Stream #10 Organizational Behaviour
Competitive Session
Conflict and willingness to cooperate at work: The role of apology and
forgiveness.
Dr. Oluremi Ayoko
School of Business, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
Email: [email protected]
Miss Rebecca Paterson
School of Business, University of Queensland, Brisbane Australia
Email: [email protected]
Page 1 of 23 ANZAM 2013
1
Conflict and willingness to co-operate at work: The role of apology and
forgiveness
ABSTRACT: We investigate the relationship between conflict, apology, forgiveness and work
outcomes over two studies. In Study 1, we explore the research questions with semi-structured
interviews from thirty organizational employees in Queensland. Results indicated that apologies
without a behavioural change were not perceived as genuine and might not foster forgiveness or
productivity. Study 2 quantitatively examines the connection between perceived apology sincerity,
forgiveness attitudes and willingness to co-operate. Data from 355 undergraduates revealed that the
link between relationship conflict and willingness to cooperate was mediated by forgiveness.
Additionally, perceived apology sincerity and forgiveness attitudes were positively linked with
forgiveness. Increased positive forgiveness attitudes, perceived apology sincerity were connected with
willingness to cooperate. We discuss the implications of our results.
Keywords: Conflict management, perceptions, attitudes and interpersonal behaviours
Introduction
Conflict is a pervasive organizational problem impacting employees’ work and interactions.
Conflict can be broadly defined as the experience between parties or among parties that their goals or
interests are incompatible or in opposition (De Dreu & Gelfand, 2008; Korsgaard, Jeong, Mahony, &
Pitariu, 2008). In particular, conflict between co-workers often results in decreased productivity,
morale and job satisfaction (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Iverson & Zatzick, 2011). In the present
research, we argue that conflict management or resolution has benefits for the individual employees
because it may assists in the restoration of working relationships, which in turn, should positively
impact the employees’ willingness to cooperate at work. Cooperation is the process by which
individuals, groups and organizations come together, interact and form different relationships for
mutual gain or benefit (Smith, Carroll & Ashford, 1995). In this regard, the willingness to cooperation
is core to interpersonal relationships that can eventually foster employee productivity. Yet, many
conflict episodes are rarely fully resolved but flare out from time to time (Ayoko & Hartel, 2003) and
may demotivate workers’ willingness to cooperate. Thus, in the present research, we propose that
conflict resolution or management strategy such as forgiveness is an important construct that may be
employed as a means of resolving conflict in the work environment (e.g. Freedman & Enright, 1996).
Forgiveness is described as a transformation of motives and emotions from a hostile to a more
pro-social orientation towards a transgressor following a hurtful event (McCullough 2000;
Page 2 of 23ANZAM 2013
2
Worthington, 2006). In this respect, forgiveness assists individuals to repair damaged workplace
relationships and overcome “debilitating thoughts and emotions that result from interpersonal injury”
(see Aquino, Grover, Goldman, & Folger, 2003 p. 210) such as conflict. We are aware that conflict
triggers negative emotions such as shame and guilt (Chen & Ayoko, 2012) and that the interactive
effect of relationship and task conflict contributes substantially to predict the propensity to leave the
current job (Medina, Munduate, Dorado, Martinez & Guerra, 2005). The above suggests that conflict
has the propensity to elicit employees’ unwillingness to cooperate at work. Yet, research that
examines factors (e.g. forgiveness) that are critical to managing conflict for future cooperation at work
is still relatively scarce. Thus, we conducted two studies to examine the relationship between conflict,
apologies, forgiveness and work outcomes (e.g. willingness to co-operate).
Our research makes three significant contributions to literature. First, research into the role of
conflict management strategies (avoiding, accommodating, problem solving etc.) still leave many
conflicts unresolved at work (Coleman, 2000). By investigating the connection between conflict and
apology, we extend the literature on how apology may be used to resolve conflict. Secondly, little
research has investigated the aftermath of conflict at work. By isolating the role of conflict in
employee’s willingness to cooperate after conflict, our understanding of how to improve cohesion and
productivity should significant improve. Finally, we extend literature on conflict by digging deeper
into the nexus between conflict, apology, forgiveness and willingness to cooperate. Outcomes of our
study should assist managers in gaining insight into fostering cohesion after conflict episodes.
STUDY 1
Research Design and Methodology
We collected data from a sample of thirty randomly selected participants from private and
public organizations in S.E. Queensland. 50% of them were from the private sector (law firms, banks)
while the remaining participants were from public sector organizations (health, insurance accounting
etc). 53% were female and majority of the participants were in the age range of 20-29 years.
Qualitative data are particularly appropriate for answering research question on perceptions (Crab &
Miller, 1992). Responses to the in-depth interview questions were transcribed and analysed.
