Thanks for the correction, that was a grievous typo. Anyway, my hypothesis was not meant to be a serious argument (you left out the last sentence of my post wh

Thanks for the correction, that was a grievous typo. Anyway, my hypothesis was not meant to be a serious argument (you left out the last sentence of my post which made this extra clear), it was merely intended to show that the conclusion drawn by those researchers is based on a completely arbitrary model of what brand loyalty actually means. But then again, so is your evolutionary psychology which is not a real science but merely a tool to end a discussion by disguising as fact whatever fits someone's world view best at the time. It is essentially the application of retroactive continuity to history on an evolutionary time scale. Of yeah, while we're at it: whenever researchers pull stuff so obviously out of their hats to explain convenient data, I'm also suspicious of the data itself. Especially social studies can be rigged in ways people wouldn't believe.