Journal of Strategic Marketing

ISSN: 0965-254X (Print) 1466-4488 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjsm20

Customer–customer value co-creation in social

media: conceptualization and antecedents

Arash H. Zadeh, Mohammadali Zolfagharian & Charles F. Hofacker

To cite this article: Arash H. Zadeh, Mohammadali Zolfagharian & Charles F. Hofacker (2019)
Customer–customer value co-creation in social media: conceptualization and antecedents, Journal
of Strategic Marketing, 27:4, 283-302, DOI: 10.1080/0965254X.2017.1344289

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2017.1344289

Published online: 15 Apr 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 6

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjsm20
Journal of Strategic Marketing
2019, Vol. 27, No. 4, 283–302
https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2017.1344289

Customer–customer value co-creation in social media:

conceptualization and antecedents
Arash H. Zadeha, Mohammadali Zolfaghariana and Charles F. Hofackerb
a
Department of Marketing, College of Business and Entrepreneurship, The University of Texas Rio Grande
Valley, Edinburg, TX, USA; bDepartment of Marketing, College of Business, The Florida State University,
Tallahassee, FL, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Social media has vitalized the role of customer-to-customer (C2C) Received 11 February 2016
interactions in the value co-creation process. However, there is limited Accepted 1 September 2016
research investigating the dimensions of value co-creation as well
KEYWORDS
as its psychological antecedents in online platforms. This research Customer–customer
conceptualizes customer–customer value co-creation (CCVCC) and co-creation; social media;
its dimensions (participation behavior and citizenship behavior) tie strength; citizenship
within the social media context, and employs the theory of planned behavior; participation
behavior (TPB), past behavior, and the modifying role of tie strength behavior; theory of planned
to investigate the antecedents of CCVCC intention. Surveying 328 behavior
social media users, we find that the components of the TPB, including
attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control, along
with past CCVCC behavior, comprise key predictors of CCVCC
intention. However, the influence of these antecedents is stronger
in networks of strong ties relative to those of weak ties. Attitude
emerged as the key mediator of the effect of past CCVCC behavior on
CCVCC intention. Research and managerial implications are discussed
and limitation exposed.

Introduction
Social media have been responsible for some of the most noteworthy epidemics in human
history. They have enabled information to reach and influence vast, geographically dispersed
masses at an unprecedented speed. Accordingly, developing new social media platforms
has become an expanding and highly profitable industry despite its volatile and competitive
nature (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). For example, Facebook recently reported that 890 million
daily users created $12.47 billion in revenue for the company (Facebook Reports Fourth
Quarter, 2014). Other industries, too, appreciate the necessity of social media as new channels
for communication, marketing and sales, and businesses are increasingly incorporating and
investing in social media.
Social media are important also from a theoretical perspective. According to the ser-
vice-dominant logic (SDL) of marketing, individual consumers are the providers of key oper-
ant resources in the firm–customer interaction and, thus, serve as integral players within
value co-creation networks (Vargo & Lusch, 2008). Although value creation through

CONTACT  Arash H. Zadeh  arash.hosseinzadeh01@utrgv.edu

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2   A. H. ZADEH ET AL.

firm–customer resource integration is known as the main source of value stream, the role
of other customers in general (Gruen, Osmonbekov, & Czaplewski, 2007) and C2C interactions
in value co-creation in particular are less understood (Finsterwalder & Kuppelwieser, 2011;
Rihova, Buhalis, Moital, & Beth Gouthro, 2013). Given the centrality of C2C interactions to
social media, researching social media is essential to marketing researchers.
Technological advancements within online service environments are considered the key
enablers of customer resource integration through C2C interactions that fuel such contem-
porary phenomena as e-service, co-innovation, and co-branding. In social media platforms
(e.g. Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn), online communities (e.g. patientlikeme and Apple fan
club), and mobile applications (e.g. Airbnb, Waze, and Line), resource integration through
C2C interactions comprise the bulk of value co-creation. Through these virtual platforms,
customers integrate their operant resources (i.e. information, skills, knowledge, relationship,
and culture) as they interact with one another, co-creating value for the firm, themselves,
and other customers.
A nascent stream of research has vitalized C2C processes and outcomes as an integral
aspect of value co-creation (Brodie, Hollebeek, Juric, & Ilic, 2011; Bugshan, 2015; Featherman
& Hajli, 2015; Hajli, Shanmugam, Powell, & Love, 2015). C2C interactions as co-creation have
been documented through customer citizenship behavior (CCB) (Yi, Gong, & Lee, 2013),
co-innovation (Bugshan, 2015), practices in brand communities (Cova, Pace, & Skålén, 2015),
and co-creation of entrepreneurial opportunities (Whalen & Akaka, 2016). Notwithstanding
the knowledge base thus far created, there have been several calls for future researchers to
extend our understanding of the interactions that take place among multiple actors in value
networks (Vargo & Lusch, 2016), the underlying psychological factors of co-creation in online
platforms (Hsieh & Chang, 2016); and how customers’ co-creative performance can be mon-
itored and improved (e.g. Payne et al., 2008). Moreover, there is limited research on CCB and
customer participation behavior (CPB) in online platforms.
This research makes both theoretical and managerial contributions. Theoretically, it fore-
grounds the notion of ‘customer-to-customer value co-creation’ (CCVCC) and demonstrates
the co-creative aspect of C2C interactions. Moreover, the paper employs interpersonal influ-
ence theory, information processing theory, and theory of planned behavior (TPB) to develop
a conceptual model that demonstrates CPB and CCB as the two dimensions of CCVCC in
social media, identify the antecedents of CCVCC intention, and account for the moderating
role of tie strength. Managerially, our findings underscore the direct and indirect ways in
which past CCVCC behavior may help predict social media users’ future interactions. While
the direct link is valuable to social media owners because it leads them to invest in advanced
user behavior tracking systems and database management, the indirect links draw the atten-
tion of social media owners, as well as corporate users, to the roles of attitude toward social
media, subjective norms, and perceived control over social media.

Theoretical background
Value co-creation
Co-creation of value signifies that value is created at ‘the intersection of the offerer, the
customer,… and other value creation partners’ (Lusch, Vargo, & O’Brien, 2007, p. 11). The SDL
of marketing considers organizations as the primary integrators and transformers of
micro-specialized competences into services desired by consumers (Lusch, Vargo, & Tanniru,
 JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC MARKETING   285

2010). SDL views customers as ‘co-producers’ or ‘co-creators’ of value (Vargo & Lusch, 2008)
and as entities ‘endogenous’ to value networks (Lusch et al., 2010). Theoretically, this is also
implied as coming together of two main resources, operand (i.e. physical resources such as
raw materials or physical products) and operant resources (i.e. effort, information, and rela-
tional resources such as skill, knowledge, cultures, and relationships), integrated by individual
customers and enabled by firms in a value creation process.
Recently, Vargo and Lusch (2016) extended the 6th fundamental premise of SD logic (‘the
customer is always a co-creator of value’) to better represent the collective nature of co-cre-
ation. The new premise states that ‘value is co-created by multiple actors, always including
the beneficiary’ (p. 8). Any entity in the value constellation can act as a resource integrator.
Customers, as an integral part of value co-creation, contribute their competences and are
often co-opted by companies that adopt proactive competitive strategies (Prahalad &
Ramaswamy, 2000). In fact, customer interactions with the firm and other customers, enabled
by technology, constitute operant resource that co-creates value.

