The Role Of Causal Attribution Dimensions In Trust Repair

Tomlinson, Edward C.; Mryer, Roger C.

doi:10.5465/amr.2009.35713291

Cited by 440 publications

(492 citation statements)

References 69 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

476

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…2 The negative states that appear include the victim's attributions about the responsibility of the transgressor for the violation (Kim et al, 2009;Tomlinson & Mayer, 2009) Whereas trust building can easily be thought of as an active process, trust repair appears at first glance to be a reactive process. Both the transgressor and the victim must respond to a violation that has already occurred.…”

Section: P E R S P E C T I V E T a K I N G P R O A C T I V E T R U mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…More specifically, because perspective taking leads to increased interpersonal understanding, self-other overlap, and sympathy, it may allow individuals to consider factors that mitigate the transgressor's behavior, such as situational pressures, and/or a transgressor's beliefs about the action being a "necessary evil." 4 When a person is guilty of a transgression, determining his or her level of control and responsibility for the negative action is central for determining the effect of the action on trust and the necessity for trust-repair processes (Kim et al, 2009;Tomlinson 8c Mayer, 2009). More benign interpretations of the transgressor's actions should decrease the victim's negative affect, the perceived decrement in the transgressor's trustworthiness, as well as the victim's desire for revenge (Tomlinson 8c Mayer, 2009).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…4 When a person is guilty of a transgression, determining his or her level of control and responsibility for the negative action is central for determining the effect of the action on trust and the necessity for trust-repair processes (Kim et al, 2009;Tomlinson 8c Mayer, 2009). More benign interpretations of the transgressor's actions should decrease the victim's negative affect, the perceived decrement in the transgressor's trustworthiness, as well as the victim's desire for revenge (Tomlinson 8c Mayer, 2009). To the extent that a victim's perspective taking does lead to decreased negative affect, fewer negative attributions, and a diminished desire for revenge, cooperation may be restored.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Building and Rebuilding TrustWhy Perspective Taking Matters

Williams¹

2012

Restoring Trust in Organizations and LeadersEnduring Challenges and Emerging Answers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract[Excerpt] There is growing interest surrounding the function of perspective taking in social interactions and organizational life. In this chapter, I examine the role of perspective taking in trust building and trust repair. Whereas some researchers focus on the ability of perspective taking to elicit sympathy, concern, and cooperative behavior (Batson, Turk, Shaw, & Klein, 1995; Parker, Atkins, & Axtell, 2008; Parker & Axtell, 2001), others focus on the strategic impact of perspective taking (Epley, Caruso, & Bazerman, 2006;Galinsky, Maddux, Gilin & White, 2008;Galinsky & Mussweiler, 2001). I build on both streams of research by examining work that connects perspective taking to trustworthy, cooperative behavior and by delineating how the proactive (or more strategic) aspects of perspective taking can generate and repair trust. Williams, M. (2012) Suggested Citation Building and Rebuilding Trust Why Perspective Taking Matters M I C H E L E W I L L I A M S C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y I N T R O D U C T I O NThere is growing interest surrounding the function of perspective taking in social interactions and organizational life. In this chapter, I examine the role of perspective taking in trust building and trust repair. Whereas some researchers focus on the ability of perspective taking to elicit sympathy, concern, and cooperative behavior (Batson, Turk, Shaw, & Klein, 1995; Parker, Atkins, & Axtell, 2008; Parker & Axtell, 2001;), others focus on the strategic impact of perspective taking (Epley, Caruso, & Bazerman, 2006;Galinsky, Maddux, Gilin & White, 2008;Galinsky & Mussweiler, 2001). I build on both streams of research by examining work that connects perspective taking to trustworthy, cooperative behavior and by delineating how the proactive (or more strategic) aspects of perspective taking can generate and repair trust.Perspective taking refers to the process of "imagining another person's thoughts or feeling from that persons point of view" (Davis, 1996;Mead, 1934). Perspective taking not only fosters understanding and caring actions that build social bonds, but also is likely to play a central role in active trust building (Williams, 2007) and trust repair. Although trust building and trust repair involve many of the same processes, I use the term "trust building" to refer to processes that increase trust, from a neutral or positive initial state-one that has not been damaged. In contrast, I use "trust repair" to refer to processes used to increase trust once a preexisting level of trust has been decreased by the actions of one party, the transgressor. Rebuilding trust is more complicated than initial trust building because the victim, who has been harmed, is likely to be concerned about additional harm and predisposed to believe that greater trust in the transgressor is not warranted (Kim, Dirks, 8c Cooper, 2009).Perspective taking may help transgressors and victims take proactive steps to repair trust violations, especially asymmetric trust violations (i.e., violations that are initially e...

show abstract

Section: P E R S P E C T I V E T a K I N G P R O A C T I V E T R U mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Building and Rebuilding TrustWhy Perspective Taking Matters

Williams¹

2012

Restoring Trust in Organizations and LeadersEnduring Challenges and Emerging Answers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, a competence violation by the partner firm is a significant event under a prevention contract, as it represents a failure of focal firm managers to prevent the partner firm from missing the exchange goal. Thus, it leads focal firm managers to experience a very high-intensity negative emotional reaction, prompting reevaluation of partner trustworthiness (Tomlinson & Mayer, 2009). …”

Section: Competence Violationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Sociocognitive View of Repeated Interfirm Exchanges: How the Coevolution of Trust and Learning Impacts Subsequent Contracts

Weber

2017

Organization Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

their insightful comments while I was developing the paper. I also thank attendees of the University of Wisconsin Colloquia Series and an internal seminar at University of California, Irvine for their constructive feedback. I am also particularly grateful to my two anonymous reviewers and associate editor Nicholas Argyres for their guidance, which I feel improved the article significantly. Finally, I especially thank Russ Coff, Hart Posen, Kyle Mayer, Phil Bromiley and Margarethe Wiersema for their feedback on the paper during its development.

show abstract

“…Following an act of trust violation, the trustor undergoes "a cognitive reappraisal of the relationship" (Gillespie and Dietz, 2009: 133). As part of this process, they re-evaluate the trust breaker's ability, integrity and benevolence, possibly downgrading their initial assessment (Tomlinson and Mayer, 2009).…”

Section: Dynamics Of Trust Violation and Repairmentioning

confidence: 99%

A model of trust-repair discourse

Fuoli

Paradis

2014

Journal of Pragmatics

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article proposes a novel theoretical framework for examining trust-repair discourse. The model identifies two fundamental discourse strategies available to the trust-breaker when trust is at stake (i) to engage with and act upon the discourses that represent a potential source of distrust -neutralize the negative, (ii) to communicate a trustworthy discourse identity -emphasize the positive. These strategies are realized in discourse through the use of dialogic engagement and evaluative/a↵ective language, respectively. The ultimate communicative goal of the strategies is that of promoting the addressees' positive (re-)assessment of the speaker's ability, integrity and benevolence. The model is applied to the analysis of the CEO letter published by BP one year after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The analysis has the twofold purpose of demonstrating the viability of the model and determining the discourse strategies deployed by the CEO to repair trust in the company after the accident.

show abstract

The Role Of Causal Attribution Dimensions In Trust Repair

Cited by 440 publications

References 69 publications

Building and Rebuilding TrustWhy Perspective Taking Matters

Building and Rebuilding TrustWhy Perspective Taking Matters

A Sociocognitive View of Repeated Interfirm Exchanges: How the Coevolution of Trust and Learning Impacts Subsequent Contracts

A model of trust-repair discourse

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About