Denials and apologies: pathways to reconciliation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1108/RAUSP-07-2021-0142Palabras clave:
Reconciliation, Trust violations, Apologies, DenialsResumen
PurposeThis paper aims to examine how verbal responses (denials vs apologies) following a trust violation in cooperative relationships influence reconciliation by changing attributions of responsibility for the transgression and transgressor’s perceived integrity. Additionally, the moderating role of perceived sincerity of the response is examined.
Design/methodology/approachTwo experimental studies were conducted with 465 participants. Hypotheses were tested using ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions and moderated serial mediation analyses with bootstrapping procedures.
FindingsIn the occurrence of integrity-based trust violations, denials are more effective than apologies to repair trust. The positive indirect effects of these verbal responses on reconciliation are explained by a two-part mediating mechanism (attribution of responsibility followed by transgressor’s perceived integrity). Additionally, when responses are perceived as highly credible, denials are much more effective in deflecting blame than apologies.
Research limitations/implicationsThis study contributes to the literature on trust repair by examining when and why managers’ verbal responses to breaches of trust may be more or less effective in restoring cooperative relationships.
Practical implicationsManagers must be aware that their perceived integrity following a breach of trust is influenced by the level of responsibility taken. Therefore, they should choose wisely which defensive tactics (apologies or denials) to use.
Social implicationsAs trust plays a central role in many cooperative relationships, choosing an appropriate response after a transgression is critical to solving conflicts both within and between organizations.
Originality/valueThis work contributes to the reconciliation literature by uncovering the underlying cognitive mechanisms and boundary conditions by which different verbal responses influence reconciliation.
Descargas
Referencias
Basford, T. E., Offermann, L. R., & Behrend, T. S. (2014). Please accept my sincerest apologies: Examining follower reactions to leader apology. Journal of Business Ethics, 119(1), 99–117, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1613-y.
Bradford, J. L., & Garrett, D. E. (1995). The effectiveness of corporate communicative responses to accusations of unethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 14(11), 875–892, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00882067.
Brühl, R., Basel, J. S., & Kury, M. F. (2018). Communication after an integrity-based trust violation: How organizational account giving affects trust. European Management Journal, 36(2), 161–170, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2017.08.001.
Donovan, L. A. N., & Priester, J. R. (2017). Exploring the psychological processes underlying interpersonal forgiveness: The superiority of motivated reasoning over empathy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 71, 16–30, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.02.005.
Elangovan, A. R., Auer‐Rizzi, W., & Szabo, E. (2007). Why don't I trust you now? An attributional approach to erosion of trust. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(1), 4–24, https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710721910.
Ferrin, D. L., Kim, P. H., Cooper, C. D., & Dirks, K. T. (2007). Silence speaks volumes: The effectiveness of reticence in comparison to apology and denial for responding to integrity- and competence-based trust violations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 893–908, https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.893.
Fulmer, C. A., & Gelfand, M. J. (2012). At what level (and in whom) we trust: trust across multiple organizational levels. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1167–1230, https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312439327.
Fuoli, M., van de Weijer, J., & Paradis, C. (2017). Denial outperforms apology in repairing organizational trust despite strong evidence of guilt. Public Relations Review, 43(4), 645–660, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.07.007.
Gillespie, N., & Dietz, G. (2009). Trust repair after an organization-level failure. Academy of Management Review, 34(1), 127–145, https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2009.35713319.
Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis (2nd ed.), New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Holtgrave, M., Nienaber, A.-M., Tzafrir, S. S., & Schewe, G. (2019). Cooperation in the face of conflict: Effects of top managers' trust beliefs in their firms' major suppliers. British Journal of Management, 28, 1467–8551, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12350.
Hornsey, M. J., Wohl, M. J. A., Harris, E. A., Okimoto, T. G., Thai, M., & Wenzel, M. (2020). Embodied remorse: Physical displays of remorse increase positive responses to public apologies, but have negligible effects on forgiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119(2), 367–389, https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000208.
Hulland, J., & Miller, J. (2018). Keep on Turkin? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46(5), 789–794, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-018-0587-4.
Janowicz-Panjaitan, M., & Krishnan, R. (2009). Measures for dealing with competence and integrity violations of interorganizational trust at the corporate and operating levels of organizational hierarchy. Journal of Management Studies, 46(2), 245–268, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00798.x.
Kassin, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1980). Prior confessions and mock juror verdicts. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 10(2), 133–146, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1980.tb00698.x.
Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.), NE symposium on motivation (Vol. 15, pp. 192–238). Lincoln: University of NE Press.
Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28(2), 107–128, https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034225.
Kim, P. H., & Harmon, D. J. (2014). Justifying one's transgressions: How rationalizations based on equity, equality, and need affect trust after its violation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 20(4), 365–379, https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000030.
