Scholarly Article
Journal of Service Research
2024, Vol. 0(0) 1–20
© The Author(s) 2024
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/10946705241242901
journals.sagepub.com/home/jsr
Customer Engagement in Utilitarian vs.
Hedonic Service Contexts
Jenna Adriana Maeve Barrett1, Elina Jaakkola2, Jonas Heller3, and
Elisabeth Christine Brüggen4,5,6,7
Abstract
In the last decade, customer engagement has become a key concept in service research.While the customer engagement literature
has gained significant traction and is maturing, studies have predominantly focused on hedonic consumption contexts, such as social
media platforms or brand communities. We argue that hedonic and utilitarian service services are fundamentally different.
Therefore, existing research knowledge on customer engagement does not necessarily hold in more utilitarian contexts, such as
healthcare or financial services, where greater customer engagement could increase societal and individual well-being. By syn-
thesizing insights from the customer engagement literature and the literature on hedonic versus utilitarian consumption, we
identify assumptions in customer engagement research that need revising.We extract five fundamental features that differ between
hedonic and utilitarian services (affectivity, motivational focus, perception of necessity, role of risk, and relational focus). Based on
these features, we derive propositions that describe the role of context for the drivers and outcomes of customer engagement, as
well as their interrelationships, and provide guidelines for future research to augment the scope of customer engagement research.
As its main contribution, this article problematizes the current premises of customer engagement research and demonstrates that
assumptions held about customer engagement are not necessarily generalizable across contexts.
Keywords
customer engagement, service context, utilitarian, hedonic
Introduction
Customer engagement (CE) has become a key concept in
service research as it can explain customer relationships in
modern markets and is associated with positive business out-
comes, such as improved customer-brand relationships, cus-
tomer satisfaction, loyalty, and profitability (e.g., Brodie et al.
2011; Jaakkola and Alexander 2014; Kumar et al. 2010; Kumar
and Pansari 2016). Academic interest in CE has increased over
time, with the number of publications with “customer en-
gagement” as a topic increasing from 73 in 2012 to 1041 in
2022, with a total of 135,007 citations (Web of Science 2023).
Recent literature reviews on CE show that knowledge of the
concept has matured, and the existing literature offers rich
insights into the drivers and outcomes of CE (e.g., Hollebeek
et al. 2021; Ng et al. 2020).
However, an aspect that has received less attention in ex-
isting research is the role that the service context plays in CE,
although the situation- and context-specific nature of engage-
ment is well noted in literature (e.g., Brodie et al., 2011;
Hollebeek 2013; Kumar et al. 2019). Service context entails the
tangible and intangible features that form the setting in which a
service takes place. Most CE research pertains to experiential,
1Postdoctoral Researcher, Department of Marketing, Tilburg School of
Economics and Management, Tilburg University, The Netherlands
2Professor of Marketing, Department of Marketing and International Business,
Turku School of Economics, University of Turku, Finland
3Assistant Professor, Department of Marketing and Supply Chain Management,
School of Business and Economics, Maastricht University, The Netherlands
4Professor for Financial Services, Department of Marketing and Supply Chain
Management, School of Business and Economics, Maastricht University, The
Netherlands
5Professor for Financial Services, Brightlands Institute for Smart Society (BISS),
The Netherlands
6Professor of Retirement Communication and ChoiceGuidance, Department of
Marketing, Tilburg School of Economics and Management, Tilburg University,
The Netherlands
7Netspar, Network for Studies on Pension, Aging, and Retirement, The
Netherlands
Received: 6 October 2022
Corresponding Author:
Jenna Adriana Maeve Barrett, Department of Marketing, Tilburg School of
Economics and Management, Tilburg University, Warandelaan 2, Tilburg
5037 AB, Netherlands.
Email: a.m.barrett@tilburguniversity.edu
interactive, and thus hedonic contexts, including but not limited
to hospitality, fashion, social media, and brand communities
(e.g., Alvarez-Mila´n et al., 2018; Breidbach et al., 2014;
Groeger et al., 2016; Hollebeek et al., 2014), whereas utilitarian
services have received comparatively little attention (Fehrer
et al. 2018). Most of our knowledge on CE thus revolves around
the notion that customers engage with brands or services they
enjoy and with which they have a positive emotional connection
(e.g., Alvarez-Mila´n et al., 2018; Hollebeek et al., 2014). In
contrast, utilitarian services, such as car washes, utility services,
or financial services, are functional and their consumption is
primarily outcome—rather than process—oriented (Collier
et al. 2014; Dhar and Wertenbroch 2000). Thus, the assump-
tions derived by studying CE in hedonic contexts do not
necessarily hold in more utilitarian contexts.
While the role of service context has seldom been pro-
blematized in CE research, and few studies have elaborated
on its contextual contingencies, some studies have shown
that context indeed matters for CE. Fehrer et al. (2018) found
that utilitarian service features have a bearing on the way CE
processes unfold, and an exploratory study by Hollebeek
(2013) suggested that the effect of CE on customer value
differs according to the consumption context. Notably, in
their meta-analysis, De Oliveira Santini et al. (2020) find that
CE displays an almost three times stronger effect on firm
performance for hedonic rather than utilitarian consumption
contexts.
These studies provide important insights into the relevance
of context for some aspects of CE. However, CE research is still
missing a comprehensive analysis on how the hedonic versus
utilitarian features of the service context may affect the drivers
and outcomes of CE more broadly. This insight is needed for
reaching the full potency and impact of the CE concept across
service contexts, and for supporting firms and public organi-
zations’ efforts in stimulating CE for positive customer, com-
pany, and societal outcomes.
Against this backdrop, the objective of this study is to an-
alyze how existing assumptions of CE research apply to utili-
tarian service contexts. This is achieved by first identifying the
key assumptions of CE research, and then contrasting these with
the fundamental features that distinguish between hedonic and
utilitarian service contexts. The article thus augments the ex-
isting theory on CE with the perspective of service context
features, thus proposing a novel perspective on an extant
conceptualization (Jaakkola 2020; MacInnis 2011). Specifi-
cally, our study offers three contributions: First, we highlight
and problematize the current premises of CE research. Second,
our analysis comprehensively delineates the role of service
context for CE, showing that the current assumptions regarding
CE are not necessarily generalizable across service contexts.
Third, this study facilitates the expansion of the applicability
domain of CE research by outlining critical context-related
issues to be investigated in future research. As a practical
implication, our study offers insights that can increase CE,
especially in utilitarian service contexts, such as financial
services and healthcare.
This article is structured as follows: First, we review CE
research to identify its key assumptions and foci. Second, we
analyze studies on utilitarian versus hedonic consumption to
extract key defining features that distinguish these service
contexts. Next, we integrate these insights to derive proposi-
tions describing the role of context for the drivers and outcomes
of CE, as well as their interrelationships. We enrich our analysis
with theoretical insights and illustrative examples from utili-
tarian services. Finally, we provide guidelines for future
research that is needed to augment the scope of CE research.
Extant View of Customer Engagement
The main body of CE research resides in the marketing and
service research domains. Our literature analysis reveals that
while no single definition of CE exists, most studies draw from
Brodie et al. (2011, 258), who describe CE as “a psychological
state that occurs by virtue of interactive, co-creative customer
experiences with a focal agent/object (e.g., a brand) in focal
service relationships.” Widely established and accepted among
most scholars, CE is commonly viewed as a multi-dimensional
concept comprising cognitive, affective, and behavioral di-
mensions that reflect an individual’s willingness to invest in
focal interactions with engagement objects (Brodie et al., 2019;
Harmeling et al., 2017; Hollebeek et al., 2019). Some authors
have broadened this tripartite model of CE to include elements
such as spiritual engagement (Karpen and Conduit 2020).
Many studies specifically assess the behavioral dimension of
CE (e.g., Harmeling et al. 2017; Jaakkola and Alexander 2014;
van Doorn et al. 2010). CE behaviors represent the contributions
of resources (e.g., knowledge, money, skills, time, and effort)
directed toward the service provider or other customers
(Jaakkola and Alexander 2014; Kumar et al. 2019; van Doorn
et al. 2010). For example, customers can support service de-
velopment by offering their ideas and can influence and mo-
bilize other customers by extending their recommendations and
preferences (Harmeling et al. 2017; Jaakkola and Alexander
2014).
Systematic Literature Search on Drivers and Outcomes
of Customer Engagement
To identify the key assumptions held about the drivers and
outcomes of CE, we conducted a review of the state-of-the-art
CE research (see Web Appendix A and B). Our literature review
is based on a systematic search following Torraco (2016) and
Ciuchita et al. (2023), conducted in the leading service and
marketing journals1 for the term “customer engagement” in the
title. The systematic search strategy and inclusion process are
detailed in Web Appendix A. The systematic search process
combined with backward snowballing of articles resulted in a
corpus of 44 papers.
Next, each article was analyzed to identify its research setting
as well as assumptions and findings related to the drivers and
outcomes of CE (see Web Appendix Table B1). Subsequently,
2 Journal of Service Research 0(0)
T
ab
le
1.
K
ey
A
ss
um
pt
io
ns
in
C
us
to
m
er
En
ga
ge
m
en
t
Li
te
ra
tu
re
.
St
ud
y
K
ey
Fi
nd
in
gs
N
at
ur
e
of
En
ga
ge
m
en
t
C
us
to
m
er
D
ri
ve
rs
Fi
rm
D
ri
ve
rs
O
ut
co
m
es
St
ud
ie
s
H
ow
C
on
te
xt
A
ffe
ct
s
C
E
D
ri
ve
rs
or
O
ut
co
m
es
In
tr
in
si
c
M
ot
iv
at
io
n
C
us
to
m
er
Fe
at
ur
es
M
ar
ke
tin
g
In
iti
at
iv
es
St
im
ul
at
in
g
Em
ot
io
na
l
Ex
pe
ri
en
ce
s
Fi
rm
Pe
rf
or
m
an
ce
Pl
ea
su
re
Fr
om
C
E
Pr
oc
es
s
A
lv
ar
ez
-M
ila´
n
et
al
.,
20
18
C
om
pa
ni
es
ca
n
m
ak
e
de
ci
si
on
s
ba
se
d
on
th
e
in
te
rr
el
at
ed
C
E
fa
ce
ts
co
nc
ep
tu
al
iz
at
io
n,
ta
rg
et
,
do
m
ai
n,
ex
pe
ri
en
tia
lr
ou
te
,a
nd
va
lu
e
to
in
fo
rm
C
E
m
ar
ke
tin
g.
3
3
3
Be
ck
er
s
et
al
.
(2
01
8)
C
om
pa
ni
es
’C
E
in
iti
at
iv
es
de
cr
ea
se
,o
n
av
er
ag
e,
m
ar
ke
t
va
lu
e.
Sh
ar
eh
ol
de
rs
lik
el
y
re
sp
on
d
ne
ga
tiv
el
y
to
C
E
in
iti
at
iv
es
be
ca
us
e
of
th
e
ri
sk
of
ba
ck
fi
ri
ng
.
3
3
3
3
Be
rg
el
et
al
.
(2
01
9)
En
ga
ge
d
cu
st
om
er
s
de
ve
lo
p
a
m
or
e
po
si
tiv
e
af
fe
ct
iv
e
at
tit
ud
e,
w
hi
ch
le
ad
s
to
in
cr
ea
se
d
fu
tu
re
lo
ya
lty
an
d
po
si
tiv
e
pr
ic
e
pe
rc
ep
tio
ns
.
3
3
3
Bl
ac
k
et
al
.
(2
02
1)
Sa
tis
fa
ct
io
n
af
fe
ct
s
pa
tr
on
ag
e
fr
eq
ue
nc
y.
T
hi
s
is
m
ed
ia
te
d
by
cu
st
om
er
–
em
pl
oy
ee
id
en
tifi
ca
tio
n.
3
3
3
Bo
w
de
n
(2
00
9)
Fo
ur
pr
op
os
iti
on
s
on
ho
w
C
E
m
ay
be
de
ve
lo
pe
d
an
d
fo
st
er
ed
am
on
g
di
ffe
re
nt
cu
st
om
er
se
gm
en
ts
.
3
3
3
3
Br
ei
db
ac
h
et
al
.
(2
01
4)
In
tr
od
uc
es
th
e
no
tio
n
of
a
C
E
ec
os
ys
te
m
an
d
id
en
tifi
es
fo
ur
ar
ch
et
yp
es
of
en
ga
ge
m
en
t
pl
at
fo
rm
s
(O
pe
ra
tin
g,
in
st
ru
m
en
ta
l,
en
ab
lin
g,
an
d
su
pp
ly
in
g)
.
3
Br
od
ie
et
al
.
(2
01
1)
D
er
iv
es
fi
ve
pr
op
os
iti
on
s
th
at
de
sc
ri
be
C
E
an
d
di
st
in
gu
is
h
it
fr
om
ot
he
r
co
nc
ep
ts
(e
.g
.,
pa
rt
ic
ip
at
io
n)
.
3
3
Br
od
ie
et
al
.
