Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 44 (2018) 293–304

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

Customer engagement behaviors: The role of service convenience, fairness T

and quality
⁎
Sanjit Kumar Roya, , Vaibhav Shekharb, Walfried M. Lassarc, Tom Chend,e
a
The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, Perth 6009, Australia
b
IBS Business School, IFHE University, Dontanapally Village, Shankerpally Mandal, R.R. District, AP 500032, India
c
Ryder Research Professor and Professor of Marketing Florida International University
d
Newcastle Business School, The University of Newcastle, Cnr King and Auckland Street, Newcastle, NSW, Australia
e
Australia and Research School of Management, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The purpose of this study is to examine the differential impact of service quality, service fairness and service
Customer engagement behavior convenience on customer engagement behaviors. The study also examines the moderating role of service
Service convenience convenience on the relationship of service quality, service fairness and different forms of customer en-
Service fairness gagement behaviors (CEBs). The proposed research model was tested using partial least square path mod-
Partial least squares path modelling
elling on survey data collected from users of retail banking and mobile services. Results show that service
Word-of-mouth
convenience and perceived service fairness affects different forms of CEB positively. Results also show the
Customer helping behavior
negative moderation effect of service convenience on the relationship between service fairness and CEBs.
The study provides useful insights for both researchers and practitioners on the role of service convenience,
service fairness, and service quality in eliciting customers’ engagement behaviors. Our first contribution
pertains to examining the role of service convenience in eliciting CEBs. We also contribute to the existing
CEB literature by examining the extent to which traditional firm-based antecedents (e.g., service quality and
service fairness) are effective in eliciting all forms of CEBs (word-of-mouth, customer helping company and
customer helping customers).

1. Introduction
Customer engagement behaviors (hereafter, CEBs) are becoming
increasingly important to enhance firm profitability (Carlson et al.,
2017; Roy et al., 2018). More and more firms are beginning to pay
attention to CEBs as a strategic imperative that leads to sustainable
competitive advantage (Ostrom et al., 2015). According to a report
(Forrester, 2016) the majority of participating firms are in the
process (52%) of connecting various engagement points across the
entire customer journey. However, while research shows that en-
gaged customers (compared to disengaged customers) are less price
sensitive, resist switching to competition, actively participate in
service development, and advocate the firm to others (Dasteel,
2014), many firms are struggling to manage customer engagement
throughout the customer journey (Forrester, 2016). It may be that
while firms’ investments are surging to elicit CEBs from customers,
in turn, firms demand engaged customers’ voluntary investment of
scarce non-monetary resources (namely time and effort) to help
firms and other customers (Hollebeek et al., 2016; Verleye et al.,
2014).
As a consequence, numerous studies have focused on identifying the
drivers of CEBs (Jaakkola and Alexander, 2014). These studies assume
that all customers are equally willing to elicit CEBs given their favor-
able perception of these drivers. We argue that the relationship between
CEBs and their drivers cannot be generalized as customers need to
spend considerable amount of resources for eliciting CEBs. For example,
Dong (2015) state that customer invest physical labor while acting as
partners in co-creating service which influences their value perceptions.
Since customers are treated as partial employees by service firms, we
argue that they need to incur significant time and energy while eliciting
CEBs pertaining to their interactions with employees and other custo-
mers. Consistent with existing literature this study examines three
forms of CEBs which are positive word-of-mouth, customers helping
other customers and customer helping company (Verleye et al., 2014).
Customers show their engagement with service firms by spreading
positive word-of-mouth and recommending them to their peers (Roy

