Taller siete: El alcohol y sus consecuencias

It is quite difficult to draw a line between channel studies and social exchange theory based interaction studies. The assumption behind channel studies is that the whole system of relationships in the channel could be explained through dyadic relationships. Although channel studies has an aim of examining the whole channel, most studies have examined only the dyadic relationships from the point of view of one of the partners. Social exchange theory based interaction studies has positioned itself as being interorganizational with a clear emphasis on buyer-seller or supplier- manufacturer relationships (e.g. Andersson and Narus 1984, 1990; Wilson and Mummalaneni 1986). It is noteworthy that within the interaction- network approach there are quite many different views to look at the relationships between two firms. (See more e.g. Möller 1994; Möller and Wilson 1995)

Satisfaction has, in most studies, in the interaction-network approach related outcomes to the different kinds of processes between two firms. Outcomes are usually divided into psycho social and financial outcomes. Satisfaction is, in most studies, either seen as one of the outcomes (e.g. Dabholkar, Johnston and Cathey 1994; Möller and Wilson 1995), or as a measure of outcomes (e.g. Halinen 1994, 1997) or as a result of outcomes (e.g. Anderson and Narus 1984, 1990; Wilson and Mummalaneni 1986). Satisfaction is, also, one factor that affects (or is affected by), often crucially, the constructs (for example trust and commitment) which tie the firms more firmly together (e.g. Anderson and Narus 1984, 1990; Wilson and Mummalaneni 1986; Anderson and Weitz 1992; Ganesan 1994; Halinen 1997).

social exchange theory. But as the study is linked to the substance of channels it is here included to channel studies.

In studies carried out by the IMP-group, the concept of quality has been addressed in quite numerous recent studies (see the Appendix A in Holmlund 1997). The studies presented by Holmlund (1997 in Appendix A) come from different research traditions, as in the IMP-group conferences attend researchers from several traditions. Part of the studies come clearly from the service quality tradition (e.g. Holmlund and Kock 1993, 1995b; Venetis 1994; Clark 1995; Lehtinen and Järvelin 1995; Lapierre and Deslandes 1996; Venetis and Ghauri 1996), some of them can be regarded as customer satisfaction studies (e.g. Günter and Platzek 1994; Mathieu 1994) and some as product quality studies (e.g. Sjöberg 1994; Simintiras and Lancaster 1994).

The other studies mentioned by Holmlund (1997 in Appendix A) can be divided into three groups. The first group consists of studies that use the quality (or satisfaction) as outcomes (Fiaocca and Snehota 1994; Skjerstad 1994) as usually in the IMP tradition. In the second group (Volsky and Wilson 1994; Werani 1996) the quality is treated in the same manner as the Wilson and Mummalaneni (1986), i.e. as rewards minus costs. Instead of using the term satisfaction, used by Wilson and Mummalaneni (1986), these studies use the term value. Both of the studies, in this group have gained influences from other traditions like service quality and social exchange theory. The third group of studies (Kempeners 1995; Söllner 1996) is based on the studies (e.g. Crosby, Evans and Cowles 1990; Lagase and Gassenheimer and Dahlström 1991; Wray, Palmer and Bejou 1994) that can be regarded as partly based on the social exchange theory, but partly also on the service quality studies. This group treats relationship quality as consisting of satisfaction, trust and commitment.

The concepts like trust and commitment are gaining more interest among network and interaction researches, but the base on which they are building is not very thoroughly researched (see for exception Halinen 1997). The studies have focused on the constructs which explain what constitutes a relationship and why firms engage in the relationship or why firms stay in the relationships. In the later context, satisfaction has been seen as a sub-construct for other constructs, or as a bond itself. The study of the internal structure and dimensions together with the measurement of satisfaction has not been very thorough. The other concepts which are related to the long-term aspects of the relationship, might have been more appealing than the familiar concept of satisfaction, as the aim of the studies has merely been a conceptualization of the relationship itself.

