sustainability

Article
Impact of Luxury Hotel Customer Experience on Brand Love
and Customer Citizenship Behavior
Yangpeng Lin 1,2 and Yeongbae Choe 3, *

1 Faculty of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Macau University of Science and Technology,
Macao SAR, China
2 College of Tourism, Guangdong Polytechnic of Science and Technology, Zhuhai 519090, China
3 Department of Tourism Management, College of Social Sciences, Gachon University,
Seongnam-si 21565, Korea
* Correspondence: ychoe@gachon.ac.kr; Tel.: +82-31-750-5200

Abstract: The luxury hotel market has been developing rapidly recently in the Asian Market. To
provide useful outcomes to hotels competing in fierce market conditions, the current study investi-
gated the relationship between customer experience values, customer post-experience consequences,
and citizenship behaviors. Our findings confirmed the valuable contribution of customer experience
values (ROI and service excellence) to the development of brand satisfaction, which in turn positively
influences brand commitment and love. Meanwhile, brand commitment and love were found to have
a direct positive impact on customer citizenship behaviors (CCBs). Overall, the findings bridge the
gap in the relationship between brand love and CCBs in the hospitality industry and provide broad
insights into brand management and marketing theories for tourism and hospitality.

Keywords: customer experiential value; brand love; brand commitment; customer citizenship
behavior; luxury hotel; China

Citation: Lin, Y.; Choe, Y. Impact of

Luxury Hotel Customer Experience
on Brand Love and Customer 1. Introduction
Citizenship Behavior. Sustainability
The growth rate of the luxury hotel market is expected to reach approximately 5%
2022, 14, 13899. https://doi.org/
during 2018–2023. As the experience economy is becoming an industry-wide core com-
10.3390/su142113899
ponent, luxury hotels as a part of the experience economy attempt to provide customers
Academic Editors: Ohbyung Kwon, with a superior geographical location, 24-hour room service, an expansive space, expensive
Min-jeong Suh and Sujin Bae facilities, high-quality food, elegant aesthetics, privacy, security, and highly customized ser-
Received: 26 September 2022
vices [1,2]. With the popularity of luxury hotels in the hotel industry, exquisite decoration
Accepted: 24 October 2022
and upscale facilities have become the standard in every luxury hotel; therefore, customers
Published: 26 October 2022
have begun to pay attention to details and demand higher service and support facilities [3].
Thus, marketers and general managers of luxury hotels must attach great importance to
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
the customer evaluations of service experiences provided by hotels and the subsequent
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
behaviors via customers’ perceptions of service experiential value regarding their stay in a
published maps and institutional affil-
luxury hotel.
iations.
Owing to fierce competition among luxury hotels, the value of customers’ experiential
value perception was re-examined as an important component in creating customer engage-
ment in the hotel industry [4]. A personalized hotel experience would increase customers’
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
willingness to pay for a luxury hotel by 14%; more importantly, hotels providing excellent
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. service during a stay would have 5.7 times more revenue than their competitors [5]. Con-
This article is an open access article sequently, Mathwick et al. [6] and other scholars have investigated the four dimensions
distributed under the terms and of customer experiential value—that is, aesthetic value, playfulness, return on investment
conditions of the Creative Commons (ROI), and service excellence—to fully understand the experiences of hotel guests in the ser-
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// vice industry. In line with these conceptual developments, a few scholars have attempted to
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ investigate the concept of experiential value and its connection to co-creation behaviors [7],
4.0/). customer engagement [4], and food image in branding food tourism [8]. However, in the

Sustainability 2022, 14, 13899. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142113899 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2022, 14, 13899 2 of 14

context of luxury hotels, it is necessary to investigate not only cognitive components (i.e.,
brand commitment) but also emotional and hedonic connections between guests and the
hotel (i.e., brand love), while understanding guests’ subsequent behaviors after staying at
a hotel.
To fill this gap in the literature, the current study includes brand satisfaction, commit-
ment, and love as the immediate outcomes of customers’ experiential values and customer
citizenship behaviors (CCBs) as the ultimate outcome. Recently, CCBs have been applied to
studies in the tourism and hospitality industry to understand customers’ extra-role behav-
iors in response to their high levels of satisfaction, engagement, and loyalty [9]. Indeed,
Cavalho and Alves [10] did a systematic literature review on customer value co-creation
in the hospitality and tourism industry and found that CCBs are one of the outcomes
of customer value co-creation behaviors. CCBs do not merely go beyond customers’ be-
haviors but encompass their positive, voluntary, helpful, and constructive behaviors [11].
The development of CCBs can help brands manage customer–brand relationships and
improve customer influence, loyalty, and brand equity [12], as well as the performance
of enterprises and their employees [13]. Thus, the present study deems that encouraging
CCBs is especially conducive for luxury hotel brands to stand out amid fierce competition
and maintain healthy development. Nevertheless, CCBs as an ultimate outcome have
rarely been investigated in the context of luxury hotels, and the lack of research on CCBs
has sparked heated debate among practitioners [14]. This study thus aims to enrich the
theoretical understanding of the relationship between hotels and consumers. We hope that
it will help luxury hotel managers better understand customers and provide practical and
managerial suggestions from the research framework.
This study is structured as follows. Section 2 reviews previous literature including
customer experiential value, customer post-experience evaluation (i.e., brand satisfaction,
brand commitment, and brand love), and customer citizenship behavior (i.e., helping,
advocacy, tolerance, and feedback); Section 3 describes the research design, data collec-
tion, and data analysis; Section 4 presents the findings of the current study via empirical
analyses; and finally Section 5 concludes the current study by presenting theoretical and
managerial implications.

