Lewicki Brinsfield 2017 Trust Repair

OP04CH12-Lewicki ARI 23 February 2017 7:56
ANNUAL
REVIEWS Further
Click here to view this article's
online features:
• Download ﬁgures as PPT slides
• Navigate linked references
• Download citations
• Explore related articles
Trust Repair
• Search keywords
Roy J. Lewicki1 and Chad Brinsfield2

Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2017.4:287-313. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by 2a02:2f0f:b111:b400:68d5:e6c7:518c:6fc3 on 01/20/24. For personal use only.
1
Max M. Fisher College of Business, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210;
email: Lewicki.1@osu.edu
2
Opus College of Business, The University of St. Thomas, St. Paul, Minnesota 55105;
email: Brin9288@stthomas.edu
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2017. Keywords

4:287–313
interpersonal trust, interpersonal trust repair, apology
First published online as a Review in Advance on
January 11, 2017
Abstract
The Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior is online at Trust is critical for building and maintaining relationships and for effectively
orgpsych.annualreviews.org working together. When trust is broken, it has serious consequences for
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych- both individuals and organizations. In this review we examine the research
032516-113147 on how to repair broken trust. We begin by defining trust, how it is broken,
Copyright c 2017 by Annual Reviews. how the actor’s violation is attributed, and what it means to repair it. We
All rights reserved then discuss two dominant trust repair strategies: short-term and long-term.
Short-term strategies include verbal statements such as excuses, apologies,
and denials, and compensatory arrangements such as repayment for a loss.
Longer-term strategies include structural rearrangements of the relationship
(e.g., contracts, monitoring), reframing the violation (e.g., attempts to shift
blame, mitigate perceptions of harm), granting forgiveness, and remaining
silent. Lastly, we discuss concerns for the future of trust research such as
construct clarity, measurement, and contextual considerations.
287
1. INTRODUCTION
A significant body of research has documented the negative effects of violating trust. For example,
trust violations can harm cooperation and bargaining outcomes (Croson et al. 2003, Lount et al.
2008); lower organizational commitment (Robinson 1996); provoke retaliation (Bies & Tripp
1996) and the experience of negative affect (Bies & Tripp 1996); decrease the cooperation be-
tween parties (Bottom et al. 2002) and, in more serious cases, trigger organizational level failures
(Gillespie & Dietz 2009).
When trust in any relationship (professional or otherwise) is broken, it has a significant impact
on both the offender and the victim. From the victim’s perspective, trust violation significantly
impacts how the victim thinks about the relationship and how he or she feels toward the offender.
From the violator’s perspective, an opportunistic breach may increase the frequency of subsequent
breaches. If trust is considered to be the “glue that holds most cooperative relationships together”
(Lewicki & Bunker 1996, p. 129), then it is essential that this glue be rebonded if a broken
relationship is to have any hope of returning to a productive or fruitful state.
Trust repair has been studied from a variety of theoretical perspectives and frameworks. First,
trust has been examined in multiple disciplines: psychology, sociology, organizational behav-
ior, communication and rhetoric, and economics, just to name a few. Second, even within the
fields of psychology and organizational behavior, multiple theoretical perspectives have been in-
voked to explain trust repair dynamics—e.g., attributional dynamics (Tomlinson & Mayer 2009)
or transactional dynamics within a psychological contract (Robinson 1996). Third, trust repair
has been approached from at least three analytical levels: interpersonal, group, and organiza-
tional (both individual-organization and organization-organization). Although this review pre-
dominantly addresses trust repair from the interpersonal and small group perspective, where most
of the research has been done, some implications can also be drawn from broader strategies of
individual-organizational trust repair.
From our perspective, a thorough review of the trust repair literature should address the
following questions: How do we define the nature of trust, and how do we define a trust violation?
It will be important to address the following questions, so as to understand the implications of
what it would mean to repair trust:1
1. What is the life cycle of trust and trust repair? To fully understand trust repair, we propose
a four-step life cycle of trust repair. This cycle begins with a pre-existing level of trust,
followed by an action by one party that breaks that trust, a recognition by the other that
trust has been damaged, a series of actions that attempt to repair that trust, and actions by
the parties that signal whether the trust repair efforts have been successful. Since this is a
bilateral process, we will also attempt to address how both the “violator” and the “victim”
view and judge those actions.
1
In proceeding down this path, we are going to bypass two major streams of work that have the potential for making this analysis
even more complex and difficult to absorb. The first is that some theorists have distinguished different types of trust. These
can be summarized as “contractual” versus “relational” (Rousseau et al. 1998), or “calculus-based” versus “knowledge-based”
versus “identification-based” (Lewicki & Bunker 1996). Clearly, the type of trust that has been violated may have implications
for the amount of damage done and the implications for various trust repair strategies. Second, we also bypass an extensive
discussion occurring in the research literature about whether distrust is a construct separate from trust (e.g., Lewicki et al.
1998, Sitkin & Roth 1993). If the constructs are, in fact, distinctly different, actions that may be designed to reduce distrust
are not necessarily the same actions that are designed to rebuild and repair broken trust (also see Lewicki & Tomlinson 2014).
Although these additional discriminators of the trust construct may be important, research on these approaches is somewhat
incomplete and a full treatment of all of these different typologies is likely to undercut the fundamental coherence of our
efforts at a review of the current dominant approaches to trust repair.
288 Lewicki · Brinsfield

2. How does the nature of a trust violation affect trust repair? There are several dimensions
to a trust violation: the type of trustworthiness being displayed by the other, whether the
violation was central or “core” to the relationship, the severity of the violation, the frequency
of the violation, and whether the violation occurred early or late in the developmental stage
of the relationship. We explore how these factors affect trust decline and the implications
for trust repair.
3. What does it mean to “repair” trust, and how has it been approached? Given this timeline,
the bulk of this review will address two different kinds of trust repair—which we will loosely
define as short term and long term. Short-term trust repair includes a collection of actions
that occur soon after the trust violation and can be grouped into two major approaches: verbal
strategies, including accounts, explanations, apologies and denial; and behavioral strategies,
including forms of economic or other compensation for “damages” incurred as a result of

the violation. In contrast, longer-term strategies include collections of actions designed to
introduce more permanent “structural” changes or boundaries in the relationship, while
also providing further healing and restoration of the broken trust: reframing the dispute,
forgiveness, and even silence (i.e., no response).
4. Finally, what are areas for future research exploration and understanding? Although there
are multiple questions, we address three major concerns:
Several problems that arise in research efforts to actually measure and verify changes
in the four-stage model (that is, the actual changes that can be measured and observed
between previolation levels of trust and postrepair levels of trust);
How trust dynamics and trust repair challenges have been affected by the “new” work
environment, in which many workers do their jobs virtually, while others are on con-
tract and not full-time employees of an organization;
Whether differences in culture—primarily international culture—affect the dynamics
of a trust violation and the impact of various approaches to trust repair.
This is a long agenda. So let’s get to work.
2. HOW DO WE DEFINE THE NATURE OF TRUST?

As some research reviews have noted (McKnight & Chervany 2001), there are many different
definitions of trust, which has made the process of specifying trust repair more difficult. For
our purposes, we invoke two definitions that have consistently emerged from the recent liter-
ature: the “intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions
or behavior of another” (Rousseau et al. 1998, p. 395), and “the extent to which a person is
confident in, and willing to act on the basis of, the words, actions and decisions of another”
(McAllister 1995, p. 25). A long stream of research has indicated that trust has cognitive, af-
fective, and behavioral components (McAllister 1995, Rousseau et al. 1998). The cognitive ele-
ments are the beliefs and expectations, the affective components are the emotional “connectivity”
that the trustor has with the other (e.g., “willingness to”), and the behavioral components are the
actual behaviors that the trustor exhibits toward the other (e.g., actual vulnerability). But as the
definitions also imply, trust is a mutual process, and the characteristics of the other party are also
essential to developing trust in a relationship. Thus, “complete” trust judgments are the product
of a complex interaction between the assessments of the trustor making the trust judgment and
the qualities of the trustee as the other displays them. And since these judgments are more likely to
be mutual and interactive (each party’s behavior affects the other’s judgments and reactions) (e.g.,
Kim et al. 2009), it is easy to see how complex and potentially fragile a mutual trust relationship
can be.
www.annualreviews.org • Trust Repair 289

Level of trust
Preexisting
level of trust
(Stage 1)
Longer-term
trust repair
Trust (Stage 4)
violation
Trustee Short-term
recognizes trust repair
violation (Stage 3)
(Stage 2)
Figure 1
Snapshot of a cycle of trust violation and repair.
3. WHAT IS THE LIFE CYCLE OF TRUST AND TRUST REPAIR?

Given this complex, interactive dynamic, it also becomes increasingly difficult to isolate cause and
effect in understanding how trust builds, or how it breaks (Kim et al. 2009). Therefore, we discuss
the trust repair process by attempting to isolate a defined segment of this interactive dynamic.
This segment has four components (see Figure 1; adapted from Dirks et al. 2009):
1. A pre-existing level of trust between the trustor and the trustee;
2. An action by the trustee that causes a “breach” or violation in that existing level of trust and
Erratum a recognition by the trustor that a violation has occurred;
3. Efforts by the trustee to “repair” trust in the interval shortly after the violation, and a response
by the trustor to those initiatives;
4. Presumably, some recovery of trust, and, in some cases, additional efforts at longer-term
trust repair.
Although this cycle of trust violation and repair makes general intuitive sense, research on this
cycle has focused on some aspects more than others.
1. In most of the research on trust repair, it is assumed that there is some pre-existing level
of trust that is damaged or depleted as a result of the trust violation (Step 1); however, this
existing level is seldom directly measured.
2. As noted above, there is ample research support for the multiple ways that different kinds of
trustworthiness can be violated (Step 2). This work is reviewed here in terms of the various
types of strategies and the ways those approaches have been measured.

