Stream #10 Organizational Behaviour Competitive Session

Stream #10 Organizational Behaviour

Competitive Session

Conflict and willingness to cooperate at work: The role of apology and

forgiveness.

Dr. Oluremi Ayoko

School of Business, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

Email: [email protected]

Miss Rebecca Paterson

School of Business, University of Queensland, Brisbane Australia

Email: [email protected]

Page 1 of 23 ANZAM 2013

1

Conflict and willingness to co-operate at work: The role of apology and

forgiveness

ABSTRACT: We investigate the relationship between conflict, apology, forgiveness and work

outcomes over two studies. In Study 1, we explore the research questions with semi-structured

interviews from thirty organizational employees in Queensland. Results indicated that apologies

without a behavioural change were not perceived as genuine and might not foster forgiveness or

productivity. Study 2 quantitatively examines the connection between perceived apology sincerity,

forgiveness attitudes and willingness to co-operate. Data from 355 undergraduates revealed that the

link between relationship conflict and willingness to cooperate was mediated by forgiveness.

Additionally, perceived apology sincerity and forgiveness attitudes were positively linked with

forgiveness. Increased positive forgiveness attitudes, perceived apology sincerity were connected with

willingness to cooperate. We discuss the implications of our results.

Keywords: Conflict management, perceptions, attitudes and interpersonal behaviours

Introduction

Conflict is a pervasive organizational problem impacting employees’ work and interactions.

Conflict can be broadly defined as the experience between parties or among parties that their goals or

interests are incompatible or in opposition (De Dreu & Gelfand, 2008; Korsgaard, Jeong, Mahony, &

Pitariu, 2008). In particular, conflict between co-workers often results in decreased productivity,

morale and job satisfaction (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Iverson & Zatzick, 2011). In the present

research, we argue that conflict management or resolution has benefits for the individual employees

because it may assists in the restoration of working relationships, which in turn, should positively

impact the employees’ willingness to cooperate at work. Cooperation is the process by which

individuals, groups and organizations come together, interact and form different relationships for

mutual gain or benefit (Smith, Carroll & Ashford, 1995). In this regard, the willingness to cooperation

is core to interpersonal relationships that can eventually foster employee productivity. Yet, many

conflict episodes are rarely fully resolved but flare out from time to time (Ayoko & Hartel, 2003) and

may demotivate workers’ willingness to cooperate. Thus, in the present research, we propose that

conflict resolution or management strategy such as forgiveness is an important construct that may be

employed as a means of resolving conflict in the work environment (e.g. Freedman & Enright, 1996).

Forgiveness is described as a transformation of motives and emotions from a hostile to a more

pro-social orientation towards a transgressor following a hurtful event (McCullough 2000;

Page 2 of 23ANZAM 2013

2

Worthington, 2006). In this respect, forgiveness assists individuals to repair damaged workplace

relationships and overcome “debilitating thoughts and emotions that result from interpersonal injury”

(see Aquino, Grover, Goldman, & Folger, 2003 p. 210) such as conflict. We are aware that conflict

triggers negative emotions such as shame and guilt (Chen & Ayoko, 2012) and that the interactive

effect of relationship and task conflict contributes substantially to predict the propensity to leave the

current job (Medina, Munduate, Dorado, Martinez & Guerra, 2005). The above suggests that conflict

has the propensity to elicit employees’ unwillingness to cooperate at work. Yet, research that

examines factors (e.g. forgiveness) that are critical to managing conflict for future cooperation at work

is still relatively scarce. Thus, we conducted two studies to examine the relationship between conflict,

apologies, forgiveness and work outcomes (e.g. willingness to co-operate).

Our research makes three significant contributions to literature. First, research into the role of

conflict management strategies (avoiding, accommodating, problem solving etc.) still leave many

conflicts unresolved at work (Coleman, 2000). By investigating the connection between conflict and

apology, we extend the literature on how apology may be used to resolve conflict. Secondly, little

research has investigated the aftermath of conflict at work. By isolating the role of conflict in

employee’s willingness to cooperate after conflict, our understanding of how to improve cohesion and

productivity should significant improve. Finally, we extend literature on conflict by digging deeper

into the nexus between conflict, apology, forgiveness and willingness to cooperate. Outcomes of our

study should assist managers in gaining insight into fostering cohesion after conflict episodes.

STUDY 1

Research Design and Methodology

We collected data from a sample of thirty randomly selected participants from private and

public organizations in S.E. Queensland. 50% of them were from the private sector (law firms, banks)

while the remaining participants were from public sector organizations (health, insurance accounting

etc). 53% were female and majority of the participants were in the age range of 20-29 years.

Qualitative data are particularly appropriate for answering research question on perceptions (Crab &

Miller, 1992). Responses to the in-depth interview questions were transcribed and analysed.