CCVCC
Beyond, their engagement with firms, customers also integrate physical, social, and cultural
resources when they interact with one another. This contention is supported by the SD-logic
premise that all social and economic ‘actors’ are resource integrators (Vargo & Lusch, 2008).
The same is reiterated in the social construction theory that explains the existence of cus-
tomers as more ‘intersubjective’ than ‘objective’ (Edvardsson, Tronvoll, & Gruber, 2011) and
their role in shaping and reinforcing value together with firms by participating in shared
activities (Laud, Karpen, Mulye, & Rahman, 2015). Accordingly, customers integrate resources
when they interact with one another and, by so doing, co-create exchange value during
relationship development and use value during consumption.
CCVCC processes are observed in both face-to-face settings and online platforms. Face-
to-face CCVCC includes any traditional service encounter characterized by physical presence
of other customers such as zoos, bars, and river raft trips (Gruen et al., 2007). The emergence
of social media and smartphones have reformed C2C interactions into virtual value networks
(Brodie et al., 2011). SNSs such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Instagram are value co-cre-
ation platforms through which actors (i.e. individual users, companies, and so on) interact
with one another and participate in the value co-creation process. In such environments,
the existence of a single user doesn’t add value to the service provider or to the specific user
because value is contingent on the existence of other users and the interactions among
them. Across the social networking sites and mobile applications, customer interactions
have become the underlying mechanism of value co-creation. While the firm plays a major
role in the early design and marketing stages of a value network, the primary role shifts to
customers as more and more customers begin to use the network.
Explicating the modality of C2C interactions, Rihova et al. (2013, p. 557) conceptualize
C2C resource integration at four layers of co-creation: (1) ‘detached’ layer pertaining to the
dyadic relationship between two known customers; (2) ‘social bubble’ signifying C2C inter-
actions within known groups such as families and friends; (3) ‘temporary communitas’ rep-
resenting C2C relationships in unknown groups such as festival attendees; and (4) ‘ongoing
neo-tribes’ wherein belonging to a specific neotribe such as Volkswagen brand community
binds customers together.
286 A. H. ZADEH ET AL.

Extending the nomology of C2C interactions, some studies have helped us explain the
antecedents, processes, and consequences of CCVCC. Finsterwalder and Kuppelwieser (2011)
identify the antecedents of C2C social interactions that enable a group of customers to work
together toward completing required tasks. Hibbert, Winklhofer, and Temerak (2012) focus
on customer resource integration effectiveness, which they find to rely on the characteristics
of customer learning contexts and the interactive elements in the learning process (i.e. goal
setting, orientation, evaluation, execution). Drawing from brand literature, Bagozzi and
Dholakia (2006) examine the creation of brand value among a group of riders by mapping
interactions among riders. Brodie et al. (2011) define the concept of consumer engagement
and its sub-processes (i.e. sharing, learning, advocating, socializing, and co-developing) that
make up value creation in brand communities.

CCVCC dimensions: customer participation and citizenship behaviors

Extant literature on positive behaviors of employees and consumers has identified two main
types of in-role and extra-role behaviors (Bolton & Saxena-Iyer, 2009; Maxham & Netemeyer,
2003). While customer in-role behaviors occur within certain parameters defined by the
firm, extra-role behaviors are discretionary activities that customers may or may not choose
to engage in (Bolton & Saxena-Iyer, 2009). Consistent with this intra–extra juxtaposition, Yi
and Gong (2013) classify customer value co-creation activities into participation and citi-
zenship behaviors (see Figure 1). CPB are intra-role and required of the customer for suc-
cessful value co-creation (Yi & Gong, 2013). CCB are extra-role and include ‘helpful,
constructive gestures exhibited by customers that are valued or appreciated by the firm,
but not related directly to enforceable or explicit requirements of the individual’s role’
(Gruen, 1995, p. 461).
CPB and CCB are prevalent in C2C interactions as well as customer–firm interactions. In
services that entail high levels of face-to-face and/or online interactions among customers,

Information
seeking
Tie Strength
Information
Participation sharing
H7a behavior
intention Responsible
H5 H1 behavior
Attitude
H7d Personal
Past CCVCC H4 CCVCC interaction
behavior Intention
H7b Feedback
H6 Perceived H2
behavioral control
Advocacy
H7c Citizenship
behavior
Subjective norms H3 intention Helping

Tolerance

Figure 1. The conceptual model.

 JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC MARKETING 287

the customer may suffice to perform the required tasks only or may go beyond those tasks
and engage in non-required, voluntary actions that often create extraordinary experience
for the focal or other customers. In other words, customers may suffice to their mandatory
production role or also engage in citizenship role above and beyond their mandatory roles
(Zeithaml, Bitner, & Gremler, 2006). CCB such as polite behavior within a group of individuals,
tolerance toward shortages, and useful suggestion offered to others reflect a generalized
positive affect toward other people and can lead to a decrease in psychological distance
(Lengnick-Hall, Claycomb, & Inks, 2000).
CPB consists of four dimensions: information seeking, information sharing, responsible
behavior, and personal interaction (Yi & Gong, 2013). According to the interpersonal influence
theory, individuals can influence one another in two ways, including informational and nor-
mative (Bearden, Netemeyer, & Teel, 1989). Informational influence refers to ‘an influence to
accept information obtained from another as evidence about reality’ (Deutsch & Gerard,
1955, p. 629). Such influence is possible through information exchange (i.e. information
seeking and information sharing; Yi et al., 2013). Normative influence, defined as the pressure
‘to conform to the positive expectations of another’s (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955, p. 629), per-
tains primarily to personal interaction and manifests as responsible behavior.
Information seeking occurs when customers attempt to increase their understanding of
service requirements, reducing the involved uncertainty, and exhibiting better performance
in their roles (Locander & Hermann, 1979). Customers seek information from different sources
such as other customers or service employees to enhance their knowledge and expertise.
In a face-to-face service encounter, other customers may provide information to those who
have questions or otherwise face a confusing situation (Yi et al., 2013). Such behaviors are
even more prevalent in the virtual world, including social media, where customers can easily
connect to one another and create, modify, or share their own knowledge. Whiting and
Williams (2013) report that 80% of individuals consider social media as a main source of
information.
Information sharing is a salient component of C2C resource integration (Yi & Gong, 2013)
and a main motive for using social media (Kim, Sohn, & Choi, 2011). People in contemporary
society are using social media to constantly share their operant resources such as information
and knowledge and express their opinions about various topics (Hajli et al., 2017). Over 40%
of social media users participate in online activities to share information with other users
(Whiting & Williams, 2013).
Responsible behavior underscores the fact that customers, as members of certain groups
and resource integrators, recognize their obligations and responsibilities (Yi & Gong, 2013).
Membership in online communities empowers customers to express opinions and share
information (Whiting & Williams, 2013). However, based on the power–responsibility equi-
librium (Emerson, 1962), such power also imposes certain responsibilities on customers. At
the very least, customers feel responsible for the quality and quantity of their postings and
materials and, thus, strive to perform their required tasks and perform them proficiently.
Personal interaction refers to the quality of interpersonal relations between or among
exchange parties and is a necessary condition for successful value co-creation (Yi & Gong,
2013). Uses and gratification paradigm proposes personal interaction and social connection
as the salient goal-directed motivation, prompting customers to engage in online platforms
(Kim et al., 2011). Establishment and maintenance of interactions with others provide
288 A. H. ZADEH ET AL.

