Trust maintenance as a function of construal level and attributions: The case of apologies

Houwelingen, Gijs van; Dijke, Marius van; Cremer, David De

doi:10.1002/ejsp.2291

Cited by 10 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We based our proceedings on Leunissen et al (2013) as well as Van Houwelingen et al (2018) . Specifically, participants in the unintentional transgression condition read:…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In such cases, punishment functions to have a moral debt either partially or fully repaid, and forgiveness then further absolves the perpetrator from further (potentially disproportional) suffering. However, in practice many transgressions get punished but not forgiven ( Skitka and Bauman, 2008 ; Skitka, 2010 ) and some transgressions are forgiven but not punished ( Leunissen et al, 2013 ; Van Houwelingen et al, 2018 ). This is likely because, arguably, very different calculations go into inflicting punishment or granting forgiveness.…”

Section: Punishment Forgiveness and The Moral Ordermentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Two Sides of the Same Coin: Punishment and Forgiveness in Organizational Contexts

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Punishment and forgiveness are two very different responses to a moral transgression that both have been argued to restore perceptions of moral order within an organization. Unfortunately, it is currently unclear what motivates organizational actors to punish or forgive a norm transgressor. We build on social cognitive theory to argue that punishment and forgiveness of a transgressor are both rooted in self-regulatory processes. Specifically, we argue that organizational actors are more likely to respond to intentional transgressions with punishment, and to unintentional transgressions with forgiveness. However, these effects of transgressor intentionality should be found in particular among actors for whom moral identity is central (vs. peripheral). We find support for these predictions in a laboratory experiment and a field study among organizational leaders. By simultaneously studying punishment and forgiveness in organizational settings, we provide crucial insight in their shared motivational bases, as well as into important differences between the two.

show abstract

“…We based our proceedings on Leunissen et al (2013) as well as Van Houwelingen et al (2018) . Specifically, participants in the unintentional transgression condition read:…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Punishment Forgiveness and The Moral Ordermentioning

confidence: 99%

Two Sides of the Same Coin: Punishment and Forgiveness in Organizational Contexts

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…By the same token, high-level construal interferes with this very process. Because fewer potential circumstantial explanations are available to the punisher to re-attribute misbehavior to when engaging in cognitive abstraction, it is less likely that they engage in the kind of defensive circumstantial attribution processes we have described (Hess et al, 2018;Van Houwelingen et al, 2018). This is why high-level construal facilitates responding with the same kind of punishment to transgressions of the same kind whether or not these involved personal benefits.…”

Section: Cognitive Abstraction and Punitive (Im)partialitymentioning

confidence: 98%

“…The impact of negative events on one's self‐image can be minimized by attributing the misbehavior to circumstantial causes (Burger, 1981; Van Houwelingen, Van Dijke, & De Cremer, 2018). When you find out that the free mojitos and steaks you had been consuming on Friday nights were paid for with company money, you may be tempted to suppose that the perpetrator may just have forgotten to bring their personal card on these occasions.…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive foundations of impartial punitive decision making in organizations: Attribution and abstraction

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Partial decision making about disciplinary responses to misbehavior is generally considered unfair and undermines the effectiveness of punishment. Nonetheless, organizational actors often struggle to remain impartial in situations that call for punishment. Impartiality appears specifically hard to obtain when some element of the transgression reflects badly upon the punisher themselves, for instance, when in the past the punisher has benefited from the misbehavior, even if just derivatively. In this paper, we argue that in such cases, punishers tend to defensively attribute causes of the transgression to the circumstances in order to protect their own selfimage, thus leading them to relatively lenient punishments. However, we also suggest that psychological impartiality can be obtained through cognitive abstraction. An abstract understanding (high-level construal) of the punitive situation puts the focus squarely on the gist of the situation and makes circumstantial details less likely to be cognitively available. This hinders defensive circumstantial attribution. We show in a field study and an experiment that partiality in making decisions about punishments occurs under conditions of low-level (i.e., concrete) construal, whereas impartiality is facilitated by high-level (i.e., abstract) construal.

show abstract

“…Results revealed no other differences between tools than those previously described. Finally, numerous meta‐analyses have been conducted with the tool and no problems have been reported to us, some of which have been published.…”

Section: Validationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction, comparison, and validation of Meta‐Essentials: A free and simple tool for meta‐analysis

Suurmond

Rhee

Hak

2017

Research Synthesis Methods

660

422

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present a new tool for meta‐analysis, Meta‐Essentials, which is free of charge and easy to use. In this paper, we introduce the tool and compare its features to other tools for meta‐analysis. We also provide detailed information on the validation of the tool. Although free of charge and simple, Meta‐Essentials automatically calculates effect sizes from a wide range of statistics and can be used for a wide range of meta‐analysis applications, including subgroup analysis, moderator analysis, and publication bias analyses. The confidence interval of the overall effect is automatically based on the Knapp‐Hartung adjustment of the DerSimonian‐Laird estimator. However, more advanced meta‐analysis methods such as meta‐analytical structural equation modelling and meta‐regression with multiple covariates are not available. In summary, Meta‐Essentials may prove a valuable resource for meta‐analysts, including researchers, teachers, and students.

show abstract

Trust maintenance as a function of construal level and attributions: The case of apologies

Cited by 10 publications

References 44 publications

Two Sides of the Same Coin: Punishment and Forgiveness in Organizational Contexts

Two Sides of the Same Coin: Punishment and Forgiveness in Organizational Contexts

Cognitive foundations of impartial punitive decision making in organizations: Attribution and abstraction

Introduction, comparison, and validation of Meta‐Essentials: A free and simple tool for meta‐analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About