An examination of moderator effects in the four-stage loyalty model

Oliver’s 1997 four-stage loyalty model proposes that loyalty consists of belief, affect, intention, and action. Although this loyalty model has recently been subject to empirical examination, the issue of moderator variables has been largely neglected. This article fills that void by analyzing the moderating effects of selected personal and situational characteristics, using a sample of 888 customers of a large do-it-yourself retailer. The results of multi-group causal analysis suggest that these moderators exert an influence on the development of the different stages of the loyalty sequence. Specifically, age, income, education and expertise, price orientation, critical incident recovery, and loyalty card membership are found to be important moderators of the links in the four-stage loyalty model. Limitations of the study are outlined, and implications for both research and managerial practice are discussed.

Dynamic causal modeling of load-dependent modulation of effective connectivity within the verbal working memory network

Neuroimaging studies have consistently shown that working memory (WM) tasks engage a distributed neural network that primarily includes the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the parietal cortex, and the anterior cingulate cortex. The current challenge is to provide a mechanistic account of the changes observed in regional activity. To achieve this, we characterized neuroplastic responses in effective connectivity between these regions at increasing WM loads using dynamic causal modeling of functional magnetic resonance imaging data obtained from healthy individuals during a verbal n-back task. Our data demonstrate that increasing memory load was associated with (a) right-hemisphere dominance, (b) increasing forward (i.e., posterior to anterior) effective connectivity within the WM network, and (c) reduction in individual variability in WM network architecture resulting in the right-hemisphere forward model reaching an exceedance probability of 99% in the most demanding condition. Our results provide direct empirical support that task difficulty, in our case WM load, is a significant moderator of short-term plasticity, complementing existing theories of task-related reduction in variability in neural networks. Hum Brain Mapp, 2013. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Material and efficient cause interpretations of the formative model:resolving misunderstandings and clarifying conceptual language

This paper presents a causal explanation of formative variables that unpacks and clarifies the generally accepted idea that formative indicators are ‘causes’ of the focal formative variable. In doing this, we explore the recent paper by Diamantopoulos and Temme (AMS Review, 3(3), 160-171, 2013) and show that the latter misunderstand the stance of Lee, Cadogan, and Chamberlain (AMS Review, 3(1), 3-17, 2013; see also Cadogan, Lee, and Chamberlain, AMS Review, 3(1), 38-49, 2013). By drawing on the multiple ways that one can interpret the idea of causality within the MIMIC model, we then demonstrate how the continued defense of the MIMIC model as a tool to validate formative indicators and to identify formative variables in structural models is misguided. We also present unambiguous recommendations on how formative variables can be modelled in lieu of the formative MIMIC model.

The MIMIC model and formative variables:problems and solutions

The use of the multiple indicators, multiple causes model to operationalize formative variables (the formative MIMIC model) is advocated in the methodological literature. Yet, contrary to popular belief, the formative MIMIC model does not provide a valid method of integrating formative variables into empirical studies and we recommend discarding it from formative models. Our arguments rest on the following observations. First, much formative variable literature appears to conceptualize a causal structure between the formative variable and its indicators which can be tested or estimated. We demonstrate that this assumption is illogical, that a formative variable is simply a researcher-defined composite of sub-dimensions, and that such tests and estimates are unnecessary. Second, despite this, researchers often use the formative MIMIC model as a means to include formative variables in their models and to estimate the magnitude of linkages between formative variables and their indicators. However, the formative MIMIC model cannot provide this information since it is simply a model in which a common factor is predicted by some exogenous variables—the model does not integrate within it a formative variable. Empirical results from such studies need reassessing, since their interpretation may lead to inaccurate theoretical insights and the development of untested recommendations to managers. Finally, the use of the formative MIMIC model can foster fuzzy conceptualizations of variables, particularly since it can erroneously encourage the view that a single focal variable is measured with formative and reflective indicators. We explain these interlinked arguments in more detail and provide a set of recommendations for researchers to consider when dealing with formative variables.

Person-organization fit and incentives:a causal test

We investigate the effects of organizational culture and personal values on performance under individual and team contest incentives. We develop a model of regard for others and in-group favoritism that predicts interaction effects between organizational values and personal values in contest games. These predictions are tested in a computerized lab experiment with exogenous control of both organizational values and incentives. In line with our theoretical model we find that prosocial (proself) orientated subjects exert more (less) effort in team contests in the primed prosocial organizational values condition, relative to the neutrally primed baseline condition. Further, when the prosocial organizational values are combined with individual contest incentives, prosocial subjects no longer outperform their proself counterparts. These findings provide a first, affirmative, causal test of person-organization fit theory. They also suggest the importance of a 'triple-fit' between personal preferences, organizational values and incentive mechanisms for prosocially orientated individuals.