2. Literature Review
2.1. Customer Experiential Value
In the era of the experience economy, products and services have become increasingly
commoditized, and consequently, companies focus on ways to win severe competition [15,16].
Among many possible solutions, such as higher product quality, better physical atmosphere,
and high-quality services, creating a better consumer experience has attracted great atten-
tion from practitioners and academics [17]. Some researchers, including Pine, Pine, and
Gilmore [15], have emphasized the way of providing unique and high-service experiences,
by not just simply providing commodities, products, or services themselves, but rather
completing with unique experiences tailored to the products and services.
In line with the concept of the experience economy, experiential value is of significant
interest from the consumer service experience perspective. Consumers generally perceive
a certain level of experiential value when interacting with, experiencing, or receiving a
particular service from service providers [18]. Bitner, et al. [19] asserted that special treat-
ment or attention during service contact leads to higher satisfaction with service experience
and, in turn, creates higher experiential value. Similarly, in the luxury hotel sector, a
more customized or personalized service experience and a better physical atmosphere
or environment, as compared to competitors, would escalate customers’ post-experience
evaluation and, therefore, create a stronger experiential value.
Experiential value has been well documented in consumer literature [18]. Based on
earlier studies [7,8,20], this study adopted a multidimensional approach to understand the
determinants affecting post-experience behaviors, while considering the complexity and
experiential characteristics of the hospitality industry. Thus, this study is primarily based on
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13899 3 of 14

the conceptualization of Mathwick, Malhotra, and Rigdon [6] and applies the four aspects
of experiential value, namely, aesthetic value, playfulness, ROI, and service excellence, in a
luxury hotel setting. As customers’ perception of experiential value comes from the direct
and distanced interaction with service providers [6], the experiential value of a luxury hotel
experience could also be related to the entire journey of guest experience at the luxury
hotel. Thus, the four dimensions adopted from Mathwick, Malhotra, and Rigdon [6] would
be beneficial in fully understanding the whole picture of guests’ perceptions of exertional
value in the luxury hotel context.
Aesthetic value is described as one’s subjective enjoyment derived from products
or services, without considering their utility (Holbrook, 1980), and is therefore linked to
personal feelings and emotions [21]. From the conceptualization by Mathwick, Malhotra,
and Rigdon [6], aesthetic value comes from one’s primary senses, such as sight, hearing,
taste, and touch. To comply with this conceptualization, Ahn, Lee, Back and Schmitt [7]
highlighted that physical objects, visual appeal, and entertainment-related items could
play an important role in creating aesthetic value through the good evaluation of service
experience in the integrated resort setting. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed in
this study (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Hypotheses Model.

Hypothesis 1 (H1). The aesthetic value of the luxury hotel experience is positively correlated with
brand satisfaction.
The concept of playfulness could be similar to the hedonic value of services, which
potentially increases intrinsic motivation for specific leisure or tourism behaviors. In the
context of experiential value, playfulness emphasizes consumers’ experience of playful, en-
joyable, and interesting leisure consumption activities [22], reflecting the intrinsic pleasure
of interesting activities, thus providing a way to escape the pressures of daily life [23]. In
a luxury hotel environment, engaging or participating in diverse entertainment activities
can create a high level of playfulness value, such as pleasure, fun, and enjoyment. Thus,
this study hypothesized that perceived playfulness is a significant element in fostering
favorable post-experience outcomes, such as brand satisfaction:

Hypothesis 2 (H2). The playfulness of the luxury hotel experience is positively correlated with
brand satisfaction.

In contrast to the hedonic aspect of service experience, customers’ perceived value of

ROI is linked to the utilitarian aspect of service experience, such as their positive investment
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13899 4 of 14

in financial, time, behavioral, and psychological resources for potential returns [6,24]. Thus,
many customers expect their investment to be of high practical value and determine the
impact of price equity on customer trust and satisfaction [25]. As luxury hotels are normally
high-priced service products, it is easy to anticipate the important role of customers’
perceived value of ROI in causing customers’ post-experience behaviors. Thus, we propose
the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3 (H3). The return on investment in luxury hotel experiences is positively correlated
with brand satisfaction.

Service excellence reflects the superiority of the hospitality and tourism reception
service performance in meeting customer expectations [6,7], articulated that service ex-
cellence comes from a combination of extrinsic and reactive values. Thus, this study
argues that customers’ evaluation of service quality at a luxury hotel is influenced by the
professional capabilities of the service staff, the reliability of overall service quality, and
service performance.

Hypothesis 4 (H4). The service excellence of the luxury hotel experience is positively correlated
with brand satisfaction.

2.2. Customer Post-Experience Evaluations

Post-experience evaluations and consequences are reinforced when customer expe-
riential value reaches a certain level [26]. Furthermore, customers’ positive experiential
value often leads to positive evaluations and consequences (e.g., brand satisfaction). In
turn, brand satisfaction influences brand evaluation processes (e.g., brand commitment and
love) and customers’ subsequent behaviors [27]. Thus, this study argues that customers’
higher experiential value leads to better customer post-experience evaluations (e.g., brand
satisfaction, commitment, and love).

2.2.1. Brand Satisfaction

Brand satisfaction refers to the cumulative satisfaction of consumers based on their
purchase and experience of branded products or services [28]. This definition implies that
brand satisfaction is the process of evaluating perceived differences between past expecta-
tions and actual consumption experiences. In a study on the hospitality sector, Gibson [29]
discovered that satisfied customers become repeat customers of products or services and of-
fer favorable feedback to family and friends about their experiences. Furthermore, positive
feedback also leads to a high level of brand satisfaction, and consumers are more inclined to
commit to the brand. Simultaneously, brand satisfaction is an important positive evaluation
and consequence of the customer experience. When the degree of satisfaction reaches a
certain level, it affects customers’ brand love. Undoubtedly, post-experience evaluations
and consequences interact more strongly in the context of luxury hotels.

