Next Article in Journal
Psychological Traits and Intention to Use E-Commerce among Rural Micro-Entrepreneurs in Malaysia
Previous Article in Journal
Information Acquisition and Its Incentives in an E-Commerce Supply Chain under the Offline Showroom Model
Previous Article in Special Issue
Pricing of Complementary Products in Online Purchasing under Return Policy
Article

How Does Value Co-Creation Behavior Affect Destination Loyalty? A Role Switching Perspective

1
School of Management, Shandong University, Jinan 250100, China
2
School of Economics and Management, Shenyang Agricultural University, Shenyang 110161, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Eduardo Álvarez-Miranda
J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2021, 16(5), 1805-1826; https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer16050101
Received: 30 March 2021 / Revised: 17 May 2021 / Accepted: 1 June 2021 / Published: 5 June 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The New Era of Digital Marketing)

Abstract

The concept of value co-creation brings about changes in tourists’ roles from value receivers to producers. Most existing studies take value co-creation behavior as a single dimension, ignoring the role switching of tourists. Starting from the precise constitution of value co-creation behavior, this paper, utilizing the method of structural equation modeling (SEM), discusses the mechanism of the effects of tourist participation behavior and citizenship behavior on destination loyalty through each sub-dimension of perceived value. The results showed the following: (1) The participation behavior (in-role) and citizenship behavior (extra-role) of tourists affect different value dimensions. (2) The value co-created by tourists presents a hierarchical state from the primary to the higher level. Among the types of value, novelty and social value belong to the primary level while quality, economic, knowledge, and emotional value belong to the higher level. (3) Destination loyalty is driven not only by tourist behavior (in-role) but also by citizenship behavior (extra-role). Based on the perspective of role switching, this paper establishes the theoretical framework of role switching in the era of value co-creation and proposes some strategic suggestions for marketing transformation.
Keywords: value co-creation; role switching; perceived value; destination loyalty value co-creation; role switching; perceived value; destination loyalty

1. Introduction

In the highly interactive tourism industry, tourists are important partners and allies of destinations. Value can be generated from the interactions between tourism service providers and tourists [1]. Unique or tailored visitor experiences can be designed in the process of value co-creation, leading to higher loyalty [2,3]. Increasingly more attention has been given to value co-creation behavior in tourism activities [4,5,6]. Current studies have focused on the antecedents and consequences of value co-creation behavior [1,7] and how and why customers engage in the value co-creation process [5].
However, the core role of travelers in value co-creation has been changing, which is due to the transformation of travelers from value receivers to value creators. In order to accomplish successful value co-creation, tourists generate necessary participation behaviors (in-role) and nonessential citizenship behaviors (extra-role) that create extraordinary value for destinations [8]. This is actually the result of travelers switching between in and out of the roles of “tourists”. Existing research has focused on the multi-dimensional characteristics of customer value co-creation behavior and divided it into customer participation behavior and customer citizenship behavior [8]. However, most studies consider it as a single dimension when discussing the subsequent causality of value co-creation behavior [9,10], or focusing only on the role of “tourist”, with various analyses and discussions of participation behavior [1,11], ignoring the role switching that took place. Moreover, in practice, most destination organizations fix travelers in the role of “tourists”, paying little attention to the different benefit perceptions brought about by role switching and ignoring the possibility that tourists may have different criteria for evaluating the interaction experience when they are in different roles. Therefore, there is a gap between research and practice in understanding the role of travelers. To bridge this gap, this study divides the value co-creation behavior into tourist participation behavior and tourist citizenship behavior based on the theory of role switching, and takes them as independent variables to distinguish the difference in the impact of the two types of behaviors in value co-creation, to provide recommended strategies for destination management.
Destination organizations mostly focus on the entertainment and quality of activities when conducting value co-creation practices, ignoring the changes in tourists’ behavior caused by the widespread application of social software [12,13]. Multilevel and diversified needs such as social, emotional, and intellectual needs are emerging. Which value is more important to contemporary travelers? Which value’s demand satisfaction leads to destination loyalty? To answer these questions, this paper takes each subdivided dimension of perceived value as a mediating variable between the two types of value co-creation behavior and destination loyalty, to accurately grasp the differences in the impacts of the subdivided values on destination loyalty.
In summary, the context of role switching is of great value. Clarifying how tourists co-create value when playing different roles can enhance their dependence and loyalty to the destination. Therefore, out of consideration of both theoretical and practical factors, this paper starts from the perspective of the role switching of tourists, and further bridges the gap between research and practice by analyzing the process of value co-creation in the travel process and its results. Drawing on previous research, this paper constructs and tests a model that aims to answer the following questions:
  • RQ1: What impact does role switching perspective have in the value creation process?
  • RQ2: Which type of perceived value is the dominant cause of destination loyalty?
  • RQ3: Does interpreting destination loyalty need a new mechanism when considering role switching?
By answering these questions, this study will contribute to the existing studies on value co-creation and destination loyalty in several ways and understanding how travelers co-create value when playing different roles. Furthermore, this study extends the application of social drama theory and social exchange theory in the tourism field, responding to the assertion that the co-creation literature tends to be non-theoretical [14].
The structure of the remainder of this paper is as follows. Section 2 provides a literature review of value co-creation, perceived value and destination loyalty. Section 3 explains the survey design and research methodology. Section 4 introduces the research results. Section 5 discusses the results and conclusions. Section 6 summarizes and proposes theoretical contributions and managerial implications, as well as the limitations of the study and future research prospects.

2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

2.1. Value Co-Creation

The concept of value co-creation was first proposed by Normann and Ramirez (1993) who believed that the interaction between enterprises and customers is the basis of value creation [15]. Since then, value co-creation has been defined as the value creation process between enterprises and customers [16], which has been widely recognized by numerous scholars [16,17]. Value co-creation has been subdivided into many dimensions. Randall et al. (2011) proposed three dimensions of value co-creation: connection, trust and commitment [18]. Neghina et al. (2015) proposed six dimensions: individualizing joint actions, relating joint actions, empowering joint actions, ethical joint actions, developmental joint actions and concerted joint actions [19]. Ranjan (2016) raised two dimensions: coproduction and value-in-use. The above studies provide superficial divisions of value co-creation based on the perspectives of expression and value production processes [20].
Some scholars have focused on the influence of role ambiguity on value co-creation behavior and proposed two new dimensions, customer participation behavior (in-role) and customer citizenship behavior (extra-role) [8,21], which stress the effects on different customer roles in value co-creation activities.
Customer participation behavior indicates that customers participate in the value creation process and successfully create services [22], which occurs through the experience of customers interacting with a focal object (e.g., company or brand) by playing a variety of roles [23,24]. Customer citizenship behavior is voluntary behavior beyond the role required for customers to provide services, such as helping other customers or providing valuable feedback to enterprises [25]. It focuses on customers’ benevolent behaviors, which are consistent with the plans of the firm and the demands of the provider [26]. In contrast, customer participation refers to enforceable or explicitly required role behavior while customer citizenship refers to voluntary or unspecified behavior that benefits the business and exceeds the role expectations of the customer [27]. Customer participation behavior includes four indicators, including information seeking, information sharing, responsible behavior and personal interaction; and customer citizenship behavior includes four indicators, including feedback, advocacy, helping and tolerance [8]; which are widely recognized by follow-up studies of value co-creation [13,28,29].

2.2. Perceived Value

The concept of perceived value is derived from consumer behavior theory [30]. Perceived value usually refers to a consumer’s overall assessment of the utility of a product based on the perception of received and given products in marketing [31]. Perceived value can be regarded as the subjective utility judgment of tourists on the “expenses” and “benefits” brought about by travel behavior when extending the concept to the field of service products. That is, whether the behavior is economical or not and whether it can bring the expected material and spiritual benefits are important [32].
The measurement dimensions of perceived value are not uniform due to the differences in the attributes and performances of tourist destinations, tourists’ desires and expectations [33]. Prebensen (2017) developed a six-dimensional scale including quality value, economic value, novelty value, knowledge value, emotional value, and social value [34], which is widely used in tourism researches [3,11,35]. Quality value refers to tourists’ perception of the quality of products or services [36,37]; economic value refers to tourists’ perception of the value of the return [38]; novelty value is the value characteristics that tourists obtain from a product or service that are surprising and fresh [39]; knowledge value means that a tourist can learn from a product or the service, satisfying their thirst for knowledge [36]; emotional value is the emotional utility that tourists derive from a product or service, such as the pleasure and emotional satisfaction of a travel experience [36,40]; and social value is the equivalent utility of a traveler’s social identity from a product or service and the enhancement of the traveler’s self-image [41]. Perceived value is the core medium of revisit intention and recommendation intention [42]. The higher the perceived value is, the stronger the revisit intention [43].

2.3. Destination Loyalty

Destination loyalty, which is the overall recognition of the products, services and atmosphere provided by a tourist destination, stems from the concept of brand loyalty in the field of marketing [44,45]. In the field of marketing research, Day (1976) first proposed brand loyalty, which mainly includes two aspects: behavior loyalty and attitude loyalty [46]. Based on this, destination loyalty is manifested in the behavior of tourists’ repeated visits to destinations and in the attitudes of tourists’ revisit intention and recommendation intention [47]. Jacoby and Chestnut (1978) earlier grouped measures of destination loyalty into behavioral loyalty, attitudinal loyalty [48], and composite loyalty while Yoon and Uysal (2005) argued that the composite approach had limitations in that not all weighted or quantitative scores are suitable [49]. Tourists are less likely to revisit a destination in the short term, so using behavioral loyalty in practice is not a sufficient measure of destination loyalty [50,51]. Therefore, this study mainly uses attitudinal loyalty as a dimension to measure destination loyalty. Destination loyalty is seen as a key determinant of a destination’s sustainability [51,52] and an important strategy for competing in the market [53]. Measuring tourist loyalty is critical to understanding the success of a particular destination [54]. Tourists with high destination loyalty are likely not only to revisit destinations, but also to recommend them to acquaintances, ultimately helping tourism stakeholders reduce the marketing costs to attract tourists [55].

2.4. Value Co-Creation Behavior and Perceived Value

In the researches on the relationship between value co-creation behavior and perceived value, many scholars have found that value co-creation behavior has a significant positive impact on customer perceived value. That is, customers can obtain a unique consumption experience on the basis of satisfying their demand through co-creation, thus enhancing perceived value [3,34,56,57]. Some studies have explored the relationship among customer participation behavior, customer citizenship behavior and perceived value.
Customer participation behavior helps provide more intangible psychosocial benefits, such as opportunities for self-presentation, attention from others, and status perception or increase the sense of social support, such as self-acceptance, social integration, and belonging [58,59]. These psychosocial benefits and the sense of social support satisfy customers’ demand for social value. In addition, by actively participating in the service, customers can directly invest resources to shape the brand consumption experience they seek and create a higher level of customization, thus there are more opportunities to obtain a higher level of quality and economic value. Moreover, a greater sense of control over the service process and the final result enables customers to experience emotional value such as pleasure and enjoyment [60]. Customer citizenship behavior, such as the opportunity for tourists to help other like-minded tourists and show empathy to others, will enhance the hedonic and aesthetic aspects of tourists’ perception of experience value [3]. The above studies are less likely to examine the effects of the sub-dimensions of co-creation behavior on perceived value based on the analysis of the tourism context [61,62], and there are relatively few studies on the linkage between citizenship behavior and perceived value. In fact, it is of great significance for destination management and marketing innovation to identify the differences in the impact of each sub-dimension of value co-creation behavior on each sub-dimension of perceived value. Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed in this study:
Hypothesis 1 (H1)
: The tourism participation behavior of travelers has a significant positive effect on the sub-dimensions of perceived value, namely, quality value, economic value, novelty value, knowledge value, emotional value and social value.
Hypothesis 2 (H2)
: The tourism citizenship behavior of travelers has a significant positive effect on the sub-dimensions of perceived value, namely, quality value, economic value, novelty value, knowledge value, emotional value and social value.

2.5. Perceived Value and Destination Loyalty

In studies of the relationship between perceived value and destination loyalty, numerous scholars have found that the perceived value of tourists has a significant positive impact on their destination loyalty. That is, the higher the tourists’ perceived value of a destination, the greater their willingness to revisit and recommend the destination to others [50,63,64,65].
The emotional bond developed by residents and tourists enhances tourists’ perception of the emotional value of the destination, which makes them more likely to come back here in the future and is keen to recommend it as a tourist destination [45]. In addition, tourists’ positive perception of destination quality components, that is, the perception of quality value will positively influence their intention of revisiting and recommending in the future [66]. As for products that reflect customer needs and of good quality, and a comfortable and welcoming shopping environment enhances customers’ perceived economic value, which leads to repeat purchases [67]. In general, the more valuable tourists perceive their travel experience at the destination, the higher their satisfaction with the destination and the higher their willingness to revisit and recommend it [68]. Tourists visiting Xi’an can enjoy the heritage of the “Natural History Museum” and experience the folk customs of the “Oriental Empire” and the diverse customs of the “Seven Temples and Thirteen lanes”, which represent the characteristic culture and customs of the Hui nationality in Xi’an. They can satisfy tourists’ needs at different levels and form a multifaceted perception of quality, economy, novelty, knowledge, emotion, and society. The promotion of this sense of value will encourage tourists to be willing to recommend the destination to others. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed in this study:
Hypothesis 3 (H3)
: The perceived value of tourists significantly positively affects their destination loyalty. In other words, quality value, economic value, novelty value, knowledge value, emotional value and social value have positive effects on destination loyalty.

2.6. Value Co-Creation Behavior, Perceived Value, and Destination Loyalty

In the relationship between value co-creation behavior, perceived value and destination loyalty, several scholars have confirmed that value co-creation behavior significantly positively affects loyalty [10,69,70,71]. Customer participation can lead to a more favorable attitude towards the product, company, or brand through strong and lasting psychological connections and interactive brand experiences other than purchases, leading to loyalty to entities and enhancing purchasing decisions. In other words, customer participation is a positive driver of loyalty, and highly engaged consumers generate significant travel brand loyalty [72,73,74,75]. Some scholars pointed out that participation itself may not directly lead to customer loyalty, but the diversified customer value created by customers in the process of participation is the source of customers’ pleasant experience and the critical factor affecting customer loyalty [76,77]. Therefore, this study takes perceived value as a mediating variable to explore the mechanism of the effect of value co-creation behavior on loyalty. That is, through value co-creation activities, customers’ needs are satisfied to a higher degree with a higher evaluation of services and products and a stronger willingness to revisit and recommend a destination to others [78,79,80]. The following hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis 4 (H4)
: The sub-dimensions of perceived value significantly mediate the relationship between tourists’ participation behavior and destination loyalty.
Hypothesis 5 (H5)
: The sub-dimensions of perceived value significantly mediate the relationship between tourist citizenship behavior and destination loyalty.
A summary of the research framework is presented in Figure 1.

3. Methodology

3.1. Study Area

Located in central China, Xi’an is the capital of Shanxi Province in China. The city has a history of more than 3100 years and is one of the four ancient capitals of China. It is the capital of the most important dynasties in Chinese history, including the Zhou, Qin, Han, Sui, and Tang dynasties. Xi’an is also one of the important birthplaces of Chinese civilization and the Chinese nation. The city is home to many cultural heritages and was designated as a “World Historic City” by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization in 1981.
In this study, Xi’an, as the only Chinese city ranked among the world’s top 10 ancient capitals, is chosen as a case study of these issues. Xi’an has changed its traditional appearance of being old and dusty by using novel interactive forms such as “throwing bowl liquor” (visitors raise a bowl full of liquor, drink the liquor in one gulp and then slam the bowl upside down, symbolizing peace and good luck) and the “tumbler girl” to activate historical figures and stimulate the participation of tourists. With the promotion of social media, Xi’an became one of the top 10 cities in 2019 in terms of the combined index of tourism popularity, tourism attraction, tourism development benefits and tourism marketing spread [81]. This interactive innovation model makes Xi’an suitable for our research. The exact location of the study area is shown in Figure 2.