3. There is an extensive and building literature on short-term trustee (violator) responses to

trust violations (Step 3) that we also summarize.
4. Finally, there are many ways that trust is repaired over the longer term (Step 4). Although
these approaches have not typically been studied under the rubric of trust repair, the net
effect is directed at conflict resolution, enhancing future cooperation and strengthening
trust. However, as with Step 1, the resultant level is seldom ever measured.
Although the model is not complex to describe, there are significant challenges to a thorough
and complete test of it. As noted, one problem is that the trust level at Steps 1 and 4 is presumed
but seldom directly measured. This problem occurs because of the narrow time frame in which
trust repair studies are conducted, as well as the challenges of measuring and calibrating the pre-
post levels of trust (Step 1 versus Step 4). Moreover, it has been proposed that “repaired” trust
is structurally different from previolation “pristine” trust (Dirks et al. 2009, Lewicki & Bunker
1996) and that no trust repair initiatives may ever fully restore trust to its original level (Lewicki
et al. 1998). We return to these issues in Section 6.1.5, The Humpty Dumpty Problem In Trust
Repair.
4. HOW DOES THE NATURE OF A TRUST VIOLATION IMPACT

TRUST REPAIR?
Researchers have long recognized that trust can be violated in many different ways, and the nature
of the violation has important implications for how trust can be repaired. Trust violations can
differ based on the type of trustworthiness that is being violated; the centrality of the violation
related to the nature of the relationship with the other; violation severity, frequency, and timing;
as well as level of analysis. In this section we review how differences in the nature of the trust
violation impact trust repair (see also Table 1).
4.1. Dimensions of Perceived Trustworthiness

A full understanding of a trust violation also requires an explanation of the type of trustworthiness
that has been violated. The broadly accepted framework for defining trustworthiness was proposed
by Mayer et al. (1995), indicating that trust judgments are based on the other’s demonstrated ability,
benevolence, and integrity. Ability equates to the victim’s judgments of the actor’s competence
to perform up to expectations and fulfill commitments; benevolence refers to how “nice” or
“pleasant” the actor is and how well he treats us; and integrity is reflected in whether the actor
tells the truth, keeps his promises, and demonstrates that he holds some foundational moral or
ethical principles and standards. The cognitive components are likely to be related to judgments
of the other’s competence, whereas the affective components are likely to be related to the other’s
benevolence; judgments of the other’s integrity are likely to contain both cognitive and affective
assessments. Research on the trust violation and repair process has dominantly focused on the
differential impact of violations grounded in the violator’s perceived ability or integrity, and has
yielded valuable insights into how ability- and integrity-based trust violations affect trust and how
trust can be repaired more easily through the former than the latter (Kim et al. 2004, 2006).
Several reasons have been identified for why trust repair depends on whether the violation
is perceived as one of ability or integrity. First, some work suggests that there are fundamental
differences in the way that people evaluate positive versus negative information about ability versus
integrity (Kim et al. 2006, Reeder & Brewer 1979). These authors argue that positive information is
more diagnostic than negative information in matters concerning ability, because people recognize
that someone only achieves high performance with high ability. Someone, however, could achieve

Table 1 How does the nature of a trust violation impact trust repair?
Nature of trust violation Implications for trust repair
Based on lack of competence or ability Apology can be effective after a competence-based violation.
Future displays of competence or ability will help restore trust (i.e., it is hard to fake
competence or ability).
Based on lack of integrity or character It is much more difficult to restore trust after this type of violation. Apology is much
less likely to be effective.
Violations involving a core reputational domain, behavioral integrity, or hypocrisy are
especially damaging and difficult to repair.
Denial or silence may sometimes be the optimal strategy for restoring trust (depends
on the evidence).
Structural solutions (e.g., contracts, monitoring) can be useful—especially if provided

voluntarily by the trustee.

Severity and frequency of trust violation Efficacy of repair tactics generally decreases as violation severity increases.
When deciding to reconcile after a severe violation, people rely more heavily on the
relationship’s history.
More frequent violations produce increasing evidence that violation is the trustee’s
normal behavior.
Perceived intentionality If a violation is perceived as intentional, it will have a more negative affect on perceived
trustworthiness (particularly the integrity dimension) and makes trust repair more
difficult.
Timing of trust violation Early trust can be more fragile and violations that occur early in a relationship can be
more harmful.
Severe trust violations in later stages of a relationship can be especially damaging due
to the emotional investment in the relationship and greater sense of betrayal.
low performance with either high or low ability (i.e., imagine a person with high ability who is
not motivated to achieve high performance or has “bad luck”). In contrast, most people treat
negative information as more diagnostic in violations of integrity, because behaviors reflecting
low integrity tend to be viewed as being more reflective of one’s true character (Kim et al. 2006).
In addition, violations involving integrity arouse greater levels of negative affect than violations
involving competence (Tranfinow et al. 2005), and victims tend to generalize this experience more
to other aspects of their relationship (Dirks et al. 2009, Sitkin & Roth 1993).
4.2. Core versus Noncore Violations

Another way that trust violations can differ and thus have implications for trust repair is what
Galinsky & Schweitzer (2015) refer to as core versus noncore violations. Although this concept
has yet to receive attention in the trust literature, in our opinion the idea warrants investigation.
According to Galinsky & Schweitzer, core violations involve transgressions within the most current
and relevant reputational domain (the specific interactional context in which the parties relate to
each other). Thus, for example, two parties may be friends, but their current core “reputational
domain” may be the perceptions of each other’s honesty when buying or selling a used computer.
If one party attempts to cheat the other by lying about the reliability of the computer, that “core
transaction” could significantly color how the parties view each other in other aspects of their
friendship.
Core versus noncore violations appear related to the perceptions of an actor’s hypocrisy and
behavioral integrity. Most definitions of hypocrisy involve the practice of claiming to have high

moral standards or beliefs, but their own behavior does not conform (see Effron & Miller 2015).
Research has generally found that hypocrites elicit more condemnation, anger, and punishment
than nonhypocrites for the same misdeeds (Effron et al. 2015). Hypocrisy has received surpris-
ingly little direct research attention as it relates to trust repair—although one could infer the
debilitating effects of hypocrisy on trust repair because of the way the victim judges the actor’s
perceived integrity. Further research is needed to differentiate core/noncore violations from stud-
ies of hypocrisy and behavioral integrity (alignment or consistency between one’s word and deed;
Simons 2002) and then integrate and build knowledge relevant to trust repair from across these
areas of research.
4.3. Severity of Trust Violation

Unfortunately, research studies have not defined severity of violation in the same way (e.g., magni-
tude of harm, intensity of experience, frequency of occurrence, irreversibility of the consequences,
attributions of intentionality, personalization). Lewicki & Bunker (1996) discussed the magnitude
of a transgression as the degree to which “the violation shakes the very foundation of the rela-
tionship or creates very serious consequences” (p. 136). Yet there is surprisingly little research on
trust repair that specifically tests the effects of violation severity. In a study of victim willingness to
reconcile a professional relationship following a broken promise, Tomlinson et al. (2004) found
that a good past relationship, and the probability of future violation, was more positively related
to willingness to reconcile when a more severe, rather than a less severe, violation occurred. Al-
though they did not find that apologies or their timing decreased in effectiveness as the severity
of the violation increased, other research has found that the efficacy of repair tactics diminish as
the severity of the transgression increases (e.g., Bennett & Earwaker 1994).
4.4. Frequency of Violation

Scholars have acknowledged that more frequent transgressions may be more difficult to repair
(Tomlinson et al. 2004). As incidents of violation of trust become more frequent, they produce
increasing evidence that a trust violation is the trustee’s normal rather than unusual behavior
(Tomlinson & Mayer 2009). As this occurs, tactics for repairing trust likely become less effective as
trustors likely view repair attempts as less sincere (Tomlinson et al. 2004). For example, Gunderson
& Ferrari (2008), while studying infidelity and forgiveness in romantic relationships, manipulated
the frequency of the infidelity and found that forgiveness was most likely when the infidelity was
an isolated incident. In addition, and in accord with a social learning perspective (Bandura 1971),
as people experience more violations in trust across their life domain they learn not to trust and
become more cautious and less willing or able to rebuild trust after a violation (see Ferguson &
Peterson 2015).
4.5. Perceived Intentionality

Whether or not a trust violation is viewed as intentional or not has important implications for
the perceived nature and severity of the violation and subsequent trust repair. In general, if a
victim perceives a betrayal as intentional, it typically has a more negative affect on the perpetra-
tor’s perceived trustworthiness (particularly the integrity dimension) and makes trust repair more
difficult (Klackl et al. 2013). For example, Morris & Moberg (1994) proposed that the victim
would experience a sense of betrayal when she infers whether or not the perpetrator committed
the betrayal volitionally versus when there were some external situational factors that caused the

betrayal. Similarly, Tomlinson & Mayer (2009) draw upon Weiner’s (1986) causal attribution
theory to propose that repairing trust will be easier when the cause of the transgression in due
to factors external to the transgressor, outside of their control, and unstable (i.e., unlikely to be
repeated in similar situations).
4.6. Timing of the Trust Violation in the Context of the Stage

of Relationship Development
Trust violations also can differ according to when in the development of a relationship they
occur—which can have important implications for repairing trust (Kramer & Lewicki 2010). This
can be due to differences in the nature of the relationship and associated differences in trust in
early- versus later-stage relationships (see Robinson et al. 2004).

In explaining the damaging effects of violation early in a relationship, some research suggests
that many individuals “presumptively” trust another, even without a history of interaction—due to
an individual’s disposition to trust, feelings of dependence, a belief that impersonal structures such
as regulations and laws support one’s likelihood of success in a given situation, and cognitive cues
arising from reputations, group membership, and stereotypes (McKnight et al. 1998, Meyerson
et al. 1996). As a result, early trust can be relatively fragile because of the tentative and assumption-
based nature of these antecedents (Kim et al. 2009). Other researchers have suggested that trust is
almost always more fragile and more difficult to repair in the early stage of a relationship (Lewicki
& Bunker 1995) because it is more likely to be transaction based and there is less emotional
investment in sustaining the relationship.
Similarly, Lount et al. (2008) found that trust violations that occur early in a relationship, when
trust is building, are much more harmful to the future of the relationship than when trust is violated
at a later stage. Likewise, in a study of international buyer-supplier relationships, Bell et al. (2002)
found that early violations of benevolence were particularly harmful and caused the trustor to
become more sensitized to violations in integrity and ability. Moreover, research on the primacy
effects of justice judgments also has found that perceptions of injustice early in a relationship
may be more harmful than an injustice at a later stage (see Lind et al. 2001). This notion is
based on fairness heuristic theory (Lind 1995), which indicates that once a fairness judgment is
formed, there will be cognitive resistance to changing it in response to later fairness-relevant
information. Later experiences and information will instead be adjusted toward the previously
anchored fairness judgment. In addition, in the early stages of a relationship, people do not have
the benefit of evaluating another’s behavior over a longer time horizon where aggregation of
information may moderate the impact of an isolated trust violation (Robinson et al. 2004).
In contrast, other research suggests that trust violations later in a relationship can be more
damaging than earlier violations. Lewicki & Wiethoff (2000) noted that as relationships develop
over time, there is increased likelihood that people become more emotionally invested in the
relationship. Trust violations in these more developed relationships can be a greater threat to
one’s identity and values (Lewicki & Bunker 1995, Lind & Tyler 1988). Similarly, research on
betrayal suggests that trust violations in later stages can be especially devastating because it disrupts
an ongoing meaningful relationship in which partners likely have invested greater material and
emotional resources and have more established trusting expectations (Fitness 2001). Moreover,
the trust developed in established relationships may intensify the experience of a violation because
of the discrepancy between the more established trusting expectations and the violation (Robinson
et al. 2004).
Similarly, Bottom et al. (2002) found that early violations led to calm, cognitive, economically
oriented reactions in the victim, but later violations led to surprised, emotional, trust-oriented

reactions. In later-stage relationships when deeper affect-based trust has had a chance to form,
people are more prone to give others the benefit of the doubt. This is because the need for cognitive
consistency and emotional security likely reduces the chance that a questionable behavior will be
perceived as a trust violation. However, when the evidence is not ambiguous, and it is clear that
a trust violation has occurred, then the effects of a violation are likely to be more damaging for
reasons discussed in the previous paragraphs (i.e., greater sense of betrayal and more damage to
one’s identity and self-esteem).
The differing perspectives regarding the timing of a trust violation suggest that repair efforts
may need to be more cognitively oriented if the violation occurred at an early stage of the re-
lationship. If the violation occurred at a later stage, then repair efforts need to focus more on
the emotional aspects of the relationship. Most of the research that has empirically examined the
effects of trust violations has focused on violations that occur at a relatively early stage in a rela-
tionship. Pragmatic considerations of controlled laboratory and simulation research make it easier
to create and study “early-stage relationships” in the laboratory, whereas it is difficult to study
mature relationships in the same context (i.e., it is more difficult to find participants who share a
substantial history). Research in other areas of inquiry such as the study of intimate relationships,
betrayal, and forgiveness does focus more on the consequences of trust violations in later stages
of a relationship.
4.7. Summary
In this section, we have reviewed several key elements of a trust violation that may determine the
effectiveness of a trust repair strategy. These elements include the type of trustworthiness being
violated, whether the violation is “core” or foundational to the parties’ relationship, the severity
and frequency of the violation, perceived intentionality of the violator’s action, and timing of the
violation within the context of the lifespan of the parties’ relationship. This brief review should
make it transparent that the research results are often incomplete and sometimes contradictory,
and that the elements often combine and interact with each other. By far, the most frequently
studied variable thus far has been the nature of the victim’s trustworthiness that has been violated.
We now turn to review the various approaches to trust repair.
5. WHAT ARE THE DOMINANT STRATEGIES OF TRUST REPAIR?

