A Decade of Customer Engagement Research in Hospitality and Tourism: A Systematic Review and Research Agenda

Unidimensional Engagement

From a unidimensional perspective, the behavioral dimension has perhaps received the most attention (Van Doorn et al., 2010). Strictly behavioral conceptualizations have focused on various customer behaviors including positive and negative word of mouth (WOM; Ahmad & Sun, 2018; Choi & Kandampully, 2019; Wei, Hua, Fu, & Guchait, 2017), eWOM (Liu, Jayawardhena, Dibb, & Ranaweera, 2019), willingness to suggest (Choi & Kandampully, 2019), destination engagement intention (Zhang, Gordon, Buhalis, & Ding, 2018), and food engagement (e.g., tasting, talking, and learning; Organ, Koenig-Lewis, Palmer, & Probert, 2015). CE has also been measured using revenue-related indicators such as loyalty card swipes and discounts offered at concessions (Aluri, Price, & McIntyre, 2019).

Multidimensional Engagement

From a multidimensional view, CE has been conceptualized as comprising identification, attention, absorption, enthusiasm, and interaction (Harrigan, Evers, Miles, & Daly, 2017; So et al., 2014; So et al., 2016; Tu, Neuhofer, & Viglia, 2018). Ahn and Back (2018) took a similar approach by investigating CE on the basis of cognitive, affective, and behavioral engagement. Ye, Ying, Zhou, and Wang (2019) used the terms “hedonic engagement” and “utilitarian engagement” as synonyms for “perceived enjoyment” and “perceived usefulness,” respectively. Ballantyne, Packer, and Falk (2011) and Ballantyne, Hughes, Lee, Packer, & Sneddon (2018) classified engagement into experiential and reflective dimensions, while Behnke, Seo, and Miller (2014) examined passive and active engagement vis-à-vis study abroad experiences. Acknowledging that CE includes customers’ nontransactional (relational) and transactional interactions, Itani, Kassar, and Loureiro. (2019) considered customers’ purchases, referrals, social interaction, and knowledge sharing as CE dimensions. Finally, C. Li, Cui, and Peng (2017) considered CE relative to review volume, review helpfulness (as measured by votes), average review valence, and popularity ranking.

Motivational Drivers

Individuals’ desire, prior knowledge, experiences, and subjective assessments or perceptions may drive engagement. These factors can be collectively considered motivational drivers, which constitute one of the most commonly studied CE antecedents. Research has shown that one’s motivation to learn influences reflective and experiential engagement in wildlife tourism settings (Ballantyne et al., 2011). Similarly, parents’ motivations around children’s experimental learning have been found to affect engagement at world heritage sites (Yang & Lau, 2019). Cultural motivation can also shape visitor engagement at heritage sites and the consumption of indigenous culture (Bryce et al., 2015). Another motivational driver behind engagement is recreational motivation, which affects CE through service offerings (Taheri, Jafari, & O’Gorman, 2014).

Marketing scholars have proposed that CE represents consumers’ psychological states, which arise from interactive and co-creative experiences with a brand (Brodie et al., 2011). Several hospitality and tourism studies have thus investigated experience-related factors behind CE, such as customers’ brand experiences (Ahn & Back, 2018), emotional destination experiences (Zhang et al., 2018), and prior knowledge (Taheri et al., 2014). Relatedly, visitors’ experiences with objective-based authenticity can influence their engagement at heritage sites (Bryce et al., 2015).

Subjective assessments or perceptions of a brand or destination can also motivate consumers to engage with a given brand or destination beyond purchases. Researchers have noted that customers’ perceived value is assessed on the basis of their perceptions (Itani et al., 2019). For instance, zoo/aquarium visitors’ personal values appear pivotal to their engagement with on-site conservation messages and education experiences, which in turn shape postvisit adoption of environmentally sustainable behavior (Ballantyne et al., 2018). Perceived ease of use has also been found to influence utilitarian engagement in peer-to-peer accommodations (Ye et al., 2019).

