Modified framework

On the basis of the results gained from the empirical study, some modifications were made to the preliminary framework of relationship quality evaluation (see figure 6). In figure 21, this modified version is presented. This modified version is based on the empirical case, and thus, it reflects the reality gained as a result of the case analysis.

In the modified framework of relationship quality evaluation the main evaluation process differs from the preliminary framework with respect to the third comparison and termination/continuation of the relationship. The third comparison was not seen likely in this case relationship, and accordingly, it is excluded from the modified framework.

It has to be noticed, that the starting point for the evaluation process can be any one of the following episode evaluation processes: standardized, systematic, unofficial, joint, development project or economic evaluation. Joint evaluation process is linked to the adjusting processes. From the first comparison, the process proceeds to the formation of episode quality perception. This episode quality perception can be modified by adjusting processes. After the episode quality perception is formed the second comparison follows, and as a result of it, the relationship quality perception is formed. The relationship quality perception, in turn, modifies the comparison standards used in future episode and relationship quality evaluations. It has to be noticed that the episode quality perceptions, can be almost solely be based on the episode experiences in cases when the episodes are regarded as being extraordinary.

The process from the episode experiences, to the relationship quality perception can seem to be schematic. It can be hard to understand, that the individual evaluators, actually evaluate the relationship after each episode quality evaluation. It has to kept in mind, however, that the relationship quality is in most cases formed as a result of cumulation. This happens so that if the episode quality perception reminds the old perception, or goes inbetween the tolerance zones, then relationship quality perception stays the same, and then the evaluator does not necessarily even notice the relationship quality evaluation that has happened as it cumulates.

It has to be also noticed, that in the evaluation process, described in the figure 21, only a simplified version of the complicated empirical reality is described. The individual evaluators can have many simultaneous evaluation processes occurring on in their minds, and naturally these evaluation processes can influence each other. Also, the perceptions of the important others can have an effect on the evaluation process and the perceptions of the individual.

Episode experiences Future Past Buyer Seller Comparison 1 Comparison 2 Relationship quality perception Comparison 1 Comparison 2 Relationship quality Perception Comparison standard based on: - technical standards -prior experiences -cultural norms and

values

Comparison standard based on:

- technical standards -prior experiences -cultural norms and

values Comparison standard based on: - goals - promises Comparison standard Based on: - goals - promises Adjusting processes : - attribution - balancing operations Episode experiences Episode quality perception Episode quality perception Main evaluation process Comparison standards based on: - existing relationship quality perception - comparison standard used in episode quality evaluation Comparison standards based on: - existing relationship quality perception - comparison standard used in episode quality evaluation

Denotes influence and temporal order Denotes influence

Denotes possible influence and temporal order

Figure 21: Modified framework of relationship quality evaluation.

The major changes compared to the preliminary framework concern both the comparison standards and adjusting processes. The comparison

standards used in episode quality perception, are based in the modified framework, on technical standards, prior experiences, goals and promises. The technical standards are used in standardized evaluations and the comparison standards used in systematic evaluation are based on prior experiences, and also partly on technical standards. In the unofficial evaluation, the comparison standards are partly based on the official goals and promises, together with cultural norms and values, and partly on the unofficial goals. In the development project evaluation, the comparison standards are mostly determined by the goals set for the projects. In the economic evaluation, the role of goals and explicit promises is important, but individually driven goals are also used. Desires did not determine the comparison standards used in episode quality evaluations, and thus, they are excluded from the modified framework.

The comparison standards used in relationship evaluation, in turn, are based mostly on the existing level of relationship quality, or on the comparison standards used in episode quality evaluation, or on a mixture of these. The official guiding of the comparison standards seems to be determining the nature of the comparison standard used (see more in chapter 6.4.2.). The boundary setting role (at least in the manner mentioned in the theoretical part in chapter 4.4.2.) of the comparison standards used in episode quality evaluation proved to be minimal.

The bolded arrow between the two comparison standard boxes, left in figure 21, represent the effect of the existing relationship quality to the prior experiences, used in episode quality evaluation. This means that after the relationship quality perception is formed, this perception can affect the prior experiences are now used as comparison standard in the following episode quality evaluations. The non-bolded arrow between the comparison standard boxes, in turn, describes the effect of the comparison standards used in episode quality evaluation, on the comparison standards used in relationship quality evaluation.

In the modified framework, adjusting processes are included in the main evaluation process. This is because their role was important in evaluations, and thus, it can be argued that they have a central role in the evaluation process. One can also speculate, that if the third comparison had been present in the empirical case evaluations, it would have followed the adjusting processes, not directly the relationship quality perception. From the adjusting processes, the equity and fairness had no role and they were excluded from the modified framework. The attribution and balancing operations, did have a central role, especially from the balancing operations in the sequential transformation proved, and to be important in recovering. The adjusting processes, are presented in the modified framework, as being common for both of the partners. This is because the adjusting processes were, to large extent, done together. In the preliminary framework adjusting processes were presented as belonging only to the future. In the empirical case, they did have clear future orientation, especially sequential transformation, but they also were bound heavily in influencing solving the

current situation. Consequently, in the modified framework, adjusting processes are presented as being a bit more future oriented than the other phases in the main evaluation process.

The dimensions, cells and network effect together with Clalt, are not taken to the framework for simplicity’s sake. The dimensions were used to describe the content of the relationship quality perception formed as a result of the each episode quality evaluation process. These dimension were almost the same on the episode and relationship quality levels. The ultimate dimension seems to be a working concept, only on the relationship level evaluation. The cells describe the content of the whole relationship quality perception, and especially can be used in describing the change in relationship quality perception. The network effect and Clalt, are areas which need more research in order to clarify their role, in the evaluation process.