3.2. Sampling

This investigation was conducted in Xi’an from 28 March to 1 April 2019. The research team consisted of two professors and seven graduate students, and the investigators were trained. The whole investigation process is anonymous and only used for academic research. To ensure the randomness of samples, questionnaires were randomly distributed in Hui Min Street, Tang Sleepless Town, Giant Wild Goose Pagoda, and other places by convenient sampling method. To ensure that the respondents are tourists, the investigators first put forward such questions, “Are you here to travel in Xi’an?” We only send questionnaires to tourists. Second, when respondents were completing the questionnaire, we did not express any personal feelings to the respondents to ensure the objectivity of the content. We also prevented the respondents from discussing their responses with each other to ensure the authenticity and validity of the survey.
In order to ensure the randomization of the sampling, first, the questionnaire was randomly distributed in many locations, such as Hui Min Street, Tang Sleepless Town, Giant Wild Goose Pagoda, etc. Third, in the questionnaire preparation process, reverse items were established to exclude invalid questionnaires. A total of 300 questionnaires were distributed in this investigation, and the effective recovery rate was 80.33%. Loehlin (1992) proposed that the number of recovered samples should be more than 200 in order to obtain a stable outcome [82]. The number of samples used in this study can satisfactorily meet the research needs. The exact composition of the sample is shown in Table 1.

3.3. Questionnaire Design and Variable Measurement

The questionnaire of this study consists of two parts: the first part adopts a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (7), to measure tourist participation behavior, tourist citizenship behavior, perceived value, and destination loyalty. The second part includes the demographic information about the respondents.
In the first part, the mature scales of well-known scholars are utilized to measure the variables. The researchers translated the scale into the Chinese version and adjusted it according to the steps of “translation-back-translation” in the compilation process. After consulting several scholars in the field of tourism research in Xi’an, the questionnaire was revised according to their feedback. Therefore, the questionnaire has good content validity. Among them, the specific sources of the measurement items of the variables in the first part are as follows: the items measuring tourists’ value co-creation behavior were adapted from Yi et al. (2013) [8]; the items measuring perceived value were adapted from Prebensen (2017) [34]; the items measuring destination loyalty were adapted from Chen and Chou (2019) [46]. The specific measurement items for each variable are shown in Table 2.
The second part includes eight items, I1-I8. I1: What is your sex? I2: What is your highest educational degree? I3: How old are you? I4: What is your occupation? I5: What is your monthly income range? I6: In which city do you live? I7: How many times have you visited Xi’an? I8: Who is your companion for this trip?

3.4. Research Method and Tools

To produce representative, reliable and applicable results, this study applies path analysis to estimate the theoretical model. We use Mplus 7.0 to analyze the mediating effect of the model. To test the inherent consistency and reliability of the data, SPSS 21.0 was utilized.
Meanwhile, descriptive statistics, normal analysis, exploratory factor analysis were also utilized. To avoid the common method deviation, we use AMOS 22.0 to carry out the latent variable error control method for judgment. The result shows that there is no common method deviation in the data, which is suitable for the next analysis.

4. Results

4.1. Data Examination

4.1.1. Kurtosis Test and Skewness Test

In this study, the kurtosis test and skewness test were used to analyze the data normality to check whether the data had a normal distribution. The result shows that there is no abnormal value, which means that the data are normally distributed.

4.1.2. Common Method Bias

In order to avoid common method bias, the Harman single factor test and the potential error variable control method are tested in this study [83]. All the results show that there is no common method bias, and the data are suitable for further analysis.

4.2. Exploratory Factor Analysis

Although the items in this study are all from mature scales, their applicability still needs to be further tested. Kolar and Zabaker (2010) suggested exploratory factor analysis of the sample data to test the applicability [84]. The final factor rotation results are shown in Table 3. The results showed that KMO = 0.863, the χ2 approximation value was 4207.448, and Sig. = 0.000, which met the criteria of factor analysis. After factor rotation, the items of each variable converged together, which showed that the data structure validity was good.

4.3. Reliability and Validity Analysis

Firstly, confirmatory factor analysis was carried out based on Mplus 7.0 and the model fit of measurement model is as follows(see Table 4). The results of model fit showed that the measurement model fits the data well.
In the reliability analysis, the widely accepted Cronbach’s α coefficient was used. The results showed that the reliability of each variable was greater than 0.7 (see Table 5), which indicated that the data had good consistency and were suitable for further analysis.
In the validity analysis, the convergent validity and discriminant validity were tested using the combined reliability (C.R.) and the average variance extracted (AVE). Regarding the convergent validity test, we can see that the values of the standardized loadings are all above 0.6, which conform to the standards proposed by Hair et al. (1998) [85]. The C.R. values were all greater than 0.7, and the AVEs were all greater than 0.5, in accordance with the criteria proposed by Fornell et al. (1981) [86]. In the test of the discriminant validity, Fornell et al. (1981) hold that if the mean square root of the AVE of one variable is larger than the correlation coefficient between it and other variables, the variable has higher discriminant validity. Table 6 shows that the discriminant validity among the variables in this study is good.

4.4. Path Analysis and Hypothesis Testing

Firstly, we built a path model using Mplus 7.0. The model fit is shown in Table 7. All the indicators meet the requirements which showed that the path model fit the data well.
Figure 3 and Table 8 show that tourist participation behavior had a significant effect on novelty value (𝛽 = 0.175, p < 0.05) and social value (𝛽 = 0.160, p < 0.05), thereby supporting H1c and H1f. However, contrary to expectations, tourists’ perceptions of quality value (𝛽 = 0.130, p = 0.056), economic value (𝛽 = 0.092, p = 0.192), knowledge value (𝛽 = 0.116, p = 0.08) and emotional value (𝛽 = 0.088, p = 0.198) were not significantly improved by tourists’ participation behavior. Tourist citizenship behavior had a significant effect on quality value (𝛽 = 0.260, p < 0.001), economic value (𝛽 = 0.169, p < 0.05), novelty value (𝛽 = 0.191, p < 0.01), knowledge value (𝛽 = 0.320, p < 0.001), emotional value (𝛽 = 0.271, p < 0.001), social value (𝛽 = 0.262, p < 0.001), thus supporting H2.
In terms of the relationship between perceived value and destination loyalty, the perceived novelty value (𝛽 = 0.304, p < 0.001), social value (𝛽 = 0.194, p < 0.001) have a significant impact on their destination loyalty, therefore, H3c and H3f hold. For tourists visiting Xi’an, the increase in novelty value and social value perception enhanced their destination loyalty while the increase in quality value, economic value, knowledge value and emotional value perception did not promote their destination loyalty.
In order to further test the significance of the mediating effect of perceived value, the bias-corrected method and the percentile method in the bootstrapping method are used to test the significance of the mediating effect. The bootstrapping method determines the significance of mediating effects by judging whether the interval between the minimum and the maximum contains 0. The results are shown in Table 9. It is not difficult to see that novelty value and social value play significant mediating roles between tourist participation behavior and destination loyalty. Quality value, economic value, knowledge value and emotional value do not have significant mediating effects between tourist participation behavior and destination loyalty. Therefore, H4 is partly accepted. Novelty value and social value play significant mediating roles between tourist citizenship behavior and destination loyalty while quality value, economic value, knowledge value and emotional value play insignificant mediating roles between tourist citizenship behavior and destination loyalty. Therefore, H5 is partly accepted.

5. Discussion

This study established a path model with tourist participation behavior and tourist citizenship behavior as the independent variables, each dimension of perceived value as the mediating variables, and destination loyalty as the dependent variable. The conclusions are as follows:
(1) Based on the role switching perspective, we found that tourists dissociate themselves between the roles of tourists and citizens in travel activities, showing different behavioral characteristics. The effects of tourist participation behavior and tourist citizenship behavior on perceived value are in different dimensions. The participation of tourists in this kind of in-role behavior mainly affects novelty value and social value, which shows that tourists’ main motivation is to seek something novel in this experiential consumption of travel activities when they are in the role of tourists [87,88,89] and experience the symbolic value of social status brought about by the higher-level consumption after meeting the basic needs of life and the group identity created through social sharing [90,91,92]. This finding is inconsistent with Prebensen et al. (2017) who found that physical participation does not significantly affect the social perception of value [34]. Social media is considered one of the leading modern technological advances in the field of tourism, which have significantly changed the ways individuals behave in travel activities [12,13]. In recent years, the widespread use of social software in China, such as TikTok and WeChat, has provided a variety of social platforms for tourists, making them more willing to share their travel experiences, express their preferences, and interact with other users through a combination of “likes”, “comments” and “retweets” to gain social acceptance [92]. In addition, the results of this study indicated that tourist participation did not significantly affect emotional value perception, which is different from the findings of Mohd-Any et al. (2015) and Prebensen et al. (2017) [34,93]. Mohd-Any et al. (2015) confirmed that users’ actual and perceived participation in travel websites enhanced their emotional value perception while Prebensen et al. (2017) found that physical and psychological participation significantly influenced their emotional value perception during adventure travel. These findings are not conflicting because value is a construct of individual subjective perceptions, and there are differences among different individuals and different contexts [94]. In the Xi’an scenario, it takes some time for tourists to build an emotional connection with Xi’an. When tourists go beyond the role of tourists to the role of citizens to do more than the service needed to help the operations of the street, citizenship behavior mainly affects quality, economy, novelty, knowledge, emotional and social values. The tourists’ behavior of helping others solve their problems and creating value for the block promotes the tourists to master and improve their own skills and experience. They can obtain more value from citizenship activities than from participation activities. The sense of mastery of information, reflecting the sense of ownership, enables tourists to meet their knowledge needs and enables tourists to have a more comprehensive and clear analysis and judgment of the quality and price of a tourism experience. The feedback from other tourists and the staff of the block strengthens the emotional connection among tourists and between tourists and the block, which makes a special impression of individual tourists to others so that they can feel satisfied with being integrated into the collective society. That is, those who are willing to give feedback and help others are likely to be more positive, open-minded, and therefore more agreeable and to have a higher evaluation of the value they perceive [3]. In short, according to Gofman’s social dramatic theory, people play a variety of roles in the social interaction stage to fit the current social context [95,96,97]. In the traveling process, tourists will face different social objects, switch between the roles of tourists and citizens, and participate in different value-creating activities to create different values. We extended the social dramatic theory into the tourism context, interpreting the change of tourist behavior patterns during the value co-creation activities based on the perspective of role switching, and responded to the non-theoretical assertions in the co-creation literature. Meanwhile, it enriches the connotation of destination marketing and destination management theories in the new media era, which promotes the diversified development of theories.
(2) The value created by tourists and street employees presents a state of stratification from the primary level to the higher level in which novelty and social value belong to the primary level while quality, economic, emotional and knowledge value belong to the higher level. At present, the modern tourism market is undergoing a transformation from mass to independent because tourists tend to pursue personalized and diversified services [98]. They not only want to satisfy the basic needs of exploring the new and seeking the curious, using their surplus of money and time through travel to meet the construction of their identity and status image, but they also want to pursue a higher level of spiritual needs.
For example, when traveling in Tang Sleepless Town, tourists look forward to having an emotional experience of fun and uniqueness by interacting closely with the “tumbler girl” (an actress who became famous for playing the role of a Tang dynasty lady in Tang Sleepless Town, Xi’an). While traveling on Xi’an Hui Min Street, tourists are longing to acquire knowledge of the history and culture of the Hui nationality [99]. While visiting Giant Wild Goose Pagoda’s fee-paying scenic spots, tourists enjoy the benefits of “value for money” by experiencing the originality of the Buddhist architecture and the derivative symbols of the Tang dynasty culture [100]. The pursuit of emotional, knowledge, quality and economic value reflects that tourists want to acquire more abundant and special value through products and services to maximize their individual utility.
Based on the above research results, this study establishes a hierarchical model of perceived value, as shown in Figure 4.
The picture depicts that tourist participation behaviors are generated, including information seeking, information sharing, responsible behavior and personal interaction, when the travelers are in the tourist status (in-role), which affect the primary-order values, consisting of novelty and social values. Tourists may switch to citizenship (extra-role) in the value co-creation process, generating tourist citizenship behaviors, including feedback, advocacy, helping and tolerance, which affect primary and higher-order values, consisting of novelty and social value and quality, economic, emotional and knowledge value.
(3) Regarding the relationship between value co-creation behavior and destination loyalty, we found that destination loyalty is driven not only by tourist behavior (in-role) but also by citizenship behavior (extra-role). This finding fills the gap in the value co-creation literature where citizenship behaviors have been less explored. In this study, the value perception of tourists as citizens, which guides their behavior decision-making, is prominent. However, the impact is limited in that only novelty value and social value can promote destination loyalty. When tourists engage in civic activities, self-sacrificing altruistic behavior is mostly unrequited for tourists. When tourists engage in participation activities, the investment of time and energy does not substantially harm the interests of consumers and is in exchange for the better delivery of services to the tourists themselves by the staff of the block. Thus, there is a significant increase in tourists’ intention to recommend and revisit the destination [101,102]. This fits with the theory of social exchange, which states that when individuals perceive that they benefit from a social interaction, they provide a reward to others. When individuals perceive that they are paying a cost, they tend to receive a corresponding benefit [4,103]. It should be noted that tourists’ perception of quality, economic, emotional and knowledge value is prominent in their civic activities, but it does not translate into destination loyalty. In the first stage, the mediating variable perceived value is the tourist’s psychological perception; and in the second stage, the dependent variable destination loyalty is the observable external behavior in this study. The transfer of implicit psychological perception to explicit behavior lacks favorable motivation when travelers act as citizens. The stimulating effect produced in the first stage is no longer significant, and altruistic rather than egoistic devotion inhibits loyalty to the destination in the second stage. This shows that the impact of value co-creation is a very complex process rather than a single psychological mechanism. This study enriches the situational application of social exchange theory in tourism value co-creation activities. Future research should continue to explore the impact of value co-creation on tourists’ psychology and behavior.

6. Conclusions and Implications

6.1. Conclusions

This study explores how tourist participation behaviors and tourist citizenship behaviors in value co-creation activities can affect destination loyalty through the mediating role of perceived value. Social drama theory and social exchange theory are utilized to elucidate the possible associations among the above variables based on a service-dominant logic to respond to the co-creation literature’s tendency to have no theoretical assertions [14]. Based on the empirical results of this study, our contributions are as follows. First, tourist participation and tourist citizenship behavior affect different dimensions of perceived value. Second, this paper distinguishes the primary value from the higher value. Novelty value and social value belong to primary value while quality value, economic value, knowledge value and emotional value belong to higher level value. Finally, this study finds that tourists’ sense of loyalty for destinations breaks the limitations of their roles. Both tourist participation behavior and tourist citizenship behaviors promote tourists’ loyalty to destinations.

6.2. Theoretical Implications

Value co-creation is not only an important issue in the practice of the service industry, but it is also an important issue in tourism studies. This paper studies tourists’ value co-creation behavior and establishes a model based on the sub-dimensions of perceived value, which contributes to the existing literature on value co-creation and destination loyalty. First, this study not only measured tourist participation behavior, but it also measured tourist citizenship behavior that the existing research less studied, finding that the two dimensions of value co-creation behavior significantly affect different dimensions. In addition, different from previous studies, social value plays a complementary intermediary role in the relationship among tourist participation behavior, tourist citizenship behavior and destination loyalty in this study, which provides up-to-date contextual validation in the background of the widespread use of social software. It is noteworthy that tourist citizenship behavior plays a more important role in value creation than tourist participation behavior. However, the higher value influenced by the former has not been translated into destination loyalty. The corresponding explanation expands the application of social exchange theory in studies on the value co-creation of tourists and provides empirical research support for the mechanism of the effect of value co-creation behavior on destination loyalty.