Page 3 of 23 ANZAM 2013
3
Data Analysis: Systematic interpretative analysis
We analysed data using systematic interpretative techniques (i.e. content coding, content
analysis, linguistic text analysis) (cf Jehn, 1997) to identify the major themes arising from the data.
With this method, data segments are discrete thought units that were initially identified, categorized
and sorted into themes. Three raters who were familiar with the process of content analysis but
unfamiliar with research aims were employed to analyse the data. Crab and Miller (1992), argue that
this process reduces researcher’s bias and increases credibility. Inter-rater reliability was 87%.
Results of the Systematic Interpretative Analysis
The connection between conflict and apology
First, the thematic analysis revealed that employees find it difficult to relate to the concept of
apology at work. Majority (75%) of the participants stated that conflict is a hard concept to understand
and also remarked that they had not given much thought to the issue of apology in the context of
workplace conflict as illustrated below:
A: See I find this word apology difficult to get around. …..but there was never any attempt to
make an apology, and ….see I just find that difficult to understand... what all that’s about..”
S: So, the apology’s irrelevant really, it’s action that you would’ve wanted?
I: Yeah, because an apology’s not going to remove the stressor. And to me it wouldn’t even
feel as if it genuine.
Similarly, majority of the respondents were also unsure of what forgiveness is as indicated in the
excerpts below:
I: Forgive, hmm…I think I came to accept that I needed to change my behaviour – I needed to
stop being so emotionally needy and blah blah blah –….So, forgive, I’m not sure what forgive
means, it’s a funny term. I think I’m a bit resistant to the term forgive.
T: Yeah, I struggle with the term forgiveness. I truly don’t quite understand what it means. I
suppose I feel that I haven’t recovered totally, once I’m recovered totally, then it will be over.
In the same vein, apology was linked with individual’s personality and respondents remarked
that it may not be in the nature of some people to apologize. Also, participants suggested that apology
would be readily given by some individuals than others as indicated the excerpt below:
C. Um, yeah possibly. I think that [with] the type of personality though, of this individual [an
apology] probably wouldn’t have helped the situation anyway.
S: Mmm hmm, why is that?
C: Um, I just think that perhaps, like even an apology from this person, I wouldn’t be
convinced that it was a genuine and sincere apology, and I wouldn’t be convinced that it
wouldn’t happen again. I guess I would think that it was a superficial type of apology.
Page 4 of 23ANZAM 2013
4
Moreover, over 79% of the respondents were of the opinion that apologies are not usually genuine or
even sincere as demonstrated by the excerpt below:
S: So you didn’t think it was sincere, his apology?
L: No, definitely not. He was as sarcastic as all get out.
S: So the apology didn’t help you to get over your feelings?
L: No, because I know that he doesn’t respect me.
The relationship between apology and forgiveness
About 60% of the participants were of the opinion that the link between apology and
forgiveness was not straight forward. These respondents discussed at length that apology without a
change in behaviour was not a genuine apology as demonstrated by the excerpt below:
S: So an apology wouldn’t have helped?
I: I don’t think so. If there was an apology and the behaviour discontinued, yes it would have
helped. But if there was an apology and the behaviour would have continued, which is what I
kind of would anticipate would have happened in this particular situation, then, I don’t think it
would have helped at all.
Some other respondents were of the opinion that “it is not so much of the apology per se, but it’s the
acknowledgement of what the situation was for the victim that will bring forth forgiveness as
described succinctly below:
I: Maybe, but because the behaviour was so embedded. The behaviour was a daily process of
controlling…., I imagine an apology would have done something. But I don’t know how much
good it’s going to do for a tiger snake to apologize after it’s bitten you and almost killed you.
The Role of Apology and Forgiveness in Resolving Workplace Conflict
Overall, data revealed that in 90% of the workplace conflict events, offenders do not tender
apology. Rather, they refuse to accept responsibility for causing the conflict. Data also showed that
other approaches such as “encouraging one or the both parties in conflict to leave the organization”
and conflict avoidance were the most popular conflict management strategies used.
Study 1: Discussion, Implications and Conclusion
Literature that spans the last fifty years suggests that conflict is pervasive and are damaging to
group and organisational effectiveness (Jehn & Nendersky, 2003). In the current research, we explored
the role of apology and forgiveness in resolving conflict at work. Findings showed that employees
believed that apology that does not involve a change in behaviour is not genuine and may not elicit
Page 5 of 23 ANZAM 2013
5
forgiveness. Besides, results showed a weak link between apology and forgiveness and conflict
resolution. Managers need to model apology and forgiveness and assist the development of this virtue
in other group members.
