IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/joepsy/v43y2014icp105-113.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How many pennies for your pain? Willingness to compensate as a function of expected future interaction and intentionality feedback

Author

Listed:
  • Desmet, Pieter T.M.
  • Leunissen, Joost M.

Abstract

Despite increased research efforts in the area of reconciliation and trust repair in economic relations, most studies depart from a victim’s perspective and evaluate the process of trust repair by looking at the impact of restoration tactics on victims’ reactions. We focused on the transgressor’s perspective and present findings from two studies that investigated how the amount of compensation that a transgressor is willing to pay depends on victims’ reactions to the transgression (i.e. whether they claim the transgression happened intentionally or unintentionally) and the time horizon of the relationship between the transgressor and the victim (future vs. no future interaction). We hypothesized and found that transgressors are willing to pay less compensation to a victim who believes the transgression happened intentionally (as opposed to unintentionally), but only so when they share no future interaction perspective together. When transgressors have a future interaction perspective with the victim, intentionality feedback does not affect compensation size.

Suggested Citation

  • Desmet, Pieter T.M. & Leunissen, Joost M., 2014. "How many pennies for your pain? Willingness to compensate as a function of expected future interaction and intentionality feedback," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 105-113.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:joepsy:v:43:y:2014:i:c:p:105-113
    DOI: 10.1016/j.joep.2014.05.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167487014000373
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.joep.2014.05.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gibson, Kevin & Bottom, William & Murnighan, J. Keith, 1999. "Once Bitten: Defection And Reconciliation In A Cooperative Enterprise," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 69-85, January.
    2. Desmet, Pieter T.M. & Cremer, David De & Dijk, Eric van, 2011. "In money we trust? The use of financial compensations to repair trust in the aftermath of distributive harm," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 114(2), pages 75-86, March.
    3. William P. Bottom & Kevin Gibson & Steven E. Daniels & J. Keith Murnighan, 2002. "When Talk Is Not Cheap: Substantive Penance and Expressions of Intent in Rebuilding Cooperation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(5), pages 497-513, October.
    4. Berg Joyce & Dickhaut John & McCabe Kevin, 1995. "Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 122-142, July.
    5. Leunissen, Joost M. & Cremer, David De & Reinders Folmer, Christopher P., 2012. "An instrumental perspective on apologizing in bargaining: The importance of forgiveness to apologize," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 215-222.
    6. McCabe, Kevin A. & Rigdon, Mary L. & Smith, Vernon L., 2003. "Positive reciprocity and intentions in trust games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 267-275, October.
    7. Haesevoets, Tessa & Reinders Folmer, Chris & De Cremer, David & Van Hiel, Alain, 2013. "Money isn’t all that matters: The use of financial compensation and apologies to preserve relationships in the aftermath of distributive harm," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 95-107.
    8. Laura Poppo & Kevin Zheng Zhou & Sungmin Ryu, 2008. "Alternative Origins to Interorganizational Trust: An Interdependence Perspective on the Shadow of the Past and the Shadow of the Future," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(1), pages 39-55, February.
    9. De Cremer, David, 2010. "To pay or to apologize? On the psychology of dealing with unfair offers in a dictator game," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 843-848, December.
    10. Pieter Desmet & David Cremer & Eric Dijk, 2010. "On the Psychology of Financial Compensations to Restore Fairness Transgressions: When Intentions Determine Value," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 95(1), pages 105-115, September.
    11. Edward C. Tomlinson, 2011. "The context of trust repair efforts: Exploring the role of relationship dependence and outcome severity," Journal of Trust Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(2), pages 139-157, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pieter T. M. Desmet & Franziska Weber, 2022. "Infringers’ willingness to pay compensation versus fines," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 53(1), pages 63-80, February.
