Hey everyone—today we’re going to talk about how trust actually gets repaired after it’s been broken, using a research-based model that explains why “just apologize” often doesn’t work the way people hope it will.
Here’s the big idea: trust repair is not a one-person project. It’s a two-way, back-and-forth process between two people. On one side is the trustor (the person who was hurt and whose trust was violated). On the other side is the trustee (the person who caused the damage, or is accused of causing it).
Prefer to Listen to this Podcast Episode? Listen Here>
And the model says something really important: trust gets rebuilt when the trustee (the person who caused the damage or is accused) makes efforts to prove they’re trustworthy that outweigh the trustor (the person who was hurt) and their natural drive to protect themselves. In other words, after a breach, the trustor (the person who was hurt) isn’t neutral. Their mind and body are often saying, “Don’t be vulnerable again until you have a reason.” That resistance isn’t being difficult—it’s self-protection.
Now, what makes this model so useful is that trust repair usually moves through three big questions—almost like three stages. And which stage you’re in determines what kind of repair actually lands.
1) First question: “Did you do it?”
The first question is basically: “Are you guilty or not?”
This is the stage where the trustor (the person who was hurt) is trying to figure out what is true. If the trustee (the person accused) can convincingly show they are innocent—or that the event didn’t happen the way it’s being interpreted—repair is “easier,” because it removes the foundation of mistrust.
But here’s a key point: if the trustor (the person who was hurt) is still stuck on “Did you do it?” then jumping ahead to “I promise I’ll change” can fall flat, because the trustor (the person who was hurt) is thinking, “Change from what? We haven’t even agreed on what happened.”
2) Second question: “Why did it happen?”
If it’s clear the trustee (the person accused) did it, the next question becomes: “Was this because of you, or because of the situation?”
This is where people argue about cause. The trustor (the person who was hurt) is asking, “Does this reveal something about your character and choices… or was this driven by pressures, context, or a breakdown in judgment?”
At this stage, the trustee (the person who caused the damage) often tries to explain: “Here’s what was happening,” “I was overwhelmed,” “I wasn’t thinking clearly.” But the trustor (the person who was hurt) may hear that as excuse-making. So this stage is delicate: explanations can help if they build clarity and ownership, but they can backfire if they sound like dodging responsibility.
3) Third question: “Can you change?”
If it’s accepted that the violation reflects on the trustee (the person who caused the damage)—then the big question becomes: “Is this fixable, or is it who you are?”
This is where trust repair becomes about the future. The trustor (the person who was hurt) is basically asking: “Can I believe this won’t happen again? Is there real correction happening, or am I signing up for repeat harm?”
And at this stage, what matters most isn’t just words. It’s evidence over time—changes in behavior, transparency, accountability, safeguards, and consistency from the trustee (the person who caused the damage).
Ready to talk to someone about your situation? CLICK HERE
Why “just apologize” often isn’t enough
Now you can see why “just apologize” is often too simple. An apology is usually a Level 3 move—it tries to answer: “I’m taking responsibility and I’m changing.” But if the trustor (the person who was hurt) is stuck in Level 1 or Level 2—still trying to figure out what happened or why it happened—then the apology might not land, because it doesn’t answer the trustor’s (the person who was hurt) real question yet.
Integrity vs. competence: why some betrayals are harder to repair
Another key insight from this paper is that not all trust violations are equal. Some are mainly about competence—like “You made a mistake, you messed up, you weren’t capable in that moment.” Those are often easier to repair because improvement is easier to believe.
But violations that hit integrity—like honesty, faithfulness, moral character—are harder, because negative integrity information tends to weigh heavier and stick longer. That means the trustee (the person who caused the damage) usually needs more consistent proof to rebuild credibility after an integrity-type violation.
Mixed messages backfire
The model also explains why certain repair attempts make things worse. One major example is mixed messaging—like the trustee (the person accused) denying the wrongdoing while also apologizing for it, or claiming innocence while also explaining why they did it. Those messages don’t fit together logically, and when the story doesn’t make sense, suspicion goes up—not down—for the trustor (the person who was hurt).
The “stuck” patterns after trust breaks
Finally, the model says trust repair doesn’t only end in “fixed” or “not fixed.” It can settle into patterns.
Sometimes both people push hard—where the trustee (the person who caused the damage) pushes for trust and the trustor (the person who was hurt) pushes back—and you get escalation and constant conflict.
Sometimes the trustee (the person who caused the damage) doesn’t put in much effort, and the trustor (the person who was hurt) becomes even more sure they can’t trust—you get mistrust confirmation, where suspicion hardens.
And sometimes both people pull back and stop engaging—you get avoidance, where there’s less fighting, but also less closeness and less repair.
Close: what to do with this
So here’s the practical takeaway: if you feel stuck after a trust violation, ask, “Which of the three questions are we actually fighting about?”
Is it: “Did you do it?”
Is it: “Why did it happen?”
Or is it: “Can you change?”
Because the best repair step depends on the question that’s still unanswered for the trustor (the person who was hurt). And once you can name the level you’re in, you can stop throwing random repair attempts at the problem—and start taking the next step that actually fits.
