The Service Industries Journal

Vol. 29, No. 2, February 2009, 127 –141

The attribution of service failures: effects on consumer satisfaction

Victor Iglesias

Departamento de Administración de Empresas, University of Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain

(Received 3 July 2006; final version received 7 October 2006)

The aim of this paper is to analyse the effects of the attribution of service failures on
consumer satisfaction. We analysed direct effects as well as indirect effects through
cognitive processes and variables such as quality perceptions and overall quality
evaluation. Basing the analysis on the attribution theories and information
processing theories, four hypotheses are suggested. These are tested on a sample of
293 service encounters in which some type of failure is present (attributed to the
firm or to some environmental factor). The results show that the attribution of the
failure to the service firm causes a systematic reduction in all of the quality
perceptions (even in service aspects not linked to the failure). But attribution also
shows direct effects on satisfaction beyond the effect through perceptions. Attitude-
based processes as well as attribute-based processes are affected by attribution.

Keywords: service failure; attribution; satisfaction; information processing

Introduction
The importance of research on consumer satisfaction in the service sector is well known.
Satisfaction is recognised as one of the main factors that determine customer loyalty to
the company along with a positive word-of-mouth publicity, both components that condition
the future growth of the service company. The growing importance of strategies based on
relationship marketing has only increased this tendency. Thus, it is hardly surprising that
a large number of investigators in the field of marketing focus their efforts on identifying
the causes and factors that affect consumer satisfaction. The explanatory models which
use many approaches are more and more complex, in that new variables are continuously
added that try to explain the phenomenon of satisfaction. Therefore, models that incorporate
new variables, such as the customer mood, emotions, preconceptions, attributions or percep-
tions of justice, have joined the traditional models that used the quality of service and/or the
disconfirmation as the main antecedents.
A special case in the provision of services that requires special attention is that service
encounter in which the customer detects substantial failures. The presence of these failures
could be a very important problem for companies, especially those that develop strategies
that are linked to the search for quality and customer loyalty. The influence of failures on
satisfaction (and dissatisfaction) is high, and its consequences on customer loyalty and the
image of the brand could be very negative.
However, not all service failures are the same for the customer, but its effects can
change depending on its nature or the causality attribution that the individual makes
with respect to the same. Moreover, different studies have shown the importance of con-
sidering attribution as an explanatory factor of the customer’s cognitive response,


Email: viglesia@uniovi.es

ISSN 0264-2069 print/ISSN 1743-9507 online

# 2009 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/02642060802293088
http://www.informaworld.com
128 V. Iglesias

emotional and behavioural case of a failure in the product or service (e.g. Folkes, 1984;
Folkes, Koletsky, & Graham, 1987; Weiner, 1986).
The concept of attribution was introduced in scientific literature in a more systematic
way based on the works of various authors such as Heider (1958) and Kelley (1973).
However, it was Weiner’s (1986) approach that had the most repercussions in the field
of consumer behaviour. This author points out, in the concept of attribution, various
dimensions that were considered in a large number of works. These dimensions are
locus of causality, controllability, and stability.
Locus of causality deals with the issue of the location attributed to the cause of the failure.
It could be an internal position (the cause is located in the customer himself or in one of his
decisions), external (located in the company that offers the service), or situational (located in
unfortunate environmental effects) (Oliver, 1993). Controllability refers to the degree to
which the cause is subject to volitional alteration and when the outcome ‘could have been
otherwise’. The customer may think that the cause of the failure was controllable by the
company and that the company could have avoided it. This could affect the customer’s
final level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction in a relevant way. Finally, stability refers to the
degree of permanence in time that is attributed to the perceived cause of the failure.
Given the high empirical correlation observed between the controllability and locus
dimensions (e.g. Folkes, 1984), some authors prefer to use a new dimension: responsibil-
ity, which is a combination of controllability and the locus of causality (Tsiros, Mittal, &
Ross, 2004).
The aim of the present investigation is to study the effects of attribution on the custo-
mer’s cognitive processes in the presence of failures in the service. The direct as well as
the indirect effects of attribution on satisfaction is analysed, taking into account the possi-
bility of effects on cognitive processes of a systematic nature as well as on those of a heur-
istic nature.

The relationship between attribution and satisfaction

The relation between causal attribution and customer satisfaction – and similar variables –
has been analysed in many previous studies, which show that the attribution and its
dimensions can affect the satisfaction and the quality evaluation in different ways.
Thus, a direct effect may exist (Tom & Lucey, 1995), but also indirect, through variables
such as perceived justice (Smith, Bolton, & Wagner, 1999), quality image (Casado,
Mas, & Azorı́n, 2004), disconfirmation (Oliver & DeSarbo, 1988), emotions (Casado &
Mas, 2002; Folkes, 1984), or recovery expectations (Hess, Ganesan, & Klein, 2003).
Here the aspect to be studied is whether attribution affects the cognitive processes at a
systematic processing level or at a heuristic level. One of the most interesting theories on
the processing of information on the part of the consumer is the one that distinguishes
between attribute-based processing and attitude-based processing (Mantel & Kardes,
1999). In attribute-based processing, the evaluation that the customer makes of the
product/service is based on the perception of the individual attributes that make it up,
while in attitude-based processing the evaluation is most likely the result of general atti-
tudes, summary impressions, stereotypes, preconceptions, or heuristics.
The heuristic-systematic model proposed by Chaiken (1980) is an interesting antecedent
of this approach. According to this model, there are two methods of processing information
for the creation of attitudes. In systematic processing, individuals take into account the
totality (or the largest part) of the relevant information in order to make a judgement
about a product or the object of the attitude. On the other hand, in heuristic processing,
 The Service Industries Journal 129

