Thanks. To add to your quote above, from the paper:
> In Study 2, we extend our investigation by considering
alternative explanations. In Study 1, it is possible that our con-
trol condition decreased benevolence-based trust. In the control
condition in Study 1, the confederate sent no message. This
might have seemed impolite. To investigate this alternative
explanation, we include two different comparison conditions
in Study 2. We include a traditional apology (‘‘I’m sorry to
interrupt.’’) and neutral greeting (‘‘How are you?’’).
> In addition, we extend our investigation by exploring
superfluous apologies in a new domain. In Study 1, both the
unfortunate circumstance (the random action of the computer)
and the outcome (behavioral measure of trust) were related to
the trust game. In Study 2, the apology (for a flight delay) is
unrelated to our measure of trust (lending a cell phone). We
expect that an apology for a flight delay will increase trust even
when the subsequent interaction is unrelated to the flight.
> In Study 2, we extend our investigation by considering alternative explanations. In Study 1, it is possible that our con- trol condition decreased benevolence-based trust. In the control condition in Study 1, the confederate sent no message. This might have seemed impolite. To investigate this alternative explanation, we include two different comparison conditions in Study 2. We include a traditional apology (‘‘I’m sorry to interrupt.’’) and neutral greeting (‘‘How are you?’’).
> In addition, we extend our investigation by exploring superfluous apologies in a new domain. In Study 1, both the unfortunate circumstance (the random action of the computer) and the outcome (behavioral measure of trust) were related to the trust game. In Study 2, the apology (for a flight delay) is unrelated to our measure of trust (lending a cell phone). We expect that an apology for a flight delay will increase trust even when the subsequent interaction is unrelated to the flight.