intimacy, social support, and friendship for users of virtual networks (Dholakia, Bagozzi, &
Pearo, 2004).
CCB, too, consists of four dimensions: feedback, advocacy, helping, and tolerance (Yi &
Gong, 2013). In C2C contexts, CCB includes behaviors toward other customers (i.e. helping
and giving recommendations to other customers) and behaviors toward the firm (i.e. advo-
cacy and tolerance; Yi et al., 2013). According to social information processing theory, ‘indi-
viduals, as adaptive organism, adapt attitude, behavior, and beliefs to their social context’
(Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978, p. 226). Information, values, norms, and expectation provided by
others entities in a social settings guide the individual’s behaviors (Glomb & Liao, 2003). In
service encounters where ‘C2C interactions are evident, the most salient information that
individuals might use to shape their own behavior is information gathered from other cus-
tomers’ behaviors (Yi et al., 2013, p. 343). As such, CCB is the degree to which customers
observe other customers exhibit citizenship behavior, which acts as a normative model for
group members (Yi et al., 2013).
Customers are able to guide and provide feedback to exchange parties such as firms and
other customers, thereby improve the service provision process and reduce the probability
of failure (Bettencourt, 1997). Around 56% of the members of online communities are prone
to giving feedback and advice to others through expressing opinions and criticizing perfor-
mances (Whiting & Williams, 2013).
Advocacy refers to customers’ devotion to promoting the cause and interests of one or
more exchange parties (Bettencourt, 1997). Customers can add benefits to exchange parities
by recommending them to other customers (Yi et al., 2013). Positive WoM communication
and social contagion elevate new sign-ups in social media platforms (De Vries, Gensler, &
Leeflang, 2012).
Helping refers to customers’ benevolent and altruistic intentions and actions geared
toward helping exchange parties (Lengnick-Hall et al., 2000). Helping others and getting
assistance from other customers are integral to CCB in C2C contexts (Yi et al., 2013). Social
exchange theory posits that individuals direct their reciprocal efforts toward the source of
benefits rather than the source from which they have not received any benefit (Emerson,
1962). In social media platforms, where values are mostly created through C2C interactions,
customers get more help from other customers and, accordingly, focus their helping behavior
on other customers rather than the firm.
Tolerance refers to customers’ willingness to be patient when the service does not meet
their expectations (Yi & Gong, 2013). In both B2C and C2C interactions, a host of reasons
may lead customers to perceive expectation disconfirmation. Without tolerance, customers
facing service problems may complain to the firm or to other customers, unhappily stay with
the company without voicing their concern, or even exit the relationship (Voorhees & Brady,
2005). Tolerant customers, however, take a generally more positive approach toward service
problems and give the company more chances to get it right.

Theory of planned behavior

TPB (Ajzen, 1991) is a well-recognized theory that uses intention to predict actual behavior.
We rely on the application of TPB in customer participation (Bagozzi & Dholakia, 2006) and
social media (e.g. Pelling & White, 2009) to identify the psychological antecedents of CCVCC
and capture customer’s behavioral intentions.
 JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC MARKETING 289

TPB considers one’s intentions to be direct determinant of one’s actual behaviors.

Behavioral intention is defined as ‘the strength of ones’ intention to perform a specified
behavior’ (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975, p. 288). Behavioral intention has three key antecedents
including attitude toward the behavior, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control
(PBC). Attitude, as a key concept in social psychology and a salient predictor of behavior, is
known as ‘an individual’s positive or negative feelings about performing the target behavior’
(Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975, p. 216). Customers’ favorable or unfavorable evaluations of behaviors
inform their attitude toward those behaviors, which in turn influence their behavioral inten-
tions (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977). Relying on the well-established path from attitudes to inten-
tions, we hypothesize:
H1: Attitude toward CCVCC is positively associated with CCVCC intention.
PBC refers to one’s perceived ability to exert control over an object as well as the inher-
ent controllability of that object (Sheeran & Orbell, 1999). PBC is defined as the incorpo-
ration of self-efficacy and locus of control to capture the internal control over the behavior
and accessible resources, as well as the external hurdles (Ajzen, 2002). Skinner (1996)
proposes three fundamental components of control including agents (individuals who
apply control), means (the channels through which agents apply control), and ends (out-
comes of a process over which control is applied). Correspondingly, in CCVCC, customers
(i.e. agents) exert control over the resource integration process using the tools available
in social media platforms (i.e. means) in order to co-create value (i.e. ends). Therefore, we
posit:
H2: Perceived control over CCVCC is positively associated with CCVCC intention.
Social factors also known as subjective norms capture people’s perceptions of how their
behaviors are judged by significant others, who produce social pressure that sanctions cer-
tain behaviors (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) define subjective norm
as ‘the person’s perception that most people who are important to him think he should or
should not perform the behavior in question’ (p. 302). Literature defines subjective norm
broadly to capture all forms of social influence and normative expectations (Featherman &
Hajli, 2015). C2C interactions and CCVCC take place in a social context that nurtures rela-
tionships and engenders social pressure throughout the co-creation process. Therefore, we
assume:
H3: Subjective norm is positively associated with CCVCC intention.
The role of past behavior in co-creation has been emphasized in extant research (Xie,
Bagozzi, Troye, 2008). Subsequent broadening of the TPB indicates past behavior as a sub-
stantive predictor of future behavior (e.g. Ajzen, 1991; Ouellette & Wood, 1998). Past behavior
is a historically developed pattern of conduct that guides people’s response to stimuli and
is characterized as non-volitional, automatic, frequent, and consistent (Ouellette & Wood,
1998). More specifically, the repetition of a behavior augments one’s experiences with a
specific performance and, over time, transforms into a habit. Repeating a past behavior
toward new stimuli is somewhat habitual without the mediation of attitude, subjective
norms, and PBC (Ajzen, 1991). Smith, Tran, and Thompson (2008) argue that the incorporation
of past behavior into the TPB considerably increases the theory’s predictive power. Therefore,
we hypothesize:
290 A. H. ZADEH ET AL.

H4: Past CCVCC behavior is positively associated with CCVCC intention.

In addition to its non-mediated effect, past behavior also influences intentions by
informing attitudes (Fazio & Zanna, 1981). More specifically, attitudes molded through
direct behavioral experiences are a better predictor of future behavior than those shaped
by indirect experience (Fazio, Zanna, & Cooper, 1978). Past behavior, or prior experience,
establishes attitudes and instills them as evaluative behavioral dispositions (Ouellette &
Wood, 1998). In this vein, Goles et al. (2008) demonstrate how past behavior is a salient
antecedent of attitude and future behavior regardless of the setting. Drawing on these
findings, we posit:
H5: Past CCVCC behavior is positively associated with attitude toward CCVCC.
Past behavior is further known as the salient source of information, enhancing the indi-
vidual’s knowledge and skills (Bandura, 1991). Repetition of a behavior, the resultant learning,
and skill-building strengthen the individual’s self-efficacy and ability with regards to that
behavior. Since possession of resources (i.e. information), self-efficacy, and ability are com-
ponents of PBC (Ajzen, 2002), past behavior is a salient predictor of PBC (Ajzen, 1991).
Therefore, we assume:
H6: Past CCVCC behavior is positively associated with PBC over CCVCC.