(2
01
9)
D
efi
ne
A
E
an
d
de
ri
ve
fi
ve
pr
op
os
iti
on
s
on
A
E
di
sp
os
iti
on
s,
pr
oc
es
s,
m
ul
tid
im
en
si
on
al
ity
,i
nt
en
si
ty
/
va
le
nc
e,
an
d
en
ga
ge
m
en
t
pl
at
fo
rm
s.
3
3
C
al
de
r
et
al
.
(2
00
9)
Id
en
tif
y
pe
rs
on
al
en
ga
ge
m
en
t
an
d
so
ci
al
-in
te
ra
ct
iv
e
en
ga
ge
m
en
t
ba
se
d
on
ei
gh
t
di
st
in
ct
ty
pe
s
of
cu
st
om
er
ex
pe
ri
en
ce
s.
O
nl
in
e
m
ed
ia
in
vo
lv
es
a
di
st
in
ct
fo
rm
of
en
ga
ge
m
en
t,
w
hi
ch
ha
s
its
ow
n
im
pa
ct
on
ad
ve
rt
is
in
g
ef
fe
ct
iv
en
es
s.
3
3
3
3
D
e
O
liv
ei
ra
Sa
nt
in
ie
t
al
.
(2
02
0)
C
E
is
dr
iv
en
by
sa
tis
fa
ct
io
n,
po
si
tiv
e
em
ot
io
ns
,a
nd
tr
us
t,
bu
t
no
t
by
co
m
m
itm
en
t.
3
3
3
3
D
o
et
al
.(
20
20
)
D
ev
el
op
a
co
nc
ep
tu
al
fr
am
ew
or
k
th
at
pr
op
os
es
cu
st
om
er
pe
rc
ei
ve
d
ju
st
ic
e
an
d
ne
ga
tiv
e
di
sc
on
fi
rm
at
io
n
as
de
te
rm
in
an
ts
of
ne
ga
tiv
e
C
E
vi
a
cu
st
om
er
ou
tr
ag
e.
3
3
3
Fe
hr
er
et
al
.
(2
01
8)
In
ut
ili
ta
ri
an
se
rv
ic
e
co
nt
ex
ts
,i
nc
en
tiv
es
an
d
tie
s
to
ot
he
r
ne
tw
or
k
ac
to
rs
ar
e
es
se
nt
ia
lf
or
hi
gh
le
ve
ls
of
en
ga
ge
m
en
t
be
ha
vi
or
to
oc
cu
r.
3
3
(c
on
tin
ue
d)
Barrett et al. 3
T
ab
le
1.
(c
on
tin
ue
d)
St
ud
y
K
ey
Fi
nd
in
gs
N
at
ur
e
of
En
ga
ge
m
en
t
C
us
to
m
er
D
ri
ve
rs
Fi
rm
D
ri
ve
rs
O
ut
co
m
es
St
ud
ie
s
H
ow
C
on
te
xt
A
ffe
ct
s
C
E
D
ri
ve
rs
or
O
ut
co
m
es
In
tr
in
si
c
M
ot
iv
at
io
n
C
us
to
m
er
Fe
at
ur
es
M
ar
ke
tin
g
In
iti
at
iv
es
St
im
ul
at
in
g
Em
ot
io
na
l
Ex
pe
ri
en
ce
s
Fi
rm
Pe
rf
or
m
an
ce
Pl
ea
su
re
Fr
om
C
E
Pr
oc
es
s
G
on
g
(2
01
8)
In
di
vi
du
al
is
m
-c
ol
le
ct
iv
is
m
an
d
po
w
er
di
st
an
ce
af
fe
ct
th
e
re
la
tio
ns
hi
p
be
tw
ee
n
br
an
d
ow
ne
rs
hi
p
an
d
cu
st
om
er
br
an
d
en
ga
ge
m
en
t
be
ha
vi
or
.
3
3
3
3
G
ro
eg
er
et
al
.
(2
01
6)
D
ev
el
op
a
no
ve
ln
on
-p
ay
in
g
C
E
be
ha
vi
or
(C
EB
)
co
nc
ep
t
co
m
pr
is
in
g
th
re
e
ke
y
co
m
po
ne
nt
s:
A
ug
m
en
tin
g/
co
-d
ev
el
op
in
g,
in
fl
ue
nc
in
g/
m
ob
ili
zi
ng
,a
nd
m
ar
ke
t/
br
an
d
ex
pe
ri
en
ce
cr
ea
tio
n.
3
3
3
H
ar
m
el
in
g
et
al
.
(2
01
7)
C
E
m
ar
ke
tin
g
en
ha
nc
es
th
e
ef
fe
ct
of
th
e
pr
od
uc
t
ex
pe
ri
en
ce
on
C
E
by
st
re
ng
th
en
in
g
ex
is
tin
g
co
gn
iti
ve
bo
nd
s
an
d
bu
ild
in
g
ne
w
co
gn
iti
ve
bo
nd
s
th
at
en
ri
ch
th
e
pr
od
uc
t
ex
pe
ri
en
ce
.C
E
m
ar
ke
tin
g
in
cr
ea
se
s
C
E
th
ro
ug
h
in
cr
ea
se
d
ps
yc
ho
lo
gi
ca
lo
w
ne
rs
hi
p
an
d
se
lf-
tr
an
sf
or
m
at
io
n.
3
3
3
3
3
H
ar
w
oo
d
an
d
G
ar
ry
(2
01
5)
T
he
fi
nd
in
gs
id
en
tif
y
ke
y
pr
oc
es
se
s
an
d
ou
tc
om
es
of
C
E
an
d
C
EB
w
ith
in
vi
rt
ua
lg
am
ifi
ed
pl
at
fo
rm
s.
Im
pl
em
en
ta
tio
n
fl
aw
s
de
ri
ve
d
fr
om
ga
m
ifi
ca
tio
n
m
ay
im
pa
ct
th
e
C
E
ex
pe
ri
en
ce
.
3
3
3
3
3
H
el
le
r
et
al
.
(2
02
1)
D
er
iv
e
fi
ve
pr
op
os
iti
on
s
th
at
de
sc
ri
be
th
e
st
ag
es
of
th
e
te
ch
no
lo
gy
-e
na
bl
ed
pr
oc
es
s.
Ex
pl
ai
n
th
e
st
ru
ct
ur
e
of
C
E
w
ith
au
to
m
at
ed
A
R
se
rv
ic
es
.
3
3
3
3
3
H
en
ke
ns
et
al
.
(2
02
1)
In
cr
ea
se
d
le
ve
ls
of
sm
ar
tn
es
s
le
ad
to
m
or
e
C
E
w
ith
th
e
sm
ar
t
pr
od
uc
t
an
d
th
e
se
rv
ic
e
pr
ov
id
er
in
th
e
sm
ar
t
se
rv
ic
e
sy
st
em
th
ro
ug
h
pe
rc
ei
ve
d
pe
rs
on
al
iz
at
io
n.
3
3
3
3
H
ol
le
be
ek
et
al
.
(2
02
1)
Es
se
nt
ia
la
nd
no
n-
es
se
nt
ia
ls
er
vi
ce
s
af
fe
ct
C
BE
di
ffe
re
nt
ly
in
lo
ck
do
w
ns
.
3
3
3
3
H
ol
le
be
ek
(2
01
1)
T
he
C
BE
th
em
es
of
“i
m
m
er
si
on
,”
“p
as
si
on
,”
an
d
“a
ct
iv
at
io
n”
re
pr
es
en
tt
he
de
gr
ee
to
w
hi
ch
a
cu
st
om
er
is
pr
ep
ar
ed
to
ex
er
t
co
gn
iti
ve
,e
m
ot
io
na
l,
an
d
be
ha
vi
or
al
re
so
ur
ce
s
in
in
te
ra
ct
io
ns
w
ith
a
fo
ca
lb
ra
nd
,
w
hi
ch
ar
e
di
sp
la
ye
d
by
ap
pl
yi
ng
pa
rt
ic
ul
ar
le
ve
ls
of
br
an
d-
re
la
te
d
co
nc
en
tr
at
io
n,
po
si
tiv
e
af
fe
ct
,a
nd
en
er
gy
in
br
an
d
in
te
ra
ct
io
ns
.
3
3
3
H
ol
le
be
ek
et
al
.
(2
01
9)
D
er
iv
e
fi
ve
pr
op
os
iti
on
s
th
at
de
sc
ri
be
an
te
ce
de
nt
s
an
d
co
ns
eq
ue
nc
es
of
D
C
M
.
3
3
3
3
3
H
ol
le
be
ek
(2
01
3)
H
ed
on
ic
br
an
ds
ar
e
en
ga
gi
ng
an
d
en
su
re
va
lu
e-
ge
ne
ra
tin
g
pr
op
er
tie
s.
By
co
nt
ra
st
,u
til
ita
ri
an
br
an
ds
te
nd
ed
to
ge
ne
ra
te
re
du
ce
d
C
E
an
d
en
su
in
g
C
V
le
ve
ls
.
3
3
3
3
(c
on
tin
ue
d)
4 Journal of Service Research 0(0)
T
ab
le
1.
(c
on
tin
ue
d)
St
ud
y
K
ey
Fi
nd
in
gs
N
at
ur
e
of
En
ga
ge
m
en
t
C
us
to
m
er
D
ri
ve
rs
Fi
rm
D
ri
ve
rs
O
ut
co
m
es
St
ud
ie
s
H
ow
C
on
te
xt
A
ffe
ct
s
C
E
D
ri
ve
rs
or
O
ut
co
m
es
In
tr
in
si
c
M
ot
iv
at
io
n
C
us
to
m
er
Fe
at
ur
es
M
ar
ke
tin
g
In
iti
at
iv
es
St
im
ul
at
in
g
Em
ot
io
na
l
Ex
pe
ri
en
ce
s
Fi
rm
Pe
rf
or
m
an
ce
Pl
ea
su
re
Fr
om
C
E
Pr
oc
es
s
H
ol
le
be
ek
et
al
.
(2
01
4)
C
on
su
m
er
br
an
d
“i
nv
ol
ve
m
en
t”
ac
ts
as
a
C
BE
an
te
ce
de
nt
,c
on
su
m
er
“s
el
f-b
ra
nd
co
nn
ec
tio
n,
”
an
d
“b
ra
nd
us
ag
e
in
te
nt
”
re
pr
es
en
t
C
BE
co
ns
eq
ue
nc
es
.
3
3
H
ol
le
be
ek
et
al
.
(2
01
9)
D
ev
el
op
S-
D
lo
gi
c–
in
fo
rm
ed
pr
op
os
iti
on
s
of
C
E.
3
3
H
ol
le
be
ek
et
al
.
(2
02
2)
D
ed
uc
e
fi
ve
co
re
st
ak
eh
ol
de
r
en
ga
ge
m
en
t
(S
E)
te
ne
ts
,
fr
om
w
hi
ch
SE
is
co
nc
ep
tu
al
iz
ed
as
a
st
ak
eh
ol
de
r’
s
st
at
e-
ba
se
d,
bo
un
de
d
vo
lit
io
na
lr
es
ou
rc
e
en
do
w
m
en
t
in
ro
le
-r
el
at
ed
in
te
ra
ct
io
ns
,a
ct
iv
iti
es
,o
r
re
la
tio
ns
hi
ps
.
3
3
Ja
ak
ko
la
an
d
A
le
xa
nd
er
(2
01
4)
D
iff
er
en
tia
te
be
tw
ee
n
au
gm
en
tin
g,
co
-d
ev
el
op
in
g,
in
fl
ue
nc
in
g,
an
d
m
ob
ili
zi
ng
be
ha
vi
or
.
3
3
3
3
K
ar
pe
n
an
d
C
on
du
it
(2
02
0)
T
he
tr
ip
ar
tit
e
m
od
el
of
co
gn
iti
ve
,e
m
ot
io
na
l,
an
d
be
ha
vi
or
al
C
E
is
in
su
ffi
ci
en
t
to
un
de
rs
ta
nd
w
hy
cu
st
om
er
s
en
ga
ge
w
ith
bu
si
ne
ss
es
du
ri
ng
an
d
af
te
r
C
O
V
ID
-1
9.
3
3
3
3
K
um
ar
an
d
Pa
ns
ar
i
(2
01
6)
T
o
m
ax
im
iz
e
pr
ofi
t,
a
fi
rm
sh
ou
ld
st
ri
ve
to
be
hi
gh
in
C
E
as
w
el
la
s
em
pl
oy
ee
en
ga
ge
m
en
t.
3
3
3
3
K
um
ar
et
al
.
(2
01
0)
Pr
op
os
e
fo
ur
co
m
po
ne
nt
s
of
a
cu
st
om
er
’s
en
ga
ge
m
en
t
va
lu
e
(C
EV
)
w
ith
a
fi
rm
:l
ife
tim
e,
re
fe
rr
al
,i
nfl
ue
nc
er
,
an
d
kn
ow
le
dg
e
va
lu
e.
3
3
3
3
K
um
ar
et
al
.
