Repairing trust with individuals vs. groups
By Peter H. Kim, Cecily D. Cooper, Kurt T. Dirks, Donald L. Ferrin. 2013
117 citations recorded by the source corpus.
This study incorporates insights from research on group decision-making and trust repair to investigate the differences that arise when alleged transgressors attempt to regain the trust of groups as compared to individuals. Results indicate that repairing trust is generally more difficult with groups than individuals, and both groups and individuals were less trusting when trustees denied culpability (rather than apologized) for a competence-based violation or apologized (rather than denied culpability) for an integrity-based violation. However, the interaction of violation-type and violation-response also ultimately affected the relative difficulty of repairing trust with groups vs. individuals, with the greater harshness of groups dissipating when the transgressors’ responses were effectively matched with the type of violation. Persuasive argumentation rather than normative pressure, furthermore, mediated these differences. Thus, the sequencing of individual vs. group assessments mattered, such that subsequent group assessments affected initial individual assessments but not the reverse.
Subfields: Safety Research, Sociology and Political Science
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/12fe71e09dbd09234e7130505c7f5b68c77134ba
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Safety Research
In Sociology and Political Science
Citations in the corpus
- An Exploration of the Structure of Effective Apologies (2016, methodology): “This was true even in Study 2, where the phrasing was drawn from scenarios used by Kim et al. (2004, 2006, 2013). A victim wants to know that the violator acknowledges ownership for creating the violation, even when taking such ownership may undermine the victim’s perception of the violator’s integr”