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

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 107 of the 107 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Trust Repair

Lewicki, Roy J., Brinsfield, Chad·2017·Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior
DOI 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113147
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113147

Cites

107 of 107 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Daft RL, 1984, Res. Organ. Behav., 6, 191
  2. Galinsky A, 2015, Friend and Foe: When to Cooperate, When to Compete, and How to Succeed at Both
  3. Goffman E, 1971, Relations in Public
  4. Gunderson PR, 2008, N. Am. J. Psychol., 10, 1
  5. Lewicki RJ, 1995, Conflict, Cooperation and Justice, 133
  6. Lewicki RJ, 2014, The Handbook of Conflict Resolution
  7. Weiner B, 1986, Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: Foundations of Social Behavior, 281

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 209

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Lewicki, R. J., & Brinsfield, C.
Affiliations
  • The Ohio State University (US)
  • University of St. Thomas - Minnesota (US)
ORCID
Brinsfield, Chad
Venue
Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior
Publisher
Annual Reviews
Published
2017-03-21
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
287-313
ISSN
  • 2327-0608 (ISSN-L)
  • 2327-0616
DOI
10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113147
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 › Marketing › 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