Customer loyalty development in online shopping: An integration of e-service quality model and commitment-trust theory
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study is to explore the determinants of cognitive loyalty in an online shopping environment. The study established a theoretical model by incorporating both e-service quality model and commitment-trust theory. A total of 937 responses were collected form Indian online shoppers by using the mail survey method. We assessed measurement model and structural model by using SPSS and AMOS. Study outcomes confirm that customer satisfaction, e-trust, commitment, and cognitive loyalty were strongly influenced by e-service quality and perceived value. Further, satisfaction had direct and positive influence on both e-trust and commitment but not on cognitive loyalty. E-trust had a positive impact on e-commitment and cognitive loyalty. Lastly e-commitment had a positive influence on cognitive loyalty. Based on the existing literature, there was a dearth of theoretical understanding of cognitive loyalty in an emerging economy perspective. Thus, the current study accomplished the critical theoretical gap by encompassing previous investigations. We examined the phenomenon of customer loyalty by integrating e-service quality model and commitment-trust theory in business to consumer e-commerce environment while considering e-satisfaction as a mediator, highlighting the originality and contribution of the current research to the online consumer loyalty literature.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it