道歉还是补偿？修复策略对高、低权力受害方信任修复的影响

doi:10.12139/j.1672-0628.2023.03.018

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

本研究通过两个实验分别在恰好和超额经济补偿条件下比较了道歉和经济补偿对高、低权力受害方信任修复的影响。实验首先通过角色分配法操纵被试(信任方)的权力感(高、低)，然后要求其与受托方完成一定轮次的信任博弈，并且设置受托方在关键的轮次实施信任违背行为(不返还金钱)和信任修复行为(控制条件、道歉、经济补偿、道歉加补偿)，最后测量高、低权力受害方在信任修复行为后的投资金额。结果发现：(1)在恰好补偿条件下，道歉对低权力受害方的信任修复效果更好，经济补偿对高权力受害方的信任修复效果更好；(2)在超额补偿条件下，无论对于高权力还是低权力受害方，经济补偿都比道歉的信任修复效果更好。

关键词: 道歉, 经济补偿, 权力, 信任修复

Abstract:

This study conducted two experiments to examine whether the effectiveness of repair strategies (financial compensations vs. apologies) was moderated by the victim’s social hierarchy. Power was manipulated by varying the availability of alternatives during a trust game, and all participants were assigned as trustors. The participants were required to complete a certain round of trust game with the trustee, followed by an action by the trustee who broke that trust (did not return money). Subsequently, the offender offered different trust repair strategies after a trust violation (control, apologies, exact financial compensations, and apologies plus exact financial compensations). Finally, the investment amounts of high- and low-power victims were measured after the trust repair behavior. These results showed that when the financial compensation provided by the offender just made up for the victim’s economic loss, financial compensations were more effective than apologies in repairing trust for high-power victims, and apologies were more effective than financial compensations for low-power victims. However, when the financial compensation provided by the offender exceeded the economic loss of the victim, for both high-power and low-power victims, financial compensations were more effective than apologies on trust repair.

Key words: apology, financial compensation, power, trust repair

中图分类号:

B849

孙丽媛, 张宾衡, 王明辉, 张恩涛. 道歉还是补偿？修复策略对高、低权力受害方信任修复的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2023, 21(3): 418-424.

Liyuan SUN, Binheng ZHANG, Minghui WANG, Entao ZHANG. Apology or Compensation? The Impact of Repair Strategies on Trust Repair in High- and Low-Power Victims[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2023, 21(3): 418-424.

