| Trust is an important part of good interpersonal relationships.However,individuals also violate trust in their interactions.Trust violation often leads to a decrease in interpersonal cooperation(Robinson,1996)or an increase in retaliation(Bies&Tripp,1996),etc.Its negative impact highlights the importance of trust restoration.An apology is a commonly used verbal repair method to repair broken relationships.Throughout the previous studies,researchers mainly used the method of apology or not to explore the impact of apology on trust restoration,while ignoring the different effects of apology on trust restoration.This study takes the type of apology as the starting point,and aims to explore which type of apology can better repair trust.Apologies have been controversial over the effectiveness of trust repair.Throughout previous studies,it was found that the content of the apology used by the researchers was inconsistent.In the research showing that apology is effective,the apology materials used include other ingredients(such as explanations,etc.)in addition to"sorry".In the research showing that the apology is invalid,the apology material used is only the sentence"I’m sorry".Based on this,according to the content of the apology,this research divides apologies that only contain"sorry"into simple apologies,and apologies that contain"sorry"but also involve other components into complex apologies.On this basis,the impact of simple-complex apology on trust restoration is discussed.Previous studies have explored the impact of complex apologies on trust restoration but did not specifically analyze which component of the complex apology content plays a key role in trust restoration.Previous studies have shown that explanation,as one of the key components of the content of apology,conveys to the victim the attribution information of the offender’s behavior,including three basic forms of promise,excuse,and denial.According to the theory of responsibility attribution,there are differences in the degree of responsibility of the three interpretation forms.Based on this,according to the degree of responsibility attribution,this study divides the complex apology into three types:sorry+committed complex apology,sorry+excuse complex apology,and sorry+denial complex apology,and further explores which specific explanation component of apology can play a better effect of trust repair.Based on the above problems,this study designed two experiments from the perspective of apology types.Experiment 1 is a single-factor experiment design between subjects,aiming to explore the impact of simple-complex apologies on trust restoration.The results of one-way analysis of variance showed that the main effect of apology type was significant,F(2,156)=4.54,p=0.012,η_p~2=0.055.After comparison,it is found that the trust repair of complex apology(M=6.57,SD=2.04)is better than simple apology(M=5.36,SD=2.38),p=0.007 and no apology group(M=5.53,SD=2.38),p=0.017;There was no difference in the trust repair effect between the simple apology(M=5.36,SD=2.38)and the no apology group(M=5.53,SD=2.38),p=0.707.This shows that,compared with a simple apology,a complex apology is more effective for trust restoration.Experiment 2 is also a single-factor experiment design between subjects,aiming to explore which interpretive component combined with sorry can produce a better repair effect.Participants were randomly assigned to the complex apology group of sorry+promise,the complex apology group of sorry+excuses,and the complex apology group of sorry+denial.The results of one-way analysis of variance showed that the main effect of complex apologies with different interpretation components was significant F(2,132)=3.35,p=0.038,η_p~2=0.05.The comparison afterwards shows that the complex apology of sorry+promise(M=5.15,SD=2.34)is better for trust restoration than the complex apology of sorry+excuses(M=4.24,SD=2.11),p=0.043,sorry+denied Complicated apology(M=4.16,SD=1.97),p=0.028;The complex apology of sorry+excuses(M=4.24,SD=2.11)and the complex apology of sorry+denial(M=4.16,SD=1.97)had no significant difference,p=0.853.This shows that when the explanatory component of sorry and promise is combined,the role of restoring trust can be better played.Through the above two experiments,this research got the following conclusions:(1)A simple apology"sorry"can’t repair trust very well.Only when"sorry"is made corresponding behavior explanation can promote trust repair.(2)Compared with the explanation form of excuse and denial,the behavior explanation of committing after"sorry"can better promote trust repair. |
PDF Full Text Request