Is Customer Value Co-Creation and Shopping Well-being Relevant for Retailer Performance in Latin America?

ABSTRACT Is Customer Value Co-Creation and Shopping Well-being Relevant for Retailer Performance in Latin America? Dr Pilar Gardiazabal School of Business, Universidad Adolfo Ibañez Dr Constanza Bianchi* School of Business, Universidad Adolfo Ibañez Santiago, Chile [email protected] * Corresponding author Dr M Abu Saleh Faculty of Business, Government & Law, University of Canberra, Australia The Retail and Marketing Review Volume 21, Issue 2, November 2025, Pages 13-33 Doi: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16812773 This study examines the impact of customer value co-creation (VCC) and shopping well-being on key retailer performance outcomes, namely customer satisfaction, loyalty, spending, and share of wallet, within the context of a grocery retailer. It also explores the mediating role of shopping well-being in the relationship between VCC and these outcomes. A conceptual model was developed and tested using structural equation modeling (SEM), based on data collected through an online survey of 2,800 customers from a nationwide grocery chain in Chile. The results indicate that shopping well-being significantly influences all four performance measures and serves as a mediator between VCC and these outcomes. The findings offer empirical evidence that shopping well-being not only enhances retailer performance directly but also mediates the effects of value co-creation behaviors. This study provides actionable insights for retail managers, highlighting how fostering VCC can improve shopping well-being and, in turn, drive customer satisfaction, loyalty, spending, and share of wallet. Keywords: customer value co-creation, shopping well-being, retailing, loyalty, customer satisfaction, customer spending, share of wallet Is Customer Value Co-Creation and Shopping Well-being Relevant for Retailer Performance in Latin America? 14 1. INTRODUCTION There is a growing trend to hold businesses accountable for the well-being of both customers and employees (McGregor, 2019, Russell-Bennett et al., 2019). This responsibility extends even to service industries like retail, which may not explicitly prioritize well-being in their business models (Troebs et al., 2018). Everyday retail experiences, such as grocery shopping, can nonetheless contribute meaningfully to consumers' well-being (Gardiazabal and Bianchi, 2021). Shopping well-being, defined as the extent to which shopping enhances an individual’s happiness, satisfaction, and emotional health (El Hedhli et al., 2013) has been identified as a key factor in shaping customer decisions about whether to visit a retailer (El Hedhli et al., 2016, Harris, 2017, Maggioni et al., 2019, El Hedhli et al., 2021). Although shopping well-being is a desired outcome for customers, its impact on business performance remains unclear (Troebs et al., 2018). Most existing studies have concentrated on the antecedents of shopping well-being, such as hedonic and utilitarian value or decision-making processes (El Hedhli et al., 2016, Harris, 2017, Yu et al., 2018, Maggioni et al., 2019, Nghia Ho et al., 2020, Rosenbaum et al., 2016, Pettersen et al., 2023). However, only a few have examined its direct relationship with retailer performance outcomes (El Hedhli et al., 2016, Troebs et al., 2018). Investigating this link is essential for deepening our understanding of how emotional and experiential factors, and not just functional aspects, can influence concrete business results (El Hedhli et al., 2013). This research gap is particularly evident in emerging markets such as Latin America (Gardiazabal et al., 2020). Following several volatile years marked by the COVID-19 pandemic and inflation, the region's retail sector is beginning to stabilize, with grocery spending increasing by 15.6% in the first half of 2024 (McKinsey, 2024). Moreover, grocery retail in Latin America has evolved from traditional open markets to modern supermarkets resembling those in developed economies (Richards and Pasirayi, 2023). Given that shopping in this region often serves as a social activity that engages families and communities (Euromonitor, 2023), understanding shopping well-being is especially relevant for capturing the cultural nuances of Latin American consumer behavior. Service-Dominant (S-D) Logic offers a suitable theoretical framework for addressing this research gap, as it conceptualizes well-being as a central outcome of service business performance (Vargo et al., 2008, Kuppelwieser and Finsterwalder, 2016). S-D Logic emphasizes the co-creative nature of value and well-being generation, positioning customers as active participants in the service ecosystem (Kuppelwieser and Finsterwalder, 2016). Within this framework, customer value co-creation (VCC), a foundational concept in S-D Logic, serves as a critical mechanism for understanding how shopping well-being is developed in retail contexts (Vargo et al., 2008). VCC refers to the collaborative process through which consumers and businesses jointly create value during the service experience (Alves et al., 2016). When customers engage in VCC behaviors, such as offering feedback, sharing experiences, or interacting with other customers, they become more actively involved in shaping their retail experience (SognGrundvåg et al., 2009). This engagement can enhance both their perceived shopping well-being and their emotional connection to the retailer (Gardiazabal and Bianchi, 2021, Abid et al., 2025). As such, the relationship between VCC and shopping well-being has important implications for retail performance outcomes, including customer satisfaction, loyalty, spending and share of wallet (El Hedhli et al., 2013). The objective of this study is to investigate the impact of VCC behaviors and