The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
When more blame is better than less: The implications of internal vs. external attributions for the repair of trust after a competence- vs. integrity-based trust violation
Open accessOverview
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
The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment.
Haidt, J. (2001) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.108.4.814 · Cited by 8,048
The processes of causal attribution.
Kelley, H. H. (1973) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/h0034225 · Cited by 4,025
Representing and Testing Organizational Theories: A Holistic Construal
Bagozzi, R. P., & Phillips, L. W. (1982) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392322 · Cited by 2,064
Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies.
Latane, B., & Darley, J. M. (1968) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0026570 · Cited by 1,252
A schematic model of dispositional attribution in interpersonal perception.
Reeder, G. D., & Brewer, M. B. (1979) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.86.1.61 · Cited by 723
Conceptual and methodological considerations in the study of trust and suspicion
Kee, H. W., & Knox, R. E. (1970) · Journal of Conflict Resolution · doi:10.1177/002200277001400307 · Cited by 523
In search of the powerful self-fulfilling prophecy
Madon, S., Jussim, L., & Eccles, J. (1997) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.4.791 · Cited by 304
The Structure of Interpersonal Trust in the Workplace
Schindler, P. L., & Thomas, C. C. (1993) · Psychological Reports · doi:10.2466/pr0.1993.73.2.563 · Cited by 136
Cited by
Building Better Causal Theories: A Fuzzy Set Approach to Typologies in Organization Research
Fiss, P. C. (2011) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2011.60263120 · Cited by 5,930
Internet social network communities: Risk taking, trust, and privacy concerns
Fogel, J., & Nehmad, E. (2009) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.08.006 · Cited by 987
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
Measuring trust in organisational research: Review and recommendations
McEvily, B., & Tortoriello, M. (2011) · Journal of Trust Research · doi:10.1080/21515581.2011.552424 · Cited by 477
Metadata
- Authors
- Kim, P. H., Dirks, K. T., Cooper, C. D., & Ferrin, D. L.
- Venue
- Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2006-01
- Volume
- 99
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 49-65
- ISSN
- 0749-5978 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1977049125
- Cited by
- 557
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 7.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: When more blame is better than less: The implications of internal vs. external attributions for the repair of trust after a competence- vs. integrity-based trust violation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.07.002
- The paper
- Kim, P. H., Dirks, K. T., Cooper, C. D., & Ferrin, D. L. (2006). When more blame is better than less: The implications of internal vs. external attributions for the repair of trust after a competence- vs. integrity-based trust violation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.07.002
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.