6.3. Practical Implications

Since traveler’s role switching will bring a different perception of interests, destination managers should not only fix travelers in the role of “tourists” but also cultivate tourists’ sense of ownership and stimulate more citizenship behaviors, thereby promoting tourists to perceive multi-level values. Such as, establishing a city tourism annual card which provides transportation and accommodation as well as scenic spots discounts, encouraging tourists to provide suggestions for organizing tourism activities and constructing scenic spots, and then, achieving the purpose of making tourists feel at home and treating the destination as their second “home”. That is to redefine tourism and make tourism a lifestyle of alienation. So that tourists feel that they are part of the destination and are willing to create more value for the “home”.
The study also found that the experience co-created by tourists and destination organizations should focus on novelty and sociality, as they are associated with destination loyalty. In addition to creating innovative interactive activities to increase tourist engagement, destination organizations should also create hotspots on social platforms, attaching importance to the role of social software such as TikTok and WeChat in enhancing tourists’ sense of value. For example, on TikTok, destination organizations have launched a popular “Punch-in” campaign (I have been to places that are hot on the Internet by posting social updates), encouraging visitors to take short videos and creating new ways to play.
In view of the close relationship between tourist participation behavior and destination loyalty, destination managers should attach importance to participation behavior. Destination organizations should encourage, and initiate value co-creation activities based on “giving” characteristics in their relations with tourists [4]. For example, the destination should share related information with tourists, collect and analyze the data of tourists’ preferences, generate personalized tour routes for tourists, and conduct other related activities.