(2
01
9)
Fi
rm
-r
el
at
ed
fa
ct
or
s
(i.
e.
,i
nt
er
ac
tio
n
or
ie
nt
at
io
n
an
d
O
m
ni
ch
an
ne
lm
od
el
)
de
te
rm
in
e
cu
st
om
er
s ’
se
rv
ic
e
ex
pe
ri
en
ce
,r
es
ul
tin
g
in
C
E.
O
ffe
ri
ng
-,
va
lu
e-
,e
na
bl
er
-,
an
d
m
ar
ke
t-
re
la
te
d
fa
ct
or
s
m
od
er
at
e
th
e
es
ta
bl
is
hm
en
t
of
C
E.
3
3
3
3
K
un
z
et
al
.
(2
01
7)
T
he
su
st
ai
na
bi
lit
y
of
da
ta
-d
ri
ve
n
C
E
re
qu
ir
es
a
dy
na
m
ic
an
d
ite
ra
tiv
e
va
lu
e
ge
ne
ra
tio
n
pr
oc
es
s
in
vo
lv
in
g
cu
st
om
er
s
re
co
gn
iz
in
g
th
e
va
lu
e
of
en
ga
ge
m
en
t
be
ha
vi
or
s
an
d
th
e
fi
rm
’s
ab
ili
ty
to
ca
pt
ur
e
an
d
pa
ss
th
e
va
lu
e
ba
ck
to
cu
st
om
er
s.
3
3
3
3
M
ei
re
et
al
.
(2
01
9)
Fo
r
un
fa
vo
ra
bl
e
ev
en
t
ou
tc
om
es
,i
nf
or
m
at
io
na
l
m
ar
ke
te
r-
ge
ne
ra
te
d
co
nt
en
t,
m
or
e
so
th
an
em
ot
io
na
l
co
nt
en
t,
ca
n
en
ha
nc
e
cu
st
om
er
se
nt
im
en
t.
3
3
3
3
3
M
en
id
je
le
t
al
.
(2
02
3)
C
E
m
ed
ia
te
s
th
e
re
la
tio
ns
hi
p
of
va
ri
et
y-
se
ek
in
g
an
d
se
rv
ic
e-
sw
itc
hi
ng
in
te
nt
io
ns
.
3
3
3
(c
on
tin
ue
d)
Barrett et al. 5
T
ab
le
1.
(c
on
tin
ue
d)
St
ud
y
K
ey
Fi
nd
in
gs
N
at
ur
e
of
En
ga
ge
m
en
t
C
us
to
m
er
D
ri
ve
rs
Fi
rm
D
ri
ve
rs
O
ut
co
m
es
St
ud
ie
s
H
ow
C
on
te
xt
A
ffe
ct
s
C
E
D
ri
ve
rs
or
O
ut
co
m
es
In
tr
in
si
c
M
ot
iv
at
io
n
C
us
to
m
er
Fe
at
ur
es
M
ar
ke
tin
g
In
iti
at
iv
es
St
im
ul
at
in
g
Em
ot
io
na
l
Ex
pe
ri
en
ce
s
Fi
rm
Pe
rf
or
m
an
ce
Pl
ea
su
re
Fr
om
C
E
Pr
oc
es
s
M
ic
he
le
t
al
.
(2
02
2)
Se
rv
ic
e
em
pl
oy
ee
s
m
us
tg
o
be
yo
nd
sa
tis
fa
ct
io
n
in
th
ei
r
w
or
k
to
m
ax
im
iz
e
C
E.
3
3
3
3
3
M
ol
in
er
et
al
.
(2
01
8)
D
es
pi
te
re
du
ce
d
di
re
ct
ph
ys
ic
al
co
nt
ac
t
w
ith
th
e
cu
st
om
er
,t
he
of
fl
in
e
ex
pe
ri
en
ce
co
nt
in
ue
s
to
ha
ve
ec
on
om
ic
im
pa
ct
.I
nv
es
tm
en
t
in
th
e
br
an
d
de
te
rm
in
es
cu
st
om
er
ad
vo
ca
cy
.
3
3
3
O
’B
ri
en
et
al
.
(2
01
5)
C
E
m
ed
ia
te
s
th
e
re
la
tio
ns
hi
p
be
tw
ee
n
C
SR
is
su
e
pr
ef
er
en
ce
an
d
lo
ya
lty
.
3
3
3
3
Pa
ns
ar
ia
nd
K
um
ar
(2
01
7)
C
E
em
er
ge
s
w
he
n
a
re
la
tio
ns
hi
p
is
sa
tis
fy
in
g
an
d
ha
s
em
ot
io
na
lc
on
ne
ct
ed
ne
ss
.
3
3
3
3
R
ob
ia
dy
et
al
.
(2
02
1)
St
or
yt
el
lin
g
te
ch
ni
qu
es
ha
ve
a
si
gn
ifi
ca
nt
po
si
tiv
e
ef
fe
ct
on
C
E
an
d
do
na
tio
ns
.
3
3
3
3
3
Si
ng
h
et
al
.
(2
02
1)
C
E
is
a
re
su
lt
of
ha
rm
on
io
us
,s
ea
m
le
ss
,a
nd
re
lia
bl
e
in
te
ra
ct
io
ns
th
ro
ug
ho
ut
th
e
cu
st
om
er
jo
ur
ne
y
by
hu
m
an
an
d
m
ac
hi
ne
ca
pa
bi
lit
ie
s.
3
3
3
3
So
et
al
.(
20
16
)
T
he
em
er
gi
ng
co
nc
ep
t
of
C
E
pl
ay
s
a
si
gn
ifi
ca
nt
ro
le
in
bu
ild
in
g
cu
st
om
er
-b
ra
nd
re
la
tio
ns
hi
p
qu
al
ity
an
d,
su
bs
eq
ue
nt
ly
,c
us
to
m
er
lo
ya
lty
to
w
ar
d
th
e
re
ta
il
br
an
d.
3
3
3
va
n
D
oo
rn
et
al
.(
20
10
)
C
EB
s
ar
e
dr
iv
en
by
cu
st
om
er
-b
as
ed
,fi
rm
-b
as
ed
,a
nd
co
nt
ex
t-
ba
se
d
an
te
ce
de
nt
s
an
d
ha
ve
co
ns
eq
ue
nc
es
fo
r
cu
st
om
er
s,
fi
rm
s,
an
d
so
ci
et
y.
3
3
3
3
3
3
V
er
le
ye
et
al
.
(2
01
4)
O
rg
an
iz
at
io
na
ls
up
po
rt
an
d
ov
er
al
ls
er
vi
ce
qu
al
ity
to
w
ar
d
si
gn
ifi
ca
nt
ot
he
rs
in
fl
ue
nc
e
fe
ed
ba
ck
an
d
po
si
tiv
e
W
O
M
be
ha
vi
or
s—
th
ro
ug
h
cu
st
om
er
af
fe
ct
to
w
ar
d
th
e
or
ga
ni
za
tio
n.
3
3
3
V
iv
ek
et
al
.
(2
01
2)
D
er
iv
e
te
n
pr
op
os
iti
on
s
co
nc
er
ni
ng
ho
w
th
e
pa
rt
ic
ip
at
io
n
an
d
in
vo
lv
em
en
t
of
cu
rr
en
t
or
po
te
nt
ia
l
cu
st
om
er
s
se
rv
e
as
an
te
ce
de
nt
s
of
C
E.
W
hi
le
,v
al
ue
,
tr
us
t,
af
fe
ct
iv
e
co
m
m
itm
en
t,
W
O
M
,l
oy
al
ty
,a
nd
br
an
d
co
m
m
un
ity
in
vo
lv
em
en
t
ar
e
po
te
nt
ia
lc
on
se
qu
en
ce
s.
3
3
3
3
Z
ha
ng
et
al
.
(2
01
8)
D
es
cr
ib
es
co
nd
iti
on
s
un
de
r
w
hi
ch
co
-c
re
at
io
n
vs
.c
o-
de
st
ru
ct
io
n
oc
cu
rs
.F
or
ex
am
pl
e,
co
-c
re
at
io
n
oc
cu
rs
w
he
n
cu
st
om
er
s
ar
e
de
lig
ht
ed
an
d
fe
el
va
lu
ed
an
d
co
-
de
st
ru
ct
io
n
em
er
ge
s
fr
om
ru
de
em
pl
oy
ee
s
an
d
a
la
ck
of
co
m
pl
ai
nt
ou
tle
ts
.
3
3
3
3
3
6 Journal of Service Research 0(0)
we re-analyzed the articles to report how often the key as-
sumptions appear in the corpus of literature (Table 1). Details on
the methodological approach, research setting, and specific
drivers and outcomes of CE per article can be found in Web
Appendix B. Next, we will discuss the identified key
assumptions.
Customer Drivers of Engagement
By customer drivers of CE, we refer to those factors contrib-
uting to the likelihood of a customer’s attitudinal, cognitive,
and/or behavioral CE that are not under the control of the firm.
These drivers include intrinsic motivations such as affective
commitment and enjoyment seeking as well as customer’s
individual features.
Our overview of the CE literature points to a variety of
factors that make it more or less likely that individuals engage.
Studies often imply that customers engage with a brand for its
inherent pleasure: existing research highlights fun and enjoy-
ment (Hollebeek & Macky, 2019), and satisfaction (Black,
Jeseo, and Vincent 2021) as important drivers of CE. Fur-
thermore, customers’ emotional and affectional attachment with
the brand or the firm has been found drive CE (Groeger,
Maroko, and Hollebeek 2016; Pansari and Kumar 2017; So
et al. 2016; van Doorn et al. 2010; Verleye, Gemmel, and
Rangarajan 2014). These drivers of CE imply a customer’s
intrinsic motivation to engage.
Next to intrinsic motivations, customer’s individual features
play a role in driving CE. Beyond social and psychological
motivators, each customer brings their own unique set of in-
dividual characteristics that can influence their level of CE. For
instance, Hollebeek et al. (2021) propose that individuals who
are promotion-focused rather than prevention-focused are more
likely to be engaged across platforms in times of service
lockdowns. Furthermore, Menidjel et al. (2023) found that
individuals who are less inclined toward seeking variety exhibit
higher rates of CE, which in turn reduces churn. The lack of
variety-seeking in this context acts as a stabilizing factor, an-
choring the customer to a specific brand or service, thereby
contributing to long-term loyalty and CE. Other individual
differences that are discussed in the literature include a cus-
tomer’s attachment style (Kunz et al., 2017), need for per-
sonalization (Henkens, Verleye, and Larivière 2021), and role-
readiness (Verleye, Gemmel, and Rangarajan 2014).
Combining these key customer drivers of CE, we conclude
that CE research assumes that CE is driven by customers’ in-
trinsic motivation and customer’s individual features.
Firm Drivers of Engagement
Firm drivers of CE refer to firm-controlled factors to trigger CE
(Alvarez-Mila´n et al., 2018; Fehrer et al., 2018; Harmeling
et al., 2017). Two key approaches are discussed in existing
research: incentivizing CE and triggering it through experiential
marketing activities. The literature on CE often describes firm
actions that directly trigger behavior in exchange for a reward.
For example, the firm may invite the customer to leave a review
in exchange for a discount on a future visit, which in turn leads
to CE. In the literature, incentive-based firm drivers of CE
typically relate to referral programs in which customers receive
rewards in exchange for positive word-of-mouth (WOM) and
references (Harmeling et al. 2017; Kumar et al. 2010).
Experiential marketing approaches focus on encouraging
customer interactions and emotional bonds with the firm
(Harmeling et al. 2017) and capturing the customers’ interest by
offering entertaining and fun content (Hollebeek & Macky,
2019). For example, Harwood and Garry (2015) demonstrate
how gamification on an online brand platform can trigger
positive CE. Robiady, Windasari, and Nita (2021) describe
how storytelling techniques can increase donations on an
online crowdsourcing platform. These experiential market-
ing approaches can take place online or offline. Meire et al.
(2019) find that social media postings by firms can enhance
customer sentiment and Singh et al. (2021) show how a con-
sistent use of voice across platforms can trigger CE. Further-
more, the performance of service employee workers can drive
CE if employees surpass customer expectations (Michel et al.
2022).
In sum, the existing CE research assumes that firms can
trigger CE by facilitating engagement behavior through in-
centives, or by stimulating customers’ emotional experiences
with the brand through experiential marketing initiatives.
Outcomes of Engagement
Outcomes of CE refer to the results or consequences of CE for
both the customer and the company. Outcomes can be imme-
diate, such as a sales, or long-term, such as sustained loyalty and
brand advocacy. CE research typically highlights relational
outcomes of CE. CE is assumed to have a central role in
building and sustaining customer-brand relationship quality (So
et al. 2016). For example, CE has been found to result in loyalty
(O’Brien, Jarvis, and Soutar 2015; Gong 2018), customer in-
volvement with the firm (Fehrer et al. 2018), trust (Vivek,
Beatty, and Morgan 2012), and self-brand connections
(Hollebeek, Glynn, and Brodie 2014).