As we noted in the introduction, there have been two different kinds of trust repair—which we
loosely define as short term and long term. We first address the short-term approaches. These
may be grouped into two major subcategories: verbalizations by the offender (using words directed
at the violation) and behaviors by the offender (using actions directed at repairing the tangible
consequences of the violation). These strategies comprise our Stage 3 of the trust repair model
(Figure 1); that is, they are implemented within a very short time span, after either the offender
or the victim notices a violation. In the following section, we explore longer-term strategies for
trust repair that operate in Stage 4 of this model. Short-term and long-term approaches are not
mutually exclusive of each other and are frequently used in combination or sequence. We now
explore these two approaches in depth.
5.1. Short-Term Approaches to Trust Repair

In this section, we review four major approaches to short-term trust repair: verbal statements,
apologies, compensation, and denial (Table 2). Verbal statements are efforts to use words to

Table 2 Short-term strategies for trust repair

Type of strategy Explanation of the basic approach
Verbal statements Accounts, excuses, explanations, apologies—an effort to verbally address the violation and “move on” in the
relationship; can vary in how specific they are and how they are worded
Apologies A specific type of verbal statement that explains the violation and may also add “emotional content” such as
intent behind the violation, regret, and promise of changed behavior
Compensation Provides direct tangible compensation to the victim for the costs of the violation, with or without any verbal
statement
Denial Denial of the violation or its causality by the violator; can be effective if the violation casts doubt on the
violator’s personal integrity (honesty, character) or the cause of the violation cannot be proven
repair the trust violation, and include explanations, accounts, excuses and apologies. Apologies
are a form of verbal strategy, but because there is an extensive literature specifically devoted to
apologies, we treat this as a separate, second approach. The third approach is to compensate the
victim for the damage done by the trust violation (regardless of any verbal statements), and the
fourth approach is to deny or minimize that the violation actually occurred.
5.1.1. Verbal statements. Probably the most extensive exploration of trust repair has been
through an understanding of different kinds of verbal statements following a violation. These
include accounts, excuses, explanations, apologies, and even denial—all verbal statements spoken
by the violator to the victim in an attempt to address the violation and be able to “move on” in
the relationship.
Accounts and explanations are roughly similar to each other, in that they provide mechanisms
to address the repair of damage in an interpersonal relationship. Each is generally used to ac-
knowledge that a violation occurred—usually one of trust or fairness—and to take ownership and
responsibility for the violation. Bies & Shapiro (1987), Shapiro (1991), and Shaw et al. (2003) pro-
vide detailed assessments of the types, role, and function of explanations. For example, Shapiro
et al. (1994) found that explanations that were more specific and detailed about the circumstances
of the violation were judged as more effective than those that were less specific but delivered in a
more sincere manner.
Although accounts and explanations only acknowledge that a violation occurred, and perhaps
provide an explanation for the violation, apologies provide more information, in that they also
often “personalize” the explanation by adding emotional content such as regret, ownership for the
violation, and expressed intention to behave differently in the future.
Apologies for significant misbehavior have almost become an everyday occurrence in the public
and private sector; all one has to do is read the morning newspaper or listen to the evening news.
A political leader apologizes for accepting a bribe from a lobbyist to award a major municipal
contract to a specific supplier. A professional athlete apologizes to her fans for taking performance-
enhancing drugs. A business leader apologizes for knowingly selling thousands of defective air
bag detonators to major automobile manufacturers. Upon closer examination of these apologies,
however, it becomes clear that some apologies are more “effective” than others—as defined by
how credible they seem, how they are expressed, and a variety of other factors including the
characteristics of the person expressing the apology, the structure of the apology itself, and the
context in which it is delivered.
The research on apologies is extensive and growing rapidly, particularly in the past decade.
Moreover, apologies have been the focus of several different academic disciplines, including

Table 3 What determines whether an apology is effective?

Key determinant of
effectiveness Explanation
Type of trust violation Apologies are more effective when there is a perceived violation of competence-based trustworthiness
than of integrity-based trustworthiness.
Victim interpretation of Apologies tend to be more effective when they are directed toward the individual as “self ” rather than
the apology directed to the individual as part of a group.
Structure of the apology Apologies are more effective when they contain more key components: expression of regret, explanation
for the violation, acknowledgment of responsibility, declaration of repentance, offer of repair and
request for forgiveness.
linguistics, sociology, crisis communication, and social psychology. Crisis communication scholars
are most interested in how individuals and organizations use discourse to repair their public image.
For example, Benoit (2015) summarizes the results of numerous case studies of organizational and
personal crisis communication and elaborates a “theory of image repair” that identified five major
strategies by which spokespersons accounted for the crisis events: denial, evasion of responsibility,
minimizing the negative consequences of the offensive act, expressing some regret for the offensive
act, and proposing corrective action for the future. At least three of these five strategies attempt to
deny or minimize responsibility for the offensive action, as opposed to remediate the offense—a
point to which we return below.
Tomlinson et al. (2004) provided a review of the literature of the two subsequent decades
and collected data to provide empirical support for the importance of apologies in trust and
relationship repair. Their results confirmed that apologies were more effective (a) when compared
to trust violations with no subsequent apology; (b) when they were perceived as sincere; (c) when
the apologizer assumed personal responsibility for creating the violation; (d ) when they were
delivered soon after the trust violation; (e) when the trust violation was seen as an isolated event;
and ( f ) when the parties already had an established, strong, positive relationship.
Multiple streams of research have emerged over the past decade to elaborate upon and refine
these findings. Only three of these many streams are briefly addressed here: (a) how the type of trust
violation affects the perceived effectiveness of the repair strategy, (b) how the victim interprets the
apology, and (c) how the structure of the apology itself affects its perceived effectiveness (Table 3).
5.1.1.1. Apologies and type of trust violation. A seminal series of studies by Ferrin et al. (2007a,b)
and Kim et al. (2004, 2006) examined the effects of an apology versus alternative verbal responses
on trust repair. They discovered that the effectiveness of an apology depended heavily on the type of
trustworthiness that was violated (ability, benevolence, or integrity). Using a collection of scenario-
based studies, the authors varied whether the perpetrator committed a violation of competence
(“I made a mistake”) or a violation of integrity (“‘I lied’ or ‘I was intentionally dishonest’”).
Two striking results emerged from their studies. First, apologies were more effective when the
perpetrator’s actions were perceived as a violation of competence, but denial of responsibility was
perceived to be more effective when the actions were perceived to be a violation of integrity. The
rationale for these findings was that an error of competence can be construed as a correctable
“mistake” that can be rectified and remediated by subsequent actions. However, admitting to and
apologizing for a violation of integrity imply defective character in the perpetrator, and no apology
or reassurance can be interpreted as adequate to restore full trust; thus, on a relative basis, denying
the violation was seen as a preferred response. However, in a related study, apologies were more

effective than “silence,” or not responding to the violation at all, because the perceived failure to
respond at all was seen as indicating that the perpetrator did not care about either the relationship
or the consequences to the victim. These results reinforce the results reported from Benoit (2015),
cited above, reporting that three of the five dominant strategies of “image repair” in response to
a crisis were to NOT apologize or accept responsibility for the violation.
5.1.1.2. Victim interpretation of the apology. In a recent comprehensive review of the conditions
under which apologies are effective or not, Fehr & Gelfand (2010) point out that one of the
major determinants of whether an apology is effective is how the individual recipient perceives,
processes, and acts on that information. Individuals differ in the way they orient themselves and
interpret information central to that personal view, a dynamic known as “self-construal” (Cross
& Madson 1997). There are three different forms of self-construal: independent self-construal,
by which an individual views the self as unique, autonomous and independent; relational self-
construal, by which an individual views the self as strongly connected to a selective group of other
people; and collective self-construal, by which an individual views the self as part of a broader
collective grouping, such as race, ethnic group, gender, or sexual orientation. Fehr & Gelfand
proposed that the effectiveness of any action to repair trust would be dependent on the victim’s
self-construal orientation. Specifically, for those with an autonomous self-construal orientation,
any form of apology would be less effective than compensation for the damages incurred from the
trust violation; for those with a relational self-construal orientation, expressions of empathy would
be most effective; and for those with a collective self-construal orientation, acknowledgment of
a violation of norms and rules for how the “collective” should be treated (e.g., comments that
negatively refer to the race or ethnic group or gender) would be most effective. These results were
confirmed in several studies and raise two additional issues about the role of apologies. First, the
“structure” of an apology clearly makes an impact, as we address this next. Second, there are times
when apologies are less effective than direct compensation—an approach to trust repair that we
elaborate upon shortly.
5.1.1.3. Structure of the apology itself. As previously noted, the verbal structure of the apology
itself can have a significant impact on its effectiveness. For example, Schlenker & Darby (1981)
identified five components of an apology: a statement of intent; an expression of remorse, sorrow
or embarrassment; an offer to help the injured party; some statement of self-punishment for the
violation; and some effort to obtain forgiveness from the victim. The authors propose that the
number of components “required” for an apology varies based on the severity of the offense;
an offense with minimal consequences might only require a “perfunctory form of an apology”
(p. 275)—i.e., “I’m sorry”—whereas a more serious violation would require more components.
Several studies in the psychology and communications fields have debated and elaborated on
the definition and distinction of key apology components (also see Lewicki & Polin 2012, Scher
& Darley 1997), conducting both laboratory research as well as content analyses of actual public
apologies. One definitive examination of the importance of particular apology components is
provided by Lewicki et al. (2016). After examining and deconstructing several of these prior studies
and arguments regarding the relative importance of certain components, the authors proposed
their own six components of an effective apology (Table 4):
an expression of regret for the offense;
an explanation for why the violation occurred;
an acknowledgment of responsibility for whatever part the violator played in causing the
violation;

