Abstract
The question of how to build meaningful relationships between customers and service brands has received considerable attention. Yet the academic literature has largely focused on customer–employee (C-E) relationships; less is known about interactions between customers themselves, especially in shaping brand love. Building on social exchange theory and social identity theory, this study explores brand love formation through a dual-path framework: C-E interaction and customer–customer (C-C) interaction. Data from a sample of 311 respondents were processed using partial least squares structural equation modeling. This analysis, which centers on the theme park context, specifies the underlying mechanisms of C-E and C-C interaction paths that lead to brand love. This study explores both C-E and C-C interactions simultaneously and enlarges the body of knowledge on customer experience management. The findings also provide implications for tourism organizations and destinations.
Keywords
Introduction
Branding is seen as essential in organizations across multiple business sectors (Liu et al., 2017), including the tourism industry. According to Lestari et al. (2022), the effectiveness of branding in tourism significantly determines the success of the destination’s brand. In addition, tourism organizations’ performance has increasingly relied on tourists’ perceived service effectiveness (Lee & Liu, 2020), partly arising from the innovative ways in which firms capture repeat customers and cater to diverse audiences through novel offerings (Hsiao et al., 2009). However, today’s individuals continue pursuing meaningful experiences within the tourism world (Higgins-Desbiolles, 2020; So et al., 2024). The pandemic’s aftermath also sparked tighter business competition (Gursoy & Chi, 2021). Enterprises have since begun devising branding strategies to strengthen the emotional bond between brands and customers. For example, Visit Scotland, the national tourism organization representing Scotland, has effectively marketed its locales by employing strategies that establish emotional connections. These strategies encompass the use of compelling storytelling, thematic marketing campaigns, and the incorporation of user-generated content (Miller, 2022).
A successful branding approach for businesses in the tourism industry, like theme parks, can be the determining factor for their success, given that visitors’ purchasing decisions can be significantly swayed by word of mouth (Filieri et al., 2015). According to Rather et al. (2018), an efficient branding strategy can differentiate a business’s offerings from those of its competitors. For example, branding represents an integral service industry strategy in the social media era (Moro & Rita, 2018). Moro and Rita (2018) pointed out that impactful branding can enhance consumers’ experiences, participation, and intentions to spread favorable word of mouth. Rai and Nayak (2019) explained the positive influence of branding thusly: it creates customer–brand bonds that help businesses gain customer loyalty and equity. Meanwhile, customers’ love to a brand goes beyond loyalty and equity. It embodies a deeper emotional connection for the brand, leading to positive word-of-mouth (Hwang & Kandampully, 2012). This connection has been deemed “brand love” (e.g., Ahuvia et al., 2022; Coelho et al., 2019). Brand love has become increasingly pertinent in the service industry, particularly in the competitive marketing era, which reshaped customers’ behavioral patterns. Numerous firms are thus interested in long-lasting branding techniques, with brand love being a viable option (Kwon & Mattila, 2015). Therefore, within the tourism industry, the concept of brand love can likewise contribute to achieving success.
Scholars have explored the antecedents of brand love in various respects: self-brand connection (Ahuvia et al., 2022; Albert & Merunka, 2013); brand personality (Albert & Merunka, 2013); brand trust (Carroll & Ahuvia, 2006); brand community identification, engagement, and integration (Coelho et al., 2019); brand commitment (Huber et al., 2015; Long-Tolbert & Gammoh, 2012); and brand experience (Joshi & Garg, 2021). Campos et al. (2020) argued that interpersonal interaction determines consumers’ brand encounters. For example, customer–employee (C-E) interaction can significantly improve patrons’ experiences (Ali et al., 2018; Li et al., 2024). Customers’ interpersonal interaction (i.e., customer–customer [C-C] interaction) has been studied less often (Ahuvia et al., 2022). Yet this form of interaction can also affect customers’ experiences and behavior (Miao & Mattila, 2013; Yi et al., 2013). This is particularly relevant in tourism industries, such as theme parks, where the likelihood of C-C interactions is very high. It further serves as a strategic asset that can greatly affect brand perception, customer acquisition, and consumer satisfaction (Ekpo et al., 2015). Therefore, the present study investigates how C-C interaction shapes customers’ brand love in a tourism context.
To achieve this goal, this study chose theme park as the study setting for the following reasons. First, theme park represents a unique social environment in which customers interact with both employees and other customers. Taking an example of the Jungle Cruise Ride at Disney’s Magic Kingdom, it is hosted by humorous skippers who guide park visitors through a simulated riverboat ride. The employees, the skippers, not only provide instructions, answer questions, but often inject storytelling into their interaction with the customers (Matusitz, 2011). For C-C interaction, some attractions require customers to work together to enjoy the immersive experience. An example can be “Men in Black: Alien Attack” offered by Universal Studio Florida. In this attraction, customers compete for points by shooting targets with laser guns, fostering friendly competition. The scoring system encourages collaboration to achieve high scores, stimulating interaction and teamwork among riders (Ricci, 2020). In addition, while lining up for attractions, customers often strike up conversations with those around them. These interactions can range from discussing favorite rides and attractions to sharing tips for navigating the park efficiently.
