Publication Type

Journal Article

Publication Date

2-2004

Abstract

Two studies were conducted to examine the implications of an apology versus a denial for repairing trust after an alleged violation. Results reveal that trust was repaired more successfully when mistrusted parties (a) apologized for violations concerning matters of competence but denied culpability for violations concerning matters of integrity, and (b) had apologized for violations when there was subsequent evidence of guilt but had denied culpability for violations when there was subsequent evidence of innocence. Supplementary analyses also revealed that the interactive effects of violation type and violation response on participants' trusting intentions were mediated by their trusting beliefs. Combined, these findings provide needed insight and supporting evidence concerning how trust might be repaired in the aftermath of a violation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Keywords

apology, denial, repairing trust, integrity, competence, trust violations, evidence of guilt, job candidate

Discipline

Business | Organizational Behavior and Theory

Research Areas

Organisational Behaviour and Human Resources

Publication

Journal of Applied Psychology

Volume

89

Issue

1

First Page

104

Last Page

118

ISSN

0021-9010

Identifier

10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.104

Publisher

American Psychological Association

Additional URL

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.104

Share

COinS