The effects of attributions of intent and apology on forgiveness: When saying sorry may not help the story

Struthers, C. Ward; Eaton, Judy; Santelli, Alexander G.; Uchiyama, Melissa; Shirvani, Nicole

doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.02.006

Cited by 161 publications

(131 citation statements)

References 50 publications

(78 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

119

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Granted negotiators often make dispositional attributions, which shape negotiation process and outcomes (Morris, Larrick, & Su, 1999). Yet, people also attribute motives to others, such as purposes and needs (Ames, Flynn, & Weber, 2004;Malle, 1999;Malle et al, 2000;Reeder, 2009;Reeder, Vonk, Ronk, Ham, & Lawrence, 2004;Struthers, Eaton, Santelli, Uchiyama, & Shirvani, 2008). Motive attributions affect person perception (Reeder, 2009;Reeder et al, 2004) and attitude (Ames et al, 2004;Struthers et al, 2008).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Suspending judgment to create value: Suspicion and trust in negotiation

Sinaceur¹

2010

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Suspending judgment to create value: Suspicion and trust in negotiation

Sinaceur¹

2010

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…I'm sorry about what just happened.' In the no-apology When saying sorry may not help condition, participants received no message (see Frantz and Bennigson, 2005;McCullough et al, 1998;Ohbuchi et al, 1989;Struthers et al, 2008;Tomlinson et al, 2004;van Dijke and De Cremer, 2011 for a similar procedure).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In three studies we therefore operationalized an apology as the most effective and most common apology component -an expression of remorse, and contrast it to a commonly used baseline condition in the apology literature -a no-apology condition (i.e., an apology is When saying sorry may not help absent) (see e.g., Frantz and Bennigson, 2005;McCullough et al, 1998;Ohbuchi et al, 1989;Struthers et al, 2008;Tomlinson et al, 2004;van Dijke and De Cremer, 2011). In doing so, we are able to present a straightforward, yet meaningful model of apology effectiveness in the workplace.…”

Section: Overview Of Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

When saying sorry may not help: Transgressor power moderates the effect of an apology on forgiveness in the workplace

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When saying sorry may not help AbstractAn apology, as an expression of remorse, can be an effective response from a transgressor to obtain forgiveness from a victim. Yet, to be effective, the victim should not construe the transgressor's actions in a cynical way. Because low-power people tend to interpret the actions of high-power people in a cynical way, we argue that an apology (vs. no apology)from high-power transgressors should be relatively ineffective in increasing forgiveness from low-power victims. We find support for this moderated mediation model in a critical incidents study (Study 1), a forced recall study (Study 2) among employees from various organizations, and a controlled laboratory experiment among business students (Study 3).These studies reveal the limited value of expressions of remorse by high-power people in promoting forgiveness.

show abstract

“…The same kind of behavior can be displayed both intentionally as well as unintentionally (Leunissen, De Cremer, Reinders Folmer, & Van Dijke, 2013;Struthers, Eaton, Santelli, & Uchiyama, 2008). This allows us to manipulate in our experimental studies whether or not a follower transgressed morally or not by manipulating the intentionality of the transgression.…”

Section: Getting It Done Rightmentioning

confidence: 99%

Getting it done and getting it right: Leader disciplinary reactions to Followers’ moral transgressions are determined by construal level mindset

Houwelingen

Dijke

Cremer

2015

The Leadership Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

All normative leadership theories suggest that disciplining followers that transgress moral norms is a crucial leadership task. However, leaders sometimes yet fail to do so. Previous research has indicated that leaders may refrain from enacting discipline out of self-interest or from concern for the organization's interest. We explore another option: leaders may simply be unwilling to enforce moral norms because of a negative attitude towards them. We argue and show that leaders that construe norms on relatively low (i.e. concrete) levels are likely to see norms as annoying obstacles, whereas leaders that construe moral norms on high (i.e. abstract) levels will have a more positive view of norms. In line with this, high construal level leaders are likely to be willing to enforce moral norms through discipline in response to follower moral transgressions.Low construal level leaders, in contrast, actively avoid doing so. We show this effect in different contexts and for different types of leader discipline.

show abstract

The effects of attributions of intent and apology on forgiveness: When saying sorry may not help the story

Cited by 161 publications

References 50 publications

Suspending judgment to create value: Suspicion and trust in negotiation

Suspending judgment to create value: Suspicion and trust in negotiation

When saying sorry may not help: Transgressor power moderates the effect of an apology on forgiveness in the workplace

Getting it done and getting it right: Leader disciplinary reactions to Followers’ moral transgressions are determined by construal level mindset

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About