Advertisement

Psychological Studies

, Volume 63, Issue 3, pp 253–265 | Cite as

Influence of Peers’ Types of Trust on Trust Repair: The Role of Apologies

  • Engin Bağış Öztürk
  • Niels G. Noorderhaven
Reflections

Abstract

This study aims to answer the question how previous trust experiences contextualize trust repair efforts. The concepts of calculus-based and relational trust are utilized to show the influence of the kind of trust on trust repair tactics, specifically apologies. We focus on a neglected referent of trust, that is trust between peers, and elucidate apology and its complements that might be effective between peers. We propose that the effectiveness of apologies and its specific complements depend not only on trust breach but also on the type of trust prior to a breach. Specifically, we claim that when apology is complemented with compensation or external attributions, these tactics repair trust more effectively in calculus-based trust. But, when apology is complemented with empathy, acknowledgment of violated norms, and extensive involvement, these tactics can effectively repair trust in relational trust. The paper aims to contribute to our understanding of apologies and the effectiveness of it under different conditions.

Keywords

Interpersonal trust Peer/coworker Type of trust Trust breach Trust repair Apology 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The first author’s contribution is supported by a grant from the Higher Education Council of Turkey and Center for Innovation Research at Tilburg University. We would like to thank Arzu Wasti (Sabanci University), Martyna Janowicz-Panjaitan (Tilburg University), and Selcen Kılıçaslan Gökoğlu (Dokuz Eylul University) for their suggestions on earlier versions of this paper

