1 The unseen exchange: An investigation into the social ingredient of customer satisfaction Pabitra A. Chatterjee Grenoble Ecole de Management Doctorate in Management Course 28 February 2013

2 The unseen exchange: An investigation into the social ingredient of customer satisfaction Pabitra A. Chatterjee Grenoble Ecole de Management Doctorate in Management Course 28 February 2013 Abstract Though much consumption is shared by groups, for example, family, colleagues, unexpectedly little is known about the effect of fellow consumers on customer satisfaction. This may be rectified by considering the consumers experience as a whole. Using episodic interviews and thematic coding, this research finds consumers exchange different types of social support during a typical consumption experience (restaurant meal with friends); and suggests the fulfillment of social and utilitarian needs have both complementary and moderating relations in determining overall gratification. Keywords: Social influence, connected customer, social influence on consumer behaviour, customer relationship Acknowledgment: The author thanks Dr Olivier Trendel. Contact: pabitra.chatterjee@grenoble-em.com

3 The unseen exchange: An investigation into the social ingredient of customer satisfaction Pabitra A. Chatterjee1 Introduction Imagine celebrating your birthday with your friends and family at a pizzeria. The fare is la carte, but you are the center of attention. Next, picture yourself eating alone at the same restaurant. Intuition and experience suggest the unalike social settings just outlined should lead to considerably different consumption experiences for you, even if the food and service are essentially the same on both occasions. Conceivably, the levels of your customer satisfaction from your dining experiences will be different too. Even your ratings of the food and service may differ. For example, when alone you may notice shortcomings you would ignore had you had engaging company. Yet, if the pizzeria administered an after-meal satisfaction questionnaire, would they even ask you about your dining companions? They would not, if the 54 randomly selected academic studies on diners' customer satisfaction at eateries (list available on request) are an indication. The social context of consumption is barely mentioned and in none does it appear as a determinant, directly or indirectly (i.e., as a moderator or mediator), of customer satisfaction. Generally, there is little on the social context of consumer behavior (Buttle, 1998; OGuinn & Muiz, 2009; Kuppelwieser & Finsterwalder, 2011; Brocato, Voorhees, & Baker, 2012; Simpson, Griskevicius, & Rothman, 2012) and, specifically, customer satisfaction (Rogers, Peyton, & Berl, 1992; Martin, 1996; Fournier & Mick, 1999). In contrast, in real-life routine, ordinary' consumption is also 'collective' (Warde, 2005; p 146). For example, restaurant patrons value company highly (Andersson & Mossberg, 2004; Scitovsky 1985, quoted in Andersson & Mossberg, 2004) and socializing is a ma1Pabitra A. Chatterjee is a doctoral student at the Grenoble Ecole de Management, and acknowledges assistance from Oliver Trendel in preparing this paper.

4 jor reason for eating out (MarketResearch.com, 2010; Liang & Zhang, 2012). This is but expected. Eating is a profoundly social activity. Overwhelmingly, people prefer to eat with others; the opportunities that meals offer for sociability are recognized universally. (Warde, 2011). Even the word companion comes from, pan, Latin for bread, and literally means someone to break bread with (Ferris & Stein, 2010). Research demonstrates the importance of social factors in consumption in other contexts too (e.g., Arnould & Price, 1993; Holt, 1995; Goodwin, 1996). In the end, what is a home but a house shared by a family (Belk, 2010)? Most probably, the deficit on the social side of customer satisfaction is inherent to the conventional conception of the topic. Customer satisfaction is defined as the consumers fulfillment response. It is a judgment that a product or service feature, or the product or service itself, provided (or is providing) a pleasurable level of consumption-related fulfillment, including levels of under- or over-fulfillment (Oliver, 1997). Typically, overall customer satisfaction is calculated as a weighed sum of consumers rating of service or product features. Thus, S = a + bR (eqn. 1), where S is overall satisfaction, R is rating on a feature, and a and bs are coefficients (ibid.; emphasis mine). Thus, customer satisfaction is seen as an isolated, individualized (or solipsistic) state (Fournier & Mick, 1999). There is little room for interconsumer interactions or relations in this view. The present essay briefly reviews why existent falls short of accounting for the effects of possibly the most influential fellow consumers on a focal consumers customer satisfaction; puts forward social support as an comprehensive framework for understanding these effects, manifest in everyday consumption by ordinary groups like families, friends, colleagues, and neighbors; confirms the applicability of the framework in explaining the effects of groupmembers on each other's customer satisfaction from a common consumption experience, eat-

5 ing out with friends; and concludes with suggestions for applying the framework further, including quantitatively.

Existent research focus on the peripheral or the exceptional It would be precipitant to conclude that social factors have never been considered in research on customer satisfaction. Typically, these factors are considered in three areas: service settings, brand communities, and 'third places' (The third can be seen as a subset of the first). Other consumers in service settings: Those in the service facility simultaneously with and who are unacquainted with a focal customer (Brocato et al., 2012; p 2) are designated as 'other consumers.' They are either part of the service-scape provided by the marketer (Tombs & McColl-Kennedy, 2003) or strangers with whom the focal consumer has a chance encounter (Nicholls, 2011), and are counted as determinants of customer satisfaction with services (Oliver, 1999a). First, in a service facility, consumers prefer to be surrounded by compatible (similar, identifiable) fellow consumers (Martin & Pranter, 1989; Brocato et al., 2012). The more the perceived compatibility, the higher is customer satisfaction (Grove & Fisk, 1997; Raajpoot & Sharma, 2006), and vice versa (Bougie, Pieters, & Zeelenberg, 2003; quoted in Zhang, Beatty, & Mothersbaugh, 2010). Second, in service settings, inter-customer interactions greatly outnumber customer-employee interactions (Martin & Clark, 1996; Zhang et al., 2010). Pleasant interactions leads to good experiences (Moore, Moore, & Capella, 2005; Huang, 2008). Conversely, other consumers diminish customer satisfaction through disruptive behavior, incompatible needs, and violation of informal norms (Grove & Fisk, 1997; Bitner, Booms, & Mohr, 1994; Raajpoot & Sharma, 2006). While research on other consumers legitimizes including elements not provided by the marketer as determinants of customer satisfaction, i.e., looking beyond product or service at-

6 tributes, it appears to include only the marginal. Intuition suggests people the focal consumer usually consumes with (as a group), e.g., his family, colleagues or friends, influence satisfaction more than strangers and chance acquaintances. Happily, the research on brand communities involves somewhat stronger ties. Brand communities: A brand community is a specialized, non-geographically bound community, based on a structured set of social relationships among admirers of a brand (Muiz & OGuinn, 2001, p. 412; emphasis mine). Relations between customer satisfaction and identification with and participation in brand communities are complex. There is a positive relationship between communion with others (communitas) and satisfaction (Arnould & Price, 19932). For example, in a collective hedonistic service (music festival), the sense of community developed during consumption leads to hedonistic value which, then, increases satisfaction (Drengner, Jahn, & Gaus, 2012). Conversely, satisfaction with a brand leads consumers to seek out and interact with like-minded consumers who share their enthusiasm (Algesheimer, Dholakia, & Herrmann, 2005, p. 23). Satisfaction results from community participation, e.g., in a virtual community, a members satisfaction depends, in part, on memberto-member, organizer-to-member and organizer-to-community interactions (de Valck, Langerak, Verhoef & Verlegh, 2007; quoted in Woisetschlger, Hartleb, & Blut, 2008). Overall, satisfaction and participation are positively related (Nambisan & Baron, 2007; Lin, 2006). In short, satisfaction, identification and participation appear to form a virtuous cycle. This research cannot possibly answer all questions about fellow consumers effect on satisfaction. Not many brands have identifiable brand communities. For those that do, brand communities are explicitly commercial (B. Schmitt, 2012). Consumers take on a range of roles in brand communities (Kozinets, 2002; Cova & Cova, 2002; Fournier & Lee, 2009) but2It should be noted that the communitas in this research was between consumers of a rafting adventure, not a brand.

7 most roles are minor (OGuinn & Muniz, 2009). Hence, it is doubtful if brand communities have substantial impact on most of their members. More broadly, when comparably priced brands, across categories, have practically identical consumer profiles (Ehrenberg, 1974; Kennedy & Ehrenberg, 2001) it is hard to believe that brands mean as much for consumers as their champions believe them to (Desmond, 2002). Above all, brand community research is not about consumers not bonded by brands but by family, friendship or work ties, that is, people who normally consume together. Finally, there is almost no research on brand community outside the West (Tsai, Huang, & Chiu, 2012). Consequently, research on brand communities can be only a part of the research needed to understand inter-consumer influences on customer satisfaction. Third places: These are public places that host the regular, voluntary, informal, and happily anticipated gatherings of individuals beyond the realms of home and work (Oldenburg, 1999; quoted in Rosenbaum, 2006). Some consumers, especially senior citizens who have suffered events weakening or destroying their relationships, patronize third places for companionship and emotional support, forming 'commercial friendships' with personnel and other consumers. The evidence on effects of such commercial friendships on customer satisfaction is mixed. Rosenbaum (2006) finds customer satisfaction and loyalty towards a third-place are positively related to frequency of social support from commercial friends. However, at a salon, Moore et al. (2005) find inter-consumer interaction, though related to loyalty and wordof-mouth reference, is not related to satisfaction. Presumably satisfaction depends on outcomes, i.e., what the stylist does, and not on relations; whereas loyalty is, partly, to relations formed at the salon. Then, at a health club, Guenzi and Pelloni (2004) find no relations between inter-consumer closeness and customer satisfaction, behavioral loyalty or intentional loyalty. This may be due to several reasons: Some relations existed before the persons in-

8 volved became co-members of the club; if the club did not encourage relationships among consumers, the latter did not count such relationships as part of their consumption experiences; consumers interacted outside the club too, thereby reducing their dependence on the club as a meeting place, etc. Research on third places concerns itself principally with how certain consumers sustain socially supportive relationships with other customers and receive resources that most people receive from family, friends, and co-workers (Rosenbaum & Massiah, 2007; emphasis mine). Plainly, it leaves out consumption experiences in homes, workplaces, neighborhoods, and the rest, shared between 'non-commercial friends,' family and colleagues, that is, it does not cover the overwhelming majority of shared consumption experiences. To summarize, the foci of existent research almost ignore that consumption of commonplace products and services is shared by ordinary groups like families, friends and colleagues, not special ones like brand communities or commercial friends. To account for the ubiquitous but unnoticed shared character of consumption (Belk, 2010), it is necessary to reexamine the way consumer experiences are delineated; ask what consumers obtain from, and contribute to, these experiences; and, therefore, which factors determine consumers' customer satisfaction from these experiences.

A humbler view of consumption experiences the key to the social side of consumption Experiences are private events that occur in response to some stimulation (for example, as provided by marketing efforts before and after purchase). (Schmitt, 2009) Whenever a consumer consumes, besides the product or service consumed, he enjoys an experience (Chang & Horng, 2010). Unlike the cognitive or utilitarian view of consumption, which focuses on consumers goal-directed search and processing of information and evaluation during con-

9 sumption, experiential interpretations focus on consumptions non-utilitarian aspects, like context, emotions and symbolism, which need not be goal-directed (Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982). Typically, experiential marketing literature concerns itself with exceptional, memorable experiences (Raghunathan, 2009; Cova & Dalli, 2011). Obviously, such an orientation is unsuitable for investigating everyday consumption in primary groups. Happily, an inclusive framework has been suggested by Car and Cova (2003), in which experiences are located using two dimensions: ordinary vs. extraordinary, and market vs. society. On the market-end of the latter axis, the marketer almost single-highhandedly develops the experiences and consumers only immerse themselves into a hyper-real context, e.g., experiences by sports and entertainment brands. In the axis's middle, marketers and consumers collaborate, with the former supplying the platform where-from the latter fashion their distinctive experiences, e.g., sports tourism, adventure packages, cultural events (ibid.). This collaboration bestows experiences with linking value, i.e., value in construction, development or maintenance of interpersonal links even ephemeral ones' (Cova & Dalli, 2011). Not only that, the main role of the consumed product or service is to establish or reinforce ties between consumers, i.e., consumption is for the sake of social interaction. In such consumption, the consumed product is exonerated of its market attributes, becomes an object in a relationship-building ritual, and is appropriated (re-branded) by the consumers, e.g., 'it is no longer the wine of brand X that we share during a specific evening, but the wine of our group of persons ABCDE' (ibid.). Thus then linking value, a value facilitated by the marketer but created by consumers, is the core of consumption experiences in the middle of the market-society continuum. This essay suggests that its counterpart at the society-end of the continuum is a similar, perhaps broader concept, that adds value to everyday consumption in groups, differentiates these from solitary consumption, and represents the social factor of customer satis-

10 faction from such experiences. This is the concept of social support, the value exchanged through links or ties.

The framework of social support Social support is aid the supply of tangible or intangible resources individuals gain from their network members (Berkman, 1984; House, 1981; quoted in Song, Joonmo, & Lin, 2011). It was introduced into consumer behavior by Adelman, Ahuvia, and Goodwin (1994). Their taxonomy is presented below. There is considerable overlap between their taxonomy and others (see Appendix I); then again, the taxonomies are not coincident. Hence, certain extensions are suggested for Adelman et al. (1994). First, 'social comparison of opinions' has been included, under 'uncertainty reduction.' As argued below, for a variety of reasons the focal consumer may use his fellow consumers' customer satisfaction as inputs for deciding how satisfied he is. Though this can be slotted under informational support, it perhaps has a different sense than what Adelman and his colleagues intended informational support to mean. Hence, it is treated separately. Similarly, 'construction and maintenance of social identity' has been borrowed from Johnson et al. (2006) and placed under self acceptance. The original constituent of self acceptance, social comparison of achievement and ability, and social identity both help an individual understand who he is, though in very different ways. Therefore, both have been included under self acceptance but kept apart thereafter. Thus, the modified taxonomy has the same three components as the original: 1. Uncertainty reduction Communication: This is communication that reduces uncertainty and functions to enhance a perception of personal control (Adelman et al., 1994) - in a word: help.

11 Consumers share informational and instrumental support that may or may not be about the immediate consumption. Social comparison of opinions: Ambiguous or confusing situations are unsettling. Therefore, people validate their interpretation of social reality by comparing it to others interpretations. This is social comparison (Festinger, 1954). Secondly, affective responses involve little conscious processing, leaving the individual puzzled about his own preferences. Comparison with others provides justification (Suls, Martin, & Wheeler, 2000). Thirdly, comparisons are more efficient than absolute modes of information processing (Mussweiler & Epstude, 2009, quoted in Corcoran, Crusius, & Mussweiler, 2011). Comparisons, particularly social comparisons, decrease the amount of information processed to evaluate or judge a given object (Corcoran et al., 2011). When it comes to customer satisfaction, the evaluator seeks accord with consumers similar to himself (Suls et al., 2000). 2. Self-acceptance Social comparison of achievement and ability: This constitutes of opportunities for feedback about themselves and for validations of their expectations about others (Caplan, 1976; quoted in Adelman et al., 1994). Shared consumption with friends, acquaintances and colleagues allows a consumer to compare himself with persons outside his intimate circle. This is both constructive, because it brings in perspectives from outside ones close circle (Granovatter, 1973), and safe, because it avoids destructive competition between close friends and colleagues, i.e., avoids threats to selfevaluation (Tesser, 1988). Construction and maintenance of social identity: A person identifies with people of a desired type, e.g., a certain lifestyle (Cova, 1997).

12 3. Social integration: This constitutes of information leading the subject to believe that he is cared for and loved esteemed and valued that he belongs to a network of communication and mutual obligation (Cobb, 1979; quoted in Adelman et al., 1994). An example is the universal welcome to new neighbors: Why dont you come over for tea sometime? Three points should be clarified here. First, the three forms of social support overlap, e.g., exchanging thoughtfully selected gifts contributes to both uncertainty reduction and social integration (Adelman et al., 1994). Second, not all social relations are beneficial. Detrimental results of support include ineffective help, excessive help, unwanted or unpleasant interactions, and negative regulations. Also, supportive relations have costs and risks, e.g., broken promises; people who can help being irritating, annoying, or over-involved; help with strings attached. (Kang & Ridgway, 1996; Schetter & Brooks, 2009). And of course adversarial relations do harm rather than give social support (Labianca & Brass, 2006). Their effects should be the opposite of helping or affectionate relations: This is indeed the case in Baldwin, Bedell, and Johnson (1997). Third, the concern here is not whether outcomes of social support are good or bad; rather, it is about the effects of social support on customer satisfaction. To take an extreme case, consuming with friends can help an addict procure drugs (uncertainty reduction). The question is not how those drugs harm him; rather, it is how satisfied he is. Social support and consumption experiences: Adelman et al. (1994) presents social support principally as something consumers obtained from personnel in service settings; Oliver (1999b) uses social support from consumption communities to explain the social aspect of brand loyalty; and Rosenberg and colleagues (Rosenbaum, 2006; Rosenbaum & Massiah, 2007; Rosenbaum, Ward, Walker, & Ostrom, 2007) employ it to explain patronage of third

13 places (outlined above); but it can be made to do more. It has well-established benefits for health (House, Landis, & Umberson, 1988)and well-being (Schetter & Brooks, 2009; McTavish, 2011). Similar to need-to-belong (see Baumeister, 2012), it is a vital need. A persons main sources of social support are the groups he belongs to (Johnson et al., 2006). Possibly not coincidentally, much consumption is shared in groups. Thus, exchanges of social support should coincide with most instances of shared consumption. The suggestion, therefore, is to substantially extend the scope of social support in consumer behavior, to consider it an constituent of all or most group consumption experiences and a determinant of customer satisfaction from such experiences. The moot question then is that, given that much consumption is shared by groups, how is exchanging social support related to consuming? And how does it influence customer satisfaction? To answer these questions, we examine a shared consumption experience using the framework for social support just described.

Method Why research an experience qualitatively: Adelman et al. (1994) use their framework primarily to explain interactions between consumers and staff, though inter-consumer interactions are mentioned. Operationally, the question was whether the same framework can adequately analyze inter-consumer social support. It was expected to suffice because it structures social support in general and is not confined to consumption contexts. However, this needed confirmation. One way to test it would have been to use a quantitative survey of the sort typically used in customer satisfaction research (Oliver, 2006; eqn. 1 above). However, lack of existing research on the subject precluded this as a first step; and suggested qualitative research instead.

14 In qualitative research, studying consumer satisfaction with hi-tech products, Fournier and Mick (1999, p 15; emphasis mine) find that meanings and emotions that particularised consumers usage experiences affects customer satisfaction more than whether perceived product performance meets (consumers) comparison standards. Therefore, the logical point of departure on a search for the effects of social support on customer satisfaction was the core consumption experience, which embraces its sensation, the satiety, the satisfaction/dissatisfaction, the irritation/flow, the transformation (Arnold et al. 2002; quoted in Car & Cova, 2003). The framework, as a tool for detecting and understanding inter-consumer social support, was put to test by investigating a typical collective consumption experience eating out with friends. Why choose eating out: A restaurant provides both products (food and drink) and services (waiting; sometimes, music). At the same time, the principle motivation for eating out with friends, colleagues or business acquaintances is to talk with them informally. Thus, diverse benefits are inherent to the experience. Eating out was also selected because of its routineness. It is not one of the extraordinary experiences that researchers typically study but which rarely occur to most consumers (Schmitt 1999; quoted in Car & Cova, 2003); at the same time, it is not so common as to be unnoticeable. It may be seen as evenly poised on the experiential framework proposed by Car and Cova (2003), midway between the ordinary and the extraordinary; and midway between the market, where goods and services are purchased, and society, that is, family, community, organization, with whom goods and services are typically consumed. Market | Eating out |

Ordinary

-

-

Extraordinary

15 Society Figure 1: Eating out as a consumption experience, based on Car & Cova (2003) More importantly, Warde and Martens (2000, p 173) find most people like their company while eating: 89% of those who ate their last meal at a commercial establishment and 92% of those who ate it a home say they had liked the company a lot. The present research asks why they liked company so much, and how that affected their satisfaction with the dining experience. Then, Rosenbaum, Ward, Walker, and Ostrom (2007) use the stress-buffering role of social support to argue that destructive events, for example, death, divorce, illness, retirement, can lead consumers to seek emotional support, companionship and instrumental support (see comparison of taxonomies of social support in Appendix B) in third places. Some of their findings, from a diner, are summarised as follows: Table A: Comparison of event and no-event patrons at a diner, from Rosenbaum, Ward, Walker, and Ostrom (2007) Bereaved and divorced Fraction of supportive relationships in the diner Number of diner relationships Companionship Emotional support Instrumental support 57% 42% 39% 47% 15% 21% 33% 9.00% 9% 25% 10% 10.00% 10.36 8.00 4.71 3.86 58% Chronically ill 41% Retirees and empty-nesters 30% No-event members 25%

16 They also find that commercial friendships at the third place are weaker (average strength of tie, M = 4.74, on a scale of one to 10) than non-commercial ones (M = 8.07). Using structural equation modeling, they show consumers who receive companionship and emotional support from fellow patrons of a place form an attachment to the place. The present research differs substantially from theirs in that it focuses on (a) social ties between people who happen to be consuming together rather than people related by typically weak space-specific ties (commercial friendships) that result from consuming together; (b) the day-to-day role of social support for ordinary, that is, no-event, people rather than its stress-buffering role (As the table shows, ordinary people do depend less on space-specific ties for support, in both absolute and relative terms, than those who have suffered destructive events.); and (c) the experience of consumption rather than its venue.

Research design Semi-structured episodic interviews were used to explore consumers experiences. Since the aim was to draw out consumers reality, and not to construct a new theoretical concept to explain their choices, the episodic interview, which makes the process of constructing reality more readily accessible than approaches which aim to abstract concepts and answers in a strict sense (Flick 2009) was apt. Episodic interviews produce data that can be compared to yield generalizable concepts, yet has the specificity required for in-depth understanding (ibid). Using semi-structured interviews enhanced reliability because all respondents were asked the same questions; while bias due to the researcher was reduced by standardisation of questions (OLeary & Dowds, 2003; The questions are given in Appendix C). Follow-up questions were split in the tree-and-branch fashion (Rubin & Rubin, 2005) around the two

17 parts of the experience: what the restaurateur provided towards the evenings (All interviews were about dinners.) entertainment, that is, food, service and atmosphere; and what was collaboratively created by the consumers themselves, that is, the conversation. Holbrook and Hirschman (1982, p 135) classify eating as relatively pleasure-oriented consumption. They recommend such consumption be studied in terms of consumers overall experience, that is, using subjective, introspective reports; and not just objective, behavioral data. Hence, interviewees were asked to describe meals with friends. The focus being on the routine, ordinary, collective, conventional nature of much consumption (Warde, 2005, p 146), interviewees were asked to describe their last outing, and not an outing of their own choice. Doing the latter could have prompted them to recall a special occasion, for example, an anniversary, a birthday. Three interviews discussed the same meal. In all, 11 persons were interviewed, four women and seven men. Of these, one was an operations engineer, another was unemployed, and the rest were researchers. They were diverse in demographic (for example, age, nationality) and psychographic (for example, culture) terms. Therefore, the data came from a reasonably heterogeneous sample. In accordance with Arksey and Knight (1999), the first three interviews were used as a pilot run to hone the questions. The interviews were conducted face-to-face, except two that were conducted via a VoIP service (Skype). Though all interviewees were my previous or present classmates, only two can be described as friends. The matter was recorded, transcribed, read six times and thematically coded using the framework based on Adelman et al. (1994). Use of existing categories for coding, that is, thematic coding, was justified because the categories of social support are well-established (Schwarzer & Buchwald, 2004) and similar across taxonomies (Appendix B). It was improbable that new categories of social support would emerge during the analysis. In the event, none did. The transcripts were emailed to all interviewees. None asked

18 for revisions.

Social support during collective consumption All three types of social support were in evidence. Also, interviewees experiences involved more than one form of social support. Let us consider illustrative examples. Uncertainty reduction and control: This consisted of consumers exchanging informational and instrumental assistance, about the thing being consumed (for example, recommending a condiment during a meal) or otherwise (for example, discussing a deal over a meal). Taking informational assistance first, several interviewees mentioned the restaurant they dined in was recommended by a friend, either one in the dining party or one not present. Then, an interviewee recalled she and her dining companions debated their order for half an hour, that is, they helped each other select. More interestingly, she also mentioned how her dining companions withheld discouraging information. On previous occasions, some of her party had eaten the dish she was keen on and had been disappointed; yet, they held their silence and let her order it. Possibly they reasoned that tastes being idiosyncratic, she was entitled to an experience unbiased and undamped by their assessments, after which she would draw her own conclusions. They said, We have to confess something. We tried the steak before and we did not like it. Thats why we ordered hamburger. And we had the conversation before, that you guys came here to eat steak and not hamburger and (I asked) why are you ordering hamburgers and they said, No, no, we want to order hamburger. (and gave) no further details. So, when I ordered the steak and I did not like it so much they said, So, you see thats why we didnt order the steak because we didnt like it. They didnt want to be so frank in the beginning because they saw that I was so excited

19 about the steak. (L) Offhand, one does not expect instrumental assistance (for example, help with cutlery) at adults meals, yet there were instances of it too. The three interviewees who went to the same outing remembered diners shared food off each others plates there. This is considered taboo in certain cultures (Fox, n.d.) and, as one interviewee noted, not everyone was comfortable with it. Most probably they shared food in spite of such issues so that everyone could sample a variety of dishes and indulge in a little gastronomic adventure without having to spend extra, that is, at each others expense. There may have been ritualistic signaling too, that is, partaking each others food to bond. There was social comparison of opinions, that is, evaluations, as well. Interviewees discussed food with fellow guests, and noticed whether their overall satisfaction matched their companions mood. Thus, they helped each other assess the experience. I think they (friends) were very satisfied because they were very happy. (Y) At the end of the evening everybody was happy with what happened. They said it was nice. My close friends said that it was nice to meet new people. My colleagues said that they would like to do it again. (B; Note: They did do it again, soon after the interview. Thus, one of the purposes of social comparison, collective action, was served.) Let us now consider support not linked to the consumption. In the original framework by (Adelman et al., 1994), for understanding mainly social support from service providers to consumers, this constitutes of personnel offering counsel and sympathy to consumers, for example, a bartender patiently listening to a stressed patrons worries (Adelman et al., 1994). An instance of similar aid occurred at a dinner between an interviewee and a young couple. During dinner, the couple discussed stressful arrangements for their upcoming wedding with the interviewee. The arrangements were particularly demanding because certain guests were

20 on bad terms and had to be kept apart. Ostensibly, the interviewee was a dispassionate, neutral facilitator in the deliberation. (The same interviewee feared he committed a faux pas by talking about politics, a subject on which his leaning differed from his dining companions. Verily, social norms are complicated.) Dinner-table discussions could be about long-term issues too, for example, about children and life changes: I am godfather to one of his daughters and she passed Baccalaureate and she is also trying to enter some arts school and we were also discussing where she is and her chances. (C) Self-acceptance: This took two forms, social comparison of ability and achievement, and identity creation and maintenance. Eating out allowed diners to compare their abilities and achievements to acquaintances. Here is how an interviewee compared her career choices: I was sitting with A, who is a former DBA student in this school. I think he is more than forty and all his life he just studied and he has lots of diplomas and we were talking about choices in life. And I have a few diplomas of my own and so we were talking about how weird (it was) for people. We were (saying) how we dont really fit into the social role and so we started talking about what the society expects from people, how people try to fit in with societys rules and some people dont, and they are sort of pointed at and others perceive them as weird people. (B) As far as identity goes, some diners may have come together to see themselves as bon vivants, that is, those who, as a group, appreciate and indulge in the good things of life. I think it (the thing that is common to the group) is similar attitudes or life styles or you can say similar consumption styles. (R)

21 Perhaps this feeling, amplified, leads to brand communities. It may also be a motivation behind certain definitive societal and familial traditions involving consumption, for example, cooking, serving and eating elaborate meals, with signature recipes, during festivals (Arnould & Price, 2000). Nonetheless, none of the interviewees stressed a distinguishing trait associated with eating out (though one did seem proud of his wifes ability to remember menus and decipher and recreate recipes). In other words, I could find no indication that they used their restaurant trips with friends to create and communicate particular identities to others, that is, those outside their groups. If truth be told, all seemed more or less equally good at remembering what they had communicated with their dining companions. The absence of deliberate identity making and maintenance is expected if one assumes that most consumption occasions are shared with people who know the consumer well, even intimately (Warde, 1994). Thus, a person with epicurean pretensions will expose himself to ridicule from members of his group if he chooses haute cuisine dishes, which give him no hedonic pleasure, solely to flaunt a non-existent expertise. Deceiving outsiders will be little compensation for such risks. Oppositely, if the expertise is real, and enjoyment of haute cuisine is both hedonic and cultural, little will be gained by drawing attention to ones choices. The people most likely to notice, the diners own group, already know her to be a genuine gourmet. Thus, real consumers enjoying real consumption experiences may not be as interested in constructing social identities though their choices (Warde, 2005). Indeed, experimental evidence indicates social support for identity may be less significant than for other forms of support (that is, for connectedness and achievement Johnson et al., 2006. See Appendix I for parallels between taxonomies by Johnson and colleagues and Adelman and colleagues). Social integration: That eating out is as much for social bonding as it is epicurean enjoyment was evident in all interviews. Actually, respondents were willing to compromise on

22 the latter if the former need was fulfilled. If it is a new group where I need to fit... I try to eat whatever with them. Then we become friends and it is more relaxed. Then the food becomes a priority as you are already friends and you call them out to adventure with, try new food. No pressure. (BM) This conforms to similar instances in Warde and Martens (2000), where diners refrain from complaining about bad food or service so as to not upset their companions. Parenthetically, the word cozy came up eight times in 11 interviews. In one instance, it was accompanied by a description of the restaurant as being decorated as if it is in countryside (Y). If dcor is designed to help families or groups of friends escape into an exceptionally pleasant place, perhaps one of pastoral communal bliss, restaurants are succeeding. Given the multi-dimensional nature of social support and willingness to substitute gastronomic enjoyment with good company, one may expect consumers to unhesitatingly link the social side of their consumption experiences to customer satisfaction. This hope is belied.

Shared consumption and customer satisfaction Actually, only two interviewees unambiguously acknowledged socialization in their overall evaluation. Both, as predicted in Warde and Martens (2000), were female. the food was very good traditional French food and I think everyone was very full we spent like three hours. There was cross-table talking and it was very good. (Y; emphasis mine) It is a small restaurant that somebody said was very good and not very expensive and so we decided to pick this one. They had good food and not very cheap as we expected as students. But in the end, well, what I always say is that it is important who you

23 are with and the environment. You could have gone to the McDonalds and have as much fun. But it was fun, nice French restaurant and it was cozy. (B) Thus, though interviewees recalled a social side of their experiences, they did not always link it to the experiences evaluations. However, since customer satisfaction is fulfillment response (Oliver, 2006), it was justifiable to look for evidence in the needs consumers aimed to fulfill by eating out, specifically, by contrasting expectations from eating out with friends with those from eating alone (that is, removing the key factor). Expectedly, the significance of socialization to customer satisfaction became clearer when interviewees were asked about eating alone. The criteria for selection changed. For instance, one respondent insisted he must have quick service if he did not have company. If I have to go alone then I would say it is a completely different experience. It means I want to have food only if possible, good food but one of the key selection criteria I would say satisfaction criteria would be the time. How long do I have to be in the restaurant... if you are alone, (you) want to escape completely. I want to get out quickly... We just need food to fill our belly and thats it. (C) He also said he would prefer an eatery where the other diners were unaccompanied. I would feel uncomfortable being alone in this place (a tapas restaurant) because this is more a place where people often party and if you are there alone with your newspaper or with your smart phone, you will look like a stupid idiot. So if you are alone you... (you) tend to go to a place where there are people who are eating alone... (C). Another declared that the quality of food, unimportant if she had company, would become decisive if she was alone. J, about eating with company: It (a noodle dish) did not live up to my expectation because I thought it should be even more striking. But obviously to me it was an ordi-

24 nary meal. But I think that the purpose to meet was (that) we wanted to taste the noodle but it was not the pointbeyond that we wanted to get a chance to gather together and talk (about) something interesting I would say (it was) not about only a meal to taste something new but more about keeping our ties. J, about eating alone: If I can decide to go alone that means there is nothing else but the food and which is really attractive to me. It means I want to have the food and I dont mind going alone. So the food has to be really special for me and really good. And maybe I can enjoy eating alone. Maybe the food provokes some feelings in me and that kind of feelings can only happen when I am in solitude and so the food matters and nothing else. Yet another interviewee said she would prefer the familiar and humdrum if she had to dine by herself: If I eat alone I go to places where I feel at home or where I am a regular customer or where I have been with some other girls from the school. I feel comfortable and (have) visited that place many times I already know the waitresses and waiters. So I know the staff and it is very nicely organized and I dont feel (I am) at the centre of the attention if I eat alone. So thats what feeling like home is to me. I feel comfortable. I know the people, I know the place well, I know the menu well, I know the food is good and I dont feel bad eating alone. (B) Thus, the regular joint would satisfy the need for safety (no unpleasant surprises) and personal acknowledgment (knowing the staff) besides the need for food. The consumer would use place-as-home to assuage loneliness (Rosenbaum, 2006) and social support would come from the service providers staff instead of the diners companions. Taken together, explicit mention of socializing as a determinant of satisfaction; increased im-

25 portance of what the service provider delivers (for example, food quality, prompt service, empathy), when the diner is alone; and willingness to compromise on hedonism for the sake of good company (mentioned earlier) point to a complementary relation between social support (provided by ones group of co-consumers) and inputs from the service provider (including social support from the service provider) in creating the consumer experience and determining customer satisfaction thereof. Additionally, there may be a moderating relation between social support and quality of products and services. This is suggested by two incidents. In one, dissatisfaction reached disgust because the staff failed to ensure uninterrupted socialization. Contrariwise, in the other incident, satisfaction rose to appreciation when the staff enabled socialization. J was so angry when her dinner was interrupted by a beggar that she concluded the restaurateur did not care about the guests: I would say the service is fine but I would really say that there was a disturbance there, because when we had dinner together someone just came to us abruptly and I was a little bit surprised about that. And obviously he was a beggar and wanted money and I was a little bit shocked because he was standing there for two full minutes and no one at the restaurant came to stop him. I dont mind giving money but this kind of thing really disturbs your mood and your enjoyment of having food with your friends and this restaurant should have a certain standard of service and they really need to intervene in this kind of abrupt appearance and this may have a negative impression of the entire restaurant and they just dont care about their customers feelings during the dinner. Maybe they never thought about it. And maybe they just wanted to help the beggar, but really that is not their responsibil-

26 ity and their major responsibility is to ensure their food and their service and offer the best atmosphere there. But there was no one there when the beggar was there and when he even aggressively asked for money. And no one was there and no one cared and for me that was a shock. (J, emphasis mine) Oppositely, R was appreciative for being given a chair: I remember that we had difficulty because we didnt have enough chairs. I think we reserved for 13 (and) we had 12 chairs. They helped us (in) moving a lot of chairs and tables to get us an extra chair. The place was quite packed and it is not easy to move something... (R) Conceivably, the supply of the 13th chair was remembered because it was essential for creating the appropriate setting for the group to come together. Yet, the restaurant would have obviously lost Rs business and, most probably, the business of his entire group too, had it not arranged for that chair. Thus, the quality of service can facilitate or hinder social support, pointing to a moderating relation. The similar effect of the quality of product, that is, food and drink, is well known. Yeah, when you eat you talk about the food. Then, you interact with the people. Thats the beginning, you get to know them. Also people drink, they tend to be more relaxed and when people open their hearts it is easier to talk and show their real faces. So, I mean it created a foundation for people to be sincere and make friends. So, I think eating out together is a good way to make friends. (BM) The importance of service and product in facilitating socialization also provides additional evidence of the importance of the latter in consumption. Finally, the fact that most interviewees failed to spontaneously acknowledge socializa-

27 tion as a determinant of customer satisfaction but could respond when asked to imagine its absence (eating alone) indicates socialization may be a 'must-be' or basic need. (Kano model, quoted in Oliver, 2009). When thinking in terms of products and services, fulfillment of such needs is 'taken for granted' and not explicitly demanded. When these needs are fulfilled, the consumer is 'not dissatisfied'; but when these needs are not fulfilled, dissatisfaction is so high that a deficient product or service brand is not even considered (Matzler, Hinterhuber, Bailom, & Sauerwein, 1996). Patently, fulfilling a need like social interaction is not the task of any marketer but of the consumers themselves. Hence, the question of rejecting any brand did not arise. However, interviewees did change their desiderata from eating out considerably when asked to imagine being alone. It appeared as if they wanted a quite different experience. Two points are of note. First, consumers may take it for granted that certain social needs will be fulfilled during consumption experiences or rituals (e.g., the family will plan while consuming breakfast and take stock at dinner). While their non-fulfillment (e.g., silence at the family meal) can be deeply discontenting, their fulfillment can go unnoticed. Such aspects of consumption experiences may not be detectable in straightforward inventories of experience attributes but come to light only when consumers are asked to imagine their absence. Second, if social support constitutes a basic or 'must be' need from (certain) consumption experiences, its effects on customer satisfaction may not be linear (as it is for the Rs in eqn. 1). Instead, non-fulfillment can lead to such overall satisfaction deteriorating drastically while fulfillment or over-fulfillment (if there is such a state in social support) may not increase customer satisfaction. In summary, the analysis finds links between motivation to consume (socializing), social support and consequent evaluation, that is, customer satisfaction. There is evidence pointing to a moderating relation between the quality of services and products and effective ex-

28 change of social support. The social benefits are classifiable. They may be quantifiable too, possibly by applying taxonomies like that of (Fller, Matzler, & Hoppe, 2008) along with the social network perspective (Song et al., 2011).

