Removing the shadow of suspicion: the effects of apology versus denial for repairing competence- versus integrity-based trust violations

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.     

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

This study examines the trust repair implications of apologizing with an internal vs. external attribution after a competence- vs. integrity-based trust violation. By considering theory regarding differences in the perceived diagnosticity of information about competence vs. integrity, we note that the conditions where external attributions would be more necessary for mitigating one’s blame are precisely the conditions where such external attributions are less likely to be believed. Moreover, empirical studies that have compared the relative benefits of external and internal attributions for repairing trust have reached conflicting conclusions regarding the response that should be used. We asked 189 college students to respond to videotaped scenarios in which they were asked to play the role of a manager and make decisions about hiring an accountant who had misfiled a tax return with a prior employer. Each participant was presented with one of four scenarios, which differed with respect to the type of violation (competence vs. integrity) and type of response (apology-internal vs. apology-external). The results revealed a significant interaction whereby trust was repaired more successfully when mistrusted parties apologized with an internal, rather than external, attribution when the trust violation concerned matters of competence, but apologized with an external, rather than internal, attribution when the trust violation concerned matters of integrity. These findings suggest that being guilty of an integrity-based violation can be so detrimental for trust that any mitigating response, even one that perceivers are likely to question, may prove worthwhile.     

Conciliatory gestures facilitate forgiveness and feelings of friendship by making transgressors appear more agreeable

The authors examined how conciliatory gestures exhibited in response to interpersonal transgressions influence forgiveness and feelings of friendship with the transgressor. In Study 1, 163 undergraduates who had recently been harmed were examined longitudinally. Conciliatory gestures exhibited by transgressors predicted higher rates of forgiveness over 21 days, and this relationship was mediated by victims' perceptions of their transgressors' Agreeableness. Study 2 was an experiment including 145 undergraduates who experienced a breach in trust from an anonymous partner during an iterated prisoner's dilemma. When transgressors apologized and offered financial compensation, participants reported higher levels of forgiveness and feelings of friendship when compared to a control condition and an aggravating condition. The effects of apology/compensation on forgiveness and perceived friendship were mediated by victims' perceptions of their transgressors' Agreeableness. Results suggest that conciliatory gestures promote forgiveness in part by depicting transgressors as more sympathetic, considerate, fair, and just (i.e., agreeable).     

感知社会善念对信任修复的促进：社会距离与时间距离的调节作用

从信任修复的时间阶段模型来看,以往研究主要探讨了信任违背发生后的修复策略及效果,而鲜有研究从违背前的视角对此展开探索。为检验社会善念能否作为信任修复的‘事前’策略及其修复效果的边界条件,本研究采用Somi范式操纵违背方的社会善念,通过让信任方完成信任博弈游戏来考察其感知到的社会善念对信任修复的效果及社会距离与时间距离在其中发挥的调节作用。实验1结果表明,感知社会善念有助于促进受损信任的修复,感知高(vs.低)社会善念的被试修复效果更好;实验2发现社会距离调节了感知社会善念对信任修复的影响,面对社会距离远(vs.近)者的信任违背,感知到高社会善念的被试有更好的修复效果;实验3不仅再次验证了前两个实验的发现,还进一步发现时间距离调节了社会距离与感知社会善念对信任修复的影响,即当社会距离远的违背方回应时间距离短时,感知高社会善念的被试修复效果更好,当社会距离近的违背方回应时间距离长时,感知高社会善念的被试修复效果更好。由此可见,违背发生前信任方感知到违背方的社会善念能在一定程度上修复受损信任,但其效果受到社会距离与时间距离的制约。这些发现对未来探讨信任修复的事前策略及社会善念理论的应用均有一定启示意义。     

组织信任修复的有效性：兼顾违背类型与修复策略的影响

已有关于信任修复的研究主要集中在正直和／或能力违背方面,关注特定信任修复策略的修复效果。本研究以修复机制划分修复策略,考察不信任的约束策略及信任的展示策略对于正直违背和善心违背的修复效果差异。以408名企业员工为被试,通过情景模拟法操作违背类型和修复策略,结果显示：组织信任的正直违背比善心违背破坏性更大,更难修复;约束策略对善心违背的修复效果显著高于对正直违背的修复效果;对正直违背来说,展示策略相对更有效。     

道歉在信任修复中的作用:来自元分析的证据

采用元分析方法对道歉的信任修复效果进行探讨。通过中英文献检索,共有18篇文献36个独立样本符合元分析标准(N=4731)。元分析的结果表明,道歉在信任修复中起到一定促进作用,呈中等效应量(d=0.44)。调节效应检验发现,信任违背类型的调节作用显著,相比于诚实型信任违背,道歉对能力型信任违背有较好的修复效果。此外,控制组设置对道歉的信任修复效果具有显著的调节作用,以沉默为控制组的信任修复效果优于以否认为控制组的信任修复效果。信任类型、道歉所包含的成分以及测量工具的调节作用均不显著。     

The reduction of psychological aggression across varied interpersonal contexts through repentance and forgiveness

Research on the resolution of interpersonal conflict has shown that forgiveness is important in reducing aggression and promoting prosocial interactions following a transgression. Although the benefits of forgiveness have been demonstrated in a variety of relationship contexts, a single theoretical model has not been tested across these different contexts. In this study, we employed an attributional framework to examine the relationship between attributions of responsibility for a transgression, repentance, emotions, forgiveness, and psychological aggression toward three different categories of transgressor: a coworker, a friend, and a romantic partner. One hundred and seven participants were asked to describe a recent transgression with a coworker, a friend, and a romantic partner. In each case, responsibility for the event, the degree to which the transgressor apologized, anger, sympathy, forgiveness, and subsequent psychological aggression toward the transgressor were measured. A basic model of aggression reduction, whereby repentance facilitates forgiveness and reduces psychological aggression, was reliable in each category of transgressor. A comparison of the models showed minor differences in how individuals respond to transgressors. Although coworkers apologized less, they were just as likely to be forgiven as romantic partners and friends. In addition, participants were least likely to respond with psychological aggression when a friend transgressed against them. This research provides a theoretical framework within which to study forgiveness and aggression across a variety of contexts. Aggr. Behav. 32:1–12, 2006. © 2006 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Memory for intergroup apologies and its relationship with forgiveness

This paper examines memory for collective apologies. Our interest was in determining whether people are aware of intergroup apologies and whether this contributes to forgiveness for offending groups. Surveys conducted in three nations affected by Japanese World War II aggression found that participants were more likely to believe (incorrectly) that Japan had not apologized for WWII than to believe (correctly) that they had (Study 1). In contrast, participants were eight times more likely to believe that a corporation had apologized for misconduct than to (correctly) recall that they had not (Study 1). Forgiveness levels were higher among those who believed the group had apologized than among apology deniers, although the effect was weak and inconsistent. However, in a follow‐up study that measured identification with the victim group it was found that high identifiers were significantly less likely to “remember” an apology (Study 2). Results suggest that memories for collective apologies are fluid and may not be causally related to intergroup forgiveness. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

信任者权力对其人际信任的影响

信任者权力对其人际信任的影响是基于双方权力的不对等实现的还是取决于信任者自身的权力水平的问题值得研究。为此,本研究在实验一中考查了信任博弈任务中信任者的权力感（与被信任者的权力水平无关）对其人际信任的影响,在实验二中通过角色扮演任务操纵信任者与被信任者的权力关系（对等vs.不对等）,同时测量信任者的人际信任倾向。结果表明：信任者自身的权力感影响其人际信任,低权力感个体比高权力感个体更信任他人;双方权力对等与否对信任者的人际信任倾向没有影响。可见,信任者权力更多是作为信任者自身的属性特征影响其人际信任,而不以双方权力层级不对等为前提。     

When and why creativity‐related conflict with coworkers can hamper creative employees' individual job performance

We examined when and why focal employees' creativity-related conflict with coworkers is related to their individual job performance. As hypothesized, a survey among 113 employees in 14 manufacturing work groups showed that creativity-related conflict with coworkers escalates into dysfunctional relationship conflict when focal employees have low rather than high trust in those coworkers. In its turn, relationship conflict with coworkers was found to be negatively associated with focal employees' individual job performance when they lack support from their supervisor. Finally, the indirect effect of creativity-related conflict on job performance through relationship conflict was found to be significant when both the first stage moderator of coworker trust and the second stage moderator of supervisory support were low rather than high.     