individuals use only that subset of available information that enables them to use simple
decision rules or cognitive heuristics to formulate their judgements and decisions. For
example, belief in rules such as ‘experts’ statements can be trusted’ simplifies the process
by which individuals select information, since they will not have to process all types of
information about the product or service. Both processes are not mutually exclusive; they
can be applied successively by the same individual in making a judgement about a
product or object of the attitude (Chaiken, Akiva, & Alice, 1989).
The theories mentioned basically take into consideration cognitive processes, but there
is a line of parallel investigation that adds affects – in the largest sense of term, including
emotions and moods – as one of the fundamental explanatory factors for the formation of
preferences in individuals. Since the original work of Zajonc (1980), a large number of
investigations have shown the role that the affects carry out in consumer behaviour (e.g.
Pham, Joel, John, & Hughes, 2001; Shiv & Fedorikhin, 1999). An interesting theory on
the processing of information that includes the role of the affects is the one proposed by
Berkowitz (1993). This author suggests the existence of three types of processes that can
happen successively – in different stages – as the individual’s response to the presence
of a stimulus (e.g. a product or service). First, information related to the stimulus is
subject to relatively basic and automatic associative processes that occur before the onset
of cognitive processes such as appraisals, interpretations, schemas, attributions, and strat-
egies. This process occurs relatively quickly and may give rise to lower-order affective
reactions and action tendencies. Secondly, the information related to the stimulus is
subject to more deliberative, higher-order cognitive processing, where the inputs of infor-
mation are processed in a slower and more systematic way. The outcome of this process may
serve to strengthen or weaken the action tendencies that arose in the previous stage. Finally,
from this more systematic processing, new affective reactions may arise (now called ‘high-
level’) and, with them, new or corrected action tendencies (Shiv & Fedorikhin, 1999).
In a similar vein, Oliver (1997) incorporated the attribution variable to a model that tries
to explain, in different stages, consumer response in the presence of a product or service. In
his model, the product or service generates in the customer, in the first stage, a primary evalu-
ation that consists of a global appreciation of success or failure. This evaluation is before
the attribution and constitutes an antecedent, giving rise to some primary affective reactions
(pleasure/displeasure in response to the goodness/badness of the event) that are also previous
to the attribution. The process of attribution begins in the second stage, with its three dimen-
sions (locus, stability, and controllability), which gives rise to a secondary affective response
that, can be considered as dependent on the attribution.
Given the presence of successive cognitive processes in the consumer at different levels,
the following questions should be raised: does the attribution affect the evaluation of the indi-
vidual attributes of the service and, if so, the overall quality evaluation and the satisfaction
indirectly? Does it directly affect the overall evaluation instead without affecting the percep-
tions of specific attributes? Or, as a last possibility, does it directly affect the satisfaction
without affecting the quality evaluations? In the following section, we will raise different
hypotheses on this subject, justifying each one of them in order to, in subsequent sections,
develop an empirical study that allows hypothesis testing and extraction of conclusions.

Hypotheses
The first hypothesis is a basic tenet of the study. We assume that the causal attribution of
the failure affects the customer’s satisfaction in such a way that when the failure is attrib-
uted to the service firm the satisfaction will be less than if attributed to an external cause.
130 V. Iglesias

The reason has to do with the generation of negative affects and with the sensation of
distributive injustice which would generate a higher dissatisfaction than the one directly
caused by the failure itself. For example, it would be expected that satisfaction with a
leisure service will be less if the perceived failure is due to the leisure company’s perform-
ance than to an external element such as the weather. In the first case, the attribution of
responsibility to the company would make the customer consider that the cost (monetary
or not) of the error should fall totally on the company. On the other hand, in the second
case, the customers may understand that they have to assume a part of the cost (i.e. the
lesser quality of the service), not blaming the company for the lesser quality.
H1: When the origin of the failure is attributed to the service company, the customer’s satis-
faction with the service will be less than when it is attributed to another external cause.
Fishbein and Middlestadt (1995) proposed that all non-cognitive influences on evalua-
tive judgements and preferences are mediated through changes in beliefs and their evalua-
tive implications. If this is true and H1 is correct, then it would be expected that an effect of
the attribution on the cognitive process exists. In some phase of this process, a change has
to exist that will initiate a modification in the level of satisfaction.
The attribution could affect the level of satisfaction in different ways: (1) in an indirect
form, through the quality evaluation variables (perceptions and overall evaluation); and
(2) in a direct form, which is contrary to the theory of Fishbein and Middlestadt: the attri-
bution would affect the satisfaction without repercussions in the cognitive processes. The
former possibility is explored and justified in hypotheses H2 and H3, while the later is
explored and justified in H4.
One possibility is that attribution (and its associated affects) influences perceptions of
different aspects of service quality. It is possible that the failures that are caused by the
company that renders the service, will generate some affects and moods in the customer
(affects dependent on the attribution according to Oliver, 1997) who will be inclined to
be critical of the company, such that their evaluations, arising from their perceptions on
different aspects of the quality of service, will be systematically lower than the ones
carried out in situations where the failures are due to external causes (understood as
those that are not connected to the company’s responsibility). As a result, a low level of
service quality will be perceived in the attribute where the failure has occurred, and
that perception would extend to other aspects of the service, in such a way that the evalu-
ation that the customer makes on the quality of these aspects will be lower.
Similar effects have been found in previous studies. Thus, Isen, Shalker, Clark, and
Karp (1978) observed that the individuals who were in a positive mood were prone to
evaluate the products more positively. This effect is higher when the individuals associate
their mood to the object being evaluated (Clore, Schwarz, & Conway, 1994), for example,
to failures observed in the service received.
In short, the attribution of the responsibility to the company would generate some
effects which in turn could produce a halo effect (i.e. an effect of the global impression
or attitude towards the product/service on the beliefs pertinent to each specific attribute –
Bagozzi, Gurhan-Canli, & Priester, 2002) that would not have existed if the attribution
were external to the company. In this last case, the perceptions would be reduced only
in those aspects directly linked to the failure, but a halo effect would not exist and,
therefore, the perceptions on the other aspects would not be affected. Thus, the negative
effect on the perceptions in their entirety should be less.
H2: When the responsibility for the failure is attributed to the service firm, the customer’s
perceptions on the different aspects of the service quality will be less.
 The Service Industries Journal 131

Another possibility is that the attribution will affect the overall quality evaluation of the
service in a direct form, not by means of the perceptions on individual aspects. It is possible
that the critical mood – generated by the attribution of the failure to the company – will not
affect the individual evaluations of the quality but the overall evaluation.
The individual assessments of the quality have a more objective nature; the customer
evaluates each specific aspect of the service using his memory of the perceptions that
he had during the service encounter. The possibility of influences on these evaluations
of affective elements (such as mood or affects) would be limited. On the other hand, in
the global evaluation of the quality, the customer must evaluate the service received in
an overall way. Although the cognitive component would continue to be predominant,
the influence of affective elements could be considerably higher.
Nevertheless, the effect could exist not only through the emotions, but also through the
perceptions of distributive justice. In the presence of a failure, the cost (including the
opportunity cost) for the customer is higher than expected (e.g. in waiting time)
because of the company. On the other hand, unless the company provides some type of
compensation, the price for the service will be that established previously. In this form,
the image will not worsen solely because of the low levels of the attributes, but for an
additional perception of injustice, which constitutes an element of a cognitive nature
that could affect the global evaluation of the quality.
H3: When responsibility for the failure is attributed to the service firm, then the overall evalu-
ation of the customer towards the quality of the service will be lower.

As we have already seen, the affective elements can exert a certain influence on the
perceptions and global evaluations of quality. It is in satisfaction that its influence is
most clear, constituting – along with the cognitive – a basic component of its nature. It
could happen that the attribution of the failure to the company itself could generate
some emotions (e.g. anger) that would negatively affect the satisfaction beyond the indir-
ect effect through perceptions and global evaluations. According to this hypothesis, the
affects generated by the attribution would not even generate a halo effect on perceptions
of the service attributes, not even an effect on overall quality evaluation, but they would
have a direct effect on satisfaction.
On the other hand, the theories on price settings and on the perceived value (Monroe,
1990; Woodall, 2003; Woodruff, 1997) show us that the possible perception of distributive
injustice might not affect the evaluation of the overall quality, but on the perceived sacri-
fice (another of the components of perceived value), and in this way on the satisfaction.
This can also justify an effect on satisfaction independently of the quality evaluations.
H4: When the responsibility of the failure is attributed to the service firm, the customer
satisfaction with the service will be less, independent of the value reached by the quality
evaluations (quality perceptions and overall evaluations).

Method
The empirical part of the study was developed in the retail banking sector. Data were gathered
from personal interviews conducted in three medium-sized cities North Spain. Forty-five
business undergraduate students were hired and trained for the job. Each of them was respon-
sible for interviewing 10 people of their choice in the three cities, with the following provisos:
(1) there should not be several people from the same family unit, (2) they should be habitual
customers of one of the four main banks in the region, (3) they should not work in banking,
and (4) the interviewers should respect an age quota that approximately mirrors the age range
132 V. Iglesias

in the market (Ruiz, 1993): 20% in the three age ranges between 18 and 30, 31 and 40 age
range, and 41 and 60; and 10% over 60. The large number of interviewers also contributed to
providing this sample with sufficient heterogeneity.
Using this process 433 valid surveys were obtained, which gave us information on the
same amount of service encounters. However, the present study is focused on the investi-
gation of the failures in the services rendered, and not in all of these encounters did the
persons taking part in the sample perceive the existence of any failure. Only in 67.7%
did appreciable failures exist (including small failures and failures considered important
by the customer) not attributable to the customer. Therefore, the final sample used here
consists of 293 valid surveys, even though one of the cases was eliminated from
the empirical study because it showed an appreciable combination of attributions of the
other possibilities included in the sample.

