,
2013). In the joint sphere, the service provider has an opportunity
to assume the role of value co-creator and connect with consumers
through direct interactions, while consumers take the role of co-
producers of the resources and processes (Gronroos & Voima,
2013). As a result of value co-creation, all parties involved within
these three spheres should become better off, thus leading to three
areas of potentially positive outcomes: organizational, personal,
and collaborative or co-created value outcomes. The proposed
spheres of value co-creation and related outcomes correspond with
TOV's principle of consequentialism and are based on SDL's prac-
tices of value co-creation. For the purposes of this study, consumer
well-being as a personal outcome, service advantage as an orga-
nizational outcome, and commitment and trust as collaborative
outcomes were examined as a part of the CCV nomological
network.
5.2.1. Well-being
Lusch and Vargo (2006) reported that value co-creation drives
the process that increases consumers' well-being. It also could be
linked to TOV's intrinsic consequences of value. Well-being, as a
personal outcome, is defined as thriving across multiple domains of
life (Diener et al., 2003). There are two approaches to well-being:
hedonic and eudaemonic. Hedonic well-being addresses feeling
good, and eudeamonic well-being focuses on functioning well
(Ryan & Huta, 2009). Under hedonic well-being, subjective well-
being is among the most researched constructs addressing one's
affective and cognitive evaluation of life (Diener et al., 2003). The
eudaemonic approach defines well-being as an ongoing and dy-
namic process of living by engaging in meaningful activities (Ryan
& Deci, 2001). Participating in joint activities such as co-creation
and shared decision-making is believed to lead to improved psy-
chological well-being (McColl-Kennedy, Vargo, Dagger, & Sweeney,
2009). Moreover, the net value of service experiences emerges
through co-creating value-in-use, leading to well-being for all ac-
tors involved (Ballantyne & Varey, 2006). Thus, in the context of
value co-creation, well-being can be subdivided into two di-
mensions: overall affective evaluation of life and co-created well-
being as a direct result of participation in value co-creation activ-
ities. Therefore:
H3. Customers' appraisal of CCV significantly influences their
subjective well-being.
H3a. Customers' positive appraisal of CCV leads to a positive
appraisal of co-created well-being that positively influences con-
sumers' subjective well-being.
5.2.2. Service advantage
Service advantage, as an organizational outcome of CCV, is
defined as the level of the firm's customer leadership in service,
experience, and solutions in comparison to comparable competi-
tors. Researchers suggest that to build and maintain service
advantage through co-creation, providers should strategically focus
on specific segments of consumers who are potentially open to co-
creation (Edvardsson, Gustafsson, & Enquist, 2007). Furthermore,
the integration of relationship-based resources assists in creating
an advantage through co-production of value with and for con-
sumers (Richey, Tokman, & Dalela, 2010).
Service advantage plays an increasingly significant role in the
economy driven by innovation. Accordingly, close collaboration
with consumers has a positive impact on service advantage
(Carbonell & Rodriguez-Escudero, 2014), and service advantage
resulting from new product/service development leads to better
firm market performance (Kaleka, 2011). From the consumer
perspective, gaining a service advantage is the prime reason for
most innovation initiatives (Kaleka, 2011). Creating and
 J.A. Busser, L.V. Shulga / Tourism Management 65 (2018) 69e86
maintaining a competitive service advantage by could be accom-
plished through developing capabilities, processes, and integrating
resources leading to improved company performance (Richey et al.,
2010). Therefore:
H4. Customers' positive appraisal of CCV leads to their positive
perception of the competitive service advantage.
H4a. Customers' positive perception of the service advantage
mediates the relationship-based co-created value outcomes.
5.2.3. Co-created value outcomes: commitment and trust
Based on SDL's proposition of the relational nature of value co-
creation, success of value co-creation depends on the strength of
the relationships among participants (FitzPatrick et al., 2015;
Ryssel, Ritter, & Gemünden, 2004). Trust and commitment are
known as building blocks of such long-term relationships (Morgan
& Hunt, 1994; Wang, Ngamsiriudom, & Hsieh, 2015), including
value creation among various parties involved (Ryssel et al., 2004).
Trust is defined as one's confidence that the service provider will
keep promises regarding its business practices, service quality, and
reliability. Trust acts as a subjective guarantee, confidence benefit,
and risk mediator in dealings with the service provider, thus
serving as an important component in the process of building and
maintaining relationships (Gwinner, Gremler, & Bitner, 1998).
Commitment is viewed as a mediator for trust because it pro-
motes efficiency, productivity, and performance (Mathieu & Zajac,
1990). Commitment is the “enduring desire to maintain a valued
relationship” (Moorman, Zaltman, & Deshpande, 1992, p. 316).
Consumers are committed to a service provider when they are
internally motivated to be psychologically consistent, have stable
and durable relationships in different situations, and the emotional
and material costs of terminating the relationship are high
(Moorman et al., 1992; Morgan & Hunt, 1994).
In value co-creation research, commitment, trust, customer
goals, and resource integration are tied to value perceptions (Van
Doorn et al., 2010). Customer-to-customer interactions in brand
communities are a source of value for the firm and participants, also
tied to trust and commitment toward the community and its
members (Schau, Muniz, & Arnould, 2009). Furthermore, customer
engagement in value co-creation activities has been linked to
positive outcomes such as satisfaction, trust, commitment, and
expectations of value outcomes (Jaakkola & Alexander, 2014). In
addition, through sharing and collaboration, service providers
create mutual commitment and trust that facilitates future
resource integration, especially intangible, operant resources
(Jaakkola & Hakanen, 2013). Thus:
H5. Customers' positive appraisal of CCV leads to a positive impact
on co-created value outcomes, such as commitment and trust.
H5a. In value co-creation, commitment serves the role of medi-
ator, an a priori familiarity condition, to develop stronger trust
between customers and service provider.
6. Methodology
6.1. Co-created value dimensions and scale development process
This research employs a multi-method and multi-stage design,
which is consistent with psychometrics approach (Murphy &
Davidshofer, 2005) applied in previous studies that develop and
validate measures (Churchill, 1979; DeVellis, 2012), including those
in hospitality and tourism (e.g., So, King, & Sparks, 2014). Stage I
focused on developing scale items designed to map the conceptual
77
properties of CCV. Stage II tested the assumptions that the identi-
fied items serve as indicators of CCV and have acceptable reliability.
Stage III determined how well the measured variables represent the
CCV construct and confirmed reliability, convergent and discrimi-
nant validity of CCV dimensions, and the concurrent and nomo-
logical validity and reliability of the CCV measure.
6.2. Stage 1: item generation and content validity
Item generation was based on the recommendations of DeVellis
(2012) and Murphy and Davidshofer (2005) to ensure an exhaustive
representation of the construct and its dimensions. Initially, the
systematic literature review led to the conceptualization and defi-
nition of CCV and its sub-scales, resulting in a pool of 129 items.
Three researchers then examined the list for content validity,
specificity, psychometric-based clarity, and conciseness, shortening
the list to 73 items representing five dimensions of CCV. Further,
two panels of scholars evaluated the items based on their repre-
sentativeness of the CCV construct and dimensions using a self-
administered questionnaire. Expert-panelists were selected based
on their research focus in services management and consumer
behavior. First, to provide the context of value co-creation experts
were shown the co-creation video posted by Marriott of the 2013
Travel Brilliantly co-creation contest winner, specifically the
“healthy vending machine” (www.travelbrilliantly.com). Second,
they were shown a video demonstrating Marriott's teleporter
filmed outside New York City Hall with real newlywed couples
experiencing travel destinations. Third, they were asked to read a
vignette describing a tourists' co-creation experience at a destina-
tion resort. The initial panel, which consisted of five PhD students -
active researchers in services industries, was provided with 73
items. They rated each item on representativeness, clarity, and level
of vocabulary (DeVellis, 2012). Feedback was solicited on the defi-
nitions of the dimensions and suggestions regarding the items.
Subsequently, 65 items that received positive ratings of 70.00% or
higher were retained for further examination, including 11 items
that were revised based on wording and vocabulary. Next, an
expert panel, which included six tourism, hospitality, services
management, and marketing faculty members evaluated the defi-
nition of the measure and sub-scales, appraised each item's
representativeness, clarity, and precision, and offered suggestions
on the scenarios and any other aspects of the constructs. For
example, original item “This was really important to me” was
replaced with “This was important to me”. In another instance,
based on the panel suggestions, two items “It was valuable to me”
and “It feels valuable to me” were combined into one item “It was
valuable to me”. As a result, 54 items that met a 75.00% or higher
representativeness criterion were retained: meaningfulness 8
items, collaboration 9 items, contribution 13 items, recognition 17
items, and affective response 7 items.
6.3. Stage 2: scale purification
6.3.1. Study 1
The goal of the second stage was to evaluate empirically the
developed measure using consumer responses to a destination
resort vignette. Two different value co-creation instances, co-
creation of experience and co-creation of innovation, were
randomly offered to each respondent. The scenario-based approach
is well accepted in value co-creation studies because it provides an
opportunity to offer a close approximation of a real co-creation
service encounter without leading respondents with terms and
definitions (i.e., Verleye, 2015). The respondents were asked to
assume the role of tourist at a destination resort. For example, in
the scenario depicting the co-creation of experience, the tourist, in
78 J.A. Busser, L.V. Shulga / Tourism Management 65 (2018) 69e86