References

  1. Andiappan, M., & Treviño, L. K. (2011). Beyond righting the wrong: Supervisor-subordinate reconciliation after an injustice. Human Relations, 64(3), 359–386.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726710384530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Argyle, M. (1990). The social psychology of work. USA: Penguin.Google Scholar
  3. Aune, R. K., Metts, S., & Hubbard, A. S. (1998). Managing the outcomes of discovered deception. The Journal of Social Psychology, 138(6), 677–689.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224549809603254.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bachman, G. F., & Guerrero, L. K. (2006). Forgiveness, apology, and communicative responses to hurtful events. Communication Reports, 19(1), 45–56.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08934210600586357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bachmann, R., Gillespie, N., & Priem, R. (2015). Repairing trust in organizations and institutions: Toward a conceptual framework. Organization Studies, 36(9), 1123–1142.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840615599334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Basford, T. E., Offermann, L. R., & Behrend, T. S. (2014). Please accept my sincerest apologies: Examining follower reactions to leader apology. Journal of Business Ethics, 119(1), 99–117.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1613-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bies, R. J., Barclay, L. J., Tripp, T. M., & Aquino, K. (2016). A systems perspective on forgiveness in organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 245–318.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2016.1120956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bottom, W. P., Gibson, K., Daniels, S. E., & Murnighan, J. K. (2002). When talk is not cheap: Substantive penance and expressions of intent in rebuilding cooperation. Organization Science, 13(5), 497–513.  https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.5.497.7816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “We”? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 83–93.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.71.1.83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Canary, D. J., Cupach, W. R., & Serpe, R. T. (2001). A competence-based approach to examining interpersonal conflict: Test of a longitudinal model. Communication Research, 28(1), 79–104.  https://doi.org/10.1177/009365001028001003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carroll, B., & Simpson, B. (2012). Capturing sociality in the movement between frames: An illustration from leadership development. Human Relations, 65(10), 1283–1309.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726712451185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chan, M. E. (2009). “Why did you hurt me?” Victim’s interpersonal betrayal attribution and trust implications. Review of General Psychology, 13(3), 262–274.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chen, C. C., Saparito, P., & Belkin, L. (2011). Responding to trust breaches: The domain specificity of trust and the role of affect. Journal of Trust Research, 1(1), 85–106.  https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2011.552438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chiaburu, D. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2008). Do peers make the place? Conceptual synthesis and meta-analysis of coworker effects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1082–1103.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.1082.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Clark, M. S., & Grote, N. K. (2003). Close relationships. In T. Millon, M. J. Lerner, & I. B. Weiner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology (pp. 447–461). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. Clark, M. S., Mills, J., & Powell, M. C. (1986). Keeping track of needs in communal and exchange relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(2), 333–338.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.2.333.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Colquitt, J. A., & Rodell, J. B. (2011). Justice, trust, and trustworthiness: A longitudinal analysis integrating three theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6), 1183–1206.  https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.0572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 909–927.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.909.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Cook, K. S., Cheshire, C., & Gerbasi, A. (2006). Power, dependence, and social exchange. In P. J. Burke (Ed.), Contemporary social psychological theories (pp. 194–216). Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Cropanzano, R. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cropanzano, R., & Ambrose, M. L. (2001). Procedural and distributive justice are more similar than you think: A monistic perspective and a research agenda. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 119–152). Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Cross, S. E., Bacon, P. L., & Morris, M. L. (2000). The relational-interdependent self-construal and relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 791–808.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Cruess, S. R., Johnston, S., & Cruess, R. L. (2004). “Profession”: A working definition for medical educators. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 16(1), 74–76.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328015tlm1601_15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Cummings, L., & Bromiley, P. (1996). The organizational trust inventory. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 302–330). Thousand oaks: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Darley, J. M., & Pittman, T. S. (2003). The psychology of compensatory and retributive justice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 324–336.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Desmet, P. T. M., De Cremer, D., & Van Dijk, E. (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, 114(2), 75–86.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.10.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611–628.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.87.4.611.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Dirks, K. T., Kim, P. H., Ferrin, D. L., & Cooper, C. D. (2011). Understanding the effects of substantive responses on trust following a transgression. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114(2), 87–103.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.10.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Dirks, K. T., Lewicki, R. J., & Zaheer, A. (2009). Reparing relationships within and between organizations: Building a conceptual foundation. Academy of Management Review, 34(1), 68–84.  https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2009.35713285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Elangovan, A. R., Auer-Rizzi, W., & Szabo, E. (2015). It’s the act that counts: Minimizing post-violation erosion of trust. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 36(1), 81–96.  https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-07-2012-0090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Exline, J. J., Deshea, L., & Holeman, V. T. (2007). Is apology worth the risk? Predictors, outcomes, and ways to avoid regret. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26(4), 479–504.  https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2007.26.4.479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fehr, R., & Gelfand, M. J. (2010). When apologies work: How matching apology components to victims’ self-construals facilitates forgiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113(1), 37–50.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.04.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ferrin, D. L., Bligh, M. C., & Kohles, J. C. (2008). It takes two to tango: An interdependence analysis of the spiraling of perceived trustworthiness and cooperation in interpersonal and intergroup relationships. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 107(2), 161–178.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.02.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ferrin, D. L., Kim, P. H., Cooper, C. D., & Dirks, K. T. (2007). Silence speaks volumes: The effectiveness of reticence in comparison to apology and denial for responding to integrity- and competence-based trust violations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 893–908.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.893.