Denials and apologies: pathways to reconciliation

Abstract Purpose This paper aims to examine how verbal responses (denials vs apologies) following a trust violation in cooperative relationships influence reconciliation by changing attributions of responsibility for the transgression and transgressor’s perceived integrity. Additionally, the moderating role of perceived sincerity of the response is examined. Design/methodology/approach Two experimental studies were conducted with 465 participants. Hypotheses were tested using ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions and moderated serial mediation analyses with bootstrapping procedures. Findings In the occurrence of integrity-based trust violations, denials are more effective than apologies to repair trust. The positive indirect effects of these verbal responses on reconciliation are explained by a two-part mediating mechanism (attribution of responsibility followed by transgressor’s perceived integrity). Additionally, when responses are perceived as highly credible, denials are much more effective in deflecting blame than apologies. Research limitations/implications This study contributes to the literature on trust repair by examining when and why managers’ verbal responses to breaches of trust may be more or less effective in restoring cooperative relationships. Practical implications Managers must be aware that their perceived integrity following a breach of trust is influenced by the level of responsibility taken. Therefore, they should choose wisely which defensive tactics (apologies or denials) to use. Social implications As trust plays a central role in many cooperative relationships, choosing an appropriate response after a transgression is critical to solving conflicts both within and between organizations. Originality/value This work contributes to the reconciliation literature by uncovering the underlying cognitive mechanisms and boundary conditions by which different verbal responses influence reconciliation.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Iwai,Tatiana, Carvalho,João Vinícius França
Format: Digital revista
Language:English
Published: Universidade de São Paulo 2022
Online Access:http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2531-04882022000300332
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
id oai:scielo:S2531-04882022000300332
record_format ojs
spelling oai:scielo:S2531-048820220003003322022-08-23Denials and apologies: pathways to reconciliationIwai,TatianaCarvalho,João Vinícius França Reconciliation Trust violations Apologies Denials Abstract Purpose This paper aims to examine how verbal responses (denials vs apologies) following a trust violation in cooperative relationships influence reconciliation by changing attributions of responsibility for the transgression and transgressor’s perceived integrity. Additionally, the moderating role of perceived sincerity of the response is examined. Design/methodology/approach Two experimental studies were conducted with 465 participants. Hypotheses were tested using ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions and moderated serial mediation analyses with bootstrapping procedures. Findings In the occurrence of integrity-based trust violations, denials are more effective than apologies to repair trust. The positive indirect effects of these verbal responses on reconciliation are explained by a two-part mediating mechanism (attribution of responsibility followed by transgressor’s perceived integrity). Additionally, when responses are perceived as highly credible, denials are much more effective in deflecting blame than apologies. Research limitations/implications This study contributes to the literature on trust repair by examining when and why managers’ verbal responses to breaches of trust may be more or less effective in restoring cooperative relationships. Practical implications Managers must be aware that their perceived integrity following a breach of trust is influenced by the level of responsibility taken. Therefore, they should choose wisely which defensive tactics (apologies or denials) to use. Social implications As trust plays a central role in many cooperative relationships, choosing an appropriate response after a transgression is critical to solving conflicts both within and between organizations. Originality/value This work contributes to the reconciliation literature by uncovering the underlying cognitive mechanisms and boundary conditions by which different verbal responses influence reconciliation.info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessUniversidade de São PauloRAUSP Management Journal v.57 n.3 20222022-09-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articletext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2531-04882022000300332en10.1108/rausp-07-2021-0142
institution SCIELO
collection OJS
country Brasil
countrycode BR
component Revista
access En linea
databasecode rev-scielo-br
tag revista
region America del Sur
libraryname SciELO
language English
format Digital
author Iwai,Tatiana
Carvalho,João Vinícius França
spellingShingle Iwai,Tatiana
Carvalho,João Vinícius França
Denials and apologies: pathways to reconciliation
author_facet Iwai,Tatiana
Carvalho,João Vinícius França
author_sort Iwai,Tatiana
title Denials and apologies: pathways to reconciliation
title_short Denials and apologies: pathways to reconciliation
title_full Denials and apologies: pathways to reconciliation
title_fullStr Denials and apologies: pathways to reconciliation
title_full_unstemmed Denials and apologies: pathways to reconciliation
title_sort denials and apologies: pathways to reconciliation
description Abstract Purpose This paper aims to examine how verbal responses (denials vs apologies) following a trust violation in cooperative relationships influence reconciliation by changing attributions of responsibility for the transgression and transgressor’s perceived integrity. Additionally, the moderating role of perceived sincerity of the response is examined. Design/methodology/approach Two experimental studies were conducted with 465 participants. Hypotheses were tested using ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions and moderated serial mediation analyses with bootstrapping procedures. Findings In the occurrence of integrity-based trust violations, denials are more effective than apologies to repair trust. The positive indirect effects of these verbal responses on reconciliation are explained by a two-part mediating mechanism (attribution of responsibility followed by transgressor’s perceived integrity). Additionally, when responses are perceived as highly credible, denials are much more effective in deflecting blame than apologies. Research limitations/implications This study contributes to the literature on trust repair by examining when and why managers’ verbal responses to breaches of trust may be more or less effective in restoring cooperative relationships. Practical implications Managers must be aware that their perceived integrity following a breach of trust is influenced by the level of responsibility taken. Therefore, they should choose wisely which defensive tactics (apologies or denials) to use. Social implications As trust plays a central role in many cooperative relationships, choosing an appropriate response after a transgression is critical to solving conflicts both within and between organizations. Originality/value This work contributes to the reconciliation literature by uncovering the underlying cognitive mechanisms and boundary conditions by which different verbal responses influence reconciliation.
publisher Universidade de São Paulo
publishDate 2022
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2531-04882022000300332
work_keys_str_mv AT iwaitatiana denialsandapologiespathwaystoreconciliation
AT carvalhojoaoviniciusfranca denialsandapologiespathwaystoreconciliation
_version_ 1756442034258837504