Table 2
CCV scale: EFA 1 six-factor solution.

Items Factor Loadings

Meaningfulness Collaboration Contribution- Contribution- Recognition Affective Cronbach's

operant resources operand response alpha
resources

The time I spent on it was worthwhile 0.908 0.944

This was important to me 0.818
This was worthy of my effort 0.790
My effort was worthwhile 0.776
It was valuable to me 0.756
It was meaningful 0.647
We were working together 0.993 0.958
We cooperated with each other 0.895
We created it together 0.895
We accomplished something together 0.871
We were a team 0.851
We collaborated on the project 0.746
We worked on this together 0.714
We helped each other 0.661
I shared my knowledge 0.909 0.914
I contributed my experience to this 0.887
I contributed my skills to this 0.776
I provided my advice on this 0.753
I participated in this 0.587
I freely contributed 0.561
I invested my resources 0.774 0.832
I have a personal investment in it 0.758
I was invested in it 0.650
I made a personal investment in this 0.528
Others recognized me for this 0.916 0.910
I received credit for this 0.846
Others recognized the outcome 0.770
We were recognized for our accomplishment 0.707
Our results were recognized 0.693
I enjoyed the process 0.962 0.974
I feel enthusiastic about it 0.949
This was fun 0.924
This was entertaining 0.903
I enjoyed working on it 0.843
This was interesting 0.836
This was beneficial for me 0.805
I enjoyed spending time on this 0.800
We achieved mutual benefits 0.790
This was enjoyable 0.789
It was exciting 0.754
I feel inspired 0.734
I feel happy 0.647

collaboration with the resort customer relations representative,
was able to co-create the entire stay at the destination, including
the accommodations, dining, entertainment, excursions, and
wellness services. After respondents read the scenario, a manipu-
lation check was conducted. Both scenarios represented collabo-
ration between the service provider and consumers (M > 8.30 on a
10-point bi-polar scale). Respondents were also asked to evaluate
the co-creation depicted in the scenario using a 7-point Likert scale,
from strongly agree to strongly disagree.
The online panel managed by Qualtrics Inc. was utilized for this
stage of scale development. Only US residents aged 18 years old and
older with a hotel stay within the last 12 months participated in the
study. There were no missing data. Out of 202 respondents, 25.20%
was male and 74.80% was female. Most of the respondents were
married (63.40%), with children (66.30%), white (85.10%), and full-
time employees (36.10%) with incomes below $50,000 (49.00%).
Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to assess CCV
scale reliability and validity. After inspecting the 54 inter-item
correlations using a benchmark of < 0.40 (Thompson, 2004), all
were retained. Principal component analysis with PROMAX(4)
rotation and Kaiser normalization showed (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
[KMO] ¼ 0.958; Bartlett's test of sphericity ¼ 13704.552; df ¼ 1653;
p ¼ 0.00), a seven-factor solution, explaining 76.18% of the variance;
12 items with loadings below 0.50 and cross-loadings for more
than one factor were removed (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson,
2010). Consequently, another round of EFA with PROMAX rotation
was performed on the remaining 42 items (KMO ¼ 0.956; Bartlett's
test of sphericity ¼ 9232.625; df ¼ 861, p ¼ 0.00) resulting in a six-
factor solution accounting for 76.48% of the observed variance, all
Cronbach's alpha scores were >0.70, demonstrating satisfactory
reliability (Table 2). The six factors included: meaningfulness (6
items), collaboration (8 items), recognition (5 items), affective
response (13 items) and interestingly, contribution split into
operant-resource contribution (6 items) and operand-resource
contribution (4 items).
The use of operant and operand resources emerged from SDLs
understanding of resource characteristics in value co-creation
processes (Vargo & Lusch, 2016). Overall, the results of this stage
of CCV scale purification showed suitable validity and reliability of
the sub-scales. However, another round of scale purification with
the goal of achieving a more parsimonious scale was deemed
necessary (DeVellis, 2012).
 J.A. Busser, L.V. Shulga / Tourism Management 65 (2018) 69e86 79

Table 3
CCV Scale: EFA 2 Five-factor solution.