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: sanjit.roy@uwa.edu.au (S.K. Roy), svaibhav@ibsindia.org (V. Shekhar), lassarw@fiu.edu (W.M. Lassar), Tom.chen@newcastle.edu.au (T. Chen).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.07.018
Received 14 December 2017; Received in revised form 3 July 2018; Accepted 12 July 2018
0969-6989/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S.K. Roy et al.
et al., 2014). Customers also help other customers’ through the online
engagement platforms by providing help in improving their experience
with service firms (Hollebeek and Brodie, 2016). Customers also pro-
vide help to service firms and its employees by providing suggestions
for service improvements (Kumar et al., 2010).
Literature also acknowledges a growing trend related to per-
ceived shortage of time and energy experienced by customers due to
the demands of modern day life and stress associated with it
(Elizabeth-Lloyd et al., 2014; Seiders et al., 2007; Colwell et al.,
2008). Hence, it is of utmost importance for firms to balance service
convenience (saving of customer time and effort) and customer en-
gagement (Morris, 2016). In this regard Van Doorn et al. (2010)
suggest the link between service convenience and CEBs and propose
that service convenience acts as a motivational driver of CEBs and
customers’ tendency to display CEBs is a function of consumer time
and effort associated with such activities. Nguyen et al. (2012) show
that service convenience moderated the relationship between di-
mensions of service quality (outcome, interaction and environment)
on overall service quality. Hence, we believe that customers’ time
and effort costs determine an organization's ability to actively engage
with customers, co-create value and spread positive word-of-mouth
(Plewa et al., 2015; Chang and Polonsky, 2012; Elizabeth-Lloyd
et al., 2014). However, there is a need for a clearer understanding of
whether service convenience directly impacts CEBs and/or influ-
ences the relationship between CEBs and its drivers. This is evident
from Pansari and Kumar (2016), who suggest that while service
convenience is gaining traction in the CEB literature, its role in eli-
citing CEB remains unclear. The preceding discussion indicates that
failure to gain such an understanding may undermine the effective-
ness of CEB efforts made by the service firms. Therefore, the objec-
tives of this study are threefold. We seek to examine
(i) the direct effect of service convenience on CEBs;
(ii) the direct effects of perceived service quality and fairness on CEBs;
and
(iii) empirically investigate the moderating role of service convenience
on the relationship between service quality, service fairness and
CEBs.
Service convenience is an important determinant of customer be-
havior as a result of the significant changes in customers’ socio-eco-
nomic profile, rise in dual income families, and a hypercompetitive
marketplace (Seiders et al., 2007; Srivastava and Kaul, 2014). We
contribute to the CEB literature by (i) examining the role of service
convenience in eliciting CEBs; and (ii) the extent to which it influences
the effectiveness of the traditional drivers (e.g., service quality and
service fairness) on CEBs. Our study further supports the call for more
research to reassess the impact of the traditional measures of customer
engagement (Bolton, 2011; Verhoef et al., 2010a, 2010b). The findings
of our study also provide practical insights to service managers. The rise
in time-strapped customers has made convenience an important factor
in their decision making. Hence, findings of this study are important for
service firms to enable their customers to fulfill their intent (i.e. display
CEBs) as well as to make prudent non-monetary investment decisions.
In a highly competitive business environment coupled with demanding
customers, especially in the case of services where the core offering is
perceived to be undifferentiated such as banking (Kaura, 2013) and
mobile phone services (Colwell et al., 2008), results of this study will
provide firms with deeper insights on the utility of these constructs in
the current scenario.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: First, we provide a
review of literature of the relevant constructs followed by the research
model and related hypotheses. Next, we describe the research metho-
dology, data analysis, and results. Finally, we discuss the findings of the
294
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 44 (2018) 293–304
study in terms of both theoretical as well as managerial implications
followed by limitations of the study and future research directions.
2. Literature review
2.1. Customer engagement behaviors (CEBs)
CEBs are defined as “customers’ behavioral manifestations towards
the brand or firm, beyond purchase, resulting from motivational dri-
vers” (Van Doorn et al., 2010; p. 254). Verleye et al. (2016) state that
CEB is conceptually similar to the related constructs such as customer
voluntary performance (CVP) (e.g. Bettencourt, 1997) and customer
citizenship behavior (CCB) (e.g. Rosenbaum and Massiah, 2007).
However, we find that the conceptualization of both CVP and CCB are
restricted to customer roles assigned by the firm and constitute cus-
tomer behaviors which contribute towards the overall service quality
(Jaakkola and Alexander, 2014; p.3). In contrast, CEB considers cus-
tomers as an exogenous entity whose behavior is driven not only by
firms’ initiatives but also by customers’ unique purposes and intentions
(Vivek et al., 2012). Similarly, Van Doorn et al. (2010; p. 155) state that
CEBs depend on the type of resources (money, time and effort) that
customers are willing to invest while dealing with their service provi-
ders. Given its broad scope, we choose to examine the various forms of
CEB rather than CVP or CCB.
Recent CEB literature shows customers who receive relational
benefits (i.e. confidence benefits, social benefits and special treatments)
reciprocate by exhibiting favorable behavior towards the firm (e.g.
Gremler and Gwinner, 2000; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2002). Further,
firms are making significant investments in providing a platform to
customers through the online brand community (Baldus et al., 2015),
and, through an engagement platform, customers help service firms and
other customers by providing help in improving their service experi-
ence and encouraging appropriate other-customer behaviors (Groeger
et al., 2016; Hollebeek and Brodie, 2016). Based on the review of lit-
erature, we classify CEBs into two broad categories which are (i) CEBs
directed toward the firm and its employees; and (ii) CEBs directed to-
ward other customers of the firm. Specifically, we consider three forms
of CEB i.e. positive word-of-mouth, customer helping company beha-
vior and customer helping customers behavior (Groeger et al., 2016;
Jaakkola and Alexander, 2014; Pansari and Kumar, 2016; Verleye et al.,
2014).
2.2. Motivational drivers of CEBs
2.2.1. Service convenience
Service convenience is defined as “time and effort saved by custo-
mers while purchasing and using a service” (Berry et al., 2002; p.5).
The time-saving aspect of convenience has been researched extensively
in the customer waiting time literature mainly pertaining to perceived
waiting time influence on the firm-customer relationship (Beilen and
Demoulin, 2007). The effort minimization aspect of convenience covers
saving of cognitive, emotional and physical activities which customers
go through while purchasing and using service (Jiang et al., 2013).
Prior research indicate that service convenience reflects the overall
intrinsic value which customers derive from their time and effort in-
vestments during pre-consumption, consumption and post-consumption
stages of their purchase behavior (Nguyen et al., 2012). Hence, we
conceptualize service convenience as a second-order construct com-
prising of five first-order factors which are decision convenience, access
convenience, transaction convenience, benefit convenience and post-
benefit convenience.
Decision convenience refers to time and effort saved by customers
while making purchase decisions and/or choosing a service firm. Access
convenience refers to the time and effort saved by customers while
S.K. Roy et al.
initiating contact with the service firm and reaching the service loca-
tion. Transaction convenience reflects time and effort saved by custo-
mers while concluding their transaction with the service firm. Benefit
convenience involves time and effort saved by customers while re-
ceiving the core benefits of a service. Lastly, post-benefit convenience
includes time and effort saved by customers in maintaining contact with
service firms and resolving purchase related issues. Recent studies
highlight the importance of service convenience by demonstrating its
positive impact on customer loyalty (Elizabeth-Lloyd et al., 2014; Kaura
et al., 2015) along with customer recommendation and referral beha-
vior (Chang and Polonsky, 2012; Elizabeth-Lloyd et al., 2014). Service
convenience also facilitates the relationship between managerially im-
portant constructs like customer satisfaction and repurchases intention
(Seiders et al., 2005).
2.2.2. Service quality
Grönroos (1984; p. 37) defines service quality as “a perceived
judgment resulting from an evaluation process where customers com-
pare their expectations with the service they perceive to have received.”
Parasuraman et al. (1985; p. 42) propose that service quality is “the
extent to which an organization meets customer expectations on a
consistent basis.” Prior research treats service quality as a pro-social/
customer-oriented behavior displayed by the firm which enhances the
level of customer commitment and positively influences their attitude
toward the firm (Cronin and Taylor, 1992). Roberts et al. (2003) state
that perceived service quality improves the firm-customer relationship
leading to customers’ intention to share information with the service
firm and spread positive word-of-mouth among friends and peers.
Service quality is considered to be a significant determinant of the firm-
customer relationship and customer experience (Hennig-Thurau et al.,
2002; Lemon and Verhoef, 2016). In particular, recent research calls for
an examination of customer experience, taking into account customer
engagement, service quality, and customer satisfaction (Lemon and
Verhoef, 2016). Hence, it is reasonable to consider service quality as a
motivational driver of CEBs.
2.2.3. Perceived service fairness
Seiders and Berry (1998; p. 9) define perceived service fairness as
“customers’ perception of the degree of justice in service firm's beha-
vior.” It reflects a psychological contract in which customers expect the
service firm to satisfy their needs and treat them fairly (Schneider and
Fig. 1. Research model.
295
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 44 (2018) 293–304
Bowen, 1999). Even though there is a debate over the dimensionality of
service fairness (Devlin et al., 2014), there is consensus in the literature
on following three dimensions: distributive fairness, interaction fair-
ness, and procedural fairness (Devlin et al., 2014; Namkung and Jang,
2010). In this study, we consider the overall perception of service
fairness and hence treat it as a one-dimensional construct. Researchers
consider service fairness as the fundamental basis on which customers
evaluate their relationship with firms (Clemmer and Schneider, 1996).
Customers’ feelings of service fairness may be subject to the degree of
their time and effort investment. Several studies provide evidence with
respect to the significant impact of service fairness on key relationship
variables such as customer complaining behavior, customer propensity
to stay with the firm and their tendency to switch service provider
(Nguyen and Klaus, 2013). The preceding discussion indicates that
service fairness increases the likelihood of CEBs. However, there is a
need to empirically test its impact on CEBs in the presence of service
quality and service convenience.
Understanding of these relationships is vital in the present context,
as service firms are giving prominence to ways of steering non-trans-
action customer behavior (e.g. providing feedback to the firm and
helping customers) in an attempt to co-create value (Galvagno and
Dalli, 2014; Verhoef et al., 2010a, 2010b). Hence, we believe that the
effect of service quality and fairness on CEBs may not be entirely in-
tuitive and needs to be re-examined especially in the presence of service
convenience.
3. Research model and hypotheses development
Social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) posits that individuals re-
ciprocate favorably toward a source that provides benefits to them in a
way that results in mutually beneficial outcomes (Rhoades and
Eisenberger, 2002). We consider service convenience, service quality
and service fairness as three important benefits that service firms pro-
vide to its customers. We postulate that customers who perceive these
benefits favorably will reciprocate by actively engaging with the service
firm in a mutually beneficial manner. Hence, such customers will dis-
play CEBs by spreading positive word-of-mouth, helping the firm im-
prove its services, and helping customers to ensure smooth service
delivery (Rosenbaum and Massiah, 2007). Fig. 1 shows the research
model proposed and tested in this study.
S.K. Roy et al.
3.1. Relationship between service convenience and CEBs
Today, customers experience a perceived shortage of time and effort
and are looking for ways to balance their various discretionary (e.g.
entertainment) and non-discretionary (e.g. office work) activities. In
such a situation, they are more likely to reciprocate favorably toward a
service provider who provides them with service convenience across
their purchase journey. This is consistent with Organ (1988), who
points out that providing non-monetary (time and energy) benefits to
customers motivates customers to show patronage behavior toward the
firm. Besides, recent studies also draw attention to positive outcomes of
service convenience such as repurchase intentions, customer satisfac-
tion and positive word-of-mouth (Seiders et al., 2007; Berry et al., 2002;
Colwell et al., 2008). We also find that time-poor customers are giving
more priority to improving their well-being and overall quality of life
(Roy et al., 2016). In the above context, service convenience provides
greater control to customers on service delivery (Collier and Sherrell,
2010). This may help a firm in eliciting CEBs as it may be perceived by
customers as a support mechanism provided by firms which enables
them to achieve a better work-life balance. Thus, there is a need to
empirically test the impact of service convenience on other forms of
CEBs (besides word-of-mouth). Hence, we advance the following hy-
potheses:
Hypothesis 1. (a–c)Service convenience has a positive impact on
customer engagement behaviors (i.e. word-of-mouth behavior,
customer helping company behavior, and customer helping customers
behavior).
3.2. Relationship between service quality and CEBs
Literature suggests that superior service quality is perceived as pro-
social behavior by customers, which improves firm-customer relation-
ships by creating positive affect among customers and increasing the
level of their trust and commitment towards firms (Chenet et al., 2010).
Customer engagement studies treat these relationship quality variables
as motivational drivers of CEBs (Verleye et al., 2014; Brodie et al.,
2011). Hence, it is logical to conclude that favorable perception of
service quality improves firm-customer relationship quality and hence
is likely to elicit CEBs. This finds support in research examining the
positive impact of service quality on positive word-of-mouth and cus-
tomer recommendation/referral behavior (Chaniotakis and
Lymperopoulos, 2009). There is a need to examine the extent to which
these findings can be generalized across the other forms of CEBs. Spe-
cifically, we need to assess the extent to which customers provide
feedback/suggestions to firms (helping company) and/or help other
customers if they already consider service quality as superior. Based on
the preceding discussion we advance the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 2. (a–c)Service quality has a positive impact on customer
engagement behaviors (i.e. word-of-mouth behavior, customer helping
customers behavior and customer helping company behavior).
3.3. Relationship between perceived service fairness and CEBs
Building on social exchange theory, organizational behavior litera-
ture shows that employees tend to exhibit a greater level of commit-
ment and feel obliged to show engagement behaviors, when they feel
treated fairly by their employers (Payne and Webber, 2006; Cohen-
Charash and Spector, 2001). Consistent with this stream of literature,
research in service failure and recovery underscores the impact of
perceived fairness on customer response in terms of engagement be-
haviors post service failure. It states that customers who perceive ser-
vice recovery to be fair (after a service failure) experience positive
emotions which engender trust among them towards the service firm
(Bowden, 2009). Trust in turn improves customer repurchase/revisit
296
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 44 (2018) 293–304
intentions and leads to positive word-of-mouth (Maxham, 2001). Groth
(2005) identified customers’ perception of organization fairness as an
antecedent of customers’ extra-role behavior (recommendations, feed-
back, and customer helping customers). Yi and Gong (2008) also de-
monstrate the positive effect of perceived justice on customers’ pro-
pensity to (i) provide suggestions to their firm; (ii) cooperate with
service employees; and (iii) spread positive word-of-mouth. Given the
change in the firm-customer relationship discussed above, there is a
need to re-assess the relationship between service fairness and CEBs.
Hence, we consider service fairness as a motivational driver of CEBs and
advance the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 3. (a)Perceived service fairness has a positive impact on
customer engagement behaviors (i.e. word-of-mouth behavior,
customer helping customers behavior and customer helping company
behavior).
3.4. The moderating role of service convenience
Consumer resource allocation theory (Batshell, 1980) postulates
that customers invest a variety of resources such as money
(Marmorstein et al., 1992), time and effort (Feldman and Hornik, 1981)
while dealing with firms. Due to limited availability of disposable time,
customers attempt to reduce their overall opportunity cost by mini-
mizing their time expenditure associated with certain discretionary
activities, such as shopping. Van Doorn et al. (2010) concur that cus-
tomers’ intention to indulge in CEBs is a function of time and effort
associated with such behaviors. So, service convenience provides a
sense of control to customers over the management of time and effort in
achieving their goals with respect to access and use of service (Farquhar
and Rowley, 2009). It is reasonable to believe that expectations from
service (in terms of quality and fairness) will rise with the time and
effort expenditure incurred by customers (Berry et al., 2002) which in
turn determine their opportunity costs associated with respect to re-
ceiving quality and fair service. Hence, we conceptualize that the effect
of service quality and service fairness on customers’ willingness to
display CEBs will depend on the extent of time and effort costs incurred
by them. Previous research supports the positive moderating role of
service convenience in the relationship between customer satisfaction
and CEBs and between service quality and customer loyalty, which
finds support in research (Hsu et al., 2010; Pansari and Kumar, 2016).
Similarly, Seiders et al. (2005) underscore the moderating role of ser-
vice convenience and states that convenient service offerings facilitate a
customer's ability to fulfill his/her desired role in service. While service
convenience reflects on immediate benefits to customers, a surprising
favor or accumulated favors may be perceived by customers as more
than fair; meanwhile, if the quality is good for them to recommend to
others, it provides a condition for customers to perform CEBs. Specifi-
cally, in our study, these CEBs are associated with helping, which they
would have gained some value from helping others (Deci and Ryan,
2008). Such conditions highlight the importance to test the moderation
effect of service convenience. Thus, we posit that service convenience
will positively moderate the relationship between CEBs and its drivers
(i.e. service quality and service fairness). Based on the above discussion
and empirical evidence, we advance the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 4. Service convenience moderates the impact of service
quality on (a) word-of-mouth behavior, (b) customer helping customers
behavior, and (c) customer helping company behavior by accentuating
the effect positively.
Hypothesis 5. Service convenience moderates the impact of service
fairness on (a) word-of-mouth behavior, (b) customer helping
customers behavior, and (c) customer helping company behavior by
accentuating the effect positively.
S.K. Roy et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 44 (2018) 293–304