Whereas the relational outcomes of CE indirectly drive
firm profit through repeat purchase behavior and brand
loyalty, other studies have investigated the direct effect of
CE on competitive advantage and subsequent firm perfor-
mance (Kumar et al. 2019; Kumar and Pansari 2016). A
meta-analysis by De Oliveira Santini et al. (2020) shows
that across almost 100 studies, the effect of CE in social
media on firm performance is substantial. However,
Beckers, van Doorn, and Verhoef (2018) provide empirical
evidence that firm-initiated CE activities, such as user-
generated content competitions, can also backfire, by re-
ducing market value. Therefore, the connection between CE
and firm financial performance remains ambivalent.
When reviewing the literature on CE outcomes, it becomes
evident that most literature positions the firm as the beneficiary
of CE and investigates CE outcomes relevant to the firm. While
Barrett et al. 7
the research exploring CE and value co-creation takes the
customer into account when discussing outcomes of CE, only a
few studies focus on customers as beneficiaries of their own CE
activities (Hollebeek 2013; Jaakkola and Alexander 2014) or
place customers’ well-being at the center (Henkens, Verleye,
and Larivière 2021). The studies that address customers as the
beneficiaries of CE emphasize the pleasurable experience of CE
in the moment of CE, rather than the long-term outcomes of CE.
Most CE research thus assumes that the CE benefits occur for
the customer during the service process (e.g., Brodie et al. 2011;
Harmeling et al. 2017; Jaakkola and Alexander 2014; Kumar
et al. 2010; Kumar and Pansari 2016).
In sum, the predominant insights to be drawn from existing
research is that CE leads to relational outcomes where the
customer and firm maintain a fulfilling, and loyal relationship; it
facilitates firm performance, and creates benefits for the cus-
tomers as pleasurable experiences during the process of
engagement.
The Role of Service Context in Customer Engagement
The context-specificity of engagement is well noted in core
engagement articles. For example, Brodie et al. (2011) define
CE as “a multidimensional concept subject to a context- and/or
stakeholder-specific expression of relevant cognitive, emo-
tional, and behavioral dimensions” (p. 260, emphasis added).
Nevertheless, the CE literature is predominantly set in hedonic
service contexts, such as tourism (Bergel, Frank, and Brock
2019), brands (Bowden 2009), and social media (Hollebeek,
Glynn, and Brodie 2014), with considerably fewer studies
examining utilitarian contexts, such as banking (Moliner,
Monferrer-Tirado, and Estrada-Guille´n 2018), public trans-
port (Jaakkola and Alexander 2014), or healthcare (Verleye,
Gemmel, and Rangarajan 2014). Some studies address both
service contexts, such as Calder, Malthouse, and Schaedel
(2009), who study advertising effectiveness on an online
news website, which can be used for utilitarian or hedonic
motives. While these studies demonstrate the significance of
engagement across various contexts, there have been limited
focused efforts to analyze how CE may differ between hedonic
and utilitarian service contexts.
Overall, the CE literature does not assess how the drivers or
outcomes of CE differ depending on whether the service context
is predominantly utilitarian or hedonic. Exceptions can be found
in the work by Hollebeek (2013), who used interviews and
focus groups to study how CE drives customer value for he-
donic and utilitarian brands, and the work by De Oliveira
Santini et al. (2020) who compare the return to CE for prod-
ucts with utilitarian versus hedonic value in a meta-analysis.
Whereas these studies provide initial insights into how the effect
of CE on customer value may differ for hedonic or utilitarian
consumption, they do not provide insights into how the hedonic
or utilitarian features of the service context affect the drivers and
outcomes of CE more broadly. Based on our literature review,
we argue that the extant research on CE can be meaningfully
expanded by explicitly considering the features of the service
context. Therefore, we propose including the service context as
a factor in our understanding of the drivers and outcomes of CE.
To qualify our distinction between hedonic and utilitarian
services, we derive and describe the features of hedonic and
utilitarian services in the next section.
Features of Hedonic Vs. Utilitarian
Service Contexts
Hedonic services reflect customers’ need for pleasure and fun,
and customers select them to look for pleasurable experiences
(Dhar and Wertenbroch 2000). The perceived value of the
service experience and the CE process are important for hedonic
services, while utilitarian services are outcome-oriented (Blinda
et al. 2019). These services are mainly instrumental or func-
tional in nature (Batra and Ahtola 1991) and are characterized
by low affective and emotional content and a short duration
(Jang and Namkung 2009). Research has shown that hedonic
and utilitarian services differ in service participation outcomes
(Blinda et al. 2019), illicit various affective responses (Calvo-
Porral and Otero-Prada 2021), and emphasize the importance of
emotions to different degrees (Wang and Jiang 2019). There-
fore, managers and service providers need to understand how to
trigger CE with utilitarian services and potentially design, in-
centivize, or promote hedonic and utilitarian services differently
to maximize CE.
Complementing the general distinction between utilitarian
vs. hedonic service contexts, which refers to the extent to which
a service is generally deemed utilitarian or hedonic, we dis-
tinguish the predominant features associated with hedonic and
utilitarian service contexts. The literature acknowledges that
hedonism and utilitarianism are not mutually exclusive, as
services can be high in both hedonic and utilitarian features
(Huber, Eisele, and Meyer 2018), and customer perceptions
may depend on their consumption goals (Ding and Keh 2016).
However, there are predominant features associated with ser-
vices and products that are generally deemed hedonic or
utilitarian.
Based on our review of the marketing and services lit-
erature2, we derive five main distinguishing features between
hedonic and utilitarian service contexts (Table 2). First,
utilitarian, and hedonic service contexts differ in their levels
of affectivity. Utilitarian service contexts are more cognition-
based, as they often lack emotional and affective content
(Fehrer et al. 2018), and are characterized by rational and
deliberate rather than affective processing (Kronrod and
Danziger 2013; Li et al. 2020). In contrast, hedonic ser-
vice contexts are described as emotion-rich (Ponsignon 2023)
and provide affective, rather than informational, benefits
(Babin, Darden, and Griffin 1994; Voss, Spangenberg, and
Grohmann 2003).
Second, utilitarian and hedonic service contexts can be
distinguished by their motivational focus. Utilitarian service
contexts are characterized by instrumentality, whereby the
service is deemed useful to the achievement of a goal. In
8 Journal of Service Research 0(0)
utilitarian services, value is derived from task completion
(Fehrer et al. 2018) rather than from the service experience,
which is characteristic of hedonic service contexts.
The third distinguishing feature is the perception of necessity.
Hedonic services are often considered frivolous, decadent, and
unnecessary (Botti andMcGill 2011; Choi et al. 2014; Khan and
Dhar 2010; Okada 2005). In contrast, utilitarian services are
pursued out of necessity rather than desire (Choi et al. 2014;
Fehrer et al. 2018). The perception of necessity makes CE with
utilitarian services easy to justify (Botti and McGill 2011), but it
also makes it seen as work (Babin, Darden, and Griffin 1994).
Fourth, utilitarian and hedonic service contexts differ in
terms of the role of risk. In utilitarian service contexts, cus-
tomers are generally more prevention-oriented, as they engage
seeking to avoid negative emotional outcomes (Higgins 1998;
Ponsignon 2023). In contrast, in hedonic service contexts,
customers are promotion-oriented, as they seek out positive,
exciting, and thrilling emotional outcomes (Higgins 1998;
Longoni and Cian 2022; Ponsignon 2023).
Finally, the relational focus is a defining feature of a service
context. Utilitarian service contexts are associated with a more
dependence-based relational focus characterized by information
asymmetry and power imbalance (Fehrer et al. 2018). This
sense of dependence can be associated with distrust and feelings
of vulnerability (Fehrer et al. 2018). In hedonic service contexts,
the relational focus is characterized by sharing, interactivity,
mutuality, and reciprocity (Fehrer et al. 2018; Moliner,
Monferrer-Tirado, and Estrada-Guille´n 2018).
We thus conceptualize the hedonic-utilitarian context as a
continuum, and argue that service contexts vary along these five
distinguishing features. In the next section, we combine insights
from the CE literature with the derived service context features
to develop propositions concerning how the service context may
affect the drivers and outcomes of CE. We derive propositions
for each element of our conceptual framework and complement
these with illustrative examples that highlight the various
features of hedonic and utilitarian service contexts and their
possible effects on CE.
Understanding the Role of Service Context
for Augmenting Engagement Research
Our analyses of the literature on CE and hedonic and utilitarian
services lead to a range of observations. On the one hand,
service and marketing research offers a picture of the relevant
customer and firm drivers and the outcomes of CE (see Table 1).
On the other hand, the service and marketing literature describes
how hedonic and utilitarian services can be defined and how
they fundamentally differ on a range of features (see Table 2).
There is currently no understanding of how the features of a
service context, such as their affectivity, motive, perception of
necessity, risk, and relational focus, affect how CE unfolds.
Below, we integrate the assumptions held in CE research
with features of utilitarian and hedonic service contexts. The
details are captured in Table 3 in which we first note the current
assumption in the CE literature, which results from our lit-
erature review of the extant CE literature (Table 1 and Web
Appendix 2). We then synthesize how the assumptions of CE
might vary between hedonic and utilitarian services, based on
the unique features of hedonic and utilitarian service contexts.
To derive propositions on the drivers and outcomes of CE we
combine insights from theory and practice. Specifically, we
contrast the current assumptions and the features of hedonic
and utilitarian service contexts with theory on motivation,
social relationships, and the evaluation of gains and losses
(Blau, 1964; Reeve, 2012; Tversky & Kahneman, 1992). We
support insights from the literature with illustrative examples
from a variety of utilitarian service contexts such as health,
utilities, or financial services, to develop exemplary propo-
sitions on the role of the service context in understanding the
drivers and outcomes of CE.
Customer Drivers of CE
Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation can be distinguished
as two key reasons that drive us to action (Deci and Ryan 1985).
Intrinsic motivation can be defined as doing something due to its
inherent enjoyable or interesting nature, whereas extrinsic moti-
vation can be defined as doing something as it leads to a separable
outcome (Ryan and Deci 2000). In marketing and service research,
it is assumed that customers have an intrinsic motivation to engage
because it is fun, leisurely, and enables self-expression (e.g., Brodie
et al., 2011; Hollebeek & Macky, 2019; Vivek et al., 2012).
However, the relevance of the customer drivers of CE may differ
across service contexts. In utilitarian service contexts, the moti-
vation to engagemay bemore strongly driven by perceptions of the
necessity of the service than by intrinsic motivation as customers
have a weaker tendency to naturally develop relationships with
utilitarian offerings (Barari et al., 2021). Furthermore, as customers
in utilitarian service contexts are more prevention—than
promotion—orientated, their CE is predominantly driven by ex-
ternal motivations such as the avoidance of negative outcomes,
rather than the intrinsic motivation to have exciting service ex-
periences (Ponsignon 2023). The lack of affective content and non-
experiential and goal-oriented features of the service context may
further dampen the internal motivation to engage (Hollebeek
2013).
The reduced importance of intrinsic motivation as a driver
of CE in service settings with utilitarian features is supported
by self-determination theory, which is often applied in the
student engagement context. The theory posits that in the
presence of external regulation, the personal value of behavior
is low (Reeve 2012). The implication for CE is that when a
service is deemed necessary, this perception may crowd out the
internal motivation to engage. Thus, external events, rather
than intrinsic motivation may drive CE. Consider, for example,
life events such as divorce or inheritance that may spur a strong
interest in financial services and thus become relevant drivers
of CE (Blakstad, Brüggen, and Post 2017). In sum, we
propose:
Barrett et al. 9
P1: A greater level of utilitarian [hedonic] service features
decreases [increases] the importance of intrinsic motivation as
a customer driver of CE.
We further argue that the relationship between customer-related
drivers of CE and the unfolding of CE is affected by the features of
the service context. The CE literature implicitly assumes that if
there is a willingness to engage, CE will unfold (e.g., Brodie et al.,
2011; Hollebeek et al., 2021; Hollebeek &Macky, 2019; Menidjel
et al., 2023; Vivek et al., 2012). However, the relationship between
customer drivers and CE may be amplified or weakened in
Table 2. Features of Utilitarian vs. Hedonic Service Contexts.