The moderating role of tie strength

Tie strength is a ‘combination of the amount of time, the emotional intensity, the inti-
macy (i.e. mutual confiding), and the reciprocal services which characterize the tie’
(Granovetter, 1973, p. 1361). The tie may be highly strong, as is the case between close
friends, or very weak, as evident between acquaintances or strangers. Tie strength has
been found to influence word-of-mouth, peer communication, purchase intention
(Wang, Yu, & Wei, 2012), inter-group conflict, and customer complaining (Mittal,
Huppertz, & Khare, 2008). In online platforms, it is reasonable to expect both strong and
weak ties between users. In fact, social media accommodates varying degrees of emo-
tional intensity and intimacy and, thus, are conducive to interactions in both strong-tie
and weak-tie networks (Wang et al., 2012). In strong-tie networks, however, valued and
norms held strongly and mutually intensify the positive attitudes toward the integration
of resources among parties involved. Since intimacy enhances the sense of mutual
confiding among peers, higher tie strength increases perceived control over the resource
exchange process, (Mittal et al., 2008). Moreover, normative pressure will likely exert a
stronger influence on intentions in the context of strong ties (Granovetter, 1973; Wang
et al., 2012). Finally, past interactions are more likely to lead to future interactions
between social media users who comprise a strong-tie network as opposed to weak-tie
networks. On the one hand, users who interacted with their strong ties during the pre-
vious months are more likely to repeat such interactions frequently. On the other hand,
interactions with weak ties are dependent upon certain events (e.g. birthdays and wed-
ding) or specific needs (e.g. a particular advice); such interactions are not frequently
repeated. Thus, we hypothesize that:
H7: Tie strength moderates the positive the effects of (a) attitude, (b) PBC, and (c) subjective
norm, and past CCVCC behavior (d) on CCVCC intention. The effects of attitude, PBC, subjective
 JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC MARKETING 291

norm, and past CCVCC behavior on CCVCC intention are stronger within strong ties relative to
weak ties.

Method
Sample and data collection procedure
It is widely acknowledged that SNSs are extensively used by young adults (Pfeil, Arjan, &
Zaphiris, 2009). Three-quarters of adults under the age of 25 have a profile on SNSs (Correa,
Hinsley, & De Zuniga, 2010). Since the demography of social media users fits college students
between the ages of 18 and 28 years (Raacke & Bonds-Raacke, 2008), we recruited 365 under-
graduate and graduate students for a paper-and-pen survey in a large public university in
Southwest United States.
At the time of survey, about 90% of all the respondents (328 individuals) were actively
using SNS and applications such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Instagram. The rest of
the respondents (40 individuals) had working accounts with these media but were not
active users due primarily to lack of time. Since any respondent could manage an SNS
account for a business in addition to his/her own personal SNS account (20% of the respond-
ents did, in fact, have both types of SNS accounts), respondents were asked to respond to
the survey exclusively with regard to their personal accounts. Table 1 contains the sample
profile.

Table 1. Sample profile.

Characteristic Percentage (%)
Age (years) 18–23 76.5
24–28 16.2
29–33 2.7
34–39 2.4
<40 2.2
Gender Male 51.5
Female 48.5
Education Bachelor’s level 68.6
Master’s level 28.5
PhD level 2.9
Ethnicity White 28.3
Hispanic 59.7
Pacific Islander 2.3
African American 3.1
Asian 6.6
Membership >1 2.9
Length (year) 1–2 5.0
2–3 12.5
3–4 20.6
4–5 25.0
5–6 16.2
<6 17.8
# Friends <100 9.8
100–200 22.3
200–300 12.7
300–400 15.9
400–500 8.5
500–600 7.2
>600 23.6
292 A. H. ZADEH ET AL.

Measures
CCVCC was measured using a multidimensional scale adapted from Yi and Gong (2013) that
construes it as a third-order construct with two second-order dimensions of CPB and CCB,
each in turn includes four dimensions (see Figure 1). Each of the eight first-order constructs
was measured using multiple items. We adjusted the scale items to reflect intention (as
opposed to actual behavior) and represent the online C2C context of this study, and then
anchored them on a seven-point Likert scale from ‘1 = Strongly Disagree’ to ‘7 = Strongly
Agree’. CCVCC was treated as a reflective construct for two reasons. First, reflective first- and
second-order dimensions are expected to be correlated, while formative indicators must be
uncorrelated (Jarvis, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2003). The correlation matrix among second
order constructs exhibited a strong correlation between CCB and CPB (ρ = .746), indicating
the internal consistency between the two dimensions and challenging the formative nature
of the measurement. Moreover, this scale has been applied in a reflective manner in prior
studies that reported satisfactory results (Vega-Vazquez, Ángeles Revilla-Camacho, & Cossío-
Silva, 2013).
Attitude, subjective norm and PBC were measured using Bagozzi and Dholakia (2006)
scales. The items for tie strength were adapted from Granovetter (1973). Three seven-point
semantic differential scale measured attitude from ‘unfavorable’ to ‘favorable’, ‘bad’ to ‘good’,
and ‘negative’ to ‘positive’. Subjective norm, PBC, and tie strength were each captured by
three items on a seven-point Likert scale from ‘1 = Strongly Disagree’ to ‘7 = Strongly Agree’.
Past CCVCC behavior was measured with eight items (each tapping one of the first-order
constructs of the CCVCC scale mentioned earlier) on a seven-point scale from ‘never’ to ‘every
time’.
The wording of the items was kept as similar to the original versions as possible while
ensuring applicability in the context of SNSs including Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube,
and Instagram. The content of the scales was checked and improved further based on feed-
back from five marketing faculty members familiar with the topic, and then pilot-tested
using 47 graduate and undergraduate students in the same university (see Table 2 for scale
items).

Control variables, common method bias, and multicollinearity

Algesheimer, Borle, Dholakia, and Singh (2010) find that SNS users’ characteristics such as
gender, ethnicity, age, education, length of membership, and number of friends/followers
influence the level of engagement in online communities and activities. As such, we incor-
porated these in measurement and analyses as covariates.
Taking preventive measurements, we attempted to follow MacKenzie and Podsakoff
(2012) recommendations to control different sources of method bias. The anonymity of the
survey and the voluntariness and privacy of participation were checked and approved by
the Institutional Review Board. Feedback about the study was also promised for those who
were interested in receiving follow-ups. Using expert researchers, we checked and improved
the content of all scales, making both instructions and scale items easy to understand.
Following Chin, Thatcher, and Wright (2012), we checked common method bias post hoc.
First, EFA analysis indicated 11 factors, explaining 75.36% of the variance and rejecting the
presence of one general factor. Second, Harmans’ single fixed factor explained 28.17% of
 JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC MARKETING 293

