The purpose of this article is to subject the structural components of an apology—that of providing an account and an apology as well as understanding how that apology is structured—to rigorous empirical examination from the social psychological, deductive perspective. The paper's intent is to explore and better understand if and when certain types of apologies may be more compelling than others. We begin with a brief review of the literature on the effectiveness of apologies at addressing injustice and repairing trust within this literature, and specify six critical components of an effective apology identified by Lewicki and Polin ( 2012 ). We then present the findings from two empirical studies which tested the relative effectiveness of these different apology components. While our work is informed by those who have studied apologies from the rhetorical communication perspective, we adopt the second perspective identified above, drawing from the deductive, hypothesis testing social psychological and organizational behavior literature on the strategies and tactics of accounts and apologies as they are used to repair trust and justice violations.

 A closer examination of these two literatures—rhetorical communication and social psychology–organizational behavior—indicates that each fundamentally attempts to address a similar question: what constitutes an optimally “effective” apology or account for a violation that damages someone's image, remedies an injustice, or attempts to repair broken trust? The answers to this question are critical to the development of our understanding of trust repair, but we need to consider that each literature works toward the answers in a different manner. For example, the two literatures differ in the way that they are conceptually derived, and each tends to use a different methodological approach (e.g., Benoit's approach to data is ethnographic, while the second approach is hypothesis testing and empirical deductive). But despite the fact that each literature does not regularly reference the other, the two do exert influence on one another and other related research streams. An example of this influence on other streams lies in research on the interface of apologies and facework—the idea that those involved in a trust violation situation have differing needs when it comes to face needs, with cultural differences being particularly relevant (Guan, Park, & Lee, 2009 ; Kim, Guan, & Park, 2012 ; Park & Guan, 2006 ). For instance, Park & Guan ( 2006 ) documented that, relative to U.S. respondents, Chinese respondents have been shown to be more prone to initiate an apology depending on the broader situational context (i.e., whether their act potentially violated a target's positive face). While these literatures and research streams each contribute differently toward our understanding of the effectiveness and need of apologies, what remains lacking is a clear answer to the question, “what are the core components of an effective apology, and are certain components more critical than others?”

 The second literature that has addressed the question of apologies has been derived from the related fields of social psychology and organizational behavior. Approaches within these disciplines have relied on psychologically based theories and frameworks for repairing damage to an interpersonal or interorganizational relationship, particularly addressing problems of unjust treatment and violations of trust, and employing deductive hypothesis testing and empirical data drawn from laboratory and scenario studies. A violator may take a variety of approaches to address a fairness or trust violation, but the most common is to take ownership of the violation through some kind of a verbal account; for example, an actor may make an acknowledgment that they are aware that a violation occurred, offer an explanation or “account” of what the violation was and why it occurred, and/or address the consequences (Bies & Shapiro, 1987 ; Scott & Lyman, 1968 ). An assortment of other typologies of accounts have been offered in the literature, including ones by Scher and Darley ( 1997 ), Shapiro ( 1991 ), and Shaw, Wild, and Colquitt ( 2003 ).

 Relevant to the focus of this article, there are several research literatures that have addressed the question of what constitutes a “good” apology. The first literature draws from the discipline of rhetorical communication, primarily from the work of Benoit's “image repair theory”. Benoit's ( 1995 ) earlier work proposed a model of image repair discourse and then applied the framework to four major case studies of corporations (and a U.S. President) attempting to repair their image. More recently, Benoit ( 2015 ) provides a modification of the framework and references additional case studies that were performed in the intervening two decades. In this work, Benoit identifies five major verbal “accounting” strategies that can be used for image repair: denial of the action, evasion of responsibility for the action, reducing the perceived offensiveness of the specific act, proposing corrective action for the future, and “mortification”, which includes some expression of regret for the offending action.

 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 miscoordination; 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 close attention to what is exactly said in an apology, one may gain insights into when apologies may be particularly efficacious and hence how to optimally construct an effective one.

 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 effective social policy; a church leader apologies for unethical conduct by some of its ministers; or a professional 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 central to the disciplines of negotiation and conflict management.