STUDY 2
Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses Development
The connection between conflict, apology, forgiveness, and willingness to cooperate may be
explained by attribution theory (Weiner, 1986). Attribution Theory (AT, Kelley, 1973; Ross and
Fletcher, 1985) explores how individuals attribute causes to events, and how they spontaneously
explain failures or conflicts. According to AT, how individuals perceive a situation directly affects
their behavioural responses to that event (Martinko & Thomson, 1998; Weiner, 1986). Moreover, AT
provides a means to explain constructs relevant to forgiveness such as apology and behavioural
control (Weiner, 1985). For example, our beliefs about the cause of events may be a key driver in
arriving at varying evaluations and reactions to the conflict. Such evaluations, in turn, evoke distinct
emotions and behaviours (Weiner, 1985; Weiner, 1995) upon which decisions to apologize or forgive
are based. Overall, we anchor our research on AT to explain how conflict may trigger employees’
perception of behaviours such as willingness to apologize, levels of forgiveness and cooperation in
future. Given Study 1’s results, we developed and tested a conceptual model that depicts perceived
apology sincerity, and attitudes to forgiveness as direct antecedents of employees’ willingness to
cooperate given conflict. Also, we conceptualised forgiveness as a mediator of this relationship.
Conflict, perceived apology sincerity and levels of forgiveness
We define conflict as the perceived incompatibilities or differences by parties of the views,
wishes and desires that each holds (De Dreu & Gelfand, 2008; Koorsgard et al., 2008) regardless of
any overt displays of hostility (Deutsch & Shichman, 1986). We know that perceived differences
produce psychological states that include feelings, cognitions and motivations that trigger behaviours
intended to reduce or resolve the tension (De Dreu, West, Fischer & MacCurtain, 2001). In particular,
the results of our qualitative study (Study 1) revealed that critical to forgiveness is the perception of a
sincere apology. McCullough, Worthington and Rachal (1997) propose that apologies have the
potential to allow the victim to empathize with the offender to foster an individual’s forgiveness
Page 6 of 23ANZAM 2013
6
following conflict. Similarly, following workplace conflict, sincere apologies can motivate forgiveness
as the transgressor is perceived to be remorseful and thus, unlikely to commit the abhorrent behaviour
again (Davis & Gold, 2011; Donnoli & Wertheim, 2012) while there is evidence that the tendency to
forgive is influenced by behavioural consistency (Hui, Lau, Tsang & Pak, 2011). Thus, we argue that
given conflict, perceived sincere apology (like remorse) should be trigger consistent behavioural
consistency, which in turn, should be linked with increased forgiveness.
Hypothesis 1a: Perceived apology sincerity will be positively linked with forgiveness
Conflict, perceived apology sincerity and willingness to cooperate
Davis and Gold (2011) show that greater perceived remorse leads to greater forgiveness.
Moreover, perceived apology sincerity associated with reduced negative emotions such as anger
(Hubbard, Hendrickson, Fehrenbach & Sur, 2013) which may increase the cooperativeness of the
victim. Similarly, McNulty (2010) suggests that a sincere apology may signal to the victim a reduced
likelihood of reoffending. Given the above, we anticipate that perceived apology sincerity will be
positively linked willingness to cooperate. Thus:
Hypothesis 1b: Perceived apology sincerity is positively associated with willingness to
cooperate.
Attitudes towards forgiveness and actual forgiveness
Personality factors are correlated with forgiving behaviours (Maltby et al., 2008). For
example, internal factors such as self-esteem, narcissism and need for structure are associated with
reduced disposition to forgive and actual forgiveness (Eaton et al., 2006). Results from our Study 1
also revealed that individuals differ in their attitude to forgiveness and that some individuals are more
forgiving than others. Also, from attribution theory, we know that attitudes are underlying factors in
establishing a cause for behaviours and are critical to establishing forgiveness. Altogether, we argue
that an individual with a positive attitude towards forgiveness will be more likely to be linked with
actual forgiveness Thus:
Hypothesis 2a: Attitudes towards forgiveness is positively associated with actual forgiveness
Conflict, attitudes towards forgiveness and willingness to cooperate
Page 7 of 23 ANZAM 2013
7
Co-operation is often described as being in polar opposition to conflict (King, Hebl & Beal,
2009). It is the wilful contribution of employee’s effort to the successful completion of interdependent
organizational tasks (Wagner, 1995) and is manifested as employee’s willingness to work with other
(Chatman & Barsade, 1995). In the current research, we propose that individuals with a positive
attitude towards forgiveness will also be associated with willingness to cooperate. This is because
cooperative behaviours can be influenced by personality (Liebrand & McClintock, 1988). Maltby and
colleagues also show that personality factors may predict victim’s behaviours (e.g. revenge) even two
years following a conflict. Given the above, we reason that individuals who have a positive disposition
to be more forgiving would be more likely to engage in positive behaviours such as willingness to
cooperate after a conflict episode. Similarly, we posit that individuals with a positive attitude to
forgive will also be willing to cooperate with offender. In sum, we speculate that positive attitude
towards forgiveness will be connected with willingness to cooperation. Thus:
Hypothesis 2b: Attitudes towards forgiveness is positively associated with willingness to
cooperate.