6.4. Limitations and Further Research

The current study has some limitations. First, although this study is based on data collected from Tang Sleepless Town, Hui Min Street and Giant Wild Goose Pagoda, considering the limited representativeness of the sample, future studies should investigate respondents in different countries and at different types of destinations. Second, because of our subjective bias, some information about the results may not be fully discussed.
Future research can be perfected in the following ways. First, although this study has some implications for the importance of value co-creation theory and destination management, more work needs to be completed to understand this phenomenon. For example, future research could examine how tourists with different personality traits perceive value co-creation activities. Second, the aspects highlighted in the findings can be explained well in further research. For example, because the high-level perception of value generated by tourist citizenship does not translate directly into destination loyalty, its mechanism can be further explored in future studies to shed light on the promotion of destination management.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.X. and J.T.; methodology, S.L.; software, S.L.; validation, S.L. and J.T.; formal analysis, J.T.; investigation, F.X. and J.T.; resources, F.X. and S.L.; data curation, S.L. and J.T.; writing—original draft preparation, J.T., L.L., L.Q.; writing—review and editing, F.X., J.T., L.L., L.Q., S.L.; visualization, J.T.; supervision, F.X. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Shandong University Multidisciplinary Research and Innovation Team of Young Scholars, grant number 2020QNQT019.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study, due to the fact that we used anonymous data that was not retractable to individuals at any time.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the authors. The data are not publicly available due to privacy concerns.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. González-Mansilla, Ó.; Berenguer-Contrí, G.; Serra-Cantallops, A. The impact of value co-creation on hotel brand equity and customer satisfaction. Tour. Manag. 2019, 75, 51–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. McCartney, G.; Chen, Y. Co-Creation Tourism in an Ancient Chinese Town. J. China Tour. Res. 2019, 16, 159–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Xie, J.; Tkaczynski, A.; Prebensen, N.K. Human value co-creation behavior in tourism: Insight from an Australian whale watching experience. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2020, 35, 100709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Assiouras, I.; Skourtis, G.; Giannopoulos, A.; Buhalis, D.; Koniordos, M. Value co-creation and cus-tomer citizenship behavior. Ann. Tour. Res. 2019, 78, 102742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Font, X.; English, R.; Gkritzali, A.; Tian, W. Value co-creation in sustainable tourism: A service-dominant logic approach. Tour. Manag. 2021, 82, 104200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Eletxigerra, A.; Barrutia, J.M.; Echebarria, C. Tourist expertise and pre-travel value co-creation: Task-related processes and beyond. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2021, 37, 100772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Mathis, E.F.; Kim, H.; Uysal, M.; Sirgy, J.M.; Prebensen, N.K. The effect of co-creation experience on outcome variable. Ann. Tour. Res. 2016, 57, 62–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Yi, Y.; Gong, T. Customer value co-creation behavior: Scale development and validation. J. Bus. Res. 2013, 66, 1279–1284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Lin, Z.; Chen, Y.; Filieri, R. Resident-tourist value co-creation: The role of residents’ perceived tourism impacts and life satisfaction. Tour. Manag. 2017, 61, 436–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Thiruvattal, E. Impact of value co-creation on logistics customers’ loyalty. J. Glob. Oper. Strat. Sourc. 2017, 10, 334–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Junaid, M.; Hussain, K.; Asghar, M.M.; Javed, M.; Hou, F.; Liutiantian. An investigation of the diners’ brand love in the value co-creation process. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2020, 45, 172–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Barreda, A.A.; Nusair, K.; Wang, Y.; Okumus, F.; Bilgihan, A. The impact of social media activities on brand image and emotional attachment. J. Hosp. Tour. Technol. 2020, 11, 109–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Li, M.-W.; Teng, H.-Y.; Chen, C.-Y. Unlocking the customer engagement-brand loyalty relationship in tourism social media: The roles of brand attachment and customer trust. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2020, 44, 184–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Duerden, M.D.; Lundberg, N.R.; Ward, P.; Taniguchi, S.T.; Hill, B.; Widmer, M.A.; Zabriskie, R. From ordinary to extraordinary: A framework of experience types. J. Leis. Res. 2018, 49, 196–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Normann, R.; Ramírez, R. From value chain to value constellation: Designing interactive strategy. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1993, 71, 65–77. [Google Scholar]
  16. Prahalad, C.; Ramaswamy, V. Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. J. Interact. Mark. 2004, 18, 5–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wu, Y.; Xiao, J.H.; Xie, K.; Liao, X.H. Marketing transformation from value offering to value co-creation—A dual case study from the perspective of firm-consumer co-evolution. J. Manag. World 2017, 138–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Randall, W.S.; Gravier, M.J.; Prybutok, V. Connection, trust, and commitment: Dimensions of co-creation? J. Strat. Mark. 2011, 19, 3–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Neghina, C.; Caniëls, M.C.; Bloemer, J.M.; van Birgelen, M.J. Value cocreation in service interac-tions: Dimensions and antecedents. Mark. Theory 2015, 15, 221–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ranjan, K.R.; Read, S. Value co-creation: Concept and measurement. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2016, 44, 290–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Zhang, G.L.; Pan, C.H. A study on the mechanism of the influence of customer involvement on customer satisfaction based on role theory. Chin. J. Manag. 2018, 15, 1830. [Google Scholar]
  22. Yi, Y.; Nataraajan, R.; Gong, T. Customer participation and citizenship behavioral influences on employee performance, satisfaction, commitment, and turnover intention. J. Bus. Res. 2011, 64, 87–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Brodie, R.J.; Ilic, A.; Juric, B.; Hollebeek, L. Consumer engagement in a virtual brand community: An exploratory analysis. J. Bus. Res. 2013, 66, 105–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Heinonen, K.; Helkkula, A.; Holmlund-Rytkönen, M.; Mustak, M.; Jaakkola, E.; Halinen, A. Customer participation and value creation: A systematic review and research implications. Manag. Service Qual. Int. J. 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Bartikowski, B.; Walsh, G. Investigating mediators between corporate reputation and customer citi-zenship behaviors. J. Bus. Res. 2011, 64, 39–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Jaakkola, E.; Alexander, M. The role of customer engagement behavior in value co-creation: A service system perspective. J. Serv. Res. 2014, 17, 247–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Gruen, T.W. The outcome set of relationship marketing in consumer markets. Int. Bus. Rev. 1995, 4, 447–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ahn, J.; Back, K.J.; Barišić, P.; Lee, C.K. Co-creation and integrated resort experience in Croatia: The application of service-dominant logic. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2020, 17, 100443. [Google Scholar]
  29. Amin, M.; Shamim, A.; Ghazali, Z.; Khan, I. Employee Motivation to Co-Create Value (EMCCV): Construction and Validation of Scale. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021, 58, 102334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Jamal, S.A.; Othman, N.; Muhammad, N.M.N. Tourist perceived value in a community-based homestay visit: An investigation into the functional and experiential aspect of value. J. Vacat. Mark. 2011, 17, 5–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Zeithaml, V.A. Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. J. Mark. 1988, 52, 2–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Xu, F.; Li, S.S.; Niu, W.X.; Lin, X.J. How tourism destinations can effectively manage risk—Evidence from the South Xinjiang region. Nankai Bus. Rev. 2019, 22, 66–75. [Google Scholar]
  33. Guo, A.X.; Guo, Y.Z.; Li, H.J.; Sun, X.F.; Song, C.H. An empirical study on the impact of tourist perceived value on revisit intention—The role of tourist satisfaction and risk likelihood. Tour. Trib. 2018, 33, 63–73. [Google Scholar]
  34. Prebensen, N.K.; Xie, J. Efficacy of co-creation and mastering on perceived value and satisfaction in tourists’ consumption. Tour. Manag. 2017, 60, 166–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Xu, F.; Lin, X.; Li, S.; Niu, W. Is Southern Xinjiang Really Unsafe? Sustainability 2018, 10, 4639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Sweeney, J.C.; Soutar, G.N. Consumer perceived value: The development of a multiple item scale. J. Retail. 2001, 77, 203–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zheng, W.Q.; Hu, G.Z.; Feng, Y.Q. The impact of marketing strategy on brand loyalty: The mediating role of customer perceived value. Econ. Surv. 2014, 6, 90–95. [Google Scholar]
  38. Zeng, J.H.; Huang, R. A study of the perceived value dimensions of investors in crowdfunding models. J. Cent. South. Univ. Soc. Sci. 2015, 21, 100–106. [Google Scholar]
  39. Yang, X.Y.; Zhou, Y.J. Green value: A new dimension of customer perceived value. China Ind. Econ. 2006, 110–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Sun, Y.B.; Ding, Y.X.; Wang, Y. A study on the role of value co-creation interaction behavior on brand equity. Foreign Econ. Manag. 2018, 40, 125–139. [Google Scholar]
  41. He, J.; Pan, Y.T. Development and reliability testing of a service dealership customer perceived value measurement tool. J. Southw. Univ. Natl. Human. Soc. Sci. Ed. 2015, 36, 123–129. [Google Scholar]
  42. Gallarza, M.G.; Arteaga, F.; Del Chiappa, G.; Gil-Saura, I. Value dimensions in consumers’ experience: Combining the intra- and inter-variable approaches in the hospitality sector. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2015, 47, 140–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ranjbarian, B.; Pool, J.K. The Impact of Perceived Quality and Value on Tourists’ Satisfaction and Intention to Revisit Nowshahr City of Iran. J. Qual. Assur. Hosp. Tour. 2015, 16, 103–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Yu, Y.F.; Gong, J.; Zhang, C.Y. The influence of tourists’ perception of originality on satisfaction and loyalty—An empirical study based on Enshi Prefecture, Hubei. Econ. Geogr. 2017, 37, 219–224. [Google Scholar]