 If we are to have a broader understanding of the potential efficacy of an apology, it is important to not only examine the relative efficacy of the components themselves, but to also examine whether their efficacy holds, or is highly sensitive to variations, across situations. For instance, recent studies have demonstrated that the efficacy of apologies can be shaped by a variety of factors including the degree of offender responsibility (Bennett & Earwaker, 1994 ), prior relationship between the victim and the violator (Tomlinson et al., 2004 ), the timing of the repair communication (Frantz & Bennigson, 2005 ), the existence of prior deception (Schweitzer, Hershy, & Bradlow, 2006 ), and the national context (Han & Cai, 2010 ). To this end, whereas our main question in the current article is to examine the relative efficacy of individual components and how their combinations matter, we also sought to examine how their efficacy would hold across two key contexts which have been shown to have a strong impact on apology efficacy: competence‐based and integrity‐based trust violations. Whereas apologies have been documented to help repair trust in cases of a competence‐based trust violation, influential studies have called into question whether apologies will provide any value—and that they may even be harmful—in contexts of an integrity‐based trust violation (Kim, Cooper, Dirks, & Ferrin, 2013 ; Kim, Dirks, Cooper, & Ferrin, 2006 ; Kim, Ferrin, Cooper, & Dirks, 2004 ). In order to gain broader insights into how and whether certain apology components matter more than others, and whether more components are better than fewer components, we conducted two experiments which examined the perceived quality of apologies across both competence‐ and integrity‐based trust violations.

 In addition to the two components listed above, other components have been argued to provide value to an apology (Lewicki & Polin, 2012 ; Scher & Darley, 1997 ). First, and given the importance of including an “account”, the explanation for why the violation occurred will help improve the perceived quality of an apology. After all, victims may respond differently to trust violations depending on the reasoning behind the behavior, and the explanation offers an opportunity to express this reasoning. Second, the declaration of repentance signals that the speaker will take steps to ensure that the violation is not repeated. Third, the offer of repair acts as a signal that the violator is willing to take, and aware of the need for, actions aimed at remedying the situation and making an effort toward repairing the relationship. Lastly, Lewicki and Polin ( 2012 ) propose that it may be useful to also include a request for forgiveness , as doing so creates a verbal component which most directly engages the victim in the interpersonal communication process. In other words, requesting someone's forgiveness can transform the apology from a unilateral set of statements made by the violator to a bilateral communication process, asking for the victim's participation in the trust repair process (Chapman & Thomas, 2006 ). Research on the offering of apologies suggests that a violator is more likely to offer an apology if they believe the victim will, indeed, join in the trust repair process and offer forgiveness (Leunissen et al., 2012 ).

 At its essence, an apology serves two general functions: first, the mere offering of an apology shows that the apologizer understands there is a “social requirement” to an apology when any sort of harm is done; second, the apology should be accompanied by an emotional expression that provides additional meaning about the apologizer's intentions (Scher & Darley, 1997 ). The acknowledgment of responsibility for committing the offending act demonstrates the apologizer's awareness of this social norm of recognizing harm and caring to rectify it. Of all apology “component” research, the most appears to exist regarding the acknowledgement of responsibility. Coombs and Holladay ( 2008 ) go as far as saying it is the “centerpiece of an apology” (p. 253). Research suggests that, indeed, victims perceive more positive evaluations of the violators when the violators show greater responsibility‐taking (Hodgins & Liebeskind, 2003 ). Pace, Fediuk, and Botero ( 2010 ) find that taking responsibility of one's actions can lead to less stakeholder anger toward and less reputation damage for an organization. Speaking to the second general function of the apology, an expression of regret for the offense is necessary because it demonstrates some negative feeling that have consequently been experienced by the violator because of their actions. Pace et al. ( 2010 ) also find that expressing regret over one's actions can lead to less stakeholder anger toward and less reputation damage for an organization.

 These three examples demonstrate that some authors are attempting to increase the understanding of the content that is, and should be, included in apologies. But outside of these articles, most research on apologies does not utilize consistent apology content. The sheer number of components to include in apologies and the clear lack of agreement of what constitutes an apology is problematic. How can findings from these studies be compared and validity ensured when an “apology” used in one study contains different numbers and types of components than an “apology” used in another study? For example, Schlenker and Darby ( 1981 ) examine five components in their research of reactions in undesirable events (i.e., statement of apologetic intent, expression of remorse–sorrow–embarrassment, offer of help to the injured party or restitution to redress damage, self‐castigation, attempts to obtain forgiveness); De Cremer ( 2010 ) uses two components in his trust repair research (i.e., taking responsibility and expressing remorse); Lee and Chung ( 2012 ) use only one component in their study (i.e., responsibility admittance); and multiple studies simply use the phrase “I want to apologize” as their studied apology (Haesevoets et al., 2013 ; Leunissen, De Cremer, & Reinders Folmer, 2012 ). The content included in an apology matters and affects the apology's efficacy, and an apology lacking the appropriate components “could be perceived as superficial and insincere to the eyes of the public” (Lee & Chung, 2012 , p. 932). To better understand this trust repair strategy, we argue that consistency is needed.