图/表 3

参考文献

	龚栩, 黄宇霞, 王妍, 罗跃嘉. 中国面孔表情图片系统的修订. 中国心理卫生杂志, 2011, 25 (1): 40- 46.
	袁博, 董悦, 李伟强. 道歉在信任修复中的作用: 来自元分析的证据. 心理科学进展, 2017, 25 (7): 1103- 1113.
	Anderson, C., John, O. P., & Keltner, D.. The personal sense of power. Journal of Personality, 2012, 80 (2): 313- 344. DOI
	Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K.. Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games and Economic Behavior, 1995, 10 (1): 122- 142. DOI
	Cui, Y. B., Zhang, X. H., Peng, X. B., & Chu, J. X.. How to use apology and compensation to repair competence- versus integrity-based trust violations in e-commerce. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 2018, 32, 37- 48. DOI
	De Cremer, D.. To pay or to apologize? On the psychology of dealing with unfair offers in a dictator game. Journal of Economic Psychology, 2010, 31 (6): 843- 848. DOI
	Desmet, P. T. M., De Cremer, D., & van Dijk, E.. In money we trust? The use of financial compensations to repair trust in the aftermath of distributive harm. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2011, 114 (2): 75- 86. DOI
	Gelbrich, K., Gäthke, J., & Grégoire, Y.. How much compensation should a firm offer for a flawed service? An examination of the nonlinear effects of compensation on satisfaction. Journal of Service Research, 2015, 18 (1): 107- 123. DOI
	Guinote, A.. How power affects people: Activating, wanting, and goal seeking. Annual Review of Psychology, 2017, 68, 353- 381. DOI
	Haesevoets, T., De Cremer, D., van Hiel, A., & van Overwalle, F.. Understanding the positive effect of financial compensation on trust after norm violations: Evidence from fMRI in favor of forgiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2018, 103 (5): 578- 590. DOI
	Haesevoets, T., Reinders Folmer, C., De Cremer, D., & van Hiel, A.. Money isn’t all that matters: The use of financial compensation and apologies to preserve relationships in the aftermath of distributive harm. Journal of Economic Psychology, 2013, 35, 95- 107. DOI
	Haselhuhn, M. P., Kennedy, J. A., Kray, L. J., van Zant, A. B., & Schweitzer, M. E.. Gender differences in trust dynamics: Women trust more than men following a trust violation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2015, 56, 104- 109. DOI
	Hill, K. M., & Boyd, D. P.. Who should apologize when an employee transgresses? Source effects on apology effectiveness. Journal of Business Ethics, 2015, 130 (1): 163- 170. DOI
	Kim, P. H., Mislin, A., Tuncel, E., Fehr, R., Cheshin, A., & van Kleef, G. A. (2017). Power as an emotional liability: Implications for perceived authenticity and trust after a transgression. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146(10), 1379–1401.
	Müller, J., & Schwieren, C. (2020). Big five personality factors in the trust game. Journal of Business Economics, 90(1), 37–55.
	Ohtsubo, Y. (2020). Does financial compensation need to be accompanied by verbal apologies? Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 26(1), 96–99.
	Reinders Folmer, C. P., Desmet, P. T. M., & van Boom, W. H. (2019). Beyond compensation? Examining the role of apologies in the restoration of victims’ needs in simulated tort cases. Law and Human Behavior, 43(4), 329–341.
	Rucker, D. D., Galinsky, A. D., & Dubois, D. (2012). Power and consumer behavior: How power shapes who and what consumers value. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(3), 352–368.
	Schilke, O., Reimann, M., & Cook, K. S. (2015). Power decreases trust in social exchange. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(42), 12950–12955.
	Walfisch, T., van Dijk, D., & Kark, R. (2013). Do you really expect me to apologize? The impact of status and gender on the effectiveness of an apology in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(7), 1446–1458.

[1]	贺晓玲, 刘奕晴, 那琳娜. 3～5岁幼儿颜色映射道德和权力概念的认知发展[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(5): 636-641.
[2]	贾磊, 陆家豪, 王逸, 张常洁. 权力概念隐喻映射中的冲突控制：特征与过程[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(3): 417-423.
[3]	云祥. 权力感对道德困境判断的影响：基于CNI模型的分析[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2020, 18(4): 544-551.
[4]	张田, 傅宏. “对不起”有用吗：道歉对群际宽恕的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2019, 17(1): 119-125.
[5]	赵申苒, 康萌萌, 王明辉, 彭翠. 仁慈领导对员工亲环境行为的影响：上下属关系与权力距离的作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2018, 16(6): 819-826.
[6]	李宗波, 王明辉. 威权领导对员工沉默行为的影响:一个有调节的中介效应模型[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2018, 16(5): 713-719.
[7]	孙冬青, 傅鑫媛, 辛自强. 信任者权力对其人际信任的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2018, 16(1): 139-144.
[8]	徐悦, 段锦云, 李成艳. 仁慈领导对员工建言的影响：自我预防和自我提升的双重路径[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2017, 15(6): 839-845.
[9]	云祥, 李小平. 权力、任务框架对自我和为他人决策时风险偏好的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2017, 15(3): 417-423.
[10]	徐梦,李小平. 组织不公平与反生产行为的关系[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2017, 15(2): 282-288.
[11]	李亚强,陈朝阳,苏永强,杨琳琳,杨勇. 权力对观点采择的影响：权力动机的调节作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2016, 14(3): 399-405.
[12]	王垚, 李小平. 不同人际关系取向下的权力对利他行为的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2015, 13(4): 516-520.
[13]	云祥，李小平. 权力感的无意识启动:方法研究^*[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2014, 12(3): 315-320.
[14]	李艾丽莎,；胡竹菁；张庆林4. 决策权力和社会角色对混合动机冲突决策的影响[J]. , 2011, 9(2): 115-119.
[15]	焦璨, 张敏强, 吴利, 纪薇. 多元动机网格测验（MMG-S）中文版的修订报告[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2010, 8(1): 49-53.