Second, theme park strives to create a memorable experience for customers. Understanding how C-C interaction contributes to these moments will provide strategic ideas to management about how to enhance customers’ satisfaction. Third, Bigne et al. (2020) highlighted the emotional stimulation inherent in theme parks and their ability to elicit diverse consumer responses (e.g., satisfaction and brand love). Thus, it becomes evident that investigating the formation of brand love within the theme park context is not only relevant but also essential. This exploration enables us to uncover the factors that contribute to the development of strong emotional connections between consumers and theme park brands, ultimately informing strategies for enhancing guest experiences.
To extend this literature stream and fill relevant knowledge gaps, we propose a dual-path framework comprising C-E and C-C interactions that benefit customers’ emotional bond with a brand, drawing on the principles of social exchange theory and social identity theory. Social exchange theory asserts that people are inclined to exchange resources while interacting (Homan, 1958), particularly in a C-E fashion (Kim & Qu, 2020). These exchanges encompass psychological resources like gratitude, partner quality, and social support; such assets foster rapport and trust between customers and employees, leading to stronger brand love. By contrast, social identity theory suggests that people usually identify with others expressing shared interests (Tajfel, 1978). C-C interaction, which entails verbal and nonverbal communication (Lin et al., 2022), enriches individuals’ perceived social identity and brand community. Their brand love strengthens in kind. We investigate the mechanisms behind customers’ brand love formation in a tourism setting. Specifically, the objectives of this study are as follows: (1) exploring the formation of the C-E and C-C interaction paths within a theme park context, and (2) examining the formation of brand love from a dual-path perspective of C-E and C-C interactions. Along with expanding theoretical understanding, our findings offer managerial insights to promote tourism businesses’ performance.
Literature Review
Extensive research on service marketing has indicated that interpersonal interaction informs the customer experience (Campos et al., 2020; Choo & Petrick, 2014; Park & Santos, 2017). This type of interaction refers to “the anticipation of encountering and connecting with familiar social cues while being exposed to new social cues during the course of an experience” (Campos et al., 2020, p. 3120). It colors people’s overall experiences (Campos et al., 2020) based on encounters with staff and fellow customers (Coudounaris & Sthapit, 2017). Interpersonal interaction involves dynamic exchanges of information, emotions, and behavior (deMatos et al., 2023) and can create enjoyable moments. It spans a range of scenarios: conversations with business staff and/or other customers, participation in group activities, and engagement with service providers. Ahuvia et al. (2022) suggested that when customers establish social connections with brand employees (i.e., C-E relationships) or with other customers (i.e., C-C relationships), customers’ love for the brand will grow. Brand love is critical in building long-term customer–brand connections, which are vital in a competitive business landscape (Huber et al., 2015; Joshi & Garg, 2021). Researchers have attended closely to C-E interaction, whereas the importance of C-C interaction remains underestimated (Ahuvia et al., 2022; Melvin et al., 2020). The current study develops a dual-path conceptual framework including both types to determine how they simultaneously contribute to brand love.
Social exchange theory and social identity theory underpin the proposed framework. These two theories are the most widely used to explain interpersonal interaction (Ahuvia et al., 2022; Hu et al., 2020; Sierra & McQuitty, 2005). Based on sociology and psychology, social exchange theory considers how people and groups interact via resource exchange (Homan, 1958). Social identity theory is psychological and focuses on how people define themselves based on their membership in social groups (Tajfel, 1978). In line with social exchange theory, we argue that C-E interaction will probably foster C-E rapport and trust, thereby reinforcing customers’ emotional connections with brands. In addition, as per social identity theory, we speculate that C-C interaction is likely to prompt social identification among customers who share similar preferences and a sense of community; brand love should increase as a result. Each interaction path is discussed in detail below.
Customer–Employee (C-E) interaction path
Establishing positive C-E connections is a key concern for service-oriented companies; these interactions guide customers’ perceptions and loyalty (Delcourt et al., 2013). Long-Tolbert and Gammoh (2012) referred to the marketing and social psychology literature and identified three critical factors—gratitude, partner quality, and social support—in the linkages between individuals or objects. These aspects can influence how customers view service staff as facilitators of social connections, laying the groundwork for friendship and closeness. In addition, these facets can boost customers’ intentions to establish richer emotional bonds with brands (Yim et al., 2008). The three attributes, therefore, serve as antecedents in our proposed C-E interaction path.
C–E Interaction
Gratitude
Gratitude is a feeling of thankful recognition for things received (Emmons & McCullough, 2004). We define this concept as the emotional sensations of gratefulness, thankfulness, or appreciation that customers experience toward another entity (Huang, 2015). Customers’ gratitude toward a company naturally stems from their propensity to reciprocate following a positive service encounter (Guo et al., 2017). Gratitude is pivotal to social connections, as it promotes altruism between customers and staff (Ma et al., 2017). Specifying particular emotions can offer deeper insights into people’s experiences and actions (Lastner et al., 2016); examining the role of gratitude is thus important. When employees believe their efforts are recognized and valued, they become more open to going the extra mile to meet customers’ needs. This effort amplifies the connection between employees and customers and can produce mutually beneficial outcomes (Bruneau et al., 2018).
