Service Business (2020) 14:413–437

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11628-020-00422-9

EMPIRICAL ARTICLE

Mindful co‑creation of transformative service for better

well‑being

Mai Thi My‑Quyen1,2 · Le Nguyen Hau1,2   · Pham Ngoc Thuy1,2

Received: 25 December 2019 / Accepted: 20 July 2020 / Published online: 27 July 2020
© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract
Certain transformative services require customers to undertake and sustain difficult
activities for a long time. Such requirement may cause customers to under-partici-
pate or even abandon the service, resulting in the service co-destruction. To under-
stand how customers may overcome such challenge, this research explores the role
of customer mindfulness in fostering co-creation effort and customer well-being.
Based on the data collected from 283 customers of yoga training service, the find-
ings show that mindfulness has a positive impact on customer effort to sustain the
co-creation activities. In turn, co-creation effort improves customer’s quality of life
and well-being. Mindfulness also has positive direct effects on customer quality of
life and well-being. This research contributes to the literature by elucidating the con-
cept of co-creation effort in SDL research paradigm. It also extends our knowledge
of mindfulness in consumer behavior by showing the mechanism in which mindful-
ness and co-creation effort contribute to improve customer life. Practical implica-
tions are then discussed accordingly.

Keywords  Mindfulness · Co-creation effort · Quality of life · Well-being ·

Transformative service

1 Introduction

In the recent years, transformative service has received great attention of service
researchers (Anderson et  al. 2018; Previte and Robertson 2019). The ultimate
benefit of this type of service is an uplifting change in the customer life and well-
being (Anderson and Ostrom 2015). In the view of service-dominant logic (SDL),

* Le Nguyen Hau
Lnhau@hcmut.edu.vn
1
School of Industrial Management – HoChiMinh City University of Technology, 268 Ly Thuong
Kiet Str., Dist. 10, HoChiMinh City, Vietnam
2
Vietnam National University HoChiMinh City, Linh Trung Ward, Thu Duc District,
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 414 M. T. My‑Quyen et al.

customer benefit is not solely created by service provider and delivered to customers,
but is realized through the process of service co-creation (Vargo and Lusch 2016). In
this process, customer co-creation is undertaken by interacting with service provider
and performing necessary activities to integrate their resources with those of service
provider and other actors in the customer’s service network (McColl-Kennedy et al.
2012). In so doing, customers are not passive receivers of the service benefit, but
play an active role in the co-creation of the service. Therefore, the co-creation of a
transformative service for a better well-being is unseparated from customer activi-
ties in their life. This notion is particularly salient in services that require customer
co-creation activities being performed regularly for a significant period, such as
education, chronic disease treatment or physical fitness training. In such services,
the co-creation requires much effort of customers to be sustained for a long time
(Sweeney et  al. 2015). However, by nature, effort is a negative charge because it
requires customer energy and resource (Soderlund and Sagfossen 2017). Conse-
quently, it is likely that customers want their life to be better through the transforma-
tive service, but they are less pleasant and more frustrating when engaged in the
co-creation of the service (Franke and Schreier 2010). As a result, many customers
under-participate or even abandon the co-creation process, which then turns service
co-creation to be co-destruction (Greer 2015).
To overcome this paradox, it is important to improve customer’s capability of
cognitive functioning in the service process, which is described as the mental pro-
cess that urge a customer to carry out a service task (Donnelly et  al. 2016). In so
doing, mindfulness training is suggested as a potential measure (Chiesa et al. 2011).
In brief, mindfulness refers to the state of being aware of and attentive to what is
taking place in the present (Brown and Ryan 2003). In fact, mindfulness has been a
significant research subject in psychology, sociology, and education for a few dec-
ades (Yang and Conroy 2019). However, research on consumer mindfulness has just
commenced and received attention of marketing scholars (Ndubisi et al. 2019; Sheth
et al. 2011). Some conceptual works on mindfulness application in marketing have
started to appear, but the subject remains unexplored and the shortage of empirical
research is evidenced (Ndubisi 2014). Especially, little is known about the benefits
(or costs) of mindfulness in the context of a transformative service co-creation, as
well as in the customer’s life in general (Bahl et al. 2016).
Bringing co-creation effort and mindfulness research streams together, the current
research explores the role of mindfulness in fostering customer co-creation effort in a
transformative service, leading to the service outcome. In this study, customer’s qual-
ity of life and well-being are to represent the service outcome. Given that transforma-
tive service emphasizes the uplifting change in customer life, so far not many studies
have examined this ultimate outcome in comparison with the immediate outcome of
perceived value (Anderson and Ostrom 2015). In fact, scholars in this research stream
have conceptualized service value to include outcomes such as quality of life, health
and well-being, and other personal goals (Anderson and Ostrom 2015; McColl-Ken-
nedy et al. 2012). As such, perceived value of a transformative service can be mani-
fested by quality of life or well-being. This notion is also in line with SDL perspective,
which defines value as benefit, an increase in the well-being of a particular actor (Lusch
and Vargo 2014). Moreover, among few studies examining the ultimate outcomes of a

13
Mindful co-creation of transformative service for better… 415

transformative service, several of them tend to focus on either quality of life or well-
being, or use both terms interchangeably (e.g., McColl-Kennedy et  al. 2017; Pham
et  al. 2019; Sweeney et  al. 2015). The current research proposes a conceptual and
empirical distinction between them to provide a fuller understanding of the roles of
mindfulness and co-creation effort in a customer’s life. With the above considerations,
the current research is aimed to achieve the following objectives. Firstly, it investigates
the impact of mindfulness on customer co-creation effort in a transformative service.
Next, it examines the contribution of customer co-creation effort to the uplifting change
of quality of life and well-being. It then tests whether a consumer with an enhanced
mindfulness has a better quality of life and well-being. Its final objective is to examine
the effect of quality of life on customer well-being.
In so doing, this research contributes to the literature in several ways. Firstly, it is
among few studies to provide insights into the role customer mindfulness plays in a
service context. This is a response to recent calls from marketing scholars for more
research on mindfulness in consumer behavior (Milne et al. 2019; Ndubisi et al. 2019).
Secondly, in the SDL research stream, this research advances our understanding of the
potential that mindfulness and effort help customer to accomplish challenging service
co-creation activities. This is particularly meaningful in transformative services that
require customers to sustain their co-creation for a long time. Thirdly, this study eluci-
dates the extents to which mindfulness and co-creation effort contribute to customer’s
quality of life and well-being. Based on the findings, this study offers practical implica-
tions for a range of actors in the transformative service system.
The empirical setting for this study is the yoga training service. This is a trans-
formative service which has been popularized in many countries from the East to the
West (Michelis 2007). Its main purpose is to improve physical and mental health of
customers. This is a highly interactive service which requires co-creation activities
of customers and service frontliners. For each service session, trainees (customers)
come to a yoga center to be trained by a yoga master (service frontliner). The master
instructs trainees to practice vigorous and physically challenging activities. With-
out this collaboration, the service cannot be accomplished. A yoga training program
often lasts several months or even years before its expected outcomes can be real-
ized (Aggarwal and Basu 2014). These underlying features characterize a challenge
for customers to maintain the co-creation effort for a long period of time.
In the following sections, we present the theoretical foundation of concepts under
study, the development of a set of hypotheses and the proposed research model.
Next, the research method and empirical results are reported. Finally, we present the
discussion of theoretical contributions, managerial implications as well as conclu-
sion of the study.

2 Conceptual foundation

2.1 Mindfulness

Mindfulness is a cognitive aspect of human functioning (Chiesa et al. 2011), which

represents a state of “clear and single-minded awareness of what actually happens to

13
 416 M. T. My‑Quyen et al.

