解释水平视角下违背类型与修复策略对信任修复的影响
The Impacts of Violation Types and Repair Strategies on Trust Repair Based on Construal Level Theory
DOI: 10.12677/AP.2020.1011197, PDF,    科研立项经费支持
作者: 徐 宏, 何志芳*, 高 敏：江西中医药大学人文学院，江西 南昌
关键词: 信任违背；信任修复；解释水平理论；Trust Violation； Trust Repair； Construal Level Theory
摘要: 实验随机选取了南昌市219名在校大学生线上参与信任博弈(Trust Games)实验，基于解释水平理论(Construal Level Theory, CLT)，通过行为鉴别项目测试量表(Behavior Identification Form, BIF)测量他们的解释水平类型。实验结果表明：1) 在正直型违背类型中，低解释水平个体在惩罚方式下的信任修复效果比补偿方式好，与此相反，高解释水平个体在补偿策略下的信任修复效果更好；2) 在能力型违背类型中，高低解释水平的个体在补偿和惩罚两种策略下，信任修复的效果不存在明显的差异。这表明不同解释水平的个体在面对不同修复策略时，个体的信任修复效果有差异。另外，在不同的信任违背类型的情境下，不同解释水平的个体在面对不同的信任修复策略时，信任修复的效果是有差别的。
Abstract: The experiment randomly selected 219 college students in Nanchang to participate in the trust game experiment. Based on the Construal Level Theory (CLT), they passed the Behavior Identifi-cation Form (BIF) to explain the level type. The experimental results show that: 1) In the integri-ty-based trust violation, individuals with low construal levels have better trust repair effects under penalty methods than compensation methods. On the contrary, individuals with high construal levels have better trust repair effects under compensation strategies. 2) Among the compe-tence-based trust violation, there is no obvious difference in the effectiveness of trust restoration under the two strategies of compensation and punishment for individuals with different construal levels. This shows that individuals with different construal levels face different repair strategies, and their trust repair effects are different. In addition, in the context of different types of trust vi-olations, when individuals with different construal levels face different trust repair strategies, the effects of trust repair are different.
文章引用：徐宏, 何志芳, 高敏 (2020). 解释水平视角下违背类型与修复策略对信任修复的影响. 心理学进展, 10(11), 1695-1704. https://doi.org/10.12677/AP.2020.1011197

参考文献

[1] 陈阅, 时勘, 罗东霞(2010). 组织内信任的维持与修复. 心理科学进展, 18(4), 664-670.
[2] 程晓菲(2016). 惩罚政治代理人对政治信任修复的实证研究. 硕士学位论文, 西安: 西北大学.
[3] 韩平, 宁吉(2013). 基于两种信任违背类型的信任修复策略研究. 管理学报, 10(3), 390-396.
[4] 胡小玄(2019). 信任研究综述. 科教导刊(电子版), 7, 289.
[5] 黄雅君(2017). 不同信任违背类型下经济补偿及承诺对于信任修复的影响. 硕士学位论文, 芜湖: 安徽师范大学.
[6] 李明晖, 饶俪琳(2017). 解释水平视角下的道德判断. 心理科学进展, 25(8), 1423-1430.
[7] 刘建勋(2018). 不同心理距离下的道歉对信任修复的影响. 硕士学位论文, 开封: 河南大学.
[8] 王俊秀, 杨宜音(2013). 中国社会心态研究报告(2012~2013)/社会心态蓝皮书. 北京: 社会科学文献出版社.
[9] 王小予(2014). 经济补偿对信任修复效应的影响. 硕士学位论文, 重庆: 西南大学.
[10] 徐润生(2017). 人际关系经验对信任修复的影响. 硕士学位论文, 天津: 天津师范大学.
[11] 严瑜, 吴霞(2016). 从信任违背到信任修复:道德情绪的作用机制. 心理科学进展, 24(4), 633-642.
[12] 张正林, 庄贵军(2010). 基于时间继起的消费者信任修复研究. 管理科学, 23(2), 52-59.