Measures
Quality perceptions. The SERVQUAL (Parasuraman, Berry, & Zeithaml, 1991; Parasuraman,
Zeithaml, & Berry, 1988) and SERVPERF scales (Cronin & Taylor, 1992) were used as a
model to measure customer quality perceptions of the service were provided. They have
been used on several occasions in retail banking services (e.g. Chebat et al., 1995; Cronin &
Taylor, 1992; Parasuraman et al., 1991). The 22 items on the scale were slightly adapted so
that the interviewee could assess the service received on the last visit to the bank (Table 1).
In the original work by Parasuraman et al. (1988), a five-year dimension structure was
observed, but in Cronin and Taylor’s research, this structure was not confirmed. These
authors made the point that the scale can be treated as unidimensional.
The unidimensional structure was not borne out by our sample. Following the cut-off
criteria proposed by Hu and Bentler (1999), the one-dimension confirmatory factor analysis
with EQS v. 5.7a yielded a poor fit between the model and the data [S–Bx2 ¼ 788.4,
df ¼ 209, p , 0.01; adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) ¼ 0.685; bentler bonnet
nonnormed fit index (NNFI) ¼ 0.694; comparative fit index (CFI) ¼ 0.723; root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA) ¼ 0.115]. Exploratory factor analysis was then
performed using the OBLIMIN factor rotation procedure in SPSS. A five-factor structure
was obtained, but three of the 22 items had to be dropped (Table 2) because of their poor
loading factor. The structure obtained is similar but not completely the same as that of
Parasuraman et al. (1991).
Overall service quality. A four-item scale was used to measure overall service quality.
Items were adapted from Oliver (1997) and reflect those generally used in the literature
(e.g. Cronin, Brady, & Hult, 2000; Cronin & Taylor, 1992). A five-point Likert-type
response format ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’ was used for all
the four items, which are shown in Table 2.
Satisfaction. A scale of four items was used which tries to measure the overall satisfac-
tion with the service received. They are items that do not refer to the satisfaction with each
specific aspect of the service, but with the entire service. This is to prevent that the measure
of the satisfaction being identified with the measure of the perceptions of the quality of
service, as they are theoretically different concepts (Oliver, 1993). The four items were
adapted from the scale used by Spreng, MacKenzie, and Olshavsky (1996).
Besides these multi-item scales, a question was included in the questionnaire, in order
to know if during service received the persons taking the survey had observed any notable
failure. If so, they had to evaluate the magnitude of failure on a scale of 1 to 5. They also
had to provide information on what they attributed the failure to (in the company:
 The Service Industries Journal 133

Table 1. Assessment of the multi-item scales.

Standardized
coefficientes
and t-values
Tangibles (F1) – Composite reliability coefficient: 0.749; AVE: 0.502
X1: The equipment looked modern 0.67 (11,0)
X2: The physical facilities were visually appealing 0.82 (13,5)
X3: Employees looked neat Dropped
X4: Materials associated with the service were visually appealing 0.62 (10,2)
Involvement (F2) – Composite reliability coefficient: 0.799; AVE:0.665
X5: The bank showed a sincere interest in fulfilling its promises 0.78 (14.1)
X6: The bank showed a sincere interest in solving my problems 0.85 (15.6)
Reliability (F3) – Composite reliability coefficient: 0.757; AVE: 0.514
X7: Employees performed the service right the first time 0.72 (12.6)
X8: They provided the services at the time they promise to do so 0.83 (14.9)
X9: They insisted on error-free records 0.58 (9.8)
Responsiveness (F4) – Composite reliability coefficient: 0.908; AVE: 0.585
X10: Employees told me exactly when services would be performed Dropped
X11: They gave prompt service to me 0.72 (13.8)
X12: They were willing to help me 0.80 (16.0)
X13: They were not too busy to respond to my requests 0.68 (12.9)
X14: The behavior of the employees instilled confidence in me 0.84 (17.5)
X15: I felt safe in my transactions with the bank 0.79 (15.7)
X16: Employees were courteous with me 0.80 (16.3)
X17: They had the knowledge to answer my questions 0.71 (13.5)
Empathy (F5) – Composite reliability coefficient: 0.828; AVE: 0.551
X18: I was offered products adapted to my needs 0.61 (10.8)
X19: The bank has convenient operating hours Dropped
X20: Employees gave me personal attention 0.66 (12.0)
X21: They had my best interests at heart 0.84 (16.9)
X22: They understood my specific needs 0.83 (16.6)
Overall quality (F6) – Composite reliability coefficient: 0.833; AVE: 0.556
CG1: I received a high quality service 0.74 (13.8)
CG2: I received a superior service 0.74 (13.9)
CG3: I received a service better than other firms’ standards 0.70 (13.0)
CG4: I received an excellent service 0.80 (15.4)
Satisfaction (F7) – Composite reliability coefficient: 0.895; AVE: 0.682
S1: I am satisfied with the service received 0.85 (17.4)
S2: I am pleased with the service received 0.77 (15.1)
S3: I am contented with the service received 0.84 (17.2)
S4: I am delighted with the service received 0.84 (17.2)
Notes: Items translated from Spanish. Dropped items in italics.

employees, equipment, etc. in the surroundings: a large number of customers, or defects

not connected with the company, etc.), and the nature and characteristics of the same (fre-
quency of the error, controllability, so on).
In order to assess the reliability, the convergent validity and the discriminant validity
of the scales, a final confirmatory factor analysis was conducted with the seven constructs:
the five perception dimensions, the satisfaction construct and the overall evaluation factor.
The confirmatory analysis yielded a reasonable fit (S – Bx2 ¼ 477.4, df ¼ 303, p , 0.01;
AGFI ¼ 0.844; NNFI ¼ 0.925; CFI ¼ 0.935; RMSEA ¼ 0.056).
134 V. Iglesias

Table 2. ANCOVA and Bonferroni test in Model 1.