 As a final example, Lewicki and Polin ( 2012 ) reviewed the empirical literature on apologies and analyzed a series of high‐profile apologies from celebrities and corporate leaders. They argue that a maximally effective apology should consist of six components including the following: (1) an expression of regret, (2) an explanation for why the offense occurred, (3) an acknowledgement of responsibility, (4) a declaration of repentance, (5) an offer of repair, and (6) a request for forgiveness. Through their analysis of apologies, the authors found that an expression of regret and an explanation for why the violation occurred were commonly included in apologies, whereas a clear, direct declaration of repentance and the request for forgiveness were lacking in apologies. The acknowledgement of responsibility was usually included, but the quality of the component was questionable in many instances. And the inclusion of an offer of repair was dependent upon the type of transgression and whether repair of damage was possible. Despite useful insights garnered from Lewicki and Polin's evaluation of public apologies, a systematic evaluation of how each of these components and their combination impact the efficacy of an apology has not been fully explored.

 As another example, Scher and Darley ( 1997 ), through their discourse analysis, relied on the Cross‐Cultural Speech Acts Realization Project (CCSARP), an initiative which had performed an extensive analysis of the efficiency of various requests and apologies across cultures. Drawing from work by Blum‐Kulka and Olshtain ( 1984 ), Scher and Darley highlighted five components of the “apology speech act set:” (1) an illocutionary force indicating device, (2) an explanation of the cause of the violation, (3) an expression of responsibility for the offense, (4) an offer of repair, and (5) a promise of forbearance (p. 128). To study the use of components, the authors presented participants with a scenario about a person who promised to call a friend with some information that was critical to the friend's upcoming job interview. The person then forgot to make the call and several days later, called, and offered an apology. Each participant judged multiple scenarios where no apology, a 1‐component apology, a 2‐component apology, a 3‐component apology, or a 4‐component apology was provided. 2 Their examination of the use of these components in offering an apology demonstrates that the use of apologies does affect others’ judgments of the transgressor. More specifically, “the addition of each strategy seems to have had an additive effect on judgments of how appropriate the utterance of the transgressor was and how much the transgressor was blamed and sanctioned for the transgression” (p. 137). That is, a linear trend was found, such that more components were perceived as better than fewer components. The single act of making an apology (compared to not making an apology) contributed the clearest and strongest effect on perceptions of the violator. Although their study is not without limitations, it does provide some support for the argument that the quality of an apology may be affected by the presence and number of certain key apology components.

 The composition of an apology matters. The structure of these narratives—in other words, the consideration of both format and content—affects perceptions of the transgressor (van Laer & de Ruyter, 2010 ). A number of researchers have provided suggestions of what should be verbally included in an apology. For example, Schlenker and Darby ( 1981 ) highlight five components, including (1) a statement of apologetic intent, (2) expressions of remorse–sorrow–embarrassment, (3) offers to help the injured party or make restitution, (4) self‐castigation, and (5) direct attempts to obtain forgiveness (p. 272). These authors explain that not all components will be used in all apologies; according to them, the consequences of the transgression play a role in the number of components included in the apology such that minimal consequences usually elicited a “perfunctory form of an apology” (p. 275), and increased severity of the predicament brought about by an increased number of apology components. In their later work, these authors state that in a “more complete” apology, “an actor recognizes the existence of interpersonal obligations, acknowledges and reaffirms the values of the rules that have been broken, promises more acceptable conduct in the future, [and] may seem to suffer remorse” (Darby & Schlenker, 1989 , p. 354).