Table 2. Measures.
Variables Questionnaire items Mean SD L C CITC
Participation behavior How likely are you to engage in the following SNS activities in the next month?
Information seeking Check the SNS to explore new posts 4.85 1.74 .81 .73 .77
Go over posts that my friends share 4.56 1.75 .89 .84 .82
Find out what my friends have been up to 4.32 1.66 .789 .72 .79
Information sharing Share posts, which sound interesting to me or to my friends 5.67 1.41 .759 .72 .76
Post items such as news, music, picture, and video 5.42 1.40 .85 .76 .84
Share information with others 5.18 1.46 .81 .71 .74
Responsible behavior Perform tasks expected by my friends 3.51 1.56 .75 .75 .75
Conform to the expected demeanor 3.40 1.56 .87 .78 .79
Fulfill responsibilities to my SNS friends 3.54 1.54 .86 .81 .82
Personal interaction Be friendly to other users 5.75 1.23 .85 .76 .70
Be kind on the SNS 5.76 1.23 .93 .88 .89
Be polite to other users 5.87 1.18 .95 .90 .92
Be courteous to other users 5.88 1.19 .94 .89 .90
Avoid acting rudely to other users 5.84 1.35 .80 .76 .78
Citizenship behavior
Advocacy Say positive things about the SNS to others 4.56 1.64 .84 .83 .83
Recommend the SNS to others 4.31 1.71 .83 .88 .90
Encourage friends and relatives to use the SNS 4.13 1.71 .74 .80 .84
Help Assist other users if they need my help 4.80 1.70 .87 .85 .85
Help other users if they seem to have difficulties 4.78 1.71 .88 .90 .90
Teach other users to use the SNS correctly 4.49 1.70 .83 .85 .85
Give advice to other users 4.57 1.70 .77 .75 .79
Tolerance Put up with glitches and breakdowns the SNS may 3.90 1.74 .67 .71 .75
encounter
Be patient with other users who may engage in activities I 4.32 1.68 .86 .78 .86
don’t approve of
Show tolerance if the SNS implements changes that 4.47 1.55 .86 .78 .87
inconvenience me
Feedback* Share if I have an idea that might be useful to someone* 5.24 1.52 .42 .53 .43
Respond to my friends’ comments* 5.75 1.25 .31 .47 .37
Let other users know if I experience a problem with the 4.20 1.83 .41 .48 .40
SNS*
Attitude Unfavorable–favorable 5.39 1.27 .81 .76 .73
Bad–good 5.39 1.30 .89 .85 .82
Negative–positive 5.38 1.27 .88 .83 .81
Subjective norm Most people who are important to me think I should 4.19 1.60 .87 .82 .80
engage in SNS activities
It is expected of me that I participate in SNS activities 4.08 1.69 .89 .84 .80
The people whose opinions I value would approve of me 4.63 1.51 .83 .80 .75
participating in SNS activities
PBC If I wanted to, I could perform SNS activities in the forthcom- 5.70 1.24 .76 .73 .72
ing month
For me, to perform SNS activities in the forthcoming month 5.71 1.26 .81 .75 .71
would be possible
It is mostly up to me whether or not I engage in SNS 6.19 1.28 .77 .74 .72
activities in the forthcoming month
Tie strength I frequently interact with members of my friend list on the 4.75 1.56 .89 .74 .70
SNS
I am close to most members of my friend list 4.55 1.72 .86 .83 .77
I have known most members of my friend list for a long time 5.12 1.58 .81 .78 .73
Past CCVCC behavior How often did you perform each of the following SNS activities in the last month?
Viewing pictures, news, and videos that other users upload 5.02 1.57 .64 .79 .73
Sharing ideas with other users 3.98 1.62 .74 .69 .72
Performing tasks expected by my friends 3.33 1.56 .81 .76 .81
Being friendly in interaction with other users 4.24 1.60 .82 .78 .73
With other users
Recommending the SNS to others 3.02 1.70 .71 .81 .79
Helping other users if they have difficulties 3.26 1.63 .79 .76 .72
Being tolerant in the case of unpleasant incidents 4.22 1.47 .80 .83 .80
Informing other users about problems with the SNS*
Notes: ‘*’ = Dropped items; SD: Standard deviation, L: Loadings, C: Communalities; CITC: Corrected item-total correlation.
294 A. H. ZADEH ET AL.

the total variance, which is below the recommended threshold of 50% (MacKenzie &
Podsakoff, 2012). As the range of variance inflation factors was far below the threshold of
5.0 (i.e. 1.04 to 1.46), multicollinearity was not a concern (Hair, Sarstedt, Ringle, & Mena,
2012).

Validity and reliability

To examine the validity of the measures, an EFA test was conducted followed by a CFA. Prior
to factor analyses, the factorability of the key constructs was supported by Kaiser–Meyer–
Olkin values of .89, .89, and .84 for customer participation, citizenship behavior, and the rest
of the variables, respectively, with Bartlett’s χ2 being significant at p < .001 (Hair, Black, Babin,
Anderson, & Tatham, 2006). All items loaded on the respective factors with the exception of
feedback items. Reliability was checked using Cronbach’s alpha and item-to-total correlations
(Hair et al., 2006). These values were greater than .7 and .5, respectively, with the exception
of feedback. Given its inconclusive loading pattern and reliability issue, feedback was excluded
from further analyses (Hair et al., 2006).
In order to reach the most precise model fit, we included all the variables in the meas-
urement model. Following (Hair et al., 2006) thresholds of fit indices, the CFA results revealed
a good model fit (χ2 = 1263.25; df = 685; SRMR = .05; CFI = .95; RMSEA = .048; TLI = .93;
IFI = .94). Convergent validity was checked with three criteria: (1) all items loaded significantly
on their respective constructs (>.5; p > .01; see Table 2); (2) all composite reliabilities sur-
passed the threshold of .7; (3) all AVEs exceeded .5 (see Table 3). Moreover, all of the squared
inter-factor correlations were lower than the corresponding AVEs, exhibiting adequate dis-
criminant validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

