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 |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Department of Management and Organization, University of Southern California, Bridge Hall 307F, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1421, USA;2. Washington University in St. Louis, John M. Olin School of Business, One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA;3. Department of Management, University of Miami, 417 Jenkins Building Coral Gables, FL 33124, USA;4. Singapore Management University, Lee Kong Chian School of Business, 50 Stamford Road, Singapore 178899, Singapore;1. Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, 2001 Sheridan Road, Jacobs Center Room 501, Evanston, IL 60208, USA;2. Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, 2001 Sheridan Road, Jacobs Center Room 502, Evanston, IL 60208, USA;1. George Mason University, United States;2. University of Pennsylvania, United States;1. School of Accounting, University of New South Wales, 2052, Australia;2. School of Business, Faculty of Business and Economics, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong;3. Division of Accounting, Nanyang Technological University, 639798, Singapore;1. School of Management, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, 855 Washington Luiz Street, Porto Alegre, Brazil;2. Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Tweekerkenstraat 2, 9000 Ghent, Belgium |
| |
| Abstract: | 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. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