Actual forgiveness and willingness to cooperate
We have already established that conflict can trigger dissatisfaction and poor morale (Iverson
& Zatzick, 2011). Extant literature also suggests that when there is a transgression (e.g. conflict),
victims are more prone to avoidance, withdrawal or revenge (Vasalou, Hopfensitz & Pitt, 2008). The
tendency to withdrawal after an offence suggests that the motivation to cooperate will be minimal.
Nevertheless, we know that forgiveness is a pro-social process through which the above negative
motivations towards the offender may be reduced and replaced by positive motivations (McCullough,
2001) such as willingness to cooperate. In this study therefore, we argue that in the face of conflict,
individuals who have a positive attitude to forgive will also be linked with increased willingness to
cooperate. Thus:
Hypothesis 3: Actual forgiveness will be positively linked to individual’s willingness to
cooperate with offender.
Forgiveness as a mediator in the relationship between perceived apology sincerity, attitude
towards forgiveness and willingness to cooperate
Page 8 of 23ANZAM 2013
8
Individuals with cooperative disposition are motivated to understand and up hold social group
norms, satisfied by group interactions and are expectant of cooperative behaviour from other
(Chatman & Barsade, 1995). In the current research, we propose that given conflict, levels of
forgiveness will mediate the relationship between apology sincerity, attitudes towards forgiveness and
willingness to cooperate. Prior research findings suggest that apologies are effective at increasing
victim forgiveness and reducing anger and aggression toward the transgressor (e.g., Bennett &
Earwaker, 1994). Specifically, apologies that appear to be sincere are more successful at increasing
reconciliation (Hatcher, 2011; Risen & Gilovich, 2007; Tomlinson, Dineen, & Lewicki, 2004). Based
on the above, we propose that forgiveness will mediate the relationship between apology sincerity,
positive attitudes to forgiveness and will and willingness to cooperate after conflict. Thus:
Hypothesis 4a: The relationship between perceived apology sincerity and willingness to
cooperate will be mediated by level of forgiveness.
Hypothesis 4b: The relationship between attitudes to forgiveness and willingness to cooperate
will be mediated by level of forgiveness
METHOD
Participants
359 students (38% male and 62% female) were recruited from one of the major universities in
South East Queensland. Age ranged from 15-20 (47.1%) to 41-50 (0.60%) (See Table 1).
--------------------------------
Insert Table 1 about here
--------------------------------
Measures
We adapted Jehn’s Conflict Scale (1995) to measure conflict: relationship conflict (α = .87)
and task conflict (α = .94). Examples of items for relationship conflict include “We disagree about
non-work (social or personality) things” and for task conflict, “We had task-related disagreements”).
We measured forgiveness with an adapted scale from Guerrero and Bachman’s (2006)’s forgiveness
scale. Items include “To what extent have you forgiven the person you rated on this attitude scale”.
Similarly, we measured perceived apology sincerity scale also with another adapted Guerrero and
Bachman’s (2006) Apology/Making Amends scale (α=.93) and with items like: “To what extent did
Page 9 of 23 ANZAM 2013
9
the offender offer you a sincere apology for her/his words or actions?” Additionally, we measured
attitude toward forgiveness with an adapted Brown (2003) attitude to forgive scale. Items include: “I
believe that forgiveness is a moral virtue”. We also measured willingness to cooperate with adapted
Scott, Bishop and Chen (2003) willingness to cooperate scale. Sample items include” I am willing to
share more information with offending employee about work after a conflict event” All scales had a 7
Likert anchor e.g. from 1 “Strongly Disagree” to 7 “Strongly Agree”.
RESULTS
The aim of this study is to examine the role of conflict, apology and forgiveness in the
workplace context. We employed Hayes’ PROCESS (Hayes, 2012) bootstrapping for data analysis.
Results are based on 10,000 bootstrapped samples and are judged to be significant if the 95%
Confidence Intervals for the indirect effect do not go through 0 (Hayes, 2012).
Preliminary Analyses
Confirmatory factor analysis
A series of confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were conducted to test the factor structures of
these measures. Perceived apology sincerity and attitudes towards forgiveness items loaded onto the
latent constructs with a root mean square error approximation (RMSEA) of .07, comparative fit index
(CFI) of .97 and a normative fit index (NFI) of .96. Measures of willingness to cooperate also
reflected good model fit with a RMSEA of .04, a CFI of .99 and a NFI of .98. Conflict measures had a
good model fit (RMSEA = .08, CFI = .95, NFI = .93).
Descriptive statistics and correlations
Table 2 presents the means, standard deviations and correlations for conflict and each of the
variables within the model.
---------------------------------
Insert Table 2 about here
---------------------------------
Control variables.
Gender (i.e. male) predicted scores on forgiveness (F (1,253) = 4.33, p = .039), perceived
apology sincerity (F (1, 319) = 12.56, p < .001) while attitude towards forgiveness (F (1, 317) = 6.16,
p = .014) correlated with females. Age (i.e. 31-40 yrs) significantly predicted scores on attitudes
Page 10 of 23ANZAM 2013
10
towards forgiveness (F (3, 317) = 3.21, p = .023) and ethnicity (collectives) was significantly related
to scores of perceived apology sincerity (F (8, 308) = 2.62, p = .010). Tenure (i.e. 2-5 years) in
workplace was also significantly related to forgiveness (F (4, 225) = 2.82, p = .026). All of the above
demographic variables except organizational industry were controlled in the main analyses.
Conflict and forgiveness
As part of the preliminary analysis, we wanted to see the relationship between different types
of conflict, forgiveness, individuals’ willingness to co-operate. Specifically, the results showed a
negative association between relationship conflict and willingness to cooperate (b = -0.08, p = .378,
LLCI = -0.26, ULCI = 0.10). Additionally, the relationship between relationship conflict and
willingness to cooperate was mediated by levels of forgiveness (TE = -0.16, p = .091, LLCI = -0.35,
ULCI = 0.03). Task conflict was not significantly linked with forgiveness or willingness to cooperate.
Main Analyses: Direct Effects
Table 3 presents a summary of the direct effects. Perceived apology sincerity was positively
associated with forgiveness (b = 0.56, p < .001, LLCI = 0.44, ULCI = 0.67). Therefore, we retain H1a.
No significant association between perceived apology sincerity and willingness to cooperate was
revealed. Thus, we reject H1b.
---------------------------------
Insert Table 3 about here
---------------------------------
Results indicated a significant positive association between attitudes towards forgiveness and
actual forgiveness (H2a) suggesting that when an individual has a greater positive attitude towards
forgiveness they were increasingly likely to be more forgiving (b = 0.42, p = .001, LLCI = 0.30, ULCI
= 0.54). Therefore, we accept H2a. Results also revealed that individuals who reported an increase in
positive attitude towards forgiveness also reported increase in willingness to cooperate (b = 0.31, p <
.001, LLCI = 0.17, ULCI = 0.45). Thus, we accept H2b.
Furthermore, we hypothesized that forgiveness would be positively related to individual’s
willingness to cooperate with the offender (H3). Results showed that increased forgiveness were
associated with increased willingness to cooperate (b = 0.21, p < .001, LLCI = 0.06, ULCI = 0.35).
Thus, we retain Hypothesis 3.
Page 11 of 23 ANZAM 2013
11
Forgiveness as a Mediator
The results of the indirect effects of levels of forgiveness analyses are summarized in Table 4.
An indirect relationship was found between perceived apology sincerity and willingness to cooperate.
Although there was no significant total effect (TE = 0.07, p = .212, LLCI = -0.05, ULCI = 0.20),
however, when the level of forgiveness was considered, higher levels of perceived apology sincerity
were associated with increased willingness to cooperate (IE = 0.11, LLCI = 0.02, ULCI = 0.23).
Therefore, the relationship between apology sincerity and willingness to cooperate is partially
mediated by level of forgiveness, and we therefore retain H4a.
---------------------------------
Insert Table 4 about here
---------------------------------
An examination of the model also showed a significant total effect (TE = 0.40, p < .001, LLCI
= 0.27, ULCI = 0.53), and a significant indirect effect (IE = 0.13, SE = 0.05, LLCI = 0.01, ULCI =
0.17) of the levels of forgiveness as mediator between attitudes towards forgiveness and willingness
to cooperate. Over all, level of forgiveness partially mediates the relationship between attitudes
towards forgiveness and willingness to cooperate. We accept H4b.
DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSION
Research findings have advanced our understanding about the nature of conflict (De Witt et
al., 2012), forgiveness and apology and the role they might play in repairing damaged interactions
after transgression such as conflict (Davis & Gold, 2011; Hui et al., 2011). We extend this
understanding by investigating, in two studies, the connection between conflict, apology, attitudes to
forgiveness, forgiveness sincerity and willingness to cooperate at work. We found that only
relationship conflict was linked with forgiveness and willingness to cooperate. Also apologies without
behavioural change were not perceived as genuine and may not foster forgiveness and productivity.
Perceived apology sincerity and attitude to forgiveness were linked with forgiveness while increased
positive attitude to forgiveness were associated with willingness to cooperate. Our findings reiterate
the results of previous research (e.g. Brown, 2003; Eaton et al., 2005). For example, Eaton and
colleagues showed that certain traits can inhibit the ability to forgive and actually forgive. In support
of the above findings, our study also showed that a positive attitude towards forgiveness was
Page 12 of 23ANZAM 2013
12
associated with increased actual forgiveness. Similarly, research on the sincerity of apology has
uncovered the important role of genuine apology in the activating forgiveness in the victim (Donnoli
& Wertheim, 2012). Our research findings confirm this. We found that individuals who reported
increased apology sincerity also reported increased levels of forgiveness. Our results extend literature
by showing that given conflict, increased positive forgiveness attitudes, perceived apology sincerity
and actual forgiveness were connected with willingness to cooperate. Finally, we extend conflict
literature by demonstrating that individuals who engage in relationship (than task) conflict also
reported low levels of forgiveness.