Partner Quality
Partner quality emphasizes how customers assess a brand’s relational processes (Chang & Chieng, 2006; Fournier, 1998). From an interpersonal standpoint, it reflects a brand’s capacity to interact with customers in ways that promote attributes such as independence, equity, and equality—all fundamental elements of a cooperative relationship (Bengtsson, 2003). Partner quality also contributes to a customer’s sense that a service provider cares about them. Service constitutes a partnership between two entities (i.e., customers and employees); both parties influence service success. However, little is known about how partner quality molds C-E interaction. Enhancing the involved parties’ relationships can help ensure reciprocal interactions (Wibisono et al., 2019).
Social Support
Social support pertains to the extent to which a business or its staff work to improve customers’ well-being and are willing to address patrons’ personal needs (Long-Tolbert & Gammoh, 2012). Due to the interconnected nature of service consumption, customers can obtain social support from both employees and fellow customers (Zhu et al., 2016). Employee-provided assistance can simplify one’s consumption journey, especially for complicated services (Xie et al., 2020). Trepte et al. (2015) framed social support as a context-specific construct. It covers two main categories within service settings: (1) instrumental social support, encompassing tangible assistance, behavioral guidance, and material aid, and (2) emotional social support, arising from close relationships and interactions with employees (Rosenbaum, 2006; Schaefer et al., 1981). Customers who receive social support are thought to develop prosocial relationships with staff (Zhu et al., 2016). Mood congruent theory (Gardner, 1985) maintains that social support from workers can elicit positive reactions from customers and promote customer satisfaction. These outcomes can, in turn, expand C-E rapport (Zhu et al., 2016).
C-E Rapport
Rapport has been broadly studied in terms of C-E interaction, as it shapes customers’ perceptions of brands and ongoing relationships (DeWitt & Brady, 2003). The success of service greatly depends on reciprocal relationships manifesting from close interactions (Dagger et al., 2009). Customers often look for signs to gauge service results during service interaction. Strong perceived rapport is thus crucial for promoting customers’ appraisals of, and dedication to, service relationships (Anderson & Smith, 2016). Gremler and Gwinner (2000) defined C-E rapport as “a customer’s perception of having an enjoyable interaction with a service provider employee, characterized by a personal connection between the two interactants” (p. 92). This style of rapport substantially affects customers’ opinions of the service they receive (Gremler & Gwinner, 2000). It comprises two core facets: an enjoyable interaction and a sense of personal attachment. An enjoyable interaction acts as the evaluative element of pleasure accompanying an encounter, whereas personal attachment captures one’s perception of a robust relationship with staff (i.e., based on interpersonal connection). For example, in the tourism and hospitality context, employees play a crucial role in creating a welcoming and enjoyable atmosphere for visitors. Greeting guests with a smile, offering assistance, and being attentive to their questions or concerns can go a long way in building rapport (Kaminakis et al., 2019; Kim & Baker, 2019). In addition, personal interactions, such as addressing visitors by names or remembering their preferences, can also create a sense of attachment.
C-E rapport is distinct from C-E co-creation. C-E rapport emphasizes the establishment of a positive and mutually beneficial relationship between customers and employees, characterized by effective communication (Gremler & Gwinner, 2000). In this dynamic, customers passively receive predefined experiences. When customers feel valued and understood, they will foster increased trust and satisfaction. However, C-E co-creation involves active collaboration between customers and employees in the creation or customization of products, services, or experiences (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). It emphasizes the active involvement of customers in the customization or improvement of the product or service (Harrington et al., 2019). Co-creation recognizes that customers can bring unique insights and preferences, and involves them in the creative process, which further fosters a sense of ownership and engagement (Li et al., 2023). While co-creation empowers guests to customize their experiences, rapport-building emphasizes the importance of genuine human interaction, which is the central focus of this study.
Social exchange theory elucidates how C-E rapport develops. The theory suggests that people are more apt to take part in an exchange when they consider the potential benefits to outweigh the costs (Homans, 1958). For example, when customers are given additional focus (“ranging from responses to simple requests for customized treatments to exemplary and unsolicited behaviors,”Price et al., 1995, p. 3), rapport can develop (Macintosh, 2009). Previous studies have utilized social exchange theory to explain the mechanisms underlying the development of C-E rapport. Qi et al. (2023) found that C-E rapport is a significant mediator between employee engagement and customer gratitude toward the company. Building on the same theory, Kim and Jang (2023) also explored how C-E influences customer subsequent behaviors. In line with service-dominant logic, Hwang et al. (2021) explored the antecedents of C-E rapport in the service context. They discovered that such rapport is more likely to emerge when employees share expertise with customers. Likewise, employees who build social and emotional connections with customers through enhanced service processes are more inclined to develop rapport with patrons. However, empirical work on these antecedents of C-E rapport in the tourism context remains limited. We formulate three hypotheses given this rationale:
H1: Gratitude positively influences customer–employee rapport.
H2: Partner quality positively influences customer–employee rapport.
H3: Social support positively influences customer–employee rapport.