us and in us at the successive moments of perception” (Thera 1992, p. 5). It can be

understood as the way individuals pay attention to their experiences in the present
moment with nonjudgmental attitudes (Kabat-Zinn 1994), or simply as “keeping
one’s consciousness alive to the present reality” (Hanh 1976, p. 11). In aggrega-
tion of these conceptions, Baer et al. (2006) define, which is adopted in the current
study, mindfulness as “a state of being in which individuals bring their attention to
the experiences occurring in the present moment, in a nonjudgmental or accepting
way” (p. 27). The literature on mindfulness has been developing along two schools
of thought; one is advanced by Langer (1989) and the other is based on Kabat-Zinn
(1994). While Langer only emphasizes the awareness of external stimuli, Kabat-
Zinn pays attention to both internal and external stimuli and requires introspection
and metacognitive awareness (Hart et al. 2013). Thus, Kabat-Zinn’s model presents
more detail and breadth and Langer’s construct is considered as a substructure of
Kabat-Zinn’s multifaceted model (Hart et al. 2013).
In the conceptualization of mindfulness, some researchers view mindfulness as a
trait property of a human being. It is an inherent capacity which varies across indi-
viduals but temporally stable within a person. The natural variation in mindfulness
across individuals is likely due to variations in genetic predisposition (Bowlin and
Baer 2012). In contrast, other researchers view mindfulness as a psychological state
which varies within a person across different situations and time (Brown and Ryan
2003; Hülsheger et al. 2013). Proponents of this view provide empirical evidence to
convince that individuals can cultivate their state of mindfulness by measures such
as meditation practice, mindfulness training or mindfulness-based therapy programs
(e.g., Hülsheger et  al. 2013). Moreover, even people with high trait mindfulness
may experience a state of low mindlessness in certain situations (Yang and Con-
roy 2019). Consequently, while appreciating trait mindfulness, the current research
focuses on investigating state mindfulness to provide more insights for organizations
and individuals for developing interventions to promote it and enjoy its benefits in
various contexts of human life (Bahl et al. 2016; Yang and Conroy 2019).
Mindfulness encompasses four key characteristics: awareness, attention, focus on
present, and being receptive with nonjudgmental mind. Awareness is the background
“radar” of consciousness, continually monitoring the inner and outer environment
(Brown and Ryan 2003). However, one may be aware of stimuli without them being
at the center of attention, which is a process of focusing conscious awareness, pro-
viding heightened sensitivity to a limited range of experience. In practice, awareness
and attention are intertwined, in which attention pulls objects out of the background
of awareness, holding them focally for a period of time (Westen 1999). Focus on
present implies that a mindful individual strongly focuses on moment-to-moment
experiences rather than thinking about their past or future (Brown and Ryan 2003).
Finally, receptive mind with nonjudgment implies that mindful information process-
ing is pre-conceptual. In a mindful state, individuals recognize and embrace things
as they are (Shapiro et al. 2008). They purely notice what is happening at the factual
and value-free level, without conceptualizing, analyzing, evaluating or reflecting on
it (Hülsheger et al. 2013).
Scientific inquiry on mindfulness has been surged in psychology, then becomes
popularized in healthcare and education. However, research on mindfulness in

13
Mindful co-creation of transformative service for better… 417

marketing and consumer behavior is still in its infancy (Milne et al. 2019; Ngo et al.
2016). Prior studies mainly focus on mindful consumption and how it relates to the
sustainability of stakeholders. Sheth et al. (2011) introduce the concept of mindful
consumption to represent a consumer mindset of caring for self, community, and
nature. Specifically, mindful consumption requires consumers to pay attention to
their bodily sensations, thoughts, and emotions with the attitude of acceptance and
to make consumption choices based on their direct experience of needs and values
(Milne et al. 2019). Ndubisi (2014) shows the significant differences in the relation-
ship quality and consumer loyalty between consumer groups of high and low mind-
fulness. Ngo et al. (2016) have found that a customer’s level of mindfulness is essen-
tial to their evaluation of brand experience in a retail context. In hospitality service,
Barber and Deale (2014) suggest that mindfulness makes hotel guests aware of and
responsive to hotels’ sustainability practices and concern for society and others.
Bahl et al. (2016) convince that mindfulness is an antidote to mindless consumption,
which negatively affects individual and collective well-being. This review indicates
that in the past time, the concept of mindfulness received less attention in the field
of marketing. However, with its transformative potential for consumers, organiza-
tional, societal and environmental well-being, mindfulness has now started drawing
the great interest of marketing scholars (Bahl et al. 2016; Milne et al. 2019).

2.2 Customer co‑creation effort in a service

2.2.1 Customer service co‑creation

Service-dominant logic advocates that the accomplishment of a service always

requires the co-creation of engaged actors of which customers play an active role
(Vargo and Lusch 2016). Customer service co-creation involves cognitive and
behavioral activities and interactions to integrate resources and transform them into
benefits (i.e., value) for the customer and other involved parties (Hau 2019; McColl-
Kennedy et al. 2012). Customer co-creation activities may occur within the course
of the focal service or beyond the service at hand. They may also be undertaken
in the joint sphere of direct interaction between the customer and service provider
or happen independently within the customer’s own sphere (Gronroos and Voima
2013). In terms of necessity, customer co-creation activities can be mandatory
(compulsory for the service to occur), replaceable (can be done by customer or pro-
vider) or voluntary (not required but can enhance the service) (Dong and Sivakumar
2017). They may be simple (e.g., being physical presence or providing information)
or more demanding (e.g., performing challenging responsible tasks or joint decision
making (Sweeney et al. 2015).

2.2.2 Customer effort

Effort is defined as the intensity of mental or physical behavior in the process of

meeting some goal (Eisenberger 1992). It reflects a state that falls between how well
a person can potentially perform a task and how well she or he actually performs

13
 418 M. T. My‑Quyen et al.

that task (Shenhav et al. 2017). It is a volitional, intentional process that relates to
activities a person is actively doing, not passively happening to her or him (Inzli-
cht et  al. 2018). Effort is closely related but distinct from motivation. Motivation
drives a behavior by determining both the directional goal and the intensity of the
behavior (Palma et al. 2019), while effort confines only in the intensity of the behav-
ior (Inzlicht et al. 2018). Westbrook and Braver (2015) refer effort to the extent of
engagement with a demanding task. High engagement is associated with high atten-
tion which enhances task performance. However, effort is not identical with atten-
tion because the former is endogenous and voluntary, while the latter may be driven
by both endogenous and exogenous, voluntary and involuntary sources (Kaplan and
Berman 2010). Scholars explain that the extent of effort toward a goal is determined
by a value assessment process (e.g., Bailey et al. 2016). In this process, the person
compares the perceived costs of effort in the current situation with the expected ben-
efits that the effort would result in. However, other scholars argue that the value of
effort may embed concurrently in the process itself (e.g., Inzlicht et al. 2018; Sandra
and Otto 2018). It is further noted that when individuals involve in enduring tasks,
their effort may diminish over time due to the decrease in motivation and attention
(Inzlicht et al. 2018). That is, after exerting effort, people monitor and attend to cues
associated with reward and gratification. If the cues are not clear, they may become
less motivated to sustain the effort (Otto and Daw 2019).
In the field of marketing, research on customer effort is scant and comprises con-
siderable ambiguity (Soderlund and Sagfossen 2017; Sweeney et al. 2015). Cardozo
(1965) could be one of the first authors mentioning customer effort. He defines cus-
tomer effort “includes the physical, mental, and financial resources expended to
obtain a product” (Cardozo 1965, p. 244). Other authors exclude financial resource
and view consumer effort as additional costs beyond money to be paid (e.g., Gibbs
and Drolet 2003). There are still scholars who view customer effort as the amount of
energy or resource that a customer puts into behaviors during the consumption pro-
cess (Mohr and Bitner 1995). Consequently, some scholars argue that consumption
processes requiring more effort are associated with less pleasant, more fatiguing,
and more frustrating for customers (Franke and Schreier 2010). In contrast, other
scholars point out that in certain consumption processes, when customers perceive
that their active participation is demanded and their effort is desirable and valuable,
they will exert high level of effort (Gibbs and Drolet 2003).

2.2.3 Customer co‑creation effort

The above-mentioned notion of customer effort is consonant with the service co-
creation contexts where customers are required to perform challenging activities to
accomplish a service (Hau and Thuy 2016; Joo and Marakhimov 2018; Park et al.
2018). In this respect, the term customer co-creation effort is coined, which is the
focus of the current research. In fact, Sweeney et al. (2015) stress that research on
customer co-creation effort is insufficient, making it is difficult for scholars and prac-
titioners when applying this concept in practices. Then, they describe customer’s co-
creation effort as “the degree of effort that customers exert to integrate resources,
through a range of activities of varying levels of perceived difficulty” (p. 3). To

13
Mindful co-creation of transformative service for better… 419

make this definition clearer based on the above-mentioned conceptual foundations,

the current research defines customer co-creation effort as the intensity of mental or
physical behaviors being exerted by a customer to integrate necessary resources in
the process of service co-creation. By this expression, we emphasize the intensity of
the mental or physical activities and their volitional nature that customers actively
maintain in the co-creation process (Eisenberger 1992; Inzlicht et al. 2018).