Difference in satisfaction according Marginal
to the origin of the failure N Means means
Origin in employee attitude 80 2.72 2.80
Origin in structural causes of the 92 3.11 3.13
bank
Origin in causes not connected to 120 3.60 3.53
the bank
ANCOVA – Source of dispersion F Significance
Origin of the failure 42.42 0.000
Magnitude of the failure 47.48 0.000
Bonferroni test (I) Origin of failure (J) Origin of failure Mean difference Significance
(I2J)†
Origin in causes not connected to Origin in the employees 0.736 0.000
bank attitude
Origin in structural 0.407 0.000
causes of the bank
†
Based on the estimated marginal means.
Notes: Dependent variable: satisfaction; independent variables: origin and magnitude of failure.
Estimated values for Magnitude of failure ¼ 2.50.

Table 2 shows the factor loadings, the composite reliability coefficients and the
average variable extracted (AVE) indexes. The reliability coefficients and the AVE
indexes all exceeded the recommended minimum standards of 0.7 and 0.5, respectively
(Hair et al., 1995). Moreover, each indicator’s estimated pattern coefficient on its
posited underlying construct is significant, which suggests the convergent validity of
each factor (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Three procedures were used to evaluate the dis-
criminant validity. First, none of the confidence intervals around the correlation estimates
between the factors included the value 1.0. Second, for every pair of factors, the x2 value
for the model that constrained the correlation to equal 1 was significantly greater
(p , 0.01) than the x2 value for the model that did not place such a constraint (Anderson &
Gerbing, 1988). Finally, it was verified that the squared values of the correlation between
factors did not, in any case, surpass the AVE value of the factors involved. This shows that
the factors’ share is less than the information average that each factor shares with its com-
ponents (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
The perceptions variable is multidimensional by nature. However, in order to confirm
the hypothesis, we need a unique measurement of the variable. For this reason, we have
performed a second-order confirmatory factor analysis that would allow us to verify if
the five dimensions of perceptions can be summarised into one without causing an exces-
sive loss of information. The global adjustment obtained of the second-order model
reaches acceptable levels (S –Bx2 ¼ 262.3, df ¼ 148, p , 0.01; AGFI ¼ 0.862;
NNFI ¼ 0.918; CFI ¼ 0.929; RMSEA ¼ 0.067), and the second-order factor shows an
average of 50.9% variation in the five first-order dimensions. The factorial scores were
kept as estimations of the level of the perceptions variable in each individual.

Results
The hypotheses propose the existence of an effect of the attribution variable on the levels
of other variables such as satisfaction, perceptions, or overall quality evaluation. In order
 The Service Industries Journal 135

to verify them, we have used the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The magnitude of
failure has been incorporated to the analysis as a control variable (covariate). Given
that the hypotheses will be verified with a data sample obtained from real service encoun-
ters (not simulated), the diversity in the magnitude of the errors is a factor to be taken into
account so as to avoid spurious conclusions.
Another consequence of using a real setting is that the circumstances that can influence
attribution, and the nature of failures can also be diverse. Besides the location and the con-
trollability (dimensions that determine the responsibility), the attribution has another
notable dimension: stability.
In a recent study, Tsiros et al. (2004) observed that stability could act as a second-order
moderating variable, meaning a variable that moderates the moderating effect of another
variable, specifically, responsibility.
By analysing the sample, we were able to group failures into three groups differen-
tiated by the three dimensions relevant to attribution: locus, controllability, and stability.
The three groups obtained are:

(1) Origin of the failure in the attitude of bank employees. The customer perceived
that the origin of the failure was found in an insufficient disposition of the
employees to adequately satisfy the needs and demands of the customer. It is a
failure attributable to the company; the failure is controllable, and not stable.
(2) Origin of the failure in structural causes of the bank. In this case, the customer
perceived that the origin of the failure was found in the bank itself but that
it was of a more structural nature, not correctable in the short term (for
example, failures in the installations, equipment, financial product design, and
so on). Thus, failure will be attributed to the company; it is controllable, and stable.
(3) Origin of the failure in causes not connected with the bank. The client perceives
that the origin of the failure is found in a cause external to the bank (for example,
an unusually large number of customers). The failure will have an attribution not
connected to the bank; it is not controllable and not stable.

In none of the cases in the sample did the customer consider that the origin of the
failure was in himself, and only one case was detected in which the customer attributed
the failure to the company and, at the same time, considered that it was not a controllable
failure by that office (this case was eliminated from the subsequent analysis since it was
insufficient to form an independent sub-sample and, added to another sub-sample would
have distorted the results obtained). This result corroborates Tsiros et al.’s (2004)
affirmation – supported by the previous contributions of Folkes (1984) and Weiner
(2000) – that the dimension responsibility (that incorporates those of location and controll-
ability) has a better application in the consumer markets than both dimensions separately.
H1 is in reality a confirmation of the phenomenon being studied, namely, the existence
of different levels of satisfaction with the service depending on the attribution carried out
on the failures observed. In order to contrast it, an ANCOVA was carried out including
the magnitude of failure as a control variable and requesting the estimation of marginal
means. Also, since the hypothesis predicts the difference in the level of satisfaction
between service encounters with failures attributed to the company and those with failures
attributed to other external factors, we compared the level of satisfaction in group 3
(failures originated by external causes) with the one obtained in each of the other
groups. For this reason a complementary comparison analysis between groups was done
using Bonferroni adjusted multiple t-tests.
136 V. Iglesias