2.2.2. Brand Commitment

Fournier [30] asserted that a series of satisfying service experiences build a positive
emotional connection between consumers and the brands they consume. In these connec-
tions, brand commitment acts as a response to the goal of preserving a loyal relationship
and long-term desire between the consumer and the brand as a satisfying consequence of
experience [31]. In marketing and service literature, brand commitment is considered one
of the most significant determinants in assessing the strength of marketing interactions
and measuring subsequent consumer behaviors [32]. This finding implies that commit-
ment is a positive mechanism for maintaining the consequences of positive actions [33,34].
Specifically, consumers with a high degree of brand commitment have a strong emotional
attachment to the brand [35]. In addition, the triangular theory of love posits that com-
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13899 5 of 14

mitment is an antecedent of love and is applied to explain relationships with the hotel
brand [36,37].

2.2.3. Brand Love

The concept of brand love evolved from studies on consumer–brand relationships [38].
Brand love encompasses various positive emotions and attitudes that help to explain and
predict changes in consumers’ post-consumption behaviors [39]. Many factors that affect
brand love have also been reported in the literature. For example, Wang, Qu, and Yang [36]
empirically tested the relationship between brand commitment and love in the context
of hotel brand portfolios. Langner, et al. [40] showed that brand commitment enables
customers to form a long-term relationship with the brand, through which the cumula-
tive brand experience can improve consumers’ emotions of brand love. Consequently,
customers’ commitment to a brand may gradually lead to their love for the brand.
Based on earlier studies on brand satisfaction, commitment, and love, this study
proposes the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 5 (H5). Brand satisfaction is positively correlated with brand commitment.

Hypothesis 6 (H6). Brand satisfaction is positively correlated with brand love.

Hypothesis 7 (H7). Brand commitment is positively correlated with brand love.

2.3. Customer Citizenship Behavior

CCBs are considered essential for maintaining the relationship between the brand and
its customers [12], thereby retaining customers in the long term and eventually improving
brand performance [41]. CCBs refer to customers’ discretionary and prosocial behaviors
that benefit service providers (e.g., luxury hotels) [9,11]. Specifically, customers can support
employees or other customers by providing constructive comments to the organization
and suggesting ways to enhance its performance or services [42]. CCB is also referred
to as voluntary customer performance and extra-role customer behaviors [43]. When
customers feel satisfied or love a brand, they are more likely to spread positive word-of-
mouth and feedback on the improvement of the brand, help with brand publicity, tolerate
failure, and resist negative information [44]. With these conceptualizations of CCBs in
previous literature, the current study defines CCBs as a second-order construct via four
sub-constructs (i.e., helping, advocacy, tolerance, and feedback).
Given that CCBs could be important for marketers, scholars have investigated several
factors that determine and influence CCBs, such as brand commitment [9]. Indeed, brand
commitment is also a voluntary attitude of customers, which is key to explaining the
citizenship behaviors of the brand [45]. According to social identity theory, individuals
dedicated to a brand would commit themselves to behaviors that promote the brand [46].
Consequently, individuals committed to a luxury hotel brand are more likely to develop
positive behaviors toward services and brands.
To better examine the relationship between customer post-experience consequences
and CCBs, this study adopts four sub-dimensions of CCBs: helping, advocacy, tolerance,
and feedback [42]. These aspects can help to examine the impact of post-experience conse-
quences on CCBs. Based on previous studies, this study hypothesized the
following relationships:

Hypothesis 8 (H8). Brand satisfaction is positively correlated with customer citizenship behaviors.

Hypothesis 9 (H9). Brand commitment is positively correlated with customer citizenship behaviors.

Hypothesis 10 (H10). Brand love is positively correlated with customer citizenship behaviors.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13899 6 of 14

3. Methodology
3.1. Survey Questionnaire
The questionnaire used in this study consisted of three sections. The first part provided
a description of the survey and asked a few questions to screen the survey respondents. As
the key focus of the current study is on the luxury hotel experience, a screening question
was included to ask whether the participants had visited one or more hotels in the past
3 years. Respondents were then asked to indicate whether they had experience with
30 global luxury hotel brands. Only those who had one or more experiences with luxury
hotel brands could complete the survey questionnaire. For this study, 30 luxury hotel
brands, mainly in the Greater China region, were selected based on official websites for
hotel brands and other reference materials.
The second part of the survey included items constructed within the research frame-
work. Measurement items that have been previously shown to be valid and reliable in the
literature were adopted and slightly modified based on the study context. The experien-
tial value scale, consisting of four sub-dimensions, was modified from the scale by Ryu,
et al. [47] and Mathwick, Malhotra, and Rigdon [6]. Five scales derived from Westbrook and
Oliver [48] were used to measure brand satisfaction. Furthermore, four brand commitment
items were adopted from Sternberg [37] and Wang, Qu, and Yang [36]. Four items on
brand love were adopted from Carroll and Ahuvia [38]. Similarly, survey items for the four
sub-dimensions of CCBs were derived from Groth [49], Revilla-Camacho, et al. [50], and
Yi, et al. [51]. All measurement items were rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale, ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The last part of the survey asked about the
demographic characteristics of the respondents.
The survey items were initially prepared in English and translated into Chinese by
the first author of the current study. To verify the quality of the transition, the pretest was
performed by 20 postgraduate students majoring in hospitality and tourism and being
fluent in both English and Chinese. The online survey was mainly conducted in English but
was presented in both Chinese and English to help some respondents better understand
the contents.

3.2. Data Collection

The response data for this study were collected using an online survey, which is a
quantitative research approach. Data were collected using convenience sampling by posting
the survey link on social media platforms (e.g., WeChat) during the survey period. The
target population was Chinese travelers who have visited a luxury hotel in the last 3 years.
The survey was conducted for a period of 12 days in July 2020. The average response time
was 6–8 min. A total of 379 people responded to our invitation to answer the survey, and
245 respondents completed the survey. Of these, 65 responses were excluded from the
final study sample because (1) they failed to correctly answer our attention check questions
in the questionnaire, (2) they were incomplete, and (3) they had the same answers for
all measurement items. The remaining 180 participants were used for further empirical
analysis and hypothesis testing, resulting in a response rate of 64.6% and an effective
response rate of 47.5%.