Items Factor Loadings

Meaningfulness Collaboration Contribution Recognition Affective Response Cronbach's Alpha

It was valuable to me 0.916 0.955

It was meaningful 0.903
This was important to me 0.898
The time I spent on it was worthwhile 0.896
My effort was worthwhile 0.843
We were working together 0.999 0.974
We created it together 0.974
We collaborated on the project 0.921
We cooperated with each other 0.896
We were a team 0.813
We accomplished something together 0.796
I invested my resources 0.951 0.976
I have a personal investment in it 0.929
I contributed my experience to this 0.911
I was invested in it 0.902
I contributed my skills to this 0.875
I made a personal investment in this 0.869
I shared my knowledge 0.827
I received credit for this 0.926 0.955
Others recognized the outcome 0.903
We were recognized for our accomplishment 0.886
Our results were recognized 0.778
Others recognized me for this 0.702
We achieved mutual benefits 0.460
This was enjoyable 0.964 0.973
This was entertaining 0.963
This was fun 0.963
This was interesting 0.866
I feel inspired 0.749
It was exciting 0.721
I enjoyed working on it 0.568

6.3.2. Study 2
Table 4.1 A total of 460 responses were collected, utilizing a Qualtrics
Co-created value scale: CFA results.
online panel of respondents. A different context was chosen: co-
Factors and items SFL CR AVE creation of marketing for a well-known fast-food restaurant. Cus-
Meaningfulness tomers and non-customers of a popular coffee shop brand were
It was meaningful 0.926 0.949 0.788 invited to participate in a contest to co-create a commercial pro-
This was important to me 0.886 moting a new summer coffee drink. A brief scenario explaining the
The time I spent on it was worthwhile 0.953
role of the respondent was provided followed by a video com-
It was valuable to me 0.868
My effort was worthwhile 0.797
mercial. The terms of the co-creation contest were adapted from an
Collaboration actual contest conducted in 2014, and a video contest entry pub-
We were a team 0.960 0.974 0.881 lished on YouTube by a team of four coffee brand customers was
We created it together 0.936 used to inform the respondents. The manipulation check showed
We were working together 0.968
that respondents perceived the scenario and video as an example of
We cooperated with each other 0.926
We collaborated on the project 0.902 collaboration between consumers and a service provider
Contribution (M ¼ 7.44). The sample was randomly split into two sub-samples
I shared my knowledge 0.896 0.968 0.858 (232 respondents for EFA, 228 for confirmatory factor analysis
I contributed my skills to this 0.911 CFA). No missing data were detected. Only US residents, 18 years old
I contributed my experience to this 0.956
I invested my resources 0.925
or older, who patronized a restaurant within the last six months
I made a personal investment in this 0.941 participated in the study. The majority of the respondents was fe-
Recognition male (58.50%), married (54.30%), with children (60.70%), white
I received credit for this 0.893 0.960 0.827 (84.30%), and employed full-time (53.30%) with income below
Our results were recognized 0.910
$50,000 (53.10%).
Others recognized the outcome 0.914
Others recognized me for this 0.911 EFA was conducted with the 42 items utilizing principal
We achieved mutual benefits 0.920 component analysis, PROMAX(4) rotation, and Kaiser normaliza-
Affective response tion (KMO ¼ 0.967; Bartlett's test of sphericity ¼ 15206.938;
This was fun 0.884 0.972 0.874 df ¼ 861; p ¼ 0.000), revealing a five-factor solution explaining
This was entertaining 0.903
This was enjoyable 0.978
85.26% of the variance. Nine items with cross-loadings on more
This was interesting 0.967 than one factor were removed (Hair et al., 2010). However, one item
It was exciting 0.938 with a loading below 0.50 was retained based on theory to ensure
Note. SFL - standardized factor loadings; CR - composite reliability, AVE - average full representation of the recognition sub-scale (Table 3). The re-
variance extracted. sults consisted of 33 items and five factors (KMO ¼ 0.964; Bartlett's
Model fit indices: c2 ¼ 574.705; df ¼ 264; RMSEA ¼ 0.072; CFI ¼ 0.963; test of sphericity ¼ 11623.756; df ¼ 528, p ¼ 0.00): contribution,
PNFI ¼ 0.822.
80 J.A. Busser, L.V. Shulga / Tourism Management 65 (2018) 69e86

Table 4.2
Discriminant validity and correlations of CCV scale dimensions.

Variable Recognition Meaningfulness Collaboration Contribution Affective response

Recognition 0.910
Meaningfulness 0.646 0.888
Collaboration 0.728 0.688 0.939
Contribution 0.851 0.609 0.657 0.926
Affective response 0.827 0.724 0.697 0.822 0.935

Note. All the cross-construct correlation coefficients were statistically significant (p < 0.001); the square root of AVE is shown in the diagram on diagonal.

Meaningfulness

.77**

Collabora on .79**

.89** Co-Created Loyalty

Contribu on Value .74**

Recogni on .91**
.92**

Affec ve
Response

Fig. 1. Test of concurrent validity of CCV's measure and CCV's impact on loyalty. **p < 0.001.

both operand and operant resources explained 66.79% of the vari-
ance (seven items), affective response 7.96% of the variance (9
items), 6 collaboration items 5.12% of the variance, meaningfulness
3.50% of the variance (5 items) and recognition 3.04% of the vari-
ance (6 items). The solution explained 86.40% of the total variance.
The second EFA achieved a more parsimonious scale. However, the
two sub-scales grounded in the operand and operant resource
contribution, converged into a single resource-contribution scale.
reliability was between 0.949 and 0.974, showing satisfactory
reliability of the scale (Hair et al., 2010). Convergent validity was
confirmed based on factor loadings (r > 0.40) and average variance
extracted (AVE > 0.50) (Hair et al., 2010). Discriminant validity of
the scale was also assessed and verified (Table 4.2), where average
variance extracted (AVE) was higher than squared correlations for
all CCV sub-scales. Therefore, the CCV scale consisting of five di-
mensions, each with five items, was deemed acceptable for further
examination.

6.4. Stage 3: scale validation

6.4.1. Step 1
To further validate the latent structure, CFA was conducted with
the 228-case sample using AMOS 17.0. The model was statistically
evaluated by a number of goodness-of-fit statistics: chi-squared to
the degrees of freedom ratio (1< c2/df < 3), root mean square error
of approximation (RMSEA < 0.08), comparative fit index
(CFI > 0.90), and parsimony normed fit index (PNFI > 0.50) (Hair
et al., 2010). In the first CFA iteration, the model represented a
marginal fit (c2/df ¼ 2.802; RMSEA ¼ 0.089; CFI ¼ 0.932;
PNFI ¼ 0.819). After close examination of the standardized
regression weights and modification indices, seven items were
deleted, resulting in a refined parsimonious 25-item five-factor
model (Table 4.1) with acceptable fit (c2/df ¼ 2.177;
RMSEA ¼ 0.072; CFI ¼ 0.963; PNFI ¼ 0.822). The factor loadings for
all 25 items were between 0.797 and 0.978 and the composite
6.4.2. Step 2
To verify concurrent validity (Murphy & Davidshofer, 2005), the
CCV scale was examined with an established value-related
outcome variable: loyalty (i.e., Gallarza & Saura, 2006). The well
accepted four-item loyalty scale by Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and
Berry (1994), adapted into service research by Wong (2004) was
included in the questionnaire and the responses measured on a 7-
point Likert scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree. CFA was
conducted to verify the convergent and discriminant validity of the
CCV scale against the loyalty measure. The solution displayed an
acceptable model fit (c2/df ¼ 2.253; RMSEA ¼ 0.074; CFI ¼ 0.952;
PNFI ¼ 0.813). The composite reliability scores were 0.912 e 0.972,
with AVE between 0.723 and 0.881 and greater than corresponding
squared correlations for all CCV dimensions and loyalty, thus con-
firming reliability, as well as convergent and discriminant validity.
Structural equation modeling (SEM) was performed to establish
 J.A. Busser, L.V. Shulga / Tourism Management 65 (2018) 69e86 81

the CCV impact on loyalty. The model displayed a marginal model

0.916
Trust
fit (c2/df ¼ 4.907; RMSEA ¼ 0.131; CFI ¼ 0.845; PNFI ¼ 0.746). The
modification indices suggested a second-order reflective CCV latent
construct for the five sub-scales. The resulting solution displayed an
Advantage
adequate model fit (c2/df ¼ 2.358; RMSEA ¼ 0.077; CFI ¼ 0.947;
Service

0.890
0.709
PNFI ¼ 0.828). The structural model is shown in Fig. 1. All regression
weights among the CCV sub-scales, CCV construct, and loyalty were
Co-created
well-being

statistically significant (p ¼ 0.000).