As shown in Table 2, and as predicteded in H1, it is in those cases in which the

origin of the failure is attributed to causes not connected with the bank that the satisfaction
is the lowest. The differences between the three groups are significant (F ¼ 42.4,
significance , 0.01) and, analysing the differences between group 3 (origin of the
failure not connected to the organisation) with respect to each one of the others, we can
see that all the differences are significant. H1 is therefore corroborated, making it necess-
ary to analyse in what part (or parts) of the cognitive process produces the basis of that
greater satisfaction when the attribution is external as against when it is linked to the
company involved.
H2 suggests the possible existence of a halo effect: the presence of a failure attributed
to the service firm will reduce the quality perceptions of the customer with respect to the
different aspects of the service. We needed a unique measure of the quality perceptions
that would indicate the possible presence of a halo effect, and for this we developed a
second-order factor analysis that would allow us to observe if a common latent variable
existed behind the five quality dimensions. If a halo effect exists, a common antecedent
of perceptions should be identified, and this latent variable could be affected by attribution,
as predicted in H2. The results show an acceptable fit of the model (S – Bx2 ¼ 262.3,
df ¼ 148, p , 0.01; AGFI ¼ 0.862; NNFI ¼ 0.915; CFI ¼ 0.926; RMSEA ¼ 0.052).
The factor scores obtained were kept since they can constitute a better measure of the
common antecedent of perceptions – that would be affected by the halo effect – than
other possibilities (for example, the mean of the items). In order to facilitate the interpret-
ation these scores were re-scaled, inverting their sense to reflect negative perceptions or
less positive perceptions with high values).
To test H2, we again used an ANCOVA complemented by the Bonferroni test. As
shown in Table 3, the perceptions are less negative when the error is attributed to
causes not connected to the company’s responsibility. The effect of the attribution is sig-
nificant (F ¼ 23.64; significance ¼ 0.00), and significant differences exist in the group
perceptions of service encounters, with external attribution with respect to the perceptions
in each of the other two groups. Thus, H2 is validated.

Table 3. ANCOVA and Bonferroni test in Model 2.

Difference in negative perceptions Marginal
according to the origin of the failure N Means means
Origin in employee attitude 80 9.70 9.44
Origin in structural causes of the bank 92 9.03 8.96
Origin in causes not connected to the 120 7.68 7.91
bank
ANCOVA – Source of dispersion F Significance
Origin of the failure 23.64 0.000
Magnitude of the failure 68.96 0.000
Bonferroni test (I) Origin of failure (J) Origin of failure Mean difference Significance
(I2J)†
Origin in causes not connected to Origin in the 21.536 0.000
bank employees attitude
Origin in structural 21.054 0.000
causes of the bank
†
Based on the estimated marginal means.
Notes: Dependent variable: negative perceptions; independent variables: origin and magnitude of failure.
Estimated values for Magnitude of failure ¼ 2.50.
 The Service Industries Journal 137

Table 4. ANCOVA and Bonferroni test in Model 3.

Difference in global quality evaluation Marginal
according to the origin of the failure N Means means
Origin in employee attitude 80 2.47 2.60
Origin in structural causes of the bank 92 2.82 2.87
Origin in causes not connected to the 120 3.15 3.02
bank
ANCOVA – Source of dispersion F Significance
Origin of the failure 14.65 0.000
Negative perceptions 49.11 0.000
Magnitude of the failure 0.073 0.787
Bonferroni test (I) Origin of failure (J) Origin of failure Mean difference Significance
(I2J)†
Origin in causes not connected to bank Origin in the 0.420 0.000
employees attitude
origin in structural 0.153 0.098
causes of the bank
†
Based on the estimated marginal means.
Notes: Dependent variable: global quality; independent variables: origin and magnitude of failure and negative
perceptions.
Estimated values for Magnitude of failure ¼ 2.50 and Perceptions ¼ 8.66.

H3 suggests the possibility that attribution has an effect on overall quality evaluation
beyond what it could have through perceptions on individual attributes. In order to test it, a
new ANCOVA was performed complemented by the Bonferroni test (Table 4). In this
model, the dependent variable is the overall evaluation and the independent variables
are the attribution (origin attributed to the failure), the negative perceptions, and the mag-
nitude of failure (these last two as covariates). The results show that, even though the
perceptions have a strong effect on the global evaluation, the attributions show a signifi-
cant independent effect, which allows the corroboration of the proposed hypothesis. It is
also interesting to observe that the effect of the magnitude of failure is diluted when
perceptions are incorporated: its effect on the overall evaluation exists only through the
perceptions on the individual attributes of the service.
H4 suggests the possible existence of a direct effect of attribution on satisfaction,
independently of the one already observed through perceptions and through overall evalu-
ation. The ANCOVA and the Bonferroni test results (Table 5) support this hypothesis.
The satisfaction is significantly higher when the attribution of the failure is external to
the company. The effect of the attribution (origin of the failure) is significant even incor-
porating negative perceptions as well as overall evaluation and the magnitude of failure as
control variables.

Conclusions
The aim of the present investigation was to analyse how failure attribution affects custo-
mer satisfaction in service companies. We have observed that the attribution of a failure to
internal causes of the bank, and therefore controllable by the firm (i.e. failures in which the
responsibility is attributed to the company) is associated with a lesser degree of satisfac-
tion with the service than attribution to factors external to the service provider.
However, the study intended to go further and explain in which stage or stages of the
cognitive process was the effect of attribution on satisfaction produced. Analysing the
138 V. Iglesias

Table 5. ANCOVA and Bonferroni test in Model 4.

