How Supply Chain Disruptions Affect Brand Loyalty: A Qualitative Analysis of Consumer Experiences During Crises
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative study investigates how supply chain disruptions affect brand loyalty by analyzing consumer experiences during crises. Through in-depth interviews with diverse participants, the research explores the nuanced factors shaping consumer perceptions and behaviors when supply chains face challenges. Findings reveal that trust is pivotal, with transparent communication and consistent updates fostering consumer confidence and loyalty. Brand reputation emerges as crucial, influencing perceptions of reliability and ethical conduct during disruptions. Effective crisis management strategies, including agility and proactive communication, mitigate negative impacts on brand loyalty. Consumer decision-making is influenced by the availability of substitutes and perceptions of disruption severity, highlighting the importance of brand resilience and continuity. Emotional responses, such as frustration and anxiety, significantly influence consumer loyalty, underscoring the role of empathetic engagement and support from brands. Aligning with consumer expectations and delivering on promises are essential for sustaining loyalty and reducing the risk of consumer defection. The study concludes that navigating supply chain disruptions requires brands to prioritize trust, reputation, crisis management, consumer-centric strategies, emotional intelligence, and alignment with consumer expectations. These insights contribute to a deeper understanding of consumer behavior in crisis contexts and provide strategic implications for brands seeking to enhance resilience and maintain loyalty in dynamic market environments.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".