3.3. Data Analysis

Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) analysis was the main
method used to evaluate the proposed hypotheses. PLS provides numerous advantages to
researchers. It requires minimal restrictions on the measurement scale, sample size, and
residual distribution. Thus, PLS is an effective approach for evaluating models with explicit
variables and complicated relationships.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13899 7 of 14

4. Results
4.1. Profiles of Respondents
The demographic characteristics of the participants were investigated to understand
their characteristics. In our sample, there were more women (65%) than men (35%), and
most respondents were aged 35 years or younger (77.7%). The majority of the respondents
had at least an undergraduate degree (45%) or a master’s degree and above (48.3%), and
4.4% had a doctoral degree. The educational backgrounds of the respondents were relatively
high. In addition, more than 41% of the respondents had a higher monthly income (more
than RMB ¥ 10,000) than the national average. Consequently, the sample may be rich in
customer groups. Of the respondents, 37.5% had experienced luxury hotels twice, whereas
33.8% had experienced luxury hotels three to five times. The main factors respondents
considered when choosing a luxury hotel were geographical location (16.2%), quality of
service (14.2%), price (14.2%), environment (13.1%), and facilities (13%).

4.2. Measurement Model

The measurement model assessed construct validity and reliability based on factor
loading, composite reliability (CR), average variance extracted (AVE), and the correlation
between components (Table 1). First, the CR was used to measure internal consistency [52].
Table 1 shows that all CRs were higher than the threshold of 0.7, confirming internal
consistency. Second, the factor loadings and AVE values for the latent constructs were
used to determine convergent validity. All factor loadings were greater than the threshold
of 0.7, and all AVEs were above the minimum value of 0.5 [52]. These findings support
convergent validity. Finally, discriminant validity was assessed by comparing the square
root of the AVE with latent variable correlations [53] and the heterotrait–monotrait ma-
trix [54]. Table 2 shows that the square roots of the AVEs were higher than the correlations,
indicating discriminant validity. The values of the heterotrait–monotrait matrix were all
<0.85, except for the value of brand love at 0.938 (Table 3). However, the value did not
exceed 1 (95% confidence interval: [0.911–0.959]), indicating that the discriminant validity
was still confirmed [54].

Table 1. Factor loadings, CR, and AVE.

Variable FL α CR AVE
Aesthetic value 0.889 0.923 0.75
·This luxury hotel had attractive interior design and décor. 0.886
·The background music was pleasing. 0.857
·This luxury hotel was thoroughly clean. 0.823
·Employees were neat and well-dressed. 0.895
Playfulness 0.822 0.894 0.738
·Staying at this luxury hotel made me feel like I am in another world. 0.89
·I got so involved when I stayed at this luxury hotel that I forgot everything else. 0.875
·I enjoyed staying at this luxury hotel for its own sake, not just for the items. 0.809
Return on investment 0.804 0.872 0.631
·Staying at this luxury hotel was an efficient way to manage my time. 0.708
·Staying at this luxury hotel made my life easier. 0.814
·Staying at this luxury hotel fitted my schedule. 0.835
·This luxury hotel had a good economic value. 0.814
Service excellence 0.911 0.957 0.918
·When I thought of this luxury hotel, I thought of “excellence”. 0.96
·I thought of this luxury hotel as an expert in what it offered. 0.957
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13899 8 of 14

Table 1. Cont.

Variable FL α CR AVE
Brand satisfaction 0.940 0.954 0.807
·I am satisfied with my experience at this luxury hotel brand. 0.886
·I truly enjoy this luxury hotel brand. 0.891
·I feel good about my decision to experience the service at this luxury hotel brand. 0.916
·Using this luxury hotel brand is a good experience. 0.906
·I am sure it is the right thing to be a customer of this luxury hotel brand. 0.893
Brand commitment (“·When I experience this luxury hotel brand, . . . ”) 0.916 0.941 0.8
·I am committed to maintaining my relationship with it. 0.916
·I view my commitment to it as a solid one. 0.898
·I view my relationship with it as permanent. 0.922
·I plan to continue in my relationship with it. 0.84
Brand love 0.933 0.952 0.833
·This is a wonderful luxury hotel brand. 0.912
·This luxury hotel brand makes me feel good. 0.924
·I love this luxury hotel brand. 0.925
·I am passionate about this luxury hotel brand. 0.891
Customer Citizenship Behavior (second-order factor) 0.914 0.874 0.637
·Helping. 0.834
·Advocacy. 0.879
·Tolerance. 0.632
·Feedback. 0.824
Helping 0.882 0.919 0.739
·I help other customers when they seem to have problems. 0.88
·I teach other customers to use the service correctly. 0.863
·I give advice to other customers. 0.878
·I assist other customers when they need my help. 0.817
Advocacy 0.916 0.947 0.857
·I encourage friends and/or relatives to experience this luxury hotel. 0.916
·I say positive things about this luxury hotel and its employees to others. 0.924
·I recommend this luxury hotel and its employees to others. 0.937
Tolerance 0.879 0.925 0.804
·I am always patient and wait for the employee to recover from a mistake. 0.89
·I adapt to the situation when I wait longer than I expect to receive the service. 0.916
·I put up with it when the service is not delivered as expected. 0.885
Feedback 0.831 0.899 0.747
·When I have feedback about the service, I fill out a customer survey form. 0.861
·I inform the luxury hotel about the great service received from an individual employee. 0.874
·When I have a useful idea on how to improve service, I let the luxury hotel know. 0.859
FL: Factor Loading, α: Cronbach’s alpha, CR: Composite Reliability, AVE: Average Variance Extracted.