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Ferris, G. R., Liden, R. C., Munyon, T. P., Summers, J. K., Basik, K. J., & Buckley, M. R. (2009). Relationships at work: Toward a multidimensional conceptualization of dyadic work relationships. Journal of Management, 35(6), 1379–1403.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309344741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Finkel, E. J., Rusbult, C. E., Kumashiro, M., & Hannon, P. A. (2002). Dealing with betrayal in close relationships: Does commitment promote forgiveness? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 956–974.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.82.6.956.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Frantz, C. M., & Bennigson, C. (2005). Better late than early: The influence of timing on apology effectiveness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41(2), 201–207.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2004.07.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Frawley, S., & Harrison, J. A. (2016). A social role perspective on trust repair. Journal of Management Development, 35(8), 1045–1055.  https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-10-2015-0149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gelfand, M. J., Major, V. S., Raver, J. L., Nishii, L. H., & O’Brien, K. (2006). Negotiating relationally: The dynamics of the relational self in negotiations. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 427–451.  https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2006.20208689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Gillespie, N., & Dietz, G. (2009). Trust repair after an organization-level failure. Academy of Management Review, 34(1), 127–145.  https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2009.35713319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Haesevoets, T., Joosten, A., Reinders Folmer, C., Lerner, L., De Cremer, D., & Van Hiel, A. (2016). The impact of decision timing on the effectiveness of leaders’ apologies to repair followers’ trust in the aftermath of leader failure. Journal of Business and Psychology, 31(4), 533–551.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-015-9431-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Heider, F. (1946). Attitudes and cognitive organization. The Journal of Psychology, 21(1), 107–112.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1946.9917275.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Hill, K. M., & Boyd, D. P. (2015). Who should apologize when an employee transgresses? Source effects on apology effectiveness. Journal of Business Ethics, 130(1), 163–170.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2205-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hui, C. H., Lau, F. L. Y., Tsang, K. L. C., & Pak, S. T. (2011). The impact of post-apology behavioral consistency on victim’s forgiveness intention: A study of trust violation among coworkers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(5), 1214–1236.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00754.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kim, P. H., Dirks, K. T., Cooper, C. D., & Ferrin, D. L. (2006). When more blame is better than less: The implications of internal versus external attributions for the repair of trust after a competence-versus integrity-based trust violation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99(1), 49–65.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.07.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kim, P. H., Ferrin, D. L., Cooper, C. D., & Dirks, K. T. (2004). Removing the shadow of suspicion: The effects of apology versus denial for repairing competence—versus integrity-based trust violations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 104–118.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.104.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Korsgaard, M. A., Brower, H. H., & Lester, S. W. (2015). It isn’t always mutual: A critical review of dyadic trust. Journal of Management, 41(1), 47–70.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314547521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kramer, R. M., & Lewicki, R. J. (2010). Repairing and enhancing trust: Approaches to reducing organizational trust deficits. The Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 245–277.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2010.487403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lau, D. C., & Liden, R. C. (2008). Antecedents of coworker trust: Leaders’ blessings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1130–1138.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.1130.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Leary, M. R. (2010). Affiliation, acceptance, and belonging: The pursuit of interpersonal connection. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology.  https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470561119.socpsy002024.
  51. Lewicki, R. J. (2006). Trust and distrust. In A. K. Schneider & C. Honeyman (Eds.), The negotiator’s fieldbook (pp. 191–202). Washington: American Bar Association.Google Scholar
  52. Lewicki, R. J., & Brinsfield, C. (2017). Trust Repair. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4(1), 287–313.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113147 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1996). Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research (pp. 114–139). London: SAGE.  https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452243610.n7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lewicki, R. J., McAllister, D. J., & Bies, R. J. (1998). Trust and distrust: New relationships and realities. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 438–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lewicki, R. J., Tomlinson, E. C., & Gillespie, N. (2006). Models of interpersonal trust development: Theoretical approaches, empirical evidence, and future directions. Journal of Management, 32(6), 991–1022.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206306294405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lewicki, R. J., & Wiethoff, C. (2000). Trust, trust development and trust repair. In M. Deutsch & P. T. Coleman (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (pp. 86–107). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  57. Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social Forces, 63(4), 967–985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Manusov, V., Trees, A. R., Reddick, L. A., Rowe, A. M., & Easley, J. M. (1998). Explanations and impressions: Investigating attributions and their effects on judgments for friends and strangers. Communication Studies, 49(3), 209–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.  https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1995.9508080335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal coopertion in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24–59.  https://doi.org/10.2307/256727.Google Scholar
  61. McCullough, M. E., Rachal, K. C., Sandage, S. J., Worthington, E. L., Brown, S. W., & Hight, T. L. (1998). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships: II. Theoretical elaboration and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(6), 1586–1603.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.6.1586.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. McCullough, M. E., Worthington, E. L., & Rachal, K. C. (1997). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(2), 321–336.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.2.321.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Molm, L. D., Takahashi, N., & Peterson, G. (2000). Risk and trust in social exchange: An experimental test of a classical proposition. American Journal of Sociology, 105(5), 1396–1427.  https://doi.org/10.1086/210434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Morrison, E. W., & Robinson, S. L. (1997). When employees feel betrayed: A model of how psychological contract violation develops. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 226–256.  https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1997.9707180265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Nooteboom, B. (2002). Trust: Forms, foundations, functions, failures and figures. London: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Ohbuchi, K., Kameda, M., & Agarie, N. (1989). Apology as aggression control: Its role in mediating appraisal of and response to harm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(2), 219–227.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.2.219.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Polanyi, M. (1962). Tacit knowing: Its bearing on some problems of philosophy. Reviews of Modern Physics, 34(4), 601–616.  https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.34.601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Pratt, M. G., & Dirks, K. T. (2007). Rebuilding trust and restoring positive relationships: A commitment-based view of trust. In J. E. Dutton & B. R. Ragins (Eds.), Exploring positive relationships at work: Building a theoretical and research foundation (pp. 117–136). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