Brand Trust
Brand trust is tied to customer–brand communication, satisfaction, and perceived value; it signals that a brand is reliable, honest, and able to uphold its commitments in the business relationship (Hur et al., 2011). Trust might be even more crucial in service settings than in other marketing contexts. In essence, trust generates valuable exchange connections, and the customer is purchasing a “promise” (Macintosh, 2009; Morgan & Hunt, 1994). Trust can be cultivated as a person evaluates another’s competence, intentions, and consistency (Doney & Cannon, 1997). Macintosh (2009) argued that the elements influencing these perceptions contribute to trust: rapport leads to brand trust in a service context. Gremler et al. (2001) also suggested that a stronger C-E connection results in greater trust. Trust is the most popular measure of brand–consumer relationships, but further investigation is warranted (Alam & Yasin, 2010). We therefore propose the following:
H4: Customer–employee rapport positively influences brand trust.
Customer–Customer (C-C) Interaction Path
C-C interaction has evoked growing interest within the fields of marketing (Ahuvia et al., 2022; Ekpo et al., 2015), retail (Stein & Ramaseshan, 2016), and tourism and hospitality (Lin et al., 2019; Lin et al., 2020; Lin et al., 2022; Wei et al., 2022). Marketplace advances have altered how customers communicate. C-C interaction no longer transpires solely in physical service settings; it also happens online or in brand communities (Libai et al., 2010). Customers receive a service while other patrons are served simultaneously. C-C interaction involves the exchange of information or feelings (Johnson & Grier, 2013; Lin et al., 2019). Lin et al. (2019) adopted a value paradigm and determined that customers are more prone to engage in functional, hedonic, and symbolic/expressive C-C interactions. Wei et al. (2022) later identified two types: direct C-C interaction focuses on specific exchanges (e.g., of information or emotions), whereas indirect C-C interaction refers to passive interactions (e.g., in the presence of others; perceived similarity). These studies expanded the comprehension of C-C interaction but either did not conceptualize relevant dimensions or only addressed a single aspect (i.e., indirect interaction). Through a mixed-methods study, Lin et al. (2022) noted that C-C interaction includes verbal (e.g., information sharing and self-disclosure) and nonverbal interactions. We consider both categories here.
Categories of C-C Interaction
Information Sharing
The theory of relational communication (Watzlawick et al., 2011) maintains that, during interpersonal exchanges, information consists of a content message and a relational message conveyed through verbal and nonverbal means. Information sharing is part of verbal interaction and is based on consumption-related information exchange. Scholars have stressed information sharing in value co-creation within C-E interaction (Berthon & John, 2006), but its role in C-C interaction is unclear. C-C interaction can occur before and after service consumption (Ekpo et al., 2015). For instance, customers may acquire related information online (e.g., via review websites) prior to purchase (Li et al., 2022). They also tend to share real-time information about services during the consumption stage. Information sharing via C-C interaction creates a dynamic ecosystem where customers support and learn from each other (Uhrich et al., 2023). This interaction benefits individual customers and contributes to a business’s overall success by fostering customer satisfaction and loyalty.
Self-Disclosure
Self-disclosure is another dimension of verbal interaction and refers to one’s willingness to share personal information, such as attitudes, experiences, and feelings (Derlega et al., 1993). Self-disclosure plays a key role in forming and sustaining connections (Lin et al., 2019). Altman and Taylor (1973) implied that the process of self-disclosure and reciprocal visitor behavior shape interpersonal relationships. These mutual interactions open with the sharing of personal information through self-disclosure. In C-C interaction, self-disclosure can be a foundation for ongoing relationships (Su et al., 2015). Customers are more likely to recognize each other once they have shared personal details, leading to a sense of familiarity and continuity.
Nonverbal Interaction
Nonverbal interaction pertains to the transmission of thoughts and emotions among people via actions such as eye contact, gestures, facial expressions, and physical contact (Lin et al., 2022). The nonverbal components of communication highly influence messages’ persuasiveness in social interaction, particularly in the service context (Williams & Spiro, 1985). Nonverbal communication can serve as a rich information source regarding customers’ needs. Reading and understanding such clues can enhance staff members’ service quality (Puccinelli et al., 2013). In certain cases, such as sports spectatorship, nonverbal interaction also contributes to a better experience (Uhrich et al., 2023). Similarly, nonverbal interaction is critical for satisfactory tourism experiences. Lin et al. (2022) found that nonverbal interaction can encourage close interpersonal relationships. More research will shed light on this phenomenon.
C-C Social Identification
C-C social identification is the degree to which a consumer perceives a connection with a fellow consumer (Bagozzi & Dholakia, 2006). Social identity theory posits that individuals define their identity based on their membership in social groups. According to this theory, people categorize themselves and others into in-groups (groups they belong to) and out-groups (groups they do not belong to). They derive a sense of self-esteem and social identity from their group memberships, leading to in-group favoritism. Individuals generally seek to join groups that afford them feelings of identity and belonging (Turner et al., 1979). Visitors at theme parks may perceive other visitors who share similar characteristics or interests as part of their in-group. For example, families with young children may identify with other families with children, while thrill-seekers may identify with other adrenaline enthusiasts. To fulfill the desire for a shared identity, people present themselves in ways that match their intentions, behavior, and beliefs with those of other group members. When one’s link to a social entity (e.g., a customer group or organization) becomes a main aspect of their identity, they will be more apt to establish strong connections between themselves and that entity in order to cultivate the desired identity (Einwiller et al., 2006).