0.866
0.573
0.613
6.5. Stage 4: Co-created value ‒ nomological network validity
Well-being

With the goal of verifying the nomological validity of the CCV

0.894 scale in the value co-creation process network (Sweeney & Soutar,
0.490
0.241
0.363
2001), the created CCV was examined with the co-creation ante-
cedents of openness and brand authenticity and the co-creation
Response
Affective

outcomes of personal well-being, service advantage, commit-

0.927
0.330
0.834
0.486
0.523

ment, and trust. The five-item openness scale was adapted from
Yoo and Gretzel (2011). Brand authenticity was adapted from Bruhn
Recognition

et al.’s (2012) scale; two dimensions of brand authenticity

emerged: continuity (four items) and uniqueness (five items). Well-
0.894
0.821
0.287
0.787
0.520
0.516

Note. All the cross-construct correlation coefficients were statistically significant (p < 0.001); the square root of AVE is shown in the diagram on diagonal.

being was adapted from Kim, Lee, Uysal, Kim, and Ahn (2015) and
sub-divided into two dimensions: global well-being (two items)
Contribution

and well-being as a result of the value co-creation process (two

items). The three-item service advantage scale was adapted from
CR - composite reliability, AVE - average variance extracted; Model fit c2 ¼ 2929.033; df ¼ 1299; RMSEA ¼ 0.052; CFI ¼ 0.944; PNFI ¼ 0.821.
0.926
0.815
0.805
0.251
0.655
0.392
0.383

Carbonell and Rodriguez-Escudero (2014). Verma, Jahn, and Kunz's

(2012) commitment scale and a four-item trust scale by Tax, Brown,
and Chandrashekaran (1998) were also employed. The full sample
Collaboration

of 460 cases was used for this scale validation step. First, CFA was
conducted on the proposed measures.
0.935
0.609
0.745
0.686
0.268
0.675
0.496
0.526

The CFA solution showed an adequate model fit (c2/df ¼ 2.255;

RMSEA ¼ 0.052; CFI ¼ 0.944; PNFI ¼ 0.821). Reliability of the scales
Meaningfulness

and convergent and discriminant validity were examined and

verified (Table 5). Furthermore, SEM was performed and the model
displayed an acceptable fit (c2/df ¼ 2.778; RMSEA ¼ 0.062;
0.898
0.686
0.607
0.696
0.731
0.209
0.712
0.587
0.619

CFI ¼ 0.917; PNFI ¼ 0.833). All regression weights among the CCV
sub-scales, CCV construct, antecedents, and consequences were
Br. auth. e

statistically significant (Table 6). The structural model is shown in

Fig. 2.
0.853

0.287
0.425
0.339
0.371
0.371
0.383

0.456
0.557
0.747
cont.

7. Discussion
Br. auth. -
unique

0.852

0.203
0.662
0.474
0.370
0.333
0.388
0.397

0.440
0.620
0.637

Value co-created between actors in the service system is a

central premise of SDL (Vargo & Lusch, 2008, Lusch & Vargo, 2014).
Indeed, the role of value co-creation has received considerable
Openness

conceptual and empirical research attention in recent services

0.746

0.212
0.225
0.357
0.232
0.169
0.308
0.262
0.266

0.313
0.238
0.236

literature (i.e., Karababa & Kjeldgaard, 2014) and tourism research

in particular (e.g., Chathoth, Altinay, Harrington, Okumus, & Chan,
Commitment

2013; Jamilena et al., 2016; Mathis et al., 2016; Shaw et al., 2011).
However, little attention has been given to co-created value as a
0.857

0.290
0.306
0.552
0.536
0.676
0.567
0.556
0.646
0.656

0.774
0.729
0.698

construct measuring consumer value appraisal of co-creation.

Although steps have been taken to measure some aspects of
value co-creation, research lacks an understanding of what con-
0.799
0.735
0.556
0.726
0.727
0.806
0.873
0.857
0.799
0.859

0.749
0.791
0.839
AVE

stitutes CCV as a construct and its role in the value co-creation

process.
CCV nomological network: CFA results.

0.888
0.917
0.859
0.929
0.914
0.954
0.972
0.968
0.952
0.968

0.856
0.919
0.954

We defined co-created value as one's appraisal of the mean-

CR

ingfulness of a service based on what is contributed and what is

Br. authenticity e continuity

realized through collaboration. CCV is also understood as mean-

Br. authenticity-uniqueness

ingfulness consumers attribute to the value co-creation process of

Co-created well-being

collaborative effort, resource integration or contribution, recogni-

Service Advantage
Affective response

tion, and affective response. All five dimensions of CCV were found
Meaningfulness

to be conceptually and empirically reliable; the nomological,

Collaboration
Commitment

Contribution
Recognition

Well-being

convergent, and discriminant validity of the dimensions was also

Openness

confirmed. The measure was examined in various tourism and

Table 5

Trust

hospitality contexts. Therefore, the psychometrically sound mea-

sure of CCV was developed, tested, and verified. Furthermore, the
82 J.A. Busser, L.V. Shulga / Tourism Management 65 (2018) 69e86

Table 6
CCV: Nomological network.

Second-order factor model Standardized coefficient t-value

Openness / CCV 0.179 3.603**

Brand authenticity: uniqueness / CCV 0.336 6.414**
Brand authenticity: continuity / CCV 0.243 5.060**
CCV / Service advantage 0.573 10.905**
CCV / Co-created well-being 0.872 15.451**
CCV / Well-being 0.409 2.903*
CCV / Commitment 0.481 9.431**
CCV / Trust 0.174 3.142*
Service advantage / Commitment 0.435 9.736**
Co-created well-being / Well-being 0.837 5.440**
Commitment / Trust 0.261 3.883**
Service advantage / Trust 0.329 7.740**
CCV / Collaboration 0.758 14.235**
CCV / Meaning 0.788 a
CCV / Contribution 0.803 14.387**
CCV / Recognition 0.892 15.732**
CCV / Affective response 0.901 15.509**

Note. Significant at * p < 0.01; **p < 0.001; a - denoted fixed parameter.
Model fit indices: c2 ¼ 3778.042; df ¼ 1360; RMSEA ¼ 0.062; CFI ¼ 0.917; PNFI ¼ 0.833.