  45. Stylidis, D.; Woosnam, K.M.; Ivkov, M. Tourists’ emotional solidarity with residents: A segmentation analysis and its links to destination image and loyalty. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2020, 17, 100458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Day, G.S. A Two-Dimensional Concept of Brand Loyalty. In Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems; Springer Science and Business Media LLC: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1976; p. 89. [Google Scholar]
  47. Chen, C.-F.; Chou, S.-H. Antecedents and consequences of perceived coolness for Generation Y in the context of creative tourism—A case study of the Pier 2 Art Center in Taiwan. Tour. Manag. 2019, 72, 121–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Berkowitz, E.N.; Jacoby, J.; Chestnut, R. Brand Loyalty: Measurement and Management. J. Mark. Res. 1978, 15, 659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Yoon, Y.; Uysal, M. An examination of the effects of motivation and satisfaction on destination loyalty: A structural model. Tour. Manag. 2005, 26, 45–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Chen, C.-F.; Chen, F.-S. Experience quality, perceived value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions for heritage tourists. Tour. Manag. 2010, 31, 29–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Chen, C.-F.; Phou, S. A closer look at destination: Image, personality, relationship and loyalty. Tour. Manag. 2013, 36, 269–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Brocato, E.D.; Baker, J.; Voorhees, C.M. Creating consumer attachment to retail service firms through sense of place. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 200–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Jia, Y.J.; Lin, D.R. The impact of destination quality on tourist satisfaction and tourist loyalty. Tour. Sci. 2017, 31, 65–78. [Google Scholar]
  54. Folgado-Fernández, J.A.; Hernández-Mogollón, J.M.; Duarte, P. Destination image and loyalty de-velopment: The impact of tourists’ food experiences at gastronomic events. Scand. J. Hospit. Tour. 2017, 17, 92–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Yu, C.; Hwang, Y.S. Do the social responsibility efforts of the destination affect the loyalty of tour-ists? Sustainability 2019, 11, 1998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Wang, J.H.; Liu, L. Research on the mechanism of customer participation in value co-creation—A quantitative analysis based on structural equation modeling. Enterp. Econ. 2017, 36, 73–81. [Google Scholar]
  57. Deng, W.; Lu, C.; Lin, Y.; Chen, W. A study on the effect of tourists value co-creation on the per-ceived value of souvenirs: Mediating role of psychological ownership and authenticity. Asia Pacific J. Tour. Res. 2020, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  58. Adelman, M.B.; Ahuvia, A.C. Social support in the service sector: The antecedents, processes, and outcomes of social support in an introductory service. J. Bus. Res. 1995, 32, 273–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. John, J.D. The Effects of Employee Service Quality Provision and Customer Personality Traits on Customer Participation, Satisfaction, and Repurchase Intentions. Available online: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations/3975 (accessed on 20 March 2021).
  60. Carlson, J.; Wyllie, J.; Rahman, M.M.; Voola, R. Enhancing brand relationship performance through customer participation and value creation in social media brand communities. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2019, 50, 333–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Campos, A.C.; Mendes, J.; Valle, P.O.D.; Scott, N. Co-creation of tourist experiences: A literature review. Curr. Issues Tour. 2015, 21, 369–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Meng, B.; Cui, M. The role of co-creation experience in forming tourists’ revisit intention to home-based accommodation: Extending the theory of planned behavior. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2020, 33, 100581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Lee, C.-K.; Yoon, Y.-S.; Lee, S.-K. Investigating the relationships among perceived value, satisfaction, and recommendations: The case of the Korean DMZ. Tour. Manag. 2007, 28, 204–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Pandža Bajs, I. Tourist perceived value, relationship to satisfaction, and behavioral intentions: The example of the Croatian tourist destination Dubrovnik. J. Travel Res. 2015, 54, 122–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Lin, M.F.; Zhang, D.P.; Xue, D.F. The impact of perceived risk and benefit on customer loyalty—A case study of bank financial customers. Enterp. Econ. 2017, 36, 86–93. [Google Scholar]
  66. Dedeoğlu, B.B. Shaping tourists’ destination quality perception and loyalty through destination country image: The importance of involvement and perceived value. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2019, 29, 105–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Kim, S.; Ham, S.; Moon, H.; Chua, B.L.; Han, H. Experience, brand prestige, perceived value (func-tional, hedonic, social, and financial), and loyalty among GROCERANT customers. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 77, 169–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Ramseook-Munhurrun, P.; Seebaluck, V.; Naidoo, P. Examining the Structural Relationships of Destination Image, Perceived Value, Tourist Satisfaction and Loyalty: Case of Mauritius. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 175, 252–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Cossío-Silva, F.-J.; Revilla-Camacho, M.-Á.; Vega-Vázquez, M.; Palacios-Florencio, B. Value co-creation and customer loyalty. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 1621–1625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Liye, Z.; Denghua, Y.; Hongming, Z. How Does Customer Engagement in Brand Co-creation Promote Brand Loyalty? A study on the Influences and Mechanisms of the Types of Brand Co-creation Behavior on Brand Loyalty. Foreign Econ. Manag. 2018, 40, 84–98. [Google Scholar]
  71. Opata, C.N.; Xiao, W.; Nusenu, A.A.; Tetteh, S.; Boadi, E.A. The impact of value co-creation on satisfaction and loyalty: The moderating effect of price fairness (empirical study of automobile customers in Ghana). Total. Qual. Manag. Bus. Excel. 2019, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Dwivedi, A. A higher-order model of consumer brand engagement and its impact on loyalty intentions. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2015, 24, 100–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. So, K.K.F.; King, C.; Sparks, B.A.; Wang, Y. The Role of Customer Engagement in Building Consumer Loyalty to Tourism Brands. J. Travel Res. 2016, 55, 64–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Harrigan, P.; Evers, U.; Miles, M.; Daly, T. Customer engagement with tourism social media brands. Tour. Manag. 2017, 59, 597–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Xiao, W.; Opata, C.N.; Tetteh, S.; Narh, T.-W.J.; Hinson, R.E. Value co-creation effects on transaction cost, relational capital, and loyalty of hair salon customers: Results and implications of a Ghanaian study. J. Psychol. Afr. 2020, 30, 217–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Chan, K.W.; Yim, C.K.; Lam, S.S. Is customer participation in value creation a double-edged sword? Evidence from professional financial services across cultures. J. Mark. 2010, 74, 48–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Wu, W.Z.; Chen, Q.J. The impact of customer engagement behavior on their satisfaction and be-havioral intention based on co-creation value perspective. Manag. Rev. 2017, 29, 167–180. [Google Scholar]
  78. Gill, D.; Byslma, B.; Ouschan, R. Customer perceived value in a cellar door visit: The impact on be-havioural intentions. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2007, 19, 257–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Jia, W.; Zhang, M.L.; Wang, B. A study on the mediating effect of customer value in the relationship between customer involvement and customer satisfaction. China Ind. Econ. 2009, 105–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Chua, B.-L.; Lee, S.; Han, H. Consequences of cruise line involvement: A comparison of first-time and repeat passengers. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2017, 29, 1658–1683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Liu, Y.P. China City Marketing Development Report; China Social Science Press: Beijing, China, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  82. Loehlin, J.C. Genes and Environment in Personality Development; Sage Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  83. Zhou, H.; Long, L.R. A statistical test and control method for common method bias. Adv. Psychol. Sci. 2004, 12, 942. [Google Scholar]
  84. Kolar, T.; Zabkar, V. A consumer-based model of authenticity: An oxymoron or the foundation of cultural heritage marketing? Tour. Manag. 2010, 31, 652–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L. Multivariate Data Analysis; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1998; Volume 5, pp. 207–219. [Google Scholar]
  86. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error; Algebra and Statistics. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 328–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Bello, D.C.; Etzel, M.J. The Role of Novelty in the Pleasure Travel Experience. J. Travel Res. 1985, 24, 20–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Duman, T.; Mattila, A.S. The role of affective factors on perceived cruise vacation value. Tour. Manag. 2005, 26, 311–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Wong, B.K.M.; Musa, G.; Taha, A.Z. Malaysia my second home: The influence of push and pull motivations on satisfaction. Tour. Manag. 2017, 61, 394–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Hsu, C.-L.; Lin, J.C.-C. Antecedents and gains of user participation in social media in Taiwan. Technol. Soc. 2020, 61, 101243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Zhao, Y.; Chau, K.Y.; Shen, H.; Duan, X.; Huang, S. The influence of tourists’ perceived value and demographic characteristics on the homestay industry: A study based on social stratification theory. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2020, 45, 479–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Quach, S.; Shao, W.; Ross, M.; Thaichon, P. Customer participation in firm-initiated activities via social media: Understanding the role of experiential value. Australas. Mark. J. 2021, 29, 132–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Mohd-Any, A.A.; Winklhofer, H.; Ennew, C. Measuring users’ value experience on a travel website (e-value) what value is cocreated by the user? J. Travel Res. 2015, 54, 496–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Bu, Q.J.; Jin, Y.S.; Li, Z.F. Measurement and validation of customer value co-creation interaction behavior in virtual brand communities. Contemp. Financ. Econ. 2016, 76–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Goffman, E. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life; Harmondsworth: London, UK, 1978; p. 56. [Google Scholar]
