Communication after an integrity-based trust violation: How organizational account giving affects trust

R. Brühl; J.S. Basel; M.F. Kury

doi:10.1016/j.emj.2017.08.001

Communication after an integrity-based trust violation: How organizational account giving affects trust

R. Brühl, J.S. Basel, M.F. Kury

Department of Business and Management

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

How can an organization repair trust through communication after an ethical failure? This study examines how trust is repaired after an integrity-based trust violation using three different accounts: apology, excuse, and refusal. In our approach, we rely on two strands of attribution theory, which suggests that different attributions for responsibility and credibility affect trust. An experiment with n = 368 was conducted to explore trust repair effectiveness of apology versus refusal and apology versus excuse after an integrity-based trust violation. Results revealed apology as a double-edged sword; it repairs trust more successfully than refusal and excuse because it is evaluated as more credible. However, it is less successful than refusal and excuse because it is evaluated as more responsible. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	161-170
Number of pages	10
Journal	European Management Journal
Volume	36
Issue number	2
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2017.08.001
Publication status	Published - Apr 2018

Access to Document

10.1016/j.emj.2017.08.001

https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85026837924&doi=10.1016%2fj.emj.2017.08.001&partnerID=40&md5=c360a132deca24002f539a205b7533e9

Cite this

@article{77a05ea6495e4c93a605e2a0ba7d9c8d,

title = "Communication after an integrity-based trust violation: How organizational account giving affects trust",

abstract = "How can an organization repair trust through communication after an ethical failure? This study examines how trust is repaired after an integrity-based trust violation using three different accounts: apology, excuse, and refusal. In our approach, we rely on two strands of attribution theory, which suggests that different attributions for responsibility and credibility affect trust. An experiment with n = 368 was conducted to explore trust repair effectiveness of apology versus refusal and apology versus excuse after an integrity-based trust violation. Results revealed apology as a double-edged sword; it repairs trust more successfully than refusal and excuse because it is evaluated as more credible. However, it is less successful than refusal and excuse because it is evaluated as more responsible. {\textcopyright} 2017 Elsevier Ltd",

author = "R. Br{\"u}hl and J.S. Basel and M.F. Kury",

note = "cited By 13",

year = "2018",

month = apr,

doi = "10.1016/j.emj.2017.08.001",

language = "English",

volume = "36",

pages = "161--170",

journal = "European Management Journal",

issn = "0263-2373",

publisher = "Elsevier Ltd.",

number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Communication after an integrity-based trust violation: How organizational account giving affects trust

AU - Brühl, R.

AU - Basel, J.S.

AU - Kury, M.F.

N1 - cited By 13

PY - 2018/4

Y1 - 2018/4

N2 - How can an organization repair trust through communication after an ethical failure? This study examines how trust is repaired after an integrity-based trust violation using three different accounts: apology, excuse, and refusal. In our approach, we rely on two strands of attribution theory, which suggests that different attributions for responsibility and credibility affect trust. An experiment with n = 368 was conducted to explore trust repair effectiveness of apology versus refusal and apology versus excuse after an integrity-based trust violation. Results revealed apology as a double-edged sword; it repairs trust more successfully than refusal and excuse because it is evaluated as more credible. However, it is less successful than refusal and excuse because it is evaluated as more responsible. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd

AB - How can an organization repair trust through communication after an ethical failure? This study examines how trust is repaired after an integrity-based trust violation using three different accounts: apology, excuse, and refusal. In our approach, we rely on two strands of attribution theory, which suggests that different attributions for responsibility and credibility affect trust. An experiment with n = 368 was conducted to explore trust repair effectiveness of apology versus refusal and apology versus excuse after an integrity-based trust violation. Results revealed apology as a double-edged sword; it repairs trust more successfully than refusal and excuse because it is evaluated as more credible. However, it is less successful than refusal and excuse because it is evaluated as more responsible. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd

U2 - 10.1016/j.emj.2017.08.001

DO - 10.1016/j.emj.2017.08.001

M3 - Article

SN - 0263-2373

VL - 36

SP - 161

EP - 170

JO - European Management Journal

JF - European Management Journal

IS - 2

ER -

Communication after an integrity-based trust violation: How organizational account giving affects trust

Abstract

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this