  69. Pratt, M. G., Rockmann, K. W., & Kaufmann, J. B. (2006). Constructing professional identity: The role of work and identity learning cycles in the customization of identity among medical residents. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 235–262.  https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.20786060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(1), 95–112.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.1.95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Ren, H., & Gray, B. (2009). Repairing relationship conflict: How violation types and culture influence the effectiveness of restoration Rituals. Academy of Management Review, 34(1), 105–126.  https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2009.35713307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Robbennolt, J. K. (2013). The effects of negotiated and delegated apologies in settlement negotiation. Law and Human Behavior, 37(2), 128–135.  https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000020.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Robinson, S., & Rousseau, D. (1994). Violating the psychological contract: Not the exception but the norm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(December), 245–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393–404.  https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1998.926617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Schlenker, B. R., & Darby, B. W. (1981). The use of apologies in social predicaments. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44(3), 271.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3033840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Schlenker, B. R., Pontari, B. A., & Christopher, A. N. (2001). Excuses and character: Personal and social implications of excuses. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(1), 15–32.  https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0501_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Schlenker, B. R., & Weigold, M. F. (1992). Interpersonal processes involving impression regulation and management. Annual Review of Psychology, 43(1), 133–168.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.43.020192.001025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Schmitt, M., Gollwitzer, M., Förster, N., & Montada, L. (2004). Effects of objective and subjective account components on forgiving. The Journal of Social Psychology, 144(5), 465–486.  https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.144.5.465-486.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (2007). An integrative model of organizational trust: Past, present. And Future. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 344–354.  https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2007.24348410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Schweitzer, M. E., Hershey, J. C., & Bradlow, E. T. (2006). Promises and lies: Restoring violated trust. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101(1), 1–19.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.05.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Scott, M. B., & Lyman, S. M. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 33(1), 46–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. Shapiro, D. L., Sheppard, B. H., & Cheraskin, L. (1992). Business on a handshake. Negotiation Journal, 8(4), 365–377.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.1992.tb00679.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Shore, L. M., Tetrick, L. E., Lynch, P., & Barksdale, K. (2006). Social and economic exchange: Construct development and validation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(4), 837–867.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00046.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Sigal, J., Hsu, L., Foodim, S., & Betman, J. (1988). Factors affecting perceptions of political candidates accused of sexual and financial misconduct. Political Psychology, 9(2), 273–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Six, F., Nooteboom, B., & Hoogendoorn, A. (2010). Actions that build interpersonal trust: A relational signalling perspective. Review of Social Economy, 68(3), 285–315.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00346760902756487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Snyder, M., & Stukas, A. A. (1999). Interpersonal processes: The interplay of cognitive, motivational, and behavioral activities in social interaction. Annual Review of Psychology, 50(1), 273–303.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.273.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. Struthers, C. W., Eaton, J., Santelli, A. G., Uchiyama, M., & Shirvani, N. (2008). The effects of attributions of intent and apology on forgiveness: When saying sorry may not help the story. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(4), 983–992.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.02.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Takaku, S. (2001). The effects of apology and perspective taking on interpersonal forgiveness: A dissonance-attribution model of interpersonal forgiveness. The Journal of Social Psychology, 141(4), 494–508.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540109600567.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. Takaku, S., Weiner, B., & Ohbuchi, K. (2001). A cross-cultural examination of the effects of apology and perspective taking on forgiveness. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 20(1–2), 144–166.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X01020001007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Tan, H. H., & Lim, A. K. H. (2009). Trust in coworkers and trust in organizations. The Journal of Psychology, 143(1), 45–66.  https://doi.org/10.3200/JRLP.143.1.45-66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. Tinsley, D. B. (1996). Dialogue: Trust plus capabilities. Academy of Management Review, 21(2), 331–345.  https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1996.26111772.Google Scholar
  92. Tomlinson, E. C. (2011). The context of trust repair efforts: Exploring the role of relationship dependence and outcome severity. Journal of Trust Research, 1(2), 139–157.  https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2011.603507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Tomlinson, E. C., & Mayer, R. C. (2009). The role of causal attribution dimensions in trust repair. Academy of Management Review, 34(1), 85–104.  https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2009.35713291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Wasti, S. A., Tan, H. H., & Erdil, S. E. (2011). Antecedents of trust across foci: A comparative study of Turkey and China. Management and Organization Review, 7(2), 279–302.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2010.00186.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Wieselquist, J., Rusbult, C. E., Foster, C. A., & Agnew, C. R. (1999). Commitment, pro-relationship behavior, and trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(5), 942–966.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.5.942.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. Zand, D. E. (1972). Trust and managerial problem solving. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(2), 229.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2393957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Zheng, X., van Dijke, M., Leunissen, J. M., Giurge, L. M., & De Cremer, D. (2016). When saying sorry may not help: Transgressor power moderates the effect of an apology on forgiveness in the workplace. Human Relations, 69(6), 1387–1418.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726715611236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Academy of Psychology (NAOP) India 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Engin Bağış Öztürk
    • 1
  • Niels G. Noorderhaven
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Business AdministrationDokuz Eylul UniversityIzmirTurkey
  2. 2.Department of ManagementTilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations