Repairing violations of trustworthiness in negotiation

Daniel Druckman, Roy J. Lewicki, Sarah P. Doyle

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

There has been an ongoing debate in the research literature on violations of trustworthiness and the effectiveness of various forms of repair. In this article, three studies compare the effectiveness of several variables hypothesized to repair perceived trustworthiness in a negotiation context: (a) the use of words (accounts or apologies) versus deeds (compensation for the costs of violation), separately and in combination; (b) whether words or deeds pointed to the past or to the future; (c) the effect of an active or passive third-party monitor of the negotiation, and (d) the type of trustworthiness (competence versus integrity) that was violated. Results show support for the repair effects for deeds over words, and that a focus on the past violation (through either words or deeds) is more effective than looking toward the future. Deeds, rather than words, also accounts for the strong impact of the combination of the two courses of action. In addition, results show that an active third-party intervention has a stronger impact on repair than a passive intervention. Implications for theory and practice are discussed along with suggestions for future research.

LanguageEnglish
Pages145-158
Number of pages14
JournalJournal of Applied Social Psychology
Volume49
Issue number3
Early online date10 Jan 2019
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Mar 2019

Fingerprint

Negotiating
Compensation and Redress
Mental Competency
Costs and Cost Analysis
Research

Cite this

Druckman, Daniel ; Lewicki, Roy J. ; Doyle, Sarah P. / Repairing violations of trustworthiness in negotiation. In: Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 2019 ; Vol. 49, No. 3. pp. 145-158.
@article{29a87ed97f4c475daecb9063223c8c9b,
title = "Repairing violations of trustworthiness in negotiation",
abstract = "There has been an ongoing debate in the research literature on violations of trustworthiness and the effectiveness of various forms of repair. In this article, three studies compare the effectiveness of several variables hypothesized to repair perceived trustworthiness in a negotiation context: (a) the use of words (accounts or apologies) versus deeds (compensation for the costs of violation), separately and in combination; (b) whether words or deeds pointed to the past or to the future; (c) the effect of an active or passive third-party monitor of the negotiation, and (d) the type of trustworthiness (competence versus integrity) that was violated. Results show support for the repair effects for deeds over words, and that a focus on the past violation (through either words or deeds) is more effective than looking toward the future. Deeds, rather than words, also accounts for the strong impact of the combination of the two courses of action. In addition, results show that an active third-party intervention has a stronger impact on repair than a passive intervention. Implications for theory and practice are discussed along with suggestions for future research.",
author = "Daniel Druckman and Lewicki, {Roy J.} and Doyle, {Sarah P.}",
year = "2019",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1111/jasp.12571",
language = "English",
volume = "49",
pages = "145--158",
journal = "Journal of Applied Social Psychology",
issn = "0021-9029",
publisher = "Blackwell Publishing",
number = "3",

}

Repairing violations of trustworthiness in negotiation. / Druckman, Daniel; Lewicki, Roy J.; Doyle, Sarah P.

In: Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 49, No. 3, 03.2019, p. 145-158.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Repairing violations of trustworthiness in negotiation

AU - Druckman, Daniel

AU - Lewicki, Roy J.

AU - Doyle, Sarah P.

PY - 2019/3

Y1 - 2019/3

N2 - There has been an ongoing debate in the research literature on violations of trustworthiness and the effectiveness of various forms of repair. In this article, three studies compare the effectiveness of several variables hypothesized to repair perceived trustworthiness in a negotiation context: (a) the use of words (accounts or apologies) versus deeds (compensation for the costs of violation), separately and in combination; (b) whether words or deeds pointed to the past or to the future; (c) the effect of an active or passive third-party monitor of the negotiation, and (d) the type of trustworthiness (competence versus integrity) that was violated. Results show support for the repair effects for deeds over words, and that a focus on the past violation (through either words or deeds) is more effective than looking toward the future. Deeds, rather than words, also accounts for the strong impact of the combination of the two courses of action. In addition, results show that an active third-party intervention has a stronger impact on repair than a passive intervention. Implications for theory and practice are discussed along with suggestions for future research.

AB - There has been an ongoing debate in the research literature on violations of trustworthiness and the effectiveness of various forms of repair. In this article, three studies compare the effectiveness of several variables hypothesized to repair perceived trustworthiness in a negotiation context: (a) the use of words (accounts or apologies) versus deeds (compensation for the costs of violation), separately and in combination; (b) whether words or deeds pointed to the past or to the future; (c) the effect of an active or passive third-party monitor of the negotiation, and (d) the type of trustworthiness (competence versus integrity) that was violated. Results show support for the repair effects for deeds over words, and that a focus on the past violation (through either words or deeds) is more effective than looking toward the future. Deeds, rather than words, also accounts for the strong impact of the combination of the two courses of action. In addition, results show that an active third-party intervention has a stronger impact on repair than a passive intervention. Implications for theory and practice are discussed along with suggestions for future research.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85059829884&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/jasp.12571

DO - 10.1111/jasp.12571

M3 - Article

VL - 49

SP - 145

EP - 158

JO - Journal of Applied Social Psychology

T2 - Journal of Applied Social Psychology

JF - Journal of Applied Social Psychology

SN - 0021-9029

IS - 3

ER -