4.3. Hypotheses Testing

Using the PLS-SEM analysis (Figure 2, Table 3), the inner model shows that customers’
perceived aesthetic value did not substantially impact their satisfaction with luxury hotel
brands (H1: β = 0.14, p > 0.05, f2 = 0.04). Thus, H1 is not supported. Similarly, playfulness
did not significantly influence brand satisfaction (H2: β = 0.022, p > 0.05, f2 = 0.001). Hence,
H2 was not supported. In contrast, the ROI value of the luxury hotel experience had a
significant effect on customer brand satisfaction (H3: β = 0.262, p < 0.01, f2 = 0.123). Thus,
H3 was confirmed, and the size of the effect was moderate. The excellence of luxury
hotel services also significantly influences brand satisfaction (H4: β = 0.535, p < 0.001,
f2 = 0.352). Hence, H4 was acceptable and had a strong effect size. The results revealed
that brand satisfaction had a significant impact on brand commitment (H5: β = 0.688,
p < 0.001, f2 = 0.899) and brand love (H6: β = 0.703, p < 0.001, f2 = 1.359), both of which had
strong effect sizes. However, customers’ brand satisfaction did not positively impact their
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13899 9 of 14

citizenship behavior (H8: β = 0.097, p > 0.05, f2 = 0.005). Thus, H5 and H6 were supported,
but H8 was rejected. Simultaneously, brand commitment significantly influences brand
love (H7: β = 0.256, p < 0.001, f2 = 0.181) and CCB (H9: β = 0.433, p < 0.001, f2 = 0.183).
Hence, H7 and H9 were confirmed, and the effect sizes were moderate. Brand love also had
a significant effect on CCB (H10: Î2 = 0.267, p < 0.05, f2 = 0.03). Hence, H10 was supported,
but it has a low effect size.

Table 2. Fornell–Larcker Criterion and Heterotrait–Monotrait Ratio.

Fornell–Larcker Criterion (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
Aesthetic value (1) 0.866
Playfulness (2) 0.480 0.859
Return on investment (3) 0.528 0.565 0.794
Service excellence (4) 0.681 0.642 0.716 0.958
Brand satisfaction (5) 0.653 0.581 0.731 0.832 0.898
Brand commitment (6) 0.424 0.670 0.606 0.591 0.688 0.895
Brand love (7) 0.611 0.624 0.690 0.802 0.880 0.740 0.913
Customer citizenship behavior (8) 0.511 0.646 0.617 0.645 0.630 0.697 0.673 0.708
Heterotrait–Monotrait Ratio (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
Aesthetic value (1)
Playfulness (2) 0.552
Return on investment (3) 0.619 0.700
Service excellence (4) 0.751 0.740 0.833
Brand satisfaction (5) 0.708 0.658 0.836 0.898
Brand commitment (6) 0.458 0.774 0.712 0.645 0.738
0.938
Brand love (7) 0.665 0.711 0.794 0.869 0.799
[0.911–0.959]
Customer citizenship behavior (8) 0.542 0.747 0.720 0.695 0.660 0.755 0.709

Table 3. Hypotheses testing.

Path Coefficient T-Value f2 Hypotheses Testing

Aesthetics Value → Brand Satisfaction 0.140 1.459 0.040 Reject
Playfulness → Brand Satisfaction 0.022 0.420 0.001 Reject
Return on Investment → Brand Satisfaction 0.262 3.483 ** 0.123 Fail to Reject
Service Excellence → Brand Satisfaction 0.535 6.073 *** 0.352 Fail to Reject
Brand Satisfaction → Brand Commitment 0.688 15.467 *** 0.899 Fail to Reject
Brand Satisfaction → Brand Love 0.703 17.453 *** 1.359 Fail to Reject
Brand Commitment → Brand Love 0.256 5.261 *** 0.181 Fail to Reject
Brand Satisfaction → Customer Citizenship Behavior 0.097 0.932 0.005 Reject
Brand Commitment → Customer Citizenship Behavior 0.433 5.539 *** 0.183 Fail to Reject
Brand Love → Customer Citizenship Behavior 0.267 2.517 * 0.030 Fail to Reject
Note * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.

The explanatory power of customer experience value for brand satisfaction was 73.5%,
that of brand satisfaction for brand commitment was 47%, and that of the two latent
variables (brand satisfaction and brand commitment) for brand love was 80.6%. Simulta-
neously, the explanatory power of the three latent variables (brand satisfaction, commit-
ment, and love) for CCBs was 53.5%. Therefore, this pattern explains the degree of the
potential variables.
In addition to measuring adj. R2 to evaluate predictive accuracy, this study used the
blindfolding procedure to determine the Stone–Geisser Q-squared (Q2) value to analyze
cross-validated predictive relevance. The Q2 values of the eight endogenous variables
used in this study were still within the acceptable levels, indicating that the model has
predictive power (brand satisfaction = 0.584, brand commitment = 0.372, brand love = 0.660,
CCB = 0.262).
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13899 10 of 14

Figure 2. Results.

5. Conclusions and Implications

5.1. Conclusions
This study aimed to investigate the role of customers’ perceptions of experiential value
in creating post-experience consequences (brand satisfaction, commitment, and love) and
citizenship behaviors in luxury hotels. The findings suggest that the luxury hotel expe-
rience could create customers’ perceptions of experiential value, which in turn enhances
their brand experience evaluation (i.e., brand satisfaction), post-experience consequences
(i.e., brand commitment and love), and subsequent behaviors (i.e., customer citizenship
behaviors). These findings would suggest several theoretical and managerial implications
for luxury hotels.

5.2. Theoretical Implications

In comparison with previous literature, this study’s results have several theoretical im-
plications. First, unlike other studies proving the relationships between all four experiential
values and satisfaction [55], the current study showed that only ROI and service excellence,
two extrinsic values, were positively correlated with brand satisfaction. This result is possi-
bly due to the context of this study, a luxury hotel experience where customers have higher
expectations of service quality and return on investment as they need to pay a relatively
higher price [56]. Aesthetic value and playfulness are considered essential foundations for
hotel service experiences [7], which may no longer influence hotels’ competitiveness and
service values in the luxury hotel context.
Second, the results of this study confirmed the role of brand satisfaction in promoting
brand commitment, which eventually leads to brand love. These findings are consistent
with those of previous studies [36,57,58]. These triangular relationships advocate the
importance of brand experiential value and satisfaction in creating a positive emotional
relationship (e.g., brand commitment and brand love) between hotel guests and the brand.
Third, this study explored the relationship between brand experience, brand satisfac-
tion, brand commitment, and brand love, and ultimately its impact on CCBs. An extensive
literature review confirmed the relationship between brand satisfaction and CCBs, or be-
tween brand commitment and CCBs [9,59]. Nevertheless, the current study confirms the
positive relationships among the constructs proposed in the research framework. It is
worth noting that the relationships between brand satisfaction and CCBs are fully mediated
through brand commitment and brand love, emphasizing the important role of brand
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13899 11 of 14

commitment and brand love in inducing customers’ positive subsequent behaviors in

the luxury hotel context. This result can be explained by the fact that brand satisfaction
is merely the accumulation of customer evaluation based on their interaction with the
brand [28]. In contrast, brand commitment and brand love come from an emotional and
behavioral connection between customers and the brand, thereby promoting the positive
actions of customers and predicting subsequent customer behaviors [33,34,39].

5.3. Practical Implications

Managers of luxury hotels need to develop customer–brand relationships to achieve
sustainable and stable growth under fierce competition. Thus, the findings of this study
have managerial implications.
First, luxury hotel experiences should be designed in a way to reflects customers’
needs. To do so, hotel managers need to concentrate on customers’ perceptions of return on
investment and service excellence when designing service experiences at luxury hotels. For
example, considering the core of luxury hotel experiences, luxury hotel guests might expect
a high level of service excellence. High-touch services (e.g., hospitality, welcoming attitude)
should be at the core of hotel guest experiences that need to be focused upon [60]. At the
same time, the return on investment needs to be considered. The price for luxury hotels is
usually higher than other types of accommodation [61]. Furthermore, hotel managers need
to launch preferential or membership activities to meet the economic and psychological
needs of consumers so that they can better experience hotel services. In addition, as service
performance by hotel employees is regarded as an important factor in the perception of
service quality, special attention is required for human relations and the development of
luxury hotels.
Second, this study confirmed the relationships between brand satisfaction, commit-
ment, and love, which lead to customers’ subsequent behaviors (e.g., CCBs). In line with
these results, luxury hotels could utilize their customers’ brand commitment and love,
which are psychological and emotional connections between hotel guests and the brand,
to compete in an extremely competitive environment. In other words, hotel managers
and marketers should focus more on brand commitment (i.e., the behavioral aspect) and
brand love (i.e., the emotional aspect) than a mere increase in brand satisfaction. To do
so, hotel managers can utilize various marketing and promotional activities such as brand
extension, co-creation of service products, and various experiential components at a luxury
hotel. These managerial activities would eventually result in CCBs, such as helping other
customers, being ambassadors, and/or providing constructive feedback.
Third, the current study’s findings could have an impact on social media marketing
activities. Earlier studies [62] showed that consumers’ voluntarily engaged behaviors
with brands would increase brands’ performance, such as brand awareness and purchase
intention. Such positive brand performances can be achieved through consumers’ online
brand-related activities (COBRAs) [62–64]. Luxury hotel visitors having brand engagement
and love would be more willing to participate in online brand-related activities that lead
to CCBs.
Fourth, the findings of this study could provide useful information for impactful
changes in the hotel industry during the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to social distancing
practices operated by governments and the fear of physical contact during the COVID-19
pandemic, many hotels implemented a variety of technical improvements and changes to
maintain the levels of their service quality, while reducing human contact and ensuring
customer satisfaction. However, the results of the current study suggest that service
excellence is an important influencing factor that increases brand satisfaction in luxury
hotel settings. In the context of luxury hotels, becoming contactless or using advanced
technologies (e.g., service robots and kiosks) may harm their brand reputation and service
excellence (citation). Therefore, luxury hotels must ensure a way of maintaining the level
of customers’ perceptions of service excellence, even with a contactless service experience.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13899 12 of 14

