CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 3Privacy, Security, and Data ProtectionCustomer Service Quality and LoyaltyInformation and Cyber Security

Selecting trust repair strategies: The case of privacy breaches in smart service systems

Open access
Konopka, Björn, Hönemann, Kay, Yang, Ning, Thatcher, Jason Bennett, Wiesche, Manuel·2026·Electronic Markets
DOI 10.1007/s12525-026-00887-y
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Despite the increasing occurrence of privacy breaches involving smart service systems, organizations lack evidence-based guidance on which trust repair strategies work, particularly beyond apologies or compensation. This study systematically evaluates the relative effectiveness of three verbal trust repair strategies (apology, denial, reticence) and three substantive strategies (compensation, regulation, third-party involvement), applied individually and in combination. We also examine the moderating role of violation type (competence-based vs. integrity-based) on repair strategy effectiveness. We conducted a scenario-based experiment using policy-capturing methodology that we assessed with a fixed-effects regression model for panel data. Seventy-seven long-term smart home users assessed post-repair trust following simulated privacy breaches and the subsequent application of diverse repair strategies. Our results identify apology as the most effective verbal strategy, while regulation is the most effective substantive strategy. Combinations of verbal and substantive strategies generally outperform isolated strategies, except when third-party involvement is included, which shows limited benefit. Unexpectedly, we found that the violation type did not significantly moderate the effectiveness of any of the examined trust repair strategies. This study contributes to research by (1) providing a comprehensive comparison of verbal and substantive trust repair strategies in a unified design, (2) demonstrating how trust repair strategy combinations perform synergistically or in tension, (3) challenging the prevailing assumption of the competence-integrity violation type distinction for trust repair strategy effectiveness, and (4) advancing understanding of trust repair for the high-vulnerability context of smart service systems, where the intersection of digital and physical risks amplifies the consequences of privacy breaches for customers.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12525-026-00887-y

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Strategy combinations have so far received little attention in trust repair research.

    “Despite the intuitive appeal and growing organizational adoption of such hybrid approaches, strategy combinations have so far received little attention in trust repair research”

    From Explainability in AI: Comparing Human-Like and System-Like Trust Repair Strategies (2026) · cites this paper as Konopka et al., 2026

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Konopka, B., Hönemann, K., Yang, N., Thatcher, J. B., & Wiesche, M.
Affiliations
  • TU Dortmund University (DE)
  • Loyola University Chicago (US)
  • University of Colorado Boulder (US)
Corresponding author
Konopka, Björn
ORCID
Venue
Electronic Markets
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2026-04-27
Volume
36
Issue
1
ISSN
  • 1019-6781 (ISSN-L)
  • 1422-8890
DOI
10.1007/s12525-026-00887-y
OpenAlex
W7156163429
Cited by
3
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 3
FWCI
35.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Electronic Markets (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Econstor (Econstor) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (16KIS1935K)
  • Technische Universität Dortmund
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Customer Service Quality and Loyalty
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information and Cyber Security
Keywords
privacy violations, smart service systems, home automation, apology, denial, reticence, compensation, regulation, third-party participation, consumer trust

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review