Relational Drivers

Numerous studies have examined relational drivers, or factors informing customers’ relationships with a brand/destination; one relevant aspect is relationship quality, which consists of trust, satisfaction, and commitment (Itani et al., 2019). Each of these dimensions can determine CE. For example, consumer trust has long been a primary driver of CE (Wei et al., 2017). Research suggests that when consumers have a commitment-based connection to a firm, they become engaged with that firm (Itani et al., 2019). In addition, consumers who are more satisfied with their service recovery experiences tend to exhibit CE behavior, such as providing feedback and spreading eWOM (Liu et al., 2019). Other relational drivers examined in the chosen studies include the degree of co-creation (Tu et al., 2018), level of involvement (Organ et al., 2015), self-connection with a brand (Bryce et al., 2015), and perceived cohesion and perceived intimacy (Liu et al., 2019). Ye et al. (2019) found that social interaction and social presence evoke enjoyable feelings, thereby enhancing hedonic engagement. Additionally, increased social presence can boost a peer-to-peer platform’s task performance, including its utilitarian engagement (Ye et al., 2019).

Organizational Drivers

Given that consumers can interact easily with firms and other customers through new media and social networks, organizations’ attempts to facilitate nontransactional consumer behavior are vital (Verhoef et al., 2010). Scholars have discovered that companies’ efforts to nurture consumer connection and retention can cultivate a sense of belonging and community among customers, thus facilitating value co-creation (Sashi, Brynildsen, & Bilgihan, 2019). Wei et al. (2017) identified the effects of an error management culture on consumer engagement. Similarly, management responses on websites such as TripAdvisor and Yelp have become pervasive as firms seek to influence WOM proactively and ethically (Li et al., 2017). Related service recovery efforts also affect consumers’ eWOM engagement (Liu et al., 2019).

Pursuit of Special Interests

The pursuit of individual interests is important in establishing CE. For example, research has indicated that environmental advocacy can promote CE, such as conversing with others about the importance of the environment or participating in a public land or water clean-up (Ballantyne et al., 2011). Scholars have also found that personally relevant tourism experiences positively influence CE, such as serious leisure pursuits (i.e., pursuits into which consumers invest time, effort, and often money) and heritage-related behaviors, which tend to be intangible and highly personal (Bryce et al., 2015).

Situational Drivers

Villamediana-Pedrosa, Vila-Lopez, and Küster-Boluda (2019) found that situational features, such as the time frame (e.g., posting time and posting day) and seasonality of tourism demand, influenced positive or negative engagement on a DMO’s Facebook page.

Organizational Barriers

Previous categories of antecedent concentrated primarily on factors that motivate, trigger, or lead to CE. Rather than focusing on drivers, Chathoth et al. (2014) investigated four barriers to CE: consumers, technology, strategy, and management structure and culture, which affect CE.

Cognitive Evaluative Outcomes

Several cognitive evaluative outcome variables have been examined as consequences of CE. For example, CE enhances customers’ service brand evaluations and brand trust (So et al., 2016). Utilitarian engagement (i.e., usefulness and ease of use) and hedonic engagement (i.e., enjoyment) were found to evoke customers’ trust on a peer-to-peer platform (Ye et al., 2019). CE also increases cognitive satisfaction at festivals (Organ et al., 2015). Reflective engagement has been shown to exert a positive impact on learning outcomes (Ballantyne et al., 2018) and serves as a strong predictor of short-term learning (Ballantyne et al., 2011).

Affective Evaluative Outcomes

Tourist engagement positively affects visitors’ satisfaction with tourism experiences (Lin et al., 2019). Similarly, student engagement can significantly influence students’ satisfaction with their study abroad experiences (Behnke et al., 2014). Engagement at a festival has also been shown to be related to visitors’ positive and negative emotions (Organ et al., 2015).