5.4. Limitations and Future Research

Although the current study provides important theoretical and managerial implica-
tions, it has several limitations. First, it considered the context of luxury hotels as a study
context while understanding the role of brand experiential value in inducing customers’
CCBs through brand satisfaction, brand commitment, and brand love. To generalize the
findings, different study contexts (e.g., restaurants, chain hotels, or other service providers)
could be used for further empirical verification. Similarly, this result may be solely due
to the study population, which requires additional empirical studies based on different
populations. Second, the study focused mainly on the relationships between experiential
values and CCBs through brand satisfaction, brand commitment, and brand love. However,
these relationships may omit several possible mediating variables such as brand intimacy,
brand passion, perceived value, and customers’ co-creation behaviors. Future studies could
extend the research framework proposed in this study by including these variables. Last,
but not least, our sample could be problematic for the generalizability of our findings. Only
180 respondents were included in the empirical study, and the majority were relatively
younger. Thus, future studies should be expanded to incorporate a broader population for
better generalizability.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Y.L. and Y.C.; data curation, Y.L.; methodology, Y.L.;
project administration, Y.C.; writing—original draft, Y.L.; writing—review and editing, Y.C. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Ethical review and approval were waived for this study due
to the institution’s internal regulation.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in
the study.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Davidson, M.; Guilding, C.; Timo, N. Employment, flexibility and labour market practices of domestic and MNC chain luxury
hotels in Australia: Where has accountability gone? Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2006, 25, 193–210. [CrossRef]
2. Kucukusta, D.; Heung, V.C.; Hui, S. Deploying self-service technology in luxury hotel brands: Perceptions of business travelers. J.
Travel Tour. Mark. 2014, 31, 55–70. [CrossRef]
3. Chang, V.; Liu, L.; Xu, Q.; Li, T.; Hsu, C.H. An improved model for sentiment analysis on luxury hotel review. Expert Syst.
2020, e12580. [CrossRef]
4. Chathoth, P.K.; Ungson, G.R.; Harrington, R.J.; Chan, E.S. Co-creation and higher order customer engagement in hospitality and
tourism services: A critical review. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2016, 28, 222–245. [CrossRef]
5. Roy, S.K.; Balaji, M.; 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]
6. Mathwick, C.; Malhotra, N.; Rigdon, E. Experiential value: Conceptualization, measurement and application in the catalog and
Internet shopping environment. J. Retail. 2001, 77, 39–56. [CrossRef]
7. 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]
8. Tsai, C.-T.S.; Wang, Y.-C. Experiential value in branding food tourism. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2017, 6, 56–65. [CrossRef]
9. Bove, L.L.; Pervan, S.J.; Beatty, S.E.; Shiu, E. Service worker role in encouraging customer organizational citizenship behaviors. J.
Bus. Res. 2009, 62, 698–705. [CrossRef]
10. Carvalho, P.; Alves, H. Customer value co-creation in the hospitality and tourism industry: A systematic literature review. Int. J.
Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2022; ahead of print. [CrossRef]
11. Balaji, M. Managing customer citizenship behavior: A relationship perspective. J. Strateg. Mark. 2014, 22, 222–239. [CrossRef]
12. Burmann, C.; Jost-Benz, M.; Riley, N. Towards an identity-based brand equity model. J. Bus. Res. 2009, 62, 390–397. [CrossRef]
13. Sun, L.-Y.; Aryee, S.; Law, K.S. High-performance human resource practices, citizenship behavior, and organizational performance:
A relational perspective. Acad. Manag. J. 2007, 50, 558–577. [CrossRef]
14. Nagy, E.S.A.; Marzouk, W.G. Factors Affecting Customer Citizenship Behavior: A Model of University Students. Int. J. Mark.
Stud. 2018, 10, 54–70. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13899 13 of 14

15. Pine, B.J.; Pine, J.; Gilmore, J.H. The Experience Economy: Work Is Theatre & Every Business a Stage; Harvard Business Press: Boston,
MA, USA, 1999.
16. Schmitt, B. Experiential marketing. J. Mark. Manag. 1999, 15, 53–67. [CrossRef]
17. Walls, A.; Okumus, F.; Wang, Y.; Kwun, D.J.-W. Understanding the Consumer Experience: An Exploratory Study of Luxury
Hotels. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 2011, 20, 166–197. [CrossRef]
18. Yuan, Y.-H.E.; Wu, C.K. Relationships among experiential marketing, experiential value, and customer satisfaction. J. Hosp. Tour.
Res. 2008, 32, 387–410. [CrossRef]
19. Bitner, M.J.; Booms, B.H.; Tetreault, M.S. The service encounter: Diagnosing favorable and unfavorable incidents. J. Mark. 1990,
54, 71–84. [CrossRef]
20. Cao, Y.; Li, X.R.; DiPietro, R.; So, K.K.F. The creation of memorable dining experiences: Formative index construction. Int. J. Hosp.
Manag. 2019, 82, 308–317. [CrossRef]
21. Bamossy, G.; Scammon, D.L.; Johnston, M. A preliminary investigation of the reliability and validity of an aesthetic judgment test.
Adv. Consum. Res. 1983, 10, 685–690.
22. Holbrook, M.B.; Hirschman, E.C. The experiential aspects of consumption: Consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. J. Consum. Res.
1982, 9, 132–140. [CrossRef]
23. Unger, L.S.; Kernan, J.B. On the meaning of leisure: An investigation of some determinants of the subjective experience. J. Consum.
Res. 1983, 9, 381–392. [CrossRef]
24. Jin, N.; Line, N.D.; Goh, B. Experiential value, relationship quality, and customer loyalty in full-service restaurants: The
moderating role of gender. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 2013, 22, 679–700. [CrossRef]
25. Kim, W.G.; Lee, Y.-K.; Yoo, Y.-J. Predictors of relationship quality and relationship outcomes in luxury restaurants. J. Hosp. Tour.
Res. 2006, 30, 143–169. [CrossRef]
26. Grace, D.; Ross, M.; King, C. Brand fidelity: Scale development and validation. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 52, 101908. [CrossRef]
27. Oliver, R.L. Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer; Routledge: London, UK, 2014.
28. Grisaffe, D.B.; Nguyen, H.P. Antecedents of emotional attachment to brands. J. Bus. Res. 2011, 64, 1052–1059. [CrossRef]
29. Gibson, H. Towards an understanding of ‘why sport tourists do what they do’. Sport Soc. 2005, 8, 198–217. [CrossRef]
30. Fournier, S. Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research. J. Consum. Res. 1998, 24, 343–373.
[CrossRef]
31. Moorman, C.; Zaltman, G.; Deshpande, R. Relationships between providers and users of market research: The dynamics of trust
within and between organizations. J. Mark. Res. 1992, 29, 314–328. [CrossRef]
32. Wong, A.; Sohal, A. An examination of the relationship between trust, commitment and relationship quality. Int. J. Retail Distrib.
Manag. 2002, 30, 34–50. [CrossRef]
33. Gruen, T.W.; Summers, J.O.; Acito, F. Relationship marketing activities, commitment, and membership behaviors in professional
associations. J. Mark. 2000, 64, 34–49. [CrossRef]
34. Wilson, D.T.; Mummalaneni, V. Bonding and commitment in buyer-seller relationships: A preliminary conceptualisation. Ind.
Mark. Purch. 1986, 1, 44–58.
35. Keh, H.T.; Pang, J.; Peng, S. Understanding and measuring brand love. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Advertising and
Consumer Psychology (ACP), Santa Monica, CA, USA, 7–9 June 2007; pp. 97–118.
36. Wang, Y.-C.; Qu, H.; Yang, J. The formation of sub-brand love and corporate brand love in hotel brand portfolios. Int. J. Hosp.
Manag. 2019, 77, 375–384. [CrossRef]
37. Sternberg, R.J. A triangular theory of love. Psychol. Rev. 1986, 93, 119. [CrossRef]
38. Carroll, B.A.; Ahuvia, A.C. Some antecedents and outcomes of brand love. Mark. Lett. 2006, 17, 79–89. [CrossRef]
39. Batra, R.; Ahuvia, A.; Bagozzi, R.P. Brand love. J. Mark. 2012, 76, 1–16. [CrossRef]
40. Langner, T.; Bruns, D.; Fischer, A.; Rossiter, J.R. Falling in love with brands: A dynamic analysis of the trajectories of brand love.
Mark. Lett. 2016, 27, 15–26. [CrossRef]
41. Jaakkola, E.; Alexander, M. The role of customer engagement behavior in value co-creation: A service system perspective. J. Serv.
Res. 2014, 17, 247–261. [CrossRef]
42. Choi, L.; Hwang, J. The role of prosocial and proactive personality in customer citizenship behaviors. J. Consum. Mark. 2019, 36,
288–305. [CrossRef]
43. Rosenbaum, M.S.; Massiah, C.A. When customers receive support from other customers: Exploring the influence of intercustomer
social support on customer voluntary performance. J. Serv. Res. 2007, 9, 257–270. [CrossRef]
44. Albert, N.; Merunka, D. The role of brand love in consumer-brand relationships. J. Consum. Mark. 2013, 30, 258–266. [CrossRef]
45. Burmann, C.; Zeplin, S. Building brand commitment: A behavioural approach to internal brand management. J. Brand Manag.
2005, 12, 279–300. [CrossRef]
46. Dutton, J.E.; Dukerich, J.M. Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and identity in organizational adaptation. Acad. Manag. J. 1991,
34, 517–554. [CrossRef]
47. Ryu, K.; Lee, H.R.; Kim, W.G. The influence of the quality of the physical environment, food, and service on restaurant image,
customer perceived value, customer satisfaction, and behavioral intentions. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2012, 24, 200–223.
[CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 13899 14 of 14