[13] Agerström, J., & Björklund, F. (2013). Why People with an Eye toward the Future Are More Moral: The Role of Abstract Thinking. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 35, 373-381.[CrossRef] 
[14] Aguilar, P., Brussino, S., & Fernández-Dols, J.-M. (2013). Psychological Distance Increases Uncompromising Consequentialism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 449-452.[CrossRef] 
[15] Bozic, B. (2017). Consumer Trust Repair: A Critical Lite-rature Review. European Management Journal, 35, 538-547.[CrossRef] 
[16] Desmet, P. T. M., De Cremer, D., & van Dijk, E. (2011). In Money We Trust? The Use of Financial Compensations to Repair Trust in the Aftermath of Distributive Harm. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 114, 75-86.[CrossRef] 
[17] Dirks, K. T., Kim, P. H., Cooper, C. D., & Ferrin, D. L. (2005). Trust under Repair: Regulation and Punishment as Methods for Rebuilding Trust. Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Honolulu, 5-10 August 2005.
[18] Dirks, K. T., Kim, P. H., Ferrin, D. L., & Cooper, C. D. (2011). Understanding the Effects of Substantive Responses on Trust Following a Transgression. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 114, 87-103.[CrossRef] 
[19] Elangovan, A. R., Auer-Rizzi, W., & Szabo, E. (2007). Why Don’t I Trust You Now? An Attributional Approach to Erosion of Trust. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 4-24.[CrossRef] 
[20] Eyal, T., Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2008). Judging Near and Distant Virtue and Vice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1204-1209.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[21] Ferrin, D. L., & Dirks, K. T. (2003). The Use of Rewards to Increase and Decrease Trust: Mediating Processes and Differential Effects. Organization Science, 14, 18-31.[CrossRef] 
[22] Ferrin, D. L., Kim, P. H., Cooper, C. D., & Dirks, K. T. (2007). Si-lence Speaks Volumes: The Effectiveness of Reticence in Comparison to Apology and Denial for Responding to Integrity- and Competence-Based Trust Violations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 893-908.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[23] Fujita, K., & Carnevale, J. J. (2012). Transcending Temptation through Abstraction the Role of Construal Level in Self-Control. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 248-252.[CrossRef] 
[24] Fujita, K., & Han, A. H. (2009). Moving beyond Deliberative Con-trol of Impulses: The Effect of Construal Levels on Evaluative Associations in Self-Control Conflicts. Psychological Science, 20, 799-804.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[25] Giacomantonio, M., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Mannetti, L. (2010). Now You See It, Now You Don’t: Interests, Issues, and Psychological Distance in Integrative Negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 761-774.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[26] Gong, H., & Medin, D. L. (2012). Construal Levels and Moral Judgment: Some Complications. Judgment & Decision Making, 7, 628-638.
[27] Kim, H., & John, D. R. (2008). Consumer Response to Brand Extensions: Construal Level as a Moderator of the Importance of Perceived Fit. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18, 116-126.[CrossRef] 
[28] Kim, P. H., Ferrin, D. L., Cooper, C. D., & Dirks, K. T. (2004). Removing the Shadow of Suspicion: The Effects of Apology versus Denial for Repairing Competence—Versus Integrity-Based Trust Violations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 104-118.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[29] Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (1998). The Role of Feasibility and De-sirability Considerations in Near and Distant Future Decisions: A Test of Temporal Construal Theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 5-18.[CrossRef] 
[30] Rotter, G. S. (1967). An Experimental Evaluation of Group Attrac-tiveness as a Determinant of Conformity. Human Relations, 20, 273-281.[CrossRef] 
[31] Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Introduction to Special Topic Forum: Not So Different after All: A Cross-Discipline View of Trust. Academy of Manage-ment Review, 23, 393-404.[CrossRef] 
[32] Schweitzer, M. E., Brodt, S. E., & Croson, R. T. A. (2002). Seeing and Believing: Visual Access and the Strategic Use of Deception. International Journal of Conflict Management, 13, 258-375.[CrossRef] 
[33] Sitkin, S. B., & Roth, N. L. (1993). Legalistic Organizational Responses to Catastrophic Illness: The Effect of Stigmatization on Reactions to HIV/AIDS. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6, 291-312.[CrossRef] 
[34] Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal Construal. Psychological Review, 110, 403-421.[CrossRef] 
[35] Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1987). What Do People Think They’re Doing? Action Identification and Human Behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 3-15.[CrossRef]