2.3 Quality of life and well‑being

Research on human’s quality of life (QOL) and subjective well-being (or well-being,
in short) has proliferated in the 1980’s in the field of psychology (WHOQOL Group,
1998a; b). Recently, marketing scholars have paid attention to these concepts and
used them as indicators for economic exchanges (Kristoffersen 2010). For example,
service researchers have suggested that well-being or quality of life should be con-
sidered as the ultimate outcome for customers instead of satisfaction or value (Falter
and Hadwich 2019). However, literature is witnessing the confusion in the use of
these two terms, in which some authors use QOL and well-being interchangeably
(Camfield and Skevington 2008; Shin and Johnson 1978). To clarify this confu-
sion, Medvedev and Landhuis (2018) suggest that they are conceptually distinct and
should not be used interchangeably.
Accordingly, Medvedev and Landhuis (2018), based on the World Health Organi-
zation (WHOQOL Group 1995), propose that quality of life is described as an indi-
vidual’s perception of their position in life (i.e., good or bad), in the context of the
culture and value systems in which they live. It is a broad concept covering various
aspects of an individual’s life, including physical health, psychological state, social
relationships and relationships to salient features of their environment. However,
not all dimensions of QOL appear due to context differences. Recent studies sug-
gest that the first three components are more relevant to co-creation activities (Med-
vedev and Landhuis 2018; Pham et  al. 2019). The current study adopts this view
and focuses on physical health, psychological health and social relationship as three
major dimensions of QOL. Accordingly, to evaluate QOL, individuals will base on
their perception about the extent of goodness (or excellence) of their current life in
terms of three mentioned dimensions.
On the other hand, well-being is defined as “a global evaluation of life satisfac-
tion” (Diener 2006, p. 400). It includes both cognitive and affective aspects. The
cognitive component of well-being refers to a global assessment of a person’s quality
of life against his own chosen criteria” (Shin and Johnson 1978). The affective com-
ponent of well-being refers to positive and negative feelings about life (Keyes et al.
2002). While cognitive aspect tends to be stable overtime, the feeling often varies
due to situations (Andrews and McKennell 1980). In addition, Diener et al. (1985)
argue that life satisfaction could be seen as the “hallmark of subjective well-being
area” (p. 71), because people set criteria for themselves without being impacted by
external factors. Adopting this view, the current study focuses on life satisfaction
as the most important dimension of well-being. As such, quality of life is distinct
from life satisfaction in the sense that the former is the perceived goodness of an

13
 420 M. T. My‑Quyen et al.

individual life set out by the cultural, social and personal standards, while the latter
is the resultant of the comparison between that perceived goodness and the expecta-
tion level (i.e., self-chosen standards) of the individual life.

3 The proposed hypotheses

Based on the conceptual foundations and literature review presented above, this sec-
tion addresses the theoretical justifications leading to the proposed hypotheses in
this study. The proposed structural model is also illustrated in Fig. 1.

3.1 The effect of customer mindfulness on customer co‑creation effort

In the context of service co-creation, customers are likely to exert high level of effort
if they perceive that the co-creation activities are important, desirable, and valuable
(Gibbs and Drolet 2003). However, in transformative services that require customers
to involve in enduring, regular and difficult tasks (such as fitness training, educa-
tion, or treatment of chronic diseases in healthcare), customer co-creation effort may
diminish over time due to the decrease in motivation and attention (Otto and Daw
2019), which is caused by fatigue and frustration (Soderlund and Sagfossen 2017).
In this situation, customer mindfulness is argued to enhance co-creation effort by
nurturing cognitive and attentional capability of the customers.
Prior studies have shown that mindfulness fosters an individual’s cognitive per-
formance, including cognitive capacity and cognitive flexibility (Smallwood and
Schooler 2015). Typically, the general mental ability of a person is a stable indi-
vidual difference, but his or her working memory tends to be more pliable (Good
et al. 2016). To this respect, mindfulness can increase his or her working memory
capacity (Roeser et al. 2013). In turn, this aspect of the cognitive ability functions as

H2
0.66 (p=0.003)
Quality of Life

H1
Mindfulness Co-creation Effort H4 0.36 (p=0.004)
0.37 (p=0.006)

H3
Well-being
0.23 (p=0.038)

Fig. 1  Results of structural model estimation

13
Mindful co-creation of transformative service for better… 421

a short-term buffer to keep and process information that links attention and higher-
order cognition, leading to better cognitive capacity (Baddeley 1992). This enhanced
cognitive capacity would then strengthen the perception on the importance of co-
creation activities and thus more co-creation effort is exerted. Mindfulness is also
associated with flexible cognition, a precondition of creativity and divergent think-
ing (Colzato et  al. 2012). Under this divergent cognitive thinking, customers may
not see the enduring co-creation behavior as fatiguing and frustrating but something
enjoyable and desirable (Sandra and Otto 2018) that is worth exerting effort as well.
The other reason to justify the link between mindfulness and co-creation effort
is via attention, one of mindfulness key features. Studies have shown that mindful-
ness enhances the attentional capability of an individual, including attentional con-
trol and attentional stability (Van Gelderen et al. 2018). First, mindfulness supports
attentional control, which refers to appropriately directing attention among compet-
ing demands by reducing habitual allocation of attention to them and reducing atten-
tion to distracting information (Ocasio 2011). Second, mindfulness supports atten-
tional stability by prolonging attention and reducing mind wandering (Smallwood
and Schooler 2015). The attentional stability of mindfulness is particularly meaning-
ful in service contexts where the required co-creation activities last long and may be
distracted over time due to the lack of clear and observable outcomes. Attentional
control and attentional stability together are thus argued to foster customer engage-
ment in the performance of required tasks (Good et  al. 2016; Van Gelderen et  al.
2018). In the context of service co-creation, this engagement refers to as co-creation
effort (Ngo et al. 2016; Westbrook and Braver 2015).
Moreover, during the service co-creation, mindful customers interact with service
encounters and develop attitudes and modify their behaviors accordingly (Woods
and Moscardo 2003). During the interaction, mindfulness allows customers to expe-
rience the service in a receptive and nonjudgmental way, which results in a positive
attitude being associated with a reduced emotional exhaustion and improved satis-
faction in the interaction context (Hülsheger et al. 2013). It is the resulting positive
attitude that positively influences a customer’s co-creation effort (Ngo et al. 2016).
The above-mentioned lines of reasoning lead to the proposed hypothesis:

H1  Customer mindfulness has a positive effect on his or her co-creation effort in a
transformative service.

3.2 The effect of customer mindfulness on quality of life

As being described previously, quality of life reflects the perceived extent of good-
ness of the current life in terms of physical health, psychological domain and social
relationship quality (Medvedev and Landhuis 2018). In this study, the effect of
mindfulness on quality of life is justified in the general life of a customer, not only
confined within the specific service at hand (i.e., yoga training service).
In general, mindfulness can improve a customer’s quality of life through various
aspects, including physical health, psychological health and social relationship qual-
ity. First, consumers’ mindfulness helps improve the performance of various types

13
 422 M. T. My‑Quyen et al.

of behavior and practices in their daily living activities (Bahl et al. 2016; Van Gel-
deren et al. 2018). For example, prior studies have shown that mindfulness supports
healthy eating, ability to weaken detrimental habits, better quality of experience
with family, making skillful financial decision, etc. (Van Gelderen et al. 2018). The
betterment of theses aspects in a customer life implies a better physical health being
brought about by mindfulness.
Second, mindfulness helps reduce several psychological disorders such as neurot-
icism, depression, stress, anxiety or other adverse health symptoms (e.g., Creswell
and Lindsay 2014). These effects of mindfulness come from its ability to foster the
shift in emotional appraisal and promote more neutral evaluations, in which external
stimuli are viewed without habitual self-reference. Consequently, mindful customers
are less emotionally vulnerable to external events (Hülsheger et al. 2013). Moreover,
when emotions even arise, mindfulness supports the ability to shorten the emotional
lifecycle (Good et  al. 2016). That is, it reduces the time to reach peak emotional
arousal and quickly return to baseline (Brown et al. 2012).
Third, mindfulness has a positive effect on interpersonal behavior and relation-
ship quality (Good et al. 2016). Scholars have shown that mindful customers have
better relationships with others (Ndubisi 2014; Quaglia et  al. 2015). This effect is
by means of more attention to others, better communication, less conflict, less emo-
tional reactivity, less negative judgment of others and better expression of other-
directed emotions and empathy (Condon et  al. 2013). Consequently, mindfulness
leads to relationship satisfaction, relatedness, closeness, and acceptance of others
(Carson et al. 2004).
In aggregation, the above analyses provide reasons to propose the following
hypothesis:

H2  Customer mindfulness has a positive effect on his or her quality of life.

3.3 The effect of customer mindfulness on well‑being

As said, the current research focuses on cognitive well-being and uses this term
interchangeable with life satisfaction (Medvedev and Landhuis 2018). The justifica-
tion for the effect of customer mindfulness on customer well-being is also discussed
in a broad sense of the customer life, not implied to one specific service. While
mindfulness fosters quality of life via the improvement of various life aspects of a
customer, the justification for the link between mindfulness and well-being focuses
on how mindfulness supports the formation of personal standards for life, leading
to positive feelings about one’s life (i.e., life satisfaction), regardless of the level of
quality of life.
Studies have shown that mindfulness has a positive association with various
aspects of well-being, including sense of autonomy, self-regulation, happiness
and life satisfaction, (e.g., Hart et  al. 2013; Shapiro et  al. 2008). Typically, mind-
ful individuals show more awareness of multiple aspects of their life (Langer 1989)
and have a receptive attention to current events, realities, and experiences (Brown
and Ryan 2003). They also tend to pay more attention to the participation in the

13
Mindful co-creation of transformative service for better… 423

ongoing process of living (Gunaratana 2002) and to respond flexibly to contextual

cues (Argote 2006). These qualities enable them to accept and adapt to shifts in the
external environments, making their life being satisfying (Ndubisi 2014). In general,
given that mindful customers tend to be more receptive and satisfied in their social
and marketing exchanges, mindfulness can increase customer life satisfaction by the
accumulation of numerous satisfying moments or events in his or her daily life as a
consumer (Ngo et al. 2016).
Moreover, mindfulness is associated with higher self-esteem, greater satisfaction
with own behavior, and lower likelihood of being motivated by social motives and
desires (Bahl et  al. 2016). Brown and Ryan (2003) argued that mindful individu-
als see themselves as a construction of thoughts rather than an object to be evalu-
ated. This perspective leads to a less desire to seek external approval from the self
or others (Brown and Ryan 2003), less being susceptible to, and better in the man-
agement of undesirable marketing stimuli (Weinstein et al. 2009), and better in the
avoidance of over-wanted responses (Brown and Ryan 2003). Mindfulness can also
heighten self-regulation (Bahl et  al. 2016). According to Brown and Ryan (2003),
mindful individuals have an aware and receptive mind that may be especially valu-
able in facilitating the formation of one’s less-demanding needs, values, and inter-
ests. Additionally, mindfulness may facilitate well-being through the fulfillment of
the needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, thereby satisfying these basic
psychological needs (Hodgins and Knee 2002). Mindfulness also enhances confi-
dence and resilience in the instance that one faces life problems or challenges (Bahl
et al. 2016). It helps individuals engage with obstacles, regulate emotion and reduce
negative thoughts to take appropriate actions, by which recovering to the normal life
(Neff and Broady 2011).
The hypothesis is thus proposed as follow:

H3  Customer mindfulness has a positive effect on his or her well-being.

3.4 The effect of quality of life on well‑being

The majority of prior studies in marketing have used either quality of life or well-
being as the ultimate outcome of a customer life brought about by marketing
exchanges (e.g., Sweeney et al. 2015). Some have used them interchangeably (Cam-
field and Skevington 2008). In the current study, we have reviewed and proposed a
conceptual distinction between the two constructs. In this section, we adopt the view
of Medvedev and Landhuis (2018) to suggest that quality of life is one of the deter-
minants of subjective well-being or life satisfaction.
The core of quality of life is the extent of goodness of various aspects of an indi-
vidual’s existing life. In contrast, well-being or life satisfaction is the perceived dif-
ference between the actual goodness and the expectation about those aspects of the
individual’s life. Therefore, the magnitude of well-being is determined by not only
the life goodness but also the personal expectation (Keyes et  al. 2002). This logic
is initially supported by an empirical test on a sample of 180 students in New Zea-
land by Medvedev and Landhuis (2018). They have found that components of QOL

13
 424 M. T. My‑Quyen et al.

positively affect well-being, in which psychological QOL contributes the strongest

weight, then physical and social QOL, respectively.
In the current research, we revalidate the relation between quality of life and well-
being in a new research setting with differences in social, cultural and economic
characteristics. Therefore, the hypothesis is stated as follow:

H4  Customer quality of life has a positive effect on his or her well-being.

3.5 The effect of customer co‑creation effort on quality of life

Given that co-creation may include different types of activities (i.e., mandatory,
replaceable or voluntary) (Dong and Sivakumar 2017), customer co-creation effort
focuses on activities that are mandatory for achieving the desired outcome (McColl-
Kennedy et  al. 2017; Sweeney et  al. 2015). As such, when customers exert more
co-creation effort, they strive intensively to perform mandatory activities (i.e., those
that can only be performed by customers) to co-create the service. The better per-
formance of these activities, in turn, is essential for attaining the expected service
outcomes (Dong and Sivakumar 2017; McColl-Kennedy et al. 2012). As indicated
in the literature, the outcomes of transformative services can be in the form of bet-
ter physical or mental health, better knowledge, positive psychological experience,
better social relations (Hernández‑Ortega and Franco 2019; Ross et  al. 2013). All
these outcomes are the manifestation of various domains of customer’s quality of
life (Medvedev and Landhuis 2018). Consequently, it is reasonable to argue that cus-
tomer co-creation effort positively affects the transformative service outcome, which
is ultimately manifested by the betterment of the customer’s quality of life.
This proposed effect is particularly salient in the co-creation of transformative
services that requires customers to perform repetitive and difficult tasks over a long
time (such as yoga training, education, or treatment of chronic illness in healthcare).
In such service contexts, customer’s necessary co-creation activities are required
to sustain for a certain time period, not only within one service session but also
across sessions. During that prolonged time, some customers may feel fatigued and
frustrated before the concrete outcome can be realized in their life (Atkinson and
Permuth-Levine 2009). This feature creates a challenge that customers with higher
level of effort can overcome better than those with lower level (Otto and Daw 2019).
Based on the above analyses, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H5  Customer co-creation effort in a transformative service has a positive effect on

his or her quality of life.

3.6 The effect of customer co‑creation effort on well‑being

The justification for the effect of co-creation effort on well-being is based on the theory
of bottom-up vertical and horizontal spillover effect (Sirgy 2012). The bottom-up verti-
cal spillover theory suggests that an individual’s satisfaction with an event or experi-
ence in a life domain spills over vertically to influence his or her satisfaction with that

13
Mindful co-creation of transformative service for better… 425

domain, which in turn spills over vertically to influence his or her overall life satisfac-
tion (i.e., well-being). On the other hand, the horizontal spillover theory posits that an
individual’s satisfaction with one life domain (e.g., family) influences his or her satis-
faction with other life domains (e.g., work). Moreover, the horizontal spillover effect is
stronger when the affect is positive and/or the focal life domain shares similar activities
and participants with other life domains, leading to the improvement of global life sat-
isfaction (Sirgy 2012).
In the context of yoga training service which requires the co-creation activities to be
performed on a regular basis, those customers who exert and sustain effort imply that
they are highly engaged in the service process (Ngo et al. 2016; Westbrook and Braver
2015). This high level of engagement makes them become self-identified with the ser-
vice (Wolter and Cronin 2016). They would see the co-creation activities as a part of
their everyday life, and thus, co-creation effort helps them accomplish necessary but
challenging co-creation activities. This accomplishment is likely to foster their positive
emotional experience in this life event (i.e., experience value) which is attributed by
pride of achievement and excitement (Pham and Sun 2020). The positive experience
in this life event, in turn, would spill over horizontally into other events in the same
domain (i.e., health) and bottom-up vertically into the overall well-being (Sirgy 2012).
Furthermore, from the resource view (Mulder et al. 2005), the exertion of effort to
accomplish the necessary but challenging co-creation activities means that custom-
ers are trying hard to change their current resource state in the direction toward the
expected state. The accomplishment of co-creation activities means more personal
resources being transformed toward the state of being desired for better solving of
life problems (Chen et  al. 2017). When life problems being solved satisfactorily,
individuals would realize how much accomplishment, prestige or personal growth
they gain from the effort they have exerted into co-creation activities (Meuter et al.
2005). Consequently, an individual’s co-creation effort in the transformative service
would go along with pride of life and a sense of self-esteem, happiness and positive
feeling of well-being (Ross et al. 2013). The arguments for the positive influence of
customer co-creation effort on well-being is further consolidated by the self-deter-
mination theory (SDT—Ryan and Deci 2000). Accordingly, the accomplishment of
regular and challenging co-creation activities helps satisfy customers’ major needs
for autonomy, competence and relatedness (Engstrom and Elg 2015). The satisfac-
tion of these needs, according to SDT, then enhances their well-being (Sirgy 2012;
Ryan and Deci 2000).
The hypothesis is therefore proposed as follow:

H6  Customer co-creation effort in a transformative service has a positive effect on

his or her well-being.

4 Research method

The proposed model and hypotheses were tested in the context of yoga train-
ing service. This is a form of transformative services which has been growing
in many countries nowadays. The ultimate purpose of this service is to improve

13
 426 M. T. My‑Quyen et al.

customers’ physical and mental health (Aggarwal and Basu 2014). Among
several types of yoga, postural yoga (or Asana yoga) is the most common one
(Michelis 2007). This study focuses on postural yoga training programs being
offered at yoga centers. This yoga includes a series of body postures being prac-
ticed regularly under the instruction of a yoga master (i.e., service frontliner).
In each training session, customer’s co-creation are typically characterized by
the performance of vigorous and physically challenging activities which require
certain level of customer effort. Moreover, these co-creation activities need to
be maintained across sessions for a certain period of time (i.e., months or years)
before the service outcome can be realized (Garfinkel and Schumacher 2000).
For this reason, target respondents for the research were yoga trainees who have
been practicing yoga for at least 1 month.
The quantitative data were collected from yoga trainees by means of a survey
being administered at 10 yoga centers and 2 events on Yoga International Day
in Vietnam. Copies of a structured questionnaire were delivered following the
convenience sampling method and then collected immediately upon completion.
Data collectors were 6 senior undergraduate students who were trained carefully
before the survey.
The measurement scales for the four constructs in the model were borrowed
from previous studies. In particular, based on Brown and Ryan (2003), a 7-point
Likert type scale including five items was used to measure mindfulness. Cus-
tomer co-creation effort was measured by three items adjusted from Soderlund
and Sagfossen (2017), who derived from Gibbs and Drolet (2003) and Morales
(2005). The response form was a bi-polar format “not effortful—effortful”,
“easy—difficult”, and “required little work—required a lot of work” to reflect
respondent’s feeling about sustaining the required yoga practices. Regarding to
quality of life, the current research used the short form four-item scale including
three items representing physical, psychological, social aspects and one global
item. These items stemmed from Yao et al. (2002) who derived from the origi-
nal WHOQOL-BRIEF version (1995). Well-being (life satisfaction) scale was
adapted from Diener et  al. (1985) with five items. In the questionnaire, items
measuring customer mindfulness and co-creation effort were directed specifi-
cally to the yoga setting, but items measuring quality of life and well-being were
stated in general, not related to yoga. This technique was adopted from studies
investigating the impact of certain life events on quality of life or well-being
(e.g., Chen et al. 2010; Diener 2009). Scale items are described in Table 1.
The questionnaire was first designed in English, then translated to Vietnam-
ese by two university academics following the collaborative translation method
(Douglas and Craig 2007). In this collaborative process, mismatched issues were
discussed among the translators and the researchers, and the Vietnamese ver-
sion was adjusted accordingly. The questionnaire was then pretested qualita-
tively with five yoga trainees to ensure the clarity and relevance to informants.
Based on their comments, minor adjustments were made in the consultation of
the mentioned translators.

13
Mindful co-creation of transformative service for better… 427

Table 1  Scale items and loadings

Construct and items Std. loading

Mindfulness: CR = 0.87 AVE = 0.64

 Whenever I practice yoga…
  I stay focused 0.87
  I am really attentive 0.95
  I am aware of what I am doing without judgment 0.73
  I find myself with my full attention Eliminated
  I find myself don’t mind about the future or the past 0.62
Co-creation effort: CR = 0.81 AVE = 0.59
 For me, maintaining regular yoga exercise as required is:
  Not effortful—effortful 0.84
  Easy—difficult 0.81
  Required little work—required a lot of work 0.64
Quality of life: CR = 0.89 AVE = 0.68
 I feel my physical health is very good 0.86
 I feel my psychological condition is very good 0.91
 I feel my social relationship with others is very good 0.74
 In general, the quality of my life is very good 0.77
Well-being (life satisfaction): CR = 0.91 AVE = 0.78
 In most ways my life is close to my ideal 0.85
 The conditions of my life are excellent 0.93
 I am satisfied with my life 0.87
 So far I have the important things I want in life Eliminated
 If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing Eliminated

Items in Italic are eliminated due to significant covariance of error terms

CR Composite reliability, AVE Average variance extracted

5 Results and discussion

5.1 Sample characteristics

The sample comprises 283 respondents. This sample size is large enough for data
analysis using structural equation modeling (SEM) method, based on Hair et al.
(2017) who stress that SEM is not as sensitive to low sample size as once thought.
The sample included 239 (84.5%) female and 44 (15.5%) male respondents. The
dominance of female respondents in the sample reflects the fact that customers
practicing yoga are predominantly female (Atkinson and Permuth-Levine, 2009).
Their age group ranged from 18–25 years of age (31.1%); 26–35 (33.6%); 36–45
(19.1%); to over 45 (16.2%). As for the yoga practicing duration and frequency,
98 respondents (34.6%) have been practicing for one year or more, and 185
(65.4%) for less than 1 year. Moreover, the majority of respondents practice yoga
three times per week (50.9%) or more than three times (40.3%). These charac-
teristics of the sample reflect the reality of this service and also in consonance

13
 428 M. T. My‑Quyen et al.

with the current situation of yoga practices in many other countries (Cramer et al.
2016; Ross et al. 2013).

5.2 Test of common method variance (CMV)

The data were collected from respondents using one-instant survey approach. There-
fore, it is necessary to address the common method bias. Firstly, a pre-collection
measure was applied by using different forms of response in the questionnaire (Mac-
Kenzie and Podsakoff 2012), as being described in the previous section. Then, after
the data were collected, CMV was assessed statistically by conducting the Har-
man’s single-factor method (MacKenzie and Podsakoff 2012), which revealed far-
from-accepted indices: Chi-square = 1018.74; dF = 77; CFI = 0.65; TLI = 0.58;
RMSEA = 0.21. In addition, the marker variable technique (Lindell and Whitney
2001) with a marker variable being added in the questionnaire was also applied for
double check CMV problem. The marker variable was “I dream to become an infor-
mation technology engineer”, which was assumed not to be theoretically correlated
with other items in the study. The statistical results showed that marker variable had
no correlation with several items measuring quality of life (r = 0.05; p = 0.940 and
r = 0.01; p = 0.859), mindfulness (r = 0.01; p = 0.83 and r = 0.03; p = 0.64). These
results indicated that the estimated relationships in this study were not biased by the
presence of CMV.

5.3 Assessment and refinement of scales

Although all measurement scales were derived from previous literature, exploratory
factor analyses (EFA) were performed prior to confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
for checking purpose because the scale items were adjusted and used in a new social
and cultural context (Hurley et  al. 1997). The analyses yielded satisfactory results
for all scales and the designated 17 items. They then were used in the main analyses.
For the main data analyses, CB-SEM method was used because the main purpose
of this study was to test whether the proposed relationships were statistically signifi-
cant, not to predict the dependent variable (Hair et al. 2017). The analysis process
was undertaken using SPSS 21 and AMOS 20 packages. Regarding the normality
of variables, the test showed that variables were moderately nonnormal (kurtosis
from − 1.06 to + 5.64 and skewness from -1.99 to − 0.25). In this situation, the use
of CB-SEM with maximum likelihood estimation was still considered appropriate.
This is because “nonnormality did not have significant impacts on the parameter
estimates, compared with a normal distribution…. Therefore, the usual interpreta-
tion of SEM parameter estimates can be accepted, even under the severe nonnormal-
ity conditions” (Lei and Lomax 2005, p. 16).
In the CFA, the full measurement model comprising 4 first-order constructs and
their 17 reflective items was estimated and refined by eliminating 3 items due to
the significant covariance of the error terms (see Table  1). After refinement, the
remaining 14 items reflecting 4 constructs showed an accepted model fit with: Chi-
square = 212.81; dF = 71; p = 0.000; TLI = 0.93; CFI = 0.95; RMSEA = 0.08. The

13
Mindful co-creation of transformative service for better… 429

results also showed no Heywood cases. As shown in Table  1, standardized factor

loadings were between 0.62 and 0.91; and average variance extracted (AVE) ranged
from 0.59 to 0.78, all above the cut-off point (0.50), indicating that the scales were
qualified for convergent validity. The scale reliability was satisfactory with com-
posite reliability (CR) ranging from 0.81 to 0.91 that was above the requirement of
0.70. In addition, as shown in Table 2, the squared correlation coefficients of pairs of
constructs were all smaller than their respective AVEs, meaning that all scales met
the criterion for discriminant validity (Fornell and Larcker 1981).

5.4 Hypothesis testing results

After refining the scales, the 14 remaining items measuring 4 constructs were
submitted to the structural model for estimation. The structural model estima-
tion (see Fig.  1) using maximum likelihood method yielded an accepted fit: Chi-
square = 212.812; dF = 71; p = 0.000; TLI = 0.93; CFI = 0.95; RMSEA = 0.08.
As shown in Table 3, six hypotheses from H1 to H6 are all supported at p < 0.05.
Particularly, mindfulness has a significant positive effect on customer co-creation
effort (γ = 0.37; p = 0.006); quality of life (γ = 0.66; p = 0.003); and well-being
(γ = 0.23; p = 0.038). Customer co-creation effort also shows a significant positive
effect on quality of life (β = 0.20; p = 0.005); and well-being (β = 0.17; p = 0.023).
Finally, with β = 0.36 (p = 0.004), quality of life has a significant positive effect on
well-being. These statistics facilitate the discussion of results presented in the next
section.

5.5 Mediation effect

Although no hypotheses on mediation effect were formally proposed, it is dem-

onstrated that co-creation effort is placed at the center of the proposed structural
model. To provide more insights, we continued to evaluate the mediation role of co-
creation effort in the effects of mindfulness on quality of life and well-being. In so
doing, we employed the procedure suggested by Zhao et al. (2010). The results are
shown in Table 4. Accordingly, the indirect effect of mindfulness on quality of life
via customer co-creation effort was significant (γ = 0.07; p = 0.002) and the direct
effect was significant (γ = 0.66; p = 0.003), which together resulted in the significant

Table 2  Discriminant validity of scales

Mindfulness Co-creation Quality of life Well-being
effort

Mindfulness 0.64
Co-creation effort 0.32 0.59
Quality of life 0.54 0.20 0.68
Well-being 0.31 0.37 0.17 0.78

Values in the lower triangular region represent the squared correlation coefficients
Values in the diagonal represent the average variance extracted (AVE)

13
 430 M. T. My‑Quyen et al.

Table 3  Structural model estimation and hypothesis testing results

Path from–to Std. coeff p value Test result

H1 Mindfulness → co-creation effort 0.37 0.006 Support

H2 Mindfulness → quality of life 0.66 0.003 Support
H3 Mindfulness → well-being 0.23 0.038 Support
H4 Quality of life → well-being 0.36 0.004 Support
H5 Co-creation effort → quality of life 0.20 0.005 Support
H6 Co-creation effort well-being 0.17 0.023 Support

total effect of γ = 0.73 (p = 0.004). Similar result was found for the impact of mind-
fulness on well-being (significant indirect effects via co-creation effort and quality
of life γ = 0.33; p = 0.002 and significant direct effect γ = 0.23; p = 0.038). Conse-
quently, the total effect of mindfulness on well-being was γ = 0.56; p = 0.005. Thus,
in both tests, customer co-creation effort plays the role of complementary mediation
in the effects of mindfulness on quality of life and well-being (Zhao et al. 2010).

6 Discussions

This research focuses on customer co-creation in service formation. Studies so far

mainly investigated co-creation activities being performed by customers within a
limited time period. However, this is likely not the case of several transformative
services where customers’ co-creation activities are required to sustain for a long
time to make a change in their life. Moreover, if the co-creation activities are men-
tally or physically difficult to accomplish, the challenge for customers is even more
severe throughout the service process. In such situation, this research explores the
role of customer mindfulness and effort in sustaining the co-creation activities for
a significant period of time. Based on the theoretical lens of SDL and the empirical
setting of yoga training service, this research extends our knowledge by providing
evidence on the importance of customer mindfulness and co-creation effort in a spe-
cific service, as well as in the customer life in general.
Firstly, this research elucidates the concept of customer co-creation effort in a
transformative service and provides empirical evidence that it has a significant
positive effect on customer life, represented by quality of life and well-being. We

Table 4  Direct and indirect effects

Causal path Direct effect Indirect effect Total effect
Std. coeff p value Std. coeff p value Std. coeff p value

Mindfulness → co-creation effort → qual- 0.66 0.003 0.07 0.002 0.73 0.004
ity of life
Mindfulness → co-creation effort → qual- 0.23 0.038 0.33 0.002 0.56 0.005
ity of life → well-being

13
Mindful co-creation of transformative service for better… 431

demonstrate that the engagement of a customer in a long lasting transformative ser-

vice by sustaining a high level of co-creation effort is worth investing of energy and
resource, because it will result in a positive change of customer life. This finding
extends the SDL literature by suggesting one way to help customers fulfilling their
mandatory but challenging co-creation activities when they are engaged in a trans-
formative service. To think broader, in the co-creation of services that require chal-
lenging activities from some or all actors, co-creation effort of each actor should
be an important issue to be taken into consideration. This is because each of the
involved actors possesses different capacity to exert and maintain the co-creation
effort for a long time (Lee 2019; McColl-Kennedy et al. 2012; Sweeney et al. 2015).
Secondly, given that co-creation effort requires customer energy and resource, it
is likely to be deteriorated over time if customer motivation is not nurtured appro-
priately along the line. To overcome this situation, the current study suggests that
customer mindfulness as a cognitive psychology state helps. We find that mindful-
ness is a driver that fosters customers to sustain the co-creation effort throughout the
service process. This driving role is especially salient in the co-creation of service
that requires challenging behaviors. Thus, putting mindfulness and co-creation effort
together, we coin the term mindful co-creation to emphasize the necessity and con-
nection of these two constructs in transformative service contexts under the SDL
paradigm. Moreover, we extend our understanding on the role of customer mind-
fulness in consumer behavior research, which is still in its infant state. While prior
studies mostly focus on how mindfulness affect consumer buying decision or prefer-
ences (i.e., mindful consumption versus mindless consumption) (Milne et al. 2019;
Sheth et al. 2011), the current study provides insights on how consumer mindfulness
helps enhance the consumption process, experience (i.e., mindful co-creation) and
outcomes.
Thirdly, this research finds that the mindfulness of a customer directly affects
customer’s general life. This empirical finding consolidates the results of previous
studies in psychology (e.g., Good et al. 2016; Van Gelderen et al. 2018;). It implies
that mindfulness as an individual’s psychological property not only varies across
time and situations (i.e., state mindfulness) but also varies across individuals (i.e.,
trait mindfulness). This finding supports the view that mindfulness is both trait and
state property of a human being (Brown and Ryan 2003). As a trait property, an
individual with high level of mindfulness would generally feel a better life, as evi-
denced by the direct effects of mindfulness on quality of life and well-being. As
a state property, the state of being mindful when a customer engages in a specific
event or experience (e.g., yoga training service in this study) is shown to affect his or
her level of co-creation effort, leading to a better service outcomes as illustrated by
the significant indirect effects. It is worth noting that quality of life and well-being
were examined in this study as the service outcomes, rather than perceived value as
being used widely in the literature. Although perceived value reflects the immedi-
ate outcome of a co-created service, we use quality of life and well-being because
transformative service research emphasizes these ultimate outcomes for customers
(Anderson and Ostrom 2015).
Finally, by investigating quality of life and well-being separately in the same
research model, this research specifies that both customer mindfulness and

13
 432 M. T. My‑Quyen et al.

co-creation effort help uplift customers’ life, notwithstanding being manifested by

quality of life or subjective well-being. In other words, the prolongation of custom-
ers’ mindfulness state in their daily life is beneficial not only for the transforma-
tive service being involved, but also for other aspects of customer life. Moreover,
the empirical findings consolidate that they are conceptually two distinct constructs
which can be connected by a causal relationship. In this relationship, quality of life
reflects an individual’s cognitive evaluation of the goodness of his or her life, while
well-being stands for the general feeling of satisfaction with life.
For managerial implications, the findings of this research facilitate some sug-
gestions for various actors in the ecosystem involving in the co-creation of trans-
formative services. Firstly, given that mindfulness is beneficial for various aspects of
human well-being and quality of life, and that mindfulness is a psychological state
that can be improved, individual customers should train their mind to prolong a high
level of mindfulness (in contrast to mindlessness) during the waking time. This can
be done by practicing mediation or other psychological therapies (Tang et al. 2015).
In practice, mindfulness trainings are now offered to employees of several organiza-
tions such as Aetna, Google, General Mills, Mayo Clinic, US military, and other
sports, education and healthcare institutions (Bahl et  al. 2016; Good et  al. 2016).
Secondly, this implication is also directed to organizations offering mindfulness
trainings and other mindfulness therapies to activate and promote the improvement
of mindfulness in the wider publics, as Kabat-Zinn once titled his book: “Healing
ourselves and the world through mindfulness”. Finally, for providers of transform-
ative service, it is important to understand their co-creator’s challenge in exerting
co-creation effort enduringly. This understanding facilitates the implementation of
appropriate measures to encourage customer co-creation effort. These measures may
be related to mindfulness enhancement, or other ways to reduce the frustrations or
fatigues caused by performing customer responsible behaviors enduringly.

7 Conclusion

The current research enriches our knowledge of customer mindfulness and co-cre-
ation effort in a transformative service and ultimately in customer well-being. In
addressing the general question on the mechanism by which mindfulness influences
customer co-creation and well-being, the findings show that customer mindfulness
affects customer well-being both directly and indirectly through the improved qual-
ity of life. In a specific service, mindfulness has a significant impact on customer
effort to sustain the co-creation activities enduringly, which in turn, positively con-
tributes to the improvement of customer life. To the best of our knowledge, this
research is among the first studies on mindful co-creation effort, which connects
customer mindfulness and co-creation effort in one single study to demonstrate its
importance in transformative service contexts. Given this specific research context,
the generalization of these research findings should be bounded to (1) transformative
services that aim to improve customer life; and (2) services that require customers
to undertake effortful and compulsory co-creation activities for long period of time.

13
Mindful co-creation of transformative service for better… 433

Because the service field has a very diverse nature, the generalization of the findings
beyond these boundaries should be considered with due care.
As with other studies, there are still limitations that suggest further research.
First, this research focuses on co-creation effort as effort in performing customer
mandatory activities, which are required to be done in the service process. Although
mandatory activities are the basic co-creation behavior (McColl-Kennedy et  al.
2017), future research may want to include other types of customer co-creation into
consideration (e.g., replaceable or voluntary activities). Second, the specific empir-
ical setting in this research is the yoga training service which might be assumed
to closely relate to customer mindfulness and well-being. This might cause some
inflation in the statistical results. Further studies are suggested to test this theoretical
model in other transformative services (e.g., education, chronic disease treatment) to
provide more evidences to generalize our knowledge of this topic. Third, the empiri-
cal part of this research was conducted in Vietnam, a developing country in the East-
ern world. Future studies may revalidate the findings in other countries, especially in
Western societies. Finally, given that a transformative service is co-created by more
than one actor, the issue on how other actors’ mindfulness and co-creation effort
affect the success or failure of a service is worth exploring.

