我们不能和多疑的人一起前进:在评估拒绝的赞赏时预测错误

IF 1.9 Q3 MANAGEMENT Journal of Trust Research Pub Date : 2020-01-02 DOI:10.1080/21515581.2020.1738944
Christopher P. Reinders Folmer, D. De Cremer, Maarten J. J. Wubben, Marius van Dijke
{"title":"我们不能和多疑的人一起前进:在评估拒绝的赞赏时预测错误","authors":"Christopher P. Reinders Folmer, D. De Cremer, Maarten J. J. Wubben, Marius van Dijke","doi":"10.1080/21515581.2020.1738944","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In light of public examples of false denials, it is unsurprising that people’s beliefs about denials often are negative. However, inconsistent with such beliefs, denials often are sincere, and can facilitate trust repair. To illuminate this mismatch, we advance a framework based on Construal Level Theory, to explain how people may make a forecasting error when predicting their responses to denials. In two experimental studies, we reveal that people who actually received a denial after a possible transgression (a) were less suspicious, and experienced greater trust, and (b) displayed more trusting behavior than people who imagined this. These results suggest that people underestimate the effectiveness of denials in the reconciliation process.","PeriodicalId":44602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trust Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21515581.2020.1738944","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"We can’t go on together with suspicious minds: Forecasting errors in evaluating the appreciation of denials\",\"authors\":\"Christopher P. Reinders Folmer, D. De Cremer, Maarten J. J. Wubben, Marius van Dijke\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/21515581.2020.1738944\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT In light of public examples of false denials, it is unsurprising that people’s beliefs about denials often are negative. However, inconsistent with such beliefs, denials often are sincere, and can facilitate trust repair. To illuminate this mismatch, we advance a framework based on Construal Level Theory, to explain how people may make a forecasting error when predicting their responses to denials. In two experimental studies, we reveal that people who actually received a denial after a possible transgression (a) were less suspicious, and experienced greater trust, and (b) displayed more trusting behavior than people who imagined this. These results suggest that people underestimate the effectiveness of denials in the reconciliation process.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44602,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Trust Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21515581.2020.1738944\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Trust Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2020.1738944\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Trust Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2020.1738944","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要鉴于虚假否认的公开例子,人们对否认的看法往往是负面的,这不足为奇。然而,与这种信念不一致的是,否认往往是真诚的,可以促进信任修复。为了阐明这种不匹配,我们提出了一个基于结构水平理论的框架,以解释人们在预测他们对否认的反应时可能会犯预测错误。在两项实验研究中,我们发现,在可能的违规行为后,真正得到否认的人(a)不那么可疑,体验到更大的信任,(b)表现出比想象中更信任的行为。这些结果表明,人们低估了和解进程中否认的有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
We can’t go on together with suspicious minds: Forecasting errors in evaluating the appreciation of denials
ABSTRACT In light of public examples of false denials, it is unsurprising that people’s beliefs about denials often are negative. However, inconsistent with such beliefs, denials often are sincere, and can facilitate trust repair. To illuminate this mismatch, we advance a framework based on Construal Level Theory, to explain how people may make a forecasting error when predicting their responses to denials. In two experimental studies, we reveal that people who actually received a denial after a possible transgression (a) were less suspicious, and experienced greater trust, and (b) displayed more trusting behavior than people who imagined this. These results suggest that people underestimate the effectiveness of denials in the reconciliation process.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
42.90%
发文量
9
期刊介绍: As an inter-disciplinary and cross-cultural journal dedicated to advancing a cross-level, context-rich, process-oriented, and practice-relevant journal, JTR provides a focal point for an open dialogue and debate between diverse researchers, thus enhancing the understanding of trust in general and trust-related management in particular, especially in its organizational and social context in the broadest sense. Through both theoretical development and empirical investigation, JTR seeks to open the "black-box" of trust in various contexts.
期刊最新文献
Social trust during the pandemic: Longitudinal evidence from three waves of the Swiss household panel study Integrating focal vulnerability into trust research Capturing the conversation of trust research On the intricate relationship between data and theory, and the potential gain afforded by capturing very low levels of media trust: Commentary on Mangold (2024) Is security still the chiefest enemy? The challenges and contradictions in European confidence- and security-building in the Cold War
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1