3.5. Customer satisfaction Table 2

Constructs and measurement items.
Bettencourt (1997) found that customer satisfaction has a direct 1st order dimensions for 2nd order service convenience Loadings t-values
positive impact on CVP (cooperation and loyalty). Prior studies have construct
also shown that satisfied customers are more likely to engage in CCBs
Access Convenience [AC] – Cronbach's α = 0.84
such as customer helping behaviors at the service facility to ensure
Service provider was available when I needed them. 0.70 31.33
service delivery (Rosenbaum and Massiah, 2007) and customers’ active Service provider is accessible through various ways 0.75 38.51
participation in the service development and improvement (Keh and (online, telephone, & in person).
Teo, 2001). Research also considers customer satisfaction as a moti- Hours of operation were convenient. 0.84 73.77
vational driver of CEBs (Van Doorn et al., 2010; Pansari and Kumar, It is easy for me to contact an employee of the provider. 0.82 57.31
Service provider offers convenient locations. 0.77 40.94
2016). Satisfaction is considered as an outcome of quality and fairness,
Decision Convenience [DC] – Cronbach's α = 0.79
and for our study, satisfaction is considered an outcome variable (not a Information received from the service provider made it 0.68 24.19
mediator between antecedents and CEBs) in conjunction with CEBs. As easy to choose what to buy.
the paper is investigating the drivers that elicit CEBs, we treat sa- Making up my mind about what to buy was quick and 0.81 53.31
easy.
tisfaction as a control variable to account for the effect of satisfaction on
Information that I received was very clear and easy to 0.83 60.86
CEBs (but this is not the aim of this study). Hence, we control for the read.
effect of customer satisfaction on CEBs so that it does not confound the Service provider let me know exact cost or special offers. 0.81 60.24
proposed set of relationships in the research model. Transaction Convenience [TC] – Cronbach's α = 0.74
I found it easy to complete my purchase with my service 0.83 44.99
provider.
4. Methodology I was able to complete my purchase quickly. 0.84 63.28
It takes little time to pay for my purchase. 0.53 3.57
My service provider offers convenient payment options. 0.78 40.93
4.1. Sample and data collection Benefit Convenience [BC] – Cronbach's α = 0.65
I was able to get the benefits from the service provider 0.83 60.61
Farquhar and Rowley (2009) highlight that service convenience with little effort.
should be examined in a range of service sectors to explicate its im- The time required to receive the benefits was reasonable. 0.66 20.73
The service provider solved my needs without creating 0.80 46.81
portance for these sectors. Prior studies emphasize the importance of
other problems.
convenience in services where the core offering is perceived to be un- Post-Benefit Convenience [PC] – Cronbach's α = 0.83
differentiated, such as mobile telecommunication services (Colwell My service provider quickly resolved any problems I had 0.87 71.82
et al., 2008) and retail banking (Kaura, 2013). Hence, our study was with the service.
conducted in the context of two service sectors: mobile tele- It was easy for me to obtain after sale service. 0.85 66.08
When I had questions about my service, my service 0.88 79.98
communication services (hereafter mobile services) and retail banking provider is able to resolve my problems.
services. These two industries were considered to be appropriate be- Perceived Quality [PQ] (a) – Cronbach's α = 0.87
cause the Indian latest Census of India (2011) state that 63% of Indian My service provider always delivers excellent service. 0.89 79.53
households have a mobile phone and 59% have access to banking fa- The service provided is reliable, consistent and 0.88 58.63
dependable.
cilities (Kumar, 2012). According to a recent report, India just crossed
I believe the general quality of my service provider is high. 0.90 95.81
one billion mobile subscribers (Rai, 2016). Moreover, our preliminary Perceived Fairness [PF] (b) – Cronbach's α = 0.80
interviews and pilot tests indicate that convenience may be an im- Overall my service provider treats me fairly. 0.75 30.00
portant factor influencing their decision-making process in the above My service provider keeps its promises. 0.76 33.37
contexts (Engel and Blackwell, 1982). Recent studies also suggest that My service provider treats me with courtesy and respect. 0.83 62.53
My service provider treats all customers equally. 0.83 57.54
both retail banks and mobile service providers are increasingly be- Word of Mouth [WOM] – Cronbach's α = 0.87
coming convenience oriented while dealing with their respective cus- I say positive things about my service provider to others. 0.90 96.99
tomers. The final version of the questionnaire was distributed to uni- I recommend my service provider to my peers. 0.90 84.42
versity students, faculty and non-academic staff who were current users I encourage friends and relatives to take the service of my 0.87 66.21
service provider.
of retail banking and mobile telecommunication services in the context
Customer Helping Customers [CHCU] – Cronbach's α = 0.84
of overall service experience with their service provider. This sampling I teach other customers how to use the service correctly. 0.87 81.63
method has been widely used in the literature (Hur et al., 2010; Taylor I help other customers when they don’t know how to use 0.88 91.00
and Bearden, 2002). Respondents were asked to use their most fre- the service.
quently used mobile phone service provider as a reference while re- I explain to other customers how to use the service 0.85 61.61
correctly.
sponding to the survey questions related to the mobile phone services. Customer Helping Company [CHCO] – Cronbach's α = 0.82
I provide information when surveyed by the service 0.86 61.62
Table 1 provider.
Respondents' demographic characteristics. I would provide helpful feedback to customer service 0.88 75.15
I would inform the service provider about the service 0.83 55.98
Mobile Retail banking provided by their employees.
Customer Satisfaction [CS] (c) – Cronbach's α = 0.79
Gender Percent Percent Overall I am satisfied with my service provider. 0.82 44.65
Male 59.86 64.52 I am delighted with the service provided. 0.84 52.20
Female 40.14 35.48 I am pleased with the overall service of my service 0.87 73.47
Age Percent Percent provider.
Below 20 years 24.91 7.42
20–29 years 25.95 30.35
Note: Service Convenience Dimensions adapted from Colwell et al. (2008) and
30–39 years 28.37 21.26
Seiders et al. (2007).
Above 40 years 20.76 40.97
Length of relationship Percent Percent
Less than 1 year 2.42 4.80 In case of retail banks, survey responses were elicited based on custo-
1–2 years 9.69 10.70 mers’ experiences with their main bank. A five-point Likert-type scale
2–3 years 29.07 21.30
anchored at “strongly disagree” and “strongly agree” was used. The
More than 3 years 58.82 63.20
total usable sample size for the mobile service survey was 391 and was