48. Westbrook, R.A.; Oliver, R.L. Developing better measures of consumer satisfaction: Some preliminary results. Adv. Consum. Res.
1981, 8, 94–99.
49. Groth, M. Customers as good soldiers: Examining citizenship behaviors in internet service deliveries. J. Manag. 2005, 31, 7–27.
[CrossRef]
50. Revilla-Camacho, M.Á.; Vega-Vázquez, M.; Cossío-Silva, F.J. Customer participation and citizenship behavior effects on turnover
intention. J. Bus. Res. 2015, 68, 1607–1611. [CrossRef]
51. Yi, Y.; Gong, T.; Lee, H. The impact of other customers on customer citizenship behavior. Psychol. Mark. 2013, 30, 341–356.
[CrossRef]
52. Hair, J.F.; Howard, M.C.; Nitzl, C. Assessing measurement model quality in PLS-SEM using confirmatory composite analysis. J.
Bus. Res. 2020, 109, 101–110. [CrossRef]
53. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res.
1981, 18, 39–50. [CrossRef]
54. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation
modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 115–135. [CrossRef]
55. Wu, C.H.-J.; Liang, R.-D. Effect of experiential value on customer satisfaction with service encounters in luxury-hotel restaurants.
Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2009, 28, 586–593. [CrossRef]
56. Harkison, T.; Hemmington, N.; Hyde, K.F. Luxury accommodation–significantly different or just more expensive? J. Revenue
Pricing Manag. 2018, 17, 231–243. [CrossRef]
57. Erciş, A.; Ünal, S.; Candan, F.B.; Yıldırım, H. The effect of brand satisfaction, trust and brand commitment on loyalty and
repurchase intentions. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 58, 1395–1404. [CrossRef]
58. Sallam, M.A.; Wahid, N.A. The effects of satisfaction and brand identification on brand love and brand equity outcome: The role
of brand loyalty. Eur. J. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2015, 4, 42–55.
59. Chiu, W.; Kwag, M.-S.; Bae, J.-S. Customers as partial employees: The influences of satisfaction and commitment on customer
citizenship behavior in fitness centers. J. Phys. Educ. Sport 2015, 15, 627.
60. Bharwani, S.; Mathews, D. Techno-business strategies for enhancing guest experience in luxury hotels: A managerial perspective.
Worldw. Hosp. Tour. Themes 2021, 13, 168–185. [CrossRef]
61. Jiang, Y.; Zhang, X.; Balaji, M. Customer-perceived value influence on luxury hotel purchase intention among potential customers.
Tour. Anal. 2022. [CrossRef]
62. Schivinski, B.; Muntinga, D.G.; Pontes, H.M.; Lukasik, P. Influencing COBRAs: The effects of brand equity on the consumer’s
propensity to engage with brand-related content on social media. J. Strateg. Mark. 2021, 29, 1–23. [CrossRef]
63. Cheung, M.L.; Leung, W.K.; Aw, E.C.-X.; Koay, K.Y. “I follow what you post!”: The role of social media influencers’ content
characteristics in consumers’ online brand-related activities (COBRAs). J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2022, 66, 102940. [CrossRef]
64. Buzeta, C.; De Pelsmacker, P.; Dens, N. Motivations to use different social media types and their impact on consumers’ online
brand-related activities (COBRAs). J. Interact. Mark. 2020, 52, 79–98. [CrossRef]