Search results

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This work contributes to the reconciliation literature by uncovering the underlying cognitive mechanisms and boundary conditions by which different verbal responses influence reconciliation.