    2. Janne Doorn & Marcel Zeelenberg & Seger M. Breugelmans, 2018. "An exploration of third parties’ preference for compensation over punishment: six experimental demonstrations," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 85(3), pages 333-351, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lei, Vivian & Masclet, David & Vesely, Filip, 2014. "Competition vs. communication: An experimental study on restoring trust," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 94-107.
    2. Leunissen, Joost M. & Cremer, David De & Reinders Folmer, Christopher P., 2012. "An instrumental perspective on apologizing in bargaining: The importance of forgiveness to apologize," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 215-222.
    3. Haesevoets, Tessa & Van Hiel, Alain & Reinders Folmer, Chris & De Cremer, David, 2014. "What money can’t buy: The psychology of financial overcompensation," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 83-95.
    4. Tessa Haesevoets & Chris Reinders Folmer & Alain Van Hiel, 2015. "Is Trust for Sale? The Effectiveness of Financial Compensation for Repairing Competence- versus Integrity-Based Trust Violations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-13, December.
    5. Ben Gilbert & Alexander James & Jason F. Shogren, 2018. "Corporate apology for environmental damage," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 51-81, February.
    6. Gasparotto, Lisiane Santos & Pacheco, Natália Araujo & Basso, Kenny & Corte, Vitor Francisco Dalla & Rabello, Gisele Costa & Gallon, Shalimar, 2018. "The role of regulation and financial compensation on trust recovery," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 10-16.
    7. Schweitzer, Maurice E. & Hershey, John C. & Bradlow, Eric T., 2006. "Promises and lies: Restoring violated trust," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 101(1), pages 1-19, September.
    8. Kähkönen, T. & Blomqvist, K. & Gillespie, N. & Vanhala, M., 2021. "Employee trust repair: A systematic review of 20 years of empirical research and future research directions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 98-109.
    9. Haesevoets, Tessa & Reinders Folmer, Chris & De Cremer, David & Van Hiel, Alain, 2013. "Money isn’t all that matters: The use of financial compensation and apologies to preserve relationships in the aftermath of distributive harm," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 95-107.
    10. Desmet, Pieter T.M. & Cremer, David De & Dijk, Eric van, 2011. "In money we trust? The use of financial compensations to repair trust in the aftermath of distributive harm," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 114(2), pages 75-86, March.
    11. Schniter, Eric & Sheremeta, Roman M. & Sznycer, Daniel, 2013. "Building and rebuilding trust with promises and apologies," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 242-256.
    12. Eric Schniter & Roman M. Sheremeta & Daniel Sznycer, 2011. "Restoring Damaged Trust with Promises, Atonement and Apology," Working Papers 11-18, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    13. Pieter Desmet & David Cremer & Eric Dijk, 2010. "On the Psychology of Financial Compensations to Restore Fairness Transgressions: When Intentions Determine Value," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 95(1), pages 105-115, September.
    14. Anne Corcos & Yorgos Rizopoulos, 2011. "Is prosocial behavior egocentric? The “invisible hand” of emotions," Post-Print halshs-01968213, HAL.
    15. Drouvelis, Michalis & Powdthavee, Nattavudh, 2015. "Are happier people less judgmental of other people's selfish behaviors? Experimental survey evidence from trust and gift exchange games," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 111-123.
    16. Calabuig, Vicente & Fatas, Enrique & Olcina, Gonzalo & Rodriguez-Lara, Ismael, 2016. "Carry a big stick, or no stick at all," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 153-171.
    17. Sabrina Teyssier, 2012. "Inequity and risk aversion in sequential public good games," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 151(1), pages 91-119, April.
    18. Johnsen, Åshild A & Kvaløy, Ola, 2014. "You always meet twice: An experiment on intrinsic versus instrumental reciprocity," UiS Working Papers in Economics and Finance 2014/2, University of Stavanger.
    19. Pelligra, Vittorio, 2010. "Trust responsiveness. On the dynamics of fiduciary interactions," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 653-660, December.
    20. Charness, Gary & Rabin, Matthew, 2005. "Expressed preferences and behavior in experimental games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 151-169, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Compensation; Intentionality; Perpetrators; Transgression; Reconciliation; Trust repair;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D23 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Organizational Behavior; Transaction Costs; Property Rights

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:joepsy:v:43:y:2014:i:c:p:105-113. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/joep .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.