  96. Xu, W.; Zhang, X. Online expression as Well-be(com)ing: A study of travel blogs on Nepal by Chinese female tourists. Tour. Manag. 2021, 83, 104224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Prince, S. Performing genealogy through travel narratives. Ann. Tour. Res. 2021, 86, 103104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Zheng, W.; Liao, Z. Using a heuristic approach to design personalized tour routes for heterogeneous tourist groups. Tour. Manag. 2019, 72, 313–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Yeniasır, M.; Gökbulut, B. Perception and Attitudes of Local People on Sustainable Cultural Tourism on the Islands: The Case of Nicosia. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Oriade, A.; Schofield, P. An examination of the role of service quality and perceived value in visitor attraction experience. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2019, 11, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Dang, A.; Arndt, A.D. How personal costs influence customer citizenship behaviors. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2017, 39, 173–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Mitchell, M.S.; Ambrose, M.L. Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. J. Appl. Psychol. 2007, 92, 1159–1168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Kim, J.; Milliman, J.F.; Lucas, A.F. Effects of CSR on affective organizational commitment via organizational justice and organization-based self-esteem. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 92, 102691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Research framework.
Figure 1. Research framework.
Jtaer 16 00101 g001
Figure 2. Research site. (a) Xi’an’s location in China, (b) Xi’an, (c) Hui Min Street, Tang Sleepless Town and Giant Wild Goose Pagoda.
Figure 2. Research site. (a) Xi’an’s location in China, (b) Xi’an, (c) Hui Min Street, Tang Sleepless Town and Giant Wild Goose Pagoda.
Jtaer 16 00101 g002
Figure 3. Results of hypothesis testing.
Figure 3. Results of hypothesis testing.
Jtaer 16 00101 g003
Figure 4. Value co-creation process.
Figure 4. Value co-creation process.
Jtaer 16 00101 g004
Table 1. Descriptive statistics.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics.
NumberPercent (%) NumberPercent (%) NumberPercent (%)
Sex Age Travel companionsMultiple Choice
Male12049.818 or below197.9Traveling alone166.6
Female12150.219–2412752.7Family6727.8
Education 25–357229.9Friend/partner11547.7
High school or below3414.136–45125.0Colleagues229.1
Junior college6727.846–6083.3Others218.7
Bachelor’s12250.660 or above31.2Place of Residence
Master’s or above187.5Career Shaanxi9539.4
Monthly Income (yuan) Professionals229.1Gansu187.5
5000 or less15865.6CS or SEE197.9Shanxi156.2
5001–80004418.3PFCE4418.3Henan135.4
8001–10,0002610.8SE218.7Shandong125.0
10,000 or above135.4Student11146.1Sichuan104.1
Number of trips to Xi’an Others2410.0Guangdong93.7
17932.8 Hebei83.3
2 or 3 5020.7 Chongqing83.3
More than 311246.5 Others5322.0
Note: CS means civil servants, SEE means state-owned enterprise employees, PFCE means private or foreign companies’ employees, and SE means self-employed.
Table 2. Measurement items.
Table 2. Measurement items.
VariableIndicatorsMeasurement Items
Tourist participation behaviorTPB1I have asked others for information about Hui Min Street.
TPB2I provided necessary information so that the employee could perform his or her duties.
TPB3I followed the employee’s directives or orders.
TPB4I was friendly to the employee.
Tourist citizenship behaviorTCB1When I received good service from the employee, I commented on it.
TCB2I recommended Hui Min Street and the employee to others.
TCB3I assist other tourists if they need my help.
TCB4If service is not delivered as expected, I would be willing to put up with it.
Quality valueQUV1The experience on Hui Min Street has a consistent level of quality.
QUV2The experience on Hui Min Street is well formed.
QUV3This experience has an acceptable standard of quality.
QUV4This experience is well organized.
Economic valueECV1This experience on Hui Min Street is correctly priced.
ECV2The prices for additional services are acceptable.
ECV3This experience represents “value” for the money.
ECV4The price paid for this experience is reasonable.
Novelty valueNOV1This experience on Hui Min Street is unique.
NOV2This is a once-in-a-lifetime experience.
NOV3This experience on Hui Min Street is educational.
NOV4This experience on Hui Min Street satisfies my curiosity.
Knowledge valueKNV1Learning is a key to a valuable experience in the future.
KNV2Learning is an investment, not an expense.
KNV3I have participated in something meaningful here.
Emotional valueEMV1This experience on Hui Min Street makes me happy.
EMV2This experience on Hui Min Street is stimulating.
EMV3This experience on Hui Min Street is exciting.
EMV4This experience on Hui Min Street gives me a feeling of well-being.
Social valueSOV1Participating in this experience on Hui Min Street enables me to impress other people.
SOV2Participating in this experience on Hui Min Street makes me feel more socially accepted.
SOV3Participating in this experience on Hui Min Street enables me to create a good impression.
Destination loyaltyDEL1If a friend were to seek my advice about a tourist destination in Xi’an, I would recommend Hui Min Street.
DEL2I will encourage friends and relatives to visit Hui Min Street.
DEL3I will transmit my personal experiences with Hui Min Street to other people I know.
Table 3. Exploratory factor analysis matrix.
Table 3. Exploratory factor analysis matrix.
IndicatorsTourist Participation BehaviorTourist Citizenship BehaviorQuality ValueEconomic ValueNovelty ValueKnowledge ValueEmotional ValueSocial ValueDestination Loyalty
TPB10.7650.2600.0290.0690.155−0.0170.0220.020−0.027
TPB20.7660.2050.0270.0370.175−0.0450.106−0.0180.024
TPB30.8180.0920.1050.043−0.0780.199−0.0010.1430.071
TPB40.7580.1110.0920.0170.0360.1470.0860.1260.113
TCB10.2320.7640.0530.035−0.0050.1320.0000.0680.121
TCB20.2320.7060.2170.0140.0680.1150.2260.0070.095
TCB30.1570.7740.0350.053−0.0570.1870.0650.0700.098
TCB40.0960.7840.1050.0840.1910.0250.1170.1560.053
QUV10.0960.1190.7560.1220.042−0.0100.198−0.0100.160
QUV20.0350.0800.6900.2290.230−0.0180.1320.1480.087
QUV3−0.0230.1410.8350.1850.0720.0730.0980.1090.043
QUV40.2020.0310.6800.1970.1510.2360.1000.0920.038
ECV10.1070.1220.2780.6920.1180.1290.0620.1050.109
ECV20.063−0.0060.0870.8100.086−0.0420.0740.1250.159
ECV30.058−0.0170.1830.8060.1010.0270.183−0.0030.016
ECV4−0.0520.1170.1650.7670.1660.1340.0290.1310.070
NOV10.0690.0290.2520.1660.6830.1520.2380.0630.095
NOV20.0500.0460.0210.2880.7540.0440.1750.0530.130
NOV30.1710.0230.1270.0130.7700.0540.1810.1670.198
NOV40.0560.1000.1580.1060.6250.1790.1140.3040.225
KNV10.1810.0350.0940.0090.0460.8290.1040.1020.025
KNV20.0680.2730.0320.1030.0380.8060.0090.1180.076
KNV30.0000.1690.0920.1120.3460.6750.1630.0640.049
EMV10.0760.1110.0920.0800.1090.2140.7670.1870.169
EMV20.1030.1160.1430.1170.1890.0030.7780.147−0.001
EMV30.0310.0280.1710.1160.142−0.0130.8710.1100.021
EMV40.0260.1260.1130.0590.1860.1100.8120.1360.131
SOV10.1460.1520.1050.0770.2010.0360.2670.6940.114
SOV20.1010.1920.0460.1520.1400.1480.1590.7570.139
SOV30.047−0.0120.1460.1250.1050.1190.1620.7660.175
DEL10.0570.1380.0370.1320.2290.0770.1240.1170.844
DEL20.0130.1730.1300.0670.204−0.0470.0340.1950.837
DEL30.1120.0530.1410.1500.0940.1200.1190.1120.839
Table 4. Model fit of Measurement model.
Table 4. Model fit of Measurement model.
Indicatorsχ2/dfCFITLIRMSEA
Values1.8120.9190.9030.054
Criteria<3>0.9>0.9<0.08
Table 5. Reliability and convergent validity.
Table 5. Reliability and convergent validity.
Variables.IndicatorsSLS.E.Cronbach’s αC.R.AVE
Tourist participation behaviorTPB10.741 0.8210.8300.550
TPB20.7160.105
TPB30.7720.079
TPB40.7350.073
Tourist citizenship behaviorTCB10.735 0.8290.8340.556
TCB20.7580.106
TCB30.7500.092
TCB40.7400.12
Quality valueQUV10.694 0.8210.8290.549
QUV20.7220.109
QUV30.8280.098
QUV40.7120.109
Economic valueECV10.747 0.8380.8390.566
ECV20.7370.105
ECV30.7580.101
ECV40.7670.09
Novelty valueNOV10.739 0.8270.8290.548
NOV20.7140.102
NOV30.7710.094
NOV40.7350.097
Knowledge valueKNV10.701 0.7860.7890.556
KNV20.8090.123
KNV30.7220.111
Emotional valueEMV10.788 0.8900.8920.674
EMV20.7900.082
EMV30.8640.082
EMV40.8400.085
Social valueSOV10.737 0.7780.7820.545
SOV20.7710.09
SOV30.7050.084
Destination loyaltyDEL10.897 0.8870.8880.727
DEL20.8530.056
DEL30.8050.053
Note: SL means standardized factor loading, S.E. means standard error.
Table 6. Discriminant validity.
Table 6. Discriminant validity.
VariablesTPBTCBQUVECVNOVKNVEMVSOVDEL
TPB0.742
TCB0.5350.746
QUV0.2710.3760.741
ECV0.1990.2520.5710.752
NOV0.3130.3150.4980.4870.740
KNV0.3290.4720.3220.2980.4160.746
EMV0.2280.3440.4420.3470.5520.3050.821
SOV0.3520.4130.4240.4270.5880.4370.5510.738
DEL0.2290.3580.3410.3570.5450.2720.3250.5040.853
Mean5.2165.0054.6324.2014.2535.2634.6264.7085.273
S.D.1.1791.2061.1451.1281.3271.1911.3111.1811.347
Note: The value on the diagonal represents the root mean square of the AVE, and the correlation coefficients between variables are below the diagonal.
Table 7. Model fit of path model.
Table 7. Model fit of path model.
Indicatorsχ2/dfCFITLIRMSEA
Values1.8250.9150.9020.055
Criteria<3>0.9>0.9<0.08
Table 8. Path analysis.
Table 8. Path analysis.
PathNonstandardized CoefficientStandardized CoefficientStandard Errortp
TPB → QUV0.1260.1300.0661.9140.056
TPB → ECV0.0880.0920.0671.3040.192
TPB → NOV0.1960.1750.0772.5470.011
TPB → KNV0.1180.1160.0671.7510.080
TPB → EMV0.0980.0880.0761.2860.198
TPB → SOV0.1600.1600.0672.3810.017
TCB → QUV0.2470.2600.0643.831***
TCB → ECV0.1580.1690.0662.4080.016
TCB → NOV0.2100.1910.0752.7850.005
TCB → KNV0.3160.3200.0664.805***
TCB → EMV0.2950.2710.0743.974***
TCB → SOV0.2570.2620.0663.904***
QUV → DEL0.0870.0780.0661.3170.188
ECV → DEL0.0940.0830.0661.4200.156
NOV → DEL0.2930.3040.0575.183***
KNV → DEL0.0070.0070.0640.1170.907
EMV → DEL−0.010−0.0100.057−0.1750.861
SOV → DEL0.2160.1940.0643.388***
Note: *** means p < 0.001.
Table 9. Mediating effects.
Table 9. Mediating effects.
Path.Point EstimationBootstrapping
Bias-Corrected 95% CIPercentile 95% CI
Lower BoundsUpper BoundsLower BoundsUpper Bounds
TPB → DELTotal effects0.1200.0310.2160.0270.214
TCB → DELTotal effects0.1660.0710.2670.0760.275
TPB → NOV → DELIndirect effects0.0580.0110.1320.0060.121
TPB → SOV → DELIndirect effects0.0430.0090.1090.0050.099
TCB → NOV → DELIndirect effects0.0620.0160.1460.0120.135
TCB → SOV → DELIndirect effects0.0690.0230.1450.0190.136
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Back to TopTop