shopping well-being on retailer performance outcomes through a quantitative analysis conducted in Chile, a representative Latin American market. The research addresses the following key questions: (1) How does VCC behavior influence shopping well-being? (2) What is the impact of shopping well-being on retailer performance outcomes, including customer satisfaction, loyalty, spending, and share of wallet? (3) Does shopping well-being mediate the relationship between VCC and these 15 The Retail and Marketing Review: Vol21 Issue 2 (2025) ISSN:2708-3209 performance outcomes? This study contributes to the retailing literature in several meaningful ways. First, it addresses an important gap by examining the role of VCC and shopping well-being in the context of grocery retail, a domain that has received less scholarly attention compared to shopping malls (El Hedhli et al., 2013, El Hedhli et al., 2016). Second, it adds to the global marketing literature by offering empirical evidence from Latin America, a region often underrepresented in academic research (Gardiazabal and Bianchi, 2021), despite growing consumer spending in grocery retail (Euromonitor, 2023). Lastly, this study contributes to the Service-Dominant (S-D) Logic literature by empirically supporting the notion that customer VCC behavior enhances shopping well-being, which in turn positively influences key business performance outcomes (Troebs et al., 2018). 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 CUSTOMER VALUE CO-CREATION (VCC) Drawing on the S-D Logic (Vargo and Lusch, 2004), value co-creation (VCC) is understood as a collaborative process in which businesses and customers (or other stakeholders) jointly create value through interactions, feedback, and shared experiences. According to S-D Logic, value is not delivered by firms but co-created through the integration of resources among actors involved in service exchanges, where customers are always co-creators of value and firms offer value propositions (Karpen et al., 2015). This framework positions the customer not as a passive recipient but as an active participant who contributes meaningfully to the value creation process (Vargo and Lusch, 2016). Importantly, VCC is not just about transactional benefits but is linked to improved customer circumstances, with well-being viewed as the ultimate outcome of effective co-creation (Finsterwalder et al., 2017). Therefore, firms have a responsibility to enable and encourage resource integration behaviors that enhance this process (Lazarus et al., 2014). In retail contexts, for instance, businesses can refine service processes to promote customer engagement and facilitate the exchange of relevant information, resulting in mutual benefits such as greater customer knowledge and improved financial performance (Karpen et al., 2015). Previous research suggests that shopping well-being stems from consumers’ satisfaction with the functional attributes of retailers, such as the quality and pricing of goods and services (El Hedhli et al., 2013, Sirgy, 2021, Jones et al., 2006). However, shopping well-being also encompasses hedonic enjoyment derived from the shopping experience (Arnold and Reynolds, 2012), personal shopping values (Dogra et al., 2023, Ali et al., 2021), and the fulfillment of self-expressive needs (Sirgy et al., 2016). From a S-D Logic perspective, customers are not passive recipients but active participants in the value creation process. They engage in VCC activities based on the expected outcomes, particularly the enhancement of their well-being (Bagherzadeh et al., 2020, Black and Gallan, 2015, Nguyen and João Menezes, 2024). In the retail context, customer participation in VCC behaviors, such as sharing information, helping other customers, or offering feedback, is shown to positively influence their shopping well-being (Gardiazabal and Bianchi, 2021, Andreu et al., 2010). Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis: H1: Customer VCC behavior is positively related to shopping well-being. Customer satisfaction has long been a central concept in marketing literature. Some scholars define it as the pleasurable fulfillment of a customer’s needs, desires, or goals through consumption (Oliver, 1999). This study adopts the perspective of customer satisfaction as the customer’s evaluation of perceived performance from a transaction relative to their prior expectations (Churchill Jr and Surprenant, 1982). In a retail setting, customers assess retailer Is Customer Value Co-Creation and Shopping Well-being Relevant for Retailer Performance in Latin America? 16 performance based on expectations formed before purchase, which may be influenced by word-of-mouth communication (Hult et al., 2019), others’ past experiences, or the retailer’s marketing efforts (Burns and Neisner, 2006). Customer involvement, contributions, and resource integration during shopping activities, collectively referred to as VCC behavior, require active participation between the service provider and the customer (Vargo and Lusch, 2011). Numerous studies have identified a positive relationship between VCC behaviors and customer satisfaction (e.g., Cambra-Fierro et al., 2017, Navarro et al., 2016, Bagherzadeh et al., 2020, Vega-Vazquez et al., 2013). For example, Bagherzadeh et al. (2020) found that VCC behaviors during service recovery positively influenced customer satisfaction, while Dong et al. (2015) argued that customer engagement in VCC enhances satisfaction. Thus, active participation in VCC between customers and service providers fosters greater customer satisfaction (Vargo and Lusch, 2011). Based on this, the following hypothesis is proposed: H2: Customer VCC behavior is positively related to customer satisfaction. Customer loyalty has long been a cornerstone of firms’ marketing strategies, serving both as a key