Repairing trust with individuals vs. groups

Peter H. Kim, Cecily Cooper, Kurt T. Dirks, Donald L. Ferrin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

48 Citations (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1-14
Number of pages14
JournalOrganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
Volume120
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2013

Fingerprint

Trustees
Mental Competency
Decision Making
Pressure
Violations
Research
Sequencing
Interaction
Integrity
Trust repair
Group decision making
Argumentation

Keywords

  • Apology
  • Competence
  • Denial
  • Group
  • Integrity
  • Trust
  • Trust repair

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Applied Psychology
  • Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

Cite this

Repairing trust with individuals vs. groups. / Kim, Peter H.; Cooper, Cecily; Dirks, Kurt T.; Ferrin, Donald L.

In: Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 120, No. 1, 01.01.2013, p. 1-14.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kim, Peter H. ; Cooper, Cecily ; Dirks, Kurt T. ; Ferrin, Donald L. / Repairing trust with individuals vs. groups. In: Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 2013 ; Vol. 120, No. 1. pp. 1-14.
@article{a5745a1d47014f03b94cc8f58e06fc1c,
title = "Repairing trust with individuals vs. groups",
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.",
keywords = "Apology, Competence, Denial, Group, Integrity, Trust, Trust repair",
author = "Kim, {Peter H.} and Cecily Cooper and Dirks, {Kurt T.} and Ferrin, {Donald L.}",
year = "2013",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.08.004",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "120",
pages = "1--14",
journal = "Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes",
issn = "0749-5978",
publisher = "Academic Press Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Repairing trust with individuals vs. groups

AU - Kim, Peter H.

AU - Cooper, Cecily

AU - Dirks, Kurt T.

AU - Ferrin, Donald L.

PY - 2013/1/1

Y1 - 2013/1/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Apology

KW - Competence

KW - Denial

KW - Group

KW - Integrity

KW - Trust

KW - Trust repair

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84867295919&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84867295919&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.08.004

DO - 10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.08.004

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84867295919

VL - 120

SP - 1

EP - 14

JO - Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

JF - Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

SN - 0749-5978

IS - 1

ER -