Practical Implications, Limitations and Future Research
Managers and organizational leaders who are interested in increasing cooperation and
cohesion after a conflict event should model a positive attitude towards forgiveness and display
genuine apology and forgiveness at work. Our study 1 findings suggest when there is conflict;
apologies without a behavioural change may not foster productivity. By encouraging employees to
activate a positive behavioural change (e.g. apologies/forgiveness) after conflict, productivity should
be higher through increased willingness to cooperate at work. Although we conducted both qualitative
and quantitative studies that bear strength to our results, our research is limited by the self-report and
cross-sectional nature of Study 2. Other than personality traits, future research should use both
qualitative and longitudinal methods to examine the antecedents of a positive attitude towards
forgiveness (e.g. climate) and willingness to co-operate at work.
Concluding Remarks
The present research examines the nexus between apology, forgiveness and willingness to
cooperate after a conflict episode. Our results showed relationship conflict is negatively associated
with forgiveness and willingness to cooperate. However, sincere apologies and a positive attitude
towards forgiveness were linked to forgiveness and willingness to cooperate. These findings extended
the literature on conflict and forgiveness. We now know which type of conflict is related to
forgiveness and willingness to cooperate at work while we have a better understanding of the need to
foster genuine apology and positive attitude to increase cooperation and productivity after conflict.
Page 13 of 23 ANZAM 2013
13
References
Aquino, K., Grover, S.L., Goldman, B., & Folger, R. (2003). When push doesn’t come to
shove: Interpersonal forgiveness in the workplace relationships. Journal of Management
Inquiry, 12(3), 209-216. doi: 10.1177/1056492603256337
Bennett, M., & Earwaker, D. (1994). Victims' responses to apologies: The effects of offender
responsibility and offense severity. The Journal of Social Psychology, 134(4), 457-464.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/199787512?accountid=14723
Brown, R. P. (2003). Measuring individual differences in the tendency to forgive: Construct
validity and links with depression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(6),
759-771. doi: 10.1177/0146167203029006008
Chatman, J. A., & Barsade, S. G. (1995). Personality, organizational culture, and cooperation:
Evidence from a business simulation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 423-443.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2393792
Chen, M. J., & Ayoko, O. B. (2012). Conflict and trust: the mediating effects of emotional
arousal and self-conscious emotions. International Journal of Conflict
Management, 23(1), 19-56. doi: 10.1108/10444061211199313
Coleman, P.T. (2000). Intractable conflict. In M. Deutsch & P. T. Coleman (Eds.), The
handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (pp. 428-450). San-Francisco,
USA: Jossey-Bass.
Crabtree, B.F., & Miller, W. L. (Eds.). (1992). Doing qualitative research. Newbury Park,
USA: Sage Publications.
Davis, J. R., & Gold, G. J. (2011). An examination of emotional empathy, attributions of
stability, and the link between perceived remorse and forgiveness. Journal of
Personality and Individual Differences, 50(3), 392-397. doi:
10.1016/j.paid.2010.10.031
Page 14 of 23ANZAM 2013
14
De Dreu, C. K., & Gelfand, M. J. (2008). The psychology of conflict and conflict management
in organizations. Oxon: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team
performance and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88(4), 741-749. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741
De Dreu, C. K., West, M. A., Fischer, A. H., & MacCurtain, S. (2001). Origins and
consequences of emotions in organizational teams. In R. Payne & C. L. Cooper (Eds.),
Emotions at work: Theory, research and applications in management, (pp. 199-217).
Chichester, England: Wiley
Deutsch, M., & Shichman, S. (1986). Conflict: A social psychological perspective. In M. G.
Hermann (Ed.), Political Psychology (pp. 219-250). San-Francisco, USA: Jossey-Bass.