Table 4 The structure of an effective apologya

Apology component Explanation/Illustration
Expression of regret Violator says “I’m sorry”
Explanation Violator explains the reasons why the offense occurred: “I made a mistake.”
Acknowledgment of Violator accepts some responsibility for causing the violation: “I was wrong in what I did.”
responsibility
Declaration of repentance Violator promises not to repeat the offense: “I have learned my lesson and I will not do this again.”
Offer of repair Violator offers a way to correct the damage done: “I will do this again and do it correctly this time.”
Request for forgiveness Violator requests a pardon from the victim: “Please forgive me for the harm I have caused you by my
mistake.”
a
Components were identified in Lewicki et al. (2016).
a declaration of repentance, expressing an intention to not repeat the violation;

an offer of repair, indicating a path to recovery of the trust that has been broken;
a request for forgiveness, asking for the victim to “pardon” the violator’s actions.
Employing the scenario used in the Kim et al. (2004, 2006) studies described earlier, Lewicki
et al. (2016) conducted several studies to address two fundamental questions: (a) Are apologies
more effective when more of these components are included, and (b) are some of these components
more important than others for an apology to be deemed effective? The answer is “yes” to both
questions. First, apologies that included more of the components were deemed more effective
than apologies with fewer components. Second, some components were definitely viewed as more
critical to an effective apology, when examined either individually or in the context of the other
components. Across several studies, three components were identified as more critical than others:
An explanation of why the violation occurred, an acknowledgment of responsibility, and an offer
of repair were seen as most critical, whereas a request for forgiveness was seen as the least critical
for inclusion in an apology. When evaluating the type of trust violation, paralleling the results of
the Kim et al. studies, apologies for competence-based violations were seen as more effective than
apologies for integrity-based violations.
5.1.2. Compensation. In contrast to some verbal statement of account, explanation, or apology,

an alternative approach to trust repair is to provide some kind of direct, tangible compensation to
the victim for whatever damage may have occurred as a result of the trust breach. In fact, several
researchers (e.g., Farrell & Rabin 1996) argue that explanations and apologies are no more than
“cheap talk” and that only direct reparations can be effective. This compensation can be of several
forms. First, it could be a direct repayment for the value of what was lost as a result of the violation.
So, for example, if you missed a flight because I was late in picking you up to take you to the airport,
I might pay you for the cost of rebooking a new flight. Second, it could be a “symbolic” repayment;
thus, I may not pay you for the cost of rebooking but instead offer to take you out for an expensive
dinner when you get back from your trip. In addition, the compensation can “match” the value
of the loss, or be over or under that amount, and the compensation amount can clearly interact
with other aspects of trust repair, such as the severity of the violation and whether apologies and
compensation are more effective than either one separately.
Several studies have been conducted on these issues, and the results are mixed. In one review
of past research, Fehr et al. (2010) concluded that apologies alone could be effective if they
fully express the violator’s understanding of the negative consequences incurred by the victim.
Alternatively, Coombs & Holladay (2008) found that compensation and apologies were equally

effective in repairing a relationship. Finally, Bottom et al. (2002) demonstrated that compensation
was clearly more important than apologies in restoring long-term cooperation.
Finally, studies have shown that apologies and compensation together can be more effective
than either one alone. For example, De Cremer (2010) demonstrated that financial compensation
was more important when the victim suffered direct financial losses, whereas apologies were more
effective when the victim suffered some incompleteness in receiving financial gains. Haesevoets
et al. (2013) found that apologies “enhance” compensation payments; compensation is directed
at directly repaying the tangible damages incurred by the violation, whereas apologies focus on
“relationship preservation” by addressing the emotional damage. They found that the tangible
compensation was only effective when it fully redressed the harm suffered by the victim, but that
apologies could be effective in relationship repair even when the tangible compensation may not
be fully adequate to address the tangible harm.

Clearly, more research deserves to be conducted here. These studies differ in the type of and
magnitude of trust violation, as well as the context in which trust repair was conducted. Many
studies used economic games in which direct tangible losses were incurred, and others used more
complex scenarios in which both economic and interpersonal consequences were at stake. As with
the nature of apologies, in which “more components” are likely to be more effective to relationship
repair than less, combining both apologies and some form of tangible, compensatory redress—
whether it be in-kind or symbolic—is likely to enhance the effectiveness of trust repair efforts.
5.1.3. Denial. Denial is defined as “a statement whereby an allegation is explicitly declared to be

untrue (i.e., the statement acknowledges no responsibility and hence no regret)” (Kim et al. 2004,
p. 105). Denial is distinct from other types of verbal repair tactics such as causal accounts, excuses,
and apologies (Crant & Bateman 1993, Kim et al. 2004). From a theoretical perspective, denial
works in much the same way as other verbal accounts, that is, by changing a victim’s attributions
about a transgressor’s role in a perceived violation. Its effectiveness in changing attributions in large
part depends on the nature of the violation and the clarity of the evidence against a transgressor.
Denial may be an effective response to a trust violation because it may lead individuals to give
the accused party the benefit of the doubt. The disadvantage of denial is that it indicates that
there is no need to remedy one’s behavior, which may in turn raise concerns about a transgressor’s
future actions to the extent that there are concerns about their culpability. However, denial may still
be an effective response to a trust violation to the extent that its benefits (potential disconfirmation
of guilt) outweigh its costs (lower likelihood of redemption) (Kim et al. 2004).
One of the most widely cited findings from research on denial and trust repair is that a denial is
more effective than an apology when a trust violation is based on integrity. Conversely, an apology
is more effective than a denial when a violation is based on ability. These differential effects of
denial versus apology emerge only when guilt has not been definitively established. A denial is
counterproductive if guilt has been proven or is perceived to have been proven (Kim et al. 2004).
An important caveat of this research is that it occurred in face-to-face interactions. Research on
trust repair in online environments suggests that a denial is not effective for an ability or integrity
violation (Matzat & Snijders 2012, Utz et al. 2009). The authors explained these findings as
possibly due to people online being less willing to believe a denial, and therefore the situation
was treated as though guilt had already been established. It is important to note that these studies
occurred in an e-commerce online environment (e.g., eBay). It is not clear if these findings would
apply to colleagues working together virtually where mutual interests and relational dynamics are
more established.
Clearly, more work is needed to better understand in what situations denial is an effective
alternative for repairing trust. If one is not guilty of a perceived transgression, then a denial is

likely warranted. However, it is unclear how a denial should be framed or combined with other
repair tactics (e.g., displays of empathy, acknowledging the harm to the victim). In everyday work
situations it is unlikely that a message of denial would be delivered in isolation such as in a simple, “I
didn’t do it.” Rather, it is likely that some type of explanation or evidence would also be presented.
Another line of inquiry that could inform our understanding of when and how to use a denial
concerns the potential differential effects of denial on trust and distrust. For instance, if trust is
more related to task reliability and demonstrating competence, and distrust is more associated
with perceived value incongruence or integrity violations, it would be interesting to determine
whether an apology is more effective for trust repair while denial of culpability is more effective
for managing distrust (Guo et al. 2017).
5.2. Longer-Term Strategies for Trust Repair

Although verbal statements and compensation have received the greatest attention in the trust
repair literature, there are other strategies for trust repair that have received less attention. These
include (a) structural arrangements that bound, control, and monitor future interaction; (b) re-
framing the events such that the perception of the event, or the emotional response and its con-
sequences, is minimized; (c) helping the victim engage in forgiveness; and (d ) the role of silence
in addressing the violation (Table 5).
Table 5 Longer-term strategies for trust repair

Longer-term strategy Implications for trust repair
Structural arrangements (e.g., policies, procedures, Limits possibilities for subsequent violation
contracts, monitoring, hostage posting) More effective if done voluntarily by the trustee
Better at addressing task-specific reliability than value congruence
May have the unintended effect of reducing trust because subsequent
behavior cannot be attributed to trustee’s true feelings
May be better for reducing distrust than for restoring trust
Reframing (e.g., attempts to shift blame, explain away, Can shape a trustor’s interpretation of the violation and the harm that was
minimize perceptions of damage) done
Can reshape perceptions of the trustee’s intentions
Can influence trustor to recalibrate their expectations
Can help trustor to recognize factors that constrained or influenced the
trustee’s behavior
Forgiveness (i.e., shifting from negative to positive Forgiveness signals a willingness to preserve the relationship and to restore
thoughts and feelings about a transgressor) trust.
Accompanying shift to positive thoughts and feelings positively impacts
perceived trustworthiness.
Expressions of remorse, guilt, shame, and recognition of harm can promote
forgiveness.
Silence Less effective than apology for an ability-based violation of trust
May be less effective than denial for an integrity-based violation (depends on
the irrefutability of the evidence)
From a trustee’s perspective can be used to hedge one’s bets until all the
evidence is known
May provide the trustee with time to concoct an alibi, hide evidence,
reframe the interaction, etc.

5.2.1. Structural arrangements. One longer-term trust repair strategy has been to create new
and different structural arrangements between the parties so that the parties bound and limit their
future possibilities for subsequent violation. Their intended purpose is to modify the situation
that contributed to the trust violation in the first place. These strategies might include separating
the parties; controlling the manner in which they interact; creating contracts, treaties, or other
documents that specify the exact consequences for a future violation so as to minimize the likeli-
hood of its occurrence; or even proposing self-imposed penalties if the violator repeats the offense.
Structural arrangements, however, are a double-edged sword. That is, although they may some-
times help to restore trust (see Dirks et al. 2009), at other times they can hinder the restoration
of trust (e.g., Malhotra & Murnighan 2002) because their existence creates boundaries that may
limit direct future person-person interaction which could heal the trust repair.
Structural arrangements have been examined from a variety of perspectives in the trust and
relationship repair literature. Sitkin & Roth (1993) refer to “legalistic remedies” as the use of
various controls (e.g., policies, procedures, contracts, monitoring) that increase the reliability of
future behavior and therefore restore trust. Sitkin & Roth distinguish two dimensions of trust—
task-specific reliability and value congruence. They propose that legalistic remedies address task-
specific reliability (e.g., competence-based trustworthiness), but do not address concerns of value
congruence (e.g., integrity-based trustworthiness). Therefore, these types of remedies are often
limited in their effectiveness for restoring integrity-based violations.
Similarly, Nakayachi & Watabe (2005) suggest a process they call hostage posting, which is a
commonly used term in economics and refers to a self-sanctioning system in uncertain situations.
In social exchanges, hostage posting functions as a commitment device by obligating a party (the
violator) to forfeit a pledged reserve if an agreement is not fulfilled. An important moderator of the
effectiveness of hostage posting for restoring trust is the extent to which it was done voluntarily by
the trustee rather than imposed by the trustor or third party (i.e., agreeing to forfeit a security bond
or surrender a preferred choice if the agreement is violated again). Voluntary hostage posting has
been found to be effective not only because it changes the incentive structure, but because it also
signals the good and authentic intentions of the trustee. Moreover, voluntary hostage posting also
signals that the trustee is confident in their ability to fulfill an agreement that may be interpreted
by a trustor as a signal of competence (Nakayachi & Watabe 2005).
Gillespie & Dietz (2009) discuss a similar concept, which they term a distrust regulation mech-
anism. This mechanism attempts to overcome employees’ distrust arising from an organizational-
level trust violation. It does so through actions designed to prevent future trust violations by
addressing the direct and contributory factors that led to the violation. Unlike hostage posting,
however, these mechanisms may be jointly defined rather than unilaterally self-imposed. This
may involve implementing sufficient regulatory controls to prevent or constrain organizational
members from acting in ways that could lead to future violations, including penalties, surveillance,
or the removal of incentives that may encourage untrustworthy behavior.
An important distinction regarding structural arrangements, which may help explain some of
the inconsistent findings in the literature, is the differential way they may operate on different
forms of trust and distrust. In the context of interorganizational relationships, Lumineau (2014)
distinguishes between the controlling and coordinating functions of contracts (see also Malhotra
& Lumineau 2011) and how these may have different effects on calculative and noncalculative
trust and distrust. This work suggests potential benefits in framing structural arrangements as a
coordinating mechanism, in contrast to controlling mechanism, when attempting to repair trust.
Thus, for example, Osgood (1962) proposed a system called GRIT (Graduated Reduction in
Intergroup Tension) for reducing distrust between warring parties. The GRIT system suggests

