sustainability

Article
The Impact of the Perceived Values of Social Network Services
(SNSs) on Brand Attitude and Value-Co-Creation Behavior in
the Coffee Industry
Ah-Min Kwon and Young Namkung *

College of Hotel & Tourism Management, Kyung Hee University, 26, Kyungheedae-ro, Dongdaemun-gu,
Seoul 02447, Korea; amira1125@khu.ac.kr
* Correspondence: ynamkung@khu.ac.kr

Abstract: The coffee industry has grown into a highly competitive management environment, which
has led to the contemplation of differentiated marketing strategies as tools for business success.
Practitioners operate their own SNS brand pages to encourage customers to participate and engage
in two-way interpersonal marketing practices that can generate value co-creation. This paper aims to
explore the relationships among the types of value offered by SNSs, brand attitude, and customer
value-co-creation behaviors in the hospitality context, by employing the Value–Attitude–Behavior
model. Data were collected via an online survey research company and analyzed by PLS-SEM using
SmartPLS 3.0 and Jamovi 1.0 software packages. A quantitative research method was carried out with
a total of 406 adults in South Korea who had had both on-site and SNS coffee brand experiences within
three months of the survey. The results of this study can be summarized as follows. First, information-
seeking, entertainment, and expressive value all had a significant positive effect on brand attitude.
Second, brand attitude had a significant positive effect on both customer participation behaviors and
customer citizenship behaviors. The results of the current study suggest useful implications in that
Citation: Kwon, A.-M.; Namkung, Y. the usage of SNSs as marketing communication tools can influence not only online but also offline
The Impact of the Perceived Values of brand attitudes and customer value-co-creation behaviors.
Social Network Services (SNSs) on
Brand Attitude and Keywords: social network services; perceived value; brand attitude; customer value-co-creation
Value-Co-Creation Behavior in the behavior; coffee industry
Coffee Industry. Sustainability 2022,
14, 5425. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su14095425

Academic Editor: Andrea Pérez 1. Introduction

Received: 21 February 2022

The coffee industry’s growing market provides exciting opportunities, but also chal-
Accepted: 27 April 2022
lenges, due to its highly competitive management environment. Additionally, the COVID-
Published: 30 April 2022
19 pandemic has resulted in enormous changes in service settings [1]. The current situation
has been catastrophic for the hospitality industry forcing businesses to reduce service en-
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
counters that are essential to the service process [2]. Given the managerial difficulties that
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
practitioners are facing, differentiated marketing strategies to communicate with customers
published maps and institutional affil-
are required in the coffee industry [3].
iations.
Creating value through business is the ultimate goal for corporations. Due to the
inseparable and heterogeneous nature of service in the hospitality context, customers are
considered as active partners of firms because they play significant roles in the process of
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
producing service and creating value [4,5]. Interactions between a brand and its customers
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. are a significant factor that can evoke various beneficial behavioral outcomes, such as co-
This article is an open access article creation of brand value [6]. Therefore, how to encourage customers to engage in successful
distributed under the terms and service processes that create value has been a crucial research subject in academia for
conditions of the Creative Commons many years.
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// Customers’ value-co-creation behaviors frequently occur in online service settings. In
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ fact, virtual environments, such as social network services (SNSs), are considered easier and
4.0/). more efficient platforms for triggering co-creation behaviors than offline spaces, because

Sustainability 2022, 14, 5425. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095425 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2022, 14, 5425 2 of 15

SNSs prominently feature prompt responses with fewer time and space limitations [7,8].
Via SNS, customers can input resources, such as time, effort, knowledge, opinions, attitudes,
information, and accounts of experiences regarding a brand, while interacting with the
brand or other customers and creating value for the firm and themselves [9]. Expanded
service settings are also cost-effective for enticing customers to engage in co-creation [4,10].
For example, Starbucks, which leads the coffee industry in Korea, has garnered more than
0.82 million followers and 1.5 thousand posts on Instagram. Along with the followers of
the Starbucks page, other SNS users are frequently exposed to the Starbucks page or posts,
gaining the opportunity to participate in brand-marketing communication activities.
Hence, most coffee brands, large or small, have created and optimized official brand
pages through various SNS channels, such as Instagram, Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter,
to allow customers to simultaneously participate in marketing interactions in real time.
Because SNSs are already part of the ordinary lives of ‘fan’ or ‘guest’ customers of a brand,
they are pervasively used by marketers, not only to market a brand’s products and services,
but also to directly communicate and build lasting relationships with customers in order to
co-create value [8,11–13]. Online activities, such as following, liking, commenting, making
recommendations, exchanging information, and other similar activities, are all considered
convenient and active marketing interactions between brands and customers [6,12,14].
SNSs allow for two-way communication [4,8,15]. Thus, the features of SNSs as mar-
keting communication tools are essential for the success of SNS marketing and, at the
same time, critical for customer value-co-creation behaviors [8,16]. Despite the importance
of SNSs as prominent channels for customer value-co-creation behaviors, relatively little
attention has been paid to the relationship between them [16]. Because these networks
have huge numbers of users, they offer a key platform in the context of many-to-many in-
teraction, which in turn yields valuable marketing intelligence a brand can use to co-create
value beyond purchasing [14,17,18].
Given the attention directed toward the increased usage of SNSs as marketing in-
teraction tools and customer value-co-creation behaviors, a research question emerges:
Does the perceived value of using SNSs as marketing tools, as promoted by the SNSs
themselves, translate to customers engaging in actual value-co-creation behaviors? Cus-
tomers’ interactive experiences can lead to value creation by forming relationships between
stakeholders [13,19,20]. However, few studies have investigated the impact of brand SNS
experiences on brand attitude and value-co-creation behaviors. Using Homer and Kahle’s
(1988) Value–Attitude–Behavior model, the current study looks in detail at the dimensions
of the perceived value of using SNSs, and their effects on brand attitude and customer
value-co-creation behavior [21].
In summary, the purpose of this study was to fill this research gap. First, this study
aimed to present academic and practical evidence indicating which dimensions of the
perceived value of using brand SNS pages significantly affect brand attitude. Second,
this study also attempted to assess whether brand attitude significantly affects customer
value-co-creation behaviors. The results of the current study are expected to provide a
theoretical and practical foundation for current practitioners and future studies in that it
deals with both online and on-site value-co-creation experiences in the coffee industry.