Behavioral/Intentional Outcomes

Behavioral outcomes arising from CE include advocacy (Sashi et al., 2019), customer/brand loyalty (Aluri et al., 2019; Bryce et al., 2015; Kandampully, Zhang, & Bilgihan, 2015; So et al., 2014; So et al., 2016), revisit intention (Wei et al., 2017), behavioral intention (Ahn & Back, 2018; Organ et al., 2015), actual future behavior (Organ et al., 2015), willingness to pay (Kandampully et al., 2015), and environmental behavior outcomes (Ballantyne et al., 2018).

Economic Outcomes

Scarce research has examined the economic outcomes of CE, with the exception of Kandampully et al. (2015) who proposed that customer loyalty could lead to greater firm profitability. Specifically, improving customers’ share of wallet can produce 10 times more value for a company than focusing on customer retention alone.

Definitional Challenges

The diverse or even lack of consensus in conceptualizations of CE in hospitality and tourism raise three pertinent points. First, similar to in mainstream marketing, hospitality and tourism scholars have expressed disparate understandings of the term, leading to numerous definitions and operationalizations of the construct. In the general marketing literature, the most fervent debate around CE’s definition entails whether the concept is exclusively behavioral or both behavioral and psychological (Harmeling et al., 2017). The behavioral lens frames CE as customers’ behavioral manifestations or responses to a brand or firm (e.g., Van Doorn et al., 2010), whereas the behavioral–psychological conceptualization encompasses relevant cognitive, emotional, and/or behavioral dimensions (e.g., Brodie et al., 2011).

Although CE conceptualizations adopted in the reviewed studies can be broadly classified into the two aforementioned categories, specific measures within each category were rather inconclusive. For example, as Figure 2 indicates, hospitality and tourism researchers used 18 different measures/dimensions to gauge behavioral engagement, while six approaches to conceptualizing and operationalizing multidimensional CE were identified. Such obvious disagreements may result in conceptual challenges in advancing CE research as a more unified area of study. Irrespective of the approach to which scholars subscribe, researchers can generally agree that CE extends beyond the point of purchase. Note, Pansari and Kumar (2017) indeed defined CE more comprehensively than most by explicitly incorporating a purchase and beyond: they operationalized CE as “the mechanics of a customer’s value addition to the firm, either through direct or/and indirect contribution” (p. 295). Certain aspects of Pansari and Kumar’s (2017) definition remain debatable, such as whether CE should include buying activities as “direct contributions” or only “behaviors . . . [that] go beyond what is fundamental to the transaction” (Jaakkola & Alexander, 2014, p. 248); therefore, although their broader definition effectively expands the conceptual domain of CE, it may also potentially create more confusion. A more uniform perspective regarding what CE is, what it represents, and how it should be measured remains crucial for effective theory building and advancement.

Second, the nomological network of CE in hospitality and tourism should be clarified. Ambiguity persists not only around what constitutes CE per se but also what its antecedents and consequences are. Of particular interest are the distinctions and connections characterizing CE and related constructs, such as customers’ involvement, satisfaction, and loyalty related to with brands/firms. Third, marketing-related CE research has extended beyond consumers to consider firm-based or organizational strategies (Harmeling et al., 2017). Yet hospitality and tourism researchers continue to frame CE as customer responses in most cases. Although a customer focus may reduce confusion, a consumer-centric lens can inadvertently neglect the perspectives of corporations, organizations, and the supply side of hospitality and tourism at large. For instance, Harmeling et al. (2017) identified many approaches to designing and delivering engagement initiatives along with engagement tools marketers can use. Moreover, Brodie, Fehrer, Jaakkola, and Conduit (2019) called for a broader conceptual domain of CE “from the focal subject of customers/customers to a general actor-to-actor perspective . . . from the firm-customer dyad to relationships among multiple actors in service ecosystems” (p. 173). However, few studies have considered how to craft such initiatives and leverage accompanying tools in the hospitality and tourism context. Our study sample also revealed a dearth of studies examining engagement within more dynamic network structures. If the ultimate objective of CE is to contribute to organizations’ performance, then hospitality and tourism researchers should strive to bridge CE with strategic initiatives and organizational performance measures. Scholars should also turn their attention to various actors within business systems and networks.

