{"id":1102,"slug":"kim-ferrin-cooper-dirks-2004-competence-vs-integrity-trust-repair","title":"Kim, Ferrin, Cooper, Dirks 2004 (JAP) — competence violations repair via apology; integrity violations repair via denial; opposite mechanisms","kind":"reference","scope":"business","status":"current","audiences":["kevin","candid-team"],"topics":["psychology-aversion","trust-repair"],"reference_body":"**Claim:** Kim, Ferrin, Cooper, and Dirks (2004) ran two experiments mapping trust-repair strategy onto violation type. The finding is asymmetric and counterintuitive:\n\n- **Competence-based violations: apology that takes responsibility outperforms denial.** Negative competence information is *not* highly diagnostic — being competent doesn't preclude occasional mistakes — so acknowledging the mistake doesn't permanently mark the actor as incompetent.\n- **Integrity-based violations: denial outperforms apology.** Negative integrity information *is* highly diagnostic — honest people don't lie even occasionally — so any acknowledgment is treated as decisive.\n\n**Source:** Kim, P. H., Ferrin, D. L., Cooper, C. D., & Dirks, K. T. (2004). \"Removing the shadow of suspicion: The effects of apology vs. denial for repairing competence- vs. integrity-based trust violations.\" *Journal of Applied Psychology* 89(1): 104–118. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14769123/\n\n**Confidence:** Verified.\n\n**For Candid — diagnosing previous-vendor failures:** When a GC reports a previous vendor experience, the diagnostic question is not \"how bad was it?\" but **\"was the failure framed as competence or integrity?\"**\n\n- *Competence-framed* (\"they didn't know what they were doing\") → **repairable through Candid's demonstrated competence**. Apology-shaped acknowledgment of the previous vendor's mistake is congruent and trust-building.\n- *Integrity-framed* (\"they took my money and disappeared,\" \"they lied about timelines\") → **not repairable through competence demonstration alone**. Requires structural commitments (escrow, milestone payments, references the GC can call directly) that **defuse** rather than answer the integrity question. No amount of \"look at our work\" will substitute.\n\n**Operationalized as:** [[rule-diagnose-prior-vendor-failure-as-competence-or-integrity]].","rationale_body":null,"metadata":null,"links":{"outgoing":[{"slug":"research-brief-risk-aversion-post-failure-may-2026","title":"Research brief: risk aversion, loss aversion, and post-failure decision patterns in GC and trades-business decision-makers (May 2026)","kind":"reference","scope":"business","link_type":"relates-to"},{"slug":"mayer-davis-schoorman-1995-trust-ability-benevolence-integrity","title":"Mayer, Davis, Schoorman 1995 (AMR) — trust = ability + benevolence + integrity; all three required; absence of any forecloses trust","kind":"reference","scope":"business","link_type":"depends-on"}],"incoming":[{"slug":"tversky-kahneman-1973-availability-recency-vs-once-burned","title":"Tversky & Kahneman 1973 (Cognitive Psychology) — availability heuristic; why \"once burned\" is NOT just recency bias","kind":"reference","scope":"business","link_type":"relates-to"},{"slug":"shefrin-statman-1985-disposition-effect-narrow-framing","title":"Shefrin & Statman 1985 (JoF) — disposition effect; narrow-framing / mental accounting of each vendor as separate account","kind":"reference","scope":"business","link_type":"relates-to"},{"slug":"rozin-royzman-2001-negativity-dominance","title":"Rozin & Royzman 2001 (PSPR) — negativity bias / negativity dominance; bad weighs more than the algebraic sum of equivalent goods","kind":"reference","scope":"business","link_type":"relates-to"},{"slug":"rule-engineer-explicit-kill-criteria-into-engagements","title":"R2 — Engineer explicit kill criteria into every multi-month engagement; date + metric in writing; converts open-ended commitment to bounded prospect","kind":"rule","scope":"business","link_type":"depends-on"},{"slug":"rule-diagnose-prior-vendor-failure-as-competence-or-integrity","title":"R5 — Diagnose previous-vendor failures as competence or integrity; route the repair strategy accordingly (apology vs structural commitments)","kind":"rule","scope":"business","link_type":"depends-on"},{"slug":"rule-name-credence-good-problem-explicitly-propose-liability-structures","title":"R8 — Name the credence-good problem explicitly with prospects; propose liability + verifiability structures rather than projecting unwarranted confidence","kind":"rule","scope":"business","link_type":"depends-on"}]},"created_at":"2026-05-25T13:13:31.007Z","updated_at":"2026-05-25T13:13:31.007Z"}