297
S.K. Roy et al.
309 for the retail banking survey with the response rate of about 50%.
Table 1 provides the demographic profile of the respondents for both
mobile and retail banking services.
We assessed the non-response bias by comparing early versus late
respondents (Armstrong and Overton, 1977). Our results did not show
any significant differences between the early and late respondents
which suggest that there is no significant impact of the non-response
bias on our findings.
4.2. Measurement instrument
The data for this research was collected through a paper based
survey. In developing the instrument, we drew heavily from the extant
literature but adapted the scales to serve the purpose of the study. The
measurement instrument is shown in Table 2. The measurement items
for service convenience types were adapted from Colwell et al. (2008)
and Seiders et al. (2007). Overall service convenience is considered to
be a higher (second)-order construct consisting of the five dimensions
which are decision convenience, access convenience, benefit con-
venience, transaction convenience and post-benefit convenience (Berry
et al., 2002; Colwell et al., 2008). It is argued that higher-order models
are suitable when seemingly distinct but in some way related constructs
are accounted for by one or a number of common higher order con-
structs (Chen et al., 2005). Such a description neatly encapsulates our
conceptualization of service convenience as a second-order construct.
Researchers employ a similar approach successfully when investigating
issues related to service quality (Fassnacht and Koese, 2006; Ganguli
and Roy, 2013). Perceived service fairness measurement items were
adapted from Han et al. (2008); perceived service quality items from
Aydin and Özer (2005), customer satisfaction items from Bayol et al.
(2000) and customer engagement behaviors from Bove et al. (2009)
and Verleye et al. (2014).
5. Results
5.1. Data analysis
We employ partial least squares (PLS) structural equation modelling
using the statistical tool SmartPLS 3.0. PLS-SEM as the appropriate
method for this study as PLS-SEM is similar to regression and it si-
multaneously models the structural paths. Another advantage is its
flexibility in distributional assumptions and its strength in handling
complex predictive models and constructs with few items (Hair et al.,
2011). Further, it allows for latent constructs to be modeled as either
formative or reflective, and, it represents a well-substantiated method
for estimating complex cause-effect relationship models (Gudergan
et al., 2008). Consistent with the literature (Navarro et al., 2010), we
analyzed and interpreted the PLS model in two stages. First we eval-
uated the measurement model. In stage two we tested the proposed
hypotheses in the structural model.
5.2. Results for measurement model
Indicator validity specifies what part of an indicator's variance is
explained by the latent variable with loadings larger than 0.7 deemed
acceptable and loadings smaller than 0.4 suggested for removal
(Hulland, 1999). All indicators exceed the critical value of 0.4; only
three items were slightly below the suggested benchmark of 0.7 with
values of 0.53, 0.66 and 0.68. Hair et al. (2014) suggest that standar-
dized outer loadings between 0.40 and 0.70 can be retained if their
deletion does not elevate the AVE above the 0.70 threshold, which is
the case in our sample. We assessed the significance of the reflective
outer-measurement model via bootstrapped t-values of item loadings.
Bootstrap t-values were computed on the basis of 1000 bootstrapping
runs. As shown in Table 2, the reflective outer-measurement models
have acceptable bootstrap critical ratios (t-values > 1.96). Therefore,
298
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 44 (2018) 293–304
all the aforementioned three items (with loadings less than 0.70) were
retained as they are also relatively close to the 0.70 benchmark and
have significant loadings (t = 3.57, t = 20.73, and t = 24.19). All in-
cluded scales exhibited sufficient internal consistency with Cronbach
α’s ranging from 0.65 to 0.87, thus exceeding the recommended
threshold of 0.60 (Loewenthal, 2004).
The average variance extracted (AVE) for all constructs passes the
threshold recommended value of 50% which indicates the convergent
validity of the measurement model. As shown in Table 3, the square
roots of the AVE values are consistently greater than the off-diagonal
correlations, suggesting discriminant validity at the construct level
(Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
Reliable constructs are expected to have a composite reliability (ρc)
between 0.70 and 0.90 (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988; Chin, 1998). The
five service convenience dimensions and other constructs have com-
posite reliability (ρc) ratios in the range of between 0.81 and 0.92.
Construct correlations together with validity and reliability metrics are
presented in Table 3.
For the second order reflective-formative service convenience con-
struct we changed our analysis. Reliability becomes an irrelevant cri-
terion for assessing measurement quality for formative measurement
models, as validity is the focus of examination (Diamantopoulos, 2006).
In addition to assessing the validity of formative indicators through
theoretical and expert opinion (Rossiter, 2002), statistical analyses can
be used to assess the validity of formative indicators. According to
Henseler et al. (2009), an indicator should not enter into a formative
index if the indicator has no significant impact on the construct or if an
indicator exhibits high multicollinearity.
In order to assess statistical significance, we used bootstrap analysis
with 1000 sub-samples to assess weights and that represent information
about the extent to which each indicator contributes to the service
convenience construct (Mathwick et al., 2001). All indicators show
significant values (see Table 4; p-values < 0.01).
In this study, values of variance inflation factor (VIF) for all in-
dicators ranged from 1.9 to 2.5, well below the critical level (Henseler
et al., 2009). We conducted Harman's single factor test (Podsakoff et al.,
2003) to assess the potential for common method bias in the data.
Results showed that the first factor accounted for only 31% of the
variance in the data, indicating that common method variance was not
a significant issue.
5.3. Results for structural model
The proposed hypotheses from H1, H2, H3, H4 to H5 were tested
using PLS path modelling. Results are shown in Tables 5, 6. Results
indicate that service convenience and service fairness make a sig-
nificant positive contribution with statistically significant β’s (t-va-
lues > 1.96, p < 0.01) to all three customer engagement behavior
constructs (word-of-mouth, customer helping customers, and customer
helping company). Therefore, all direct effect hypothesized in H1 and
H3 are supported. On the other hand, service quality has a positive and
significant direct effect only on word-of-mouth (β = 0.09, t-value
= 1.92). For customer helping customers, the relationship is positive
but not significant, whereas, for customer helping company, the re-
lationship is significant but, surprisingly, negative.
In H4, we predicted that service convenience will moderate and
amplify service quality's positive impact on customer engagement
constructs. Results provide evidence of the positive amplification effect
with β’s of 0.08 for word-of-mouth, 0.03 for customer helping custo-
mers and 0.06 for customer helping company. However, these β’s are
not significant. Therefore, H4 is not supported.
In H5, we predicted that service convenience will moderate and
amplify service fairness’ positive impact on customer engagement
constructs. While all β’s are significant (t-values of 3.11, 2.87, and 2.23,
p < 0.01) for word-of-mouth, customer helping customers and cus-
tomer helping company, these β’s are negative (− 0.18, − 0.14, and
S.K. Roy et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 44 (2018) 293–304

Table 3
Discriminant validity assessment.
Construct AVE CR(ρc) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

1. Access 0.60 0.88 0.77

2. Decision 0.62 0.87 0.67 0.79
3. Transaction 0.57 0.84 0.65 0.53 0.75
4. Benefit 0.59 0.81 0.61 0.50 0.61 0.77
5. Post-Benefit 0.75 0.90 0.56 0.50 0.52 0.68 0.87
6. PF 0.79 0.92 0.50 0.46 0.52 0.56 0.68 0.89
7. PF 0.63 0.87 0.61 0.53 0.57 0.62 0.62 0.67 0.79
8. WOM 0.79 0.92 0.66 0.56 0.58 0.53 0.54 0.55 0.65 0.89
9. CHCU 0.76 0.90 0.58 0.53 0.55 0.53 0.54 0.52 0.65 0.73 0.87
10. CHCO 0.73 0.89 0.60 0.52 0.52 0.49 0.48 0.46 0.69 0.63 0.73 0.85
11. CS 0.71 0.88 0.50 0.49 0.52 0.58 0.71 0.68 0.66 0.49 0.51 0.52 0.84

Notes: The square root of the average variance extracted for each construct is reported in bold italics along the diagonal.
n = 700; all correlations are significant at p < 0.01.

Table 4 Table 6
Results for 2nd order service convenience construct. Model fit.
2nd order formative components of service β weights t-values R2 f2 Q2 q2
convenience construct
PQ PF SC PQ PF SC
Access Convenience 0.346 29.422
Decision Convenience 0.244 23.976 Word-of-Mouth 0.56 0.01 0.10 0.27 0.45 0.01 0.06 0.17
Transaction Convenience 0.234 14.352 Customer helping 0.51 0.00 0.10 0.17 0.39 0.00 0.06 0.11
Benefit Convenience 0.174 22.739 Customers
Post-Benefit Convenience 0.219 22.519 Customer helping 0.54 0.02 0.22 0.10 0.39 0.01 0.12 0.06
Company

− 0.12). H5 is not supported. Notes: Q2 – Predictive Relevance.

We controlled the model for satisfaction effects on the endogenous
variables. Satisfaction had surprising negative effects on word-of-mouth
and customer helping customers yet was only significant for word-of-
mouth (β = − 0.11, t = 2.48, p < 0.01). As satisfaction is positively
correlated with the dependent CEB variables and our other independent
variables of quality, fairness and convenience and satisfaction can also
be an outcome of our independent constructs, we use it for confounding
or crossover effect purposes (MacKinnon et al., 2000). As a confounding
variable, it constitutes a partial effect of our independent variables on
CEB. The switch from positive correlation to negative β could be driven
by satisfaction picking up the variance of the three independent vari-
ables (Paulhus et al., 2004).
We assessed the structural model (inner model) in PLS by evaluating
q2 – Relative Predictive Relevance.
f2 – Effect Size on Endogenous Construct.
Interpretation: Q2 greater 0 indicates predictive relevance.
Interpretation: f2/q2 ≈ 0.02 small; f2/q2 ≈ 0.15 medium; f2/q2 ≈ 0.35 large
effects.
PQ – Perceived Quality; PF – Perceived Fairness; SC – Service Convenience.
co-efficient of determination (R2) of the endogenous latent variables,
the estimates for path coefficients, and Cohen's (1988) effect size (f2).
Chin (1998) proposes that R2 values of 0.67, 0.33, and 0.19 in the PLS
path models represents substantial, moderate, and weak values of the
co-efficient of determination respectively. In our reflective-formative
second-order model the R2 values for the endogenous constructs are in
the substantial range with R2 = 0.56 for word-of-mouth, R2 = 0.51 for

Table 5
PLS results for hypotheses.
Hypothesis Direction β-values t-values Results

Direct Effects
Perceived Quality → Word-of-Mouth 2 (a) Positive 0.09 1.92 Supported
Perceived Quality → Customer helping customers 2 (b) Positive 0.01 0.24 NS
Perceived Quality → Customer helping company 2 (c) Positive − 0.13 3.25 NS
Perceived Fairness → Word-of-Mouth 3 (a) Positive 0.27 5.80 Supported
Perceived Fairness → Customer helping customers 3 (b) Positive 0.32 7.50 Supported
Perceived Fairness → Customer helping company 3 (c) Positive 0.48 10.16 Supported
Service Convenience → Word-of-Mouth 1 (a) Positive 0.50 9.62 Supported
Service Convenience → Customer helping customers 1 (b) Positive 0.40 9.14 Supported
Service Convenience → Customer helping company 1 (c) Positive 0.34 7.36 Supported
Moderation Effects
Quality * Convenience → Word-of-Mouth 4 (a) Amplify 0.08 1.36 NS
Quality * Convenience → Customer helping Customers 4 (b) Amplify 0.03 0.52 NS
Quality * Convenience → Customer helping Company 4 (c) Amplify 0.06 1.27 NS
Fairness * Convenience → Word-of-Mouth 5 (a) Amplify − 0.18 3.11 Negative
Fairness * Convenience → Customer helping Customers 5 (b) Amplify − 0.14 2.87 Negative
Fairness * Convenience → Customer helping Company 5 (c) Amplify − 0.12 2.23 Negative
Control
Satisfaction → Word-of-Mouth − 0.11 2.48 Significant
Satisfaction → Customer helping Customers − 0.02 0.41 NS
Satisfaction → Customer helping Company 0.05 1.18 NS

Note: NS → Not significant.

299
S.K. Roy et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 44 (2018) 293–304

customer helping customers, and R2 = 0.54 for customer helping

company (See Table 6).
The f2 effect size evaluates the effects of the included hypothesized
variable in comparison with a model that excludes it (Hair et al., 2014).
The results are mixed (see Table 6). For perceived quality, the inclusion
of the hypothesized variable results in f2 values of 0.01, 0.00, and 0.02
for word-of-mouth, customer helping customers and customer helping
company respectively. Values at about 0.02 indicate small effect size
while values of above 0.15 and 0.35 indicate medium or large effect
sizes. The low values for perceived quality indicate a small effect size on
the endogenous variables. However, for perceived fairness, we see a
medium effect size on customer helping company (f2 = 0.22) and for
service convenience, we identify medium effect sizes on word-of-mouth
(f2 = 0.27) and on customer helping customers (f2 = 0.17). The re-
maining effect sizes are at about 0.10, which can be interpreted as small
to moderate effects.
The predictive relevance of our structural model was then assessed
via the Stone-Geisser Q2 measure presented in Table 6. Q2 values of
greater than zero indicate the model has predictive relevance. Using the
cross-validated redundancy procedure with an omission distance of 7
(Hair et al., 2014), the Q2 values for our endogenous latent variables
were 0.45 for word-of-mouth and 0.39 for the two customer helping Fig. 3. The moderating effect of service convenience on customer helping
behaviors. In addition, we analyzed the relative impact of predictive customers [CHCust].
relevance (Q2). Similar to the f2 effect size results, we again find that
perceived quality has lesser predictive relevance on the three en-
dogenous variables, while fairness shows a higher level of predictive
relevance on the customer helping company variable, whereas service
convenience shows higher levels of predictive relevance on word-of-
mouth as well as customer helping customers.
To aid in the understanding of the moderation results, the sig-
nificant interaction effects are illustrated in Figs. 2–4. Fig. 2 illustrates
that for situations of low service convenience, improved service fairness
has a large effect on word-of-mouth, while for high service convenience
the positive effect of higher fairness is much smaller. In effect, when
service convenience is high, fairness has limited additional benefits.
Fig. 3 illustrates the moderating effect for customer helping customer.
At low levels of service convenience, high levels of fairness have a
substantial positive customer engagement benefit. At high levels of
service convenience, the benefits are small to non-existent. Finally,
Fig. 4 illustrates the moderating effects of customer helping company,
indicating that the benefits of fairness are greater for situations of lower
levels of service convenience. Examining these results, we notice that

Fig. 4. The moderating effect of service convenience on customer helping

company [CHComp].

for high degrees of service convenience we almost uniformly see a

higher incidence of CEB's, regardless of fairness perception. It would
seem as if convenience mitigates the relevance of fairness, which makes
sense if direct contact between the firm and customer is limited.
On the other hand, the impact of fairness on CEB's seems evident
when customers indicate lower levels of service convenience. The in-
terpretation of the effects would point out that a low convenience si-
tuation could trigger higher involvement in the service process and
would likely entail more interaction with the service provider, which in
turn makes fairness a more relevant service issue.

6. Discussion

The aim of this study was to (i) examine the direct effect of service
convenience on CEBs; and (ii) investigate the moderating role of service
convenience in the relationship between CEBs and the two manage-
Fig. 2. The moderating effect of service convenience on word of mouth [WOM]. rially important constructs: service quality and service fairness.

300
S.K. Roy et al.
Following are the theoretical and managerial contributions of this
study. Customer engagement is a major stage in the evolution and de-
velopment of customer management. This has been examined through a
similar theoretical lens as customer behavior (Romero, 2017). These
behaviors are predicted to be related to firm performance and return on
marketing investments (Verhoef et al., 2010a, 2010b). Hence, beha-
viors related to customer engagement are of practical importance for
service firms (Van Doorn et al., 2010). Our understanding of the
antecedents and their influences on CEBs is still very limited. Thus, the
findings of this study offer new insights on this perspective by jointly
analyzing how CEBs antecedents influence such behaviors simulta-
neously. This adds to the development of the customer engagement
theory (Harmeling et al., 2017). The engagement literature largely fo-
cuses on customers’ contributions, which is beneficiary centric. In our
study, we shift the focuses on “helping” which is benefactor centric
(seeing customers as quasi-service providers that can benefit firms and
other customers) (Chen et al., 2018) and include the three antecedents
(based on the social exchange theory) that drive the CEBs (helping)
behavior.
6.1. Theoretical contributions
Our first contribution lies in examining the role of service con-
venience in eliciting CEBs. The findings of our study establish service
convenience as a motivational driver of CEBs as it has a positive and
significant impact on three forms of CEBs. In fact, our results indicate
that it is a more effective motivational driver of CEBs than service
quality and service fairness. This is consistent with prior convenience
literature which shows a positive direct impact of service convenience
on customer satisfaction, loyalty, and word-of-mouth (Seiders et al.,
2007). This contribution is significant because of the following reasons:
(i) the extant service convenience literature is largely restricted to ex-
amining its impact on the traditional in-role customer responses (i.e.
customer loyalty and word-of-mouth) (Chang and Polonsky, 2012;
Elizabeth-Lloyd et al., 2014); and (ii) customer engagement researchers
have paid limited attention to empirically examining the impact of
service convenience on CEBs despite acknowledging that CEBs are a
function of customer time and effort expenditures associated with such
activities (Pansari and Kumar, 2016; Van Doorn et al., 2010).
Our second contribution stems from Verleye et al.’s (2014; p. 81),
argument that “future research should investigate whether managerial
processes to encourage CEBs can also discourage CEBs with detrimental
effects for firms and their stakeholders.” We provide new insights in
terms of the negative moderation effect of service convenience on the
relationship between service fairness and CEBs. Given the demands of
modern day life and stress associated with it, customers prefer to
maximize their return on time and effort investment towards self-ad-
vancement activities with an aim to achieve a better quality of life and
well-being (Forbes, 2015). In such a scenario, we posit that customers
deal with their service providers with a specific goal in mind i.e. to
conclude transaction and communicating with others respectively.
They may not emphasize on the process and interaction given the low
contact nature of these services. For high degrees of perceived service
convenience there is a greater prevalence of CEBs as evident from the
results regardless of the perception of fairness. If the direct interaction
between service firms and customers is limited service convenience is
likely to mitigate the influence of fairness. When customers perceive
lower levels of service convenience the impact of service fairness on
CEBs is evident. This implies that low levels of convenience may trigger
higher involvement of customers with the service process and delivery
and higher levels of interaction with the service providers. This in turn
makes perceived service fairness as an important element to manage
from the service providers’ perspective. This is consistent with the
findings of Elizabeth-Lloyd et al. (2014) that service convenience ne-
gatively moderates the relationship between service environment
quality, interaction quality and overall service quality. This is also
301
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 44 (2018) 293–304
consistent with the recent customer engagement literature indicating
customer engagement as an outcome of customers’ voluntary resource
investment (Hollebeek et al., 2016). Customer engagement is closely
associated with customer experience instead of service quality (Lemon
and Verhoef, 2016). This may be due to heightened service expectations
of customers in a hypercompetitive environment. Hence, customers
look beyond service quality to actively engage with firms through CEBs.
As customer engagement refers to voluntary interaction with firms and
other customers (Brodie et al., 2011), our findings explain why custo-
mers’ perceived convenience has a negative moderation effect on ser-
vice quality.
It is plausible that service convenience (a cognitive benefit) may not
be sufficient for firms to elicit CEBs unless customers show emotional
appreciation (through customer gratitude) towards the benefits (here
service quality and fairness) provided by firms. Researchers consider
gratitude as the fundamental social component of human interactions
that serves as the basis for reciprocal behaviors (Palmatier et al., 2009).
It may be due to the lack of gratitude shown by customers towards their
service firm owing to their growing service expectations in a hy-
percompetitive business landscape. This is especially relevant for
banking and mobile phone services where core service offerings are
perceived to be undifferentiated.
Our third contribution lies in the investigation of the direct impacts
of service quality and service fairness on different forms of CEBs. These
constructs are considered as strategic levers used by service firms to
elicit positive customer response such as customer satisfaction, loyalty,
and word-of-mouth. Therefore, it seems intuitive that both these con-
structs act as motivational drivers of CEBs. However, our findings do
not completely support this argument. On one hand, service fairness has
a positive and significant impact on all CEBs and on the other hand,
service quality only affects word-of-mouth significantly and positively.
The emergence of a networked economy has allowed customers to in-
teract with firms and other customers through various channels, mainly
social media. We believe that these developments have raised customer
service expectations and hence changed the way customers evaluate
service quality. In such a scenario, customers feel entitled to receive
excellent service quality and may view their relationship with firms as
transactional in nature due to low switching costs (Terho and Halinen,
2007). Therefore, providing excellent service quality may help a firm in
eliciting traditional in-role behavior (customer loyalty and word-of-
mouth) but may not help in the display of other forms of CEBs. It is also
possible that customers who receive superior quality may not feel the
need to help other customers in smooth service delivery (customer
helping customers). In fact, it may discourage them from providing
feedback or suggestions to their firm (customer helping company).
Thus, these findings are novel additions to the body of knowledge re-
lating service quality and CEBs.
6.2. Managerial implications
Service firms (especially banks and mobile service providers) are
becoming convenience-oriented as this acts a source of sustainable
competitive advantage. These firms also view customers as “partial
employees” and want to expand their role beyond traditional loyalty
behaviors (repurchase intentions and word-of-mouth). Hence, our study
shows that service convenience can be the factor that service firms need
to focus on in order to elicit CEBs. We now discuss some of the measures
that service firms can take in this regard.
In the case of banks and mobile service providers, the core offering
is perceived to be undifferentiated by customers. Hence, in order to
elicit CEBs, service firms should focus their value proposition around
service convenience and promote it in a manner that will have custo-
mers perceiving service convenience as a support mechanism in their
quest to attain a better quality of life. This is important because cus-
tomers are goal oriented. Therefore, service convenience provides them
with time and psychic benefits, allowing them to make prudent
S.K. Roy et al.
investment decisions pertaining to their non-monetary resources.
Service firms should also adopt an omnichannel approach to ensure
that customers undergo a seamless experience throughout their pur-
chase journey which includes pre-consumption stage, consumption
stage as well as the post-consumption stage. In the current scenario
where customers use multiple channels, such a strategy will save their
time and effort in dealing with service firms. Consequently, service
firms need to focus and invest substantial resources towards integrating
various channels (brick and mortar, online website and mobile appli-
cations) to implement an effective omnichannel strategy successfully.
Given the exponential growth in social media users, service firms
should capitalize on various social media platforms (e.g. Facebook and
Twitter) as a business tool to elicit CEBs, rather than considering it
merely a component of the promotion mix. These platforms provide
service convenience to customers as firms can show better responsive-
ness (i.e. provide service convenience) while also determine customer
needs/preferences, take and execute orders, enable efficient payment
mechanism and resolve post purchase related issues. They also make it
easier for customers to communicate with the firm and other customers.
The ease of communication coupled with extensive usage of social
media will enable customers to fulfill their intent to display CEBs.
In addition, service convenience may come at a cost of customers,
which is related to their discretionary time and effort. Service firms
should not expect that service convenience will amplify the effect of
service quality and service fairness on CEBs. In fact, service con-
venience is likely to reduce the effect of service fairness on CEBs.
Hence, there is a need for service providers to strike a balance between
providing convenience to customers vis-à-vis providing fairness. Firms
should remember that all customers may not be well equipped with an
understanding of rules and regulations pertaining to the service, espe-
cially banking. This is particularly true in the context of emerging
markets like India, where customers may not mind spending greater
time and effort to ensure the safety of such high involvement transac-
tions. In such a case, too much effort made by the firm to expedite the
service process may prove to be counter-beneficial. It is also plausible to
assume that service convenience, if not positioned properly, may make
the customers passive recipients of service and may not extend grati-
tude towards their service providers. In such cases, service convenience
becomes a complex phenomenon for service firms as it drives CEBs but
may not amplify the effect of service quality on CEBs, and, in fact, may
reduce the effect of service fairness in this regard.
Changes in the firm-customer relationship dynamic have increased
the level of customer expectation and change how they evaluate service
performance. As a consequence, the findings of our study also caution
service firms to not assume the positive impact of service quality in
eliciting CEBs. Besides positive word-of-mouth, our findings demon-
strate that providing excellent service quality does not lead to customer
helping customers; instead, it reduces the intentions of customers