that parties make a series of mutually simultaneous concessions—starting with very small ones that
gradually increase as the other complies—to signal to the other one’s willingness to rebuild the trust
in the relationship. In contrast, mechanisms that control behavior may be better suited for reducing
distrust than for restoring trust, and particularly if the control mechanisms are mandatory rather
than voluntary. Moreover, Gillespie & Dietz (2009) propose that mechanisms for constraining
future untrustworthy behavior may be more beneficial after an integrity violation than after an
ability violation. This is because displays of integrity following an integrity violation will be less
diagnostic than displays of ability following an ability violation (see Kim et al. 2006).
An important limitation of using structural factors is that they do not directly address whether
or not dispositional factors contributed to the trust violation. This leaves open the question of
whether a motivated, untrustworthy individual will reoffend by finding a way to “skirt the system”
(Dirks et al. 2011). A key factor in the effectiveness of structural remedies is the extent to which
they elicit perceived repentance (i.e., the trustee sincerely regrets their actions, is intrinsically
committed to reforming their personal shortcomings, and has resolved to act differently in the
future). This is difficult to discern when structural remedies constrain behavior because it is hard
to know if the new behavior is due to actual repentance, or simply due to the new constraints.
Similar to other findings (e.g., Nakayachi & Watabe 2005), one way structural arrangements can
signal repentance is the extent to which they are voluntarily offered by the trustee.
5.2.2. Reframing. As suggested by some of the earlier tools described, such as the role of explana-
tions or accounts or the framing of structural parameters as coordinating mechanisms, the process
of reframing the trust violation can be an effective repair tactic. Communication by an offender
after a violation can frame and shape a victim’s interpretation of the trust violation (Goffman
1971), help the victim in cognitive sensemaking (Heider 1958), and shape their perceptions of
the offender’s intentions (Weiner et al. 1987) by providing information that would otherwise be
unavailable (Tomlinson & Mayer 2009). Trust violations are often based on unmet expectations.
Reframing can influence victims to retrospectively recalibrate their expectations—potentially mit-
igating the perception that a violation has even occurred. Reframing can involve reframing the
expectations, the relationship, the context, or the acts and causal attributions of both the offender
and victim (Dewulf et al. 2009).
Dewulf et al. (2009) differentiate between cognitive and interactional framing—both of which
can be useful for repairing damaged trust. According to Dewulf et al., cognitive frames represent
mental structures that facilitate organizing and interpreting incoming perceptual information by
fitting it into one’s already existing schemas about reality (Minsky 1975). From this perspective,
relational dynamics are often distorted because of biases and failures in information processing.
This perspective is exemplified by the role of cognitive frames in conflict and dispute processes and
decision-making heuristics (Neale & Bazerman 1985). For example, a trust violator could attempt
to “reframe” the perceived loss incurred by the victim, by describing it as some kind of perceived
gain (e.g., trying to convince a coworker that the reason you accepted an overseas assignment that
they were hoping to get was because they would not have to be away from their family).
Interactional framing is about exchanging cues that indicate how an ongoing interaction should
be understood (Goffman 1974). It represents a realignment or “coconstruction” of a reality built
from numerous elements assimilated during the ongoing process of interaction (Gonos 1977).
From this perspective, trust breeches may arise because of the way people interactively coconstruct
issues, relationships, and interactions. Therefore, repairing trust consists primarily of finding new
alignments and understandings among those involved (Dewulf et al. 2009). Reframing a situation
can also aid in perspective taking (i.e., imagining another person’s thoughts or feelings from that

person’s point of view; Davis 1994), which can be helpful in the restoration of trust (Williams 2012).
Perspective taking may help transgressors and victims take steps to repair trust, especially when
a violation is initially only recognized by the victim. Perspective taking may allow transgressors
to recognize these violations and allow victims to recognize contextual factors that may have
constrained or influenced the transgressor’s behavior (Williams 2012). For example, this article
is being written against the backdrop in the United States of a tense relationship between police
and members of urban black communities. Rather than frame this as an issue of “Black Lives
Matter” or “Police Lives Matter,” many peacekeepers are attempting to define the issue as “All
Lives Matter” and to reframe the problem for all members of a community.
5.2.3. Forgiveness. The process and outcomes of forgiveness have recently begun to generate
interest in the trust repair literature—although forgiveness has been of interest to clinical psy-
chologists and relationship scholars for much longer (see McCullough et al. 1997, Rusbult et al.
1991). Forgiveness appears to be an important factor in the trust repair process because, through
forgiveness, the victim accepts that some type of violation occurred and is willing to resume some
relationship building with the offender, but also that the offender shows regret and is committed
to not repeating the violation (Kramer & Lewicki 2010).
Although no universal definition of forgiveness exists, most scholars agree that forgiveness
is not pardoning, condoning, justifying, excusing, self-denial, or forgetting (Butler et al. 2002).
Most scholars view forgiveness as a personal “coming to terms with” or achieving an inner peace
concerning an offense, combined with extending a benevolent orientation toward the offender, and
potentially (but not necessarily) beginning steps toward a reconciliation of the relationship (Butler
et al. 2013). Maio et al. (2008) note that forgiveness involves consciously moving away “from
negative thoughts, feelings, and behaviors toward the transgressor to more positive thoughts,
feelings, and behaviors” (p. 307).
Many antecedents and outcomes of forgiveness that have parallels to, and/or implications for,
trust repair have been examined. A key factor that can promote forgiveness is an apology (Lewicki
et al. 2016, McCullough et al. 1997). Apologies that are interpreted as motivated by shame or guilt
appear to increase forgiveness, whereas those motivated by pity decrease forgiveness (Hareli &
Eisikovits 2006). Similarly, expressions of remorse decrease the perceived likelihood of a repeat
offense, thereby increasing the likelihood of forgiveness (Gold & Weiner 2000). Several models
of forgiveness position empathy as a key factor in the process of forgiveness (e.g., Enright &
Fitzgibbons 2000). Other factors that promote forgiveness include the ability of the offender to
recognize the harm done to the victim and the strength of both parties’ commitment to preserve
the relationship (Hodgson & Wertheim 2007).
Clearly, the study of forgiveness is a rapidly evolving area of scientific inquiry. However, its
precise role in trust repair remains unclear. More work in this area is needed to determine such basic
issues as how are different dimensions or forms of trust (e.g., transactional versus relational trust),
or even distrust, related to forgiveness? Is forgiveness more likely an antecedent or outcome of
trust repair? Does forgiveness have different implications for short- versus long-term trust repair?
Is forgiveness more important for trust repair in particular contexts (e.g., close interpersonal
relationships) than in others (e.g., transactional working relationships)? These areas will require
increased attention from trust scholars.
5.2.4. Silence. Remaining silent on the part of the trustee as a tactic for restoring trust after a
violation has received surprisingly little research attention. Anecdotally, however, silence appears
to be a common tactic. For example, when actor Bill Cosby was accused of multiple incidents of
sexual assault, he refused to even address the allegations for the first several months (Folkenflik &

Deggans 2014). In the Catholic church, bishops and cardinals refused to acknowledge that some
priests had been guilty of sexual misconduct, and transferred these priests to other churches rather
than acknowledge the problem and provide care for the victims.
In the research literature on trust, there is only one article that explicitly examines silence as
a tactic for trust repair. Ferrin et al. (2007b) found that reticence (silence), as a tactic to repair
trust, was inferior to the optimal response (i.e., denial for an integrity violation or apology for a
competence violation). They also found that silence doesn’t differ significantly from the inferior
response (i.e., denial for a competence violation, apology for an integrity violation). These findings
are informative but limited in the conclusions that can be drawn from them. There are situations
when silence makes the most sense from the trustee’s perspective, even if it is not perceived as
most effective (at a given point in time) from a trustor’s perspective. For example, following a trust
violation, silence by the offender may be used to hedge one’s bets. That is, an offender knows
they have committed a trust violation, but they may neither want to confirm it with a verbal or
compensatory response and face the consequences, nor do they want to deny it and then later
have it revealed that their denial was a lie (which may compound the consequences associated with
the original violation). Information asymmetry plays a role—often only the offender may know
if they have indeed committed a violation; however, the offender may not know what information
the victim has, and hence it may make sense to remain silent until the victim reveals the scope of
their evidence.
The choice of which tactic is most effective (silence, denial, or acknowledgment) partly depends
on the irrefutability of the evidence. If the evidence is irrefutable, an apology or compensatory
arrangement may make the most sense. When it’s very refutable, denial may make the most sense
(see Kim et al. 2004). When there is an intermediate level of refutability (i.e., the evidence of the
cause and seriousness of the event is ambiguous or indeterminate), silence may make the most sense.
Moreover, remaining silent may provide the trustee with time to concoct an alibi, hide evidence,
reframe the interaction, etc. The trustee would seem to make a calculation comparing the costs of
denial versus apology versus the costs of the adverse inferences associated with remaining silent.
The choice of silence also depends on the context and the degree to which others know about
the violation. In a business setting, merely being accused is often enough to hurt one’s reputation
(so a quick denial may be most effective), but in other settings the damaging effects to reputation
may not be as important. The viability of silence as an option also depends on one’s belief in one’s
ability to craft a good denial or reframe the events in a way that deflects blame.
6. MAJOR CONCERNS FOR THE FUTURE OF TRUST

REPAIR RESEARCH
Readers will note that there are several areas in which research is incomplete, or contradictory, or
raises more new questions than it definitively answers old ones. A full iteration of those concerns
is beyond our scope. Instead we focus on three major areas for future work: methods and measures
for studying trust repair, trust repair in the new organization and economy, and whether trust
repair dynamics change as a function of the national culture in which it is studied.
6.1. Methodological and Measurement Issues in Trust Repair Research

The study of trust repair is replete with methodological and measurement challenges that need to
be addressed. In doing so, these challenges reveal additional questions and problems in the study
of trust repair. We mention five key issues here:

construct clarity (what is trust and what is being measured);

measurement clarity (how trust is, or is not, being measured and remeasured);
the timing of measurements within the context of a relationship and within the context of
the violation cycle (Figure 1);
understanding trust repair from the perspective of both the offender and the victim;
what we call the “Humpty Dumpty problem,” i.e., whether some trust violations cannot be
repaired and/or whether repaired trust is ever the same as pristine, unbroken trust.
6.1.1. Construct clarity. As we noted briefly in the introduction, numerous studies have defined
trust differently. These different definitions clearly have implications for what is measured before
a trust violation, and hence what is measured after the violation and after the trust repair initiative.
Part of this problem involves the multifaceted nature of trust. Trust itself is commonly conceptual-
ized as confident expectations and/or willingness to be vulnerable (Rousseau et al. 1998). But even
this relatively straightforward conceptualization can include cognitive, affective, and behavioral
components (Lewicki et al. 2006), not to mention perceptions of trustworthiness, which can be
based on different factors (e.g., benevolence, integrity, and ability; Mayer et al. 1995). These and
other components are likely to be more or less relevant depending on the context and relationship
in which the violation occurs.
6.1.2. Measurement clarity. Compounding this problem are noted deficiencies in commonly
used measures of trust (e.g., insufficient differentiation of the dimensionality of trust or lack of
replication to assess construct validity; also see Lewicki & Brinsfield 2012). A related challenge
stems from trust being a psychological construct; trust cannot be directly seen but must be inferred
from indirect measures—i.e., individual self-reports of their level of trust or “behaviors” of an
individual that imply a trusting disposition. Because changes in the level of trust and the impact
of trust repair—whether it be through attitudinal or behavioral measures—are the dependent
variable in the great majority of these studies, the first challenge is to achieve consistency in what,
and how, researchers are measuring the dependent variable.2
6.1.3. Timing of measurement. As we noted in the description of the four-stage model

