Cited by 209Forgiveness and Related BehaviorsCustomer Service Quality and LoyaltyJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior

Trust Repair

Lewicki, Roy J., Brinsfield, Chad·2017·Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior

Abstract

Trust is critical for building and maintaining relationships and for effectively working together. When trust is broken, it has serious consequences for both individuals and organizations. In this review we examine the research on how to repair broken trust. We begin by defining trust, how it is broken, how the actor's violation is attributed, and what it means to repair it. We 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.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113147

Cites

105 of 105 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • The impact of human-like repair strategies on a user's decision to continue using the system may be limited, especially when enacted by a non-human agent.

    “Their impact on a user's decision to continue using the system may be limited, especially when enacted by a non-human agent (Lewicki & Brinsfield, 2017;Sharma et al., 2023).”

    From Explainability in AI: Comparing Human-Like and System-Like Trust Repair Strategies (2026) · cites this paper as Lewicki & Brinsfield, 2017

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lewicki, R. J., & Brinsfield, C.
Affiliations
  • The Ohio State University (US)
  • University of St. Thomas - Minnesota (US)
Venue
Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior
Published
2017-03-21
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
287-313
ISSN
  • 2327-0608 (ISSN-L)
  • 2327-0616
OpenAlex
W4248181070
Cited by
202
References
103
Citations by year
2026: 39 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 1
FWCI
1.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior (publishedVersion)
  • UST Research Online (University of St. Thomas - Minnesota) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Forgiveness and Related Behaviors
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Customer Service Quality and Loyalty
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Keywords
trust repair, breach of trust, apology, excuses, forgiveness, blame shifting, contracts, monitoring, organizational trust, trust measurement

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