objective in strategic planning and a foundation for sustainable competitive advantage (Dick and Basu, 1994). Loyalty is generally understood as a customer’s intention to remain committed to a firm, driven by the comparative advantages offered through the company’s products or services (Palmatier et al., 2007). Customer loyalty consists of two primary dimensions: attitudinal loyalty and behavioral loyalty. Attitudinal loyalty reflects the customer’s intention to stay loyal, manifested in behaviors such as the likelihood to revisit or recommend a retailer (Cossío-Silva et al., 2016, Chen, 2015). In contrast, behavioral loyalty refers to tangible customer actions, including repurchase frequency and spending patterns (Cambra-Fierro et al., 2017, Romaniuk and Nenycz-Thiel, 2013). When customers actively participate in VCC behavior, such as providing feedback or customizing products, they are more likely to develop emotional connections and a stronger sense of attitudinal loyalty toward the brand (CossíoSilva et al., 2016). Multiple studies have consistently demonstrated that VCC behaviors, including information sharing, feedback provision, and collaborative problem-solving, positively influence customer attitudinal loyalty across various service sectors, such as financial, personal, and healthcare services (Cambra-Fierro et al., 2017, Cossío-Silva et al., 2016, Li et al., 2017, Kesenduran et al., 2024). While these studies often focus on service environments characterized by close provider-customer interactions, we contend that even in retail contexts with limited direct interaction, such as grocery retailing, customers can still engage in meaningful value co-creation behaviors. Examples include using selfcheckout, providing feedback, or participating in loyalty programs, which foster a sense of connection and involvement, ultimately enhancing attitudinal customer loyalty (Anshu et al., 2022, Cossío-Silva et al., 2016). Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis: H3: Customer VCC behavior is positively related to customer attitudinal loyalty. Several studies have shown that VCC behaviors, such as information sharing, personal interaction, and active engagement, positively impact not only attitudinal loyalty but also various dimensions of behavioral loyalty, including customer spending and share of wallet (Cambra-Fierro et al., 2017; Cossío-Silva et al., 2016). Customer spending refers to the total monetary amount a customer expends on a firm’s or store’s products or services over a defined period (Kotler & Keller, 2016), reflecting the absolute value of purchases at a single company or store. In contrast, share of wallet represents the proportion of a customer’s total spending within a product category that is allocated to a 17 The Retail and Marketing Review: Vol21 Issue 2 (2025) ISSN:2708-3209 particular retailer, relative to competitors (Du et al., 2007; Kumar & Reinartz, 2016). In essence, customer spending measures absolute expenditure, whereas share of wallet captures the relative share of a customer’s category spending dedicated to a specific retailer. In retail settings, VCC behaviors can result in more personalized services, higher customer satisfaction, and stronger emotional engagement, all of which contribute to a greater willingness to spend on a retailer’s products and services (Grönroos & Voima, 2013; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). Moreover, customers engaged in co-creation tend to perceive higher utility from the brand relationship, experience reduced price sensitivity, and display increased brand exclusivity (Vargo & Lusch, 2008; Jaakkola & Alexander, 2014). These factors collectively foster stronger relational bonds and deeper involvement, which in turn raise switching costs and enhance brand preference. As a result, customers are more likely to concentrate their spending with a single retailer, thereby increasing their share of wallet (Kumar & Shah, 2004). Building on this theoretical and empirical foundation, we propose the following hypotheses regarding the impact of VCC on the two key behavioral loyalty dimensions: H4: Customer VCC behavior is positively related to customer spending. H5: Customer VCC behavior is positively related to customer share of wallet. 2.2 SHOPPING WELL-BEING Well-being primarily refers to individuals' subjective evaluations and emotional responses regarding their overall life satisfaction (Diener et al., 1999). In the shopping context, individuals engage in retail activities to fulfill personal and family needs. We adopt the definition of shopping well-being as “the emotional state of life that customers may experience related to their shopping experiences, focusing on the extent to which shopping contributes to their perceived quality of life” (El Hedhli et al., 2013, p.2). This encompasses how customers perceive their shopping experiences at a retailer as enhancing their overall well-being (Nghia et al., 2022, Pettersen et al., 2023). The literature highlights various consumer outcomes associated with shopping well-being, such as greater satisfaction with social, leisure, and community life (El Hedhli et al., 2013), and increased engagement in sustainable consumption (NhungThang and Nguyen, 2024). However, there is limited research exploring the impact of shopping well-being on retailer performance (El Hedhli et al., 2013, Arnold and Reynolds, 2012). This study proposes that shopping well-being can serve both as a valuable customer outcome and as a driver of business performance, particularly when customer participation is fostered through VCC behaviors (Troebs et al., 2018). Even in utilitarian contexts like grocery retailing, customers may derive well-being from VCC interactions (Sogn-Grundvåg et al., 2009), which can enhance retailer performance metrics such as satisfaction, loyalty, and