Results
Main effects and covariates
Since the study essentially corroborates TPB in a novel context, the hypotheses were tested
in AMOS – a covariance-based structural equation modeling software – that is recommended
for theory confirmation (Fornell & Bookstein, 1982). The results suggested a good model fit
as key fit indices emphasized in Hair et al. (2006) satisfied the cut-off criteria (χ2 = 1361.45;
df = 759; SRMR = .064; CFI = .94; RMSEA = .047; TLI = .93; IFI = .94).
As shown in Table 4, attitude (β = .20; p < .001), PBC (β = .11; p < .01) and subjective norm
(β = .13; p < .01) were each significantly and positively associated with CCVCC intention.
Thus, H1, H2, and H3 are supported. H4 proposed the direct influence of past CCVCC behavior
on CVCC intention. This hypothesis was supported, too (β = .59; p < .001). H5 and H6 assumed
direct effects from past CCVCC behavior on attitude and PBC. The results support the effect
of past CCVCC behavior on attitude (β = .42; p < .001) and PBC (β = .21; p < .001). The predictor
variables, chief among them being past CCVCC behavior, explained 58% of the variation in
CCVCC intention.
Of the six covariates, education emerged as the only significant predictor of CCVCC inten-
tion. Despite its significance, the inclusion of education introduces a minimal change in the
model’s prediction power (ΔR2 = .01). Observed post hoc, while the level of education does
not influence attitude (β = .09; p = .06) and behavioral control (β = −.06; p = 2.77), it is signif-
icantly and negatively associated with CCVCC intention (β = –.08; p < .05).
Table 3. Key statistics and bivariate correlation matrix.
Factors M SD CA CR AVE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1. Attitude 5.39 1.28 .89 .89 .74 1
2. Subjective norm 4.35 1.60 .88 .89 .72 .31 1
3. PBC 5.86 1.26 .75 .78 .55 .27 .38 1
4. Past CCVCC behavior 3.86 1.59 .89 .89 .55 .44 .26 .18 1
5. Information seeking 4.57 1.71 .85 .86 .68 .48 .27 .32 .52 1
6. Information sharing 5.42 1.42 .82 .83 .62 .36 .22 .30 .46 .44 1
7. Responsible behavior 3.48 1.55 .86 .86 .67 .40 .44 .25 .32 .50 .41 1
8. Personal interaction 5.75 1.20 .94 .95 .78 .20 .11 .17 .16 .24 .18 .20 1
9. Advocacy 4.33 1.68 .88 .93 .82 .36 .25 .04 .39 .37 .42 .52 .32 1
10. Helping 4.66 1.70 .93 .94 .79 .34 .23 .07 .38 .35 .48 .48 .30 .48 1
11. Tolerance 4.23 1.65 .80 .80 .71 .22 .15 .05 .31 .21 .31 .37 .31 .42 .53 1
12. Tie strength 4.80 1.62 .83 .87 .73 .21 .27 .05 .36 .23 .26 .34 .12 .28 .27 .19 1
Notes: M: Mean; SD: Standard deviation; CA: Cronbach’s Alpha, CR: Composite reliability; AVE: Average variance extracted.
JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC MARKETING
295
296 A. H. ZADEH ET AL.

Table 4. Path analysis.

Path Hypothesis β
CVCC intention (R2 = .58)
Attitude → CCVCC intention ✓ H1 .20***
Tie strenght → CCVCC intention .19***
Attitude × Tie strenght → CCVCC intention ✓ H7a .40***
PBC → CVCC intention ✓ H2 .11**
Tie strenght → CCVCC intention .24***
PBC × Tie strenght → CCVCC ✓ H7b .19**
Subjective norms → CVCC intention ✓ H3 .13**
Tie strenght → CCVCC intention .15***
Subjective norm × Tie strenght → CCVCC intention ✓ H7c .33***
Past CCVCC behavior → CVCC intention ✓ H4 .59***
Tie strenght → CCVCC intention .13**
Past CCVCC behavior × Tie strenght → CCVCC intention ✓ H7d .23**
Attitude (R2 = .21)
Past CCVCC behavior → Attitude ✓ H5 .42***
PBC (R2 = .05)
Past CCVCC behavior → Perceived behavioral control ✓ H6 .21***
Control variable
Education → Attitude .09
Education → Perceived behavioral control −.06
Education → CCVCC intention −.08*
Notes: β = Path coefficient; ✓ = accepted.
*p < 0.05, t = 1.96; **p < 0.01, t = 2.56; ***p < 0.001, t = 3.29.

Interaction effects
We followed Pedhazur’s (1997) recommendation in using SEM as a proper way to test
the moderations in non-recursive models that contain multiple indicators per latent
variable and involve correlated residuals. Tie strength significantly moderates the effect
of attitude (β = .40; p < .001), PBC (β = .19; p < .01), subjective norm (β = .33; p < .001),
and past CCVCC behavior (β = .23; p < .001) on CCVCC intention. Thus, H7a, b, c, d are
supported.

Mediation tests
To provide further information as to the effects of past behavior on CCVCC intention, we
tested the mediatory roles of attitude and PBC using INDIRECT Macro for SPSS (Hayes, 2013)
with 1000 bootstrapping generated subsamples. As shown in Table 5, attitude emerged as
a significant mediator of the relationship between past CCVCC behavior and CCVCC intention.
However, the mediation role of PBC did not reach statistical significance.
Table 5. Mediation analysis.
Path Aa Path B Path C′ Indirect effectb 95%
(X → M) (M → Y.X) (X → Y.M) confidence interval
Path B B B Effect Lower Upper Conclusionc
Past behavior → Attitude →  .40*** .31*** .40*** .41† .077 .173 Partial mediation
CCVCC intention
Past behavior → PBC →  .10* .12** .52*** .011 –.001 .035 No mediation
CCVCC intention
*p < 0.05, t = 1.96; **p < 0.01, t = 2.56; ***p < 0.001; aPath A = relationship between IV and mediator; Path B = relationship
between mediator and DV, controlling for IV; Path C′ = direct effect of IV on DV, controlling for mediator.
b
Indirect effect of IV on DV, using Preacher and Hayes (2004) bootstrapping technique. ‘†’ indicates the significance of the
indirect effect due to the absence of 0 in the confidence interval.
c
Demonstrates the significance of the indirect effect, and, full or partial mediation, using Baron and Kenny (1986) approach.
 JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC MARKETING 297

Discussion
This research conceptualizes C2C interactions as value co-creation activities and proposes
the notion of CCVCC intention. Specifically, we draw on TPB and tie strength to conceptualize
CCVCC intention within the social media context and identify its key predictors. The results
indicate that while past CCVCC behavior, attitude, subjective norm, and PBC all positively
influence the intention to engage in CCVCC in social media, past CCVCC behavior plays the
strongest role therein. Moreover, tie strength modifies these effects. The effects of past
behavior, attitude, behavioral control, and subjective norm on CCVCC intention are more
pronounced in strong-tie networks relative to weak-tie networks. Interestingly, as users’ level
of education increases, their CCVCC intention declines.

Theoretical implication
The emergence of social media accelerated the evolvement of dyadic co-creation of value
(i.e. customer–firm) to multi-level and multi-actor resource integration. This research is a
response to calls in value co-creation literature for investigating the role of technology
(O’Shaughnessy & Jackson O’Shaughnessy, 2009) and C2C resource integration while
addressing the multiplicity of actors in value co-creation processes (Finsterwalder &
Kuppelwieser, 2011; Vargo & Lusch, 2016).
Our findings underscore the role of customers/users and their interactions as active enti-
ties in value networks. We proposed and tested the CCVCC intention construct in the social
media context. CCVCC in social media comprises participation behaviors and citizenship
behaviors. In the former locus, we evoked the interpersonal influence theory to explain how
customers co-create value by seeking and sharing information, by completing tasks as
expected of them by other entities (i.e. responsible behavior), and through personal(ized)
interactions with other customers. In the latter locus, we drew on the theory of social infor-
mation processing to support that customers co-create value also through their citizenship
behaviors including advocating the firm, helping other customers, and tolerating less than
satisfactory experiences with the firm or with other customers.
We relied on TPB and its components, namely attitude, subjective norm, and PBC, as well
as past CCVCC behavior to explain CCVCC intention. Moreover, we drew on the modifying
role of tie strength to tease out the effects of predictors on CCVCC intentions among the
strong and weak ties. Previous research has mainly drawn on role clarity, ability, motivation,
and opportunity constructs to investigate the resource integration process in online plat-
forms (e.g. Gruen et al., 2007). This study extends the extant understanding by viewing value
co-creation and resource integration through TPB and tie strength lenses.