When and how forgiving benefits victims: Post‐transgression offender effort and the mediating role of deservingness judgements

For all the well‐established benefits of forgiveness for victims, when and how is forgiving more likely to be beneficial? Three experimental studies found that forgiving is more likely to be beneficial when victims perceived reparative effort by offenders such that offenders deserve forgiveness. Deservingness judgements were elicited by manipulating post‐transgression offender effort (apology/amends). When offenders apologized (Study 1; recall paradigm) or made amends (Study 2; hypothetical paradigm) and were forgiven—relative to transgressors who did not apologize/make amends but were still forgiven—forgiving was beneficial. These findings—that deserved forgiveness is more beneficial for victims than undeserved forgiveness—were replicated when forgiving itself was also manipulated (Study 3). Moreover, Study 3 provided evidence to indicate that if a victim forgives when it is not deserved, victim well‐being is equivalent to not forgiving at all. Of theoretical and practical importance is the mediating effect of deservingness on relations between post‐transgression offender effort and a victim's personal consequences of forgiving.     

Tolerance of Justice Violations: The Effects of Need on Emotional Reactions After Violating Equality in Social Dilemmas1

Equality is an important coordination rule in social dilemmas. Studies have shown that a violation of equality elicits strong negative emotions. This research addresses whether these emotional reactions occur when another group member is in need of social support. Results showed that participants reacted less negatively if equality was violated and the other person was in need. Moreover, it was shown that there are individual differences in the extent to which people are influenced by fairness violations in their emotional reactions. In particular, Conscientiousness was important for people's emotional reactions, and people low rather than high in Conscientiousness reacted more negatively. These findings are discussed in light of coordination rules and emotions in social dilemmas and individual differences.     

Group moral discount: Diffusing blame when judging group members

People lie more when they work as a group rather than alone. However, do people suspect and morally evaluate groups and individuals differently when they are suspiciously successful? In four experiments, we examine whether (a) suspiciously successful individuals and groups are judged and punished differently and (b) individual group members are judged differently from the group as one unit. Results suggest that people suspect successful groups and individuals to the same extent. However, group members are less likely to be suspected, judged negatively, punished, and reported on, when they are judged as separate individuals compared with as a group. The findings demonstrate a bias in judgment of group members, stemming from the method of evaluation—holistic or separate. We suggest that in order to minimize bias when judging misconduct by a group, the moral evaluation and punishment of all group members should be considered simultaneously.     

What happens when groups say sorry: the effect of intergroup apologies on their recipients

Despite the increased incidence of intergroup apology in public life, very little empirical attention has been paid to the questions of whether intergroup apologies work and if so, why. In a series of experiments, Australians read scenarios in which Australian interests had been harmed by an outgroup. Participants were then told that the outgroup had either apologized or had not apologized for the offense. Although the presence of an apology helped promote perceptions that the outgroup was remorseful, and although participants were more satisfied with an apology than with no apology, the presence of the apology failed to promote forgiveness for the offending group. This was the case regardless of whether the effectiveness of apology was measured cross-sectionally (Experiment 1) or longitudinally (Experiment 2). It was also the case when the apology was accompanied by victims advocating forgiveness (Experiment 3) and was independent of the emotionality of the apology (Experiment 4). In contrast, individuals who apologized for intergroup atrocities were personally forgiven more than those who did not apologize (Experiment 4). Theoretical and applied implications are discussed.     

‘The less I trust,the less I contribute (or not)?’ The effects of trust,accountability and self‐monitoring in social dilemmas

The present research examined the influence of trust, accountability, and self‐monitoring on individual decision makers' willingness to contribute in a give‐some game and in an experimental public goods dilemma. Previous research has shown that trust and contributions are positively related such that high trusters generally contribute more than low trusters. The present research questions the pervasiveness of this relation by arguing that low trusters may increase their contributions to the same level as those of high trusters, but only under circumstances where their decisions are highly identifiable to their interaction partner(s). Both studies showed that strong perceptions of trust, high accountability and high self‐monitoring influenced contributions positively. In line with predictions, individuals low in trust contributed up to the same level as high trusters when accountability was high rather than low. Moreover, this interaction between trust and accountability was only found among those classified as high self‐monitors. Our results suggest that the well‐known positive relation between trust and contributions may take a different form when situational cues and individual predispositions are taken into account. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

