Repairing trust with individuals vs. groups
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.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 120 (2013)
Issue (Month): 1 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
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: (Shamier, Wendy)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.