Customer engagement in idea contests: Emotional and behavioral consequences of idea rejection

Abstract

Idea contests are well-accepted and cost-efficient approaches to tap the creativity of customers.At the same time, idea contests enable customer engagement, defined as voluntary resource provision beyond financial patronage. However, although much research has been devoted to the factors that motivate consumers to participate in such contests, research that investigates how idea rejection as a stressor affects future engagement behavior is comparatively rare. This research draws on cognitive dissonance literature combined with stress appraisal theory to explain rejection-induced emotional and behavioral consequences. Study 1 assesses the different effects of company appreciation of customer engagement (i.e., idea acceptance vs. rejection) in an experimental setting and tests emotional reactions to rejection as a stressor, as well as the moderating effects of firm acknowledgement. Study 2, which was organized as a randomized field experiment, is devoted to assessing differences in firm acknowledgment versus individualized firm feedback in a real-world setting. Taken together, the studies show that the way rejection is communicated is important. The findings have important theoretical and managerial implications for service management and for stimulating customer engagement through idea contest initiatives.

Consumer engagement, stress, and conservation of resources theory: A review, conceptual development, and future research agenda

“…That is, the proposed notions of challenge‐ and hindrance engagement imply that the consumer's engagement represents (or is ) the experienced challenge‐ or hindrance stressor, respectively, consistent with Saarschmidt and Dose's (2023, p. 2) observation that “customer engagement can be perceived as stressful.” The proposed concepts of challenge‐ and hindrance engagement also align, theoretically, with Hollebeek, Kumar, et al's (2022) identified varying volitionality levels characterizing engagement. That is, while individuals' challenge engagement tends to transpire more voluntarily (e.g., owing to the attainment of perceived benefit/value from one's engagement, such as through role‐related learning; Hammedi et al, 2021), their hindrance engagement will tend to see a lower volitionality level (e.g., by requiring individuals to deal with undesired role‐related strains or impediments; Bakker & Sanz‐Vergel, 2013).…”

“…Second, consumer engagement is commonly regarded as a multi‐dimensional concept comprising cognitive, emotional, and behavioral facets (e.g., Harrigan et al, 2018; Saarschmidt & Dose, 2023). That is, while a consumer's cognitive (emotional) engagement denotes his/her thought‐based (affective) resource investment in his/her brand interactions, his/her behavioral engagement represents his/her investment of time, energy, and effort in these interactions (Hollebeek et al, 2014).…”

“…Consumers may experience eustress and/or distress from various activities required in the execution of their customer roles (Roy & Jain, 2020; Saarschmidt & Dose, 2023), as outlined. For example, factors, including the current inflationary climate, the pandemic, supply chain issues, or the adoption of automated store checkouts may incur consumer stress (e.g., Bazzoni et al, 2022; Bulmer et al, 2018), revealing engagement's role as a potential stressor to the individual (see Figure 1a).…”

“…4. Saarschmidt and Dose (2023) o The authors address the impact of firms' rejection of consumer ideas generated in idea contests (i.e., a stressor) on these individuals' future engagement behavior with the firm. o Using cognitive dissonance literature and stress appraisal theory, the authors conduct two empirical studies.…”

“…Second, while we adopted Hobfoll's (e.g., 1989Hobfoll's (e.g., , 2011 CORT, alternate theoretical lenses may be used to explore the consumer engagement/stress interface, including stress appraisal theory (e.g., Keeling et al, 2022;Saarschmidt & Dose, 2023), stress theory (e.g., Kraimer et al, 2022), the theory of emotion (e.g., Leventhal, 1980;Moors, 2022), the theory of stress and coping (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985;Garbas et al, 2023), or resource depletion theory (e.g., Huizenga et al, 2013), to name a few. Specifically, future researchers may wish to examine the commonalities, and areas of departure, of their findings based on alternate theory (vs. the current CORTinformed analyses), permitting the development of further theoretical advances in this integrative topic area.…”