An Abstract: Comparative Attributions in an Industry-Wide Service Failure

Abstract

When consumers face a service failure, they make attributions about the causes of the failure. This research compares the attributions made during the industry-wide service failure of the financial crisis. The attributions of systemically important bankers (SIBs), non-SIBs, and consumers about the causes of the financial crisis were compared to gain managerially useful insights. SIBs’ views of the crisis were extrapolated through a literature review of testimony, regulatory pronouncements, and peer-reviewed journal articles. Face-to-face interviews of non-SIBS provided access to their attributions. Consumers’ attributions were elicited via an online qualitative survey. Exposing how the attributions of different actors contrasted led to managerially useful ideas on how marketers can employ attributions and attribution theory. The misattributions of actors followed the implications of attribution theory and were thus both damaging to service recovery efforts and predictable. The findings showed that managers and consumers have the same attribution biases as attribution theory predicts which has serious implications for marketers. They revealed that analysis by attribution theory is managerially useful in a service failure. The research also showed that actors may make implications differently based on whether they are acting within an organization or as individuals. Attributions may also vary depending on whether they concern organizations or individuals. The study is limited to one industry, geographical area, and time period and needs to be replicated in other venues.