 An important and yet poorly understood question that remains, however, is whether the effectiveness of an apology will depend on the structure of the apology itself. Some apologies may be simple—no more than a straightforward “I'm sorry”—while others are rich and extensive in detail. For example, Lewicki and Polin ( 2012 ) offered examples of public apology statements made by several well‐known personalities and organizations who had violated public trust: professional golfer Tiger Woods; stockbroker and investment advisor Bernard Madoff; global oil and gas energy corporate giant British Petroleum; and the management of JetBlue Airlines. The authors noted that these apologies—as well as numerous other public apologies from corporate, government, religious, sports, and entertainment personalities—were quite different from one another in structure and composition, and that these differences may account for the perceived effectiveness of the statements and their impact on beginning to restore trust in the actor. Therefore, it is appropriate to understand whether some apologies are better than others, that is, that certain components of an apology are more likely to be perceived as central to an apology's effectiveness.

 There is an extensive literature on apologies, and how, why, and under what conditions they are effective; only a cursory review of that literature can be provided here. As one example, Tomlinson, Dineen, and Lewicki ( 2004 ) provided empirical support for the importance of apologies. Examining the factors which were perceived as important to a victim to reconcile a professional relationship following a broken promise, these authors found that: (a) apologies were more effective than no apologies in trust repair; (b) apologies were more effective when they were perceived as sincere; (c) apologies were more effective when they were delivered soon after the trust violation; (d) apologizers who “took responsibility” for creating the trust violation were seen as more effective than apologizers who attempted to deflect or deny the responsibility; and (e) apologies were more effective when the parties had established a strong, positive relationship and the trust violation was seen as an isolated event rather than a frequently recurring problem (see also Kramer & Lewicki, 2010 ; Schlenker & Darby, 1981 ; Scott & Lyman, 1968 ; van Laer & de Ruyter, 2010 for reviews). 1

 At the outset, it should be noted that some authors have criticized apologies as a form of trust repair. For example, Farrell and Rabin ( 1996 ) have argued that apologies are one of many forms of “cheap talk”, and that such talk (e.g., accounts, explanations, apologies, etc.) has no real value to the victim when compared to the violator providing more substantive, tangible reparations for the trust violation. Other studies (De Cremer, 2010 ) have shown that apologies can be effective only as “supplements” to substantive compensation. For example, Haesevoets, Reinders Folmer, De Cremer, and Van Hiel ( 2013 ) found that a simultaneous effect exists for the benefit of compensation and apologies together and that compensation with an apology can better “facilitate relationship preservation” than compensation without an apology (p. 96). Even more broadly, some have argued that the apology has unfairly been considered as “the” best repair strategy, yet find that other repair strategies such as compensation are just as effective as apologies (Coombs & Holladay, 2008 ). But a number of other studies have indicated that providing an apology alone can be effective because, at the very least, expressing the appropriate words can reveal that the violator understands that some events have occurred which damaged trust (Baron, 1990 ; Thomas & Millar, 2008 ; see Fehr, Gelfand, & Nag, 2010 for a review) and that the problem must be addressed.

 Based on the data obtained from reactions to the single‐component apologies, we next examined reactions to 3‐Component apologies to investigate whether certain combinations of apology components might be more effective than others. A repeated‐measures ANOVA showed support for a significant effect across evaluations of the 20 different combinations F (19, 1,957) = 8.56, p < .001. 5 Based on the reactions to single‐component apologies, we examined whether our more highly rated individual component apologies would yield more favorable reactions when combined as compared to when less effective individual components were combined. When looking at all the means from each of the single components, the three most effective individual components were Acknowledgement of Responsibility (A; M = 3.49), Offer of Repair (O; M = 3.34), and Explanation (E; M = 3.17). The three least effective individual components were Expression of Regret (R; M = 3.03), Declaration of Repentance (D; M = 3.00), and Request for Forgiveness (F; M = 2.68). Based on the responses of participants who evaluated all the 3‐Component apologies (Table 3 ), a repeated‐measures analysis was conducted in which we compared the relative efficacy of apologies containing the three most effective individual components (EAO) versus the three least effective individual components (RDF). Results showed support for the expectation that the three most important individual components combined together was evaluated as a much more effective apology ( M = 3.59, SD = 0.93) as compared to combining the three least effective individual components into an apology ( M = 2.80, SD = 1.13), t (108) = 6.85, p < .001. It is worth noting that when evaluating the 20 different possible combinations of 3‐Component apologies, the aforementioned two particular combinations also were the most favorably rated and the least favorably rated apologies. Taken together, these findings show compelling support for the expectation that not all apologies are created equal, and it is important to pay attention to the content components of an apology, rather than just adding more components, to maximize its potential effectiveness.