Implications This research, and similar ones, finds that the social aspect of consumption goes beyond reaffirmation of community, into sharing of support, that is, it is multi-dimensional. Further, the complementary roles of social support and offerings from the marketer (that is, products and service) in fulfilling consumers needs indicates that customer satisfaction is multidimensional too, and conforms to the additive model of customer enjoyment or gratification put forward in (Song et al., 2011). ATTRIBUTES CONSTITUENTS

OVERALL

InstrumenUncertainty reduction Self-acceptance Social integratal Hedonic Social Contem-

Customer satisfaction

tion plative Figure 2: Additive model of customer satisfaction, based on Warde & Whoever, 2000

The first three constituents of the model, that is, fulfilment of instrumental, hedonic and social needs, were evident in the data. Had the experiences involved exotic menus, fine-dining restaurants or award-winning chefs, the last constituent, fulfilment of the need for contemplation, may have made its appearance as well. Multiple benefits, in turn, can explain why consumers are often content with products

29 and services which do not add to status, for example, eating in a casual eatery with friends (Warde, 2005). Further, with such a model, it is possible to explain otherwise inexplicable situations where consumers have high satisfaction or rate of repurchase but seems indifferent to product or service attributes. . Operationally, if the aspects and effects of social support are quantifiable, they may be incorporated into existing tools like SERVQUAL (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1988) and the Universal Product or Service Consumption Satisfaction Scale (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1988), p 343). The former accounts for determinants of service quality like promptness and accuracy: Social support can prove to be a useful addition to these. The latter enables a many-sided analysis of satisfaction: Again, the influence of co-consumers can be a nontrivial addition. Managerially, marketers may have to review how well they are helping consumers fulfill their actual needs and expectations. If they are falling short, they must reshape their offerings: It is possible to radically redesign even ordinary products (Norman, 2002) and processes (Norman, 2002). For example, just as a U-shaped setting in a classroom is more conducive to inter-student interaction (Womack & Jones, 2005) a round table may be more conducive of chatting over food, especially in a large dining party. Can restaurateurs have an optimal number of such tables? Eventually, it may emerge that substantive factors determining consumers experiences, evaluations and behavior are beyond managers influence; and that a comprehensive understanding of customer satisfaction requires thinking in terms of what is enjoyed (Dierdonck, Gemmel, & Desmet, 2003) or needs fulfilled (Oliver, 1997) instead of only products or services consumed. The knowledge of limits is itself useful. As a final point, the complementary relationship between socialization and service quality can bode ill for marketers. If consumers see themselves as the main determinants of their gratification, they can deem

30 marketers as substitutable.

Limitation and suggestions The principle limitation of this research is the personality of the researcher. I was extremely uncomfortable while asking interviewees about their experiences: I felt I was intruding into their and their friends privacy. The feeling worsened when the interviewee went out of his or her way to help, for example, when an interviewee voluntarily drew out the floor plan and seating arrangement of a restaurant he had gone to more than a month before the interview. Convenience sampling is a drawback. However, given the inclusiveness of the framework, it may not a critical flaw, that is, social support under other conditions should be classifiable under the framework used. Nonetheless, it is of prime importance that the exercise be repeated for other services, products and samples. For further generalization, other experiences, like a visit to a mall, a cruise, or a (B2B) service call, must be investigated, perhaps by process-mapping as well as interviewing. Also, the cumulative experience, that is, the result of a series of individual events, some good, some bad, have to be studied (Oliver, 1997). To close, if this line of research is to become managerially relevant, it will have to be quantitative. A start may be made by simply including two questions in customer satisfaction questionnaires: Who did you share this product (or service) with? To what extent did the consumed product or service fulfill its purpose? (For example, if you organised a seminar primarily to generate sales leads, how many leads do you credit to it?) Eventually, we must study how the social environment can be designed and managed and create metrics for its effect (Verhoef et al., 2009).

Conclusion: Two exchanges, one experience

31 There are two simultaneous exchanges during consumption experiences. The first is between consumers and marketers. The former give money and receive a variety products and services. This is the exchange typically analyzed. The second exchange is among consumers, and involves different forms of social support. Of these, social integration, that is, giving each other company, is easy to discern. With some analysis, the other two forms, self-acceptance and uncertainty removal, become apparent too. This exchange makes demands on consumers time, tolerance, care and the like, resources that are often in short supply. Customer satisfaction research, at present, largely ignores the second exchange. Instead, there is a tendency to operate with utilitarian assumption; a tendency to view consumption as instrumental to other social ends rather than having intrinsic social value; and a tendency to refuse to accept that people are the best judges of the meaning and value of their feelings of satisfaction (Verhoef et al., 2009). Consequently, the actual consumption experience, and its social value to the consumer cannot be fully understood. This is in sharp contrast to experts advice on paying attention to the social aspects of consumption. For instance, on inter-consumer social support, Oliver (1999) says: In its pure form, the village is a social alliance in which the primary motivation to become loyal on the part of each consumer is to be one with the group, and the primary motivation of the group overseers is to please their constituency. In this situation, the consumer becomes a (willing) participant because of the attention provided by its members. In the limiting case, the product/service is not the consumable. Rather, it is the camaraderie provided by the social organization. Rieicheld (2006) posits that the best predictor of future profits is customers propensity to recommend a firm to their best friends, and advices marketers to follow the golden rule:

32 Do to others as you would have them do to you (Luke 6:31). Hopefully, present deficiencies may be not be hard to correct. The very ordinariness of collective consumption suggests no novel or complex method is required for its study. Maybe all we have to do is acknowledge the obvious: The social side of consumption may be mundane; it is not trivial.References Adelman, M., Ahuvia, A., & Goodwin, C. (1994). Beyond smiling: social support and service quality. In R. T. Rust & R. L. Oliver (Eds.), Service quality: New directions in theory and practice. Sage. Algesheimer, R., Dholakia, U. M., & Herrmann, A. (2005). The Social Influence of Brand Community: Evidence from European Car Clubs. Journal of Marketing, 69(3), 1934. Andersson, T. D., & Mossberg, L. (2004). The dining experience: do restaurants satisfy customer needs? Food Service Technolog, 4, 171177. Arksey, H., & Knight, P. . (1999). Interviewing for social scientists. Sage. Arnould, E. J., & Price, L. L. (2000). Authenticating acts and authoritative performances: questing for self and community. In C. Huffman, D. G. Mick, & S. Ratneshwar (Eds.), The Why of Consumption: Contemporary Perspectives on Consumer Motives, Goals and Desires. Routledge. Arnould, E., & Price, L. (1993). River magic: extraordinary experience and the extended service encounter. Journal of consumer Research, 20(1), 2445. Baldwin, T., Bedell, M., & Johnson, J. (1997). The social fabric of a team-based MBA program: Network effects on student satisfaction and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 40(6), 13691397. Baumeister, R. F. (2012). Need-to-Belong Theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology. Sage. Belk, R. (2010). Sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(5), 715734. doi:10.1086/612649 Bitner, M. J., Booms, B. H., & Mohr, L. A. (1994). Critical Service Encounters: The Employees Viewpoint. Journal of Marketing, 58(4), 95106. Brocato, E. D., Voorhees, C. M., & Baker, J. (2012). Understanding the Influence of Cues from Other Customers in the Service Experience: A Scale Development and Validation. Journal of Retailing, 88(3), 384398. Buttle, F. a. (1998). Rules Theory: Understanding The Social Construction Of Consumer Behaviour. Journal of Marketing Management, 14(1-3), 6394. Car, A., & Cova, B. (2003). Revisiting Consumption Experience: A More Humble but Complete View of the Concept. Marketing Theory, 3(2), 267286. Chang, T.-Y., & Horng, S.-C. (2010). Conceptualizing and measuring experience quality: the customers perspective. The Service Industries Journal, 30(14), 24012419. Corcoran, K., Crusius, J., & Mussweiler, T. (2011). Social comparison: Motives, standards, and mechanisms. In D. Chadee (Ed.), Theories in social psychology (pp. 119139). Wiley-Blackwell. Cova, B, & Cova, V. (2002). Tribal marketing: the tribalisation of society and its impact on the conduct of marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 127. Cova, B., & Dalli, D. (2011). Working consumers: the next step in marketing theory? In P. Maclaran, M. Saren, B. Stern, & M. Tadajewski (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Marketing Theory (Vol. 9). Sage. Cova, Bernard. (1997). Community and consumption: Towards a definition of the linking value of product or services. European Journal of Marketing, 31(3/4), 297 316. Desmond, J. (2002). Consuming Behaviour. Palgrave Macmillan. Dierdonck, R. V., Gemmel, P., & Desmet, S. (2003). Facilities management. In B. V. Looy (Ed.), Services Management: an Integrated Approach (2nd ed.). Financial Times/Prentice Hall.

33Doeglas, D., Suurmeijer, T., Brianon, S., Moum, T., Krol, B., Bjelle, A., Sanderman, R., et al. (1996). An international study on measuring social support: interactions and satisfaction. Social science & medicine, 43(9), 138997. Drengner, J., Jahn, S., & Gaus, H. (2012). Creating Loyalty in Collective Hedonic Services: The Role of Satisfaction and Psychological Sense of Community. Schmalenbach Business Review, (January), 5977. Ehrenberg, A. (1974). Repetitive advertising and the consumer. Journal of advertising research. Ferris, K., & Stein, J. (2010). The real world: An introduction to sociology (2nd ed.). W. W. Norton & Company. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human relations. Fournier, S., & Lee, L. (2009). Getting brand communities right. Harvard Business Review, (April), 105112. Fournier, S., & Mick, D. (1999). Rediscovering satisfaction. The Journal of Marketing, 63(4), 523. Fox, R. (n.d.). Food and Eating: An Anthropological Perspective. Retrieved February 8, 2013, from http://www.sirc.org/publik/food_and_eating_0.html Fller, J., Matzler, K., & Hoppe, M. (2008). Brand community members as a source of innovation. Journal of Product Innovation , 608619. Goodwin, C. (1996). Communality as a Dimension of Service Relationships. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 5(4), 387 415. Granovatter, M. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 13601380. Grove, S. J., & Fisk, R. P. (1997). The impact of other customers on service experiences: A critical incident examination of getting along. Journal of Retailing, 73(1), 6385. Guenzi, P., & Pelloni, O. (2004). The impact of interpersonal relationships on customer satisfaction and loyalty to the service provider. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 15(4), 365 384. Holbrook, M. B., & Hirschman, E. C. (1982). The experiential aspects of consumption: Consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of consumer research, 9(2), 132140. Holt, D. (1995). How consumers consume: a typology of consumption practices. Journal of consumer research, 22(June). House, J. S., Landis, K. R., & Umberson, D. (1988). Social relationships and health. Science (New York, N.Y.), 241(4865), 5405. Huang, W.-H. (2008). The impact of other-customer failure on service satisfaction. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 19(4), 521536. Johnson, A. L., Crawford, M. T., Sherman, S. J., Rutchick, A. M., Hamilton, D. L., Ferreira, M. B., & Petrocelli, J. V. (2006). A functional perspective on group memberships: Differential need fulfillment in a group typology. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(6), 707719. Kang, Y., & Ridgway, N. (1996). The importance of consumer market interactions as a form of social support for elderly consumers. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 15(1), 108. Kennedy, R., & Ehrenberg, A. (2001). There is no brand segmentation. Marketing Research, 13(1), 47. Kozinets, R. V. (2002). Can Consumers Escape the Market? Emancipatory Illuminations from Burning Man. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(1), 2038. Kuppelwieser, V. G., & Finsterwalder, J. (2011). Psychological safety, contributions and service satisfaction of customers in group service experiences. Managing Service Quality, 21(6), 617635. Labianca, G., & Brass, D. J. (2006). Exploring the social ledger: negative relationships and negative asymmetry in social networks in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 596614. Liang, R., & Zhang, D. J. (2012). The effect of service interaction orientation on customer satisfaction and behavioural intention: The moderating effect of dining frequency. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 24(1), 15317. Lin, H. (2006). Understanding behavioral intention to participate in virtual communities. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9(5), 5407. MarketResearch.com. (2010). The 2010 restaurant, food and beverage market research handbook. Martin, C. (1996). Consumer-to-Consumer Relationships: Satisfaction with Other Consumers Public Behavior. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 18. Martin, C. L., & Clark, T. (1996). Networks of Customer-to-Customer Relationships in Marketing. In D. Iacobucci (Ed.), Networks in Marketing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

34Martin, C. L., & Pranter, C. A. (1989). Compatibility Management: Customer-to-Customer Relationships in Service Environments. Journal of Services Marketing, 3(3), 5 15. Matzler, K., Hinterhuber, H. H., Bailom, F., & Sauerwein, E. (1996). How to delight your customers. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 5(2), 618. McTavish, J. (2011). Social Support. Encyclopedia of Social Networks. Sage. Meyer, C., & Schwager, A. (2007). Understanding customer experience. Harvard Business Review, (February), 117126. Moore, R., Moore, M. L., & Capella, M. (2005). The impact of customer-to-customer interactions in a high personal contact service setting. Journal of Services Marketing, 19(7), 482491. Muiz, A., & OGuinn, T. (2001). Brand community. Journal of consumer research, 27(4), 412432. Nambisan, S., & Baron, R. (2007). Interactions in virtual customer environments: Implications for product support and customer relationship management. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 21(2), 4263. Nicholls, R. (2011). Customer-to-customer interaction (CCI): a cross-cultural perspective. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 23(2), 209223. Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer. New York, NY: McGraw Hill International Editions. Oliver, R. L. (1999a). Customer Satisfaction with Service. In T. Swartz & D. Iacobucci (Eds.), Handbook of Services Marketing and Management. Sage. Oliver, R. L. (1999b). Whence Consumer Loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 63, 33. Oliver, R. L. (1999c). Whence Consumer Loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 63(Fundamental Issues and Directions for Marketing), 3344. Oliver, R. L. (2006). Customer Satisfaction Research. In R. Grover & M. Vriens (Eds.), The Handbook of Marketing Research: Uses, Misuses, and Future Advances (pp. 569587). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Oliver, R. L. (2009). Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer (p. 519). M.E.Sharpe. OGuinn, T.C., & Muiz, A. (2009). The Social Brand: Towards a Sociological Model of Brands. In B. Loken, R. Ahluwalia, & M. J. Houston (Eds.), Contemporary Branding Issues: A Research Perspective. Taylor and Francis. OGuinn, Thomas C., & Muniz, A. (2009). Collective Brand Relationships. In J. Priester, D. MacInnis, & C. W. Park (Eds.), Handbook of Brand Relations. N.Y. Society for Consumer Psychology and M.E. Sharp. OLeary, R., & Dowds, L. (2003). Questionnaire and structured interview schedule design. In R. L. Miller & J. D. Brewer (Eds.), The A-Z of Social Research. Sage. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A Multi-Item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perception of Service Quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 1240. Raajpoot, N. A., & Sharma, A. (2006). Perceptions of incompatibility in customer-to-customer interactions: examining individual level differences. Journal of Services Marketing, 20(5), 324332. Raghunathan, R. (2009). Some issues concerning the concept of experiential marketing. In B. H. Schmitt & D. L. Rogers (Eds.), Handbook on Brand and Experience Management (pp. 132143). Edward Elgar. Rieicheld, F. (2006). The Ultimate Question: Driving Good Profits and True Growth. Harvard Business School Press. Rogers, H. P., Peyton, R. M., & Berl, R. (1992). Measurement and Evaluation of Satisfaction Processes in a Dyadic Setting. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 5. Rosenbaum, M. S. (2006). Exploring the Social Supportive Role of Third Places in Consumers Lives. Journal of Service Research, 9(1), 5972. Rosenbaum, M. S., & Massiah, C. A. (2007). When Customers Receive Support From Other Customers: Exploring the Influence of Intercustomer Social Support on Customer Voluntary Performance. Journal of Service Research, 9(3), 257270. Rosenbaum, M. S., Ward, J., Walker, B. a., & Ostrom, a. L. (2007). A Cup of Coffee With a Dash of Love: An Investigation of Commercial Social Support and Third-Place Attachment. Journal of Service Research, 10(1), 4359. Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. (2005). Qualitative interviewing: the art of hearing data. Sage. Schau, H. J., Muiz, A. M., & Arnould, E. J. (2009). How brand community practices create value. Journal of Marketing, 73(5), 3051. Schetter, C. D., & Brooks, K. P. (2009). Social Support, Nature of. In H. T. Reis & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Encyclopedia of

