Auditoría al Control Interno

Following the suggestion of Day (1969), later studies (Jacoby, 1971; Olson and Jacoby, 1971) have empirically identified attitudinal and behavioural elements of loyalty. Focusing on both attitudinal and behavioural facets of the construct, Jacoby and Kyner (1973, p. 2) forwards a multidimensional definition of brand loyalty explaining that it is: ―(1) the biased (i.e., non- random), (2) behavioural response (i.e., purchase), (3) expressed over time, (4) by some decision-making unit, (5) with respect to one or more alternative brands out of a set of such brands, and (6) is a function of psychological (decision-making, evaluative) processes‖.

Dick and Basu (1994, p. 100) are the first to define loyalty ―as the relationship between the relative attitude toward an entity (brand, store, service, vendor) and patronage behaviour‖ explaining that the two dimensions are affected by cognitive, affective and conative antecedents. Nevertheless, Oliver (1997, 1999) has re-conceptualized loyalty as the sequential chain comprising the four phases: cognitive loyalty, affective loyalty, conative loyalty and action loyalty.

toward the brand because of this information‖ which can be based on both vicarious knowledge or recent experience (Oliver, 2010, p. 433). In order to proceed to the affective phase of loyalty, the transaction should not be routine. Otherwise the depth of loyalty remains limited to mere performance (ibid., p. 433).

Affective loyalty is based on liking or attitude towards the brand, which ―has developed on the basis of cumulatively satisfying usage occasions‖ (Oliver, 1999, p. 35). This is related to the pleasure dimension of satisfaction and brand likeableness. Commitment in this stage is affective, because a consumer perceives a brand as cognition and affect (liking). As in the case of cognitive loyalty, switching in this stage is very likely thus deeper loyalty should be the aim.

The conative phase of loyalty is behavioural intention, which emerges as a result of ―repeated episodes of positive affect toward the brand‖ (Oliver, 2010, p. 434). Although loyalty at this stage is defined as the brand-specific and ―deeply-held commitment to buy‖ (Oliver, 1999, p. 35), it is more akin to motivation and may remain unrealized action. The concept of conative loyalty is consistent with operationalizations of commitment by a number of previous studies (Moorman et al., 1992; Geyskens et al., 1996; Wetzels et al., 1998; Gruen et al., 2000). Oliver (2010) posits that despite the similarities with the affective phase, the distinguishable characteristics of the conative phase are social bonds.

Finally, action loyalty is the highest stage of loyalty which refers to readiness to act overcoming obstacles. Readiness to act reflects ―deeply held commitment to re-buy or re- patronize a preferred product/service consistently in the future‖ while overcoming of obstacles constitutes ―re-buying despite situational influences and marketing efforts having the potential to cause switching behaviour" (Oliver, 1997, p. 36). The fourth phase brings ―the attitude-based loyalty model to the behaviour of interest – the action state of inertial re- buying‖ (Oliver, 2010, p. 434).

The conceptual framework of the cognitive-to-action loyalty has been empirically tested by a number of studies (e.g., Eugene and Jamie, 2000; McMullan and Gilmore, 2003; McMullan, 2005; Harris and Goode, 2004; Evanschitzky and Wunderlich, 2006) in order to assess the sequence and distinctness of the phases. Eugene and Jamie (2000) operationalizes the sequential chain using the constructs of service quality (cognitive loyalty), relative attitude and satisfaction (affective loyalty), intention to recommend and repurchase (conative loyalty) and the share of visits to department stores (action loyalty). Although the sequential relationships have been corroborated and the model has demonstrated adequate goodness-of- fit, the study suffers from several limitations. Firstly, it ignores convergent validity thus it is not clear how well the indicators of the four constructs converge. Secondly, there is no evidence of discriminant validity therefore it is problematic to assess the empirical distinctiveness of the four phases. The very similar weaknesses are inherent in the later studies by McMullan and Gilmore (2003) and McMullan (2005). Furthermore, the two works have not assessed the sequential relationships between the four dimensions.

The study by Harris and Goode (2004) can be regarded as the most rigorous attempt to test the propositions of Oliver (1999). Indeed, the survey employs the good measurement practice of congeneric models. Firstly, all constructs are measured by at least four items and demonstrate evidence of content validity. Secondly, all scales possess adequate reliabilities. Thirdly, the authors provide the evidence of discriminant validity. Finally, the sequential relationships between the dimensions of loyalty are supported by path analysis. Interestingly, all possible sequential combinations have been tested in order to identify the best fitting pattern. Consistently with the theory, the proposition of Oliver (1999) has emerged as the best fitting thus the sequential relationships between the four phases have been corroborated.

Another attempt to evaluate empirically the model by Oliver (1999) is the study by Evanschitzky and Wunderlich (2006) conducted in the retail trade industry. The

loyalty), overall satisfaction and liking (affective loyalty), willingness to recommend, cross- buying intention and repurchase intention (conative loyalty) and self-reported measures of retrospective word-of-mouth behaviour, purchase frequency and actual expenses per year (action loyalty). The work by Evanschitzky and Wunderlich (2006) echoes the findings of Harris and Goode (2004) and indicates the presence of the sequential relationships between the four dimensions.

Having summarized the operationalizations of the sequential loyalty chain, Oliver (2010) calls for more intensive efforts to corroborate or refute his views and points out several potential weaknesses. Oliver (2010, p. 440) clarifies that ―loyalty effects have been discussed largely in the context of product marketing‖ while ―strong interpersonal character of services‖ requires ―additional dimensions of a much more binding and even overriding nature‖. Indeed, the distinctiveness of services encompass stronger person-to-person interaction, greater perceived risk and possibilities of developing stronger bonds and loyalty (Gremler and Brown, 1996). Hence, the dimensions of relationship marketing may be more relevant to service industries. Finally, Oliver (ibid., p. 442) concludes that ―any number of variables can be combined to display consumer segments with differentiated orientations to the firm’s offering‖.

The present operationalizations of the sequential chain are based on relatively transactional business-to-consumer samples: retail customers (Eugene and Jamie, 2000; Evanschitzky and Wunderlich, 2006), online shoppers (Harris and Goode, 2004) and restaurant visitors (McMullan and Gilmore, 2003; McMullan, 2005). Hence, it is essential to assess validity of the sequential phases based on more complex business-to-business services samples. Moreover, Bagozzi (1995), Palmatier et al. (2006) and Oliver (2010) amongst others call for integration of additional dimensions (e.g. exchange efficiency, equity, relational norms and reciprocity) into relationship assessment frameworks. As there are numerous calls

to assess discriminant validity of loyalty in the light of the other variables, this study will integrate the sequential chain of loyalty with the other dimensions of relationship marketing.