Feature Hedonic Contexts Utilitarian Contexts References
Affectivity Emotion driven
• Emotion-rich
• Emotional in nature
• Affective
• Heuristic-driven information
processing
• Focused on fun, pleasure, and joy
• Affective benefits
• Value depends on internal,
subjective, and discretionary
standards
• Delightful
Cognition driven
• Lack of emotional/affective
content
• Rational
• Deliberate
• Deep and attribute-specific
information processing
• Motive for information/
learning
• Value depends on external,
objective, and mandatory
standards
• Non-engaging
Babin et al., 1994; Blinda et al., 2019; Botti & McGill,
2011; Calder et al., 2009; Chan, 2015; Chitturi
et al., 2008; Choi et al., 2014; Dhar &
Wertenbroch, 2000; Fehrer et al., 2018; Henkens
et al., 2021; Hollebeek, 2011, 2013; Hollebeek &
Macky, 2019; Khan & Dhar, 2010; Kronrod &
Danziger, 2013; Li et al., 2020; Longoni & Cian,
2022; Mark et al., 2014; Ponsignon, 2023; Voss
et al., 2003
Motivational
focus
Experience oriented
• Experience-and process-oriented
• Experience is intrinsically
rewarding
• Assessed the degree to which a
product is rewarding in itself
• What customers feel during the
journey they go through is the
core of the offering
• Gratification derived from
immediate hedonic pleasure
• Sensory and experiential pleasures
• Enables customers to unwind and
escape
• Entertainment value
Instrumental to the
achievement of a goal
• Functional
• Task-oriented
• Goal-oriented
• Practical
• Useful
• Problem solving
• Helpful
• Non-experiential
• Assessed the degree to
which a product is the
means to an end
• Value derived from task
completion
Babin et al., 1994; Blinda et al., 2019; Botti & McGill,
2011; Calder et al., 2009; Chitturi et al., 2008;
Choi et al., 2014; Dhar & Wertenbroch, 2000;
Fehrer et al., 2018; Harwood & Garry, 2015;
Hollebeek, 2013; Khan & Dhar, 2010; Li et al.,
2020; Longoni & Cian, 2022; Mark et al., 2014;
Moliner et al., 2018; Okada, 2005; Ponsignon,
2023; Voss et al., 2003
Perception of
necessity
Unnecessary
• Often labeled as frivolous or
decadent
• Thought of as discretionary
• Requires more justification
• Elicits guilt
• Want
• Not seen as “work”
Necessary
• Pursued out of necessity,
not always desired
• Seen as “work”
• Easy to justify
• Deemed sensible
• Should
Babin, Darden, and Griffin (1994); Botti and McGill
(2011); Choi et al. (2014); Dhar andWertenbroch
(2000); Fehrer et al. (2018); Khan and Dhar
(2010); Okada (2005); Ponsignon (2023); Voss,
Spangenberg, and Grohmann (2003)
Role of risk Promotion-oriented
• Seek out positive emotional
outcomes
• Customers seek excitement and
surprise
• Customers seek thrill
Prevention-oriented
• Avoid negative emotional
outcomes
• Customers seek confidence
• Customers seek security
Blinda et al. (2019); Calder, Malthouse, and Schaedel
(2009); Chitturi, Raghunathan, and Mahajan
(2008); Dhar and Wertenbroch (2000); Fehrer
et al. (2018); Li et al. (2020); Longoni and Cian
(2022); Ponsignon (2023); Voss, Spangenberg, and
Grohmann (2003)
Relational focus Community-based
• High-contact interactions
• Participative
• Trust and interdependence among
members
• Relationships encompass trust,
mutuality, and reciprocity
• Emotional and relational elements
Dependence-based
• Imbalance of power due to
lack of transparency
• Distrust and feelings of
vulnerability
• Transactional motives
• Information asymmetry
• Customers unwillingly
dependent
Fehrer et al. (2018); Moliner, Monferrer-Tirado, and
Estrada-Guille´n (2018)
10 Journal of Service Research 0(0)
cognition-driven utilitarian service contexts that require knowledge
and skills (cf. Hollebeek & Macky, 2019).
Utilitarian service contexts often require deep and specific
information processing (Li et al. 2020). Furthermore, the rela-
tionship with the service provider is characterized by a lack of
transparency and information asymmetry (Fehrer et al. 2018).
These features contribute to the importance of knowledge and
skills as a barrier to CE. For example, customers may be motivated
to engage with a financial service provider, such as an investment
broker, when they see advertisements that highlight the benefits of
investing. However, the mere presence of an internal motivation to
engage may not lead to actual CE if the customer has insufficient
skills or knowledge to do so. CE in utilitarian service contexts may
be more a matter of controlled motivation in which cognitive
factors (i.e., financial knowledge or skill such as identifying rel-
evant information or suitable help and advice) are important
(Eberhardt et al., 2022; Eberhardt et al., 2021).
According to social exchange theory, relationships are
established and continued if the benefits of the relationship
outweigh the costs (Blau 1964). The level of knowledge and
skill that is required for CE in service contexts with utilitarian
features increases the costs of engaging. Indeed, research in
financial services has shown that individual differences in
knowledge and skills may be barriers to CE with service
providers (Lim et al., 2014; Lusardi & Mitchell, 2014;
Eberhardt et al., 2021). If individuals do not believe that they
have the knowledge and skills to manage their finances and
accomplish their financial goals, they are less likely to engage
with investment and savings products (Farrell et al., 2016).
Thus, we propose:
P2: A greater level of utilitarian [hedonic] service features
increases [reduces] the relevance of customer knowledge and
skills for the unfolding of CE.
Firm Drivers of Engagement
The CE literature assumes that firms can trigger CE by inviting
customers to participate and incentivizing behaviors, such as
WOM. The strategies for increasing CE discussed in the CE
literature assume a relationship between the firm and the
customer and some baseline willingness to engage (Brodie
et al., 2019; Harmeling et al., 2017; Hollebeek et al., 2019).
However, in more utilitarian service contexts, customers may
lack any pre-existing relational attachment or interest toward
the firm, affecting the relevance of specific firm initiatives to
trigger CE (Fehrer et al. 2018). In hedonic service contexts,
triggering CE by inviting customers to participate or perform
specific actions is assumed feasible (Harmeling et al. 2017;
Kumar et al. 2010), but in utilitarian service contexts this may
not be sufficient as the core offering is often (or generally) non-
engaging. Instead, in utilitarian service contexts, the motive
for information and learning is more relevant (Hollebeek &
Macky, 2019). The relevance of specific firm-initiated drivers
of CE may thus depend on the presence of utilitarian features
in a service context.
For instance, the relational focus of a service context may affect
the nature of initiatives that are relevant triggers of CE. Consider
primary healthcare, where a customer is a patient treated by a
medical professional. In this dependence-based service context
characterized by information and power asymmetry, asking for
referrals or WOM in exchange for incentives may seem ill-fitting
and may reduce the patient’s engagement. According to basic
psychological needs theory, individuals require a sense of au-
tonomy to engage (Reeve 2012), thus inviting customers to par-
ticipatemay not trigger CE in service contexts where customers are
unwillingly dependent on the service provider.
Rather, the provision of practical information may drive CE
(Verleye, Gemmel, and Rangarajan 2014). Indeed, research on
retirement planning—a service context characterized by a
dependence-based relationship and low affectivity—shows that
education is a relevant approach to trigger CE. This research has
shown that the provision of information (Clark et al. 2019), the
level of detail in income projections (Goda Gopi et al., 2014),
information fairs (Duflo and Saez 2003), and online education
courses (Collins and Urban 2016) can be used to trigger CE.
This leads us to propose:
P3: A greater level of utilitarian [hedonic] service features
increases [decreases] the importance of information provision
as a firm driver of CE.
Furthermore, existing CE research tends to assume that fun
and experiential benefits-based marketing initiatives trigger CE
(e.g., Alvarez-Mila´n et al., 2018; Hollebeek, 2013; Hollebeek
et al., 2014). However, we argue that in utilitarian service
contexts, such experiential marketing initiatives may be less
effective as customers focus less on the experience and more on
the outcomes of CE (Hollebeek 2013). In these service contexts,
customers seek out confidence and security rather than thrill and
excitement (Chitturi, Raghunathan, and Mahajan 2008; Voss,
Spangenberg, and Grohmann 2003). Furthermore, fun, and ex-
periential marketing initiatives do not match the perception of the
service as a necessity (Voss, Spangenberg, and Grohmann 2003).
For example, visiting the dentist is generally deemed a necessity
rather than an enjoyable service interaction. It is possible that the
mismatch between the features of the utilitarian service context and
hedonic marketing campaigns may have positive effects on CE. If
firms provide emotional, fun stimuli to trigger CE in such a
context, this may impact CEmore than in hedonic service contexts
where customers already expect it.
However, when a customer engages with a service to achieve
a specific task or goal, as is typical in utilitarian service contexts
(Blinda et al. 2019; Dhar and Wertenbroch 2000), non-
instrumental firm initiatives for CE that do not directly aid
the customer in achieving their goals may also lead to negative
sentiment. The literature on goal setting shows that individuals
who have an active goal, have a stronger liking for those that can
aid them in the achievement of this goal (Fitzsimons and Shah
2008). Extending this to the service context, we expect positive
sentiment as a reaction to firm initiatives that aid in goal
achievement and negative sentiment as a reaction to initiatives
that are not directly aiding in the achievement of a goal. A
Barrett et al. 11
Table 3. Assumptions in Customer Engagement Literature and Their Validity Across Hedonic vs Utilitarian Service Contexts.
Assumption on CE CE in Hedonic Service Contexts CE in Utilitarian Service Contexts Proposition
Customer drivers of CE
Customers are intrinsically
motivated to engage
because it is fun,
leisurely, and enables
self-expression.
• Affectivity: Intrinsic motivation is
high as service provides affective
benefits and is considered delightful.
• Affectivity: Intrinsic motivation is
low as service is non-engaging and
lacks affective content.
P1: A greater level of utilitarian
[hedonic] service features
decreases [increases] the
importance of intrinsic motivation
as a customer driver of CE.
• Motivational focus: The intrinsic
motivation to engage is fostered by
the service experience, which is
intrinsically rewarding and provides
entertainment value.
• Motivational focus: The intrinsic
motivation to engage is dampened
by the service experience, which is
non-experiential and goal-
oriented.
• Perception of necessity: Intrinsic
motivation is required to justify
engaging in frivolous services that
could elicit guilt.
• Perception of necessity: Intrinsic
motivation is not required as
service is deemed sensible, and CE
is easy to justify.
• Role of risk: CE with service is
predominantly driven by intrinsic
motivation to have exciting and
thrilling experiences.
• Role of risk: CE with service is
predominantly driven by external
motivations such as the avoidance
of negative outcomes.
CE is driven by customer
features such as variety-
seeking. If a customer is
willing to engage, CE will
unfold.
• Affectivity: Knowledge is not a
precondition for CE as the service is
associated with heuristic-driven
information processing.
• Affectivity: Knowledge can be a
barrier between customer
motivations and CE as the service
is associated with deep and
attribute-specific information
processing.
P2: A greater level of utilitarian
[hedonic] service features increases
[reduces] the relevance of
customer knowledge and skills for
the unfolding of CE.
• Relational focus: Emotional and
relational elements are important
drivers of CE as service is
participative.
• Relational focus: A lack of
knowledge can be a barrier to the
unfolding of CE, as relationships
are imbalanced due to a lack of
transparency, distrust, and
information asymmetry.
Firm drivers of CE
CE can be triggered by
incentivizing behaviors,
and inviting customers
to participate.
• Affectivity: Firms can stimulate CE
merely by asking for it, as customers
enjoy the affective, emotion-rich,
and joy-focused core of the offering.
• Affectivity: Asking for specific
behavior may not be sufficient to
stimulate CE, as the core of the
offering is non-engaging and lacks
emotional and affective content.
P3: A greater level of utilitarian
[hedonic] service features increases
[decreases] the importance of
information provision as a firm
driver of CE.
• Relational focus: Firms can invite
customers to participate as the
relationship is characterized by
trust and reciprocity.
• Relational focus: Inviting
customers to participate may not
trigger CE in service contexts
where customers are unwillingly
dependent on the service
provider.
Fun and experiential
benefit-based marketing
initiatives trigger CE.
• Role of risk: Stimulating emotional
experiences triggers CE in service
contexts where customers seek out
positive emotional experiences
such as thrill and excitement.
• Role of risk: Stimulating emotional
experiences may not trigger CE in
service contexts where customers
seek confidence and security.
P4: A greater level of utilitarian
[hedonic] service features weakens
[strengthens] the relationship
between non-instrumental firm
initiatives and the unfolding of CE.
• Motivational focus: Fun and
experiential marketing initiatives
are of large importance as
customers focus on the
entertainment value and sensory
and experiential pleasures of the
service experience.
• Motivational focus: Fun and
experiential marketing initiatives
are less relevant as customers
focus less on the experience and
more on the outcomes of CE with
service.
• Perception of necessity: Fun and
experiential marketing initiatives
match the perception of the service
as discretionary/“not work”.
• Perception of necessity: Fun and
experiential marketing initiatives
do not match the perception of
the service as necessary/“work”.
(continued)
12 Journal of Service Research 0(0)
campaign that is fun as well as useful, such as the inclusion of
gamification elements to simplify tax returns, may positively
affect CE. In contrast, fun-based CE initiatives that are not
directly instrumental to the achievement of customer goals may
be ineffective. For example, if a service provider, such as a
pension fund, develops an extensive social media campaign,
this may create negative sentiment if customers become frus-
trated that the service provider is spending means on marketing
activities rather than on the customer goal of having sufficient
retirement income. Therefore, we argue the following:
P4: A greater level of utilitarian [hedonic] service features
weakens [strengthens] the relationship between non-
instrumental firm initiatives and the unfolding of CE.
