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 group...
Saved in:
Main Authors: | , , , |
---|---|
Format: | text |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
2012
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/lkcsb_research/3231 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/lkcsb_research/article/4230/viewcontent/Repairing_trust_with_individuals_afv.pdf |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Institution: | Singapore Management University |
Language: | English |
id |
sg-smu-ink.lkcsb_research-4230 |
---|---|
record_format |
dspace |
spelling |
sg-smu-ink.lkcsb_research-42302018-08-21T08:10:25Z Repairing Trust with Individuals vs. Groups KIM, Peter H. COOPER, Cecily D. DIRKS, Kurt T. FERRIN, Donald L. 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. 2012-01-01T08:00:00Z text application/pdf https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/lkcsb_research/3231 info:doi/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.08.004 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/lkcsb_research/article/4230/viewcontent/Repairing_trust_with_individuals_afv.pdf http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Research Collection Lee Kong Chian School Of Business eng Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University Trust Trust repair Competence Integrity Apology Denial Group Organizational Behavior and Theory |
institution |
Singapore Management University |
building |
SMU Libraries |
continent |
Asia |
country |
Singapore Singapore |
content_provider |
SMU Libraries |
collection |
InK@SMU |
language |
English |
topic |
Trust Trust repair Competence Integrity Apology Denial Group Organizational Behavior and Theory |
spellingShingle |
Trust Trust repair Competence Integrity Apology Denial Group Organizational Behavior and Theory KIM, Peter H. COOPER, Cecily D. DIRKS, Kurt T. FERRIN, Donald L. Repairing Trust with Individuals vs. Groups |
description |
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. |
format |
text |
author |
KIM, Peter H. COOPER, Cecily D. DIRKS, Kurt T. FERRIN, Donald L. |
author_facet |
KIM, Peter H. COOPER, Cecily D. DIRKS, Kurt T. FERRIN, Donald L. |
author_sort |
KIM, Peter H. |
title |
Repairing Trust with Individuals vs. Groups |
title_short |
Repairing Trust with Individuals vs. Groups |
title_full |
Repairing Trust with Individuals vs. Groups |
title_fullStr |
Repairing Trust with Individuals vs. Groups |
title_full_unstemmed |
Repairing Trust with Individuals vs. Groups |
title_sort |
repairing trust with individuals vs. groups |
publisher |
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University |
publishDate |
2012 |
url |
https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/lkcsb_research/3231 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/lkcsb_research/article/4230/viewcontent/Repairing_trust_with_individuals_afv.pdf |
_version_ |
1770571330786164736 |