2. Literature review
2.1. Value–Attitude–Behavior Model (VAB Model)
The Value–Attitude–Behavior model has been consistently adopted by researchers to
explain consumer behavior in various fields [22]. The model consists of three components
arranged in hierarchical order: value, attitude, and behavior [21]. According to Homer
and Kahle (1988) [21], abstract values in the cognitive domain indirectly influence specific
behaviors through the midrange attitude. The concept of attitude in this context is defined
as a tendency to evaluate a brand favorably or unfavorably, which can determine behavioral
variables [22,23]. Values are more fundamental than attitudes in the hierarchical structure,
whereas intentions to behave or actual behaviors follow attitudes [21,24]. Therefore, ac-
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5425 3 of 15

cording to the model, the perception of value and a positive attitude toward a brand can
actually initiate beneficial customer behaviors. A broad range of consumer behaviors in the
context of the hospitality industry has been explained with the VAB model [22–26]. For
example, Teng et al. (2014) [22] claimed that personal values significantly and positively
affect attitudes toward health and the environment, and attitudes also have a significantly
positive effect on revisit and recommendation intentions. Shin et al. (2017) [24] pointed
out that willingness to pay more can result from pro-environmental attitudes and the con-
sumption values of customers. Compared to prior research dealing with values regarding
actual consumption, studies on the perceived value of using SNSs have not been sufficiently
discussed, in spite of the gravity of this issue. The current study applied the VAB model
to explicate the impacts of the perceived value of using a SNS, which is an online service
environment, on attitudes and customer value-co-creation behaviors.

2.2. Perceived Value of Using SNSs and Brand Attitude

Despite the widespread adoption of SNSs, researchers have paid little attention to
the perceived value of using them as a marketing platform. This study aimed to elucidate
the multiple dimensions of the value of using SNSs for this purpose, and considered
both the cognitive and emotional aspects of this value. The conventional approach to
comprehending value relates to consumption behaviors. Sheth et al. (1991) [27] defined
value as the standard resulting from a comparison of expenses to benefits. However, there
have been various attempts by many researchers to define the multiple dimensions of value.
For example, Sweeny and Soutar (2001) [28] refined the definition of consumption value for
customers to include emotional, social, price, and performance components, and developed
a measuring scale, PERVAL, based on the suggestion of Sheth et al. (1991) [27]. Smith and
Colgate (2007) [29] argued that a multidimensional approach that considers the context of
the situation is necessary to clarify a variety of types of value. They suggested four types
of value: functional, hedonic, symbolic, and cost. In line with the previous research, this
study attempted to identify the specific dimensions of the perceived value of interaction
experiences via SNS brand pages in the coffee industry.
Based on a review of the literature, this paper proposes four types of value that can be
gained by using SNSs: information-seeking, entertainment, expressive, and economic [19,27–35].
First, information-seeking value is conceptualized as the ways in which customers fulfill
their cognitive needs by searching for epistemic or novel value on SNSs [19,27]. Customers
perceive value when information about the brand is exact, useful, and up-to-date. Second,
entertainment value is perceived in terms of emotional value, such as happiness, excitement,
joy, or pleasure, gained by using SNSs [19,28,31]. Third, expressive value is perceived
when customers can show, express, and share their self-identity, opinions, or faith via
SNSs [19,29,32]. Lastly, economic value refers to benefits in terms of price or service quality
that customers can obtain by using SNSs [19,27,28,33]. When customers recognize that
using a brand’s SNS gives them access to better prices or service offers, then economic
value is perceived.
Attitudes are associated with specific objects, such as a brand in the current study.
Brand attitude refers to customers’ overall evaluations of a brand derived by synthesizing
brand-relevant experiences at various levels, such as communication, purchasing, or us-
age [36,37]. When customers have an affirmative brand attitude, they tend to positively and
favorably evaluate the brand. Brand attitude can also be related to non-product and sym-
bolic attributes, and thus should be considered as a significant factor influencing diverse
consumer behaviors [36,37].
Some scholars have confirmed the significant role of SNSs, not only in terms of pro-
viding information but also promoting exchanges of experiences and values, and in turn,
influencing brand attitude in the hospitality context [38–40]. Song and Yoo (2016) [38]
argued that customers of hotels and restaurants perceive using SNSs in the early stages of
the purchase-decision-making process as providing informational, economic, and enter-
tainment value. They found that these dimensions of value derived from SNSs influence
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5425 4 of 15

the final choice. However, this study ignored the aspect of attitude. Other research demon-
strated that the informational, expressive, and emotional benefits of participation behaviors
on SNSs significantly and positively affect attitude [39]. Carlson et al. (2019) [40] showed
that active interaction among customers on SNS pages generated informational, emotional,
and relational value, thereby affecting satisfaction and relationship quality. The results of
the prior studies suggest the possibility of a positive relationship between the perceived
value of using SNSs and brand attitude in the context of the coffee industry. Based on the
preceding discussions, the following hypotheses were proposed:

Hypothesis 1. The perceived value of using SNSs has a significantly positive effect on brand attitude.
H1-1 . The perceived information-seeking value of using SNSs has a significantly positive effect on
brand attitude.
H1-2 . The perceived entertainment value of using SNSs has a significantly positive effect on
brand attitude.
H1-3 . The perceived expressive value of using SNSs has a significantly positive effect on brand attitude.
H1-4 . The perceived economic value of using SNSs has a significantly positive effect on brand attitude.