spending (Anshu et al., 2022). Rooted in Service-Dominant (SD) Logic, this perspective suggests that well-being emerges from VCC and, in turn, contributes to favorable performance outcomes including satisfaction, loyalty, positive word-of-mouth, and financial returns (Carvalho and Alves, 2023, Zaborek and Mazur, 2019). Customer satisfaction is often defined as the result of a customer evaluating the value received relative to their expectations (Churchill Jr and Surprenant, 1982). This evaluation process of comparing perceived performance to prior expectations leads to satisfaction when performance meets or exceeds expectations (Vega-Vazquez et al., 2013). Several studies have established a positive relationship between shopping well-being and customer satisfaction (Ekici et al., 2018, El Hedhli et al., 2013, Rosenbaum et al., 2016). For example, Rosenbaum et al. (2016) found that restorative retail environments enhancing shopper well-being can significantly improve satisfaction. Since shopping well-being includes perceptions of how retail experiences contribute to emotional, social, and community life (El Hedhli et al., 2013), it is positively linked to customer satisfaction. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis: Is Customer Value Co-Creation and Shopping Well-being Relevant for Retailer Performance in Latin America? 18 H6: Shopping well-being is positively related to customer satisfaction. Several scholars argue that increased shopping well-being can lead to enhanced customer loyalty (Troebs et al., 2018, Shafiee and Es-Haghi, 2017). Shopping well-being reflects how customers perceive a retailer’s contribution to their overall quality of life (El Hedhli et al., 2013), suggesting a potential positive influence on their loyalty toward the firm (Palmatier et al., 2007). To build lasting loyalty, firms must consider both attitudinal and behavioral dimensions of customer loyalty (Kumar & Shah, 2004). Several empirical studies have demonstrated a significant positive relationship between shopping well-being and attitudinal loyalty (El Hedhli et al., 2013, Gardiazabal et al., 2020, Shafiee and EsHaghi, 2017). Based on this, the following hypothesis is proposed: H7: Shopping well-being is positively related to customer attitudinal loyalty. Shopping well-being can significantly enhance behavioral loyalty outcomes, including consumer spending and share of wallet. When consumers experience a sense of well-being—both hedonic (pleasure and enjoyment) and eudaimonic (meaning and purpose)—during their shopping experiences, they are more likely to return to the same store and engage in repeat purchasing behavior (El Hedhli et al., 2013, Rosenbaum et al., 2011). This sustained engagement fosters emotional attachment to the retailer, which not only increases visit frequency but also encourages shoppers to allocate a greater portion of their total category spending to that retailer, thereby increasing their share of wallet (Kumagai and Nagasawa, 2022). Positive emotional experiences reduce the salience of price in decisionmaking, as customers become more focused on relational and experiential value rather than transactional value (Du et al., 2007). As a result, satisfied customers are more willing to spend more, and less likely to switch to competitors, especially when the retailer consistently contributes to their psychological or emotional well-being (Maggioni et al., 2019). Furthermore, Rosenbaum et al. (2016) found that when retail environments offer restorative experiences, such as comfort, social support, and personalization, customers develop stronger loyalty behaviors, including greater spending and a higher willingness to pay. Therefore, shopping well-being acts as a psychological mechanism that deepens customer–retailer bonds, enhances purchase volumes over time, and increases the proportion of spending directed toward the retailer. H8: Shopping well-being is positively related to customer spending. H9: Shopping well-being is positively related to customer share of wallet. As Troebs et al. (2018) argue, shopping well-being is not only a desirable end-state for customers but can also function as a significant mediating mechanism in driving key retailer performance outcomes. This perspective is supported by other scholars who suggest that mediating variables may play a crucial role in the relationship between VCC behaviors and business performance metrics (e.g., Torkzadeh et al., 2021), is particularly relevant in retail settings, such as grocery retailing, where direct interaction with service employees is limited, and much of the value is co-created through customer-driven actions (Cossío-Silva et al., 2016). In such contexts, shopping well-being may mediate the impact of VCC behaviors on outcomes including customer satisfaction, attitudinal loyalty, and behavioral loyalty. Thus, rather than viewing shopping well-being solely as an outcome, it should be considered an integral mechanism through which VCC behaviors translate into enhanced retailer performance. H10: Shopping well-being mediates the relationship between customer VCC behavior and customer satisfaction, loyalty, spending and share of wallet. 