Outcomes of Engagement
CE research primarily investigates how companies benefit from
CE, revealing that CE drives firm performance (e.g., Heller et al.
2021; Kumar et al. 2010; van Doorn et al. 2010). According to
existing literature, this happens though the positive impact that
CE with hedonic services has on firm-customer relationships,
indicated by outcomes such as customers’ affective commit-
ment, loyalty, self-brand connections, and WOM intentions
(e.g., Calder, Malthouse, and Schaedel 2009; Vivek, Beatty, and
Morgan 2012). However, such indicators may not sufficiently
capture the outcomes of CE in utilitarian contexts. For example,
a customer’s increased and prolonged contact with the customer
support personnel of a public service, such as the tax registration
office or public health center, may be costly for the service
provider but may simultaneously increase customer well-being.
This sentiment is supported by the findings of a meta-analysis
conducted by De Oliveira Santini et al. (2020), which indicates
that the impact of CE on firm commercial performance is nearly
three times stronger for hedonic compared to utilitarian prod-
ucts. However, we argue that in utilitarian contexts, CE is likely
to support service providers’ performance indirectly, in mea-
sures focused on customer well-being such as the speed of
patient recovery or accuracy of tax reports.
While hedonic consumption contributes to customer well-being
through creating happiness (e.g., Zhong and Mitchell 2010), an
important dimension of well-being, utilitarian services often fulfill
fundamental physical and economic needs, which are key pre-
dictors of various well-being outcomes (see Ryan and Deci 2001).
Therefore, engagement with utilitarian services is likely to enhance
more fundamental aspects of wellbeing. For instance, CE with a
financial planning services can improve financial well-being that is
a significant predictor of overall well-being (Netemeyer et al.
2018). Conversely, a lack of CE may reduce one’s capacity to
fulfill financial needs. According to the prospect theory (Tversky&
Kahneman, 1992), losses loom larger than gains. As utilitarian
services are prevention-oriented in nature, in this context the
Table 3. (continued)
Assumption on CE CE in Hedonic Service Contexts CE in Utilitarian Service Contexts Proposition
Outcomes of CE
CE results in financial firm
benefits.
• Motivational focus: CE leads to
gratification from immediate
hedonic pleasure, rather than long-
term goal achievement.
• Motivational focus: Various
fundamental aspects of customer
well-being increase through CE
with service as service is
instrumental to the achievement
of a goal.
P5: A greater level of utilitarian
[hedonic] service features increases
[decreases] the importance of
fundamental [discretionary]
aspects of customer well-being as
an outcome of CE.
• Role of risk: Customers seek thrill
and excitement from service. A lack
of CE may not strongly affect the
well-being of customers, as thrill
and excitement are not fundamental
needs.
• Role of risk: Customers seek to
avoid negative outcomes. A lack of
CE may lead to a reduction in well-
being for the customer, as it can
lead to deprivation of fundamental
needs.
Customers benefit from
pleasurable experience
during the CE process.
• Affectivity: Fun, pleasurable,
delightful, and joyous nature of
service are associated with
immediate pleasure as a result of
CE.
• Affectivity: Non-engaging, rational
nature of service is associated with
lack of immediate pleasure as an
immediate result of CE.
P6: A greater level of utilitarian
[hedonic] service features increases
[decreases] the time between CE
and the emergence of positive
customer outcomes.
• Motivational focus: CE leads to
gratification from immediate
hedonic pleasure, rather than long-
term goal achievement.
• Motivational focus: Benefits occur
mostly after the service since they
are related to the outcomes rather
than the process of CE.
• Perception of necessity: Benefits
occur during the service as the
service is deemed discretionary and
is pursued out of a sense of want,
which directly provides positive
emotional outcomes.
• Perception of necessity: Benefits
are delayed as customers deemCE
with the service a necessity and
see it as work.
Barrett et al. 13
negative impact of losses related to fundamental needs is probably
more significant than the positive impact on well-being from
experiencing pleasure.
Furthermore, in utilitarian service contexts, customers have a
goal-oriented motivational focus. The achievement of goals
increases psychological well-being according to the basic
psychological needs theory (Reeve 2012). Whereas CE with
hedonic services can increase customer well-being through
positive experiences, the thrill and excitement that are associ-
ated with these service contexts tend to serve discretionary
rather than fundamental needs. In contrast, CE with utilitarian
services such as healthcare or financial services has a more
instrumental role in the achievement of fundamental needs such
as health and financial resources. This leads us to propose:
P5: A greater level of utilitarian [hedonic] service features
increases [decreases] the importance of fundamental [discre-
tionary] aspects of customer well-being as an outcome of CE.
Our analysis of the literature further reveals that in CE
research, it is generally assumed that CE benefits occur during
the service process as customers enjoy pleasurable experiences
with the firm or the brand (e.g., Brodie et al. 2011; Harmeling
et al. 2017; Jaakkola and Alexander 2014; Kumar et al. 2010;
Kumar and Pansari 2016). The generalizability of this as-
sumption can be challenged by applying it to service contexts
with utilitarian features, such as retirement planning, pre-
ventive healthcare, and fitness. In such outcome-oriented
service contexts, the benefits from CE may be less immedi-
ate and may require engagement over longer time span. For
example, engagement with exercise and healthy food over
prolonged periods of time is needed to reduce the risk of illness
in the future. The benefits of CE in utilitarian service contexts
thus often occur after the service since they are related to the
outcomes rather than the process of CE (Choi et al. 2014).
Cognitive evaluation theory explains that rewards are an
important driver of motivation and positive affect (Reeve
2012). In service contexts characterized by instrumentality,
customers may not derive immediate rewards from engaging,
but the benefits play out over a longer time interval. In contrast
to hedonic service contexts, that are inherently enjoyable and
bring immediate reward, the occurrence of affect-inducing
reward is postponed in utilitarian service contexts. In sum,
we propose:
P6: A greater level of utilitarian [hedonic] service features
increases [decreases] the time between CE and the emergence
of positive customer outcomes.
Conclusions and Implications
This study provides a synthesis of extant assumptions on the
drivers and outcomes of CE and contrasts them against the
hedonic and utilitarian consumption literature. Our analysis
reveals that certain taken-for-granted assumptions in the CE
literature do not necessarily hold across service contexts.
Specifically, we identify key differences in the customer and
firm drivers, and outcomes of CE, concluding that the CE
literature can benefit from critically reviewing the implicit
assumptions underlying the existing literature.
In line with theory adaptation (Jaakkola 2020), we inform the
existing CE theory by contrasting it with research on utilitarian
and hedonic consumption, which provides new insights into the
features on which utilitarian and hedonic service contexts differ.
This approach allows us to critically examine the scope of CE
theory without compromising the existing knowledge and
definitions in this field. This paper’s primary contribution and
pursued impact consists of a roadmap for expanding the scope
of CE research.
Agenda for Future Research
Based on our analyses, we develop a research agenda intended
to inspire future CE research across service contexts. The ex-
emplary research questions in Figure 1 highlight issues that
should be addressed to develop a broader and more holistic view
of CE. To increase CE, the core features that characterize a
specific service context should be identified; they may require a
different research strategy as well as a different firm strategy
regarding CE. The outlined research questions provide initial
guidance for the explicit consideration of service context in
studying CE.
The features of hedonic and utilitarian service contexts that
we describe are a fruitful starting point for future research. For
example, studying the impact of the motivational and relational
focus of a specific service context in more depth allows us to
further nuance the impact of the features of a service context on
CE. Studying which features of a service context explain
variance in baseline levels of CE is another worthwhile avenue
for future research. Research could address whether combi-
nations of specific service context features can amplify or at-
tenuate the effect of each feature on CE. In addition, empirical
investigations into barriers to CE would be of great relevance
for better understanding the extent to which firms can leverage
CE initiatives, depending on the features of a service context.
For instance, it is possible that in cognition-driven service
contexts, the effectiveness of CE initiatives is contingent on
customer skills and knowledge. Furthermore, the complexity of
the network of stakeholders in a service context may be a barrier
to CE. In some service contexts, multiple stakeholders may be
involved in stimulating CE, which may diffuse the sense of
responsibility that each individual stakeholder feels. Future
research could thus take a network-based approach to better
understand how the interplay of stakeholders in CE differs
across service contexts.
The features of a service context may also affect the ef-
fectiveness of firm initiatives to trigger CE if these features
impact the relationship between hedonic CE triggers and
positive CE outcomes. Future research could address whether
the firm’s returns on additional CE activities are diminishing or
may even backfire at a certain point in more instrumental service
contexts. Studying how features of the service context affect and
how and when CE initiatives may result in customer rage or
revenge, may provide valuable guidance in the design of
14 Journal of Service Research 0(0)
effective CE campaigns. Finally, the role of customer well-
being can be explicitly considered in future research. We en-
courage research to address the potential harm of CE for
customers CE dispositions, for example by comparing the harm
for non-engaged customers to over-engaged customers across
service contexts.
Theoretical Contributions
First, this article makes the current premises of CE research
visible and problematizes some of these extant assumptions.
While many studies have analyzed the evolution and state-of-
the-art of CE research, few if any, previous studies have con-
densed or challenged its predominant assumptions. Through
this analysis, the study not only takes stock of but also revises
existing knowledge by “reconfiguring or taking a novel per-
spective on something that has already been identified”
(MacInnis 2011, 143). This is an important step in advancing
research on CE. This study thus opens up a new area of study for
CE, aided by a future research agenda that highlights questions
that need to be addressed to expand the boundaries of CE
research.
Second, this study highlights the importance of context in
affecting the nomological network of CE, demonstrating that
the current assumptions regarding CE may not be generalizable
across contexts. Our study considers a rich set of service context
features commonly associated with utilitarian and hedonic
services, thus providing a nuanced view of how context affects
CE. Our analysis allowed us to pinpoint differences in the
nomological network of the CE concept within hedonic versus
utilitarian contexts, condensed into six propositions that should
inspire future empirical studies. This contributes to CE research
that has seldom addressed the issue of context, although more
research addressing the contextual contingencies of engagement
has been called for (Brodie et al. 2011).
Third, we shift the applicability domain of CE research by
arguing how the concept of CE can be studied and applied more
broadly. In utilitarian service contexts, a lack of CE can have
detrimental consequences on customer well-being (Mackenbach,
Meerding, and Kunst 2011; Munnell, Hou, and Webb 2015).
Whereas the CE literature has predominantly focused on how CE
creates firm value and other firm-focused outcomes, we illuminate
how customers can benefit from CE in service contexts with
utilitarian features. Importantly, our research indicates that the
current understanding of firms’ means of fostering CE may not
hold true in utilitarian contexts. New research is needed to adapt
current CE frameworks to enable contributions to customer well-
being by fostering CE in utilitarian contexts. The expansion of CE
literature to utilitarian contexts would also build bridges toward
transformative service research (Anderson and Ostrom 2015;
Boenigk et al. 2021), where customer well-being is a key interest.
Practical Implications
While further research is needed to fully understand the firm
drivers and outcomes of CE, our analysis already provides
directly applicable insights for service providers in both utili-
tarian and hedonic service contexts. Utilitarian service pro-
viders, such as healthcare providers, utility providers, and
financial institutes aiming to improve CE should not simply
accept the guidance of current CE studies and managerial
books. Utilitarian service providers should critically consider
Figure 1. Exemplary research questions for augmenting customer engagement research.
Barrett et al. 15
whether the empirically tested strategies for increasing CE in
hedonic contexts can be generalized to their specific service
contexts. This critical examination does not mean that utilitarian
service providers cannot learn and take inspiration from CE
research. Instead, utilitarian service providers may consider
whether, in their specific service contexts, there are strategies
that could make their customers enjoy the process of CE rather
than only the outcomes. Yet, it remains essential to carefully
consider the context in which CE is facilitated, and knowledge
should be generated about whether and how firm drivers of CE
from hedonic contexts work in utilitarian contexts.
Hedonic service providers can also derive new insights from
our analyses. Our literature analysis shows that in hedonic service
research, there is a focus on firm outcomes rather than customer
outcomes. If hedonic service providers pay additional attention to
customer outcomes, they may gain a competitive advantage. For
example, firms may want to explore how their services increase
customer well-being. Regarding customer drivers of CE, it may be
worthwhile to consider how customer skills affect CEwith hedonic
services. In utilitarian service contexts, it is often clear that cus-
tomers need specific skills (e.g., numeracy) to engage with a
service, and firms target this lack of skill to increase CE (e.g.,
through information provision or education). In hedonic service
contexts, the skills needed to engage may be less salient. However,
it may be worthwhile to explore how a lack of ability, knowledge,
or efficacy in skills, such as using mobile applications, acts as a
barrier to CE. Hedonic service providers may take inspiration from
research on CEwith utilitarian services to understand how to reach
unengaged customers. It is possible that approaches to trigger CE
commonly used in utilitarian contexts, such as providing infor-
mation, may be more appropriate for engaging specific customer
segments that have remained unresponsive to hedonic appeals.