Three types of C-C interaction (i.e., information sharing, self-disclosure, and nonverbal interaction) enable customers to get to know one another, which further facilitates social identification (Cheung & Lee, 2010). For example, the deeper the interactions and self-disclosure among customers, the greater their shared intimacy and social identification with each other (Huang et al., 2020). The following hypotheses thus apply:
H5: Information sharing positively influences social C-C identification.
H6: Self-disclosure positively influences social C-C identification.
H7: Nonverbal interaction positively influences social C-C identification.
Sense of Brand Community
A brand community is “a specialized, non-geographically bound community, based on a structured set of social relationships among admirers of a brand” (Muniz & O’Guinn, 2001, p. 412). As social identity theory implies, community members feel as though they belong to the identified group (Swimberghe et al., 2018). Studies on social identity have predominantly concerned people’s links to organizations, communities, or social groups. For instance, when individuals strongly identify with an organization, their support and commitment to it increase (Al-Jabari & Ghazzawi, 2019). Limited research has explored how one’s identification with other community members might influence identification with the community itself. In a business context, information from fellow customers is seen as more helpful than organization-provided information (Kozinets, 2002). Customers who seek details from fellow customers generally initiate their identification in order to engage with others. This reciprocal process of giving and receiving strengthens one’s connection to community members and, consequently, to the community itself (Prentice et al., 2019). The following hypothesis is put forth accordingly:
H8: C-C social identification positively influences a sense of brand community.
Brand Love
Brand love represents one’s emotional resonance with a particular brand (Batra et al., 2012; Carroll & Ahuvia, 2006). This concept transcends mere loyalty or preference to involve the profound affection, attachment, and positive sentiment that one feels for a brand. The American Marketing Association has illustrated the importance of building a culture of brand love. Brand lovers are more likely to become brand advocates or influencers, ultimately boosting company sales (Batra et al., 2012). These outcomes echo the aim of relationship marketing to nurture long-term customer relationships (vs. prioritizing standalone transactions). Brand love usually ignites one’s desire to engage with and promote a brand to others. Albert and Merunka (2013) observed that brand trust engenders brand love and positive customer feedback. Individuals who trust specific brands are inclined to connect with that brand as well as its parent company (Esch et al., 2006). In addition, brand communities play decisive roles in fostering brand love, to the point that communities contribute to more robust brand bonds (Coelho et al., 2019). Stated formally:
H9: Brand trust positively influences brand love.
H10: A sense of brand community positively influences brand love.
Figure 1 displays the proposed research model.
Proposed research model.
Methodology
Survey Instrument
To measure the constructs, an online survey was developed. The survey questionnaire included four sections. The initial section featured a consent form and two screening questions. First, we asked “Have you been to a theme park/amusement park (e.g., Disney World, Six Flags, Cedar Point) in the past 6 months?” We provided these examples as they were among the top visited theme/amusement parks in the United States (Statista, 2023). Specifically, Six Flags operates multiple amusement parks across North America and offers a variety of entertainment options including water parks, live shows, and themed areas. Cedar Point is situated in Ohio, featuring a wide range of attractions, including some of the tallest and fastest roller coasters in the world, as well as family rides, water attractions, and live entertainment. If respondents answered “yes,” they were brought to the second screening question: “Have you interacted with other visitors during your most recent theme/amusement park visit?” Only individuals who chose “yes” for both screening questions proceeded to the survey. Respondents who failed to pass the screening questions were directed to exit the survey. The second section solicited general information (e.g., theme/amusement park name, location, travel purpose[s], and companion[s]) to help respondents vividly recall their experiences. The third section contained items related to our constructs of interest. The last section requested respondents’ demographic information. Two random attention check questions were included in the survey to ensure all items were answered attentively (Goodman et al., 2013).
All constructs, which were rated on a 7-point Likert scale anchored from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), were assessed using items adapted from prior studies. The survey questionnaire was carefully modified to suit the theme/amusement park context. Gratitude, partner quality, and social support were respectively evaluated with three items from Long-Tolbert and Gammoh (2012). A sample item of gratitude read “I am thankful for how I was treated by [the park] employees.” Four items on self-disclosure were borrowed from Lin et al. (2019). An example of the item was “I intimately disclose who I really am, openly and fully in my conversation.” Customer information sharing was measured with four items derived from Choo and Petrick (2014) and Lin et al. (2022). A sample item read “Other visitors provided me with information on events, activities, or other information.” Nonverbal interaction was assessed via four items from Jung and Yoon (2011) and Lin et al. (2022). A sample item was “When I was at [the park], other visitors had a nice, friendly attitude.” Six items from Gremler and Gwinner (2000) were used to measure C-E rapport (e.g., “[The park] employees created a feeling of warmth in our relationship”); three items were adapted from Algesheimer et al. (2005) to capture social C-C identification (e.g., “The friendships I have with other [park] visitors mean a lot to me”). A sense of brand community was assessed with five items from Swimberghe et al. (2018). A sample item was “I feel a sense of being connected with other [park] visitors.” Four items from Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) were used to gauge brand trust (e.g., “I trust the brand [the park]”), and six items from Carroll and Ahuvia (2006) reflected brand love (e.g., “[The park] is a wonderful brand”).
