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

By Peter H. Kim, Kurt T. Dirks, Cecily D. Cooper, Donald L. Ferrin. 2006

565 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/71e63e9b6c36632c4c49dd51f10a131e7c592f23

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Almost human: Anthropomorphism increases trust resilience in cognitive agents. (2016, background): “If designers expect their automated aids to be incapable to perform certain tasks, it will help to create a human feature such as an apology or a rationale for why the aid might fail (Dzindolet et al., 2003) or even deny responsibility if the automation is not at fault (Kim et al., 2006).”
The Repair of Trust: A Dynamic Bilateral Perspective and Multilevel Conceptualization (2009, background): “Thus, to the extent that trustors are aware of such inclinations, they should be particularly disposed to attribute the transgressions of high-power trustees to a lack of integrity (Fragale, Rosen, Xu, & Merideth, 2009), as opposed to a lack of competence, and such attributions of low integrity shou”
Repairing trust with individuals vs. groups (2013, background): “This lack of findings for perceived competence is consistent with prior research using the same experimental paradigm (Ferrin et al., 2007, Kim et al., 2006).”
An Exploration of the Structure of Effective Apologies (2016, methodology): “Thus, while there was some general consistency in the order of importance of the components, the context of the Kim et al. (2004, 2006, 2013) scenario may have downplayed the importance of an Explanation and increased the importance of a Declaration of Repentance.”
From ‘automation’ to ‘autonomy’: the importance of trust repair in human–machine interaction (2018, unknown): “It should be noted that this recommendation is similar to findings in the human–human trust repair literature (e.g. Kim et al. 2006) and has some tentative support in a human–autonomy context (Quinn, Pak, and de Visser 2017).”
Foundations of Organizational Trust: What Matters to Different Stakeholders? (2010, unknown): “Trust, so defined, should be distinguished from dimensions of trustworthiness (Mayer and Davis 1999, p. 134); attributions along these dimensions are what create in the trustor a willingness to accept vulnerability (Branzei et al. 2007, Kim et al. 2006, Mayer and Davis 1999, Weber et al. 2005).”
Repairing and Enhancing Trust: Approaches to Reducing Organizational Trust Deficits (2010, background): “Two other studies also explored the role of apologies versus denials of responsibility and their effects (Ferrin, Kim, Cooper, & Dirks, 2007 ; Kim, Dirks, Cooper, & Ferrin, 2006 ; Kim, Ferrin, Cooper, & Dirks, 2004 ).”