In this chapter 4.4.2. the use of different comparison standards in relationship quality evaluation is addressed. As the different comparison standards used in episode quality evaluation were discussed quite extensively in chapter 4.3.2., the comparison standards are only discussed in this chapter to the extent in which they are characteristic for the relationship quality evaluation.
The comparison standard used in relationship quality evaluation can be determined by the existing perception of relationship quality, and to some extent, also by prior experiences, cultural norms and values, goals, promises and/or desires. The existing perception of relationship quality is in turn based on the prior experiences gained from that particular relationship. Prior experiences gained from the other sources are discussed here separately. Prior experiences in the form of existing relationship quality perception, as the most important comparison standard, makes it different in nature from comparison standard used in episode quality evaluation.
The role of existing relationship quality perception47 is especially important in a long term relationships. At the beginning of the relationship, other comparison standards can be more important. In long term institutionalized type relationships, the others in a way only form the context or borders within which the actual comparison between existing perception of relationship quality and episode quality perception happens. If these borders are crossed (i.e. if the episode quality perception crosses these borders) other comparison standards, than the existing level of relationship quality, may affect the comparison standard used. Taking the example of the relationship between the advertising agency and its client, the existing relationship quality perception was the most important comparison standard. The goals set for the whole relationship had a boundary setting role when the existing relationship quality perception was not according to the goals and the gained episode quality perception was. In this case, the episode quality is likely to change the relationship quality perception in the direction of the set goals.
Prior experiences
Prior experiences and the existing level of relationship quality remind to a large extent, each other. It can be argued that most of the relevant prior experiences are formed during the relationship in question48, and if the existing perception of relationship quality is seen as a cumulation of prior episode quality perceptions, then these two concepts are closely related to each other. Prior experiences can, however, include experiences from other relationships, and experiences of others, from their (other) relationships.
The best brand norm, product type norm and brand norm presented by Holmlund (1997, p. 88) together with CLalt -concept (e.g. Andersson and Narus 1984, p. 63) related the comparison to the other relationships from which the evaluator has experiences. Reputation can also be seen as one of the issues that can determine the comparison standard (Holmlund 1997, p. 89). The comparison standards that are linked to the other relationships, may have more of a central role in the relationship quality evaluation, than in the episode quality evaluation.
Cultural norms and values
Cultural norms and values can be an important "border" determinant of comparison standard used in relationship quality evaluation, because the
47 As existing relationship quality perception is based on prior experiences it is not included to the framework as a separate determinant in order to avoid overlapping in concepts.
48 The CL concept used by Andersson and Narus (1984, 1990) concerns all the prior experiences, also from the other relationships, and thus CL and the existing level of relationship quality cannot be regarded as being the same as the determinant of comparison standard.
accepted way of behaving, can determine to a large extent the borders within which the existing relationship quality perception can act as a comparison standard. Hence, the border definition of other comparison standards than existing relationship quality perception relates very closely to the tolerance zone concept (e.g. Zeithaml, Berry and Parasuraman 1991; Liljander and Strandvik 1994; Strandvik 1995). In situations were the border is crossed cultural norms and values can have a central role in the formation of relationship quality perception.
Goals
Goals can be regarded as having a central role in evaluations done in business relationships. Used as the solely comparison standard during the evaluation, valuable aspects linked to the social issues might be lost, as goals mainly concern economic and technical issues (Holmlund and Kock 1995a, p. 117). In relationship quality evaluation, the goals also can be regarded as being more implicit than explicit in nature. As the goals set for the relationship concern usually long period of time, they often are not expressed explicitly, but they are commonly shared within the organization or even within the relationship. (See about goals Halinen 1997; Kotsalo- Mustonen 1996)
Goals can be regarded as having a primiary role in two situations. First, when the certain border is crossed or stressed, and second, in the beginning of the relationship. For example, if the existing relationship quality perception is not in accordance with the goals and the formed episode quality perception is in accordance with the goals, then the episode quality perception is likely to change the existing relationship quality perception in the direction of the set goals. This example can be considered as an example of border stressing. Also, in the beginning of the relationship the goals set for the relationship may be the major determinant (together with promises) of comparison standard against which the episode quality perception is compared. When relationship quality perception is stabilized, the role of goals can become important in situations where the border is crossed or stressed.
Promises
Promises as a comparison standard, can in the beginning of the relationship have a central role in addition to current relationship quality perception and goals. When actors are beginning to know each other and each other's way of behaving, promises made may act as a comparison standard against which each episode quality perception is compared. As a relationship evolves, the relationship quality perception will be stabilized, and only those episode quality perceptions which do not fit to the current perception, may change it (see more Lehtinen and Järvelin 1995). However, the changes, for example, in a competitive environment can again raise the role
of promises made to each other, as a determinant of comparison standard used in relationship quality evaluation.
Implicit promises also can be regarded as being more unusual in relationship quality evaluation than in episode quality evaluation as it is more difficult to give promises concerning the whole relationship than it is for an episode. Implicit promises have their base in experiences from the focal relationship or from other similar relationships. The crossing of borders set by the implicit promises, however, can significanlty affect the relationship quality perception (Halinen 1997, 139-144).
Desires
Desires can be regarded as having only a minor role in the evaluation of relationship quality.49 It can be argued, that the rational aspects are dominating the relationship quality evaluation. Because, before comparing the comparison standard and episode quality perception, it is likely that the episode quality perception has been discussed at least inside the organization (and perhaps also inside the relationship), and this evaluation process has had an impact on the evaluation of episode quality. Thus, the rational aspects of episode quality perception may have been emphasized. However, on the other hand as the relationship as a whole may be hard to understand, the irrational aspects might have some role as a comparison standard used in the relationship quality evaluation on relationship level.