Removing the Shadow of Suspicion: The Effects of Apology Versus Denial for Repairing Competence - versus Integrity-Based Trust Violations
Peter H. Kim
University of Southern California - Marshall School of Business
Donald L. Ferrin
Singapore Management University - Lee Kong Chian School of Business
Cecily D Cooper
University of Miami School of Business
Washington University in Saint Louis - John M. Olin Business School
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89, No. 1, pp. 104-118, February 2004
Marshall School of Business Working Paper No. MKT 06-09
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: 1) apologized for violations concerning matters of competence but denied culpability for violations concerning matters of integrity, and 2) 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 reveal 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 perceived violation.
Keywords: Trust, apology, denial, competence, integrity, guilt, innocenceAccepted Paper Series
Date posted: May 20, 2008 ; Last revised: January 30, 2009
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.629 seconds