Acknowledgements  This research is funded by Vietnam National University HoChiMinh City (VNU-
HCM) under Grant Number NCM2019-20-02.

References
Aggarwal P, Basu AK (2014) Value co-creation: factors affecting discretionary effort exertion. Serv.
Mark. Q. 35(4):321–336
Anderson L, Ostrom A (2015) Transformative service research: advancing our knowledge about service
and well-being. J Serv Res 18(3):243–249
Anderson S, Nasr L, Rayburn SW (2018) Transformative service research and service design: synergistic
effects in healthcare. Serv Ind J 38(1–2):99–113
Andrews FM, McKennell AC (1980) Measures of self-reported well-being: their affective, cognitive, and
other components. Soc Indic Res 8(2):127–155
Argote L (2006) CROSSROADS: introduction to mindfulness. Organ Sci 17(4):501–501
Atkinson NL, Permuth-Levine R (2009) Benefits, barriers, and cues to action of yoga practice: a focus
group approach. Am J Health Behav 33(1):3–14
Baddeley A (1992) Working memory. Science 255(5044):556–559
Baer RA, Smith GT, Hopkins J, Krietemeyer J, Toney L (2006) Using self-report assessment methods to
explore facets of mindfulness. Assessment 13(1):27–45
Bahl S, Milne GR, Ross SM, Mick DG, Grier SA, Chugani SK, Chan SS, Gould S, Cho YN, Dorsey JD,
Schindler RM, Murdock MR, Boesen-Mariani S (2016) Mindfulness: its transformative potential
for consumer, societal, and environmental well-being. J Public Policy Mark 35(2):198–210
Bailey MR, Simpson EH, Balsam PD (2016) Neural substrates underlying effort, time, and risk-based
decision making in motivated behavior. Neurobiol Learn Mem 133:233–256
Barber NA, Deale C (2014) Tapping mindfulness to shape hotel guests’ sustainable behavior. Cornell
Hosp Q 55(1):100–114
Bowlin SL, Baer RA (2012) Relationships between mindfulness, self-control, and psychological func-
tioning. Pers Individ Differ 52(3):411–415
Brown KW, Ryan RM (2003) The benefits of being present: mindfulness and its role in psychological
well-being. J Pers Soc Psychol 84(4):822
Brown KW, Goodman RJ, Inzlicht M (2012) Dispositional mindfulness and the attenuation of neural
responses to emotional stimuli. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci 8(1):93–99

13
 434 M. T. My‑Quyen et al.

Camfield L, Skevington SM (2008) On subjective well-being and quality of life. J Health Psychol
13(6):764–775
Cardozo RN (1965) An experimental study of customer effort, expectation, and satisfaction. J Mark Res
2(3):244–249
Carson JW, Carson KM, Gil KM, Baucom DH (2004) Mindfulness-based relationship enhancement.
Behav Ther 35(3):471–494
Chen LH, Ye YC, Chen MY, Tung IW (2010) Alegria! Flow in leisure and life satisfaction: the mediating
role of event satisfaction using data from acrobatics show. Soc Indic Res 99:301–313
Chen T, Ou Yang S, Leo C (2017) The beginning of value co-creation: understanding dynamics, efforts
and betterment. J Serv Theory Pract 27(6):1145–1166
Chiesa A, Calati R, Serretti A (2011) Does mindfulness training improve cognitive abilities? A system-
atic review of neuropsychological findings. Clin Psychol Rev 31(3):449–464
Colzato LS, De Bruijn E, Hommel B (2012) Up to “me” or up to “us”? The impact of self-construal
priming on cognitive self-other integration. Front Psychol 3:341
Condon P, Desbordes G, Miller WB, DeSteno D (2013) Meditation increases compassionate responses to
suffering. Psychol Sci 24(10):2125–2127
Cramer H, Ward L, Steel A, Lauche R, Dobos G, Zhang Y (2016) Prevalence, patterns, and predictors of
yoga use: results of a US nationally representative survey. Am J Prev Med 50(2):230–235
Creswell JD, Lindsay EK (2014) How does mindfulness training affect health? A mindfulness stress buff-
ering account. Curr Direct Psychol Sci 23(6):401–407
Diener E (2006) Guidelines for national indicators of subjective well-being and ill-being. Appl Res Qual
Life 1(2):151–157
Diener E (2009) Subjective well-being. In: Diener E (ed) The science of well-being: the collected works
of Ed Diener. Springer, New York, pp 11–58
Diener ED, Emmons RA, Larsen RJ, Griffin S (1985) The satisfaction with life scale. J Pers Assess
49(1):71–75
Dong B, Sivakumar K (2017) Customer participation in services: domain, scope, and boundaries. J Acad
Mark Sci 45(6):944–965
Donnelly JE, Hillman CH, Castelli D, Etnier JL, Lee S, Tomporowski P, Lambourne K, Szabo-Reed AN
(2016) Physical activity, fitness, cognitive function, and academic achievement in children: a sys-
tematic review. Med Sci Sports Exerc 48(6):1197
Douglas SP, Craig CS (2007) Collaborative and iterative translation: an alternative approach to back
translation. J Int Mark 15(1):30–43
Eisenberger R (1992) Learned industriousness. Psychol Rev 99(2):248
Engstrom J, Elg M (2015) A self-determination theory perspective on customer participation in service
development. J Serv Mark 29(6/7):511–521
Falter M, Hadwich K (2019) Customer service well-being: scale development and validation. Serv Ind J.
https​://doi.org/10.1080/02642​069.2019.16525​99
Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement
error: algebra and statistics. J Mark Res 18(3):328–388
Franke N, Schreier M (2010) Why customers value self-designed products: The importance of process
effort and enjoyment. J Prod Innov Manag 27(7):1020–1031
Garfinkel M, Schumacher HR (2000) Yoga. Rheum Dis Clin N Am 26(1):125–132
Gibbs BJ, Drolet A (2003) Consumption effort: the mental cost of generating utility and the role of con-
sumer energy level in ambitious consumption. J Consumer Psychol 13(3):268–277
Good DJ, Lyddy CJ, Glomb TM, Bono JE, Brown KW, Duffy MK, Ruth AB (2016) Contemplating
mindfulness at work: an integrative review. J Manage 42(1):114–142
Greer DA (2015) Defective co-creation: developing a typology of consumer dysfunction in professional
services. Eur J Mark 49(1/2):238–261
Gronroos C, Voima P (2013) Critical service logic: making sense of value creation and co-creation. J
Acad Mark Sci 41(2):133–150
Gunaratana BH (2002) Mindfulness in plain English. Wisdom, Somerville
Hair JF, Babin BJ, Krey N (2017) Covariance-based structural equation modeling in the journal of adver-
tising: review and recommendations. J Adv 46(1):163–177
Hanh TN (1976) Miracle of mindfulness. Beacon, Boston
Hart R, Ivtzan I, Hart D (2013) Mind the gap in mindfulness research: a comparative account of the lead-
ing schools of thought. Rev Gen Psychol 17(4):453–466