Pilot Study
A pilot study was conducted to ensure measurement items’ readability. We took theme/amusement parks as our research context. These attractions feature a unique social environment where visitors interact with employees and fellow patrons. Theme/amusement park visitors are susceptible to others’ influence, whether through direct verbal or physical interaction or through indirect (e.g., nonverbal) cues (Torres et al., 2019). The pilot study was performed via Prolific with 120 respondents who had gone to a theme/amusement park and interacted with other customers during their visit within the past 6 months. Minor changes (i.e., item refinement and wording) were made based on the results to enhance clarity and better reflect the construct definition.
Data Collection and Analysis
The survey was developed in English on Qualtrics and distributed through Prolific. The latter platform is known for providing high-quality data and offers transparency for researchers and participants (Palan & Schitter, 2018). It has been widely used in previous tourism and hospitality studies for data collection due to its rigorous recruitment standards and ease of use (Tandon et al., 2023). Using Prolific pre-screeners, we distributed the survey to adult respondents (i.e., over 18 years old) active on the platform and located in the U.S. Based on Prolific’s policy, a survey of only screening questions was administered first to identify qualified respondents. Eligible respondents were then invited to complete the main survey (i.e., all measurement items) in April 2023. Over 1 week, 345 surveys were collected, 34 of which were later discarded due to being incomplete or having overly repetitive response patterns. Our final sample consisted of 311 respondents (response rate: 90.1%). A post hoc power analysis was carried out in G*Power software to verify the sample size. Results indicated that 311 respondents would be sufficient, yielding a statistical power of 0.99 with an error likelihood of 0.05 and an effect size of 0.30 (Cohen, 2013; Faul et al., 2009).
Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) was deployed to assess the outer model and the hypothesized relationships. PLS-SEM was appropriate for this study, as our primary objectives were to predict and explain the focal constructs rather than theory testing (Rigdon, 2012). Preliminary data analysis was performed. The skewness/kurtosis statistics for each item were in the standards range of ± 2 (Hair et al., 2019), indicating the normal distribution of the data.
Self-administered questionnaires are susceptible to common method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003). To assess the potential impact of common method variance, we used Harman’s single-factor test. Exploratory factor analysis showed that a single-factor model explained 42.77% (<50%) of the observed variance, indicating that common method variance was not a concern. In addition, we conducted a test for homogeneity of variances in brand love across various types of theme/amusement parks. In this study, we categorized parks into nine groups based on their brands (e.g., Disney, Universal Studio, Cedar Point, Six Flags, etc.). The results showed that the variances in brand love across different park brands were consistent (F = 0.60, p = .79) (Hair et al., 2021). Therefore, the homogeneity of brand love among different parks was not an issue.
Results
Respondent Demographics
Among the 311 respondents, about half were men (51.45%), 41.94% were 30 to 39 years old, 48.55% were single, and 72.03% were Caucasian. The percentage of Caucasian (72.03%) is consistent with the demographics of both the populations of theme/amusement park goers (close to 80%; Cheatham, 2018) and the United States (75.5%; United States Census Bureau, 2023). Therefore, the sample of this study can represent both theme park/amusement park goers and United States’ population. Regarding annual income, 20.26% earned $40,001 to $60,000, 17.68% earned $100,001 or more, and 17.04% earned $20,000 to $40,000. Table 1 presents a demographic overview of the sample.
Respondents’ Demographic Information.
Outer Model
We evaluated the outer model for our overall sample using Hair et al.’s (2019) suggested approach. Table 2 lists the reliability and validity results for our measurement model. All indicators’ factor loadings were greater than 0.70, indicating adequate item reliability. The Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability values were higher than 0.70 and smaller than 0.95, indicating sufficient internal consistency. The average variance extracted was consistently greater than the cutoff value of 0.50; convergent validity was thus confirmed.
Measurement Model Assessment.
As shown in Table 3, the Heterotrait–Monotrait ratios of correlations were lower than 0.90. Therefore, all constructs were distinct from each other (Henseler et al., 2015). Discriminant validity was established.
Discriminant Validity of Measurement Model (Heterotrait–Monotrait Ratio).
Inner Model
We also assessed our inner model as Hair et al. (2019) recommended. The model demonstrated a good fit with the data, as indicated by the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) of 0.059, which falls below the threshold of 0.08 (Henseler et al., 2015). The structural model was measured based on the variance inflation factor (VIF), Q2, and R2. All VIF values were lower than 3, demonstrating that collinearity was not an issue in this case (Hair et al., 2019). The R2 values of endogenous variables ranged from 0.34 to 0.69; the model’s explanatory power was hence appropriate (Chin, 1998; Henseler et al., 2009). The predictive Q2 values spanned from 0.30 to 0.68, all greater than 0 (Figure 2; Hair et al., 2019). Our model therefore exhibited acceptable predictive accuracy.