The problems this perspective has from the point of view of this study in question remains largely those problems presented in the previous chapter concerning channel studies. First, the measurement and the use of the concept of satisfaction are very diverse in interaction studies. For example, Anderson and Narus (1984, 1990) have partly based their study on the social exchange theory (Thibault and Kelley 1959), and adopted the concept of comparison level (CL) from this theory. They use the term outcomes given CL and define it as a firm's assessment of the results (reward-cost)

from the relationship compared with expectations based on present and past experience with similar relationships, and knowledge of other firms' relationships (Anderson and Narus 1984, p. 63). This in fact, is already a satisfaction measure, at least according to customer satisfaction literature. This outcomes given comparison level include a comparison between actual experience and predictive expectations. In addition to this, however, Anderson and Narus (1984, 1990) have a separate satisfaction concept. Thus, satisfaction is in their model measured twice. They see satisfaction merely as affective reaction and outcomes given CL as a rational summary assessment (ibid.).

In my opinion, this reflects the way satisfaction is usually measured and treated in this area (and also in channel context). The problems with this interpretation are related to the measurement of satisfaction and to the one- sided view about the satisfaction concept. The problems concerning the satisfaction measurement are linked to several methods of measuring satisfaction (i.e. separate satisfaction measure, CL given outcomes, reward- costs), and thus no unified measure exists. The one-sided view of satisfaction concerns the view of satisfaction only as an affective, not as a rational, reaction. The ambiguity concerning the satisfaction measure and the content of measures related to satisfaction, together, have probably also at least partly affected, the lack of use of a satisfaction construct in interaction studies.

Second, as in channel research, most empirical studies conducted in the area of interaction approach also examine the relationship at one point of time (see for exception e.g. Liljegren 1988; Halinen 1997; Gulati 1995). However, the need for longditunial studies has been acknowledged (Anderson and Narus 1990; Anderson and Weitz 1992). It is quite a commonly accepted view, that relationships evolve through episodes, and the current state of the relationship affects the episodes. The satisfaction concept has not, however, been related to this division, because satisfaction is usually related to concepts which concern the whole relationship.

Despite the limitations related to the interaction research, it has (together with channel research) in many areas examined relationships and concepts related to relationships in way that support this study. First, it provides a framework for the relationships and episodes (see chapter 2). Second, it brings the relationship quality research perspective that takes into account constructs which affect, and are affected by, relationship evaluation. These constructs include power and dependency, conflicts and conflict resolution, performance, and governance structures. Third, the satisfaction concept used in interaction studies gives, despite of its many weaknesses, aspects which are not, at least to a large extent handled in service quality research. For example, reward-cost -thinking is implicitly part of the satisfaction concept in many interaction studies (e.g. Wilson and Mummalaneni 1986; Anderson and Narus 1990; Halinen 1994, 1997). In addition, satisfaction is not treated as a separate concept, it is always related to other concepts that are important for the future of the relationships, and consequently for

financial performance of the partners involved in the relationship. Furthermore, the linkage between satisfaction and the behavior related concepts (i.e. commitment) is not seen as a direct. For example, Wilson and Mummalaneni (1986) have investments as mediating variable and Gulati (1995) attribution.

Taken together, the different views of satisfaction, it can be argued that the satisfaction concept is supported by many different usable aspects that can be used in this study. First of all the concept of customer satisfaction has often been measured by using the disconfirmation paradigm. The disconfimation paradigm is also used in this study as a starting point for the discussion about the evaluation of relationship quality. Second, the debate between service quality and customer satisfaction raised the importance of

sacrifices, and sacrifices also have a central role in relationship quality evaluation. The satisfaction concept used in the interaction approach also deals with sacrifices. Third, the satisfaction concept in channel context and the interaction studies gives perspective for higher level i.e. relationship level evaluation. Fourth, the satisfaction concept used in channel studies also links satisfaction to several cognitive processes (e.g. balancing operations, equity and fairness) that have an essential role in relationship quality evaluation. Fifth, the satisfaction in interaction studies relates the evaluation process to the higher level concepts (like conflict, commitment, trust)and also gives a model for the dyadic perspective.

It has to be added that the interaction approach, together with channel studies, provides valuable perspective for business relationships to the concepts developed in the service quality and customer satisfaction literature. Without this foundation the use of service quality and customer satisfaction literature would not be justified for this study.

4. FRAMEWORK OF RELATIONSHIP