helping company behavior. It implies that customers may not necessary
seek to display CEBs despite receiving superior quality. It may be due to
our assertion that customers who find the service quality of a firm to be
superior refrain from providing suggestions/feedback to the firm
(helping the company) and do not feel the need to help other customers
to ensure smooth service delivery. Service firms should remember that
providing excellent service quality will only help them in eliciting
traditional customer loyalty behaviors but may not result in CEBs
(particularly customer helping behaviors). Service fairness still remains
a significant driver of all forms of CEBs especially in industries regu-
lated by central agencies such as banking (governed by the Reserve
Bank of India) and mobile phone service providers (governed by the
Telecom Regulatory Authority of India).
6.3. Limitations and scope for future research
The findings of our study need to be considered in light of the fol-
lowing limitations. First, the study was conducted in a single country
302
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 44 (2018) 293–304
and direct contact between firm and customer was limited (Bowen,
1990). Future study should explore these findings in other contexts
characterized by high firm-customer interactions, such as restaurants
and entertainment theme parks. Future studies should explore the role
of various engagement platforms used by firms in eliciting CEBs. The
type of channel used by customers (e.g. brick and mortar vis-à-vis
website or mobile application) determines the level of firm-customer
interactions, which in turn may influence the results obtained in this
study. Palmatier et al. (2009) propose the mediating role of customer
gratitude in the relationship between relationship investments and firm
performance. Future research can extend our work by empirically ex-
amining the role of customer gratitude in the model as our findings
suggest gratitude may be a boundary condition to elicit CEBs con-
cerning CEBs requires customers’ voluntary investment of their time
and effort.
The study can also be extended by incorporating customer role
readiness (role clarity, role ability, and motivation) in terms of per-
forming engagement behaviors. This will help in gaining a better un-
derstanding of the balance that firms need to achieve in maintaining
service fairness and providing service convenience to customers.
Finally, our study focuses on CEBs that are beneficial for the firm.
Future studies may examine the extent to which poor service quality,
service unfairness, and service inconvenience motivate customers to
engage in negative CEBs and conditions which discourages CEBs
(Farquhar and Rowley, 2009). Given the importance of retaining ex-
isting customers future research may examine the role of consumer
entitlement in the retail setting and how it moderates the relationship
between service convenience and CEBs (Boyd III and Helms, 2005).
References
Anderson, J.C., Gerbing, D.W., 1988. Structural equation modelling in practice: a review
and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 103 (3), 411–423.
Armstrong, J.U.S.T., Overton, T., 1977. Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. J.
Mark. Res. 14 (1), 396–402.
Aydin, S., Özer, G., 2005. The analysis of antecedents of customer loyalty in the Turkish
mobile telecommunication market. Eur. J. Mark. 39 (7/8), 910–925.
Baldus, B.J., Voorhees, C., Calantone, R., 2015. Online brand community engagement:
scale development and validation. J. Bus. Res. 68 (5), 978–985.
Batshell, R.R., 1980. Consumer resource allocation models at the individual level. J.
Consum. Res. 7, 78–90.
Bayol, M., Foye, A., Tellier, C., Tenenhaus, M., 2000. Use of PLS path modelling to es-
timate the European consumer satisfaction index. Stat. Appl. 12 (3), 361–375.
Berry, L.L., Seiders, K., Grewal, D., 2002. Understanding service convenience. J. Mark. 66
(3), 1–17.
Bettencourt, L.A., 1997. Customer voluntary performance: customers as partners in ser-
vice delivery. J. Retail. 73 (3), 383–406.
Blau, P.M., 1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life. John Wiley, New York.
Bolton, R.N., 2011. Comment: customer engagement: opportunities and challenges for
organizations. J. Serv. Res. 14 (3), 272–274.
Bove, L.L., Pervan, S.J., Beatty, S.E., Shiu, E., 2009. Service worker role in encouraging
customer organizational citizenship behaviors. J. Bus. Res. 62 (7), 698–705.
Bowden, J.L.H., 2009. The process of customer engagement: a conceptual framework. J.
Mark. Theory Pract. 17 (1), 63–74.
Bowen, J., 1990. Development of a taxonomy of services to gain strategic marketing
insights. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 18 (1), 43–49.
Boyd III, H.C., Helms, J.E., 2005. Consumer entitlement theory and measurement.
Psychol. Mark. 22 (3), 271–286.
Brodie, R.J., Hollebeek, L.D., Juric, B., Ilic, A., 2011. Customer engagement: conceptual
domain, fundamental propositions, and implications for research. J. Serv. Res. 14 (3),
252–271.
Carlson, J., Rahman, M.M., Taylor, A., Voola, R., 2017. Feel the VIBE: examining value-
in-the-brand-page-experience and its impact on satisfaction and customer engage-
ment behaviours in mobile social media. J. Retail. Consum. Serv.
Census of India, 2011. Houselisting and Housing Census Data Highlights – 2011.
Available at 〈http://censusindia.gov.in/2011census/hlo/hlo_highlights.html〉,
(Accessed 8 August 2016).
Chang, Y.W., Polonsky, M.J., 2012. The influence of multiple types of service convenience
on behavioral intentions: the mediating role of consumer satisfaction in a Taiwanese
leisure setting. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 31 (1), 107–118.
Chaniotakis, I.E., Lymperopoulos, C., 2009. Service quality effect on satisfaction and word
of mouth in the health care industry. Manag. Serv. Qual.: Int. J. 19 (2), 229–242.
Chen, F.F., Sousa, K.H., West, S.G., 2005. Teacher's corner: testing measurement in-
variance of second-order factor models. Struct. Equ. Model. 12 (3), 471–492.
Chen, T., Drennan, J., Andrews, L., Hollebeek, L.D., 2018. User experience sharing: un-
derstanding customer initiation of value co-creation in online communities. Eur. J.
S.K. Roy et al.
Mark. 52 (5/6), 1154–1184.
Chenet, P., Dagger, T.S., O'Sullivan, D., 2010. Service quality, trust, commitment and
service differentiation in business relationships. J. Serv. Mark. 24 (5), 336–346.
Chin, W.W., 1998. Issues and opinion on structural equation modelling. MIS Q. 22 (1),
7–16.
Clemmer, E.C., Schneider, B., 1996. Fair service. Adv. Serv. Mark. Manag. 5, 109–126.
Cohen, J., 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale.
Cohen-Charash, Y., Spector, P.E., 2001. The role of justice in organizations: a meta-
analysis. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 86 (2), 278–321.
Collier, J.E., Sherrell, D.L., 2010. Examining the influence of control and convenience in a
self-service setting. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 38 (4), 490–509.
Colwell, S.R., Aung, M., Kanetkar, V., Holden, A.L., 2008. Toward a measure of service
convenience: multiple-item scale development and empirical test. J. Serv. Mark. 22
(2), 160–169.
Cronin Jr, J.J., Taylor, S.A., 1992. Measuring service quality: a reexamination and ex-
tension. J. Mark. 56 (3), 55–68.
Dasteel, J., 2014. Customer Loyalty is Dead. Long Live Engagement! Available at 〈http://
www.forbes.com/sites/oracle/2014/03/28/customer-loyalty-is-dead-long-live-
engagement/#1f72129c7ef5〉, (Accessed 1 August 2014).
Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M., 2008. Self-determination theory: a macrotheory of human moti-
vation, development, and health. Can. Psychol. 49 (3), 182–185.
Devlin, J.F., Kumar Roy, S., Sekhon, H., 2014. Perceptions of fair treatment in financial
services: development, validation and application of a fairness measurement scale.
Eur. J. Mark. 48 (7/8), 1315–1332.
Diamantopoulos, A., 2006. The error term in formative measurement models: inter-
pretation and modelling implications. J. Model. Manag. 1 (1), 7–17.
Dong, B., 2015. How a customer participates matters: “i am producing” versus “i am
designing. J. Serv. Mark. 29 (6/7), 498–510.
Elizabeth-Lloyd, A., Chan, Y.K.R., Yip, L.S.C., Chan, A., 2014. Time buying and time-
saving: effects on service convenience and the shopping experience at the mall. J.
Serv. Mark. 28 (1), 36–49.
Engel, F., Blackwell, R.D., 1982. Consumer Behaviour. The Dryden Press, New York, NY.
Farquhar, J.D., Rowley, J., 2009. Convenience: a services perspective. Mark. Theory 9 (4),
425–438.
Fassnacht, M., Koese, I., 2006. Quality of electronic services conceptualizing and testing a
hierarchical model. J. Serv. Res. 9 (1), 19–37.
Feldman, L.P., Hornik, J., 1981. The use of time: an integrated conceptual model. J.
Consum. Res. 7 (4), 407–419.
Forbes, 2015. Consumer Trends in Health and Wellness. Available at: 〈https://www.
forbes.com/sites/thehartmangroup/2015/11/19/consumer-trends-in-health-and-
wellness/#7c1c0538313e〉, (Accessed 17 August 2017).
Fornell, C.R., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with un-
observable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18 (1), 39–50.
Forrester, 2016. Trends 2016: The Future of Customer Service. (Available at 〈https://
www.forrester.com/report/Trends+2016+The+Future+Of+Customer
+Service/-/E-RES61372〉, Accessed 10 July 2016).
Galvagno, M., Dalli, D., 2014. Theory of value co-creation: a systematic literature review.
Manag. Serv. Qual. 24 (6), 643–683.
Ganguli, S., Roy, S.K., 2013. Conceptualisation of service quality for hybrid services: a
hierarchical approach. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 24 (9–10), 1202–1218.
Gremler, D.D., Gwinner, K.P., 2000. Customer-employee rapport in service relationships.
J. Serv. Res. 3 (1), 82–104.
Groeger, L., Moroko, L., Hollebeek, L.D., 2016. Capturing value from non-paying con-
sumers' engagement behaviors: field evidence and development of a theoretical
model. J. Strateg. Mark. 24 (3–4), 190–209.
Grönroos, C., 1984. A service quality model and its marketing implications. Eur. J. Mark.
18 (4), 36–44.
Groth, M., 2005. Customers as good soldiers: examining citizenship behaviors in internet
service deliveries. J. Manag. 31 (1), 7–27.
Gudergan, S., Ringle, C., Wende, S., Will, A., 2008. Confirmatory tetrad analysis in PLS
path modelling. J. Bus. Res. 61 (12), 1238–1249.
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., 2014. A Primer on Partial Least
Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM). Sage, Los Angeles, CA.
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., 2011. PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. J. Mark.
Theory Pract. 19 (2), 139–151.
Han, X., Kwortnik, R., Wang, C., 2008. Service loyalty: an integrative model and ex-
amination across service contexts. J. Serv. Res. 11 (1), 22–42.
Harmeling, C.M., Moffett, J.W., Arnold, M.J., Carlson, B.D., 2017. Toward a theory of
customer engagement marketing. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 45 (3), 312–335.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K.P., Gremler, D.D., 2002. Understanding relationship
marketing outcomes an integration of relational benefits and relationship quality. J.
Serv. Res. 4 (3), 230–247.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., Sinkovics, R.R., 2009. The use of partial least squares path
modelling in international marketing. In: Sinkovics, R.R., Ghauri, P.N. (Eds.),
Advances in International Marketing. Emerald, Bingley, UK, pp. 277–320.
Hollebeek, L.D., Srivastava, R.K., Chen, T., 2016. SD logic–informed customer engage-
ment: integrative framework, revised fundamental propositions, and application to
CRM. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-016-0494-5.
Hollebeek, L.D., Brodie, R.J., 2016. Non-monetary social and network value: under-
standing the effects of non-paying customers in new media. J. Strateg. Mark. 24
(3–4), 169–174.
Hsu, C.L., Chen, M.C., Chang, K.C., Chao, C.M., 2010. Applying loss aversion to in-
