IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v120y2013i1p1-14.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Repairing trust with individuals vs. groups

Author

Listed:
  • Kim, Peter H.
  • Cooper, Cecily D.
  • Dirks, Kurt T.
  • Ferrin, Donald L.

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Kim, Peter H. & Cooper, Cecily D. & Dirks, Kurt T. & Ferrin, Donald L., 2013. "Repairing trust with individuals vs. groups," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 1-14.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:120:y:2013:i:1:p:1-14
    DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.08.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597812001033
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Laughlin, Patrick R. & Bonner, Bryan L. & Miner, Andrew G., 2002. "Groups perform better than the best individuals on Letters-to-Numbers problems," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 88(2), pages 605-620, July.
    2. Schweitzer, Maurice E. & Hershey, John C. & Bradlow, Eric T., 2006. "Promises and lies: Restoring violated trust," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 101(1), pages 1-19, September.
    3. Kim, Peter H., 1997. "When What You KnowCanHurt You: A Study of Experiential Effects on Group Discussion and Performance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 165-177, February.
    4. Moon, Henry & Conlon, Donald E. & Humphrey, Stephen E. & Quigley, Narda & Devers, Cynthia E. & Nowakowski, Jaclyn M., 2003. "Group decision process and incrementalism in organizational decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 92(1-2), pages 67-79.
    5. Dirks, Kurt T. & Kim, Peter H. & Ferrin, Donald L. & Cooper, Cecily D., 2011. "Understanding the effects of substantive responses on trust following a transgression," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 114(2), pages 87-103, March.
    6. Desmet, Pieter T.M. & Cremer, David De & Dijk, Eric van, 2011. "In money we trust? The use of financial compensations to repair trust in the aftermath of distributive harm," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 114(2), pages 75-86, March.
    7. Milch, Kerry F. & Weber, Elke U. & Appelt, Kirstin C. & Handgraaf, Michel J.J. & Krantz, David H., 2009. "From individual preference construction to group decisions: Framing effects and group processes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 242-255, March.
    8. Kim, Peter H., 1997. "Strategic Timing in Group Negotiations: The Implications of Forced Entry and Forced Exit for Negotiators with Unequal Power," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 71(3), pages 263-286, September.
    9. Gruenfeld, Deborah H & Mannix, Elizabeth A. & Williams, Katherine Y. & Neale, Margaret A., 1996. "Group Composition and Decision Making: How Member Familiarity and Information Distribution Affect Process and Performance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 1-15, July.
    10. Kim, Peter H. & Dirks, Kurt T. & Cooper, Cecily D. & Ferrin, Donald L., 2006. "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," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 99(1), pages 49-65, January.
    11. Kim, Peter H. & Diekmann, Kristina A. & Tenbrunsel, Ann E., 2003. "Flattery may get you somewhere: The strategic implications of providing positive vs. negative feedback about ability vs. ethicality in negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 90(2), pages 225-243, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Keck, Steffen, 2014. "Group reactions to dishonesty," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 124(1), pages 1-10.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Trust; Trust repair; Competence; Integrity; Apology; Denial; Group;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:120:y:2013:i:1:p:1-14. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.