Co-Created .84**
Openness Well-Being
Well-Being

.18** .87**
-.41*

.49** Commitment

.46**
.34** Co-Created
Brand .57**
Value
Authen city:
Service
Uniqueness .26**
Advantage

.24**
.41**
.17*
Brand
Authen city:
Con nuity Trust

Fig. 2. Test of co-created value nomological network. *p < 0.05. **p < 0.001.

CCV construct was found to be related to but empirically different
from loyalty, commitment, and trust. Data showed that CCV was
positively and significantly correlated with loyalty (R2 ¼ 0.511; t-
value ¼ 7.454, p < 0.001). Our analysis also suggests that CCV can be
used as a second-order construct as a part of consumer value sys-
tems research (Karababa & Kjeldgaard, 2014).
The CCV measure was also tested within the value co-creation
network consisting of both antecedents and consequences of
value co-creation processes. CCV was verified as a reliable,
convergent, and discriminant measure in the value co-created
process nomological network. Value co-creation antecedents of
consumer's personality trait of openness and perceptions of brand
authenticity had significant and positive effects on CCV. Openness
contributes to the positive appraisal of CCV. However, brand
authenticity as evaluated by consumers has a greater influence on
CCV justification. Of the two dimensions of brand authenticity,
brand uniqueness had a larger impact on CCV justification. More-
over, CCV significantly affected all three spheres of value co-
creation outcomes: personal, organizational, and collaborative.
Interestingly, personal well-being was negatively affected by CCV;
however, the direction changed to a positive appraisal as a result of
value co-creation (overall well-being R2 ¼ 0.271). The negative
impact on personal well-being may indicate the theorized adverse
consequences of value co-creation or value co-destruction con-
nected to interactional and resource-integration failures, which
requires further examination (e.g., Ple & Caceres, 2010; Smith,
2013). Organizational value co-creation outcomes were oper-
ationalized through consumers' service advantage appraisal. CCV
 J.A. Busser, L.V. Shulga / Tourism Management 65 (2018) 69e86
has a significant, positive, and noteworthy impact on service
advantage (R2 ¼ 0.328). Additionally, it serves as a mediator for
collaborative value co-creation outcomes of commitment and trust.
Remarkably, service advantage had a higher impact on trust than
commitment. Furthermore, the results show a direct and significant
impact on CCV appraisal of commitment (R2 ¼ 0.666) and trust
(R2 ¼ 0.565).
Therefore, the study results revealed that CCV integrates TOV
and SDL perspectives and is an agent-centric, instrumental, expe-
riential, contextual, and meaning-laden construct that leads to
beneficiary-specific and mutual consequences (Schroeder, 2016;
Vargo & Lusch, 2016). SDL's beneficiary-specific meaning making,
understanding of collaboration, resource integration appraisal or
contribution, job performance evaluation or recognition and af-
fective response to co-creation comprise the components of co-
created value (Lusch & Vargo, 2014). Co-created well-being as a
direct outcome of CCV leads to TOV's intrinsic nature of value,
operationalized as personal well-being. The findings also displayed
a link between CCV and positive sum collaborative relationships
through positive impact on loyalty, trust and commitment as pro-
posed in SDL (Lusch & Vargo, 2014). Furthermore, positive CCV
appraisal may lead to improved viability of the service system
through improved relationships between co-creating actors and
enhanced service advantage of the service provider. Largely, the
study findings deepened the understanding of the networked na-
ture of CCV.
8. Implications
8.1. Theoretical contribution
The theoretical contribution of this study is in bringing forward
a new and innovative psychometrically sound measure of CCV.
Supporting SDL with TOV allowed to conceptually underpin the
CCV measure with solid understanding of agent's appraisal of value
co-created through direct interactions. The combination of TOV and
SDL led to an agent-centric, consequential, instrumental, meaning-
laden, participative, contributive and affective definition of CCV.
The CCV measure assists with identifying the impact of value co-
creation interactions between customers and service providers on
personal, organizational, and collaborative outcomes. Overall, the
results of the study contribute to a conceptual and empirical un-
derstanding of value co-creation within the tourism and hospitality
industry by examining the axiological effects of instrumentality,
consequentialism, and agent-centricity (Schroeder, 2016) of CCV on
the outcomes of the value co-creation process. This study supports
the premise that the value construct as a whole is multi-
dimensional (i.e., Zauner et al., 2015). TOV expands the under-
standing of CCV's instrumental axiology, antecedents, and conse-
quences (Ranjan & Read, 2016). Furthermore, the measure extends
TOVs instrumental and intrinsic goodness appraisal into the
domain of meaningfulness. This conceptualization of CCV offers a
new perspective on personal value justification. Specifically, the
more one contributes to the process, the more the outcome is
valued. By conceptualizing and measuring CCV from the consumer
perspective, this study bridges SDL and TOV with social psychology
and service marketing literature (Ostrom et al., 2015). Although
resource integration and collaboration are widely discussed in
connection with value co-creation and SDL, our conceptualization
and the formalized measure is the first to provide the means to
appraise CCV as an extension of TOV, applied specifically in tourism
and hospitality service encounters in the emerging collaborative
economy. Thus, it provides a unique understanding of consumers'
approach to service providers' co-creation initiatives and those
initiatives that elicit more advantageous consumer evaluations.
83
8.2. Practical contribution
This research is one of the first empirical investigations into how
CCV is evaluated by consumers in services marketing in general and
tourism in particular. The new measure will greatly assist tourism
professionals in appraising the effectiveness of consumer-service
provider collaborative processes and measure the progress to-
ward identifying and creating powerful value propositions.
Furthermore, the study results also offer insights into the positive
impact of CCV on loyalty, service advantage, commitment, and
trust. The findings reveal that co-creation interactions, when
valued positively, affect provider service advantage over the
competition. Thus, industry professionals should consider actively
engaging customers in co-creation projects. For example, to
develop new product or services, co-create social media campaigns,
co-create personalized travel experiences, and find meaningful
ways to recover service failures. Moreover, special training for
employees involved in customer collaboration could ensure posi-
tive collaboration, recognition and affective response for all parties,
to achieve win-win instances of co-creation. In addition, resource
integration is crucial for enhanced co-creation value appraisal.
Therefore, professionals should focus on opportunities that allow
for such integration of operant resources (e.g., user-friendly social
platforms).
Regarding the meaningfulness dimension of CCV, tourism ser-
vice providers should establish a connection to consumers' per-
sonal well-being through value co-creation. Specifically stimulating
meaningfulness of the co-creation processes and outcomes to
encourage customer engagement and promote projects. For
example, offering authentic interviews with co-creation partici-
pants, both employees and customers that focus on how important,
meaningful and worthwhile co-creation was for them personally.
Further, when involved in co-creation, marketers may position the
company based on brand authenticity perceptions, emphasizing
brand uniqueness first, followed by brand consistency and conti-
nuity. Moreover, consumers’ CCV appraisal, on one hand, reflects
their justification of collaboration, resource contribution, recogni-
tion, and positive affective response of co-creation. On the other
hand, openness of the individual involved in value co-creation
leads to positive evaluation of the process. Thus, industry pro-
fessionals might choose both customers and employees, who have
openness as their personality trait, to invite into co-creation
interactions.
Overall, all the dimensions of co-creation must be considered in
every co-creation process with the service provider. Consequently,
the service provider should enable the conditions for successful
collaboration and resource integration. However, that alone might
not be sufficient because consumers also rely on recognition of the
results and emotional mechanisms of co-creation. With these fac-
tors in mind, service providers should not only recognize con-
sumers for co-creation, but also provide opportunities for others to
recognize participants in value co-creation. Moreover, the affective
response assists with the overall appraisal of CCV. In this regard, the
industry should foster an emotional connection with the brand,
company, employees, and co-creation process to ensure a positive
affective response from consumers. Overall, to succeed, involve-
ment in value co-creation means stronger ties with the consumer
through an elevated value appraisal that affects perceptions of the
firm's service advantage. Customer relationship management
should see the effects of value co-creation through increased levels
of loyalty, commitment, and trust.
8.3. Limitations and future research
Although this study provides an important contribution to TOV,
84 J.A. Busser, L.V. Shulga / Tourism Management 65 (2018) 69e86
SDL and studies on value co-creation by validating the CCV mea-
sure, a number of limitations exist. While widely researched, value
as a construct is complex, context-specific and agent-centric, and
thus, susceptible to multiple interpretations and various ap-
proaches to its operationalization (Karababa & Kjeldgaard, 2014).
