Why don't I trust you now? An attributional approach to erosion of trust
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the effects of the trustor's responsibility‐attributions for a trust violation and the trustee's frequency of prior violations on the subsequent erosion of trust in the relationship. Design/methodology/approach Data were collected from 120 middle‐senior level managers using a two‐part scenario‐based experimental design to test the impact of attributions and frequency of violations. Respondents' levels of trust and distrust were measured pre‐ and post‐violation as well as forgiving and a range of demographic variables. Findings Results showed that trust eroded (and distrust increased) more when trustors perceived the trustees as not wanting to fulfill the trust‐expectations than when they could not do so. Further, trustors were willing to tolerate a maximum of two violations before trust in the relationship eroded significantly. The results also showed that trustors who were relatively more forgiving were less likely to lose trust in the trustee after a violation, as were younger and less experienced individuals. Research limitations/implications Although scenario‐based experiments assess the cognitive states of the respondents rather than actual behaviors, they serve as a valuable first step. By highlighting the two‐step sequence that may underlie the trust erosion process and emphasizing the importance of using an attributional perspective, the paper invites future research on a range of factors such as patterns of violation, degrees of damage, etc. Collectively, they ought to lead to an integrated model of trust erosion. Practical implications For practicing managers, the results underscore the importance of maintaining trust by constantly meeting expectations. While they may be forgiven for one‐time mistakes in maintaining trust, they cannot be repeated without severely damaging the trust in the relationship. Also, employees need to be convinced that the erring manager or colleague has done his/her very best to prevent the violation. Originality/value This paper addresses an under‐investigated facet of trust research in organizations – erosion of trust – which is especially crucial in light of the growing awareness that most organizational relationships actually start off with high levels of trust rather than low trust. Thus, this study offers insights into maintaining (as opposed to building) trust.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle