The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Road to Reconciliation: Antecedents of Victim Willingness to Reconcile Following a Broken Promise
Abstract
The antecedents of victim willingness to reconcile a professional relationship following an incident involving a broken promise were examined in terms of offender tactics (i.e., nature of apology, timeliness of reparative act, sincerity) and relationship characteristics (i.e., nature of past relationship, probability of future violation) using a within- and between-subjects policy-capturing design. Relatively speaking, relationship characteristics were as strongly related to willingness to reconcile as offender tactics. Furthermore, we found moderating effects of magnitude of violation on the willingness to reconcile a relationship following a trust violation. In particular, nature of past relationship was weighed more heavily, whereas probability of future violation was weighed less heavily when the magnitude of the violation was greater. Practical implications and recommendations for future research are discussed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
Festinger, L. (1957) · doi:10.1515/9781503620766 · Cited by 24,241
Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985) · Social Forces · doi:10.2307/2578601 · Cited by 4,163
Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.49.1.95 · Cited by 3,146
Subjective Construal, Social Inference, and Human Misunderstanding
Griffin, D. W., & Ross, L. (1991) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60333-0 · Cited by 404
Forgiveness: A developmental view
Enright, R. D., Gassin, E. A., & Wu, C. (1992) · Journal of Moral Education · doi:10.1080/0305724920210202 · Cited by 327
Remorse, Confession, Group Identity, and Expectancies About Repeating a Transgression
Gold, G. J., & Weiner, B. (2000) · Basic and Applied Social Psychology · doi:10.1207/s15324834basp2204_3 · Cited by 216
Cited by
Resistance to Change: The Rest of the Story
Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W., & D'Amelio, A. (2008) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2008.31193235 · Cited by 1,084
At What Level (and in Whom) We Trust: Trust Across Multiple Organizational Levels
Fulmer, C. A., & Gelfand, M. J. (2012) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206312439327 · Cited by 886
Almost human: Anthropomorphism increases trust resilience in cognitive agents.
de Visser, E. J., Monfort, S. S., McKendrick, R., Smith, M. A. B., McKnight, P. E., Krueger, F., & Parasuraman, R. (2016) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied · doi:10.1037/xap0000092 · Cited by 614
Repairing and Enhancing Trust: Approaches to Reducing Organizational Trust Deficits
Kramer, R. M., & Lewicki, R. J. (2010) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.1080/19416520.2010.487403 · Cited by 398
Self-citationFerrin, D. L., Kim, P. H., Cooper, C. D., & Dirks, K. T. (2007) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.893 · Cited by 320
Metadata
- Authors
- Tomlinson, E. C., Dineen, B. R., & Lewicki, R. J.
- Venue
- Journal of Management
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2004-04
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 165-187
- ISSN
- 0149-2063 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-1211
- OpenAlex
- W2066986027
- Cited by
- 420
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 5.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Road to Reconciliation: Antecedents of Victim Willingness to Reconcile Following a Broken Promise. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jm.2003.01.003
- The paper
- Tomlinson, E. C., Dineen, B. R., & Lewicki, R. J. (2004). The Road to Reconciliation: Antecedents of Victim Willingness to Reconcile Following a Broken Promise. Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2003.01.003
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