3

Data Analysis: Systematic interpretative analysis

We analysed data using systematic interpretative techniques (i.e. content coding, content

analysis, linguistic text analysis) (cf Jehn, 1997) to identify the major themes arising from the data.

With this method, data segments are discrete thought units that were initially identified, categorized

and sorted into themes. Three raters who were familiar with the process of content analysis but

unfamiliar with research aims were employed to analyse the data. Crab and Miller (1992), argue that

this process reduces researcher’s bias and increases credibility. Inter-rater reliability was 87%.

Results of the Systematic Interpretative Analysis

The connection between conflict and apology

First, the thematic analysis revealed that employees find it difficult to relate to the concept of

apology at work. Majority (75%) of the participants stated that conflict is a hard concept to understand

and also remarked that they had not given much thought to the issue of apology in the context of

workplace conflict as illustrated below:

A: See I find this word apology difficult to get around. …..but there was never any attempt to

make an apology, and ….see I just find that difficult to understand... what all that’s about..”

S: So, the apology’s irrelevant really, it’s action that you would’ve wanted?

I: Yeah, because an apology’s not going to remove the stressor. And to me it wouldn’t even

feel as if it genuine.

Similarly, majority of the respondents were also unsure of what forgiveness is as indicated in the

excerpts below:

I: Forgive, hmm…I think I came to accept that I needed to change my behaviour – I needed to

stop being so emotionally needy and blah blah blah –….So, forgive, I’m not sure what forgive

means, it’s a funny term. I think I’m a bit resistant to the term forgive.

T: Yeah, I struggle with the term forgiveness. I truly don’t quite understand what it means. I

suppose I feel that I haven’t recovered totally, once I’m recovered totally, then it will be over.

In the same vein, apology was linked with individual’s personality and respondents remarked

that it may not be in the nature of some people to apologize. Also, participants suggested that apology

would be readily given by some individuals than others as indicated the excerpt below:

C. Um, yeah possibly. I think that [with] the type of personality though, of this individual [an

apology] probably wouldn’t have helped the situation anyway.

S: Mmm hmm, why is that?

C: Um, I just think that perhaps, like even an apology from this person, I wouldn’t be

convinced that it was a genuine and sincere apology, and I wouldn’t be convinced that it

wouldn’t happen again. I guess I would think that it was a superficial type of apology.


4

Moreover, over 79% of the respondents were of the opinion that apologies are not usually genuine or

even sincere as demonstrated by the excerpt below:

S: So you didn’t think it was sincere, his apology?

L: No, definitely not. He was as sarcastic as all get out.

S: So the apology didn’t help you to get over your feelings?

L: No, because I know that he doesn’t respect me.

The relationship between apology and forgiveness

About 60% of the participants were of the opinion that the link between apology and

forgiveness was not straight forward. These respondents discussed at length that apology without a

change in behaviour was not a genuine apology as demonstrated by the excerpt below:

S: So an apology wouldn’t have helped?

I: I don’t think so. If there was an apology and the behaviour discontinued, yes it would have

helped. But if there was an apology and the behaviour would have continued, which is what I

kind of would anticipate would have happened in this particular situation, then, I don’t think it

would have helped at all.

Some other respondents were of the opinion that “it is not so much of the apology per se, but it’s the

acknowledgement of what the situation was for the victim that will bring forth forgiveness as

described succinctly below:

I: Maybe, but because the behaviour was so embedded. The behaviour was a daily process of

controlling…., I imagine an apology would have done something. But I don’t know how much

good it’s going to do for a tiger snake to apologize after it’s bitten you and almost killed you.

The Role of Apology and Forgiveness in Resolving Workplace Conflict

Overall, data revealed that in 90% of the workplace conflict events, offenders do not tender

apology. Rather, they refuse to accept responsibility for causing the conflict. Data also showed that

other approaches such as “encouraging one or the both parties in conflict to leave the organization”

and conflict avoidance were the most popular conflict management strategies used.

Study 1: Discussion, Implications and Conclusion

Literature that spans the last fifty years suggests that conflict is pervasive and are damaging to

group and organisational effectiveness (Jehn & Nendersky, 2003). In the current research, we explored

the role of apology and forgiveness in resolving conflict at work. Findings showed that employees

believed that apology that does not involve a change in behaviour is not genuine and may not elicit


5

forgiveness. Besides, results showed a weak link between apology and forgiveness and conflict

resolution. Managers need to model apology and forgiveness and assist the development of this virtue

in other group members.

STUDY 2

Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses Development

The connection between conflict, apology, forgiveness, and willingness to cooperate may be

explained by attribution theory (Weiner, 1986). Attribution Theory (AT, Kelley, 1973; Ross and

Fletcher, 1985) explores how individuals attribute causes to events, and how they spontaneously

explain failures or conflicts. According to AT, how individuals perceive a situation directly affects

their behavioural responses to that event (Martinko & Thomson, 1998; Weiner, 1986). Moreover, AT

provides a means to explain constructs relevant to forgiveness such as apology and behavioural

control (Weiner, 1985). For example, our beliefs about the cause of events may be a key driver in

arriving at varying evaluations and reactions to the conflict. Such evaluations, in turn, evoke distinct

emotions and behaviours (Weiner, 1985; Weiner, 1995) upon which decisions to apologize or forgive

are based. Overall, we anchor our research on AT to explain how conflict may trigger employees’

perception of behaviours such as willingness to apologize, levels of forgiveness and cooperation in

future. Given Study 1’s results, we developed and tested a conceptual model that depicts perceived

apology sincerity, and attitudes to forgiveness as direct antecedents of employees’ willingness to

cooperate given conflict. Also, we conceptualised forgiveness as a mediator of this relationship.

Conflict, perceived apology sincerity and levels of forgiveness

We define conflict as the perceived incompatibilities or differences by parties of the views,

wishes and desires that each holds (De Dreu & Gelfand, 2008; Koorsgard et al., 2008) regardless of

any overt displays of hostility (Deutsch & Shichman, 1986). We know that perceived differences

produce psychological states that include feelings, cognitions and motivations that trigger behaviours

intended to reduce or resolve the tension (De Dreu, West, Fischer & MacCurtain, 2001). In particular,

the results of our qualitative study (Study 1) revealed that critical to forgiveness is the perception of a

sincere apology. McCullough, Worthington and Rachal (1997) propose that apologies have the

potential to allow the victim to empathize with the offender to foster an individual’s forgiveness


6

following conflict. Similarly, following workplace conflict, sincere apologies can motivate forgiveness

as the transgressor is perceived to be remorseful and thus, unlikely to commit the abhorrent behaviour

again (Davis & Gold, 2011; Donnoli & Wertheim, 2012) while there is evidence that the tendency to

forgive is influenced by behavioural consistency (Hui, Lau, Tsang & Pak, 2011). Thus, we argue that

given conflict, perceived sincere apology (like remorse) should be trigger consistent behavioural

consistency, which in turn, should be linked with increased forgiveness.

Hypothesis 1a: Perceived apology sincerity will be positively linked with forgiveness

Conflict, perceived apology sincerity and willingness to cooperate

Davis and Gold (2011) show that greater perceived remorse leads to greater forgiveness.

Moreover, perceived apology sincerity associated with reduced negative emotions such as anger

(Hubbard, Hendrickson, Fehrenbach & Sur, 2013) which may increase the cooperativeness of the

victim. Similarly, McNulty (2010) suggests that a sincere apology may signal to the victim a reduced

likelihood of reoffending. Given the above, we anticipate that perceived apology sincerity will be

positively linked willingness to cooperate. Thus:

Hypothesis 1b: Perceived apology sincerity is positively associated with willingness to

cooperate.

Attitudes towards forgiveness and actual forgiveness

Personality factors are correlated with forgiving behaviours (Maltby et al., 2008). For

example, internal factors such as self-esteem, narcissism and need for structure are associated with

reduced disposition to forgive and actual forgiveness (Eaton et al., 2006). Results from our Study 1

also revealed that individuals differ in their attitude to forgiveness and that some individuals are more

forgiving than others. Also, from attribution theory, we know that attitudes are underlying factors in

establishing a cause for behaviours and are critical to establishing forgiveness. Altogether, we argue

that an individual with a positive attitude towards forgiveness will be more likely to be linked with

actual forgiveness Thus:

Hypothesis 2a: Attitudes towards forgiveness is positively associated with actual forgiveness

Conflict, attitudes towards forgiveness and willingness to cooperate


7

Co-operation is often described as being in polar opposition to conflict (King, Hebl & Beal,

2009). It is the wilful contribution of employee’s effort to the successful completion of interdependent

organizational tasks (Wagner, 1995) and is manifested as employee’s willingness to work with other

(Chatman & Barsade, 1995). In the current research, we propose that individuals with a positive

attitude towards forgiveness will also be associated with willingness to cooperate. This is because

cooperative behaviours can be influenced by personality (Liebrand & McClintock, 1988). Maltby and

colleagues also show that personality factors may predict victim’s behaviours (e.g. revenge) even two

years following a conflict. Given the above, we reason that individuals who have a positive disposition

to be more forgiving would be more likely to engage in positive behaviours such as willingness to

cooperate after a conflict episode. Similarly, we posit that individuals with a positive attitude to

forgive will also be willing to cooperate with offender. In sum, we speculate that positive attitude

towards forgiveness will be connected with willingness to cooperation. Thus:

Hypothesis 2b: Attitudes towards forgiveness is positively associated with willingness to

cooperate.

Actual forgiveness and willingness to cooperate

We have already established that conflict can trigger dissatisfaction and poor morale (Iverson

& Zatzick, 2011). Extant literature also suggests that when there is a transgression (e.g. conflict),

victims are more prone to avoidance, withdrawal or revenge (Vasalou, Hopfensitz & Pitt, 2008). The

tendency to withdrawal after an offence suggests that the motivation to cooperate will be minimal.

Nevertheless, we know that forgiveness is a pro-social process through which the above negative

motivations towards the offender may be reduced and replaced by positive motivations (McCullough,

2001) such as willingness to cooperate. In this study therefore, we argue that in the face of conflict,

individuals who have a positive attitude to forgive will also be linked with increased willingness to

cooperate. Thus:

Hypothesis 3: Actual forgiveness will be positively linked to individual’s willingness to

cooperate with offender.

Forgiveness as a mediator in the relationship between perceived apology sincerity, attitude

towards forgiveness and willingness to cooperate


8

Individuals with cooperative disposition are motivated to understand and up hold social group

norms, satisfied by group interactions and are expectant of cooperative behaviour from other

(Chatman & Barsade, 1995). In the current research, we propose that given conflict, levels of

forgiveness will mediate the relationship between apology sincerity, attitudes towards forgiveness and

willingness to cooperate. Prior research findings suggest that apologies are effective at increasing

victim forgiveness and reducing anger and aggression toward the transgressor (e.g., Bennett &

Earwaker, 1994). Specifically, apologies that appear to be sincere are more successful at increasing

reconciliation (Hatcher, 2011; Risen & Gilovich, 2007; Tomlinson, Dineen, & Lewicki, 2004). Based

on the above, we propose that forgiveness will mediate the relationship between apology sincerity,

positive attitudes to forgiveness and will and willingness to cooperate after conflict. Thus:

Hypothesis 4a: The relationship between perceived apology sincerity and willingness to

cooperate will be mediated by level of forgiveness.

Hypothesis 4b: The relationship between attitudes to forgiveness and willingness to cooperate

will be mediated by level of forgiveness

METHOD

Participants

359 students (38% male and 62% female) were recruited from one of the major universities in

South East Queensland. Age ranged from 15-20 (47.1%) to 41-50 (0.60%) (See Table 1).

--------------------------------

Insert Table 1 about here

--------------------------------

Measures

We adapted Jehn’s Conflict Scale (1995) to measure conflict: relationship conflict (α = .87)

and task conflict (α = .94). Examples of items for relationship conflict include “We disagree about

non-work (social or personality) things” and for task conflict, “We had task-related disagreements”).

We measured forgiveness with an adapted scale from Guerrero and Bachman’s (2006)’s forgiveness

scale. Items include “To what extent have you forgiven the person you rated on this attitude scale”.

Similarly, we measured perceived apology sincerity scale also with another adapted Guerrero and

Bachman’s (2006) Apology/Making Amends scale (α=.93) and with items like: “To what extent did


9

the offender offer you a sincere apology for her/his words or actions?” Additionally, we measured

attitude toward forgiveness with an adapted Brown (2003) attitude to forgive scale. Items include: “I

believe that forgiveness is a moral virtue”. We also measured willingness to cooperate with adapted

Scott, Bishop and Chen (2003) willingness to cooperate scale. Sample items include” I am willing to

share more information with offending employee about work after a conflict event” All scales had a 7

Likert anchor e.g. from 1 “Strongly Disagree” to 7 “Strongly Agree”.

RESULTS

The aim of this study is to examine the role of conflict, apology and forgiveness in the

workplace context. We employed Hayes’ PROCESS (Hayes, 2012) bootstrapping for data analysis.

Results are based on 10,000 bootstrapped samples and are judged to be significant if the 95%

Confidence Intervals for the indirect effect do not go through 0 (Hayes, 2012).

Preliminary Analyses

Confirmatory factor analysis

A series of confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were conducted to test the factor structures of

these measures. Perceived apology sincerity and attitudes towards forgiveness items loaded onto the

latent constructs with a root mean square error approximation (RMSEA) of .07, comparative fit index

(CFI) of .97 and a normative fit index (NFI) of .96. Measures of willingness to cooperate also

reflected good model fit with a RMSEA of .04, a CFI of .99 and a NFI of .98. Conflict measures had a

good model fit (RMSEA = .08, CFI = .95, NFI = .93).

Descriptive statistics and correlations

Table 2 presents the means, standard deviations and correlations for conflict and each of the

variables within the model.

---------------------------------


---------------------------------

Control variables.

Gender (i.e. male) predicted scores on forgiveness (F (1,253) = 4.33, p = .039), perceived

apology sincerity (F (1, 319) = 12.56, p < .001) while attitude towards forgiveness (F (1, 317) = 6.16,

p = .014) correlated with females. Age (i.e. 31-40 yrs) significantly predicted scores on attitudes


10

towards forgiveness (F (3, 317) = 3.21, p = .023) and ethnicity (collectives) was significantly related

to scores of perceived apology sincerity (F (8, 308) = 2.62, p = .010). Tenure (i.e. 2-5 years) in

workplace was also significantly related to forgiveness (F (4, 225) = 2.82, p = .026). All of the above

demographic variables except organizational industry were controlled in the main analyses.

Conflict and forgiveness

As part of the preliminary analysis, we wanted to see the relationship between different types

of conflict, forgiveness, individuals’ willingness to co-operate. Specifically, the results showed a

negative association between relationship conflict and willingness to cooperate (b = -0.08, p = .378,

LLCI = -0.26, ULCI = 0.10). Additionally, the relationship between relationship conflict and

willingness to cooperate was mediated by levels of forgiveness (TE = -0.16, p = .091, LLCI = -0.35,

ULCI = 0.03). Task conflict was not significantly linked with forgiveness or willingness to cooperate.

Main Analyses: Direct Effects

Table 3 presents a summary of the direct effects. Perceived apology sincerity was positively

associated with forgiveness (b = 0.56, p < .001, LLCI = 0.44, ULCI = 0.67). Therefore, we retain H1a.

No significant association between perceived apology sincerity and willingness to cooperate was

revealed. Thus, we reject H1b.

---------------------------------


---------------------------------

Results indicated a significant positive association between attitudes towards forgiveness and

actual forgiveness (H2a) suggesting that when an individual has a greater positive attitude towards

forgiveness they were increasingly likely to be more forgiving (b = 0.42, p = .001, LLCI = 0.30, ULCI

= 0.54). Therefore, we accept H2a. Results also revealed that individuals who reported an increase in

positive attitude towards forgiveness also reported increase in willingness to cooperate (b = 0.31, p <

.001, LLCI = 0.17, ULCI = 0.45). Thus, we accept H2b.

Furthermore, we hypothesized that forgiveness would be positively related to individual’s

willingness to cooperate with the offender (H3). Results showed that increased forgiveness were

associated with increased willingness to cooperate (b = 0.21, p < .001, LLCI = 0.06, ULCI = 0.35).

Thus, we retain Hypothesis 3.


11

Forgiveness as a Mediator

The results of the indirect effects of levels of forgiveness analyses are summarized in Table 4.

An indirect relationship was found between perceived apology sincerity and willingness to cooperate.

Although there was no significant total effect (TE = 0.07, p = .212, LLCI = -0.05, ULCI = 0.20),

however, when the level of forgiveness was considered, higher levels of perceived apology sincerity

were associated with increased willingness to cooperate (IE = 0.11, LLCI = 0.02, ULCI = 0.23).

Therefore, the relationship between apology sincerity and willingness to cooperate is partially

mediated by level of forgiveness, and we therefore retain H4a.

---------------------------------


---------------------------------

An examination of the model also showed a significant total effect (TE = 0.40, p < .001, LLCI

= 0.27, ULCI = 0.53), and a significant indirect effect (IE = 0.13, SE = 0.05, LLCI = 0.01, ULCI =

0.17) of the levels of forgiveness as mediator between attitudes towards forgiveness and willingness

to cooperate. Over all, level of forgiveness partially mediates the relationship between attitudes

towards forgiveness and willingness to cooperate. We accept H4b.

DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSION

Research findings have advanced our understanding about the nature of conflict (De Witt et

al., 2012), forgiveness and apology and the role they might play in repairing damaged interactions

after transgression such as conflict (Davis & Gold, 2011; Hui et al., 2011). We extend this

understanding by investigating, in two studies, the connection between conflict, apology, attitudes to

forgiveness, forgiveness sincerity and willingness to cooperate at work. We found that only

relationship conflict was linked with forgiveness and willingness to cooperate. Also apologies without

behavioural change were not perceived as genuine and may not foster forgiveness and productivity.

Perceived apology sincerity and attitude to forgiveness were linked with forgiveness while increased

positive attitude to forgiveness were associated with willingness to cooperate. Our findings reiterate

the results of previous research (e.g. Brown, 2003; Eaton et al., 2005). For example, Eaton and

colleagues showed that certain traits can inhibit the ability to forgive and actually forgive. In support

of the above findings, our study also showed that a positive attitude towards forgiveness was


12

associated with increased actual forgiveness. Similarly, research on the sincerity of apology has

uncovered the important role of genuine apology in the activating forgiveness in the victim (Donnoli

& Wertheim, 2012). Our research findings confirm this. We found that individuals who reported

increased apology sincerity also reported increased levels of forgiveness. Our results extend literature

by showing that given conflict, increased positive forgiveness attitudes, perceived apology sincerity

and actual forgiveness were connected with willingness to cooperate. Finally, we extend conflict

literature by demonstrating that individuals who engage in relationship (than task) conflict also

reported low levels of forgiveness.

Practical Implications, Limitations and Future Research

Managers and organizational leaders who are interested in increasing cooperation and

cohesion after a conflict event should model a positive attitude towards forgiveness and display

genuine apology and forgiveness at work. Our study 1 findings suggest when there is conflict;

apologies without a behavioural change may not foster productivity. By encouraging employees to

activate a positive behavioural change (e.g. apologies/forgiveness) after conflict, productivity should

be higher through increased willingness to cooperate at work. Although we conducted both qualitative

and quantitative studies that bear strength to our results, our research is limited by the self-report and

cross-sectional nature of Study 2. Other than personality traits, future research should use both

qualitative and longitudinal methods to examine the antecedents of a positive attitude towards

forgiveness (e.g. climate) and willingness to co-operate at work.

Concluding Remarks

The present research examines the nexus between apology, forgiveness and willingness to

cooperate after a conflict episode. Our results showed relationship conflict is negatively associated

with forgiveness and willingness to cooperate. However, sincere apologies and a positive attitude

towards forgiveness were linked to forgiveness and willingness to cooperate. These findings extended

the literature on conflict and forgiveness. We now know which type of conflict is related to

forgiveness and willingness to cooperate at work while we have a better understanding of the need to

foster genuine apology and positive attitude to increase cooperation and productivity after conflict.


13

References

Aquino, K., Grover, S.L., Goldman, B., & Folger, R. (2003). When push doesn’t come to

shove: Interpersonal forgiveness in the workplace relationships. Journal of Management

Inquiry, 12(3), 209-216. doi: 10.1177/1056492603256337

Bennett, M., & Earwaker, D. (1994). Victims' responses to apologies: The effects of offender

responsibility and offense severity. The Journal of Social Psychology, 134(4), 457-464.

Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/199787512?accountid=14723

Brown, R. P. (2003). Measuring individual differences in the tendency to forgive: Construct

validity and links with depression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(6),

759-771. doi: 10.1177/0146167203029006008

Chatman, J. A., & Barsade, S. G. (1995). Personality, organizational culture, and cooperation:

Evidence from a business simulation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 423-443.

Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2393792

Chen, M. J., & Ayoko, O. B. (2012). Conflict and trust: the mediating effects of emotional

arousal and self-conscious emotions. International Journal of Conflict

Management, 23(1), 19-56. doi: 10.1108/10444061211199313

Coleman, P.T. (2000). Intractable conflict. In M. Deutsch & P. T. Coleman (Eds.), The

handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (pp. 428-450). San-Francisco,

USA: Jossey-Bass.

Crabtree, B.F., & Miller, W. L. (Eds.). (1992). Doing qualitative research. Newbury Park,

USA: Sage Publications.

Davis, J. R., & Gold, G. J. (2011). An examination of emotional empathy, attributions of

stability, and the link between perceived remorse and forgiveness. Journal of

Personality and Individual Differences, 50(3), 392-397. doi:

10.1016/j.paid.2010.10.031


14

De Dreu, C. K., & Gelfand, M. J. (2008). The psychology of conflict and conflict management

in organizations. Oxon: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team

performance and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 88(4), 741-749. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741

De Dreu, C. K., West, M. A., Fischer, A. H., & MacCurtain, S. (2001). Origins and

consequences of emotions in organizational teams. In R. Payne & C. L. Cooper (Eds.),

Emotions at work: Theory, research and applications in management, (pp. 199-217).

Chichester, England: Wiley

Deutsch, M., & Shichman, S. (1986). Conflict: A social psychological perspective. In M. G.

Hermann (Ed.), Political Psychology (pp. 219-250). San-Francisco, USA: Jossey-Bass.

Donnoli, M., & Wertheim, E. H. (2012). Do offender and victim typical conflict styles affect

forgiveness?. International Journal of Conflict Management, 23(1), 57-76. doi:

10.1108/10444061211199296

Eaton, J., Ward Struthers, C., & Santelli, A. G. (2006). Dispositional and state forgiveness:

The role of self-esteem, need for structure, and narcissism. Personality and Individual

Differences, 41(2), 371-380. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2006.02.005

Ebesu Hubbard, A. S., Hendrickson, B., Fehrenbach, K. S., & Sur, J. (2013). Effects of timing

and sincerity of an apology on satisfaction and changes in negative feelings during

conflicts. Western Journal of Communication, 77(3), 305-322. doi:

10.1080/10570314.2013.770160

Freedman, S. R., & Enright, R. D. (1996). Forgiveness as an intervention goal with incest

survivors. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64(5), 983-992. doi:

10.1037/0022-006X.64.5.983


15

Gelfand, M. J., Major, V. S., Raver, J. L., Nishii, L. H., & O'Brien, K. (2006). Negotiating

relationally: The dynamics of the relational self in negotiations. Academy of

Management Review, 31(2), 427-451. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20159210

Guerrero, L. K., & Bachman, G. F., (2006). Forgiveness and forgiving communication in

dating relationships: An expectancy–investment explanation. Journal of Social and

Personal Relationships, 27(6), 801-823. doi: 10.1177/0265407510373258

Hatcher, I. (2011). Evaluations of apologies: The effects of apology sincerity and acceptance

motivation (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from UMI Dissertations Publishing.

(759081738)

Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable

mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling. Manuscript submitted for

publication. Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf

Hui, C. H., Lau, F. L. Y., Tsang, K. L. C., & Pak, S. T. (2011). The impact of post‐apology

behavioral consistency on victim's forgiveness intention: A study of trust violation

among co-workers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(5), 1214-1236.

doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00754.x

Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Jacobson, N. S. (1985). Causal attributions of married couples:

When do they search for causes? What do they conclude when they do?. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 48(6), 1398-1412. doi: 10.1037/0022-

3514.48.6.1398

Iverson, R. D., Zatzick, C. D. (2011) The effects of downsizing on labour productivity: The

value of showing consideration for employees’ morale and welfare in high performance

work systems. Human Resource management, 50(1), 29-44. doi: 10.1002/hrm.20407


16

Jehn, K. A., (1995). A multi-method examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup

conflict. Administration Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256-282. doi: 10.2307/2393638

Jehn, K. A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational

groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3), 530-557. Retrieved from


Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28(2), 107-

128. doi: 10.1037/h0034225

King, E. B., Hebl, M. R., & Beal, D. J. (2009). Conflict and cooperation in diverse

workgroups. Journal of Social Issues, 65(2), 261-285. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-

4560.2009.01600.x

Korsgaard, M. A., Jeong, S. S., Mahony, D. M., & Pitariu, A. H. (2008). A multi-level view

of intragroup conflict. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1222-1252. doi:

10.1177/0149206308325124

Liebrand, W. B., & McClintock, C. G. (1988). The ring measure of social values: A

computerized procedure for assessing individual differences in information processing

and social value orientation. European Journal of Personality, 2(3), 217-230. doi:

10.1002/per.2410020304

Maltby, J., Day, L., & Barber, L. (2008). Forgiveness and mental health variables:

Interpreting the relationship using an adaptational-continuum model of personality and

coping. Personality and Individual Differences, 30(8), 1629-1641. doi:

10.1016/j.paid.2004.02.017

Martinko, M. J., & Thomson, N. F. (1998). A synthesis and extension of the Weiner and

Kelley attribution models. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 20(4), 271-284. doi:

10.1207/s15324834basp2004_4


17

McCullough, M. E. (2000). Forgiveness as human strength: Theory, measurement, and links

to well-being. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19(1), 43-55. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/224855555?accountid=14723

McCullough, M. E., Worthington Jr., E. L., & Rachal, K. C. (1997). Interpersonal forgiveness

in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(2), 321-336.

doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.73.2.321

McNulty, J. K. (2010). Forgiveness increases the likelihood of subsequent partner

transgressions in marriage. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(6), 787-790. doi:

10.1037/a0021678

McNulty, J. K. (2011). The dark side of forgiveness: the tendency to forgive predicts

continued psychological and physical aggression in marriage. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 37(6), 770-783. doi: 10.1177/0146167211407077

Medina, F. J., Munduate, L., Dorado, M. A., Martínez, I., & Guerra, J. M. (2005). Types of

intragroup conflict and affective reactions. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(3/4),

219-230. doi: 10.1108/02683940510589019.

Risen, J. L., & Gilovich, T. (2007). Target and observer differences in the acceptance of

questionable apologies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(3), 418- 433.

doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.3.418.

Rye, M. S., Loiacono, D. M., Folck, C. D., Olszewski, B. T., Heim, T. A., & Madia, B. P.

(2001). Evaluation of the psychometric properties of two forgiveness scales. Current

Psychology, 20(3), 260-277. doi: 10.1007/s12144-001-1011-6

Ross, M., & Fletcher, G. J. O. (1985). Attribution and social perception. In G. Lindsey, & E.

Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 73-114). New York, USA:

Random House.


18

Scott, D., Bishop, J.W., Chen, X. (2003). An examination of the relationship of employee

involvement with job satisfaction, employee cooperation and intention to quit in US and

invested enterprise in China. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11(1), 3-

19. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/198739290?accountid=14723

Smith, K. G., Carroll, S. J., & Ashford, S. J. (1995). Intra-and interorganizational cooperation:

Toward a research agenda. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 7-23. Retrieved

from http://www.jstor.org/stable/256726

Tomlinson, E. C., Dineen, B. R. & Lewicki, R. J. (2004). The road to reconciliation:

Antecedents of victim willingness to reconcile following a broken promise.

(2004). Journal of Management, 30(2), 165-187. doi: 10.1016/j.jm.2003.01.003

Vasalou, A., Hopfensitz, A., & Pitt, J. V. (2008). In praise of forgiveness: Ways for repairing

trust breakdowns in one-off online interactions. International Journal of Human -

Computer Studies, 66(6), 466-480. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2008.02.001

Wagner, J. A. (1995). Studies in individualism and collectivism: Effects on cooperation in

groups. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 52-172. Retrieved from


Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion.

Psychological Review, 92(4), 548-573. doi: 0033-295X/85/S00.75

Weiner, B. (1988). Attribution theory and attributional therapy: Some theoretical observations

and suggestions. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 27(1), 99-104. doi:

10.1111/j.2044-8260.1988.tb00757.x

Worthington Jr, E. L. (2006). Forgiveness and reconciliation: Theory and application. New

York, USA: Routledge.


Table 1. Participant Characteristics for Study 2

Participant Characteristic Frequency Percent (%)

Ethnicity

Caucasian

Asian

African

Indian

Middle Eastern

Indigenous Australian

Torres Strait Islander

Other

Did not disclose

197

132

3

8

2

1

1

8

5

54.90

36.80

0.80

2.20

0.60

0.30

0.30

2.20

1.40

Type of Employment

Permanent

Contract

Seasonal

Temporary

Casual

Other

51

21

6

36

177

19

14.20

5.80

1.70

10.00

49.30

5.30

Work Mode

Full-time

Part-time

Other

52

213

37

14.50

59.30

10.30


Table 2. Means, standard deviations and correlations between variables

Note. **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed); *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

N M (SD) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

1. Task Conflict 357 2.92 (1.10) -

2. Relationship Conflict 357 2.23 (0.95) 0.57**

-

3. Process Conflict 357 2.59 (1.17) 0.78**

0.52**

-

4. Attitudes Towards Forgiveness 320 4.48 (0.96) -0.01 -0.08 -0.05 -

5. Perceived Apology Sincerity 322 2.80 (1.05) -0.03 -0.04 -0.03 0.19**

-

6. Levels of Forgiveness 255 3.44 (1.11) -0.13* -0.20

** -0.15

* 0.48

** 0.59

** -

7. Willingness to Cooperate 313 4.13 (0.98) -0.08 -0.07 -0.09 0.37**

0.17**

0.36**

-


Table 3. Direct effects of the relationship between perceived apology sincerity,

attitude towards forgiveness to level of forgiveness and willingness to coperate

Variable B SE t p

95%

Bias

Correcte

d LLCI

95% Bias

Corrected

LLCI

Level of Forgiveness

Perceived Apology

Sincerity

0.63 0.08 8.19 < .001 0.48 0.78

Attitude Towards

Forgiveness

0.37 0.08 3.33 .001 0.21 0.53

Willingness to Cooperate

Perceived Apology

Sincerity

-0.19 0.09 -2.03 .044 -0.38 -0.01

Attitude Towards

Forgiveness

0.26 0.09 2.93 .004 0.08 0.44

Level of Forgiveness 0.36 0.09 3.98 < .001 0.18 0.54

Note. Direct effects are considered significant (α = .05) if the LLCI and ULCI do not

contain 0. Number of bootstrap samples for bias corrected intervals is 10,000.


Table 4. Indirect effect of perceived apology sincerity, attitudes to forgiveness to

willingness to cooperate via Level of Forgiveness

B SE t p

95% Bias

Corrected

LLCI

95% Bias

Corrected

LLCI

Willingness to Cooperate

Total Effect

Perceived Apology

Sincerity

0.04 0.08 0.50 .617 -0.12 0.21

Attitude Towards

Forgiveness

0.40 0.09 4.50 <.001 0.22 0.57

Indirect Effect

Perceived Apology

Sincerity

0.26 0.07 - - 0.13 0.42

Attitude Towards

Forgiveness

0.13 0.05 - - 0.05 0.25

Note. Indirect effects are considered significant (α = .05) if the LLCI and ULCI do

not contain 0. Number of bootstrap samples for bias corrected intervals is 10,000.


Documents

Stream #10 Organizational Behaviour Competitive Session