Theorizing Efforts

Our systematic review of CE research indicates that hospitality and tourism scholars have conceptualized CE as stemming from various motivational, relational, organizational, and situational drivers (along with the pursuit of special interest and barriers). CE could further lead to one or more types of cognitive evaluative, affective evaluative, behavioral, and economic outcomes. Although these theorizing efforts remain largely piecemeal, they represent laudable progress toward a more comprehensive understanding of the process of CE formation and influence. Such attempts also echo mainstream marketing researchers’ efforts to construct a theory of either CE or CE marketing (Harmeling et al., 2017; Pansari & Kumar, 2017, 2018).

A closer look at CE studies in hospitality and tourism unveils a relatively limited research agenda. One area warranting more attention involves the contextual characteristics, if any, of hospitality and tourism CE studies; that is, to avoid producing purely venue-based research with limited value-added contributions, scholars must articulate why the hospitality and tourism context deserves special consideration. Doing so is particularly critical in an applied field that tends to focus on developing middle-range theories (X. Li, 2016; Merton, 2012; Merton & Merton, 1968) and offering insight into a substantive domain (Janiszewski, 2009). For instance, travel consumption is often high-involvement, high-value, and highly hedonic, emotional, and visual; as such, the topic lends itself well to online and social media discussion (Liu et al., 2019). The supply structure of travel operates such that a trip usually involves multiple service providers, some of whom are public or quasipublic entities who follow operation models distinct from for-profit businesses. Furthermore, destinations have limited control over their service offerings and tourists’ satisfaction; visitors frequently resort to other tourists’ knowledge stores and creativity (Harmeling et al., 2017) while traveling. These features can make the travel context unique in terms of cultivating CE and engaging in CE marketing. Accordingly, before borrowing conceptualizations from mainstream marketing, hospitality and tourism scholars should carefully ponder the boundaries and contextual sensitivity of these ideas. Researchers in our field must also specify how the hospitality and tourism context can inspire revisions to the operationalization of CE (So et al., 2014; So et al., 2016).

Methodological Developments

Most hospitality and tourism studies reviewed in this article used onetime, self-reported customer surveys together with SEM and related multivariate analyses. Although many authors seem to agree that CE is inherently behavioral (or involves a behavioral element), most studies only incorporated attitudinal or perceptual constructs; firm-based/aggregated economic outcomes are mostly lacking, as are field experiments using in-market customer response data (Hughes, Swaminathan, & Brooks, 2019). Other methodological lacunae include longitudinal research, experimental studies, multilevel investigations, advanced qualitative studies beyond in-depth interviews, and alternative data collection approaches such as neural and behavioral techniques. Most notably, although the wide attention to CE has arguably been fueled by technological and media developments, few CE studies featuring advanced data analytics have appeared in the hospitality and tourism literature thus far (Aluri et al., 2019).

Most research in our field has focused on micro-level relationships (e.g., individual customers’ responses and relationships with organizations or brands). Meso-level (e.g., aggregated social collectives and individual customers) and macro-level (e.g., platforms and organizations) examinations outside the individual firm/brand dyad could imbue this line of work with new insights (Brodie et al., 2019). This so-called “actor engagement” perspective implies that future CE research could include a larger group of stakeholders, including in terms of engagement among employees (Saks, 2006) and the public (Kang, 2014). Methodologically, such work would entail diverse units of analysis, different sampling approaches, and statistical methods addressing network data.

