MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018504323 · doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp1603_10

Forgiven But Not Forgotten: Covert Uncertainty in Overt Responses and the Paradox of Defection‐Despite‐Trust

2006· article· en· W2018504323 on OpenAlexaff
Kristin Rotte, Murali Chandrashekaran, Stephen S. Tax, Raj deep Grewal

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Consumer Psychology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer Service Quality and Loyalty
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersUniversity of New South Wales
KeywordsLoyaltyCovertPsychologyConvictionSocial psychologyDimension (graph theory)Robustness (evolution)MarketingBusinessPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the widespread belief that trust is a critical determinant of loyalty, empirical and anecdotal evidence calls into question the real‐world robustness of the trust–loyalty link. An important reason for the fuzzy nature of the trust–loyalty link may be the fuzzy nature of trust itself. That is, stated trust judgments embody both a magnitude dimension (i.e., the position along a favorable‐unfavorable continuum) and an uncertainty dimension (i.e., the lack of conviction with which the judgment is held). We investigated this possibility using data pertaining to consumers’ reactions to a service failure and the provider's success in responding to their complaints. We found that the interplay between dissatisfaction with the complaint handling and past experience simultaneously influences trust magnitude and trust uncertainty. However, these two dimensions of trust are shaped by different underlying processes. Finally, uncertainty dampens the impact of stated trust on loyalty.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.398

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations38
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Consumer PsychologySame topicCustomer Service Quality and LoyaltyFrench-language works237,207