【正文】 d, 1998； Ostrowski 等， 1993； Patterson 和 Spreng, 1997； Pritchard 和 Howard, 1997),然而其他人 則是 假設(shè)他們之間存在直接影響 (Boulding 等， 1993； De Ruyter 等， 1998)。 這些學(xué)者認(rèn)為采購(gòu)中心成員 對(duì)服務(wù)認(rèn)知直接影響采購(gòu)中心對(duì)提供商公司的忠誠(chéng)水平。盡管品牌忠誠(chéng)行為部分地取決于情境因素（諸如可用性），但態(tài)度更 為 持久。具體說(shuō)來(lái)，忠誠(chéng)在 B2C 環(huán) 境中的概念并不確定，在消費(fèi)市場(chǎng)基礎(chǔ)上有很多方式可以去定義和度量這個(gè)問(wèn)題。 根據(jù)以往的 與那些相關(guān)構(gòu)念具有因果關(guān)系的構(gòu)念，當(dāng)前的研究將服務(wù)質(zhì)量認(rèn)知放置于商業(yè) 滿意度屬性之前。目前的研究人員因此決定 使用 Chupitaz 關(guān)于工業(yè)滿意度的積累定義：工業(yè)滿意度是一種關(guān)于包括產(chǎn)品或者服務(wù)的購(gòu)買(mǎi)、使用和關(guān)系經(jīng)驗(yàn)在內(nèi)的綜合評(píng)價(jià)?？?觀性的滿意度測(cè)量方法已經(jīng)包括獲取數(shù)據(jù)在內(nèi)，諸如市場(chǎng)占有率和忠誠(chéng)度等變量，猶 如顧客滿意度的顯示器 (Oliver, 1980； Oliver and Swan, 1989)。 (Schellhase 等人， 1999)。第一，由格羅魯斯提議， 在全球范圍內(nèi) 將服務(wù)質(zhì)量的 維度 定義為功能性的和技術(shù)性的。 當(dāng)前研究的主要目的 之一是去明確服務(wù)質(zhì)量、產(chǎn)業(yè)滿意以及忠誠(chéng)等 關(guān)系 之間所存在 矛盾的依據(jù)，并提供有關(guān)產(chǎn)業(yè)滿意調(diào)解作用的依據(jù)。 簡(jiǎn)介 關(guān)系營(yíng)銷(xiāo)的出現(xiàn)和 日益加劇的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)已經(jīng)導(dǎo)致顧客滿意及 相關(guān)研究構(gòu)念成為服務(wù)文獻(xiàn)的中心議題 ，而正是 這種競(jìng)爭(zhēng)在過(guò)去的 30 年中造就了當(dāng)今特殊的市場(chǎng) 。 Bitner, 1990。 Tucker, 1964). Behavioural loyalty refers to repeated purchases of the brand, whereas attitudinal brand loyalty includes a degree of dispositional mitment in terms of some distinctive value associated with the brand. The attitude behind the purchase is important because it drives behaviour. Although brandloyal behaviour is partly determined by situational factors (such as availability), attitudes are more enduring. Jacoby and Kyner (1973) proposed a de?nition of loyalty that includes six necessary conditions – that brand loyalty is the biased (that is, nonrandom), behavioural (that is, purchase) response, expressed over time, by some decisionmaking unit (a person or group of persons), with respect to one or more alternative brands out of a set of such brands, and is a function of psychological processes (decisionmaking, evaluative). Bloemer and Kasper (1995) studied the differences between“true” loyalty and “spurious” loyalty (the latter being due to an inertia effect). These authors found that true loyalty implies (in addition to repetitive purchasing) a true mitment to the brand. Oliver (1997, 1999) also evoked this notion of mitment in his research on satisfaction and brandloyalty relationship. Numerous studies have established a relationship between service quality and loyalty. Some have posited an indirect in?uence (Andreassen and Lindestad, 1998。 Lau and Lee, 1999。 Bearden and Tell, 1983). Explicit approaches have directly measured satisfaction using single (overall) or multidimensional scales. Using these scales, overall satisfaction is an aggregation of all previous transactionspeci?c evaluations and is updated after each speci?c transaction – in much the same way as expectations of overall service quality are updated after each transaction in a businesstoconsumer environment (Boulding et al., 1993). Transactionspeci?c satisfaction might not be perfectly correlated with overall satisfaction – because service quality is likely to vary from experience to experience, especially in an industrial context. Overall satisfaction can be viewed as a moving average that is relatively stable and similar to an overall attitude (Parasuraman et al., 1994). After thorough interviews with professionals in the area under investigation, it was clear to the present researchers that none of the existing de?nitions depicted the elements of buying centres and relationship evolvement over time. The present researchers therefore decided to adapt the cumulative de?nition of industrial satisfaction of Chumpitaz (1998): Industrial satisfaction is an overall evaluation of the total purchase, use and relationships experience with a product or service over time, as expressed by members of the buying decision centre. This de?nition provided the basis for conceptualising and measuring effectively the industrial satisfaction construct in the present study. To conceptualise perceived service quality, Oliver (1993) distinguished between quality and satisfaction by noting that the dimensions underlying quality judgments are rather speci?c – whether they are cues or attributes (Bolton and Drew, 1991). Satisfaction judgments, in contrast, can result from any dimension – some related to quality, and some not. Expectations of quality are based on ideals or perceptions of excellence, whereas a large number of nonquality issues – including needs (Westbrook and Reilly, 1983) and equity or fairness (Oliver and Swan, 1989) – help in the formation of satisfaction judgments. Rust and Oliver (1994, p. 6) stated that “... quality is one dimension on which satisfaction is based”. In making this stateme