Kim Peter H, Ferrin Donald L, Cooper Cecily D, Dirks Kurt T
Department of Management and Organization, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1421, USA.
J Appl Psychol. 2004 Feb;89(1):104-18. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.104.
Two studies were conducted to examine the implications of an apology versus a denial for repairing trust after an alleged violation. Results reveal that trust was repaired more successfully when mistrusted parties (a) apologized for violations concerning matters of competence but denied culpability for violations concerning matters of integrity, and (b) had apologized for violations when there was subsequent evidence of guilt but had denied culpability for violations when there was subsequent evidence of innocence. Supplementary analyses also revealed that the interactive effects of violation type and violation response on participants' trusting intentions were mediated by their trusting beliefs. Combined, these findings provide needed insight and supporting evidence concerning how trust might be repaired in the aftermath of a violation.
进行了两项研究，以检验在被指控违规后，道歉与否认对修复信任的影响。结果显示，当被怀疑的一方（a）就能力方面的违规行为道歉，但对诚信方面的违规行为否认有罪，以及（b）在有后续有罪证据时就违规行为道歉，但在有后续无罪证据时否认违规行为的有罪时，信任得到了更成功的修复。补充分析还显示，违规类型和违规回应对参与者信任意图的交互作用是由他们的信任信念介导的。综合来看，这些发现为违规后如何修复信任提供了必要的见解和支持证据。