Results of the structural model.
Based on the PLS-SEM results (Table 4), gratitude (β = 0.40, p < .001), partner quality (β = 0.18, p < .01), and social support (β = 0.33, p < .001) each positively influenced C-E rapport, supporting H1–H3. C-E rapport positively affected brand trust (β = 0.58, p < .001); H4 was thus supported. Customers’ information sharing (β = 0.17, p < .01), self-disclosure (β = 0.42, p < .001), and nonverbal interaction (β = 0.28, p < .001) each had significant positive impacts on C-C social identification. H5–H7 were accordingly supported. C-C social identification also had a significant effect on the sense of brand community (β = 0.79, p < .001), lending support to H8. Lastly, brand trust (β = 0.74, p < .001) and sense of brand community (β = 0.14, p < .01) both positively influenced brand love, supporting H9–H10. Figure 2 shows the outcomes of the structural model.
PLS-SEM Results.
95% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained by using a bootstrapping approach with 5,000 replications.
Discussion
Although researchers have examined antecedents of brand love (e.g., Ahuvia et al., 2020; Coelho et al., 2019), associated effects have rarely been contemplated from a dual-path interaction perspective (i.e., C-E and C-C interactions)—especially within the tourism and hospitality context. We adopted theme parks as the study context and empirically examined a dual-path interaction framework grounded in social exchange theory and social identity theory. Findings delineated the formation of C-E and C-C interaction paths. Specifically, the C-E interaction path flowed from gratitude, partner quality, and social support to C-E rapport, which then led to brand trust. The C-C interaction path progressed from information sharing, self-disclosure, and nonverbal interaction to C-C social identification to subsequently establish a sense of brand community. The results also revealed that both C-E and C-C interaction paths played significant roles in enhancing brand love. This study expands Bigne et al.’s (2020) findings and scope to explore the nuances of brand love in theme park settings through a dual-path framework.
In the C-E interaction path, customers’ gratitude had the strongest impact on the development of positive C-E rapport. Customers’ direct treatment from staff, and the services received, were most influential. This result is consistent with previous studies indicating the critical role of customers’ gratitude in building strong, mutually beneficial C-E connections (Bruneau et al., 2018; Gremler & Gwinner, 2000; Lastner et al., 2016). Even though partner quality only had a slight impact on C-E rapport, it was undeniably important to the development of such mutually beneficial relationships in the theme park context. Customers must be able to rely on staff for assistance while in a controlled and closed area featuring hybrid consumption (e.g., hotels, restaurants, shopping) (Liang & Li, 2021), such as theme parks.
The hospitality and tourism literature on C-C interaction is fairly thin; however, we discovered that this type of interaction is integral to enhancing individuals’ brand love. In particular, customers’ self-disclosure more strongly affected C-C identity formation compared to information sharing and nonverbal interaction. The more theme park visitors freely self-disclose to other visitors, the more they will identify with the theme park and feel like part of its community. Researchers have documented C-C interactions’ roles in optimal theme park experiences where strangers share a physical environment, facilities, and services (Torres et al., 2019; Tsang et al., 2016). Our results reaffirmed the centrality of this co-created experience for a strong sense of brand community, which helps reinforce customers’ love for a brand. Even though both interaction paths significantly increased brand love, brand trust that manifested through the C-E interaction path was more powerful than customers’ sense of brand community formed through the C-C interaction path. This difference may have arisen because theme park visitors normally turn to employees to solve issues and provide delightful experiences (Liang & Li, 2021).
Theoretical Implications
This study contributes to the literature in several aspects. First, our results enlarge the body of knowledge on customer experience management by empirically validating a dual-path interaction framework. Earlier research predominantly revolved around singular types of interactions. Our work represents a pioneering effort to concurrently investigate both C-E and C-C interactions. This holistic approach grants scholars a richer view of the customer experience in hospitality and tourism literature. We also combined social exchange theory and social identity theory to achieve conceptual integration. Although each of these theories has been widely employed to explore stakeholder-related phenomena, few authors have considered both theories simultaneously via a parallel framework. The current study therefore comprehensively clarifies how enduring customer–brand relationships, such as brand love, develop through two avenues: C-E interaction and C-C interaction. Scholars can now delve deeper into the mechanisms of social exchange and social identity in the context of customer–brand relationships. Our findings further provide a more nuanced sense of how reciprocity, group identification, and identity dynamics shape the customer experience and consumer–brand relationships in tourism and hospitality literature.
Second, we identified the underlying mechanisms of C-E and C-C interactions by discerning the sequential components of each pathway. This level of specification is crucial—including for C-C interaction, which has been largely neglected in the literature. Related work has mainly pertained to individual aspects of C-C interaction and thus did not provide a thorough understanding. We adapted Lin et al.’s (2022) conceptualization of C-C interaction and empirically assessed it together with C-E interaction. This study therefore answers a call for further investigation of their proposed conceptualization in different settings. Our results confirmed assertions that C-C interaction is key to customers’ experiences and serves as a strategic asset in organizations’ success through positive brand perception and customer satisfaction (Ekpo et al., 2015; Miao & Mattila, 2013; Yi et al., 2013). This work bridges the gap between customer-centric and employee-centric stances to present a more balanced view of how both groups contribute to the customer experience.