Managerial implication
A historical look into the world of social media, from early movers such as AOL and Live
Journal to the most recent additions such as Blab and Meerkat, suggest that technology-en-
abled social networking is no passing trend. In fact, the rate at which people are adopting
social media has been exponentially increased. These developments point to multiple ways
in which our research findings should be of interest to corporations and entrepreneurs.
298 A. H. ZADEH ET AL.

First, developing new social media platforms, although highly volatile and competitive,
is an expanding and highly profitable business (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). Our research is
readily pertinent to entrepreneurs and corporations that intend to develop new social media.
A desirable capability for such businesses is to understand the behavioral intentions of
existing and prospective users of their social media. Our research can assist businesses in
this regard. Specifically, we show that users’ past C2C interactions on social media can help
predict and explain their future interactions both directly and indirectly. The direct link
between past and future C2C interactions is a reason for social media owners to invest
extensively in advanced customer behavioral tracking technologies that, at any point in
time, offer a rich database of user behavioral profile for the purposes of making calculated
projections of future behaviors. Such databases are also profitable as a commodity desired
across various consumer industries.
The indirect links between past and future behaviors suggest that users’ past behaviors
inform their attitude toward C2C interactions on social media as well as the degree of control
they perceive to possess over social media. Although past social media behavior is not a
determinant of the norms that the individual user perceives to be pertinent and to follow
in social media, such subjectively perceived norms do influence his or her intended C2C
interactions. It is also noteworthy that the strength of social ties between users determines
the extent to which their future behaviors will depend on their past C2C interactions, attitude
toward such interactions, control perceived over social media interactions, and their sub-
jectively perceived norms.
Second, several social media allow other businesses to develop their own page or space
under the auspices of the broader platform (e.g. Facebook allows businesses to develop
their own Facebook pages). This enables businesses to obtain an additional medium through
which they can communicate with their customers (i.e. B2C) and sponsor C2C interactions
conveniently (Dholakia & Durham, 2010). The foregoing discussion on the pertinence of our
research for social media owners also applies to businesses who do not own social media
but ‘rent’ spaces within and across an array of social media. Moreover, such businesses can
promote their own products, services and brands within those spaces (Dholakia & Durham,
2010). Our research findings can help these businesses design and manage C2C interactions
in their social media spaces more effectively.
Lastly, classifying C2C interactions in social media using such schemes as in-role versus
extra-role behaviors (Bolton & Saxena-Iyer, 2009; Maxham & Netemeyer, 2003) or participa-
tion versus citizenship behaviors (Yi & Gong, 2013) is a useful practice to social media owners
and corporate users. This research adopted the latter scheme and measured CCVCC in a total
of eight domains. A scrutiny of these eight building blocks of CCVCC might lead to useful
insights for practitioners.

Limitations and future research

The limitations of this research point to fruitful direction for future research. First, this research
is contextualized in social media settings due to the high level of C2C interactions in that
context. Nonetheless, the concept of CCVCC as behavioral intentions or even actual behaviors
can be operationalized in numerous face-to-face service settings. Future research has several
options when it comes to the choice of study context, from a variety of online service sites
to different service industries where face-to-face interactions take place among customers.
 JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC MARKETING 299

Second, following Yi and Gong (2013), value co-creation was conceptualized using CPB and
CCB. Future research should not only corroborate this conceptualization in other contexts,
but also consider other conceptualizations of value co-creation in general and of CCVCC in
particular. Third, we relied on TPB to identify and examine the antecedents of CCVCC inten-
tion. Future studies can draw on other theoretical models such as the uses and gratification
paradigm (Stafford, Stafford, & Schkade, 2004) to corroborate and extend what we so far
know about CCVCC. Finally, Hispanic young adults (18–29) dominated the sample used in
the present research. Even though young adults are the main users of SNSs, the results should
be re-examined among other ethnic groups and/or in more diverse samples.

Acknowledgment
The authors acknowledge the comments provided by Kumar Rakesh Ranjan, assistant professor of
marketing at the Indian Institute of Management, on an earlier draft of the manuscript.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
50, 179–211.
Ajzen, I. (2002). residual effects of past on later behavior: Habituation and reasoned action perspectives.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 107–122.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical
research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888–918.
Algesheimer, R., Borle, S., Dholakia, U. M., & Singh, S. S. (2010). The impact of customer community
participation on customer behaviors: An empirical investigation. Marketing Science, 29, 756–769.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Dholakia, U. M. (2006). Antecedents and purchase consequences of customer
participation in small group brand communities. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23,
45–61.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50, 248–287.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological
research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 51, 1173.
Bearden, W. O., Netemeyer, R. G., & Teel, J. E. (1989). Measurement of consumer susceptibility to
interpersonal influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 473–481.
Bettencourt, L. A. (1997). Customer voluntary performance: Customers as partners in service delivery.
Journal of Retailing, 73, 383–406.
Bolton, R., & Saxena-Iyer, S. (2009). Interactive services: A framework, synthesis and research directions.
Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23, 91–104.
Brodie, R. J., Hollebeek, L. D., Juric, B., & Ilic, A. (2011). Customer engagement: Conceptual domain,
fundamental propositions, and implications for research. Journal of Service Research, 14, 252–271.
Bugshan, H. (2015). Co-innovation: The role of online communities. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 23,
175–186.
Chin, W. W., Thatcher, J. B., & Wright, R. T. (2012). Assessing common method bias: Problems with the
ULMC technique. MIS Quarterly, 36, 1003–1019.
Correa, T., Hinsley, A. W., & De Zuniga, H. G. (2010). Who interacts on the Web? The intersection of users’
personality and social media use. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 247–253.
300 A. H. ZADEH ET AL.