Kim, P. H., Cooper, C. D., Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2013). Repairing trust with individuals vs. groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120(1), 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.08.004.
Kim, P. H., Diekmann, K. A., & Tenbrunsel, A. E. (2003). Flattery may get you somewhere: The strategic implications of providing positive vs. Negative feedback about ability vs. ethicality in negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90(2), 225–243, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00522-8.
Kim, P. H., Dirks, K. T., & Cooper, C. D. (2009). The repair of trust: A dynamic bilateral perspective and multilevel conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 34(3), 401–422, https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2009.40631887.
Kim, P. H., Dirks, K. T., Cooper, C. D., & Ferrin, D. L. (2006). When more blame is better than less: The implications of internal vs. external attributions for the repair of trust after a competence- vs. integrity-based trust violation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99(1), 49–65, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.07.002.
Kim, P. H., Ferrin, D. L., Cooper, C. D., & Dirks, K. T. (2004). Removing the shadow of suspicion: The effects of apology versus denial for repairing competence- versus integrity-based trust violations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 104–118, https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.104.
Kim, T., & Song, H. (2021). How should intelligent agents apologize to restore trust? Interaction effects between anthropomorphism and apology attribution on trust repair. Telematics and Informatics, 61, 101595, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2021.101595.
Kuwabara, K., Vogt, S., Watabe, M., & Komiya, A. (2014). Trust, cohesion, and cooperation after early versus late trust violations in two-person exchange. Social Psychology Quarterly, 77(4), 344–360, https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272514546757.
Lewicki, R. J., & Brinsfield, C. (2017). Trust repair. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4(1), 287–313, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113147.
Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1996). Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships. In R. M. Kramer, & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 114–139). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452243610.n7.
Lewicki, R. J., Polin, B., & Lount, R. B. (2016). An exploration of the structure of effective apologies. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 9(2), 177–196, https://doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12073.
Maddux, W. W., Kim, P. H., Okumura, T., & Brett, J. M. (2011). Cultural differences in the function and meaning of apologies. International Negotiation, 16(3), 405–425, https://doi.org/10.1163/157180611X592932.
Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(1), 123–136, https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.1.123.
Myers, C. (2016). Apology, sympathy, and empathy: The legal ramifications of admitting fault in U.S. public relations practice. Public Relations Review, 42(1), 176–183, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.10.004.
Oll, J., Hahn, R., Reimsbach, D., & Kotzian, P. (2018). Tackling complexity in business and society research: The methodological and thematic potential of factorial surveys. Business & Society, 57(1), 26–59, https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650316645337.
Risen, J. L., & Gilovich, T. (2007). Target and observer differences in the acceptance of questionable apologies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(3), 418–433, https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.3.418.
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393–404, https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1998.926617.
Russell, D. (1982). The causal dimension scale: A measure of how individuals perceive causes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(6), 1137–1145, https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.6.1137.
Struthers, C. W., Eaton, J., Shirvani, N., Georghiou, M., & Edell, E. (2008). The effect of preemptive forgiveness and a transgressor's responsibility on shame, motivation to reconcile, and repentance. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 30(2), 130–141, https://doi.org/10.1080/01973530802209178.
Struthers, C. W., Miller, D. L., Boudens, C. J., & Briggs, G. L. (2001). Effects of causal attributions on coworker interactions: A social motivation perspective. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 23(3), 169–181, https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324834BASP2303_3.
ten Brinke, L., & Adams, G. S. (2015). Saving face? When emotion displays during public apologies mitigate damage to organizational performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 130, 1–12, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2015.05.003.
Tomlinson, E. C. (2011). The context of trust repair efforts: Exploring the role of relationship dependence and outcome severity. Journal of Trust Research, 1(2), 139–157, https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2011.603507.
Tomlinson, E. C., Dineen, B. R., & Lewicki, R. J. (2004). The road to reconciliation: Antecedents of victim willingness to reconcile following a broken promise. Journal of Management, 30(2), 165–187, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2003.01.003.
Tomlinson, E. C., & Mayer, R. C. (2009). The role of causal attribution dimensions in trust repair. Academy of Management Review, 34(1), 85–104, https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2009.35713291.
Weber, J. M., Malhotra, D., & Murnighan, J. K. (2004). Normal acts of irrational trust: Motivated attributions and the trust development process. Research in Organizational Behavior, 26, 75–101, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(04)26003-8.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92(4), 548–573, https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.92.4.548.
Yu, Y., Yang, Y., & Jing, F. (2017). The role of the third party in trust repair process. Journal of Business Research, 78, 233–241, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.01.015.
Descargas
Publicado
Número
Sección
Licencia
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.
Management Department of the School of Economics, Management and Accounting of the University of São Paulo.
The publication of article segments is allowed, subject to prior authorization and source identification.
Copyright is regulated under Licença Creative Commons Attribution