When What You Want is What You Get: Pay Dispersion and Communal Sharing Preference

The question of whether pay structures should be compressed or dispersed remains unanswered. We argue that pay dispersion can yield uncertainty regarding others' intentions and behaviors; as a result, individuals take a greater risk trusting their group members as pay spreads widen. Accordingly, we explore the conditions under which individuals are more willing to take this risk by viewing their group members as trustworthy even when pay is dispersed. Specifically, preferences for how relationships and resources should be structured in groups should help to determine when pay dispersion relates to trustworthiness perceptions. We hypothesise that the cross‐level interaction between preferences for communal sharing (Level 1)—that is, the extent to which individuals prefer communal, egalitarian structures in their groups—and pay dispersion (Level 2) is associated with trust perceptions. Data drawn from a sample of university professors support our hypothesised cross‐level interaction, and show that when pay dispersion is greater, individuals perceive their group members as more trustworthy only when they have weak preferences for communal sharing. Our results signify the importance of individual attributes to understanding pay dispersion's effects, and show that trust is fostered when preferences and pay conditions are aligned.     

Children's reasoning about the self‐presentational consequences of apologies and excuses following rule violations

The accounts given by those who have violated a rule are likely to have important self‐presentational consequences, potentially reducing the negative impact of the breach on social evaluations of transgressors. However, little is known about young children's self‐presentational reasoning about such accounts. In the present study, a sample of 120 4‐ to 9‐year‐olds responded to rule violation stories where the transgressor uses either an apology, an excuse, or no account. Results showed that whereas children rated both account types similarly in terms of their impact on punishment consequences, even the youngest saw apologies as leading to significantly more positive social evaluation than excuses. Correspondingly, children were more likely to identify prosocial motives for apologies than for excuses, and more likely to identify self‐protective motives for excuses than for apologies. Explicit references to self‐presentational motives when explaining the accounts increased significantly with age, and were more likely following social‐conventional rather than moral rule violations.     

Social dilemmas between individuals and groups

Three computer-controlled experiments were conducted to study interactions between individuals and non-cooperative groups in prototypical social-dilemma games. The asymmetric competition between an individual and a group was compared with symmetric control conditions where both competitors were either individuals or groups. All games were played repeatedly with the same players interacting for 120 rounds. The results show that the outcome of the conflict depends both on the type of competing players and on the structure of the competition. Generally, individuals do better than non-cooperative groups, regardless of the type of conflict, and more often than not it is better to have a non-cooperative group rather than an individual as an opponent. The relative advantage is a result of individuals generally cooperating better with other individuals (as compared to cooperation between two groups), and that in mixed competitions the individual takes advantage of the group’s difficulties in mobilizing collective-action, and dominates it.     

Reputational Implications of Procedural Fairness for Personal and Relational Self-Esteem

Four studies showed that procedural fairness (fair vs. unfair treatment by an authority figure) has reputational implications for personal and relational self-esteem. Participants relied on procedural fairness to infer their reputation, especially when they were identifiable (Study 1). Furthermore, concern for reputation moderated the influence of procedural fairness on self-esteem: Variations in procedural fairness were more strongly associated with the personal self-esteem of individuals high rather than low in concern for reputation (Studies 2–3). Finally, violations in procedural fairness (i.e., unfair treatment) led to a more substantial reduction in the relational self-esteem of positive-reputation than negative-reputation participants: The former felt more relationally devalued than the latter, when they were denied voice (Study 4).     

自恋人格调节信任博弈的结果评价

自恋人格个体表现出亲社会行为的减少和对他人的反馈敏感。信任是人类社会互动行为的基础,自恋人格特质可能影响他们的信任决策。为了探究自恋水平如何影响信任博弈中结果评价的大脑活动,本研究采用事件相关电位技术记录了38名被试完成单次信任博弈时的脑电波。行为结果发现相对高自恋者的信任选择率显著低于相对低自恋者的信任选择率。脑电结果表明,相对高自恋者信任损失反馈减互惠获利反馈所得的FRN差异波(d FRN)显著地大于相对低自恋者,并且相对高自恋者结果评价诱发的P300波幅显著地大于相对低自恋者。本研究提供了自恋人格个体信任博弈中结果评价的初步神经电生理学证据。