We show that the context in which CE takes place is important
and should be studiedmore broadly.Moving beyond the dichotomy
between utilitarian and hedonic service contexts, practitioners
should map customer perceptions of affectivity, motivational focus,
perceptions of necessity, the role of risk, and relational focus. This
nuanced approach enables practitioners to identify barriers and
opportunities to foster CE in their service context.
Limitations
To challenge the existing assumptions in CE research, we
differentiate between utilitarian and hedonic service contexts.
However, in practice, this distinction may not be mutually
exclusive and may be more nuanced. For example, a hedonic
service context, such as going to a theme park, may still have
utilitarian elements, such as finding a parking spot. In addition,
individual dispositions may affect whether individuals perceive
a specific context as utilitarian or hedonic. Some individuals
may derive joy from retirement planning, while others may
perceive a day at a theme park as a utilitarian activity.
In our analyses, we derive five features of service contexts
that enable us to gain a more nuanced insight into which features
of a service context may affect CE. Although these features
enable us to qualify differences between service contexts, they
do not provide an exhaustive list of all possible features that
define service contexts. Additional features would include, for
example, the extent to which the service is offered online vs.
offline, consists of single vs. repeated interactions, or is private
vs. professional. However, because the role of service context
for CE has not been systematically considered thus far, we
believe the theoretical framework of hedonic and utilitarian
consumption provides a promising starting point to map the key
features of a service context. Future research could expand our
knowledge of the defining features of service contexts by
complementing this list with additional features.
Finally, we provide a theoretical comparison of the literature
to derive and criticize the extant assumptions in the CE liter-
ature. However, future research should generate empirical ev-
idence to solidify our claims that the drivers and outcomes of CE
differ between service contexts.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the attendants of the Frontiers in Services
conference in Boston (2022) and the SERVSIG conference in Glasgow
(2022) for their feedback on our manuscript. We would also like to
thank Daniele Ripani for his assistance with article search. This work is
based on the dissertation of the first author at the Department of Mar-
keting & Supply Chain Management at the University of Maastricht.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iDs
Jenna Adriana Maeve Barrett https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8153-6143
Elina Jaakkola  https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4654-7573
Jonas Heller  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3214-0724
Elisabeth Christine Brüggen  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0281-
8792
Supplemental Material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
Notes
1. We focused the search on the following journals: Journal of Service
Research, Journal of Service Management, Journal of Services
Marketing, Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Research,
Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of the Academy ofMarketing
Science, and the International Journal of Research in Marketing.
2. Our literature search consisted of two steps: 1) We reviewed the full
text of the selected CE literature in Table 1 for the inclusion of the
term “hedonic” or “utilitarian;” and 2) To ensure we captured all
relevant characteristics of hedonic and utilitarian consumption, we
broadened the scope of our search to articles published in leading
16 Journal of Service Research 0(0)
marketing and service journals (Journal of Service Research,
Journal of Service Management, Journal of Services Marketing,
Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Research, Journal of
Consumer Research, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
and International Journal of Research in Marketing) that include the
term “hedonic” and “utilitarian” in their title.
References
Alvarez-Mila´n, Agarzelim, Reto Felix, Philipp A. Rauschnabel, and
Christian Hinsch (2018), Strategic Customer Engagement Mar-
keting: A Decision Making Framework. Journal of Business
Research, 92, 61-70.
Anderson, Laurel and Amy L. Ostrom (2015), “Transformative Service
Research: Advancing Our Knowledge about Service and Well-
being,” Journal of Service Research, 18 (3), 243-249.
Babin, Barry J., William R. Darden, and Mitch Griffin (1994), “Work
and/or Fun: Measuring Hedonic and Utilitarian Shopping Value,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (4), 644-656.
Barari Mojtaba, Ross Mitchell, Thaichon Sara, and Jiraporn.
Surachartkumtonkun (2021), A Meta-Analysis of Customer En-
gagement Behaviour. International Journal of Consumer Studies,
45 (4), 457-477.
Batra, Rajee and Olli T. Ahtola (1991), “Measuring the Hedonic and
Utilitarian Sources of Consumer Attitudes,” Marketing Letters, 2
(2), 159-170.
Beckers, Sander F., Jenny Van Doorn, and Peter C. Verhoef (2018),
“Good, Better, Engaged? The Effect of Company-Initiated Cus-
tomer Engagement Behavior on Shareholder Value,” Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 46 (3), 366-383.
Bergel, Maxi, Philip Frank, and Christian Brock (2019), “The Role of
Customer Engagement Facets on the Formation of Attitude,
Loyalty and Price Perception,” Journal of Services Marketing, 33
(7), 890-903.
Black, Hulda G., Vincent Jeseo, and Leslie H. Vincent (2021),
“Promoting Customer Engagement in Service Settings through
Identification,” Journal of Services Marketing, 35 (4), 473-486.
Blakstad, M., E. Brüggen, and T. Post (2017), Life Events and Pension
Plan Participant Engagement. Netspar Design Paper, 93, 4-32.
Blau, Peter M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
Blinda, Kristina, Oliver Schnittka, Henrik Sattler, and Jan-Frederik
Gra¨ve (2019), “Implementing Effective Customer Participation
for Hedonic and Utilitarian Services,” Journal of Services Mar-
keting, 33 (3), 316-330.
Boenigk, Silke, Aaron A. Kreimer, Annika Becker, Linda Alkire,
Raymond P. Fisk, and Sertan Kabadayi (2021), “Transformative
Service Initiatives: Enabling Access and Overcoming Barriers for
People Experiencing Vulnerability,” Journal of Service Research,
24 (4), 542-562.
Botti, Simona and Ann L. McGill (2011), “The Locus of Choice:
Personal Causality and Satisfaction with Hedonic and Utilitarian
Decisions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (6), 1065-1078.
Bowden, Jana L. H. (2009), “The Process of Customer Engagement: A
Conceptual Framework,” Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, 17 (1), 63-74.
Breidbach, Christoph F., Roderick J. Brodie, and Linda D. Hollebeek
(2014), “Beyond Virtuality: From Engagement Platforms to
Engagement Ecosystems,” Managing Service Quality, 24 (6),
592-611.
Brodie, Roderick J., Julia A. Fehrer, Elina Jaakkola, and Jodie
Conduit (2019), “Actor Engagement in Networks: Defining the
Conceptual Domain,” Journal of Service Research, 22 (2),
173-188.
Brodie, Roderick J., Linda D. Hollebeek, Biljana Juric´, and Ana Ilic´
(2011), “Customer Engagement: Conceptual Domain, Fundamental
Propositions, and Implications for Research,” Journal of Service
Research, 14 (3), 252-271.
Calder, Bobby J., Edward C. Malthouse, and Ute Schaedel (2009), “An
Experimental Study of the Relationship Between Online En-
gagement and Advertising Effectiveness,” Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 23 (4), 321-331.
Calvo-Porral, Christina and Luis-Miguel Otero-Prada (2021), “The
Emotional Influence on Satisfaction and Complaint Behavior in
Hedonic and Utilitarian Services,” International Journal of
Quality and Service Sciences, 13 (3), 471-488.
Chan, Eugene Y. (2015), “Endowment Effect for Hedonic but Not
Utilitarian Goods,” International Journal of Research in Mar-
keting, 32 (4), 439-441.
Chitturi, Ravindra, Rajagopal Raghunathan, and Vijay Mahajan
(2008), “Delight by Design: The Role of Hedonic versus Utili-
tarian Benefits,” Journal of Marketing, 72 (3), 48-63.
Choi, Jungsil, Li J Yexin, Rangan Priyamvadha, Chatterjee
Promothesh, and Singh N Surendra (2014), The Odd-Ending
Price Justification Effect: The Influence of Price-Endings on
Hedonic and Utilitarian Consumption. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 42 (5), 545-557.
Ciuchita, Robert, Jonas Heller, Sarah Ko¨cher, So¨ren Ko¨cher, Thomas
Leclercq, Karim Sidaoui, and Susan Stead (2023), “It Is Really
Not a Game: An Integrative Review of Gamification for Service
Research,” Journal of Service Research, 26 (1), 3-20.
Clark, Robert L., Robert G. Hammond, Melinda S. Morrill, and
Christelle Khalaf (2019), “Informing Retirement Savings Deci-
sions: A Field Experiment on Supplemental Plans,” Economic
Inquiry, 57 (1), 188-205.
Collier, Joel E., Daniel L. Sherrell, Emin Babakus, and Alisha B. Horky
(2014), “Understanding the Differences of Public and Private Self-
Service Technology,” Journal of Services Marketing, 28 (1), 60-70.
Collins, J. Michael and Carly Urban (2016), “The Role of Information
on Retirement Planning: Evidence from a Field Study,” Economic
Inquiry, 54 (4), 1860-1872.
De Oliveira Santini, Fernando, Wagner Junior Ladeira, Diego Costa
Pinto, Marcia Maurer Herter, Claudio Hoffmann Sampaio, and
Barry J. Babin (2020), “Customer Engagement in Social Media: A
Framework and Meta-Analysis,” Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 48 (6), 1211-1228.
Deci, Edward L. and Richard M. Ryan (1985), Intrinsic Motivation and
Self-Determination in Human Behavior. Perspectives in Social
Psychology. Boston, MA: Springer.
Dhar, Ravi and Klaus Wertenbroch (2000), “Consumer Choice Be-
tween Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 37 (1), 60-71.
Barrett et al. 17
Ding, Ying and Hean T Keh (2016), “A Re-examination of Service
Standardization Versus Customization from the Consumer’s
Perspective,” Journal of Services Marketing, 30 (1), 16-28.
Do, Diem Khac Xuan, Kaleel Rahman, and Linda J. Robinson (2020),
“Determinants of Negative Customer Engagement Behaviours,”
Journal of Services Marketing, 34 (2), 117-135.
Duflo, Esther and Emmanuel Saez (2003), “The Role of Information
and Social Interactions in Retirement Plan Decisions: Evidence
from a Randomized Experiment,” The Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 118 (3), 815-842.
Eberhardt, Wiebke, Brüggen C. Elisabeth, Post Thomas, and Chantal
Hoet (2021), Engagement Behavior and Financial Well-Being:
The Effect of Message Framing in Online Pension Communi-
cation. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 38 (2),
448-471.
Eberhardt, Wiebke, Thomas Post, Chantal Hoet, and Elisabeth Brüggen
(2022), “Exploring the First Steps of Retirement Engagement: A
Conceptual Model and Field Evidence,” Journal of Service
Management, 33 (6), 1-26.
Farrell Lisa, R. L. Fry Tim, and Risse Leona (2016), The Significance
of Financial Self-Efficacy in Explaining Women’s Personal Fi-
nance Behavior. Journal of Economic Psychology, 54, 85-99.
Fehrer, Julia A., H. Herbert Woratschek, Claas C. Germelmann, and
Roderick J. Brodie (2018), “Dynamics and Drivers of Customer
Engagement: Within the Dyad and Beyond,” Journal of Service
Management, 29 (3), 443-467.
Fitzsimons, Gra´inne M. and James Y. Shah (2008), “How Goal In-
strumentality Shapes Relationship Evaluations,” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 95 (2), 319-337.
Goda Gopi, S., F. Manchester Colleen, and J. Sojourner Aaron (2014),
What Will My Account Really BeWorth? Experimental Evidence
on How Retirement Income Projections Affect Saving. Journal of
Public Economics, 119, 80-92.
Gong, Taeshik (2018), “Customer Brand Engagement Behavior in
Online Brand Communities,” Journal of Services Marketing, 32
(3), 286-299.
Groeger, Lars, Lara Moroko, and Linda D. Hollebeek (2016),
“Capturing Value from Non-Paying Consumers’ Engage-
ment Behaviors: Field Evidence and Development of a
Theoretical Model,” Journal of Strategic Marketing, 24 (3-
4), 190-209.
Harmeling, Colleen M., Jordan W. Moffett, Mark J. Arnold, and
Brad D. Carlson (2017), “Toward a Theory of Customer En-
gagement Marketing,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 45 (3), 312-335.
Harwood, Tracy and Tony Garry (2015), “An Investigation into Ga-
mification as a Customer Engagement Experience Environment,”
Journal of Services Marketing, 29 (6/7), 533-546.
Heller, Jonas, Mathew Chylinski, Ko de Ruyter, Debbie I. Keeling, Tim
Hilken, and Dominik Mahr (2021), “Tangible Service Automa-
tion: Decomposing the Technology-Enabled Engagement Process
(TEEP) for Augmented Reality,” Journal of Service Research, 24
(1), 84-103.
Henkens, Bieke, Katrien Verleye, and Bart Larivière (2021), “The
Smarter, the Better?! Customer Well-Being, Engagement, and
Perceptions in Smart Service Systems,” International Journal of
Research in Marketing, 38 (2), 425-447.
Higgins, E. Tory (1998), “Promotion and Prevention: Regulatory Focus
as a Motivational Principle,” in Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, Mark P. Zanna, ed., Vol. 30. New York: Academic
Press, 1-46.
