Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 320

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Silence speaks volumes: The effectiveness of reticence in comparison to apology and denial for responding to integrity- and competence-based trust violations.

Ferrin, Donald L., Kim, Peter H., Cooper, Cecily D., Dirks, Kurt T.·2007·Journal of Applied Psychology
DOI 10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.893
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Prior research on responses to trust violations has focused primarily on the effects of apology and denial. The authors extended this research by studying another type of verbal response that is often used to respond to trust violations but has not been considered in the trust literature: reticence. An accused party may use reticence in a sincere and even legitimate attempt to persuade a trustor to withhold judgment. Yet, by considering information diagnosticity and belief formation mechanisms through which verbal responses influence trust, the authors argue that reticence is a suboptimal response because it combines the least effective elements of apology and denial. Specifically, reticence is a suboptimal response to an integrity violation because, like apology, it fails to address guilt. And reticence is a suboptimal response to a competence violation because, like denial, it fails to signal redemption. Results from 2 laboratory studies, simulating different contexts and using research participants from 2 different countries, provide support for the prediction. The results offer important implications for those who might use reticence to respond to a perceived trust violation and also for those who must judge another's reticence.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.893

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 36 references

Cited by

See all 320

Metadata

Authors
Ferrin, D. L., Kim, P. H., Cooper, C. D., & Dirks, K. T.
Venue
Journal of Applied Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2007
Volume
92
Issue
4
Pages
893-908
ISSN
  • 0021-9010 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1854
DOI
10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.893
OpenAlex
W2030978521
Cited by
320
References
36
FWCI
12.19
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: Silence speaks volumes: The effectiveness of reticence in comparison to apology and denial for responding to integrity- and competence-based trust violations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.893
The paper
Ferrin, D. L., Kim, P. H., Cooper, C. D., & Dirks, K. T. (2007). Silence 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.893

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.