Practical Implications
This study has several practical implications. First, tourism organizations should aim to design environments conducive to C-E interaction. We found that positive C-E interaction is essential in heightening brand trust and consequently brand love. Therefore, it is critical to train staff to be approachable, friendly, and enthusiastic. A warm welcome sets a positive tone for customer interactions. Helping employees interact productively with customers will enable workers, patrons, and brands to be successful. Factors such as the servicescape have been shown to affect staff heavily (Kaminakis et al., 2019; Tran et al., 2020). Pleasant work conditions can inspire employees to go above and beyond in building rapport with customers. In line with social exchange theory, employees should be given training and development opportunities that enable them to secure additional resources and build relationships with customers. Empower employees to make decisions that enhance the customer experience, such as offering small surprises or accommodating special requests. This flexibility contributes to a positive customer-employee dynamic. Many of today’s employees expect autonomy, flexibility, and cultural diversity from a workplace; helping them build more self-awareness and decision-making responsibility is crucial (Chernyak-Hai & Rabenu, 2018; Hsiao et al., 2023). In addition, it is crucial to provide customers with clear signage and accessible user-friendly technology for easier C-E interactions. For example, Bai et al. (2023) identified several areas (e.g., parking and fast track programs) that cause theme park visitors to have less enjoyment. This presented an opportunity for theme park operators to integrate smart tools, such as smartphone apps and QR codes, to facilitate instant and effective employee assistance for positive C-E interaction.
Organizations should also foster an environment that encourages customer interaction. C-C interaction is a significant component of the customer experience (e.g., Lin et al., 2020), and the associated positive feelings significantly affect customers’ evaluations of their encounters (Ali et al., 2018). This is especially true for theme parks, which aim to create an immersive fantasy experience for all visitors. For example, theme parks can design interactive elements in ride queues to keep visitors engaged and provide opportunities for conversation. This can make waiting in line a more enjoyable and social experience. In addition, tourism destinations or organizations can design attractions and activities that require group participation or interaction, such as multiplayer games, interactive exhibits, or team challenges. These interactive activities can encourage visitors to engage with each other. Positive C-C interactions are significant for experience co-creation as they also create opportunities for emotional connection and bonding (Cabanas, 2020). Tourism destinations or organizations can designate specific areas as community spaces where visitors can gather, relax, and socialize. These could include picnic areas, lounges, or outdoor spaces with interactive elements. Furthermore, destinations can create community–driven online platforms or forums where tourists can connect before arriving at the destination. This allows them to plan meetups, share tips, and form groups for activities. Besides, C-C interaction, especially information sharing, creates opportunities for a customer to convey his/her positive experience or accurate information about the service via either dyadic or group-based interactions (Lee et al., 2021). It is suggested that tourism destinations and organizations keep this noteworthy link that exists between elements that organizations can directly monitor (e.g., the physical environment, service quality) and uncontrollable elements (e.g., C-C interaction) in mind when designing customer experiences (Moore et al., 2005).
Limitations and Future Research Directions
This study has several constraints that open avenues for future work. First, because our sample consisted of theme park visitors, the findings’ generalizability may be limited, as C-E and C-C interactions can vary across different types of theme parks. It might be worth conducting further comparative investigations into this topic across theme parks worldwide. Such studies could offer practitioners insights tailored to the specific operations of their respective parks. In future research, diversity, equity, and inclusion can be meaningfully included by actively seeking out perspectives and experiences from underrepresented groups, such as individuals from marginalized communities or those with disabilities. Furthermore, future research can expand upon systems of knowledge by engaging in interdisciplinary collaboration and incorporating diverse methodologies and epistemological perspectives. This could involve partnering with scholars from various disciplines and integrating insights from diverse cultural and indigenous knowledge systems into the research process.
Second, we emphasized interaction in offline environments, primarily face-to-face. The dynamics of C-E and C-C interactions present a compelling area for further exploration regarding online platforms. Scholars can also ponder different types of in-person C-C interaction, including intentional and coincidental forms (Colm et al., 2017). Researchers could also delve deeper into the nature and dynamics of interpersonal interactions. Qualitative studies or observational research could provide insights into the quality and impact of C-E and C-C interactions on visitor experiences. Future research can also look into employee–intervened C-C interactions as well as C-C interactions that are both overt and covert (McGrath & Otnes, 1995).
Third, we examined C-E and C-C interactions in parallel; this approach may have overlooked connections between both routes. Multi-level investigations would be beneficial to continue expanding knowledge in tourism and hospitality literature. Lastly, we did not specify positive or negative interactions. Researchers could consider the effects of unpleasant interactive episodes, such as rudeness in C-C interactions, to further enrich the literature (Heinonen & Nicholls, 2022; Zhang et al., 2010).
Footnotes
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.