2.3. Customer Value-Co-Creation Behavior: Participation and Citizenship

Unlike the traditional view of customers as receivers or passive buyers of the value
that firms provide, modern customers can take part in creating value with firms, according
to service-dominant logic (S-D logic) [41]. Customers become human resources through
involvement in the value creation process, and can help to improve the performance of
companies [41–43]. This significance of the active roles of customers may be of even greater
importance in the hospitality sphere, because mutual interactive cooperation that co-creates
value is frequently performed [43].
Customer value-co-creation behavior pertains to the collaborative activities businesses
and customers engage in, such as interacting and sharing their ideas and experiences, that
contribute to creating value for both customers and businesses alike [42,44,45]. Customer
value-co-creation behavior includes two components: customer participation behaviors and
customer citizenship behaviors [42,45]. Participation behaviors refer to the in-role activities
of customers that are essential to the service process, whereas citizenship behaviors refer to
extra-role activities customers engage in that provide richer value beyond what is expected
for the firm [42,44,45].
Yi and Gong (2013) [42] conceptually separated value-co-creation behaviors into partic-
ipation behaviors and citizenship behaviors, and suggested measurement scales to be used
specifically for service industries. According to their research, customer participation behav-
iors include four first-order elements: information seeking, information sharing, personal
interaction, and responsible behavior [42,46]. These are required and essential behaviors
customers must engage in to successfully complete the service process [42,47]. For example,
when customers plan to use a certain brand, they might search for information about the
brand to ensure a satisfying user experience. Furthermore, when customers are physically
in the shop, the delivery of the service can only be completed through cooperative inter-
actions between the staff of the brand and the customer. Customer citizenship behaviors
also include four first-order factors: advocacy, helping, tolerance, and feedback [42,46].
However, citizenship behaviors are voluntarily performed for the brand by customers who
invest tangible and intangible resources into the relationship and, thereby, provide extraor-
dinary value for a firm [42,47]. Positive comments about the brand, recommendations, or
being more patient regardless of a service failure are all examples of citizenship behaviors.
In line with Yi and Gong (2013) [42], this research also defines customer value-co-creation
behavior in terms of two categories [46,47].
Brand attitude is related to customer behaviors, as mentioned above, and customer
value-co-creation behaviors are not an exception. Zadeh et al. (2019) [9] provided em-
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5425 5 of 15

pirical evidence indicating that attitudes formed by informational interactions on SNSs

significantly affect intentions to perform participation and citizenship behaviors. Prior
research focused on the co-creation experience in the tourism industry and suggested that
tourists’ attitudes have a positive effect on brand co-creation [48]. Moreover, Frasquet-
Deltoro et al. (2019) [16] pointed out the necessity of research on how to derive value
from co-creation behaviors in both offline and online contexts. In this respect, the current
study adopted the VAB model to explain brand attitude as an antecedent of comprehensive
customer value-co-creation behaviors [21]. The research model with hypothesis is proposed
in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Research model.

Hypothesis 2. Brand attitude has a significantly positive effect on customer value-co-creation behaviors.
H2-1 . Brand attitude has a significantly positive effect on customer participation behaviors.
H2-2 . Brand attitude has a significantly positive effect on customer citizenship behavior.

3. Methodology
3.1. Data Collection
The current study employed a self-administered quantitative research method to
indicate relationships among the perceived value of using SNSs, brand attitude, and
customer value-co-creation behaviors. Respondents were required to choose one coffee
brand which they have experienced both in the SNS page and in the coffee shops. The
survey targeted coffee brands actively operating official brand pages on SNSs (Instagram,
Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter). Additionally, the price of one cup of coffee (above
4100 won), the brand value of the coffee brand, and the number of shops (at least over 150)
were all considered when selecting coffee brands in the survey.
A pretest was conducted with 30 people to check the clarity of measurement scales
and ensure the validity and reliability of the survey. The questionnaires were revised
based on comments after the pretest. Data were collected via an online survey research
company from 23 September to 7 October 2021. A total of 406 adults in South Korea who
had both on-site and SNS coffee brand experiences within three months participated in the
main study.

3.2. Measurements
To compile demographic information, respondents were asked about their gender,
age, income per month, education level, and occupation. Items developed by Flores and
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5425 6 of 15

Vasquez-Parraga (2015) [33], Han and Kim (2020) [34], Pandey and Kumar (2020) [19],
Ryu et al. (2010) [35], and Sheth et al. (1991) [27] were modified and adapted to measure
the perceived value of using SNSs: information-seeking value (4 items), entertainment
value (4 items), expressive value (4 items), and economic value (4 items), respectively. Four
measurement items regarding brand attitude were adopted from Langaro et al. (2018) [36].
Customer co-creation behaviors consisted of eight first-order constructs with 27 measure-
ment items: customer participation behaviors (14 items) and customer citizenship behaviors
(13 items) [16,42,47]. Both were analyzed as second-order factors with four first-order fac-
tors each. Participation behaviors included information seeking (3 items), information
sharing (3 items), responsible behavior (4 items), and personal interaction (4 items), while
citizenship behavior included feedback (3 items), advocacy (3 items), helping (4 items), and
tolerance (3 items). Given that customer co-creation behaviors are more easily performed
in online environments, the measurement scales consider both online and onsite service
settings [16]. A seven-point Likert scale from 1 “strongly disagree” to 7 “strongly agree”
was used to measure all the variables.

3.3. Data Analysis

Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) was employed to an-
alyze the collected data, using SmartPLS 3.2.9 and JAMOVI 1.0 software packages. The
first part of this study included descriptive statistical analysis and correlation analysis,
followed by measurement model analysis employing bootstrapping methodology (5000 re-
samples) [49,50]. The reliability and validity of the measurement model were assessed
according to the two-step approach recommended by Hair et al. (2017) [49]. The second
part of the current study assessed the structural model with a hierarchical component
approach. The first-order constructs were repeatedly used for two second-order constructs
to confirm the formation of the measurement model.

4. Results
4.1. Demographic Analysis
Among the 406 participants, 199 were male (49.01%), while 207 were female (50.99%).
The majority of respondents were in their 20s (37.19%) and 30s (34.24%), which aligns with
the majority of SNS users. Approximately 68% of the sample had bachelor’s level qualifica-
tions, with office workers (45.57%) being most heavily represented. The characteristics of
the respondents are reported in Table 1.

Table 1. Demographic characteristics (N = 406).