Donnoli, M., & Wertheim, E. H. (2012). Do offender and victim typical conflict styles affect
forgiveness?. International Journal of Conflict Management, 23(1), 57-76. doi:
10.1108/10444061211199296
Eaton, J., Ward Struthers, C., & Santelli, A. G. (2006). Dispositional and state forgiveness:
The role of self-esteem, need for structure, and narcissism. Personality and Individual
Differences, 41(2), 371-380. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2006.02.005
Ebesu Hubbard, A. S., Hendrickson, B., Fehrenbach, K. S., & Sur, J. (2013). Effects of timing
and sincerity of an apology on satisfaction and changes in negative feelings during
conflicts. Western Journal of Communication, 77(3), 305-322. doi:
10.1080/10570314.2013.770160
Freedman, S. R., & Enright, R. D. (1996). Forgiveness as an intervention goal with incest
survivors. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64(5), 983-992. doi:
10.1037/0022-006X.64.5.983
Page 15 of 23 ANZAM 2013
15
Gelfand, M. J., Major, V. S., Raver, J. L., Nishii, L. H., & O'Brien, K. (2006). Negotiating
relationally: The dynamics of the relational self in negotiations. Academy of
Management Review, 31(2), 427-451. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20159210
Guerrero, L. K., & Bachman, G. F., (2006). Forgiveness and forgiving communication in
dating relationships: An expectancy–investment explanation. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 27(6), 801-823. doi: 10.1177/0265407510373258
Hatcher, I. (2011). Evaluations of apologies: The effects of apology sincerity and acceptance
motivation (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from UMI Dissertations Publishing.
(759081738)
Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable
mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling. Manuscript submitted for
publication. Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf
Hui, C. H., Lau, F. L. Y., Tsang, K. L. C., & Pak, S. T. (2011). The impact of post‐apology
behavioral consistency on victim's forgiveness intention: A study of trust violation
among co-workers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(5), 1214-1236.
doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00754.x
Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Jacobson, N. S. (1985). Causal attributions of married couples:
When do they search for causes? What do they conclude when they do?. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 48(6), 1398-1412. doi: 10.1037/0022-
3514.48.6.1398
Iverson, R. D., Zatzick, C. D. (2011) The effects of downsizing on labour productivity: The
value of showing consideration for employees’ morale and welfare in high performance
work systems. Human Resource management, 50(1), 29-44. doi: 10.1002/hrm.20407
Page 16 of 23ANZAM 2013
16
Jehn, K. A., (1995). A multi-method examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup
conflict. Administration Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256-282. doi: 10.2307/2393638
Jehn, K. A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational
groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3), 530-557. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2393737
Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28(2), 107-
128. doi: 10.1037/h0034225
King, E. B., Hebl, M. R., & Beal, D. J. (2009). Conflict and cooperation in diverse
workgroups. Journal of Social Issues, 65(2), 261-285. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-
4560.2009.01600.x
Korsgaard, M. A., Jeong, S. S., Mahony, D. M., & Pitariu, A. H. (2008). A multi-level view
of intragroup conflict. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1222-1252. doi:
10.1177/0149206308325124
Liebrand, W. B., & McClintock, C. G. (1988). The ring measure of social values: A
computerized procedure for assessing individual differences in information processing
and social value orientation. European Journal of Personality, 2(3), 217-230. doi:
10.1002/per.2410020304
Maltby, J., Day, L., & Barber, L. (2008). Forgiveness and mental health variables:
Interpreting the relationship using an adaptational-continuum model of personality and
coping. Personality and Individual Differences, 30(8), 1629-1641. doi:
10.1016/j.paid.2004.02.017
Martinko, M. J., & Thomson, N. F. (1998). A synthesis and extension of the Weiner and
Kelley attribution models. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 20(4), 271-284. doi:
10.1207/s15324834basp2004_4
Page 17 of 23 ANZAM 2013
17
McCullough, M. E. (2000). Forgiveness as human strength: Theory, measurement, and links
to well-being. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19(1), 43-55. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/224855555?accountid=14723
McCullough, M. E., Worthington Jr., E. L., & Rachal, K. C. (1997). Interpersonal forgiveness
in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(2), 321-336.
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.73.2.321
McNulty, J. K. (2010). Forgiveness increases the likelihood of subsequent partner
transgressions in marriage. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(6), 787-790. doi:
10.1037/a0021678
McNulty, J. K. (2011). The dark side of forgiveness: the tendency to forgive predicts
continued psychological and physical aggression in marriage. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 37(6), 770-783. doi: 10.1177/0146167211407077
Medina, F. J., Munduate, L., Dorado, M. A., Martínez, I., & Guerra, J. M. (2005). Types of
intragroup conflict and affective reactions. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(3/4),
219-230. doi: 10.1108/02683940510589019.
Risen, J. L., & Gilovich, T. (2007). Target and observer differences in the acceptance of
questionable apologies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(3), 418- 433.
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.3.418.
Rye, M. S., Loiacono, D. M., Folck, C. D., Olszewski, B. T., Heim, T. A., & Madia, B. P.
(2001). Evaluation of the psychometric properties of two forgiveness scales. Current
Psychology, 20(3), 260-277. doi: 10.1007/s12144-001-1011-6
Ross, M., & Fletcher, G. J. O. (1985). Attribution and social perception. In G. Lindsey, & E.
Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 73-114). New York, USA:
Random House.