Difference in satisfaction according Marginal
to the origin of the failure N Means means
Origin in employee attitude 80 2.72 3.02
Origin in structural causes of the 92 3.11 3.17
bank
Origin in causes not connected to 120 3.60 3.35
the bank
ANCOVA – Source of dispersion F Significance
Origin of the failure 10.04 0.000
Negative perceptions 51.88 0.000
Global quality 39.25 0.000
Magnitude of the failure 9.76 0.002
Bonferroni Test (I) Origin of failure (J) Origin of failure Mean difference Significance
(I2J)†
Origin in causes not connected to Origin in the employees 0.331 0.000
bank attitude
Origin in structural 0.174 0.024
causes of the bank
†
Based on the estimated marginal means.
Notes: Dependent variable: satisfaction; independent variables: origin and magnitude of failure, perceptions and
global quality.
Estimated values for Magnitude of failure ¼ 2.50; Perceptions ¼ 8.66; Global quality ¼ 2.86.

effects at three levels (perceptions on attributes level, overall quality evaluation level, and
satisfaction-reached level), we have observed a significant and differentiated impact of
attribution in each of them.
On the one hand, when the customer attributes the responsibility of the failure to the
service firm, it causes a negative effect in the quality perceptions of the different aspects of
the service provided by the firm. Not only is the specific attribute where the failure existed
affected, but the antecedent common to all these perceptions is affected by that attribution.
We could talk about a halo effect, in this case a negative halo, which affects perceptions of
each service component.
This effect could be sufficient to explain the effect of attribution on satisfaction: the
smaller perceptions of quality would affect overall evaluation and satisfaction. Neverthe-
less, we have verified that attribution has other additional effects to those mentioned earlier.
A significant effect also exists on the overall quality evaluation. Even controlling the
effect that the magnitude of failure and the perceptions on the attributes might have, we
have verified the presence of a direct effect of attribution on this variable. Individuals who
attribute failure to the service provider (particularly in the case of bad attitude of an employee)
make a less positive evaluation of the overall quality of the service encounter than those indi-
viduals who associate the failure to external causes. However, there are two possible origins
for this effect: the generation of negative affects towards the entity that could affect the overall
evaluation, or, remaining in the cognitive realm, the sensation of distributive injustice, that is,
customers’ perception that they are the one assuming the costs of a failure that should be
the responsibility of the company. The fact that the effect is only significant when
the failure is due to the employee attitude (and not to structural causes) makes us think that
the origin is found in the affects and not in the perception of distributive injustice.
Besides the influence of all the previous effects, we have detected an additional effect
of attribution on satisfaction. The satisfaction level is clearly inferior when the origin of
 The Service Industries Journal 139

the failure is associated with employee attitude than it is associated to a cause not
connected with the bank. Nevertheless, the difference in the satisfaction between this
last situation and in the cases where the origin is linked to structural causes of the
company reaches significant levels, but customer satisfaction is inferior in service encoun-
ters with failures in employee attitudes. This result is unexpected since the literature on the
subject usually considers that causes of a more stable nature (the structural ones) usually
affect satisfaction in a more negative way than causes of an unstable nature (employee atti-
tude). The reason for the result obtained might be found in that in actual service encounters
(not simulated), the customer’s, through experience leads already know of these structural
causes beforehand and may not expect too much with respect to the service received.
On the other hand, the unstable reasons (e.g. employee attitude) would be more
unexpected and could cause in them a higher negative reaction.
As limitations, and for future research lines, it is necessary to first mention that when
using a sample of actual service encounters, the heterogeneity of the services offered
create a certain difficulty in the subsequent analysis. We have tried to solve this
problem by incorporating a control variable, such as the magnitude of failure.
Secondly, it would be interesting to incorporate other variables that would allow an
even more in-depth study of the effects observed: especially the perceptions on justice
and the affects generated during the service encounter.
Moreover, the type of failures considered in the study was not accompanied by attempts
on the part of the service company to compensate the customer for the possible harm
caused. As the works of Smith et al. (1999), Hess et al. (2003) and Swanson and Kelley
(2001) have shown, when the company undertakes actions of this type, it can reduce the
negative consequences of the failure. It would be interesting to observe in which phase
of the cognitive processing of the information is this reduction effect produced.
In conclusion, we state that the attribution carried out by the customer on the failures in
the service affects the process of evaluation of quality at different stages. Following the
terminology of Mantel and Kardes (1999), we can say that it affects systematic as well
as heuristic processes. Thus, we have observed that causal attribution of the failure to
the firm produces a negative halo effect on the perceptions of different aspects of the
service. This would affect the systematic processing, as each of the inputs of information
used in the process would be affected to a greater or lesser extent, depending on the type of
attribution that the customer makes. But the attribution would also affect those customers
that followed a heuristic process, since, besides the effect on the individual perceptions, we
have seen how the type of attribution affects the overall evaluation of the service and the
satisfaction that the customer finally obtains. The attribution, thus, shows a fundamental
role in the generation of feelings of satisfaction of the customer, not only as a relevant
antecedent of these variables, but also as an element that affects the levels and causal
efficiency of other relevant antecedents.