(Figure 1), there is a period of initial trust, followed by a trust violation, followed by a short-
term period of trust repair, followed by (in some cases) additional actions for long-term trust
repair. A thorough study of the level of trust during these four stages would require some form of
repeated measures trust design. However, there are significant dangers in actually employing such
a design, because of the problems of repeating the same measuring instrument within a particular
respondent across multiple time intervals (Lewicki & Brinsfield 2012), as well as being able to
judge the consistency of a given level of trust across respondents at the same time period (i.e.,
does a rating of 4 of a level of trust for respondent 1 at time 1 mean the same thing as the same
rating for respondent 2 at time 1)? Lastly, such measurement may be possible within a controlled
laboratory context, but is far more often difficult to realize in a natural field-setting environment.
6.1.4. Trust repair is a bilateral process requiring measurement of both parties’ per-
spectives. Trust repair is not an isolated activity initiated and carried out by a sole individual.
2
The rapidly emerging fields of neurobiology and neuropsychology are creating a third set of indicators, measuring neuro-
chemical changes that strongly correlate with trust. The most current neurochemical being studied is oxytocin, a neuropeptide
that has been strongly related to human attachment and affiliation (e.g., Kosfeld et al. 2005). Accurate measures of changes in
this chemistry during the process of trust repair would be a valuable research contribution.

Rather, the process depends on a trustor’s willingness to accept the mistrusted party’s repair ef-
forts (Lewicki & Bunker 1996), as well as the actions trustors themselves undertake to influence
this process. The repairing of trust is a dynamic relational process (Kim et al. 2009). Thus, to
genuinely assess whether a trust repair effort has been successful, studies of trust repair should
measure both the perspective of the victim (the more traditional approach) and the perspective
of the offender. These measures should embrace both measures of trust repair and measures of
“changed” trustworthiness. Dual measures would allow researchers to explore conditions under
which there is inconsistency in these calibrations—i.e., the offender believes he has “fixed” the
problem whereas the victim does not believe that the problem is fixed at all.
6.1.5. The Humpty Dumpty problem in trust repair. “All the king’s horses, and all the king’s men,
couldn’t put Humpty Dumpty together again.” This familiar children’s nursery rhyme indicates two
additional classic problems in trust repair. The first is that as this rhyme was illustrated in children’s
books, Humpty Dumpty was an egg-shaped creature—sitting on a wall—who had a great fall. An
egg broken into too many pieces may simply NOT be possible to reassemble. Within the domain
of trust repair, some breaches of trust may simply NOT be repairable. Severe breaches of trust,
or breaches of integrity-based trust that create significant doubts in the offender’s credibility or
moral standards, may not be repairable. Second, it may be that repaired trust is phenomenologically
different than pretransgression trust, and hence, simply using established measures of trust would
not be sufficient. Third, both the impact of the violation and the impact of the trust repair may be
different in different types of relationships—i.e., an offender’s lie in the context of a short-term
transactional relationship may be differentially impactful from the same lie in the context of a long-
term friendship relationship. Thus, selling a used computer with a known defect, and lying about
that defect, might be different if the victim were a “stranger” who inquired about the machine
versus the sale of the same machine to a close personal friend. In all three cases, to continue
the metaphor, although it may be possible to glue the egg back together, the breakage lines and
glue spots will always be visible. Thus, repaired trust may be phenomenologically different than
pristine or unbroken trust. Either the recovered level of trust is lower than it was prior to the
repair, or as Lewicki et al. (1998) note, the repaired trust may include elements of distrust, and
hence may be “healthier” than pristine, naı̈ve trust because the victim has learned to be more
cautious and the offender may be more careful about what is said and done in future interactions.
Agreed, the metaphor of trust as an egg may be questionable. Many trust researchers appear
to espouse a medical model instead, in which trust repair is equated with both physical and
psychological “healing” (Dirks et al. 2009). But we believe that even when one espouses the
medical model, scars of the trust violation may remain and the recovered individual body and
psyche may not be the same as the pretrust violation.
6.2. Trust Repair in the New Work Environments

The new work environment, often called the gig economy, is characterized by two phenomena: an
increasing number of workers who work remotely and electronically, but not necessarily situated
in the same physical space (e.g., computer-based work); and an increasing dependence on contract
workers, who are not full-time employees of the organization but are brought in for a specific job
and then dismissed (e.g., Uber drivers, project workers, or technical specialists). How will these
new work environments affect the study of trust and trust repair?
Most of what we know about trust repair is based on face-to-face interactions in experimental
or traditional organizational settings. Much less is known about trust repair in computer-mediated,
virtual, or boundaryless work environments, although there are reasons to suspect it could be more
challenging. This reasoning is based on a considerable amount of research that has examined trust

development and maintenance in virtual teams and other nascent organizational configurations
and online communities (e.g., Crisp & Jarvenpaa 2013, Meyerson et al. 1996). Challenges in these
environments may stem from a lack of history or shared context, information asymmetry, uncer-
tain expectations of future interactions, inefficient communication, reduced social cues, reduced
inhibition, and a greater propensity to infer deception, etc. (Biros et al. 2005, Daft & Lengel 1984,
Dimoka 2010, Hann et al. 2007, Kiesler & Sproull 1992). Effective practices for building and
maintaining trust in these environments include greater clarity concerning roles and expectations,
more frequent communication, initial face-to-face meetings, greater intercultural understanding,
and sharing of personal information (Grosse 2002, Jarvenpaa & Leidner 1999, Meyerson et al.
1996, Zheng et al. 2002).
As discussed earlier, one theoretical perspective on trust repair involves managing the causal at-
tributions concerning a trust violation (Tomlinson & Mayer 2009). From this perspective, research
in online marketplaces has revealed some interesting differences in the effectiveness of apologies
versus denials for repairing trust. As discussed earlier, researchers have found that apologies are
superior to denials for repairing trust for competency violations, but inferior for repairing trust
for integrity violations (Kim et al. 2004). In online marketplaces, however, apologies were more
effective than denials for restoring trust for both competency and integrity violations (Matzat &
Snijders 2012). The authors reason that this is partly due to a lower propensity to believe a denial
in an online marketplace than in a face-to-face setting. It is not clear, however, to what extent
these findings are generalizable to other types of contemporary organizations.
New technologies are also expanding the repertoire of tactics available for trust repair. For
example, after a winter snowstorm stranded passengers of a JetBlue flight on the runway for more
than nine hours, the company created a YouTube video that described the ways the company was
learning from its mistakes and what they would do differently in the future. It also issued what
one group of researchers identified as a “model” apology for the way it handled the snowstorm
disaster. This communication medium reached a younger, more tech-savvy generation who
makes up a significant portion of JetBlue’s customers (Lewicki & Polin 2012). New technologies
are also enabling structural remedies that otherwise would be impossible or impractical. For
example, technology-enabled monitoring can help assuage fears of future transgressions by
keeping a trustor more abreast of a trustee’s performance on a critical task (Alge 2001), although
these solutions can also have detrimental effects if seen as too invasive or implemented covertly
(see Alge et al. 2006). Clearly, more research is needed on how trust builds and is broken in the
new work environment, and hence to also understand whether the same strategies of trust repair
are as effective in these contexts.
6.3. Trust Repair in a Cross-Cultural Context

Thus far, we have taken the perspective that the nature of trust and its repair is culturally
ubiquitous—i.e., that the principles and processes we have discussed apply across all cultures.
However, Saunders et al. (2010) offer a series of essays that strongly emphasize the different ways
that trust dynamics evolve and change across cultures. For example, Dietz, Gillespie, and Chao set
the tone for this collection by showing how extensively “culture influences the formation of trust
cues in relationships, and serves as a filter for cues encountered from another culture. Both the
delivery and interpretation of cues are far from clear-cut . . . . and this can hinder the production
of initial trust in cross-cultural encounters” (Branzei et al. 2007, cited in Dietz et al. 2010, p. 21).
These cues can stem from differences in religion, nationality, age, gender, education, and work-
place history that impact the cultural context, as well as several factors in the social/organizational
context in which trust dynamics occur. Similarly, Ren & Gray (2009) extensively describe two

different models of the trust repair cycle: models that are grounded in whether a trust violation
is culturally interpreted within an individualistic (e.g., Western) or collectivist (e.g., Asian) cul-
ture, and thus whether the specific violation is interpreted as a threat to personal control over
achievement of goals and objectives versus a threat to personal identity and “face.” Although a
complete review of the existing research on cross-cultural trust and its repair is beyond the scope
of this contribution, we simply want to identify that the dominant model of trust repair (Figure 1),
as well as the short-term and long-term approaches outlined here, has tended to ignore cultural
differences, while in fact, cross-cultural differences should be openly acknowledged and empirical
research used to validate the ubiquity of the dominant model for different kinds of violations in
multicultural settings.
7. SUMMARY
In this review, we have attempted to overview the complexity of various approaches to repairing
broken trust. The reader will note that as we have reviewed the research on these approaches,
several important relational and contextual elements intervene to increase this complexity: the
nature of trust itself, the type of trustworthiness exhibited by the other, the severity of the violation,
etc. Moreover, the effectiveness of particular approaches—which we have roughly categorized as
short term versus long term—have shown varying degrees of effectiveness, but it is not clear
that one approach is favored over the other. Moreover, because trust is not directly observable
but must be inferred in the other, several difficult measurement challenges also confront trust
researchers. Although research has made significant progress in the past 10–15 years, much work
clearly remains for the future.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The authors are not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings that
might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.
LITERATURE CITED
Alge BJ. 2001. Effects of computer surveillance on perceptions of privacy and procedural justice. J. Appl.
Psychol. 86:797–804
Alge BJ, Greenberg J, Brinsfield C. 2006. An identity-based model of organizational monitoring: Integrating
information privacy and organizational justice. In Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management,
ed. JJ Martocchio, pp. 71–135. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Sci. Publ.
Bandura A. 1971. Social Learning Theory. New York: Gen. Learning Press
Bell GG, Oppenheimer RJ, Bastien A. 2002. Trust deterioration in an international buyer-supplier relation-
ship. J. Bus. Ethics 36:65–78
Bennett M, Earwaker D. 1994. Victims’ responses to apologies: the effects of offender responsibility and
offense severity. J. Soc. Psychol. 134:457–64
Benoit WL. 2015. Accounts, Excuses, and Apologies: Image Repair Theory and Research. Albany, NY: SUNY Press
Bies RJ, Shapiro DL. 1987. Interactional fairness judgments: the influence of causal accounts. Soc. Justice Res.
1:199–218
Bies RJ, Tripp TM. 1996. Beyond distrust: “getting even” and the need for revenge. See Kramer & Tyler
1996, pp. 246–60
Biros DP, Hass MC, Wiers K, Twitchell D, Adkins M, et al. 2005. Task performance under deceptive conditions:
using military scenarios in deception detection research. Presented at Annu. Hawaii Int. Conf. Syst. Sci., 38th,
Big Island, HI
Bottom WP, Gibson K, Daniels SE, Murnighan JK. 2002. When talk is not cheap: substantive penance and
expressions of intent in rebuilding cooperation. Organ. Sci. 13:497–513