Page 18 of 23ANZAM 2013
18
Scott, D., Bishop, J.W., Chen, X. (2003). An examination of the relationship of employee
involvement with job satisfaction, employee cooperation and intention to quit in US and
invested enterprise in China. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11(1), 3-
19. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/198739290?accountid=14723
Smith, K. G., Carroll, S. J., & Ashford, S. J. (1995). Intra-and interorganizational cooperation:
Toward a research agenda. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 7-23. Retrieved
from http://www.jstor.org/stable/256726
Tomlinson, E. C., Dineen, B. R. & Lewicki, R. J. (2004). The road to reconciliation:
Antecedents of victim willingness to reconcile following a broken promise.
(2004). Journal of Management, 30(2), 165-187. doi: 10.1016/j.jm.2003.01.003
Vasalou, A., Hopfensitz, A., & Pitt, J. V. (2008). In praise of forgiveness: Ways for repairing
trust breakdowns in one-off online interactions. International Journal of Human -
Computer Studies, 66(6), 466-480. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2008.02.001
Wagner, J. A. (1995). Studies in individualism and collectivism: Effects on cooperation in
groups. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 52-172. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/256731
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion.
Psychological Review, 92(4), 548-573. doi: 0033-295X/85/S00.75
Weiner, B. (1988). Attribution theory and attributional therapy: Some theoretical observations
and suggestions. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 27(1), 99-104. doi:
10.1111/j.2044-8260.1988.tb00757.x
Worthington Jr, E. L. (2006). Forgiveness and reconciliation: Theory and application. New
York, USA: Routledge.
Page 19 of 23 ANZAM 2013
Table 1. Participant Characteristics for Study 2
Participant Characteristic Frequency Percent (%)
Ethnicity
Caucasian
Asian
African
Indian
Middle Eastern
Indigenous Australian
Torres Strait Islander
Other
Did not disclose
197
132
3
8
2
1
1
8
5
54.90
36.80
0.80
2.20
0.60
0.30
0.30
2.20
1.40
Type of Employment
Permanent
Contract
Seasonal
Temporary
Casual
Other
51
21
6
36
177
19
14.20
5.80
1.70
10.00
49.30
5.30
Work Mode
Full-time
Part-time
Other
52
213
37
14.50
59.30
10.30
Page 20 of 23ANZAM 2013
Table 2. Means, standard deviations and correlations between variables
Note. **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed); *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
N M (SD) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
1. Task Conflict 357 2.92 (1.10) -
2. Relationship Conflict 357 2.23 (0.95) 0.57**
-
3. Process Conflict 357 2.59 (1.17) 0.78**
0.52**
-
4. Attitudes Towards Forgiveness 320 4.48 (0.96) -0.01 -0.08 -0.05 -
5. Perceived Apology Sincerity 322 2.80 (1.05) -0.03 -0.04 -0.03 0.19**
-
6. Levels of Forgiveness 255 3.44 (1.11) -0.13* -0.20
** -0.15
* 0.48
** 0.59
** -
7. Willingness to Cooperate 313 4.13 (0.98) -0.08 -0.07 -0.09 0.37**
0.17**
0.36**
-
Page 21 of 23 ANZAM 2013
Table 3. Direct effects of the relationship between perceived apology sincerity,
attitude towards forgiveness to level of forgiveness and willingness to coperate
Variable B SE t p
95%
Bias
Correcte
d LLCI
95% Bias
Corrected
LLCI
Level of Forgiveness
Perceived Apology
Sincerity
0.63 0.08 8.19 < .001 0.48 0.78
Attitude Towards
Forgiveness
0.37 0.08 3.33 .001 0.21 0.53
Willingness to Cooperate
Perceived Apology
Sincerity
-0.19 0.09 -2.03 .044 -0.38 -0.01
Attitude Towards
Forgiveness
0.26 0.09 2.93 .004 0.08 0.44
Level of Forgiveness 0.36 0.09 3.98 < .001 0.18 0.54
Note. Direct effects are considered significant (α = .05) if the LLCI and ULCI do not
contain 0. Number of bootstrap samples for bias corrected intervals is 10,000.
Page 22 of 23ANZAM 2013
Table 4. Indirect effect of perceived apology sincerity, attitudes to forgiveness to
willingness to cooperate via Level of Forgiveness
B SE t p
95% Bias
Corrected
LLCI
95% Bias
Corrected
LLCI
Willingness to Cooperate
Total Effect
Perceived Apology
Sincerity
0.04 0.08 0.50 .617 -0.12 0.21
Attitude Towards
Forgiveness
0.40 0.09 4.50 <.001 0.22 0.57
Indirect Effect
Perceived Apology
Sincerity
0.26 0.07 - - 0.13 0.42
Attitude Towards
Forgiveness
0.13 0.05 - - 0.05 0.25
Note. Indirect effects are considered significant (α = .05) if the LLCI and ULCI do
not contain 0. Number of bootstrap samples for bias corrected intervals is 10,000.
Page 23 of 23 ANZAM 2013