Hollebeek, Linda D. (2011), “Demystifying Customer Brand En-
gagement: Exploring the Loyalty Nexus,” Journal of Marketing
Management, 27 (7-8), 785-807.
Hollebeek, Linda D. (2013), “The Customer Engagement/Value In-
terface: An Exploratory Investigation,” Australasian Marketing
Journal, 21 (1), 17-24.
Hollebeek Linda, D. and Macky Keith (2019), Digital Content Mar-
keting’s Role in Fostering Consumer Engagement, Trust, and
Value: Framework, Fundamental Propositions, and Implications.
Journal of Interactive Marketing, 45 (1), 27-41.
Hollebeek Linda, D., K. Srivastava Rajendra, and Chen Tom (2019), S-
D Logic–Informed Customer Engagement: Integrative Frame-
work, Revised Fundamental Propositions, and Application to
CRM. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47 (1),
161-185.
Hollebeek, Linda D., Dale L. G. Smith, Edward Kasabov, Wafa
Hammedi, Alexander Warlow, and Moira K. Clark (2021),
“Customer Brand Engagement during Service Lockdown,”
Journal of Services Marketing, 35 (2), 201-209.
Hollebeek, Linda D., Mark S. Glynn, and Roderick J. Brodie (2014),
“Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptuali-
zation, Scale Development and Validation,” Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 28 (2), 149-165.
Hollebeek, Linda D., V. Kumar, and Rajendra K. Srivastava (2022),
“From Customer-to Actor-to Stakeholder Engagement: Taking
Stock, Conceptualization, and Future Directions,” Journal of
Service Research, 25 (2), 328-343.
Huber, F., A. Eisele, and F. Meyer (2018), “The Role of Actual, Ideal,
and Ought Self-Congruence in the Consumption of Hedonic
Versus Utilitarian Brands,” Psychology & Marketing, 35 (1),
47-63.
Jaakkola, Elina (2020), “Designing Conceptual Articles: Four Ap-
proaches,” AMS Review, 10 (1), 18-26.
Jaakkola, Elina and Matthew Alexander (2014), “The Role of Customer
Engagement Behavior in Value Co-Creation: A Service System
Perspective,” Journal of Service Research, 17 (3), 247-261.
Jang, Soo S. and Young Namkung (2009), “Perceived Quality,
Emotions, and Behavioral Intentions: Application of an Extended
Mehrabian–Russell Model to Restaurants,” Journal of Business
Research, 62 (4), 451-460.
Karpen, Ingo O. and Jodie Conduit (2020), “Engaging in Times of
COVID-19 and Beyond: Theorizing Customer Engagement
through Different Paradigmatic Lenses,” Journal of Service
Management, 31 (6), 1163-1174.
Khan, Uzma and Ravi Dhar (2010), “Price-Framing Effects on the
Purchase of Hedonic and Utilitarian Bundles,” Journal of Mar-
keting Research, 47 (6), 1090-1099.
Kronrod, Ann and Shai Danziger (2013), ““Wii Will Rock You!” The
Use and Effect of Figurative Language in Consumer Reviews of
18 Journal of Service Research 0(0)
Hedonic and Utilitarian Consumption,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 40 (4), 726-739.
Kumar, V. and Anita Pansari (2016), “Competitive Advantage through
Engagement,” Journal of Marketing Research, 53 (4), 497-514.
Kumar, V., Bharath Rajan, Shaphali Gupta, and I Ilaria Dalla Pozza
(2019), “Customer Engagement in Service,” Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 47 (1), 138-160.
Kumar, V., Lerzan Aksoy, Bas Donkers, Rajkumar Venkatesan,
Thorsten Wiesel, and Sebastian Tillmanns (2010), “Undervalued
or Overvalued Customers: Capturing Total Customer Engagement
Value,” Journal of Service Research, 13 (3), 297-310.
Kunz Werner, Aksoy Lerzan, Bart Yakov, Kristina Heinonen, Sertan
Kabadayi, V. Ordenes Francisco, Marianna Sigala, and David
Diaz, and Theodoulidis BabisJournal of Services Marketing
(2017), “Customer Engagement in a Big Data World,”, 31 (2),
161-171.
Li, Jingjing, Ahmed Abbasi, Amar Cheema, and Linda B. Abraham
(2020), “Path to Purpose? How Online Customer Journeys Differ
for Hedonic versus Utilitarian Purchases,” Journal of Marketing,
84 (4), 127-146.
Lim, Han, Stuart J. Heckman, Jodi C. Letkiewicz, and Catherine P.
Montalto (2014), “Financial Stress, Self-efficacy, and Financial
Help-Seeking Behavior of College Students,” Journal of Fi-
nancial Counseling and Planning, 25 (2), 148-160.
Longoni, Chiara and Luca Cian (2022), “Artificial Intelligence in
Utilitarian vs. Hedonic Contexts: The “Word-of-Machine” Ef-
fect,” Journal of Marketing, 86 (1), 91-108.
Lusardi, Annamaria and Olivia S. Mitchell (2014), “The Economic
Importance of Financial Literacy: Theory and Evidence,” Journal
of Economic Literature, 52 (1), 5-44.
MacInnis, Deborah J. (2011), “A Framework for Conceptual Contri-
butions in Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 75 (4), 136-154.
Mackenbach, Johan P., Willem J. Meerding, and Anton E. Kunst
(2011), “Economic Costs of Health Inequalities in the Euro-
pean Union,” Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health,
65 (5), 412-419.
Mark, Yim Y. C., Yoo Seung-Chul, Sauer L. Paul, and Seo H. Joo
(2014), Hedonic Shopping Motivation and Co-Shopper Influence
on Utilitarian Grocery Shopping in Superstores. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 42, 528-544.
Meire, Matthijs, Kelly Hewett, Michel Ballings, V. Kumar, and Dirk van
den Poel (2019), “The Role of Marketer-Generated Content in
Customer Engagement Marketing,” Journal of Services Marketing,
83 (6), 21-42.
Menidjel, Choukri, Linda D. Hollebeek, Sigitas Urbonavicius, and
Valdimar Sigurdsson (2023), “Why Switch? The Role of Cus-
tomer Variety-Seeking and Engagement in Driving Service
Switching Intention,” Journal of Services Marketing, 37 (5),
592-605.
Michel, Eric J., Kristina K. Lindsey-Hall, Sven Kepes, Ji Qi,
Matthew R. Leon, Laurence G. Weinzimmer, and Anthony R.
Wheeler (2022), “Bridging Two Tales of Engagement: A Meta-
Analytic Review of Employee Engagement and Customer En-
gagement in Service Contexts,” Journal of Service Management.
ahead of print.
Moliner, Miguel A´., Diego Monferrer-Tirado, and Marta Estrada-
Guille´n (2018), “Consequences of Customer Engagement and
Customer Self-Brand Connection,” Journal of Services Market-
ing, 32 (4), 387-399.
Munnell, Alicia H., Wenliang Hou, and Anthony Webb (2015),
“National Retirement Risk Index (NRRI) Update Shows Half of
Working-Age Americans Still Falling Short,” Journal of Retire-
ment, 3 (2), 34-42.
Netemeyer, Richard G., Dee Warmath, Daniel Fernandes, and John G.
Lynch Jr (2018), “How am I Doing? Perceived Financial Well-
Being, Its Potential Antecedents, and its Relation to Overall Well-
Being,” Journal of Consumer Research, 45 (1), 68-89.
Ng, Sylvia C., Jillian C. Sweeney, and Carolin Plewa (2020), “Cus-
tomer Engagement: A Systematic Review and Future Research
Priorities,” Australasian Marketing Journal, 28 (4), 235-252.
O’Brien, Ingrid M., Wade Jarvis, and Geoffrey N. Soutar (2015),
“Integrating Social Issues and Customer Engagement to Drive
Loyalty in a Service Organisation,” Journal of Services Mar-
keting, 29 (6-7), 547-559.
Okada, Erica M. (2005), “Justification Effects on Consumer Choice of
Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods,” Journal of Marketing Research,
42 (1), 43-53.
Pansari, Anita and V. Kumar (2017), “Customer Engagement: The
Construct, Antecedents, and Consequences,” Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (3), 294-311.
Ponsignon, Fre´de´ric (2023), “Making the Customer Experience Journey
More Hedonic in a Traditionally Utilitarian Service Context: A Case
Study,” Journal of Service Management, 34 (2), 294-315.
Reeve, Johnmarshall (2012), “A Self-Determination Theory Per-
spective on Student Engagement,” in Handbook of Research on
Student Engagement. Boston, MA: Springer US, 149-172.
Robiady, Nurlita D., Nila A. Windasari, and Arfenia Nita (2021),
“Customer Engagement in Online Social Crowdfunding: The
Influence of Storytelling Technique on Donation Perfor-
mance,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 38
(2), 492-500.
Ryan, Richard M. and Edward L. Deci (2000), “Intrinsic and Extrinsic
Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions,” Contem-
porary Educational Psychology, 25 (1), 54-67.
Ryan, Richard M. and E. L. Deci (2001), “On Happiness and Human
Potentials: A Review of Research on Hedonic and Eudaimonic
Well-Being,” Annual Review of Psychology, 52 (1), 141-166.
Singh, Jagdip, Satish Nambisan, R. Gary Bridge, and Jurgen Kai-Uwe
Brock (2021), “One-Voice Strategy for Customer Engagement,”
Journal of Service Research, 24 (1), 42-65.
So, Kevin K. F., Ceridwyn King, Beverley A. Sparks, and Ying Wang
(2016), “Enhancing Customer Relationships with Retail Service
Brands: The Role of Customer Engagement,” Journal of Service
Management, 27 (2), 170-193.
Torraco, Richard J. (2016), “Writing Integrative Literature Reviews:
Using the Past and Present to Explore the Future,” Human Re-
source Development Review, 15 (4), 404-428.
Tversky Amos and Kahneman Daniel (1992), Advances in Prospect
Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty. Journal of
Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297-323.
Barrett et al. 19
Van Doorn, Jenny, Katherine N. Lemon, Vikas Mittal, Stephan Nass,
Doree´n Pick, Peter Pirner, and P. C. Peter Verhoef (2010),
“Customer Engagement Behavior: Theoretical Foundations and
Research Directions,” Journal of Service Research, 13 (3),
253-266.
Verleye, Katrien, P. Paul Gemmel, and Deva Rangarajan (2014),
“Managing Engagement Behaviors in a Network of Customers
and Stakeholders: Evidence from the Nursing Home Sector,”
Journal of Service Research, 17 (1), 68-84.
Vivek, Shiri D., Sharon E. Beatty, and Robert M. Morgan (2012),
“Customer Engagement: Exploring Customer Relationships Be-
yond Purchase,” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 20
(2), 122-146.
Voss, Kevin E., Eric R. Spangenberg, and Bianca Grohmann (2003),
“Measuring the Hedonic and Utilitarian Dimensions of Con-
sumer Attitude,” Journal of Marketing Research, 40 (3),
310-320.
Wang, Cheng L. and Ying Jiang (2019), “Examining Consumer Af-
fective Goal Pursuit in Services: When Affect Directly Influences
Satisfaction and When It Does Not,” Asia Pacific Journal of
Marketing and Logistics, 32 (6), 1177-1193.
Web of Science (2023), “Results for Customer Engagement in Web of
Science Core Collection,” April 19, 2023: https://www.
webofscience.com/wos/woscc/citation-report/2049eb65-29e3-
4a21-95ee-020cc0ad6bab-8374656d.
Zhang, Tingting, Can Lu, Edwin Torres, and Po-Ju Chen (2018),
Engaging customers in value co-creation or co-destruction online.
Journal of Services Marketing, 32 (1), 57-69.
Zhong, Jing Y. and Vincent-Wayne Mitchell (2010), “A Mecha-
nism Model of the Effect of Hedonic Product Consumption on
Well-Being,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20 (2),
152-162.
Author Biographies
Jenna Adriana Maeve Barrett is a postdoctoral researcher at
TilburgUniversity, the Netherlands. In her work, she studiesfinancial
well-being and consumer (financial) decision making through a
multidisciplinary and multi-method approach. She is particularly
interested in how our finances impact our decisions and feelings.
Elina Jaakkola is Professor of Marketing at University of
Turku, Finland. She specializes in service research and her
current projects focus on customer/actor experience and en-
gagement, and circular economy. She serves an Associate Editor
for Journal of Service Research and Industrial Marketing
Management and has several Editorial Review Board roles.
Jonas Heller is Assistant Professor at the School of Business
and Economics at Maastricht University. He focuses on digital
technologies and their effect on consumer behavior in retailing
and service environments. In particular, he studies how these
technologies impact customer’s cognitive and affective re-
sponses and how these translate into behavior.
Elisabeth Christine Brüggen is the Director of Netspar, a
Professor of Financial Services at Maastricht University, and
holds the position of Professor in Pension Communication and
Choice Guidance at Tilburg University. Her research focuses on
financial well-being, consumer financial decision-making, fi-
nancial services, choice guidance in retirement planning, and
retirement communication.
20 Journal of Service Research 0(0)