vestigate service quality in logistics: a moderating effect of service convenience. Int.
J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 30 (5), 508–525.
Hulland, J.S., 1999. Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a
303
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 44 (2018) 293–304
review of four recent studies. Strateg. Manag. J. 20 (2), 195–204.
Hur, W., Park, J., Kim, M., 2010. The role of commitment on the consumer benefits –
loyalty relationship in mobile service industry. Serv. Ind. J. 30 (4), 2293–2309.
Jaakkola, E., Alexander, M., 2014. The role of customer engagement behavior in value co-
creation a service system perspective. J. Serv. Res. 17 (3), 247–261.
Jiang, L., Yang, Z., Jun, M., 2013. Measuring consumer perceptions of online shopping
convenience. J. Serv. Manag. 24 (20), 191–214.
Kaura, V., 2013. Service convenience, customer satisfaction, and customer loyalty: study
of Indian commercial banks. J. Glob. Mark. 26 (1), 18–27.
Kaura, V., Durga Prasad, C.S., Sharma, S., 2015. Service quality, service convenience,
price and fairness, customer loyalty, and the mediating role of customer satisfaction.
Int. J. Bank Mark. 33 (4), 404–422.
Keh, T.H., Teo, W.C., 2001. Retail customers as partial employees in service provision: a
conceptual framework. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 29 (8), 370–378.
Kumar, V., Aksoy, L., Donkers, B., Venkatesan, R., Wiesel, T., Tillmanns, S., 2010.
Undervalued or overvalued customers: capturing total customer engagement value. J.
Serv. Res. 13, 297–310.
Kumar, H., 2012. In Indian Homes, Phones and Electricity on Rise but Sanitation and
Internet Lagging. Available at: 〈http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/in-
indian-homes-phones-electricity-on-rise-but-sanitation-internet-lagging/〉, (Accessed
14 April 2016).
Lemon, K.N., Verhoef, P.C., 2016. Understanding customer experience throughout the
customer journey. J. Mark. 80 (6), 69–96.
Loewenthal, K.M., 2004. An Introduction to Psychological Tests and Scales, 2 ed.
Psychology Press, Hove, UK.
Marmorstein, H., Grewal, D., Fishe, R.P., 1992. The value of time spent in price-com-
parison shopping: survey and experimental evidence. J. Consum. Res. 19 (1), 52–61.
Mathwick, C., Malhotra, N., Rigdon, E., 2001. Experiential value: conceptualization,
measurement and application in the catalog and internet shopping environment. J.
Retail. 77 (1), 39–56.
Maxham, J.G., 2001. Service recovery's influence on consumer satisfaction, positive
word-of-mouth, and purchase intentions. J. Bus. Res. 54 (1), 11–24.
MacKinnon, D.P., Krull, J.L., Lockwood, C.M., 2000. Equivalence of mediation, con-
founding and surpression effect. Prev. Sci. 1 (4), 173. 〈http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/pmc/articles/PMC2819361/pdf/nihms=173346.pdf〉 (Accessed 6 June 2018).
Morris, S., 2016. Balancing Customer Convenience with Customer Engagement. Available
at 〈https://blogs.adobe.com/digitaleurope/customer-experience/balancing-
customer-convenience-with-customer-engagement/〉, (Accessed 14 August 2016).
Namkung, Y., Jang, S.C., 2010. Effects of perceived service fairness on emotions, and
behavioral intentions in restaurants. Eur. J. Mark. 44 (9/10), 1233–1259.
Navarro, A., Losada, F., Ruzo, E., Dıez, J.A., 2010. Implications of perceived competitive
advantages, adaptation of marketing tactics and export commitment on export per-
formance. J. World Bus. 45 (1), 49–58.
Nguyen, D.T., DeWitt, T., Russell-Bennett, R., 2012. Service convenience and social ser-
vicescape: retail vs hedonic setting. J. Serv. Mark. 26 (4), 265–277.
Nguyen, B., Klaus, P., 2013. Retail fairness: exploring consumer perceptions of fairness
towards retailers' marketing tactics. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 20 (3), 311–324.
Organ, D.W., 1988. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome.
Lexington Books/DC Heath and Com, Lexington, MA.
Ostrom, A.L., Parasuraman, A., Bowen, D.E., Patricio, L., Voss, C.A., Lemon, K., 2015.
Service research priorities in a rapidly changing context. J. Serv. Res. 18 (2),
127–159.
Palmatier, R.W., Jarvis, C.B., Bechkoff, J.R., Kardes, F.R., 2009. The role of customer
gratitude in relationship marketing. J. Mark. 73 (5), 1–18.
Pansari, A., Kumar, V., 2016. Customer engagement: the construct, antecedents, and
consequences. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1–18.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., 1985. A conceptual model of service quality.
J. Mark. 49 (4), 41–50.
Paulhus, D.L., Robins, R.W., Trzesniewski, K.H., Tracy, J.L., 2004. Two replicable sup-
pressor situations in personality research. Multivar. Behav. Res. 39 (2), 303–328.
Payne, S.C., Webber, S.S., 2006. Effects of service provider attitudes and employment
status on citizenship behaviors and customers' attitudes and loyalty behavior. J. Appl.
Psychol. 91 (2), 365–378.
Plewa, C., Sweeney, J.C., Michayluk, D., 2015. Determining value in a complex service
setting. J. Serv. Theory Pract. 25 (5), 568–591.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Jeong-Yeon, L., Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Common
method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and re-
commended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88 (5), 879–903.
Rai, S., 2016. India Just Crossed 1 Billion Mobile Subscribers Milestone and the
Excitement’s Just Beginning, Available at: 〈https://www.forbes.com/sites/
saritharai/2016/01/06/india-just-crossed-1-billion-mobile-subscribers-milestone-
and-the-excitements-just-beginning/#58c860257db0〉, (Accessed 14 March 2017).
Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., 2002. Perceived organizational support: a review of the
literature. J. Appl. Psychol. 87 (4), 698–714.
Roberts, K., Varki, S., Brodie, R., 2003. Measuring the quality of relationships in consumer
services: an empirical study. Eur. J. Mark. 37 (1/2), 169–196.
Rosenbaum, M.S., Massiah, C.A., 2007. When customers receive support from other
customers: exploring the influence of intercustomer social support on customer vo-
luntary performance. J. Serv. Res. 9 (3), 257–270.
Rossiter, J.R., 2002. THE C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing. Int. J.
Res. Mark. 19 (4), 305–335.
Roy, S.K., Lassar, W., Butaney, G., 2014. The Mediating Impact of Stickiness and Loyalty
on Word-of-mouth Promotion of Retail Websites: A Consumer Perspective. Eur. J.
Mark. 48 (9/10), 1828–1849.
Roy, S.K., Balaji, M.S., Sadeque, S., Nguyen, B., Melewar, T.C., 2016. Constituents and
consequences of smart customer experience in retailing. Technol. Forecast. Soc.
S.K. Roy et al.
Change 124, 257–270.
Roy, S.K., Balaji, M.S., Soutar, G., Lassar, W., Roy, R., 2018. Customer engagement be-
havior in individualistic and collectivistic markets. J. Bus. Res. 86, 281–290.
Schneider, B., Bowen, D.E., 1999. Understanding customer delight and outrage. MIT
Sloan Manag. Rev. 41 (1), 35–45.
Seiders, K., Berry, L.L., 1998. Service fairness: what it is and why it matters. Acad. Manag.
Exec. 12 (2), 8–20.
Seiders, K., Voss, G.B., Grewal, D., Godfrey, A.L., 2005. Do satisfied customers buy more?
Examining moderating influences in a retailing context. J. Mark. 69 (4), 26–43.
Seiders, K., Voss, G.B., Godfrey, A.L., Grewal, D., 2007. SERVCON: development and
validation of a multidimensional service convenience scale. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 35
(1), 144–156.
Srivastava, Mala, Kaul, D., 2014. Social interaction, convenience and customer satisfac-
tion: the mediating effect of customer experience. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 21 (6),
1028–1037.
Taylor, V.A., Bearden, W.O., 2002. The effects of price on brand extension evaluations:
the moderating role of extension similarity. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 30 (2), 131–140.
Terho, H., Halinen, A., 2007. Customer portfolio analysis practices in different exchange
contexts. J. Bus. Res. 60 (7), 720–730.
Van Doorn, J., Lemon, K.N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P., Verhoef, P.C., 2010.
Customer engagement behavior: theoretical foundations and research directions. J.
Serv. Res. 13 (3), 253–266.
Verhoef, P.C., Reinartz, W.J., Krafft, M., 2010a. Customer engagement as a new per-
spective in customer management. J. Serv. Res. 13 (3), 247–252.
Verleye, K., Gemmel, P., Rangarajan, D., 2014. Managing Engagement Behaviors in a
Network of Customers and Stakeholders: evidence From the Nursing Home Sector. J.
Serv. Res. 17 (1), 68–84.
Verleye, K., Gemmel, P., Rangarajan, D., 2016. Engaged customers as job resources or
demands for frontline employees? J. Serv. Theory Pract. 26 (3), 363–383.
Verhoef, P.C., Reinartz, W.J., Krafft, M., 2010b. Customer engagement as a new per-
spective in customer management. J. Serv. Res. 13 (3), 247–252.
Vivek, S.D., Beatty, S.E., Morgan, R.M., 2012. Customer engagement: exploring customer
relationships beyond purchase. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 20 (2), 122–146.
Yi, Y., Gong, T., 2008. The effects of customer justice perception and affect on customer
citizenship behavior and customer dysfunctional behavior. Ind. Mark. Manag. 37 (7),
767–783.
304
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 44 (2018) 293–304
Dr. Sanjit Kumar Roy is Senior Lecturer, Marketing, The University of Western Australia,
Perth, Australia. His research interests include Services Marketing and Consumer-Brand
Relationships. He has Guest Edited a special issue on India for International Journal of
Bank Marketing. He has also co-edited Marketing Cases for Emerging Markets. He has
published in a wide range of journals including Journal of Business Research, Internet
Research, European Journal of Marketing, Technological Forecasting & Social Change, Journal
of Marketing Management, Studies in Higher Education, Journal of Services Marketing, Journal
of Brand Management, among others. He was a Visiting Research Scholar at Bentley
University, USA and Visiting Research Fellow at Middlesex University Business School,
UK.
Vaibhav Shekhar is Associate Professor at IBS Business School (a constituent of IFHE
University), Hyderabad. He has published in Service Industries Journal, International
Journal of Bank Marketing, Journal of Global Marketing and The Marketing Management
Journal. He has also presented papers Academy of Marketing Science annual conference,
Academy of Indian Marketing conference and Indian Institute of Management, Lucknow an-
nual conference. His research areas include services marketing, retail management and
customer relationship management. He was a Visiting Research Scholar at Bentley
University, USA.
Professor Walfried Lassar research has been published in journals such as the Journal of
Marketing, Strategic Management Journal, Journal of Business and Psychology, Journal of
Retailing, Journal of Services Marketing, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Journal of Business
Ethics, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services and Journal of Business Research. Before
joining FIU in 1998, he taught and conducted research at the Owen Graduate School of
Management at Vanderbilt University, the Whittemore School of Business and Economics
at the University of New Hampshire, and the University of Miami. He has served as a
consultant for the United Research Company and held marketing management positions
at Howell Computer Company and Procter and Gamble, GmbH, in Frankfurt, Germany.
Tom Chen is Senior Lecturer in Marketing at the Newcastle Business School at the
University of Newcastle, Australia. Tom's research interests span marketing theory and
marketing strategy, and include co-creation and engagement. His research also focuses on
collective psychological ownership in the context of sharing economy. He has published
in the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Journal of Marketing Management,
Journal of Product & Brand Management, among others.