N % n %
Male 199 49.01 High-school 25 6.16
Gender
Female 207 50.99 College 42 10.34
Education
Under 29 151 37.19 Bachelor’s 275 67.73
30–39 139 34.24 Post-graduate 64 15.76
Age
40–49 59 14.53 Student 56 13.79
50 or older 57 14.04 Office worker 185 45.57
Under 2000 30 7.39 Sales/service 25 6.16
Occupation
2000–4000 134 33 Professional 61 15.02
Income/month
4000–6000 114 28.08 Public worker 11 2.71
(in US $)
6000–8000 65 16.01 Housewife 35 8.62
8000 above 63 15.52 Others 33 8.13

4.2. Measurement Model

First, Cronbach’s α, Rho_A, composite reliability (CR), outer factor loadings, and
average variance extracted (AVE) were assessed to support the reliability and validity
of the constructs. An acceptable level for Cronbach’s α coefficients, Rho_A, and CR to
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5425 7 of 15

achieve internal consistency is 0.70 [50]. AVE should exceed 0.5, and the factor loadings
should surpass 0.7 to achieve convergent validity [50]. All the indexes were above these
standards, thereby confirming internal consistency, reliability, and convergent validity.
Table 2 represents the results of the measurement model properties. Second, discriminant
validity was tested with the Fornell–Larcker criterion [51], comparing the square roots
of AVE and correlations among the constructs. All the reported square roots of AVEs
were adequately greater than the correlations, which established discriminant validity (see
Table 3).

Table 2. Measurement properties.

Construct Mean Outer

Rho_A CR AVE
(Cronbach’s α) (±S.D) Loading
Using SNSs of the brand provided
5.13 (±1.17) 0.874
me with exact information.
Using SNSs of the brand provided
5.35 (±1.11) 0.905
Information me with useful information.
seeking Using SNSs of the brand provided 0.912 0.937 0.787
5.51 (±1.19) 0.883
(0.910) me with updated information.
Using SNSs of the brand provided
5.31 (±1.21) 0.888
me with various information.
5.32 (±1.04)
Using SNSs of the brand was
4.55 (±1.25) 0.902
pleasant for me.
Using SNSs of the brand made me
4.53 (±1.26) 0.922
entertained.
Entertainment
Using SNSs of the brand did not 0.931 0.950 0.826
(0.930) 4.51 (±1.25) 0.908
make me bored.
Using SNSs of the brand was
Values of 4.59 (±1.23) 0.904
interesting.
SNS 4.55 (±1.13)
Using SNSs of the brand held
4.34 (±1.31) 0.856
meaning for me.
Using SNSs of the brand helped me
3.75 (±1.56) 0.913
express myself.
Expressive
Using SNSs of the brand helped me 0.937 0.931 0.771
(0.903) 3.70 (±1.53) 0.890
identify myself.
Using SNSs of the brand seemed to
4.13 (±1.45) 0.852
help others express themselves.
3.98 (±1.29)
Using SNSs of the brand helped me
4.30 (±1.55) 0.806
get better prices than others.
Using SNSs of the brand helped me
4.56 (±1.47) 0.868
Economic receive faster services than others.
0.897 0.921 0.746
(0.886) Using SNSs of the brand helped me
4.23 (±1.55) 0.890
receive higher-quality service.
Using SNSs of the brand helped me
4.15 (±1.52) 0.888
receive more customized services.
4.31 (±1.31)
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5425 8 of 15

Table 2. Cont.

Construct Mean Outer

Rho_A CR AVE
(Cronbach’s α) (±S.D) Loading
I felt that I liked the brand. 5.51 (±1.11) 0.899
I felt that the brand was likable. 5.49 (±1.09) 0.918
Brand attitude
I felt that the brand was valuable. 5.16 (±1.30) 0.908 0.932 0.951 0.830
(0.932)
I felt that the brand was attractive. 5.31 (±1.18) 0.917
5.37 (±1.07)
I asked others for the
4.12 (±1.68) 0.750
products/services of the brand.
Information I searched for information on the
5.12 (±1.26) 0.880
seeking * products/services of the brand. 0.845 0.846 0.647
(0.744) I paid attention to how others used
4.54 (±1.49) 0.778
the brand well.
4.59 (±1.20)
I clearly explained what I wanted to
4.91 (±1.35) 0.908
the brand employee(s).
I provided the necessary
Information information so that the brand
4.74 (±1.43) 0.920
sharing * employee(s) could perform 0.896 0.931 0.905
(0.889) appropriate duties.
I answered all the employee(s)’
4.68 (±1.38) 0.885
service-related questions.
4.78 (±1.26)
Customer I was kind to the brand
Participation 5.90 (±1.10) 0.939
employee(s).
Behavior I was polite to the brand
Personal 5.93 (±1.09) 0.949
interaction employee(s). 0.955 0.967 0.878
(0.954) I respected the brand employee(s). 5.97 (±1.09) 0.941
I did not act rudely to the brand
6.08 (±1.04) 0.920
employee(s).
5.97 (±1.01)
I performed all required tasks for
the successful delivery of service 5.54 (±1.20) 0.903
while visiting the brand shop.
I properly completed all the
expected behaviors for the
5.41 (±1.16) 0.914
successful service delivery while
Responsible visiting the brand shop.
behavior I fulfilled responsibilities toward 0.930 0.950 0.827
(0.930) successful service delivery while 5.46 (±1.18) 0.922
visiting the brand shop.
I followed the employee(s)’
directives or orders for successful
5.62 (±1.10) 0.899
service delivery while visiting the
brand shop.
5.51 (±1.05)
When I had a good idea for
improving the service of the brand, 3.81 (±1.64) 0.888
I let the employee(s) know.
Customer When I received good service from
Feedback * the brand employee(s), 4.25 (±1.53) 0.895
Citizenship 0.867 0.916 0.784
(0.863) I commented.
Behavior
When I experienced a problem, I let
4.03 (±1.60) 0.873
the brand employee(s) know.
4.03 (±1.41)
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5425 9 of 15

Table 2. Cont.