References
Anderson, J.C., & Gerbing, D.W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and
recommended two-stage approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.
Bagozzi, R.P., Gurhan-Canli, Z., & Priester, J.R. (2002). The social psychology of consumer
behaviour. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Berkowitz, L. (1993). Towards a general theory of anger and emotional aggression: Implications of
the cognitive-neoassociationistic perspective for the analysis of anger and other emotions.
Advances in Social Cognition, 6, 1–46.
Casado, A.B., & Mas, F.J. (2002). The consumer’s reaction to delays in service. International
Journal of Service Industry Management, 13(2), 118–140.
140 V. Iglesias

Casado, A.B., Mas, F.J., & Azorı́n, A. (2004). Atribución, satisfacción, calidad percibida e intención
de conducta en el ámbito del fracaso del encuentro de servicio. Revista Europea de Dirección
and Economı́a de la Empresa, 13(1), 45–62.
Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source
versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5),
752–766.
Chaiken, S., Akiva, L., & Alice, H.E. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within
and beyond the persuasion context. In J.S. Uleman & J.A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought:
Limits of awareness, intention, and control (pp. 212–252). New York: Guilford.
Chebat, J.-C., Filiatrault, P., Gelinas-Chebat, C., & Vaninsky, A. (1995). Impact of waiting attribu-
tion and consumer’s mood on perceived quality. Journal of Business Research, 34(3),
191–196.
Clore, G.L., Schwarz, N., & Conway, M. (1994). Affective causes and consequences of social infor-
mation processing. In R.S. Wyer & T.K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (2nd ed.,
Vol. 1, pp. 323–369). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cronin, J.J., Brady, M.K., & Hult, G.T.M. (2000). Assessing the effects of quality, value, and cus-
tomer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments. Journal of
Retailing, 76(2), 193–218.
Cronin, J.J., & Taylor, S.A. (1992). Measuring service quality: A reexamination and extension.
Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 55–68.
Fishbein, M., & Middlestadt, S. (1995). Noncognitive effects on attitude formation and change.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4(2), 181–202.
Folkes, V.S. (1984). Consumer reactions to product failure: An attributional approach. Journal of
Consumer Research, 10(March), 398–409.
Folkes, V.S., Koletsky, S., & Graham, J.L. (1987). A field study of causal inferences and consumer
reaction: The view from the airport. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(January), 534–539.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(February), 39–50.
Hair, J.F., Jr., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., & Black, W.C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis (4th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
Hess, R.L., Ganesan, S., & Klein, N.M. (2003). Service failure and recovery: The impact of relation-
ship factors on customer satisfaction. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(2),
127–145.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.
Isen, A.M., Shalker, T.E., Clark, M., & Karp, L. (1978). Affect, accessibility of material in
memory, and behavior: A cognitive loop? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
36(1), 1–12.
Kelley, H.H. (1973). The process of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28(February),
107–128.
Mantel, S.P., & Kardes, F.R. (1999). The role of direction of comparison, attribute-based processing,
and attitude-based processing in consumer preference. Journal of Consumer Research,
25(March), 335–352.
Monroe, K. (1990). Pricing: Making profitable decisions. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Oliver, R.L. (1993). Cognitive, affective and attribute bases of the satisfaction response. Journal of
Consumer Research, 20(January), 418–430.
Oliver, R.L. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Oliver, R.L., & DeSarbo, W.S. (1988). Response determinants in satisfaction judgements. Journal of
Consumer Research, 14(January), 495–507.
Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L., & Zeithaml, V. (1991). Refinement and reassessment of the
SERVQUAL scale. Journal of Retailing, 67(4), 420–450.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Berry, L.L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for
measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12–40.
Pham, M.T., Joel, B.C., John, W.P., & Hughes, G.D. (2001). Affect monitoring and the primacy of
feelings in judgment. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(2), 167–188.
Ruiz, A. (1993). Segmentacion del mercado financiero al por menor en Asturias. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Oviedo, Spain.
 The Service Industries Journal 141

Shiv, B., & Fedorikhin, A. (1999). Heart and mind in conflict: The interplay of affect and cognition
in consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(December), 278–292.
Smith, A.K., Bolton, R.N., & Wagner, J. (1999). A model of customer satisfaction with service
encounters involving failure and recovery. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(3), 356–372.
Spreng, R.A., MacKenzie, S.B., & Olshavsky, R.W. (1996). A reexamination of the determinants of
consumer satisfaction. Journal of Marketing, 60(3), 15–32.
Swanson, S.R., & Kelley, S.W. (2001). Service recovery attributions and word-of-mouth intentions.
European Journal of Marketing, 35(1/2), 194–211.
Tom, G., & Lucey, S. (1995). Waiting time delays and customer satisfaction in supermarkets.
Journal of Services Marketing, 9(5), 20–29.
Tsiros, M., Mittal, V., & Ross, W.T., Jr. (2004). The role of attributions in customer satisfaction: A
reexamination. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(2), 476–483.
Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York: Springer.
Weiner, B. (2000). Attributional thoughts about consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research,
27(December), 382–387.
Woodall, T. (2003). Conceptualising ‘value for the customer’: An attributional, structural and dis-
positional analysis. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 12, 1–42.
Woodruff, R. (1997). Customer value: The next source for competitive advantage. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 25(2), 139–153.
Zajonc, R.B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist,
35(2), 151–175.