Diagnose which trust dimension is broken before trying to repair
Name the specific trust assessment that failed — then address that one, not trust in general.
Key takeaways
- What it is: Name the specific trust assessment that failed — then address that one, not trust in general.
- Why it works: When trust breaks down, the instinct is to apologize for "not being trustworthy" — a global statement that addresses none of the four dimensions precisely. Feltman’s insight is that each dimension fails for different reasons and requires different repair. Sincerity failures require honesty correction; reliability failures require behavioral follow-through; competence failures require capability building or role clarification; care failures require visible alignment of interests. Generic trust repair misses the specific lever.
- Evidence: Plausible mechanism, limited direct outcome data.
- Avoid: Repairing the wrong dimension — offering to try harder (reliability repair) when the actual problem is that the other person doesn’t believe you care about their interests (care failure).
Why it works
When trust breaks down, the instinct is to apologize for "not being trustworthy" — a global statement that addresses none of the four dimensions precisely. Feltman’s insight is that each dimension fails for different reasons and requires different repair. Sincerity failures require honesty correction; reliability failures require behavioral follow-through; competence failures require capability building or role clarification; care failures require visible alignment of interests. Generic trust repair misses the specific lever.
How to do it
- 1When trust feels damaged, ask: "Which of the four dimensions is the real problem — sincerity, reliability, competence, or care?"
- 2If you are not sure, ask the other person directly: "What specifically did I do or not do that affected your trust in me?"
- 3Match your repair attempt to the dimension: a commitment (reliability), an honest statement (sincerity), a demonstration of skill (competence), or a visible action in their interest (care).
- 4Don’t offer all four apologies for all four dimensions — specificity signals that you actually understand what happened.
What the evidence says
MechanisticTrust repair research consistently finds that targeted repair attempts (addressing the specific violation) outperform general apologies; the effectiveness of the Feltman framework’s dimensional approach is consistent with this finding.
Honest caveat: Feltman’s four-dimension model is a practitioner framework; trust repair research uses different taxonomies. The directional finding (specific outperforms general) is well supported, but exact dimension labels are Feltman’s.
- — Kim, Dirks & Cooper (2009), repairing trust through specific versus general apologies, Journal of Applied Psychology
Common mistake
Repairing the wrong dimension — offering to try harder (reliability repair) when the actual problem is that the other person doesn’t believe you care about their interests (care failure).
IX Coach walks you through a trust diagnosis when you report a relationship rupture, identifying which of the four dimensions is at stake before helping you plan a repair.
Practice this with IX Coach →