Construct Mean Outer

Rho_A CR AVE
(Cronbach’s α) (±S.D) Loading
I said positive things about the
brand and the employee(s) to 4.72 (±1.31) 0.841
others.
Advocacy * I recommended the brand and the
4.82 (±1.29) 0.902 0.833 0.900 0.750
(0.833) employee(s) to others.
I encouraged friends, family, and
4.54 (±1.39) 0.854
relatives to visit the brand.
4.69 (±1.15)
I assisted other customers if they
4.44 (±1.42) 0.901
needed my help with the brand.
I helped other customers if they
seemed to have problems with the 4.25 (±1.46) 0.929
brand.
Helping *
I taught other customers to use the 0.938 0.955 0.843
(0.938)
products/services of the brand 4.37 (±1.47) 0.936
correctly.
I advised other customers about the
4.27 (±1.47) 0.906
products/services of the brand.
4.33 (±1.34)
When the service was not delivered
as expected, I accepted the 4.81 (±1.33) 0.730
deficiency.
When the employee(s) made a
Tolerance mistake during the service, I was 5.43 (±1.14) 0.844
0.746 0.850 0.655
(0.735) patient and waited for corrections.
When I had to wait longer than I
usually expected to receive the 5.52 (±1.13) 0.848
service, I adapted.
5.25 (±0.96)
* Note. Items with stars represent both on-site and online experiences regarding the coffee brand. Otherwise,
on-site experience only.

Table 3. Discriminant validity: Fornell–Larcker criterion.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1 0.887
2 0.552 0.909
3 0.284 0.652 0.878
4 0.376 0.547 0.682 0.864
5 0.449 0.473 0.386 0.385 0.911
6 0.419 0.450 0.459 0.421 0.371 0.805
7 0.481 0.398 0.374 0.447 0.437 0.498 0.905
8 0.465 0.207 −0.067 0.051 0.424 0.211 0.296 0.937
9 0.480 0.252 0.044 0.156 0.405 0.322 0.403 0.731 0.909
10 0.273 0.481 0.654 0.505 0.256 0.491 0.461 −0.056 0.104 0.885
11 0.451 0.487 0.504 0.452 0.565 0.568 0.528 0.252 0.363 0.536 0.866
12 0.328 0.433 0.567 0.520 0.365 0.550 0.525 0.079 0.184 0.684 0.675 0.918
13 0.433 0.263 0.124 0.197 0.429 0.355 0.357 0.580 0.626 0.133 0.403 0.226 0.809
Note. The square roots of AVE on the diagonal and construct correlations below the diagonal. 1. Information-
seeking value. 2. Entertainment value. 3. Expressive value. 4. Economic value. 5. Brand attitude. 6. Information-
seeking. 7. Information-sharing. 8. Personal interaction. 9. Responsible behavior. 10. Feedback. 11. Advocacy.
12. Helping. 13. Tolerance.

4.3. Structural Model

In the second part of the current study, collinearity was examined with VIF values
before the hypotheses were estimated. VIF values under 3 were acceptable. The results of all
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5425 10 of 15

constructs ranged from 1.000 to 2.554, indicating there was no concern of collinearity with
the model [50]. Each correlation coefficient between the eight first-order structures and two
second-order structures, participation behavior and citizenship behavior, was statistically
significant (p < 0.000): information seeking (β = 0.593), information sharing (β = 0.643),
personal interaction (β = 0.852), responsible behavior (β = 0.895), feedback (β = 0.804),
advocacy (β = 0.853), helping (β = 0.917), and tolerance (β = 0.433). This suggests that
higher-order structures formed well and explained the correlation with lower-order factors.
The R2 values refer to the power of how well the latent variables predicted the con-
structs: brand attitude (R2 = 0.300), customer participation behavior (R2 = 0.285), and
customer citizenship behavior (R2 = 0.244). Moreover, Stone-Geisser’s Q2 values were cal-
culated using a blindfolding procedure to indicate the predictive power of the model [51,52].
All of the Q2 values were above zero, thereby demonstrating a high ability to predict [53].
Lastly, the suggested hypotheses were further assessed by examining the t-value and path
coefficient with PLS-SEM algorithm analysis (see Table 4). First, the paths H1-1 , H1-2 and
H1-3 were supported. Perceived information-seeking value (β = 0.277, p < 0.000), entertain-
ment value (β = 0.180, p < 0.05), and expressive value (β = 0.133, p < 0.05) via SNS usage had
significantly positive effects on brand attitude. The economic value of using SNSs, however,
did not significantly affect brand attitude (H1-4 , β = 0.091). Second, brand attitude had
positive and significant impacts on customer value-co-creation behaviors, including both
customer participation behaviors (β = 0.533, p < 0.000) and customer citizenship behaviors
(β = 0.494, p < 0.000), thereby supporting both H2-1 and H2-2 . The result of the hypothesis
testing is shown in Figure 2.

Table 4. Hypothesis testing.

Path
Hypothesized Path R2 (Q2 ) t-Value Result
Coefficient
Information-seeking Value → Brand
H1-1 0.277 *** 4.595 Supported
Attitude
0.300
H1-2 Entertainment Value → Brand Attitude 0.180 * 2.486 Supported
(0.246)
H1-3 Expressive Value → Brand Attitude 0.133 * 2.050 Supported
Not
H1-4 Economic Value → Brand Attitude 0.091 (n.s.) 1.543
supported
Brand Attitude → Participation 0.285
H2-1 0.533 *** 11.399 Supported
Behavior (0.134)
0.244
H2-2 Brand Attitude → Citizenship Behavior 0.494 *** 10.810 Supported
(0.113)
*** p < 0.001, * p < 0.05, n.s. not significant.