 Although our earlier analyses suggest that more components are better than fewer components (i.e., 6‐Component apologies were evaluated significantly more favorably than 3‐ or 1‐Component apologies), no differences emerged when comparing single versus 3‐Component apologies ( p = .632). Some of this lack of difference may have had to do with the fact that there is a considerable variance in the efficacy of apology components when aggregated into groups of three. As such, it may be premature to broadly state that there exists no difference in the efficacy of single‐ versus 3‐Component apologies, as attention needs to be given to the specific content of various components.

 Up to this point, the results suggest that more components are better than fewer, with a particular clear benefit being given to a “full apology” irrespective of whether the violation type was competence‐based or integrity‐based in nature. We next sought to more closely examine whether certain components are deemed more beneficial than others. To do so, we first investigated responses of participants who only evaluated single apology components. Within‐subjects analyses were conducted within the framework of an ANOVA, and Bonferroni adjustments were used to limit the possibility of type 1 errors. 4 Results of the overall ANOVA indicated the presence of difference between individual components F (5, 104) = 10.96, p < .001. An examination of the means showed clear differences with reactions to the quality of single components (Figure 1 ), with an Acknowledgement of Responsibility ( M = 3.49, SD = 0.94) being evaluated as the most effective component and a Request for Forgiveness evaluated as the least effective ( M = 2.68, SD = 0.99). Post hoc Bonferroni comparisons showed that the Acknowledgement of Responsibility was evaluated significantly more effective than all other components ( p 's < .05) with the exception of an Offer of Repair ( M = 3.34, SD = 1.01) from which it did not differ. Moreover, a Request for Forgiveness was evaluated as significantly less effective than each of the other five components ( p 's < .05). Accordingly, these results suggest that if someone can make only one statement in an apology, an Acknowledgement of Responsibility may serve the individual significantly better compared to all other components, while a Request for Forgiveness would be significantly less effective than all other components.

 Given the absence of a statistical interaction, we collapsed conditions across the Violation Type factor prior to conducting analyses to better understand how the number of components affected evaluations of apologies. Bonferroni‐adjusted significance values were employed to reduce the probability of a type 2 error given that multiple comparisons were being conducted. An inspection of means (Table 2 ) by condition showed a benefit from having more components: 1‐Component: M = 3.12, SD = 0.67; 3‐Component: M = 3.26, SD = 0.82; 6‐Component: M = 3.61, SD = 0.95. Bonferroni multiple comparisons showed that the 6‐Component apology was evaluated more favorably than either the 1‐Component ( p < .001) or 3‐Component apology ( p = .004). No difference emerged between the 1‐Component and 3‐Component apologies ( p = .632).

 Initial analyses were conducted in the framework of a two‐way between‐participants ANOVA where apology efficacy was the dependent variable. To maintain statistical independence of observations, when comparing the efficacy of the number of components across participants in our Number of Components conditions, a single overall apology efficacy score was used for each participant assigned to the 1‐component condition (i.e., the average efficacy score of the six single‐component apologies they evaluated) and for participants assigned to the 3‐component condition (i.e., the average efficacy score from the 20 different 3‐component combinations they evaluated).

 Below each apology, participants were asked to respond to three questions on a 5‐point Likert scale (1 = Not at All ; 5 = Very ): “How effective would this statement be at dealing with the violation?”, “How credible would this statement be?” , and “How adequate would this statement be?” Responses to these three questions (α = .87) were then averaged to form the dependent variable apology efficacy .

 After reading the scenario, each participant was presented with only a descriptive definition of apology components (see the Definition column of Table 1 ). Depending on condition, respondents evaluated either: each of the 1‐component apology definitions presented one at a time (1‐component condition); or each of the possible 3‐component apology definitions presented one at a time (3‐component condition); or the single 6‐component apology definition (6‐component condition). Order of presentation of components within each condition was randomized. For each apology, the participant was asked: “Imagine that the candidate's response to this situation was made up of [one, three, six] statements:” followed by the definition(s) of that (or those) statement(s).