13
Mindful co-creation of transformative service for better… 435

Hau LN (2019) The role of customer operant resources in health care value creation. Serv Bus
13:457–478
Hau LN, Thuy PN (2016) Customer participation to co-create value in human transformative services: a
study of higher education and health care services. Serv Bus 10(3):603–628
Hernández-Ortega B, Franco JL (2019) Developing a new conceptual framework for experience and
value creation. Serv Bus 13(2):225–248
Hodgins HS, Knee CR (2002) The integrating self and conscious experience. Handb Self-deter Res
87:100
Hülsheger UR, Alberts HJ, Feinholdt A, Lang JW (2013) Benefits of mindfulness at work: the role of
mindfulness in emotion regulation, emotional exhaustion, and job satisfaction. J Appl Psychol
98(2):310
Hurley AE, Scandura TA, Schriesheim CA, Brannick MT, Seers A, Vandenberg RJ, Williams LJ (1997)
Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: guidelines, issues, and alternatives. J Organ Behav
18(6):667–683
Inzlicht M, Shenhav A, Olivola CY (2018) The effort paradox: effort is both costly and valued. Trends
Cogn Sci 22(4):337–349
Joo J, Marakhimov A (2018) Antecedents of customer participation in business ecosystems: evidence of
customers’ psychological ownership in Facebook. Serv Bus 12(1):1–23
Kabat-Zinn J (1994) Wherever you go, there you are: mindfulness meditation in everyday life. Hyperion,
New York
Kaplan S, Berman MG (2010) Directed attention as a common resource for executive functioning and
self-regulation. Perspect Psychol Sci 5(1):43–57
Keyes CL, Shmotkin D, Ryff CD (2002) Optimizing well-being: the empirical encounter of two tradi-
tions. J Pers Soc Psychol 82(6):1007
Kristoffersen I (2010) The metrics of subjective wellbeing: cardinality, neutrality and additivity. Econ
Rec 86(272):98–123
Langer EJ (1989) Minding matters: the consequences of mindlessness–mindfulness. In: Berkowitz L (ed)
Advances in experimental social psychology. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 137–173
Lee D (2019) Effects of key value co-creation elements in the healthcare system: focusing on technology
applications. Serv Bus 13(2):389–417
Lei M, Lomax RG (2005) The effect of varying degrees of nonnormality in structural equation modeling.
Struct Equ Model 12(1):1–27
Lindell MK, Whitney DJ (2001) Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research
designs. J Appl Psychol 86(1):114
Lusch RF, Vargo SL (2014) Service-dominant logic: premises, perspectives, possibilities. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge
MacKenzie SB, Podsakoff PM (2012) Common method bias in marketing: causes, mechanisms, and pro-
cedural remedies. J Retail 88(4):542–555
McColl-Kennedy JR, Hogan SJ, Witell L, Snyder H (2017) Cocreative customer practices: effects of
health care customer value cocreation practices on well-being. J Bus Res 70:55–66
McColl-Kennedy JR, Vargo SL, Dagger TS, Sweeney JC, Kasteren YV (2012) Health care customer
value cocreation practice styles. J Serv Res 15(4):370–389
Medvedev ON, Landhuis CE (2018) Exploring constructs of well-being, happiness and quality of life.
PeerJ 6:e4903. https​://doi.org/10.7717/peerj​.4903
Meuter ML, Bitner MJ, Ostrom AL, Brown SW (2005) Choosing among alternative service delivery
modes: an investigation of customer trial of self-service technologies. J Mark 69(2):61–83
Michelis ED (2007) A preliminary survey of modern yoga studies. Asian Med 3(1):1–19
Milne GR, Ordenes FV, Kaplan B (2019) Mindful consumption: three consumer segment views. Austral
Mark J. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj​.2019.09.003
Mohr LA, Bitner MJ (1995) The role of employee effort in satisfaction with service transactions. J Bus
Res 32(3):239–252
Morales AC (2005) Giving firms an “E” for effort: consumer responses to high-effort firms. J Consumer
Res 31(4):806–812
Mulder T, de Vries S, Zijlstra S (2005) Observation, imagination and execution of an effortful movement:
more evidence for a central explanation of motor imagery. Exp Brain Res 163(3):344–351
Ndubisi NO (2014) Consumer mindfulness and marketing implications. Psychol Mark 31(4):237–250
Ndubisi NO, Nygaard A, Capel C (2019) Mindfulness-based business strategies and the environment.
Bus Strategy Environ 28(3):433–435

13
 436 M. T. My‑Quyen et al.

Neff LA, Broady EF (2011) Stress resilience in early marriage: can practice make perfect? J Pers Soc
Psychol 101(5):1050
Ngo LV, Northey G, Duffy S, Thao HTP (2016) Perceptions of others, mindfulness, and brand experience
in retail service setting. J Retail Consumer Serv 33:43–52
Ocasio W (2011) Attention to attention. Organ Sci 22(5):1286–1296
Otto AR, Daw ND (2019) The opportunity cost of time modulates cognitive effort. Neuropsychologia
123:92–105
Palma FC, Trimi S, Hong SG (2019) Motivation triggers for customer participation in value co-creation.
Serv Bus 13(3):557–580
Park C, Lee H, Jun J, Lee T (2018) Two-sided effects of customer participation: roles of relationships and
social-interaction values in social services. Serv Bus 12(3):621–640
Pham MT, Sun JJ (2020) On the experience and engineering of consumer pride, consumer excitement,
and consumer relaxation in the marketplace. J Retail 96(1):101–127
Pham TAN, Sweeney JC, Soutar GN (2019) Customer value cocreation activities: an exploration of psy-
chological drivers and quality of life outcomes. J Serv Theory Pract 29(3):282–308
Previte J, Robertson N (2019) A continuum of transformative service exchange: insights for service and
social marketers. J Serv Mark 33(6):671–686. https​://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-10-2018-0280
Quaglia JT, Goodman RJ, Brown KW (2015) From mindful attention to social connection: the key role of
emotion regulation. Cogn Emot 29(8):1466–1474
Roeser RW, Schonert-Reichl KA, Jha A, Cullen M, Wallace L, Wilensky R, Oberle E, Thomson K, Tay-
lor C, Harrison J (2013) Mindfulness training and reductions in teacher stress and burnout: results
from two randomized, waitlist-control field trials. J Educ Psychol 105(3):787
Ross A, Friedmann E, Bevans M, Thomas S (2013) National survey of yoga practitioners: mental and
physical health benefits. Complement Ther Med 21(4):313–323
Ryan RM, Deci EL (2000) Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social
development, and well-being. Am Psychol 55(1):68
Sandra DA, Otto AR (2018) Cognitive capacity limitations and need for cognition differentially predict
reward-induced cognitive effort expenditure. Cognition 172:101–106
Shapiro SL, Oman D, Thoresen CE, Plante TG, Flinders T (2008) Cultivating mindfulness: effects on
well-being. J Clin Psychol 64(7):840–862
Shenhav A, Musslick S, Lieder F, Kool W, Griffiths TL, Cohen JD, Botvinick MM (2017) Toward a
rational and mechanistic account of mental effort. Annu Rev Neurosci 40:99–124
Sheth JN, Sethia NK, Srinivas S (2011) Mindful consumption: a customer-centric approach to sustain-
ability. J Acad Mark Sci 39(1):21–39
Shin DC, Johnson DM (1978) Avowed happiness as an overall assessment of the quality of life. Soc Indic
Res 5(1–4):475–492
Sirgy MJ (2012) The psychology of quality of life: hedonic well-being, life satisfaction, and eudaimonia.
Springer, New York
Smallwood J, Schooler JW (2015) The science of mind wandering: empirically navigating the stream of
consciousness. Annu Rev Psychol 66:487–518
Soderlund M, Sagfossen S (2017) The consumer experience: the impact of supplier effort and consumer
effort on customer satisfaction. J Retail Consumer Serv 39:219–229
Sweeney JC, Danaher TS, McColl-Kennedy JR (2015) Customer effort in value cocreation activi-
ties: improving quality of life and behavioral intentions of health care customers. J Serv Res
18(3):318–335
Tang YY, Hölzel BK, Posner MI (2015) The neuroscience of mindfulness meditation. Nat Rev Neurosci
16(4):213–225
Thera N (1992) The heart of Buddhist meditation. Buddhist Publication Society, Kandy
Van Gelderen M, Kibler E, Kautonen T, Munoz P, Wincent J (2018) Mindfulness and taking action to
start a new business. J Small Bus Manage 57(S2):489–506
Vargo SL, Lusch RF (2016) Institutions and axioms: an extension and update of service-dominant logic.
J Acad Mark Sci 44(1):5–23
Weinstein N, Brown KW, Ryan RM (2009) A multi-method examination of the effects of mindfulness on
stress attribution, coping, and emotional well-being. J Res Pers 43(3):374–385
Westbrook A, Braver TS (2015) Cognitive effort: a neuroeconomic approach. Cogn Affect Behav Neuro-
sci 15(2):395–415
Westen D (1999) Psychology: mind, brain, and culture, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York

13
Mindful co-creation of transformative service for better… 437

Wolter JS, Cronin JJ (2016) Re-conceptualizing cognitive and affective customer–company identification:
the role of self-motives and different customer-based outcomes. J Acad Mark Sci 44(3):397–413
Woods B, Moscardo G (2003) Enhancing wildlife education through mindfulness. Austral J Environ
Educ 19:97–108
World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL) Group (1995) The World Health Organization
Quality of Life Assessment (WHOQOL): position paper from the World Health Organization. Soc
Sci Med 41(10):1403–1409
World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL) Group (1998a) Development of the World
Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. Psychol Med 28(3):551–558
World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL) Group (1998b) The World Health Organization
quality of life assessment (WHOQOL): development and general psychometric properties. Soc Sci
Med 46(12):10
Yang CH, Conroy DE (2019) Mindfulness and physical activity: a systematic review and hierarchical
model of mindfulness. Int J Sport Exerc Psychol. https​://doi.org/10.1080/16121​97x.2019.16119​01
Yao G, Chung CW, Yu CF, Wang JD (2002) Development and verification of validity and reliability of
the WHOQOL-BREF Taiwan version. J Formos Med Assoc 101(5):342–351
Zhao X, Lynch JG Jr, Chen Q (2010) Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: myths and truths about mediation
analysis. J Consumer Res 37(2):197–206

Publisher’s Note  Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.

13