Figure 2. Result of Hypothesis Testing. *** p < 0.001, * p < 0.05, n.s. not significant.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5425 11 of 15

5. Conclusions
5.1. Discussion
Prior studies have demonstrated the importance of using SNSs as marketing inter-
action channels in the hospitality context. However, knowledge regarding relationships
between SNSs values and value-co-creation behaviors is still scarce. The current study
aimed to confirm the impacts of using coffee brand SNSs on brand attitude and customer
value-co-creation behaviors drawing on the VAB model. The results of the study can be sum-
marized as follows. First, perceived information-seeking, entertainment, and expressive
value significantly and positively affected customers’ brand attitudes. Information-seeking
value showed the greatest significance (mean = 5.32, β = 0.277), then entertainment value
(mean = 4.55, β = 0.180), and finally expressive value (mean = 3.98, β = 0.133). This finding
aligns with the assertion of previous research that the informational function of SNSs is
substantial. At the same time, the result suggests that the aspects of entertainment and
expressive values should be also considered. The function of providing information has
typically been the focus of practitioners. However, given these results, utilizing coffee
brand SNSs as interactive tools for creating multiple forms of value seems critical.
In contrast, the research hypothesis regarding the economic value (H1-4 ) of using
SNSs was not supported, which does not align with the antecedent research [36,54]. This
contradiction may be explained by the samples used by past studies dealing with the
economic value of SNSs. Those studies targeted customers who had hotel or restaurant
experiences. In contrast, the expenses of coffee brand customers are relatively trivial, and
therefore may not seem like a large enough purchase to constitute perceived economic
benefit through SNSs. Though the effect of the economic value of using SNSs was not
statistically significant, the result showed 0.123 significance level with β = 0.091. Thus, the
result may still imply a positive relationship between economic value and brand attitude.
Second, the results showed that brand attitude had a significant effect on both cus-
tomer participation behaviors and customer citizenship behaviors. These results indicate
that customers’ overall evaluations of a brand are a very important factor in terms of
the midrange role between the value gained from SNSs and actual customer value-co-
creation behaviors. The VAB model appositely explained the relationship among the three
main variables.
Furthermore, the behavioral variables of the current study comprehensively reflected
both online and onsite service settings. In summary, the results of the study implied that the
perceived value of using SNSs can entice customers to perform value-co-creation behaviors
in both online and offline environments through the fostering of brand attitudes. Moreover,
customer behaviors that co-create value can consequently generate various types of usage
value in the virtual environment, forming a virtuous circle.

5.2. Theoretical Implications

This study contributes to the coffee industry management literature by confirming the
effectiveness of a multi-dimensional approach to the perceived value of using SNSs and
brand attitude as antecedents of customer value-co-creation behaviors. The current study
explored and identified four types of value: information-seeking, entertainment, expressive,
and economic, based on literature and empirical evidence. Few previous researchers have
paid attention to the different types of perceived value associated with using SNSs as a
consequence of marketing communications, or have respectively examined these values
in the context of the coffee industry. Thus, this result is expected to expand theoretical
approaches to SNSs in the foodservice industry.
Moreover, based upon the VAB model, this study proposed brand attitude as an
antecedent of customer value-co-creation behaviors. Prior research demonstrated that
interacting on SNSs can build and enhance the relationship quality between a brand and its
customers. Similarly, the result of this study showed that active participation in SNSs also
resulted in brand attitude, which consequently related to customer participation behaviors
and customer citizenship behaviors.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5425 12 of 15

Additionally, the current study attempted to examine customer participation behaviors

and customer citizenship behaviors using multi-layer factors corresponding to four sub-
constructs each. The significant relationships among the constructs suggested theoretical
implications for future customer value-co-creation behavior research in the context of the
coffee industry.
Lastly, the findings contribute to better comprehension of the considerable impacts of
SNS usage on both online and offline value-co-creation behaviors in the coffee industry.
Most past research has solely focused on either SNS or on-site interactive brand experiences,
even though in these times, these experiences may be happening simultaneously. Thus,
this study can provide distinctive research insights in terms of derived comprehensive
value-co-creation behaviors based on the different dimensions of value associated with
SNSs and brand attitude.

5.3. Managerial Implications

The results of this study also suggest practical recommendations for marketing practi-
tioners in the coffee industry. First, coffee brands should offer diverse marketing interaction
experiences, so that customers perceive that they receive various types of value by using
SNSs. Particularly, marketing managers should recognize the information-seeking value
type as a key benefit of SNS brand pages. To enhance this value, providing exact and
useful information is needed. Further, SNS pages must provide up-to-date and various
brand information to customers. Moreover, emotional/personal aspects should also be
emphasized according to the empirical evidence of the current study, which highlights the
importance of entertainment value and expressive value on SNSs as well. Customers can
feel pleasant, entertained, and interested through participation behaviors on brand SNS
pages. Furthermore, interaction activities with a brand and other customers on a SNS page
can allow customers to express their inner selves. Therefore, it is recommended that coffee
brand marketers consider the multiple benefits of using SNSs and endeavor to provide as
many types of value as possible.
Second, establishing brand attitude through SNS interactions can be a double-edged
sword. While online experiences can substantially impact customers, at the same time,
these interactions tend to be more difficult for practitioners to control in terms of the breadth
and depth of the effect. Therefore, the industry should understand the ‘ripple effect’ of
using SNSs as a marketing method, and pay attention to interactions with customers to
prevent generating negative impressions toward the brand via its SNS.
Third, marketing professionals should pay attention to customer citizenship behaviors
in online service settings. SNSs can weaken communication barriers between a brand
and its customers, thereby greatly facilitating citizenship behaviors. Customer citizenship
behaviors, in contrast to required participation behaviors, are discretionary activities that
customers perform, and are helpful to both the service company and the customer. For
example, customers can say positive things or recommend the brand to other customers.
Additionally, they can act as ‘brand ambassadors’ by assisting and advising other customers
regarding the brand. The brand can sometimes receive direct feedback regarding products
and services via customer citizenship behaviors. The performance of the brand can be
enhanced through such volunteer value-co-creation behaviors. According to prior research,
it can lead to beneficial consequences, such as service quality, satisfaction, and brand
loyalty [16,55–57]. Therefore, it is necessary for practitioners to actively use SNSs as
strategic tools to involve customers in citizenship behaviors.

