Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper incorporates the developing body of literature in relationship marketing to the study of brand loyalty. Relationship marketing literature has established that customer commitment is a central, complex construct consisting of at least an affective component and a continuance component. This study examined the extent to which affective and continuance commitment serve as mediators of the brand satisfaction—loyalty intentions relationship. The study found that, in two retail service brand settings, the two components of commitment fully mediate the relationship between brand satisfaction and both repurchase intentions and advocacy intentions. In addition, the study found that affective commitment to the brand was strongly and positively related to both repurchase intentions for the brand and willingness to act as an advocate on behalf of the brand. Continuance commitment was at best only weakly but positively related to repurchase intentions, but negatively related to advocacy intentions for the brand. Résumé Le présent article combine les publications de plus en plus nombreuses relatives au marketing ciblé et l'étude de la fidélité à la marque. Les publications relatives au marketing ciblé ont établi que l'engagement du client est un concept central et complexe qui comprend au moins une composante affective et une composante de continuation. Cette étude examine dans quelle mesure l'engagement affectif et l'engagement de continuation médiatisent la satisfaction par rapport à la marque—rapport d'intentions de fidélité. L'étude révèle que dans deux contextes de service de détail de marque, les deux composantes d'engagement médiatisent complètement le rapport entre la satisfaction par rapport à la marque d'une part, les intentions de rachat et les intentions de promotion d'autre part. Par ailleurs, l'engagement affectif à la marque est fortement et positivement relié aux intentions de rachat de la marque et à la volonté de recommander et de défendre la marque. L'engagement de continuation est au mieux relié uniquement, faiblement mais positivement aux intentions de rachat. Cependant, il est négativement relié aux intentions de recommandation pour la marque.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".