Apologies are one major strategy that negotiators tend to use when there has been a trust breech. Apologies tend to be more effective under the following conditions:

1. An offer of an apology, or some kind of verbal statement acknowledging that trust might have been broken, is more effective than not making any comment.

2. The sooner an apology occurs after trust is broken, the more effective it is likely to be.

3. The more sincerely an apology is expressed, the more effective it is in repairing trust.

4. If the apologizer (the trust violator) takes personal responsibility for having created the trust breakdown, the apology is more effective than when the apologizer tries to blame “external circumstances” (bad luck, an accident, someone else).

5. If the incident that caused the breakdown in trust was an isolated event, rather than an event which occurred repeatedly, the apology is more likely to be accepted.

6. If the incident that caused the breakdown was not created by deceptive behavior, the apology is more likely to be accepted. Deceptive conduct (lies, bluffs, misinformation-violations based on weak integrity) appears to do more damage to trust than violations due to low competence or low benevolence.