Attention to Context

As noted, we believe hospitality and tourism scholars should capitalize on our familiarity with contextual and substantive domains to make value-added theoretical contributions (Janiszewski, 2009). We thus propose four context-related suggestions. First, in addition to destinations, hotels, and restaurants, scholars should expand CE research to investigate other hospitality and tourism sectors such as cruises, theme parks, and airlines. Second, future CE research should be extended to explore business-to-business contexts in hospitality and tourism (e.g., event planning, conferences and conventions, and incentive travel). Particular attention should be paid to whether the nature and dynamics of CE differ among research settings. Third, cultural and economic developments can greatly influence CE (Gupta, Pansari, & Kumar, 2018); as such, a promising area for future research involves cultural differences in how (a) CE drivers affect consumers and (b) consumers exhibit CE behaviors across countries, cultures, and media environments. Other pertinent questions include the following: (a) Do consumers engage with brands/firms in a homogenous or heterogeneous manner? (b) Can variability across customers be captured by country, continent, culture, or environmental differences? Fourth, CE can occur through multiple channels and platforms within hospitality and tourism firms; conceptual research has suggested that CE “occurs under a specific set of context dependent conditions generating differing CE levels” (Brodie et al., 2011, p. 260). Accordingly, another intriguing avenue for investigation is whether channel/platform differences exist in terms of CE and the specific characteristics likely to generate such differences (Hughes et al., 2019). These questions remain relatively underexplored and therefore deserve further attention.

The Role of Customer Co-Creation and Technology

Much CE research in our field has taken technology as a backdrop, including identifying technological developments as an impetus for motivating and tracking customers’ contributions to firms’ marketing performance. We believe more remains to be discovered about the role of technology in promoting interactive, prevalent CE and true customer value co-creation. Potential research directions include deciphering how technology can empower consumers or alter their relationships with brands. Similarly, technological advances (e.g., AI, service robots, and 5G network technology) and the transformative impacts of social media on our society have made the virtual world a central focus of marketing activities geared toward cultivating or triggering CE. As such, an important managerial question concerns how to design effective engagement platforms and engagement initiatives to motivate and attract customers to participate in customer-to-customer and customer-to-company interactions. The “dark side” of CE also deserves exploration, including firm-related consequences following from CE (e.g., firm vulnerability or other unintended consequences) and how new CE platforms and initiatives may encourage customers to participate in negative WOM (Harmeling et al., 2017).

Casting a Wider Net

We believe there is value for future CE research to move beyond the current focus on dyadic interactions/relationships (i.e., customer–company) to a service ecosystem perspective, where a network of actors interact and of which dyadic relations are merely one component (Vargo & Lusch, 2017). Multiple actors exist within the tourism ecosystem (e.g., the government, DMOs, hotels, transportation providers, restaurants, residents, and tourists); in terms of the travel experience, value is co-created through multiple actors’ engagement. For instance, residents represent key stakeholders in promoting tourism, and resident attitude has been one of the most widely examined topics in the tourism literature. Early research in this vein generally framed residents as passive recipients of and respondents to tourism impacts. Residents in host destinations have since been enabled by technology and new media channels; today, they are also facing pressure due to over tourism and other tourism impacts. Such developments have compelled residents to engage in tourism development in new and more proactive ways. Their participation could certainly inspire a new line of resident engagement research. Similarly, how do other industry and government actors engage with each other (and with tourists) to co-create value within the broader tourism ecosystem?

Linking CE to Economic/Financial Outcomes

As indicated in our review, prior research has been overwhelmingly concentrated on cognitive, affective, and behavioral/intentional responses as consequences of CE. While the findings of such studies have remained fundamental in enhancing our understanding of CE, more research could examine linkages between CE and firm-level economic/financial outcomes such as occupancy, revenue, and profitability. The conceptualization of CE has also transitioned from a unidimensional to a multidimensional framework. Therefore, more psychological and behavioral CE aspects have been incorporated into relevant research. Although we support a more comprehensive understanding of CE, we believe a unique feature of CE research involves its emphasis on and evaluation of customer behavior. Such behavior will become increasingly important if CE is to be associated with marketing productivity, financial performance, and more accountable marketing strategies (Denizci & Li, 2009; Rust et al., 2004).