Nonetheless, this study aimed to conceptualize and develop a
measure for a particular segment of value-related research, spe-
cifically for value co-creation studies based on SDL and TOV con-
ceptual frameworks. The new CCV measure adds to understanding
how individuals appraise value through co-creation rather than
adopting existing value scales.
Furthermore, the study predominantly explored customer-
company interactions in value co-creation, leading to the
customer-focused measure. From the conceptual standpoint, value
co-creation process involves multiple agents-actors extended with
their social networks that jointly participate in direct and indirect
activities that lead to mutual benefits and improved service sys-
tems vitality (Lusch & Vargo, 2014). Therefore, the newly intro-
duced CCV measure should be examined from the company-
collaborators, company-intermediaries, company-society, organi-
zational co-creation, as well as customer-to-customer, and
customer-social networks interactions.
In addition, a limited number of antecedents and consequences
were tested in the nomological network of CCV, and only loyalty
was examined for concurrent validity. Other individual psycho-
logical factors and actors’ motivations should be included with CCV
to study how such value impacts personal self-worth, self-image,
status, social roles and power (i.e., Balboni & Terho, 2016; Sparks,
Bradley, & Jennings, 2011). Accordingly, other value co-creation
constructs should be studied in connection with CCV. For
example, how levels of customer engagement influence CCV and
outcomes of value co-creation (i.e., So et al., 2014).
Moreover, the current measure was tested in the hospitality and
tourism context, utilizing the scenario-based approach, and was
cross-sectional in design. To increase generalizability the CCV
measure should be examined in the other service industry envi-
ronments, preferably using value co-creation instances between
existing companies and customers in a quasi-experimental design.
Longitudinal studies exploring pre-, during- and after-co-creation
time periods (Jamilena et al., 2016) and agents’ CCV appraisal
could potentially increase an understanding of relational and
developmental processes through collaboration. Overall, the
multidimensional CCV measure provides compelling research op-
portunities to advance the field of consumer and organizational
behavior grounded in service-dominant logic and service
industries.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge funding for this study from
the Caesars Foundation.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.09.014.
References
Aarikka-Stenroos, L., & Jaakkola, E. (2012). Value co-creation in knowledge intensive
business services: A dyadic perspective on the joint problem solving process.
Industrial Marketing Management, 41(1), 15e26.
Balboni, B., & Terho, H. (2016). Outward-looking and future-oriented customer
value potential management: The sales force value appropriation role. Industrial
Marketing Management, 53, 181e193.
Ballantyne, D., & Varey, R. J. (2006). Creating value-in-use through marketing
interaction: The exchange logic of relating, communicating and knowing.
Marketing Theory, 6(3), 335e348.
Berry, L. L., Seiders, K., & Grewal, D. (2002). Understanding service convenience.
Journal of Marketing, 66(3), 1e17.
Binkhorst, E., & Dekker, T. D. (2009). Agenda for co-creation tourism experience
research. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 18(2e3), 311e327.
Bradley, B. (2006). Two concepts of intrinsic value. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice,
9(2), 111e130.
Brodie, R. J., Ilic, A., Juric, B., & Hollebeek, L. (2013). Consumer engagement in a
virtual brand community: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Business Research,
66(1), 105e114.
Bruhn, M., Schoenmüller, V., Sch€ afer, D., & Heinrich, D. (2012, October). Brand
authenticity: Towards a deeper understanding of its conceptualization and
measurement. Advances in Consumer Research, 40, 567e576.
Carbonell, P., & Rodriguez-Escudero, A. I. (2014). Antecedents and consequences of
using information from customers involved in new service development.
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 29(2), 112e122.
Carlson, J., O'Cass, A., & Ahrholdt, D. (2015, November). Assessing customers'
perceived value of the online channel of multichannel retailers: A two country
examination. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 27, 90e102.
Chang, R. (2002). The possibility of parity. Ethics, 112(4), 659e688.
Chathoth, P., Altinay, L., Harrington, R. J., Okumus, F., & Chan, E. S. (2013, March). Co-
production versus co-creation: A process based continuum in the hotel service
context. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 32, 11e20.
Churchill, G. A., Jr. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing
constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64e73.
Compeau, L. D., Grewal, D., & Monroe, K. B. (1998). Role of prior affect and sensory
cues on consumers' affective and cognitive responses and overall perceptions of
quality. Journal of Business Research, 42(3), 295e308.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psy-
chological Bulletin, 52(4), 281e302.
DeVellis, R. F. (2012). Scale development: Theory and applications (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage publications.
Diener, E., Scollon, C. N., & Lucas, R. E. (2003). The evolving concept of subjective
well-being: The multifaceted nature of happiness. Advances in Cell Aging and
Gerontology, 15(2), 187e219.
Dijk, J., Antonides, G., & Schillewaert, N. (2014). Effects of co-creation claim on
consumer brand perceptions and behavioural intentions. International Journal of
Consumer Studies, 38(1), 110e118.
Edvardsson, B., Gustafsson, A., & Enquist, B. (2007). Success factors in new service
development and value creation through services. In D. Spath, & K. P. Fa €hnrich
(Eds.), Advances in services innovations (pp. 165e183). Berlin: Springer.
Edvardsson, B., Tronvoll, B., & Gruber, T. (2011). Expanding understanding of service
exchange and value co-creation: A social construction approach. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 39(2), 327e339.
Edwards, J. R., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). On the nature and direction of relationships
between constructs and measures. Psychological Methods, 5(2), 155.
FitzPatrick, M., Varey, R. J., Gro €nroos, C., & Davey, J. (2015). Relationality in the
service logic of value creation. Journal of Services Marketing, 29(6/7), 463e471.
Fletcher, G. (2008). Mill, Moore, and intrinsic value. Social Theory and Practice, 34(4),
517e532.
Franke, N., Schreier, M., & Kaiser, U. (2010). The “I designed it myself” effect in mass
customization. Management Science, 56(1), 125e140.
Gallan, A. S., Jarvis, C. B., Brown, S. W., & Bitner, M. J. (2013). Customer positivity and
participation in services: An empirical test in a health care context. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(3), 338e356.
Gallarza, M. G., & Saura, I. G. (2006). Value dimensions, perceived value, satisfaction
and loyalty: An investigation of university students' travel behaviour. Tourism
Management, 27(3), 437e452.
Galvagno, M., Dalli, D., & Mele, C. (2014). Theory of value co-creation: A systematic
literature review. Managing Service Quality, 24(6), 643e683.
Gordon, R., Domegan, C., Collins, K., Stead, M., McHugh, P., & Hughes, T. (2013).
Value co-creation in social marketing: Functional or fanciful? Journal of Social
Marketing, 3(3), 239e256.
Grissemann, U. S., & Stokburger-Sauer, N. E. (2012). Customer co-creation of travel
services: The role of company support and customer satisfaction with the co-
creation performance. Tourism Management, 33(6), 1483e1492.
Gro€ nroos, C. (2011). Value co-creation in service logic: A critical analysis. Marketing
Theory, 11(3), 279e301.
Gro€ nroos, C. (2012). Conceptualising value co-creation: A journey to the 1970s and
back to the future. Journal of Marketing Management, 28(13e14), 1520e1534.
Gro€ nroos, C., & Helle, P. (2010). Adopting a service logic in manufacturing: Con-
ceptual foundation and metrics for mutual value creation. Journal of Service
Management, 21(5), 564e590.
€ nroos, C., & Voima, P. (2013). Critical service logic: Making sense of value cre-
Gro
ation and co-creation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(2),
133e150.
Gwinner, K. P., Gremler, D. D., & Bitner, M. J. (1998). Relational benefits in services
industries: The customer's perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 26(2), 101e114.
 J.A. Busser, L.V. Shulga / Tourism Management 65 (2018) 69e86
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hartman, R. S. (1967). The structure of values: Foundations of scientific axiology.
Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Holbrook, M. B. (1999). Consumer value: A framework for analysis and research. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Homan, A. C., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S. E., Van Knippenberg, D., Ilgen, D. R., &
Van Kleef, G. A. (2008). Facing differences with an open mind: Openness to
experience, salience of intragroup differences, and performance of diverse work
groups. Academy of Management Journal, 51(6), 1204e1222.
Hsiao, C., Lee, Y. H., & Chen, W. J. (2015, August). The effect of servant leadership on
customer value co-creation: A cross-level analysis of key mediating roles.
Tourism Management, 49, 45e57.
Hsieh, P. L. (2015). Encounters in an online brand community: Development and
validation of a metric for value co-creation by customers. Cyberpsychology,
Behavior, and Social Networking, 18(5), 286e295.
Jaakkola, E., & Alexander, M. (2014). The role of customer engagement behavior in
value co-creation: A service system perspective. Journal of Service Research,
17(3), 247e261.
Jaakkola, E., & Hakanen, T. (2013). Value co-creation in solution networks. Industrial
Marketing Management, 42(1), 47e58.
Jahn, B., & Kunz, W. (2012). How to transform consumers into fans of your brand.
Journal of Service Management, 23(3), 344e361.
