MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972696648 · doi:10.1108/ejm-06-2011-0295

For better or for worse?

2013· article· en· W1972696648 on OpenAlexaff
Chatura Ranaweera, Kalyani Menon

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Marketing · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer Service Quality and Loyalty
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContinuanceMarketingPanacea (medicine)Context (archaeology)PsychologyOriginalityPremiseSocial psychologyBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose – The authors aim to study the direct and moderating effects of relationship age, continuance commitment and satisfaction on the generation of positive and negative word of mouth (P/NWOM). Design/methodology/approach – Hypotheses based on the notion of liability of adolescence and the motivation to generate P/NWOM were tested with data collected through a survey of a random sample of customers of fixed-line telephone users. Findings – Relationship age adversely impacts PWOM and the effect of satisfaction on both P/NWOM. Continuance commitment increases NWOM and causes dissatisfied customers to generate greater NWOM while not affecting the PWOM of satisfied customers. Satisfaction shows a significant non-linear effect on WOM. Research limitations/implications – Future research could conduct longitudinal or experimental work to explicate the causal mechanisms underlying these cross-sectional survey results. Research could also extend these results to a B-B context. Practical implications – Results offer strong evidence of a dark side to long-term customer relationships. Recommendations focus on managing long-term relationships and perceptions of continuance commitment to minimise adverse effects. Originality/value – As far as the authors know, this research is the first to offer a theoretically grounded explanation of the direct and moderating effects of relationship age on P/NWOM behaviour. Results challenge the premise of long-term customers being a panacea for numerous problems faced by firms. Findings also help explain the contradictory results in prior research on the effects of continuous commitment on WOM.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.113

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0340.009

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations78
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of MarketingSame topicCustomer Service Quality and LoyaltyFrench-language works237,207