5.4. Limitations and Future Study

Despite the contributions of this study, it does have several limitations that suggest
insights for future research. First, the current research was limited to the context of the coffee
industry in Korea only. Thus, future studies can apply these constructs to other foodservice
segments; or can be generalized across different industries. Second, the sample consisted
of customers who had both SNS and on-site experiences with a coffee brand. Examining
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5425 13 of 15

the impacts of SNSs on customers who have less experience with a brand could be another
research opportunity. Third, the results of the study did not support the hypothesis that
the economic value of using SNSs impacted brand attitude. Therefore, future studies
can modify the measurement scale for economic value in the conceptual model. Fourth,
the current study alternatively assessed customer value-co-creation behaviors as higher-
order factors. Respective analysis can be conducted in future studies examining first-
order factors of participation and citizenship behaviors as research constructs. Finally, the
research model of this study did not consider any moderators. Future studies may elect to
investigate moderating effects derived from various theories that can potentially suggest
impactful insights.

Author Contributions: This article is based on the Master thesis of A.-M.K., which was completed at
Kyung Hee University. A.-M.K. worked on the conceptual development of the manuscript and data
collection and analysis and also wrote the manuscript. Y.N. reviewed, edited, and offered overall
guidance for publishing the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version
of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Duarte Alonso, A.; Kok, S.K.; Bressan, A.; O’Shea, M.; Sakellarious, N.; Koresis, A.; Buitrago Solis, M.A.; Santoni, L.J. COVID-19,
aftermath, impacts, and hospitality firms: An international perspective. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 91, 102654. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Wu, L.; Fan, A.; Yang, Y.; He, Z. Tech-touch balance in the service encounter: The impact of supplementary human service on
consumer responses. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2022, 101, 103122. [CrossRef]
3. Kim, H.A.; Jung, H.Y. Effects of SNS’s characteristics of coffee shops on customer satisfaction and purchasing intention. Culin. Sci.
Hosp. Res. 2021, 27, 84–93.
4. Kang, J.W.; Lee, H.; Namkung, Y. The impact of restaurant patrons’ flow experience on SNS satisfaction and offline purchase
intentions. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 30, 797–816. [CrossRef]
5. Kim, E.; Tang, L.; Bosselman, R. Customer perceptions of innovativeness: An accelerator for value co-creation. J. Hosp. Tour. Res.
2019, 43, 807–838. [CrossRef]
6. Cheung, M.L.; Pires, G.; Rosenberger, P.J.; De Oliveira, M.J. Driving consumer–brand engagement and co-creation by brand
interactivity. Mark. Intell. Plan. 2020, 38, 523–541. [CrossRef]
7. Carlson, J.; Rahman, M.; Voola, R.; De Vries, N. Customer engagement behaviours in social media: Capturing innovation
opportunities. J. Serv. Mark. 2018, 32, 83–94. [CrossRef]
8. Kotler, P.; Bowen, J.T.; Makens, J.C.; Baloglu, S. Marketing for Hospitality and Tourism; Pearson: Essex, UK, 2017.
9. Zadeh, A.H.; Zolfagharian, M.; Hofacker, C.F. Customer-customer value co-creation in social media: Conceptualization and
antecedents. J. Strateg. Mark. 2019, 27, 283–302. [CrossRef]
10. Kim, Y.J.; Jang, A. A longitudinal study of sales promotion on social networking sites (SNS) in the lodging industry. J. Hosp. Tour.
Manag. 2021, 48, 256–263. [CrossRef]
11. Wu, S.H.; Huang, S.C.T.; Tsai, C.Y.D.; Lin, P.Y. Customer citizenship behavior on social networking sites: The role of relationship
quality, identification, and service attributes. Internet Res. 2017, 27, 428–448. [CrossRef]
12. Sashi, C.M.; Brynildsen, G.; Bilgihan, A. Social media, customer engagement and advocacy: An empirical investigation using
Twitter data for quick service restaurants. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 31, 1247–1272. [CrossRef]
13. Li, M.W.; Teng, H.Y.; Chen, C.Y. Unlocking the customer engagement-brand loyalty relationship in tourism social media: The
roles of brand attachment and customer trust. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2020, 44, 184–192. [CrossRef]
14. Lee, H.M.; Kang, J.W.; Namkung, Y. Instagram users’ information acceptance process for food-content. Sustainability 2021,
13, 2638. [CrossRef]
15. Dessart, L. Social media engagement: A model of antecedents and relational outcomes. J. Mark. Manag. 2017, 33, 375–399.
[CrossRef]
16. Frasquet-Deltoro, M.; Alarcón-Del-Amo, M.D.C.; Lorenzo-Romero, C. Antecedents and consequences of virtual customer
co-creation behaviours. Internet Res. 2019, 29, 218–244. [CrossRef]
17. Tussyadiah, S.P.; Kausar, D.R.; Soesilo, P.K.M. The effect of engagement in online social network on susceptibility to influence. J.
Hosp. Tour. Res. 2018, 42, 201–223. [CrossRef]
18. Shawky, S.; Kubacki, K.; Dietrich, T.; Weaven, S. A dynamic framework for managing customer engagement on social media. J.
Bus. Res. 2020, 121, 567–577. [CrossRef]
19. Pandey, S.; Kumar, D. Customer-to-customer value co-creation in different service settings. Qual. Mark. Res. 2020, 23, 123–143.
[CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5425 14 of 15