Jamilena, D. M. F., Pen  R. (2016). The effect of value-creation
~ a, A. I. P., & Molina, M.A.
on consumer-based destination brand equity. Journal of Travel Research. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/0047287516663650.
Jones, M. A., Reynolds, K. E., & Arnold, M. J. (2006). Hedonic and utilitarian shopping
value: Investigating differential effects on retail outcomes. Journal of Business
Research, 59(9), 974e981.
Kaleka, A. (2011). When exporting manufacturers compete on the basis of service:
Resources and marketing capabilities driving service advantage and perfor-
mance. Journal of International Marketing, 19(1), 40e58.
Karababa, E., & Kjeldgaard, D. (2014). Value in marketing: Toward sociocultural
perspectives. Marketing Theory, 14(1), 119e127.
Kim, H., Lee, S., Uysal, M., Kim, J., & Ahn, K. (2015). Nature-based tourism: Moti-
vation and subjective well-being. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 32(1),
76e96.
Kumar, V., Aksoy, L., Donkers, B., Venkatesan, R., Wiesel, T., & Tillmanns, S. (2010).
Undervalued or overvalued customers: Capturing total customer engagement
value. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 297e310.
Lala, V., & Chakraborty, G. (2015). Impact of consumers' effort investments on
buying decisions. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 32(2), 61e70.
Lazarus, D., Krishna, A., & Dhaka, S. (2014). Co-creation willingness matrix and
capability continuum for classification and scaling of services. Journal of Global
Marketing, 27(4), 213e225.
Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2006). Service-dominant logic: Reactions, reflections and
refinements. Marketing Theory, 6(3), 281e288.
Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2014). The service-dominant logic: Premises, perspectives,
possibilities. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lusch, R. F., Vargo, S. L., & O'Brien, M. (2007). Competing through service: Insights
from service-dominant logic. Journal of Retailing, 83(1), 5e18.
Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents,
correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological
Bulletin, 108(2), 171e194.
Mathis, E. F., Kim, H. L., Uysal, M., Sirgy, J. M., & Prebensen, N. K. (2016, March). The
effect of co-creation experience on outcome variable. Annals of Tourism
Research, 57, 62e75.
McColl-Kennedy, J. R., Vargo, S. L., Dagger, T., & Sweeney, J. C. (2009). Customers as
resource integrators: Styles of customer co-creation. Paper Presented at the
Naples Forum on Services, 24(1), 1e24.
Montes, L. F. J., Moreno, A. R., & Molina, M. F. L. (2004). Assessing the organizational
climate and contractual relationship for perceptions of support for innovation.
International Journal of Manpower, 25(2), 167e180.
Moorman, C., Zaltman, G., & Deshpande, R. (1992). Relationships between providers
and users of market research: The dynamics of trust within and between or-
ganizations. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3), 314.
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship
marketing. The Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20e38.
Moulard, J. G., Raggio, R. D., Folse, J., & Garretson, A. (2016). Brand authenticity:
Testing the antecedents and outcomes of brand management's passion for its
products. Psychology & Marketing, 33(6), 421e436.
Murphy, K. R., & Davidshofer, C. O. (2005). Psychological testing: Principles and
testing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Norton, M. I., Mochon, D., & Ariely, D. (2011, March). The'IKEA effect': When labor
leads to love. Harvard Business School Marketing Unit Working Paper.
O'Cass, A., & Ngo, L. V. (2011). Examining the firm's value creation process: A
managerial perspective of the firm's value offering strategy and performance.
British Journal of Management, 22(4), 646e671.
O'Cass, A., & Sok, P. (2015). An exploratory study into managing value creation in
tourism service firms: Understanding value creation phases at the intersection
of the tourism service firm and their customers. Tourism Management, 51(12),
186e200.
Oliver, C. (1997). Sustainable competitive advantage: Combining institutional and
resource-based views. Strategic Management Journal, 18(9), 697e713.
Ordanini, A., Miceli, L., Pizzetti, M., & Parasuraman, A. (2011). Crowd-funding:
85
Transforming customers into investors through innovative service platforms.
Journal of Service Management, 22(4), 443e470.
Ostrom, A. L., Parasuraman, A., Bowen, D. E., Patricio, L., Voss, C. A., & Lemon, K.
(2015). Service research priorities in a rapidly changing context. Journal of
Service Research, 18(2), 127e159.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1994). Moving forward in service
quality research: Measuring different customer-expectation levels, comparing
alternative scales, and examining the performance-behavioral intentions link.
Marketing Science Institute, 94(114), 1e54.
Payne, A. F., Storbacka, K., & Frow, P. (2008). Managing the co-creation of value.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 83e96.
Pen~ a, P. A. I., Jamilena, F. D. M., & Molina, R. M.A.  (2014). Value co-creation via in-
formation and communications technology. The Service Industries Journal,
34(13), 1043e1059.
Petrick, J. F. (2002). Development of a multi-dimensional scale for measuring the
perceived value of a service. Journal of Leisure Research, 34(2), 119.
, L., & Chumpitaz C
Ple aceres, R. (2010). Not always co-creation: Introducing inter-
actional co-destruction of value in service-dominant logic. Journal of Services
Marketing, 24(6), 430e437.
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2003). The new frontier of experience innovation.
MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(4), 12.
Prebensen, N. K., & Xie, J. (2017, June). Efficacy of co-creation and mastering on
perceived value and satisfaction in tourists' consumption. Tourism Management,
60, 166e176.
Ranjan, K. R., & Read, S. (2016). Value co-creation: Concept and measurement.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(3), 290e315.
Richey, R. G., Tokman, M., & Dalela, V. (2010). Examining collaborative supply chain
service technologies: A study of intensity, relationships, and resources. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38(1), 71e89.
Roberts, D., Hughes, M., & Kertbo, K. (2014). Exploring consumers' motivations to
engage in innovation through co-creation activities. European Journal of Mar-
keting, 48(1/2), 147e169.
Roggeveen, A. L., Tsiros, M., & Grewal, D. (2012). Understanding the co-creation
effect: When does collaborating with customers provide a lift to service re-
covery? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(6), 771e790.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of
research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology,
52(1), 141e166.
Ryan, R. M., & Huta, V. (2009). Wellness as healthy functioning or wellness as
happiness: The importance of eudaimonic thinking (response to the Kashdan
et al. and Waterman discussion). The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(3),
202e204.
Ryssel, R., Ritter, T., & Gemünden, G. H. (2004). The impact of information tech-
nology deployment on trust, commitment and value creation in business re-
lationships. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 19(3), 197e207.
Sanchez, J., Callarisa, L., Rodriguez, R. M., & Moliner, M. A. (2006). Perceived value of
the purchase of a tourism product. Tourism Management, 27(3), 394e409.
Schau, H. J., Mun ~ iz, A. M., Jr., & Arnould, E. J. (2009). How brand community prac-
tices create value. Journal of Marketing, 73(5), 30e51.
Schroeder, M. (2016). Value theory. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of
philosophy (Fall, 2016 ed.).
Sen, A. (1982). Rights and agency. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 11(1), 3e39.
Shaw, G., Bailey, A., & Williams, A. (2011). Aspects of service-dominant logic and its
implications for tourism management: Examples from the hotel industry.
Tourism Management, 32(2), 207e214.
Shayon, S. (2014). Marriott opens innovation with content studio, co-creation and MIT
partnership. Retrieved from: http://www.brandchannel.com/home/post/2014/
10/10/141010-Marriott-Innovation.aspx.
Smith, A. M. (2013). The value co-destruction process: A customer resource
perspective. European Journal of Marketing, 47(11/12), 1889e1909.
So, K. K. F., King, C., & Sparks, B. (2014). Customer engagement with tourism brands:
Scale development and validation. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research,
38(3), 304e329.
Sparks, B., Bradley, G., & Jennings, G. (2011). Consumer value and self-image con-
gruency at different stages of timeshare ownership. Tourism Management, 32(5),
1176e1185.
Suntikul, W., & Jachna, T. (2016, February). The co-creation/place attachment nexus.
Tourism Management, 52, 276e286.
Sweeney, J. C., & Soutar, G. N. (2001). Consumer perceived value: The development
of a multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 203e220.
Tax, S. S., Brown, S. W., & Chandrashekaran, M. (1998). Customer evaluations of
service complaint experiences: Implications for relationship marketing. The
Journal of Marketing, 62(2), 60e76.
Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding
concepts and applications. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Van Doorn, J., Lemon, K. N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P., et al. (2010).
Customer engagement behavior: Theoretical foundations and research di-
rections. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 253e266.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing.
Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1e17.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). Service-dominant logic: Continuing the evolution.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 1e10.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2016). Institutions and axioms: An extension and update
of service-dominant logic. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(1),
5e23.
86 J.A. Busser, L.V. Shulga / Tourism Management 65 (2018) 69e86

