Attribution

In addition to equity and fairness attribution is a third partly independent process affecting episode and relationship quality evaluation (see also Frazier 1983). Attribution theory has its roots in social psychology, but is has been applied to numerous other fields too (see more e.g. Hewstone 1983). In consumer behavior literature, attribution theory is concerned with how people make cause and and effect judgments (Runyon and Stewart 1987, p. 519). Thus, attribution is a process in which the evaluator finds reasons for what has happened. Attribution theory is to some extent used in customer satisfaction literature (e.g. Oliver and DeSarbo 1988), service

quality literature (e.g. Bitner 1990) and channel literature (e.g. Frazier 1983).

Attribution theory, itself, is very extensive, and in this chapter I have tried to pick up the parts of the theory which seem to be relevant for the evaluation of quality of business relationships. In the framework (figure 6) attribution is related to episode and relationship quality, equity, fairness and balancing operations (for balancing operations see chapter 4.5.4. ). Each of these processes may cause an attribution process. Frazier (1983, p. 69) has in his framework placed attribution process as an antecedent for equity, fairness and satisfaction. Frazier (1983, p. 73), however, argues that "blame will be assigned if losses occur or if achieved reward does not meet prior expectations and goals". This heavily suggests that some kind of evaluation (satisfaction) takes place before attribution.

Attribution in long term business relationships, also happens more evidently in episodes which something unexpected happens than in episodes which go as expected. If attribution process occurs after a normal episode where inputs and outcomes are as expected, blame/credit for them is likely to be placed on the situation (e.g. Kelley and Michela 1980). In the expected and like episodes things happened as they were supposed to happen. In unexpected and like episodes in turn it is more likely to blame/credit either of the actors or situation (see e.g. Kelley and Michela 1980; Frazier 1983). It seems to be, however, that attributions made to the situation or to the actors are not alternatives (e.g. Laljee and Abelson 1983). Attributions to both situation and actors often co-exist. Consequently, in the expected-like episodes, credit for the achieved outcomes can be placed on the situation and one/both of the actors. Or, in the unexpected-like episodes, credit/blame for what happened also can be placed on the unexpected situation.

In addition to the locus of causes described above, there exist two other bases for attribution judgments namely stability and controllability (e.g. Folkes and Koletsky and Graham 1987). Stability relates to the question whether the reasons for deviations are temporary or permanent. The temporary causes can more negatively affect the quality perception than permanent causes. The controllability, in turn, relates to issues whether the reasons are under the control or caused by outside factors which cannot be influenced. If the causes are under the control, it would more negatively affect perceived quality, than if the causes were not under control. (See more Folkes, Koletsky and Graham 1987)

Attribution is a process which can modify the perception of episode and/or relationship quality. If for example the buyer attributes the credit for the achieved outcomes mainly to the seller, buyer perceived quality may not be improved, but the buyer's attraction to and trust in the seller may increase (e.g. Frazier 1983). If the buyer attributes the credit for the outcomes mainly to itself, buyer perceived quality may be improved, perceived dependency on the seller may to decrease and the attraction to the relationship may to some extent diminish, depending heavily on perceived

other available alternatives (Frazier 1983). If credit is assigned, mainly to the situation, perceived episode quality may diminish, and the relationship quality level also may decrease if the future is perceived as unstable and unsecured.

If in turn, the achieved outcomes are lower than they were expected, and the buyer blames the other partner, the perceived episode quality, and thus also relationship quality, may deteriorate, and attraction to, and trust in, the other the partner may decrease. In the case that blame is assigned to the buyer itself, episode and relationship quality together with attraction towards the relationship may decrease. Of course, the blame is put more naturally to the situation or on the other partner than to itself. If the blame is attributed to the situation, and the future is seen as unstable and unsecured, perceived episode and relationship quality together with attraction will diminish. (E.g. Frazier 1983; Anderson and Narus 1990; see also Hewstone 1983)

Attribution is a process that relates evidently to the first and third comparisons, than to relationship quality evaluation. In episode basis, the outcomes and inputs together with sources of them are much easier for the evaluators to observe than in relationship basis. On the relationship level, causes for actions, and reasons for certain incidents are complicated, and thus difficult to trace. Also Frazier (1983; p. 73) quite clearly relates attribution, to the exchange itself, not to the whole relationship.

In conclusion, it can also be said that attribution is a process which affects the main evaluation process. Attribution theory is concerned with how people make cause-effect judgments. Attribution is a process in which the evaluator finds reasons for what has happened. Attribution in long term business relationships also happens more evidently in episodes in which something unexpected happens, than in episodes which go according expectations. Locus, stability and controllability represent bases for the attribution judgments. Attribution is a process that relates evidently to the first and third comparisons, than to relationship quality evaluation.