Branzei O, Vertinsky I, Camp RD II. 2007. Culture-contingent signs of trust in emergent relationships. Organ.
Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 104:61–82
Butler MH, Dahlin SK, Fife ST. 2002. “Languaging” factors affecting clients’ acceptance of forgiveness
intervention in marital therapy. J. Marital Fam. Ther. 28:285–98
Butler MH, Hall LG, Yorgason JB. 2013. The paradoxical relation of the expression of offense to forgiving:
a survey of therapists’ conceptualizations. Am. J. Fam. Ther. 41:415–36
Coombs WT, Holladay SJ. 2008. Comparing apology to equivalent crisis response strategies: clarifying apol-
ogy’s role and value in crisis communication. Public Relat. Rev. 34:252–57
Crant JM, Bateman TS. 1993. Assignment of credit and blame for performance outcomes. Acad. Manag. J.
36:7–27
Crisp CB, Jarvenpaa SL. 2013. Swift trust in global virtual teams: trusting beliefs and normative actions.
J. Pers. Psychol. 12:45–56
Croson R, Boles T, Murnighan JK. 2003. Cheap talk in bargaining experiments: lying and threats in ultimatum
games. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 51:143–59
Cross S, Madson L. 1997. Models of the self: self-construals and gender. Psychol. Bull. 122:5–37
Daft RL, Lengel RH. 1984. Information richness: a new approach to managerial behavior and organizational
design. Res. Organ. Behav. 6:191–233
Davis MH. 1994. Empathy: A Social Psychological Approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press
De Cremer D. 2010. To pay or to apologize? On the psychology of dealing with unfair offers in a dictator
game. J. Econ. Psychol. 31:843–48
Dewulf A, Gray B, Putnam LL, Lewicki RJ, Aarts N, et al. 2009. Disentangling approaches to framing in
conflict and negotiation research: a meta-paradigmatic perspective. Hum. Relat. 62:155–93
Dietz G, Gillespie N, Chao G. 2010. Unraveling the complexities of trust and culture. In Trust: A Cultural
Perspective, ed. MNK Saunders, D Skinner, G Dietz, N Gillespie, RJ Lewicki, pp. 3–41. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge Univ. Press
Dimoka A. 2010. What does the brain tell us about trust and distrust? Evidence from a functional neuroimaging
study. MIS Q. 34:373–A7
Dirks KT, Kim PH, Ferrin DL, Cooper CD. 2011. Understanding the effects of substantive responses on
trust following a transgression. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 114:87–103
Dirks KT, Lewicki RJ, Zaheer A. 2009. Repairing relationships within and between organizations: building a
conceptual foundation. Acad. Manag. Rev. 34:68–84
Effron DA, Lucas BJ, O’Connor K. 2015. Hypocrisy by association: when organizational membership increases
condemnation for wrongdoing. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 130:147–59
Effron DA, Miller DT. 2015. Do as I say, not as I’ve done: suffering for a misdeed reduces the hypocrisy of
advising others against it. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 131:16–32
Enright RD, Fitzgibbons RP. 2000. Helping Clients Forgive: An Empirical Guide for Resolving Anger and Restoring
Hope. Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc.
Farrell J, Rabin M. 1996. Cheap talk. J. Econ. Perspect. 10:103–18
Fehr R, Gelfand MJ. 2010. When apologies work: how matching apology components to victims’ self-
construals facilitates forgiveness. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 113:37–50
Fehr R, Gelfand MJ, Nag M. 2010. The road to forgiveness: a meta-analytic synthesis of its situational and
dispositional correlates. Psychol. Bull. 136:894–914
Ferguson AJ, Peterson RS. 2015. Sinking slowly: Diversity in propensity to trust predicts downward trust
spirals in small groups. J. Appl. Psychol. 100:1012–24
Ferrin DL, Bligh MC, Kohles JC. 2007a. Can I trust you to trust me? A theory of trust, monitoring, and
cooperation in interpersonal and intergroup relationships. Group Organ. Manag. 32:465–99
Ferrin DL, Kim PH, Cooper CD, Dirks KT. 2007b. Silence speaks volumes: the effectiveness of reticence
in comparison to apology and denial for responding to integrity- and competence-based trust violations.
J. Appl. Psychol. 92:893–908
Fitness J. 2001. Betrayal, rejection, revenge, and forgiveness: an interpersonal script approach. In Interpersonal
Rejection, pp. 73–103. New York: Oxford Univ. Press
Folkenflik D, Deggans E. 2014. Bill Cosby remains silent on sexual assault allegations. NPR, Nov. 17.
http://www.npr.org/2014/11/17/364641081/cosby-remains-silent-on-sexual-assault-allegations

Galinsky A, Schweitzer ME. 2015. Friend and Foe: When to Cooperate, When to Compete, and How to Succeed at
Both. New York: Penguin Random House
Gillespie N, Dietz G. 2009. Trust repair after an organization-level failure. Acad. Manag. Rev. 34:127–45
Goffman E. 1971. Relations in Public. New York: Basic Books
Goffman E. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper Row
Gold GJ, Weiner B. 2000. Remorse, confession, group identity, and expectancies about repeating a transgres-
sion. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 22:291–300
Gonos G. 1977. “Situation” versus “frame”: The “interactionist” and the “structuralist” analysis of everyday
life. Am. Sociol. Rev. 854–67
Grosse CU. 2002. Managing communication within virtual intercultural teams. Bus. Commun. Q. 65:22–38
Gunderson PR, Ferrari JR. 2008. Forgiveness of sexual cheating in romantic relationships: effects of discovery
method, frequency of offense, and presence of apology. N. Am. J. Psychol. 10:1–14

Guo SL, Lumineau F, Lewicki RJ. 2017. Revisiting the foundations of organizational distrust. Found. Trends
Manag. In press
Haesevoets T, Reinders Folmer C, De Cremer D, Van Hiel A. 2013. Money isn’t all that matters: the use
of financial compensation and apologies to preserve relationships in the aftermath of distributive harm.
J. Econ. Psychol. 35:95–107
Hann I-H, Kai-Lung H, Sang-Yong T, Png IP. 2007. Overcoming online information privacy concerns: an
information-processing theory approach. J. Manag. Inform. Syst. 24:13–42
Hareli S, Eisikovits Z. 2006. The role of communicating social emotions accompanying apologies in forgive-
ness. Motiv. Emot. 30:189–97
Heider F. 1958. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley
Hodgson LK, Wertheim EH. 2007. Does good emotion management aid forgiving? Multiple dimensions of
empathy, emotion management and forgiveness of self and others. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 24:931–49
Jarvenpaa SL, Leidner DE. 1999. Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organ. Sci. 10:791
Kiesler S, Sproull L. 1992. Group decision making and communication technology. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis.
Process. 52:96–123
Kim PH, Dirks KT, Cooper CD. 2009. The repair of trust: a dynamic bilateral perspective and multilevel
conceptualization. Acad. Manag. Rev. 34:401–22
Kim PH, Dirks KT, Cooper CD, Ferrin DL. 2006. When more blame is better than less: the implications
of internal versus external attributions for the repair of trust after a competence- versus integrity-based
trust violation. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 99:49–65
Kim PH, Ferrin DL, Cooper CD, Dirks KT. 2004. Removing the shadow of suspicion: the effects of apology
versus denial for repairing competence- versus integrity-based trust violations. J. Appl. Psychol. 89:104–18
Klackl J, Pfundmair M, Agroskin D, Jonas E. 2013. Who is to blame? Oxytocin promotes nonpersonalistic
attributions in response to a trust betrayal. Biol. Psychol. 92:387–94
Kosfeld M, Heinrichs M, Zak PJ, Fischbacher U, Fehr E. 2005. Oxytocin increases trust in humans. Nature
435:673–76
Kramer RM, Lewicki RJ. 2010. Repairing and enhancing trust: approaches to reducing organizational trust
deficits. Acad. Manag. Ann. 4:245–77
Kramer RM, Pittinsky TL. 2012. Restoring Trust in Organizations and Leaders: Enduring Challenges and Emerging
Answers. New York: Oxford Univ. Press
Kramer RM, Tyler TR. 1996. Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage
Lewicki RJ, Brinsfield C. 2012. Measuring trust beliefs and behaviours. In Handbook of Research Methods on
Trust, ed. F Lyon, G Möllering, MNK Saunders, pp. 29–39. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar
Lewicki RJ, Bunker BB. 1995. Trust in relationships: a model of trust development and decline. In Conflict,
Cooperation and Justice, ed. BB Bunker, JZ Rubin, pp. 133–73. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Lewicki RJ, Bunker BB. 1996. Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships. See Kramer & Tyler
1996, pp. 114–39
Lewicki RJ, McAllister DJ, Bies RJ. 1998. Trust and distrust: new relationships and realities. Acad. Manag.
Rev. 23:438–58

Lewicki RJ, Polin B. 2012. The art of the apology: the structure and effectiveness of apologies in trust repair.
See Kramer & Pittinsky 2012, pp. 95–128
Lewicki RJ, Polin B, Lount RB. 2016. An exploration of the structure of effective apologies. Negotiation Confl.
Manag. Res. 9:177–96
Lewicki RJ, Tomlinson E. 2014. Trust, trust development and trust repair. In The Handbook of Conflict Reso-
lution, ed. M Deutsch, P Coleman, E Marcus. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. 3rd ed.
Lewicki RJ, Tomlinson EC, Gillespie N. 2006. Models of interpersonal trust development: Theoretical ap-
proaches, empirical evidence, and future directions. J. Manag. 32:991–1022
Lewicki RJ, Wiethoff C. 2000. Trust, trust development, and trust repair. In The handbook of conflict resolution:
Theory and Practice, ed. M Deutsch, PT Coleman, pp. 86–107. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Lind EA. 1995. Justice and authority relations in organizations. In Organizational Politics, Justice, and Support:
Managing the Social Climate of the Workplace, ed. R Cropanzano, KM Kacmar, pp. 83–96. Westport, CT:
Quorum Books
Lind EA, Kray L, Thompson L. 2001. Primacy effects in justice judgments: testing predictions from fairness
heuristic theory. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 85:189–210
Lind EA, Tyler TR. 1988. The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York: Plenum
Lount RB Jr., Zhong C-B, Sivanathan N, Murnighan JK. 2008. Getting off on the wrong foot: the timing of
a breach and the restoration of trust. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 34:1601–12
Lumineau F. 2014. How contracts influence trust and distrust. J. Manag.: doi: 10.1177/0149206314556656
Maio GR, Thomas G, Fincham FD, Carnelley KB. 2008. Unraveling the role of forgiveness in family rela-
tionships. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 94:307–19
Malhotra D, Lumineau F. 2011. Trust and collaboration in the aftermath of conflict: the effects of contract
structure. Acad. Manag. J. 54:981–98
Malhotra D, Murnighan JK. 2002. The effects of contracts on interpersonal trust. Adm. Sci. Q. 47:534–59
Matzat U, Snijders C. 2012. Rebuilding trust in online shops on consumer review sites: sellers’ responses to
user-generated complaints. J. Comput.-Med. Commun. 18:62–79
Mayer RC, Davis JH, Schoorman FD. 1995. An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad. Manag. Rev.
20:709–34
McAllister DJ. 1995. Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in orga-
nizations. Acad. Manag. J. 38:24–59
McCullough ME, Worthington EL Jr., Rachal KC. 1997. Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships. J.
Pers. Soc. Psychol. 73:321–36
McKnight DH, Chervany NL. 2001. Trust and distrust definitions: One bite at a time. In Trust in Cyber-
Societies: Integrating the Human and Artificial Perspectives, ed. R Falcone, M Singh, YH Tan, pp. 27–54.
Berlin: Springer Verlag
McKnight DH, Cummings LL, Chervany NL. 1998. Initial trust formation in new organizational relation-
ships. Acad. Manag. Rev. 23:473–90
Meyerson D, Weick KE, Kramer RM. 1996. Swift trust and temporary groups. See Kramer & Tyler 1996,
pp. 166–95
Minsky MA. 1975. A framework for representing knowledge. In The Psychology of Computer Vision, ed. PH
Winston, pp. 211–77. New York: McGraw-Hill
Morris JH, Moberg DJ. 1994. Work organizations as contexts for trust and betrayal. In Citizen Espionage:
Studies in Trust and Betrayal, ed. TR Sarbin, RM Carney, C Eoyang, pp. 163–87. Westport, CT: Praeger
Publ./Greenwood Publ. Gr.
Nakayachi K, Watabe M. 2005. Restoring trustworthiness after adverse events: the signaling effects of voluntary
“Hostage Posting” on trust. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 97:1–17
Neale MA, Bazerman MH. 1985. The effects of framing and negotiator overconfidence on bargaining behav-
iors and outcomes. Acad. Manag. J. 28:34–49
Osgood CE. 1962. An Alternative to War or Surrender. Urbana, IL: Univ. Ill. Press
Reeder GD, Brewer MB. 1979. A schematic model of dispositional attribution in interpersonal perception.
Psychol. Rev. 86:61–79
Ren H, Gray B. 2009. Repairing relationship conflict: how violation types and culture influence the effectiveness
of restoration rituals. Acad. Manag. Rev. 34:105–26

