Publication Type
Journal Article
Version
submittedVersion
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
Citation
KIM, Peter H.; FERRIN, Donald L.; COOPER, Cecily D.; and DIRKS, Kurt T..
Removing the Shadow of Suspicion: The Effects of Apology Versus Denial for Repairing Competence- Versus Integrity-Based Trust Violations. (2004). Journal of Applied Psychology. 89, (1), 104-118.
Available at: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/lkcsb_research/2368
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 International License.
Additional URL
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.104