Verleye, K. (2015). The co-creation experience from the customer perspective: Its James A. Busser, Ph.D. is a Professor and Associate Dean for
measurement and determinants. Journal of Service Management, 26(2), Academic Affairs in the William F. Harrah College of Hotel
321e342. Administration at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. His
Verma, R., Gustafsson, A., Kristensson, P., & Witell, L. (2012). Customer co-creation research interests include hospitality/tourism marketing,
in service innovation: A matter of communication? Journal of Service Manage- service delivery/management, and human resource
ment, 23(3), 311e327. management.
Wang, S. W., Ngamsiriudom, W., & Hsieh, C. (2015). Trust disposition, trust ante-
cedents, trust, and behavioral intention. The Service Industries Journal, 35(10),
555e572.
Wang, C. C., & Yang, Y. J. (2007). Personality and intention to share knowledge: An
empirical study of scientists in an R&D laboratory. Social Behavior and Person-
ality: An International Journal, 35(10), 1427e1436.
Wedgwood, R. (2009). Diotima's eudaemonism: Intrinsic value and rational moti-
vation in Plato's symposium. Phronesis, 54(4), 297e325.
Wong, A. (2004). The role of emotional satisfaction in service encounters. Managing
Service Quality: An International Journal, 14(5), 365e376. Lenna V. Shulga, Ph.D. is currently an Assistant Professor in
Xu, Y., Marshall, R., Edvardsson, B., & Tronvoll, B. (2014). Show you care: Initiating the School of Travel Industry Management at the Univer-
co-creation in service recovery. Journal of Service Management, 25(3), 369e387. sity of Hawaiʻi at Ma
noa. Her research interests include
Yi, Y., & Gong, T. (2013). Customer value co-creation behavior: Scale development consumer behavior, marketing and organizational
and validation. Journal of Business Research, 66(9), 1279e1284. behavior in the service industry.
Yoo, K. H., & Gretzel, U. (2011). Influence of personality on travel-related consumer-
generated media creation. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), 609e621.
Zauner, A., Koller, M., & Hatak, I. (2015). Customer perceived valuedconceptuali-
zation and avenues for future research. Cogent Psychology, 2(1), 1e17.
Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-
end model and synthesis of evidence. The Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2e22.