The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
When Talk Is Not Cheap: Substantive Penance and Expressions of Intent in Rebuilding Cooperation
Abstract
Interpersonal relationships can be fragile. The mere perception of opportunistic behavior can lead to a breakdown in cooperation. Once damaged, the question then arises as to whether and how cooperation might be restored. Noncooperative game theory raises serious doubts about the possibilities, although interactional justice and impression management research have shown that verbal explanations can dampen reactions to aversive behavior. Philosophical, anthropological, and ethological research all suggest that genuine forgiveness may require something more tangible and substantive than an explanation. Thus, the current experiment investigated the effects of explanations and varying forms of substantive amends on the restoration of mutual cooperation. The results confirm that rebuilding cooperation is feasible. Apologies and simple explanations can be effective to a degree, though substantive amends have significantly more positive effects than explanations alone. In contrast to prior findings on interactional justice, acknowledgments were more effective than denials in repairing short interactions. This research demonstrates that, once breached, cooperation can be reestablished and that actions as well as explanations and apologies can augment the process in important and sometimes subtle ways.
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
Interorganizational Collaboration and the Locus of Innovation: Networks of Learning in Biotechnology
Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393988 · Cited by 8,499
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 · cited 1×
“The current data call into question the claim that, once broken, trust cannot be repaired (Rempel et al. 1985).”
Background
Cited by
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
Collective guilt: Emotional reactions when one's group has done wrong or been wronged
Wohl, M. J. A., Branscombe, N. R., & Klar, Y. (2006) · European Review of Social Psychology · doi:10.1080/10463280600574815 · Cited by 339
The antecedents and consequences of interpersonal forgiveness: A meta‐analytic review
RIEK, B. M., & MANIA, E. W. (2012) · Personal Relationships · doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2011.01363.x · Cited by 237
Lewicki, R. J., & Brinsfield, C. (2017) · Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113147 · Cited by 202
The social context of trust: The role of status
Lount, R. B., & Pettit, N. C. (2012) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.07.005 · Cited by 163
Metadata
- Authors
- Bottom, W. P., Gibson, K., Daniels, S. E., & Murnighan, J. K.
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Published
- 2002-10
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 497-513
- ISSN
- 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5455
- OpenAlex
- W2099568401
- Cited by
- 409
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 5.41
- 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: When Talk Is Not Cheap: Substantive Penance and Expressions of Intent in Rebuilding Cooperation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1287/orsc.13.5.497.7816
- The paper
- Bottom, W. P., Gibson, K., Daniels, S. E., & Murnighan, J. K. (2002). When Talk Is Not Cheap: Substantive Penance and Expressions of Intent in Rebuilding Cooperation. Organization Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.5.497.7816
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.