35Human Relationships (pp. 15651569). Sage. Schmitt, B. (2012). The consumer psychology of brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(1), 717. Schmitt, B. H. (2009). A framework for managing customer experiences. In B. H. Schmit & D. L. Rogers (Eds.), Handbook on Brand and Experience Management (pp. 113131). Edward Elgar. Schwarzer, C., & Buchwald, P. (2004). Social Support. Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology. Academic Press. Simpson, J. A., Griskevicius, V., & Rothman, A. J. (2012). Consumer decisions in relationships. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(3), 304314. Song, L., Joonmo, S., & Lin, N. (2011). Social Support. In J. P. Scott & P. J. Carrington (Eds.), Handbook of Social Network Analyses (pp. 11628). Sage. Suls, J., Martin, R., & Wheeler, L. (2000). Three Kinds of Opinion Comparison: The Triadic Model. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(3), 219237. Tesser, A. (1988). Toward a Self-Evaluation Maintenance Model of Social Behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 181227. Tombs, A., & McColl-Kennedy, J. R. (2003). Social-Servicescape Conceptual Model. Marketing Theory, 3(4), 447475. Tsai, H.-T., Huang, H.-C., & Chiu, Y.-L. (2012). Brand community participation in Taiwan: Examining the roles of individual-, group-, and relationship-level antecedents. Journal of Business Research, 65(5), 676684. Verhoef, P. C., Lemon, K. N., Parasuraman, A., Roggeveen, A., Tsiros, M., & Schlesinger, L. A. (2009). Customer Experience Creation: Determinants, Dynamics and Management Strategies. Journal of Retailing, 85(1), 3141. Warde, A. (2005). Consumption and Theories of Practice. Journal of Consumer Culture, 5(2), 131153. Warde, A. (1994). Consumption, Identity-Formation and Uncertainty. Sociology, 28(4), 877898. Warde, A. (2011). Food Consumption. In D. Southerton (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Consumer Culture. Sage. Warde, A., & Martens, L. (2000). Eating Out: Social Differentiation, Consumption and Pleasure. Cambridge University Press. Woisetschlger, D. M., Hartleb, V., & Blut, M. (2008). How to Make Brand Communities Work: Antecedents and Consequences of Consumer Participation. Journal of Relationship Marketing, 7(3), 237256. Womack, J. P., & Jones, D. T. (2005). Lean Solutions: How Companies and Customers Can Create Value and Wealth Together. Free Press. Zhang, J., Beatty, S. E., & Mothersbaugh, D. (2010). A CIT investigation of other customers influence in services. Journal of Services Marketing, 24(5), 389399.

Appendix I: Taxonomies of social support Table 1: From Suurmeijer et al. (1995) quoted in Doeglas et al. (1996) Crisis or 'problem- Everyday or daily oriented Social-emotional Instrumental Table 2: From Kang & Ridgway (1996) social or re- emolational tional Uncertainty reduction Parallel with Adelman et al, 1994 (Hereafter, Parallel) Social integration

36 Benefits from bonds Help exchanges Examples Emphatic listening; expression of caring/conParallel Uncertainty re-

cern; reassurance of worth; advice; provision of duction (and somaterial aid/services Companionship and intimate Shared leisure/recreation; discussion of cominteraction Regulation mon interests; humor; affection; disclosure of hopes, fantasies, beliefs Feedback about inappropriate behavior cial integration) Social integration Self-acceptance (?) Table 3: From Schwarzer & Buchwald (2004) Type of support Emotional Constituents Parallel

Being loved, cared for, esteemed, and connected to other peo- Social integration Uncertainty reduction Tangible elements such as housing, transportation, and money

support ple in a network of mutual obligation Informational Guidance with problem solving and advice support Instrumental

support Appraisal sup- Personal feedback concerning personal attitudes and behaviour Self-accepport Table 4: From Johnson et al. (2006), based on Mackie & Smith (1998) Motivation to belong to a group Connectedness, or a feeling of belonging with others Striving for mastery and reality testing Description Parallel Affiliation-related needs, including emo- Social integrational attachment and support. tion To secure rewards, success, and compe- Uncertainty retance (?)

tence, i.e., achieve goals duction Maintenance and enhancement of self-iden- Derives from a relation between positive tity and self-esteem group identity and self-esteem

37

Table 5: From Rosenbaum, Ward, Walker, & Ostrom (2007) Type of support Source Emotional support (Its lack causes emo- Close, intimate attachments tional loneliness) Companionship (Its lack causes social loneliness) Instrumental support Friendships Help with mundane activities, such Uncertainty reas transportation or cleaning Table 6: From Schau, Muiz, & Arnould (2009) Social networking Wel- Greeting new members, beckoning them into the fold, and ascoming Governing Empathi zing sisting in their brand learning and community socialization. Articulating the behavioral expectations within the brand community. Lending emotional and/or physical support to other members, including support for brand-related trials (e.g., product failure, customizing) and/or for nonbrand-related life issues (e.g., illUncertainty reduction Parallel Social integration duction Parallel Social integration

ness, death, job). Impression management Evan Sharing the brand good news, inspiring others to use, and gelizing Justi- Deploying rationales generally for devoting time and effort to fying the brand and collectively to outsiders and marginal members preaching from the mountain top.

Self acceptance (of the preacher) through social integration of the devotees

38 in the boundary. Community engagement Stak- Recognizing variance within the brand community membering Mile stoning Badg ing Document ing Brand use Groo Cleaning, caring for, and maintaining the brand or systematizming Customi zing Com modi tizing ing optimal use patterns Modifying the brand to suit group-level or individual needs. This includes all efforts to change the factory specs of the product to enhance performance. Distancing/approaching the marketplace in positive or negative ways. May be directed at other members (e.g., you should sell/should not sell that) or may be directed at the firm through explicit link or through presumed monitoring of the site (e.g., you should fix this/do this/change this). Table 7: From Schetter & Brooks (2009) Type Emotional support Examples, meaning ParalTranslating milestones into symbols and artifacts. Detailing the brand relationship journey in a narrative way, often anchored by and peppered with milestones. ship and marking intragroup distinction and similarity. Noting seminal events in brand ownership and consumption.

Social integration

Uncertainty reduction

lel Listening, providing empathy and understanding, show- Social ing affection integra-

39 Instrumental support or tangible support Informational support Provision of material resources or task assistance Information, guidance, or advice as a form of support in reducproblem solving Appraisal support or esteem support Companionship Provision of information that one is worthy and valued Mere presence of others and engaging in activities with tion others, such as seeing a movie when someone needs reBelonging laxation or distraction from a problem Support experienced when someone is a member of a group that provides an identity and perhaps other resources Table 8: From Forsyth (2010) Type Definition Belong- Inclusion in a ing Emotional group Examples Parallel Expressing acceptance; reassurance of belonging; reaf- Social firming membership; encouraging identification; group integration tion Social integration Uncertainty

activities Expressing caring Expressing respect and approval; encouragement; lisand concern for tening; sharing feelings; responding non-verbally in

support one another positive ways (e.g., hugging, nodding) Informa- Providing advice Sharing helpful information; giving directions, advice, Uncertional and guidance suggestions; demonstrating a way to perform a task; tainty

support problem solving reducInstru- Providing tangible Doing favors; lending money or possessions; assisting tion mental resources with work, duties; transportation; providing a place to support stay Spiritual Addressing issues Explaining challenging events; allaying existential anx-

40 support of meaning and purpose iety, fear of death; sharing faith; reconfirming ones world view