Cova, B., Pace, S., & Skålén, P. (2015). Brand volunteering: Value co-creation with unpaid consumers.
Marketing Theory, 15, 465–485.
Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon
individual judgment. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 629–636.
De Vries, L., Gensler, S., & Leeflang, P. S. (2012). Popularity of brand posts on brand fan pages: An
investigation of the effects of social media marketing. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26, 83–91.
Dholakia, U. M., Bagozzi, R. P., & Pearo, L. K. (2004). A social influence model of consumer participation in
network-and small-group-based virtual communities. International Journal of Research in Marketing,
21, 241–263.
Dholakia, U. M., & Durham, E. (2010). One café chain’s Facebook experiment. Harvard Business Review,
88, 26.
Edvardsson, B., Tronvoll, B., & Gruber, T. (2011). Expanding understanding of service exchange and value
co-creation: A social construction approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39, 327–339.
Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27, 31–41.
Facebook Reports Fourth Quarter. (2014). Retrieved from http://investor.fb.com/
Fazio, R. H., & Zanna, M. P. (1981). Direct experience and attitude-behavior consistency. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 161–202.
Fazio, R. H., Zanna, M. P., & Cooper, J. (1978). Direct experience and attitude-behavior consistency: An
information processing analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 48–51.
Featherman, M. S., & Hajli, N. (2015). Self-service technologies and e-services risks in social commerce
era. Journal of Business Ethics, 139, 251–269.
Finsterwalder, J., & Kuppelwieser, V. G. (2011). Co-creation by engaging beyond oneself: The influence
of task contribution on perceived customer-to-customer social interaction during a group service
encounter. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 19, 607–618.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and
research. Retrieved from http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=1150648
Fornell, C., & Bookstein, F. L. (1982). Two structural equation models: LISREL and PLS applied to consumer
exit-voice theory. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 440–452.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.
Glomb, T. M., & Liao, H. (2003). Interpersonal aggression in work groups: Social influence, reciprocal,
and individual effects. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 486–496.
Goles, T., Jayatilaka, B., George, B., Parsons, L., Chambers, V., Taylor, D., & Brune, R. (2008). Softlifting:
Exploring determinants of attitude. Journal of Business Ethics, 77, 481–499.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American journal of sociology, 78, 1360–1380.
Gruen, T. W. (1995). The outcome set of relationship marketing in consumer markets. International
Business Review, 4, 447–469.
Gruen, T. W., Osmonbekov, T., & Czaplewski, A. J. (2007). Customer-to-customer exchange: Its MOA
antecedents and its impact on value creation and loyalty. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
35, 537–549.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (Vol.
6). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Mena, J. A. (2012). An assessment of the use of partial least
squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 40, 414–433.
Hajli, N., Shanmugam, M., Powell, P., & Love, P. E. (2015). A study on the continuance participation in
on-line communities with social commerce perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
96, 232–241.
Hajli, N., Sims, J., Zadeh, A. H., & Richard, M. O. (2017). A social commerce investigation of the role of
trust in a social networking site on purchase intentions. Journal of Business Research, 71, 133–141.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-
based approach. New York, NYGuilford Press.
Hibbert, S., Winklhofer, H., & Temerak, M. S. (2012). Customers as resource integrators: Toward a model
of customer learning. Journal of Service Research, 15, 254–261.
 JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC MARKETING 301

Hsieh, S. H., & Chang, A. (2016). The psychological mechanism of brand co-creation engagement.
Journal of Interactive Marketing, 33, 13–26.
Jarvis, C. B., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2003). A critical review of construct indicators and
measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. Journal of Consumer
Research, 30, 199–218.
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of
Social Media. Business horizons, 53, 59–68.
Kim, Y., Sohn, D., & Choi, S. M. (2011). Cultural difference in motivations for using social network sites:
A comparative study of American and Korean college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 27,
365–372.
Laud, G., Karpen, I. O., Mulye, R., & Rahman, K. (2015). The role of embeddedness for resource integration
complementing SD logic research through a social capital perspective. Marketing Theory, 15, 509–
543.
Lengnick-Hall, C. A., Claycomb, V., & Inks, L. W. (2000). From recipient to contributor: Examining customer
roles and experienced outcomes. European Journal of Marketing, 34, 359–383.
Locander, W. B., & Hermann, P. W. (1979). The effect of self-confidence and anxiety on information
seeking in consumer risk reduction. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 268–274.
Lusch, R. F., Vargo, S. L., & O’Brien, M. (2007). Competing through service: Insights from service-dominant
logic. Journal of Retailing, 83, 5–18.
Lusch, R. F., Vargo, S. L., & Tanniru, M. (2010). Service, value networks and learning. Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, 38, 19–31.
MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2012). Common method bias in marketing: Causes, mechanisms,
and procedural remedies. Journal of Retailing, 88, 542–555.
Maxham, J. G., III, & Netemeyer, R. G. (2003). Firms reap what they sow: The effects of shared values
and perceived organizational justice on customers’ evaluations of complaint handling. Journal of
Marketing, 67, 46–62.
Mittal, V., Huppertz, J. W., & Khare, A. (2008). Customer complaining: The role of tie strength and
information control. Journal of retailing, 84, 195–204.
O’Shaughnessy, J., & Jackson O’Shaughnessy, N. (2009). The service-dominant perspective: A backward
step? European Journal of Marketing, 43, 784–793.
Ouellette, J. A., & Wood, W. (1998). Habit and intention in everyday life: The multiple processes by which
past behavior predicts future behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 54–74.
Payne, A. F., Storbacka, K., & Frow, P. (2008). Managing the co-creation of value. Journal of the academy
of marketing science, 36, 83–96.
Pedhazur, E. J. (1997). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and prediction. Wadsworth
Publishing Company.
Pelling, E. L., & White, K. M. (2009). The theory of planned behavior applied to young people’s use of
social networking web sites. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12, 755–759.
Pfeil, U., Arjan, R., & Zaphiris, P. (2009). Age differences in online social networking – A study of user
profiles and the social capital divide among teenagers and older users in MySpace. Computers in
Human Behavior, 25, 643–654.
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2000). Co-opting customer competence. Harvard Business Review,
78, 79–90.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple
mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717–731.
Raacke, J., & Bonds-Raacke, J. (2008). MySpace and Facebook: Applying the uses and gratifications
theory to exploring friend-networking sites. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11, 169–174.
Rihova, I., Buhalis, D., Moital, M., & Beth Gouthro, M. (2013). Social layers of customer-to-customer value
co-creation. Journal of Service Management, 24, 553–566.
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task
design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224–253.
Sheeran, P., & Orbell, S. (1999). Augmenting the theory of planned behavior: Roles for anticipated regret
and descriptive norms1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 2107–2142.
302 A. H. ZADEH ET AL.

Skinner, E. A. (1996). A guide to constructs of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71,
549–570.
Smith, J. P., Tran, G. Q., & Thompson, R. D. (2008). Can the theory of planned behavior help explain men’s
psychological help-seeking? Evidence for a mediation effect and clinical implications. Psychology
of Men & Masculinity, 9, 179–192.
Stafford, T. F., Stafford, M. R., & Schkade, L. L. (2004). Determining uses and gratifications for the internet.
Decision Sciences, 35, 259–288.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). Service-dominant logic: Continuing the evolution. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 1–10.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2016). Institutions and axioms: An extension and update of service-dominant
logic. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44, 5–23.
Vega-Vazquez, M., Ángeles Revilla-Camacho, M., & Cossío-Silva, J. F. (2013). The value co-creation
process as a determinant of customer satisfaction. Management Decision, 51, 1945–1953.
Voorhees, C. M., & Brady, M. K. (2005). A service perspective on the drivers of complaint intentions.
Journal of Service Research, 8, 192–204.
Wang, X., Yu, C., & Wei, Y. (2012). Social media peer communication and impacts on purchase intentions:
A consumer socialization framework. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26, 198–208.
Whalen, P. S., & Akaka, M. A. (2016). A dynamic market conceptualization for entrepreneurial marketing:
The co-creation of opportunities. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 24, 61–75.
Whiting, A., & Williams, D. (2013). Why people use social media: A uses and gratifications approach.
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 16, 362–369.
Xie, C., Bagozzi, R. P., & Troye, S. V. (2008). Trying to prosume: Toward a theory of consumers as co-creators
of value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 109–122.
Yi, Y., & Gong, T. (2013). Customer value co-creation behavior: Scale development and validation. Journal
of Business Research, 66, 1279–1284.
Yi, Y., Gong, T., & Lee, H. (2013). The impact of other customers on customer citizenship behavior.
Psychology & Marketing, 30, 341–356.
Zeithaml, V. A., Bitner, M. J., & Gremler, D. D. (2006). Services marketing: Integrating customer focus across
the firm. Retrieved from http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/clc/1809666