20. Neghina, C.; Caniëls, M.C.J.; Bloemer, J.M.M.; Van Birgelen, M.J.H. Value cocreation in service interactions: Dimensions and
antecedents. Mark. Theory 2015, 15, 221–242. [CrossRef]
21. Homer, P.M.; Kahle, L.R. A structural equation test of the value-attitude-behavior hierarchy. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1988, 54, 638–646.
[CrossRef]
22. Teng, Y.M.; Wu, K.S.; Huang, D.M. The influence of green restaurant decision formation using the VAB model: The effect of
environmental concerns upon intent to visit. Sustainability 2014, 6, 8736–8755. [CrossRef]
23. Kim, M.J.; Hall, C.M.; Kim, D.K. Predicting environmentally friendly eating out behavior by value-attitude-behavior theory: Does
being vegetarian reduce food waste? J. Sustain. Tour. 2020, 28, 797–815. [CrossRef]
24. Shin, Y.H.; Moon, H.; Jung, S.E.; Severt, K. The effect of environmental values and attitudes on consumer willingness to pay more
for organic menus: A value-attitude-behavior approach. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2017, 33, 113–121. [CrossRef]
25. Jun, J.; Kang, J.; Arendt, S.W. The effects of health value on healthful food selection intention at restaurants: Considering the role
of attitudes toward taste and healthfulness of healthful foods. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2014, 42, 85–91. [CrossRef]
26. Chen, A.; Peng, N. Examining consumers’ intentions to dine at luxury restaurants while traveling. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 71,
59–67. [CrossRef]
27. Sheth, J.N.; Newman, B.I.; Gross, B.L. Why we buy what we buy: A theory of consumption values: Discovery service for air force
institute of technology. J. Bus. Res. 1991, 22, 159–170. [CrossRef]
28. Sweeney, J.C.; Soutar, G.N. Consumer perceived value: The development of a multiple item scale. J. Retail. 2001, 77, 203–220.
[CrossRef]
29. Smith, J.B.; Colgate, M. Customer value creation: A practical framework. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2007, 15, 7–23. [CrossRef]
30. Holbrook, M.B. Customer value and autoethnography: Subjective personal introspection and the meanings of a photograph
collection. J. Bus. Res. 2005, 58, 45–61. [CrossRef]
31. Minkiewicz, J.; Evans, J.; Bridson, K. How do consumers co-create their experiences? An exploration in the heritage sector. J.
Mark. Manag. 2014, 30, 30–59. [CrossRef]
32. Tynan, C.; McKechnie, S.; Hartley, S. Interpreting value in the customer service experience using customer-dominant logic. J.
Mark. Manag. 2014, 30, 1058–1081. [CrossRef]
33. Flores, J.; Vasquez-Parraga, A.Z. The impact of choice on co-produced customer value creation and satisfaction. J. Consum. Mark.
2015, 32, 15–25. [CrossRef]
34. Han, S.L.; Kim, K. Role of consumption values in the luxury brand experience: Moderating effects of category and the generation
gap. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 57, 102249. [CrossRef]
35. Ryu, K.; Han, H.; Jang, S.S. Relationships among hedonic and utilitarian values, satisfaction and behavioral intentions in the
fast-casual restaurant industry. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2010, 22, 416–432. [CrossRef]
36. Langaro, D. Rita, P.; De Fátima Salgueiro, M. Do social networking sites contribute for building brands? Evaluating the impact of
users’ participation on brand awareness and brand attitude. J. Mark. Commun. 2018, 24, 146–168. [CrossRef]
37. Keller, K.L. Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. J. Mark. 1993, 57, 1–22. [CrossRef]
38. Song, S.; Yoo, M. The role of social media during the pre-purchasing stage. J. Hosp. Tour. Technol. 2016, 7, 84–99. [CrossRef]
39. Constantinides, E.; Brünink, L.A.; Lorenzo-Romero, C. Customer motives and benefits for participating in online co-creation
activities. Mark. Advert. 2015, 9, 21–48. [CrossRef]
40. Carlson, J.; Wyllie, J.; Rahman, M.M.; Voola, R. Enhancing brand relationship performance through customer participation and
value creation in social media brand communities. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2019, 50, 333–341. [CrossRef]
41. Grönroos, C. Service logic revisited: Who creates value? And who co-creates? Eur. Bus. Rev. 2008, 20, 298–314. [CrossRef]
42. Yi, Y.; Gong, T. Customer value co-creation behavior: Scale development and validation. J. Bus. Res. 2013, 66, 1279–1284.
[CrossRef]
43. Quach, S.; Shao, W.; Ross, M.; Thaichon, P. Customer engagement and co-created value in social media. Mark. Intell. Plan. 2020,
38, 730–744. [CrossRef]
44. Lin, S.; Yang, S.; Ma, M.; Huang, J. Value co-creation on social media: Examining the relationship between brand engagement and
display. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 30, 2153–2174. [CrossRef]
45. Assiouras, I.; Skourtis, G.; Giannopoulos, A.; Buhalis, D.; Koniordos, M. Value co-creation and customer citizenship behavior.
Ann. Tour. Res. 2019, 78, 102742. [CrossRef]
46. Yi, Y.; Nataraajan, R.; Gong, T. Customer participation and citizenship behavioral influences on employee performance, satisfac-
tion, commitment, and turnover intention. J. Bus. Res. 2011, 64, 87–95. [CrossRef]
47. Kim, E.; Tang, L. The role of customer behavior in forming perceived value at restaurants: A multidimensional approach. Int. J.
Hosp. Manag. 2020, 87, 102511. [CrossRef]
48. Rather, R.A. Monitoring the impacts of tourism-based social media, risk perception and fear on tourist’s attitude and revisiting
behaviour in the wake of COVID-19 pandemic. Curr. Issues Tour. 2021, 24, 3275–3283. [CrossRef]
49. Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM); Sage:
Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2017.
50. Hair, J.F.; Risher, J.J.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2019, 31,
2–24. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5425 15 of 15

51. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res.
1981, 18, 39–50. [CrossRef]
52. Stone, M. Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B. 1974, 36, 111–133. [CrossRef]
53. Geisser, S. Effect to the random model A predictive approach. Biometrika 1974, 61, 101–107. [CrossRef]
54. Ahn, J.; Lee, C.K.; Back, K.J.; Schmitt, A. Brand experiential value for creating integrated resort customers’ co-creation behavior.
Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 81, 104–112. [CrossRef]
55. Luo, J.; Wong, I.K.A.; King, B.; Liu, M.T.; Huang, G.Q. Co-creation and co-destruction of service quality through customer-to-
customer interactions: Why prior experience matters. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 31, 1309–1329. [CrossRef]
56. Shulga, L.; Busser, J.A.; Bai, B.; Kim, H. The reciprocal role of trust in customer value co-creation. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2021, 45,
672–696. [CrossRef]
57. Roy, S.K.; Balaji, M.S.; Soutar, G.; Jiang, Y. The antecedents and consequences of value co-creation behaviors in a hotel setting: A
two-country study. Cornell Hosp. Q. 2020, 61, 353–368. [CrossRef]
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.