Construct · 6 fields · 10 citations
One name. Different field. Different construct. One map.
● jingle · one name, six constructs Nearest construct by meaningorganizational commitmentcompare the meaningsEvery construct on the map is compared with every other by the meaning of its definitions, and the closest one is surfaced here. The nearest construct to loyalty is organizational commitment.
Hold this as a prompt, not a verdict. Two constructs sitting close in meaning is a reason to read them side by side and decide for yourself whether they are one idea under two names. It is not proof that they are. Compare the meanings in the Collider.
Spokes are fields; dashed arcs are shared lineage. Tap a field for its definition, unit, and measures.
Drag to watch the word get claimed. Each field appears at the publication date of the earliest source cited for it. Tap a year to see which.
A deeply held commitment to rebuy a preferred product or service consistently in the future despite situational pressures and marketing efforts that could cause switching, Oliver's 1999 definition, which added cognitive, affective, conative, and action stages so that repeat buying alone would not count. Dick and Basu had already crossed relative attitude with repeat patronage in 1994: high on both is true loyalty, high patronage with low attitude is spurious loyalty, and the two are routinely confused. Reichheld's Net Promoter Score replaced all of it with one question about recommending, which is the field's most used and least theorised measure.[1][2][3]
A customer's favourable attitude toward an electronic retailer that results in repeat buying, Srinivasan, Anderson, and Ponnavolu's 2002 e-loyalty. The model is marketing's attitude-plus-behaviour construct transplanted online, but the antecedents are interface properties: customization, contact interactivity, cultivation, care, community, choice, convenience, and character. What distinguishes it is that loyalty is treated as a design outcome of the website rather than of the brand, and its consequences are word of mouth and willingness to pay more.[4]
The relative strength of an individual's identification with and involvement in a particular organization (belief in its goals, willingness to exert effort for it, and a strong desire to remain a member) as operationalised in Mowday, Steers, and Porter's 1979 Organizational Commitment Questionnaire. Meyer and Allen split this in 1991 into affective commitment (wanting to stay), continuance commitment (needing to stay because leaving is costly), and normative commitment (feeling one ought to stay). The field mostly avoids the word loyalty; when it uses it, it means the affective component, and the continuance component is exactly what marketing calls spurious loyalty.[5][6]
The special attachment to an organization that holds off exit when quality declines and makes voice (complaining, protesting, trying to change things from inside) more likely instead. Hirschman's 1970 book placed loyalty as the third term that governs the choice between the economist's response (leave) and the political scientist's (speak up). Loyalty here is not an attitude to be measured but a parameter in a decision: it raises the cost of leaving and the expected payoff from voice, and it can be irrational, unconscious, or institutionally enforced. It applies as readily to states, parties, and churches as to firms.[7]
The willing and practical and thoroughgoing devotion of a person to a cause, Royce's 1908 formulation, which made loyalty the root of all virtue and offered "loyalty to loyalty" as the test of which causes deserve it. Kleinig's modern treatment defines loyalty as a practical disposition to persist in an intrinsically valued associative relationship, which involves a potentially costly commitment to secure or at least not to jeopardise the interests of the object of loyalty. The philosophical question is whether such partiality can be a virtue at all when it asks us to favour our own over the impartial claims of others; the answer decides whether loyalty is something to cultivate or to guard against.[8][9]
The obligation of a fiduciary (a director, an agent, a trustee, an employee) to act in the interest of the beneficiary and not to profit from the position, take its opportunities, or serve a conflicting interest. Easterbrook and Fischel's 1993 argument was that the duty of loyalty is not a moral category but a contractual gap-filler: it supplies the terms the parties would have agreed to had contracting been cheap, and it exists because monitoring a fiduciary's conduct is expensive. Loyalty here has no attitudinal content at all. It is breached by an act (self-dealing, usurpation) and the remedy is disgorgement or damages.[10]
Next
Combine items across the loyalty scales to see whether the meanings separate empirically, or export every reference on this page in one click.
Open in ColliderExport BibTeXReport this collisionCited on this page?
If your work is cited behind one of these entries, you know better than we do whether we captured the meaning right. Confirm it, suggest an edit, or dispute it, and your name goes on the entry as an author who has checked it, linked to your ORCID.
Claim your construct