Robinson SL. 1996. Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Adm. Sci. Q. 41:574–99
Robinson SL, Dirks KT, Ozcelik H. 2004. Untangling the knot of trust and betrayal. In Trust and Distrust in
Organizations: Dilemmas and Approaches, ed. RM Kramer, KS Cook, pp. 327–41. New York: Russell Sage
Found.
Rousseau DM, Sitkin SB, Burt RS, Camerer C. 1998. Not so different after all: a cross-discipline view of trust.
Acad. Manag. Rev. 23:393–404
Rusbult CE, Verette J, Whitney GA, Slovik LF, Lipkus I. 1991. Accommodation processes in close relation-
ships: theory and preliminary empirical evidence. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 60:53–78
Saunders MNK, Skinner D, Gillespie N, Lewicki RJ, eds. 2010. Organizational Trust: A Cultural Perspective.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Scher SJ, Darley JM. 1997. How effective are the things people say to apologize? Effects of the realization of
the apology speech act. J. Psycholinguist. Res. 26:127–40
Schlenker BR, Darby BW. 1981. The use of apologies in social predicaments. Soc. Psychol. Q. 44:271–78
Shapiro DL. 1991. The effects of explanations on negative reactions to deceit. Adm. Sci. Q. 36:614–30
Shapiro DL, Buttner EH, Barry B. 1994. Explanations: What factors enhance their perceived adequacy? Organ.
Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 58:346–68
Shaw JC, Wild E, Colquitt JA. 2003. To justify or excuse?: A meta-analytic review of the effects of explanations.
J. Appl. Psychol. 88:444–58
Simons T. 2002. Behavioral integrity: the perceived alignment between managers’ words and deeds as a
research focus. Organ. Sci. 13:18–35
Sitkin SB, Roth NL. 1993. Explaining the limited effectiveness of legalistic “remedies” for trust/distrust.
Organ. Sci. 4:367–92
Tomlinson EC, Dineen BR, Lewicki RJ. 2004. The road to reconciliation: antecedents of victim willingness
to reconcile following a broken promise. J. Manag. 30:165–87
Tomlinson EC, Mayer RC. 2009. The role of casual attribution dimensions in trust repair. Acad. Manag. Rev.
34:85–104
Tranfinow D, Bromgard IK, Finlay KA, Ketelaar T. 2005. The role of affect in determining the attributional
weight of immoral behaviors. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 31:935–48
Utz S, Matzat U, Snijders C. 2009. On-line reputation systems: the effects of feedback comments and reactions
on building and rebuilding trust in on-line auctions. Int. J. Electron. Commerce 13:95–118
Weiner B. 1986. Attribution, emotion, and action. In Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: Foundations of Social
Behavior, ed. RM Sorrentino, ET Higgins, pp. 281–312. New York: Guilford Press
Weiner B, Amirkhan J, Folkes VS, Verette JA. 1987. An attributional analysis of excuse giving: studies of a
naive theory of emotion. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 52:316–24
Williams M. 2012. Building and rebuilding trust: why perspective taking matters. See Kramer & Pittinsky
2012, pp. 171–84
Zheng J, Veinott E, Bos N, Olson J, Olson G. 2002. Trust without touch: jumpstarting long-distance trust with
initial social activities. Presented at Conf. Human Factors Comput. Syst., Minneapolis, MN

OP04-FrontMatter ARI 9 February 2017 21:46
Annual Review
of Organizational
Psychology and
Organizational
Behavior
Volume 4, 2017
Contents
Perspective Construction in Organizational Behavior

Karl E. Weick p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 1
Self-Determination Theory in Work Organizations: The State
of a Science
Edward L. Deci, Anja H. Olafsen, and Richard M. Ryan p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p19
A Road Well Traveled: The Past, Present, and Future Journey of
Strategic Human Resource Management
Patrick M. Wright and Michael D. Ulrich p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p45
Emotions in the Workplace
Neal M. Ashkanasy and Alana D. Dorris p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p67
Field Experiments in Organizations
Dov Eden p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p91
Abusive Supervision
Bennett J. Tepper, Lauren Simon, and Hee Man Park p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 123
Recruitment and Retention Across Cultures
David G. Allen and James M. Vardaman p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 153
Multilevel Modeling: Research-Based Lessons
for Substantive Researchers
Vicente González-Romá and Ana Hernández p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 183
Team Innovation
Daan van Knippenberg p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 211
Evidence-Based Management: Foundations, Development,
Controversies and Future
Sara L. Rynes and Jean M. Bartunek p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 235
Transition Processes: A Review and Synthesis Integrating Methods
and Theory
Paul D. Bliese, Amy B. Adler, and Patrick J. Flynn p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 263
vi
OP04-FrontMatter ARI 9 February 2017 21:46
Trust Repair
Roy J. Lewicki and Chad Brinsfield p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 287
Comparing and Contrasting Workplace Ostracism and Incivility
D. Lance Ferris, Meng Chen, and Sandy Lim p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 315
Psychological Capital: An Evidence-Based Positive Approach
Fred Luthans and Carolyn M. Youssef-Morgan p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 339
Construal Level Theory in Organizational Research
Batia M. Wiesenfeld, Jean-Nicolas Reyt, Joel Brockner, and Yaacov Trope p p p p p p p p p p p p p 367
Dynamic Self-Regulation and Multiple-Goal Pursuit

Andrew Neal, Timothy Ballard, and Jeffrey B. Vancouver p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 401

Neuroscience in Organizational Behavior
David A. Waldman, M.K. Ward, and William J. Becker p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 425
Retaking Employment Tests: What We Know and What We Still
Need to Know
Chad H. Van Iddekinge and John D. Arnold p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 445
Alternative Work Arrangements: Two Images of the New World
of Work
Gretchen M. Spreitzer, Lindsey Cameron, and Lyndon Garrett p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 473
Communication in Organizations
Joann Keyton p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 501
Collective Turnover
John P. Hausknecht p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 527
Errata
An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and

Organizational Behavior articles may be found at http://www.annualreviews.org/errata/
orgpsych
Contents vii

Lewicki Brinsfield 2017 Trust Repair

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lewicki Brinsfield 2017 Trust Repair

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OP04CH12-Lewicki ARI 23 February 2017 7:56

Roy J. Lewicki1 and Chad Brinsfield2

Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2017. Keywords

288 Lewicki · Brinsfield

including forms of economic or other compensation for “damages” incurred as a result of

of a trust violation and the impact of various approaches to trust repair.

This is a long agenda. So let’s get to work.

2. HOW DO WE DEFINE THE NATURE OF TRUST?

www.annualreviews.org • Trust Repair 289

3. WHAT IS THE LIFE CYCLE OF TRUST AND TRUST REPAIR?

290 Lewicki · Brinsfield

3. There is an extensive and building literature on short-term trustee (violator) responses to

4. HOW DOES THE NATURE OF A TRUST VIOLATION IMPACT

4.1. Dimensions of Perceived Trustworthiness

www.annualreviews.org • Trust Repair 291

Structural solutions (e.g., contracts, monitoring) can be useful—especially if provided

voluntarily by the trustee.

4.2. Core versus Noncore Violations

292 Lewicki · Brinsfield

4.3. Severity of Trust Violation

4.4. Frequency of Violation

4.5. Perceived Intentionality

www.annualreviews.org • Trust Repair 293

4.6. Timing of the Trust Violation in the Context of the Stage

early- versus later-stage relationships (see Robinson et al. 2004).

294 Lewicki · Brinsfield

5. WHAT ARE THE DOMINANT STRATEGIES OF TRUST REPAIR?

5.1. Short-Term Approaches to Trust Repair

www.annualreviews.org • Trust Repair 295

Table 2 Short-term strategies for trust repair

296 Lewicki · Brinsfield

Table 3 What determines whether an apology is effective?

www.annualreviews.org • Trust Repair 297

298 Lewicki · Brinsfield

Table 4 The structure of an effective apologya

a declaration of repentance, expressing an intention to not repeat the violation;

5.1.2. Compensation. In contrast to some verbal statement of account, explanation, or apology,

www.annualreviews.org • Trust Repair 299

be fully adequate to address the tangible harm.

5.1.3. Denial. Denial is defined as “a statement whereby an allegation is explicitly declared to be

300 Lewicki · Brinsfield

5.2. Longer-Term Strategies for Trust Repair

Table 5 Longer-term strategies for trust repair

www.annualreviews.org • Trust Repair 301

302 Lewicki · Brinsfield

www.annualreviews.org • Trust Repair 303

304 Lewicki · Brinsfield

6. MAJOR CONCERNS FOR THE FUTURE OF TRUST

6.1. Methodological and Measurement Issues in Trust Repair Research

www.annualreviews.org • Trust Repair 305

construct clarity (what is trust and what is being measured);

6.1.3. Timing of measurement. As we noted in the description of the four-stage model

306 Lewicki · Brinsfield

6.2. Trust Repair in the New Work Environments

www.annualreviews.org • Trust Repair 307

6.3. Trust Repair in a Cross-Cultural Context

308 Lewicki · Brinsfield

www.annualreviews.org • Trust Repair 309

310 Lewicki · Brinsfield

method, frequency of offense, and presence of apology. N. Am. J. Psychol. 10:1–14

www.annualreviews.org • Trust Repair 311

312 Lewicki · Brinsfield

www.annualreviews.org • Trust Repair 313