An Exploration of the Structure of Effective Apologies Roy J. Lewicki, 1 Beth Polin, 2 and Robert B. Lount Jr. 1 1 Max. M. Fisher College of Business, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, U.S.A. 2 School of Business, Eastern Kentucky University, Richmond, KY, U.S.A. Keywords apology, trust violation, trust repair. Correspondence Roy J. Lewicki, Max. M. Fisher College of Business, The Ohio State University, 355 Fisher Hall, 2100 Neil Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210, U.S.A.; e-mail: lewicki.1@osu.edu Abstract Violations of trust are an unfortunate but common occurrence in conflict and negotiation settings: negotiators make promises that they do not keep; parties in conflict behave in unexpected ways, escalating tensions and breaking past trust. What often follows these violations is some form of an account, specifically an apology, in an effort to repair that trust. But are some apologies more effective than others? Two studies reported here examine the structural components of apologies. Six components of an apology were defined from previous research and presented to subjects— singly and in combination—in the form of component definitions and in the context of a trust violation scenario. Results indicate that not all apologies are viewed equally; apologies with more components were more effective than those with fewer components, and certain components were deemed more important than others. Moreover, apologies following competence-based trust violations were seen as more effective than apolo- gies following integrity-based violations. Implications and future direc- tions for research in the structure of effective apologies are presented. Almost every day, the media covers a high-profile apology. These apologies come from many sources: a business leader apologizes for failures to meet economic forecasts or to follow through on promises made in negotiation talks; a political leader apologizes for a deficiency in the design or implementation of effec- tive social policy; a church leader apologies for unethical conduct by some of its ministers; or a profes- sional athlete apologizes for unacceptable behavior, both on and off the field. Violations of trust and confidence occur regularly in conflict and negotiation, and apologies (and other forms of social accounts) are common as attempts to restore trust in these relationships. Thus, apologies are clearly cen- tral to the disciplines of negotiation and conflict management. Conflict management and negotiation processes occur when parties must manage and coordinate their interdependence with each other while attempting to satisfy their individual interests (Deutsch, 1962; Kelley, 1966). These conflict management and negotiation processes must address problems of miscoor- dination; violations of expectations; erroneous, incomplete, and deceptive communication; breaches of promises and commitments; and actions designed to inhibit the other’s ability to meet their needs. Given that it is commonly acknowledged that trust is the “glue” that binds strategic relationships together, apologies have been viewed as a key verbal tool to address the source and nature of these problems, and restore more productive communication and coordination processes. But with the ubiquity of apologies, the effectiveness of what constitutes a “good” apology must be considered. Through paying Negotiation and Conflict Management Research Volume 9, Number 2, Pages 177–196 © 2016 International Association for Conflict Management and Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 177