19 The Retail and Marketing Review: Vol21 Issue 2 (2025) ISSN:2708-3209 3. METHODOLOGY Drawing on the Service-Dominant (S-D) Logic as a theoretical framework, this study positions customer VCC behavior as a central antecedent of shopping well-being, which in turn is proposed to influence key retailer performance outcomes. S-D Logic emphasizes the collaborative nature of value creation between firms and customers, highlighting the customer’s active role in enhancing service experiences and outcomes. In this context, shopping well-being serves not only as an outcome of VCC behaviors but also as a potential mediating mechanism linking customer engagement to business performance. Figure 1 presents the study’s conceptual model and corresponding hypotheses. FIGURE 1: CONCEPTUAL MODEL 3.1 DATA COLLECTION An online survey was conducted within a major nationwide grocery retail chain in Chile, a country that has experienced rapid economic development and increased retail activity over the past two decades (Euromonitor, 2023). The Chilean retail industry is highly competitive, with previous research highlighting the strong market orientation of its firms (Rojas-Méndez et al., 2006). The selected retailer is the only grocery chain with national coverage, which enabled a targeted and representative sample for this study. A non-probability sampling technique was employed. The survey was distributed via email to a large convenience sample drawn from the retailer’s customer database, immediately after participants completed their grocery purchases. Participation was voluntary, and respondents were offered a chance to win a supermarket gift card as an incentive. Personal identifying information was not collected, ensuring respondent anonymity and data confidentiality. A total of 2,800 fully completed responses were obtained, yielding a 4% response rate, within the typical range of 3–5% for this retailer. The sample offered a broad representation of the retailer's customer base across key demographics such as gender, age, income level, geographic location, and shopping frequency. Women accounted for 57% of respondents, reflecting the traditional gender dynamics associated with grocery shopping in more conservative societies (Mortimer and Clarke, 2011). In terms of age, 68% of respondents were between 35 and 64 years old. Socioeconomically, the largest group identified as lower middle class (36%), followed by upper middle class (28%), aligning with national Is Customer Value Co-Creation and Shopping Well-being Relevant for Retailer Performance in Latin America? 20 demographic trends. Regarding shopping frequency, 28% of respondents reported daily visits to the store, while 23.1% visited two to three times per week. A summary of demographic characteristics is shown in Table 1. TABLE 1. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS (N=2,800) Descriptive N % Gender: Female Male 1,596 1,204 57.0 43.0 Age: <24 25-34 years 35-49 years 50-64 years >65 Socioeconomic Level 1= E (Lower) 2= D (Upper Lower) 3= C3 (Lower Middle) 4= C2 (upper Middle) 5= ABC1 (Upper) Shopping Frequency 1= Every day 2=Between 2-3 times a week 3= Once a week 4= Every two weeks 42 599 1111 724 249 66 686 943 743 287 806 634 732 1.4 21.3 42.7 25.7 8.9 2.3 24.4 35.5 27.6 10,2 28,0 23,1 25,4 23,5 3.2 VARIABLE MEASUREMENT Previously validated scales were adapted to design the questionnaire. The original version was developed in English and subsequently translated into Spanish using the back-translation method (Brislin, 1970) conducted by a bilingual English-Spanish researcher to ensure semantic equivalence. A pre-test was carried out with 25 individuals, shoppers from various supermarket chains, representing a diverse mix of age, gender, and educational backgrounds. This step aimed to identify and correct any potential ambiguities or misunderstandings in the survey items. All construct measures were assessed using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). Drawing on Yi and Gong (2013), VCC behavior is treated as a second-order factor with four sub-dimensions: customer participation, information sharing, helping, and providing feedback, which were tailored to a retailing context. Shopping well-being draws on El Hedhli et al. (2013), and focuses on customers’ perceptions of how shopping at a grocery retail impacts their well-being. Customer satisfaction was measured with a three-item scale adapted from Rosenbaum et al. (2016) and Babin et al. (2005). Attitudinal loyalty was assessed using a three-item scale adopted from Rosenbaum et al. (2016) and Park and Ha (2016). To assess behavioral loyalty, two independent measures were employed: (1) Customer spending, defined as the average monetary amount (in USD) spent by each customer at the focal retailer over a 13-week period, and (2) Share of wallet, referring to the proportion of a customer’s total grocery spending at this retailer relative to their overall spending across all stores within the same retail chain during the same period. These measures were derived from transactional data provided by the retailer, which recorded individual purchase activity through the retailer’s loyalty 21 The Retail and Marketing Review: Vol21 Issue 2 (2025) ISSN:2708-3209 card system. This approach enabled accurate tracking of each customer’s total spending at the focal store and across the chain, ensuring objective and reliable measurement of behavioral loyalty. Table 2 presents these metrics. TABLE 2. CONSTRUCT MEASURES Constructs Measurement indicators/approach Standardized coefficient b Value Co-creation (VCC) I spent a lot of time, sharing information about my needs and opinions with the staff during my last supermarketet visit .524 (.76)* (α = .76, AVE=.52, CR=.76) When I go to the supermarket, I help other customers if they need help .560 (.66)* I always provide suggestions to the supermarket staff for improving the service outcome .653 (.91)* I always share my ideas about the service with other supermarket clients .763 (1.03)* I put a lot of effort into expressing my personal needs to the staff during the service process .614 (.81)* Customer Satisfaction I am 100% satisfied with shopping at this supermarket .895 (.78)* (α = .93, AVE=.81, CR=.82) I am satisfied with my decision to shop at this supermarket .906 (.79)* I feel very satisfied with the supermarket's service .908 (.80)* Attitudinal Loyalty All else being equal, I plan to buy from this supermarket in the future .856 (.94)* (α = .92, AVE=.79, CR=.92) For my next purchase, I will consider this supermarket as my first choice .904 (.94)* I will buy more in this supermarket in the next few years than I do right now .897 (.89)* Shopping Well-being This supermarket plays an important role in enhancing the quality of life in my community .813 (.87)* (α = .90, AVE=.67, CR=.90) This supermarket does solve my overall shopping needs .850 (.80)* This supermarket plays a very important role in my social well-being .827 (.98)* This supermarket plays a very important role in my leisure well-being .864 (.99)* Share of Wallet (Behavioral loyalty) Customers’ spending in a grocery store divided by the market spending in grocery stores over a 13-week period No score*c Customer Spending | (Behavioral loyalty) Customers’ average spending at the retailer over a 13-week period No score*c Notes: b β-value in parentheses; *p <0.001, *c CFA analysis is unable to produce loading score for a single item; however, it does allow single item measure for SEM analysis. CFA Model Fit Statistics: χ2/d.f. = 1025.350/82 (12.50), IFI =.97, TLI= .96, CFI =.97, RMSEA= .064; α= Cronbach alpha reliability score, AVE=Average variance extracted, CR=Composite reliability score 4. RESULTS 4.1 DATA ANALYSIS This study followed a multi-stage approach for data analysis. Initially, descriptive statistics, including means, standard deviations, skewness, and kurtosis, were computed to assess the data's distribution and consistency. To detect multivariate outliers, multiple regression analysis using standardized residuals was conducted, with a threshold of ±2.5 standard deviations from the mean, as recommended by Tabachnick and Fidell (2006). This procedure led to the removal of 63 extreme outlier cases from the total of 2,878 responses (approximately 2% of the dataset), as these cases could have adversely impacted the robustness of the structural equation modeling (SEM) results. The remaining 2,815 valid cases were subsequently used to conduct reliability and validity assessments, including tests of convergent and discriminant validity, prior to performing the final confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and SEM using AMOS. Table 3 presents this data. Is Customer Value Co-Creation and Shopping Well-being Relevant for Retailer Performance in Latin America? 28 Alves, H., Fernandes, C. & Raposo, M. 2016. Value co-creation: Concept and contexts of application and study. Journal of Business Research, 69, 1626-1633. Anderson, J. C. & Gerbing, D. W. 1991. Predicting the Performance of Measures in a Confirmatory Factor Analysis with a Pretest Assessment of Their Substantive Validities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 732-740. Andreu, L., Sánchez, I. & Mele, C. 2010. Value co-creation among retailers and consumers: New insights into the furniture market. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 17, 241-250. Anshu, K., Gaur, L. & Singh, G. 2022. Impact of customer experience on attitude and repurchase intention in online grocery retailing: a moderation mechanism of value co-creation. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 64. Arnold, M. J. & Reynolds, K. E. 2012. Approach and avoidance motivation: Investigating hedonic consumption in a retail setting. Journal of Retailing, 88, 399–411. Azzari, C. N., Anderson, L., Mende, M., Jefferies, J. G., Downey, H., Ostrom, A. L. & Spanjol, J. 2021. Consumers on the Job: Contextualization Crafting in Expert Services. Journal of Service Research. Babin, B. J., Lee, Y.-K., Kim, E.-J. & Griffin, M. 2005. Modeling consumer satisfaction and word-of-mouth: restaurant patronage in Korea. Journal of Services Marketing, 19, 133-139. Bagherzadeh, R., Rawal, M., Wei, S. & Saavedra Torres, J. L. 2020. The journey from customer participation in service failure to co-creation in service recovery. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 54. Baron, R. M. & Kenny, D. A. 1986. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of personality and social psychology, 51, 1173. Bentler, P. M. & Bonett, D. G. 1980. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606. Bhardwaj, P. & Kalro, A. D. 2024. Consumer well-being—A systematic literature review and research agenda using TCCM framework. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 48, 1–28. Black, H. G. & Gallan, A. S. 2015. Transformative service networks: cocreated value as well-being. The Service Industries Journal, 35, 826-845. Brislin, R. W. 1970. Back-Translation for Cross-Cultural Research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 185-216. Burns, D. J. & Neisner, L. 2006. Customer satisfaction in a retail setting: The contribution of emotion. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 34, 49-66. Cambra-Fierro, J., Pérez, L. & Grott, E. 2017. Towards a co-creation framework in the retail banking services industry: Do demographics influence? Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 34, 219-228. Carvalho, P. & Alves, H. 2023. Customer value co-creation in the hospitality and tourism industry: a systematic literature review. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 35, 250-273. 29 The Retail and Marketing Review: Vol21 Issue 2 (2025) ISSN:2708-3209 Chen, S.-C. 2015. Customer value and customer loyalty: Is competition a missing link? Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 22, 107-116. Churchill Jr, G. A. & Surprenant, C. 1982. An investigation into the determinants of customer satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 491-504. Cossío-Silva, F. J., Revilla-Camacho, M. A., Vega-Vázquez, M. & Palacios-Florencio, B. 2016. Value co-creation and customer loyalty. Journal of Business Research, 69, 1621-1625. Dick, A. S. & Basu, K. 1994. Customer loyalty: toward an integrated conceptual framework. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 22, 99-113. Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E. & Smith, H. L. 1999. Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276-302. Dogra, N., Nasir, M. & Adil, M. 2023. Does shopping values influence consumers’ well-being: empirical evidence from e-retail. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 51, 1698-1718. Dong, B., Sivakumar, K., Evans, K. R. & Zou, S. 2015. Effect of Customer Participation on Service Outcomes: The Moderating Role of Participation Readiness. Journal of Service Research, 18, 160-176. Du, R. Y., Kamakura, W. A. & Mela, C. F. 2007. Size and Share of Customer Wallet. Journal of Marketing, 71, 94113. Ekici, A., Sirgy, J., Dong, J. L. & Bosnjak, M. 2018. The Effects of Shopping Well-Being and Shopping Ill-Being on Consumer Life Satisfaction. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 12, 533-553. El Hedhli, K., Becheur, I., Zourrig, H. & Chaouali, W. 2021. Shopping well-being: the role of congruity and shoppers’ characteristics. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 38, 293-304. El Hedhli, K., Chebat, J.-C. & Sirgy, M. J. 2013. Shopping well-being at the mall: Construct, antecedents, and consequences. Journal of Business Research, 66, 856-863. El Hedhli, K., Zourrig, H. & Chebat, J.-C. 2016. Shopping well-being: Is it just a matter of pleasure or doing the task? The role of shopper's gender and self-congruity. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 31, 1-13. Euromonitor 2023. Grocery Retailing in Latin America, June, available in: https://www.euromonitor.com/groceryretailing-in-latin-america/report. Finsterwalder, J., Foote, J., Nicholas, G., Taylor, A., Hepi, M., Baker, V. & Dayal, N. 2017. Conceptual underpinnings for transformative research in a service ecosystems context to resolve social issues – framework foundations and extensions. The Service Industries Journal, 37, 766-782. Fornell, C. & Larcker, D. F. 1981. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50. Gardiazabal, P. & Bianchi, C. 2021. Value co-creation activities in retail ecosystems: well-being consequences. Journal of Services Marketing, 35, 1028-1044. Is Customer Value Co-Creation and Shopping Well-being Relevant for Retailer Performance in Latin America? 30 Gardiazabal, P., Bianchi, C. & Saleh, M. A. 2020. The transformational potential of Latin American retail experiences. Journal of Services Marketing, 34, 769-783. Gaski, J. F. 1984. The effects of discrepant power perceptions in a marketing channel. Psychology & Marketing, 1, 45-56. Harris, P. 2017. Multichannel shopping well-being: a narrative-based examination. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 20, 354-369. Hulland, J., Chow, Y. H. & Lam, S. 1996. Use of Causal Models in Marketing Research: A Review. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13, 181-197. Hult, G. T. M., Sharma, P. N., Morgeson, F. V. & Zhang, Y. 2019. Antecedents and Consequences of Customer Satisfaction: Do They Differ Across Online and Offline Purchases? Journal of Retailing, 95, 10-23. Jones, M. A., Reynolds, K. E. & Arnold, M. J. 2006. Hedonic and utilitarian shopping value: investigating differential effects on retail outcomes. Journal of Business Research, 59, 974-981. Karpen, I. O., Bove, L. L., Lukas, B. A. & Zyphur, M. J. 2015. Service-dominant orientation: measurement and impact on performance outcomes. Journal of Retailing, 91, 89-108. Kesenduran, N., Hüseyinoğlu, Y. I. Ö. & Erboz, G. 2024. The role of value co-creation on retailer loyalty and omnichannel shopping frequency. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 52, 580-595. Kumagai, K. & Nagasawa, S. 2022. Hedonic shopping experience, subjective well-being and brand luxury: a comparative discussion of physical stores and e-retailers. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 34, 1809-1826. Kuppelwieser, V. G. & Finsterwalder, J. 2016. Transformative service research and service dominant logic: Quo Vaditis? Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 28, 91-98. Lazarus, D., Krishna, A. & Dhaka, S. 2014. Co-creation Willingness Matrix and Capability Continuum for Classification and Scaling of Services. Journal of Global Marketing, 27, 213–225. Li, E. L.-Y., Liu, B. S. C. & Luk, S. T. K. 2017. Customer Participation Behavior in HighVersus Low-Contact Services: The Multiple Roles of Customer Trust. Journal of Global Marketing, 30, 322–341. Mackenzie, S. B. & Podsakoff, P. M. 2012. Common method bias in marketing: causes, mechanisms, and procedural remedies. Journal of Retailing, 88, 542-555. Maggioni, I., Sands, S., Kachouie, R. & Tsarenko, Y. 2019. Shopping for well-being: The role of consumer decisionmaking styles. Journal of Business Research, 105, 21-32. Mcgregor, J. 2019. Group of top CEOs says maximizing shareholder profits no longer can be the primary goal of corporations. The Washington Post, Vol. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/business. Mckinsey 2024. The state of grocery retail in Latin America. Available at: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/retail/our-insights/the-state-of-grocery-retail-in-latin-america. 31 The Retail and Marketing Review: Vol21 Issue 2 (2025) ISSN:2708-3209 Mortimer, G. & Clarke, P. 2011. Supermarket consumers and gender differences relating to their perceived importance levels of store characteristics. Journal of retailing and consumer services, 18, 575-585. Navarro, S., Llinares, C. & Garzon, D. 2016. Exploring the relationship between co-creation and satisfaction using Q&A. Journal of Business Research, 69, 1336-39. Nghia Ho, T., Olsen Svein, O. & Trang Nguyen Thi, M. 2020. Shopping value, trust, and online shopping well-being: a duality approach. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 38, 545-558. Nghia, H. T., Olsen, S. O. & Trang, N. T. M. 2022. A dual process on shopping wellbeing across shopping contexts: the role of shopping values and impulse buying. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 34, 594-610. Nguyen, N. B. & João Menezes, J. 2024. Customer-to-Customer Value Co-Creation: A Customer-Dominant Framework of Value. Journal of Global Marketing, 1-30. Nhung-Thang, T. H. & Nguyen, C. H. 2024. Does Customers’ Well-Being Lead to Their Sustainable Consumption? Exploring the Mediating Role of Online Shopping. Journal of Global Marketing, 1–23. Nunnally, J. C. & Bernstein, I. H. 1994. Psychometric theory (3rd ed.), New York, McGraw-Hill. O’cass, A. & Carlson, J. 2019. Introduction to the special issue – retailing and consumer services in emerging markets. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 46, 130-132. Oliver, R. L. 1999. Whence customer loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 63, 33-44. Palmatier, R. W., Scheer, L. K. & Steenkamp, J. B. E. M. 2007. Customer loyalty to whom? Managing the benefits and risks of salesperson-owned loyalty. Journal of marketing research, 44, 185-199. Park, J. & Ha, S. 2016. Co-creation of service recovery: Utilitarian and hedonic value and post-recovery responses. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 28, 310-316. Pettersen, G. R., Nordbø, E. C. A., Ese, J. & Ihlebæk, C. 2023. Can shopping centres foster wellbeing? A scoping review of motivations and positive experiences associated with non-shopping visits. Wellbeing, Space and Society, 4. Podsakoff, P. M. & Organ, D. 1986. Self-Reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 531-543. Prahalad, C. K. & Ramaswamy, V. 2004. Co-creating unique value with customers. Strategy & Leadership, 32, 4-9. Richards, T. J. & Pasirayi, S. 2023. Food retailing in developing economies: Review of empirical insights and new directions. Agribusiness, 40, 926-949. Rojas-Méndez, J. I., Kara, A. & Spillan, J. E. 2006. Market Orientation in the Chilean Small Business Context: An Empirical Study. Journal of Global Marketing, 19, 93–132. Romaniuk, J. & Nenycz-Thiel, M. 2013. Behavioral brand loyalty and consumer brand associations. Journal of Business Research, 66, 67-72. Is Customer Value Co-Creation and Shopping Well-being Relevant for Retailer Performance in Latin America? 32 Rosenbaum, M. S., Corus, C., Ostrom, A. L., Anderson, L., Fisk, R. P., Gallan, A. S., Giraldo, M., Mende, M., Mulder, M., Rayburn, S. W., Shirahada, K. & Williams, J. D. 2011. Conceptualisation and Aspirations of Transformative Service Research. Journal of Research for Consumers, 19, 1-6. Rosenbaum, M. S., Otalora, M. L. & Ramírez, G. C. 2016. The restorative potential of shopping malls. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 31, 157-165. Russell-Bennett, R., Fisk, P., S., R. M. & Zainuddin, N. 2019. Commentary: transformative service research and social marketing – converging pathways to social change. Journal of Services Marketing, 33, 633-642. Saha, V., Goyal, P. & Jebarajakirthy, C. 2022. Value co-creation: a review of literature and future research agenda. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 37, 612–628. Shafiee, M. & Es-Haghi, S. M. S. 2017. Mall image, shopping well-being and mall loyalty. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 45, 1114-1134. Sirgy, M. J. 2021. Macromarketing Metrics of Consumer Well-Being: An Update. Journal of Macromarketing, 41, 124131. Sirgy, M. J., Lee, D. J., Yu, G. B., Gurel-Atay, E., Tidwell, J. & Ekici, A. 2016. Self-expressiveness in shopping. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 30, 292–299. Sogn-Grundvåg, G., Ranes, S. A., Grønhaug, K. & B., G. 2009. Co-Creating Value in a Retail Market Setting. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 15, 1-22. Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. 2006. Using multivariate statistics. 5th Edition, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, Boston, Mass. Torkzadeh, S., Zolfagharian, M. & Iyer, P. 2021. Customer value co-creation behaviors and service outcomes: insights from a transformative service. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 29, 635-657. Troebs, C.-C., Wagner, T. & Heidemann, F. 2018. Transformative retail services: Elevating loyalty through customer well-being. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 45, 198-206. Vargo, S. L. & Lusch, R. F. 2004. Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68, 1-17. Vargo, S. L. & Lusch, R. F. 2008. Service-Dominant Logic: Continuing the Evolution. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 1-10. Vargo, S. L. & Lusch, R. F. 2011. It’s all B2B … and beyond: toward a service perspective of the market. Industrial Marketing Management, 40, 181-187. Vargo, S. L. & Lusch, R. F. 2016. Institutions and axioms: an extension and update of service-dominant logic. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44, 5-23. Vargo, S. L., Maglio, P. P. & Akaka, M. A. 2008. On value and value co-creation: A service systems and service logic perspective. European Management Journal, 26, 145-152. 33 The Retail and Marketing Review: Vol21 Issue 2 (2025) ISSN:2708-3209 Vega-Vazquez, M., Revilla-Camacho, M. A. & Cossío-Silva, F. J. 2013. The value co-creation process as a determinant of customer satisfaction. Management Decision, 51, 1945-1953. Yi, Y. & Gong, T. 2013. Customer value co-creation behavior: Scale development and validation. Journal of Business Research, 66, 1279-1284. Yu, H., Zhang, R. & Liu, B. 2018. Analysis on Consumers’ Purchase and Shopping Well-Being in Online Shopping Carnivals with Two Motivational Dimensions. Sustainability, 10, 4603. Zaborek, P. & Mazur, J. 2019. Enabling value co-creation with consumers as a driver of business performance: A dual perspective of Polish manufacturing and service SMEs. Journal of Business Research, 104, 541-551.