 After viewing consent information, participants read a trust violation scenario in which, depending on condition, either competence‐based trust was broken or integrity‐based trust was broken. The scenario and wording of the competence‐ and integrity‐based trust violation manipulations were adopted from Kim et al. ( 2004 , 2006 , 2013 ; see Appendix ). Participants were asked to imagine they were reviewing the application of a job candidate for an accounting position who had gotten in some trouble in a prior job over a client's tax return being filed incorrectly. In the competence‐based trust violation condition , the violation was said to occur because the candidate was not sufficiently knowledgeable in all relevant tax codes. In the integrity‐based trust violation condition, the candidate was said to have knowingly filed the tax return incorrectly.

 Given the impact that Kim et al.'s ( 2004 , 2006 , 2013 ) work has had on contemporary thinking about the conditional effectiveness of apologies, we based our competence and integrity‐based violations after theirs, but we systematically manipulated the number of components of apology presented in response to the scenario. That is, the perceived effectiveness of these components was explored singly, in various combinations of three, and collectively as one aggregation of six in the context of either a competence‐based or an integrity‐based trust violation. As expressed by the apologizer, the six single components include the following (Table 1 ): an expression of regret for the offense (subsequently labeled R), an explanation of why the violation occurred (subsequently labeled E), an acknowledgment of responsibility for the offense (subsequently labeled A), a declaration of repentance (subsequently labeled D), an offer of trust repair (subsequently labeled O), and a request for forgiveness (subsequently labeled F). 3

 In our first study, we set out to determine whether some individual components were seen as more effective than others, and whether various combinations of components were judged as more effective than others. Building off of the insights from Lewicki and Polin ( 2012 ), it was anticipated that the presence of multiple components would aid in apologies being seen as effective, with apologies containing all six components being seen as the most effective. However, because the type of violation has been documented as a key determinant of apology effectiveness (Kim et al., 2004 , 2006 , 2013 ), we examined the components in the context of both competence‐based and integrity‐based violations, namely we set the six separate components of an apology as previously discussed into the specific context scenario used by these authors, giving subjects a brief overview of the scenario context.

 Following up on our exploratory findings from Study 1 , we next examined 3‐Component apology combinations (Table 5 ), namely we sought to provide a confirmatory test that the 3‐Component apology of EAO would be more effective than the 3‐Component combination of RDF. To do so, we conducted a paired‐samples planned t ‐test where we compared apologies containing EAO components against those containing RDF components. Consistent with the exploratory analyses from Study 1 , results confirmed that the EAO ( M = 3.22, SD = 0.71) was evaluated more favorably than an apology containing the RDF ( M = 2.95, SD = 0.84), t (69) = 2.58, p = .012. Taken together, these results provide further evidence supporting the argument that in the absence of providing a “full apology” (all six components), there is clear benefit in giving attention to which components one provides in their apology.

 We next sought to examine whether individual components differed in their efficacy similar to what we found in Study 1 . To do so, we conducted a within‐subjects analysis within the framework of an ANOVA on evaluations of apologies from participants in our single‐component condition. A significant ANOVA supported the expectation that our individual components would be differentially evaluated in their perceived efficacy F (5, 350) = 29.50, p < .001. An examination of the means showed that reactions differed between individual components: Offer of Repair ( M = 3.62, SD = 0.79), Declaration of Repentance ( M = 3.62, SD = 0.84), Acknowledgement of Responsibility ( M = 3.30, SD = 0.92), Expression of Regret ( M = 2.86, SD = 0.96), Explanation ( M = 2.74, SD = 1.09), and Request for Forgiveness ( M = 2.32, SD = 0.90). Although the individual component data did not exactly mirror the order of perceived efficacy for components from Study 1 , there was still some consistency in order, providing confirmatory support to the exploratory findings from Study 1 . Bonferoni‐corrected comparisons showed Request for Forgiveness was evaluated significantly worse than all other single‐component apologies ( p 's < .001) and was marginally worse than an Explanation ( p = .057). Also similar to Study 1 , Bonferroni‐corrected comparisons revealed that an Acknowledgement of Responsibility was evaluated more favorably than an Expression of Regret ( p = .016), Explanation ( p = .006), and a Request for Forgiveness ( p < .001). Acknowledgement of Responsibility did not significantly differ from an Offer of Repair ( p = .37) or Declaration of Repentance ( p = .37; Figure 2 ).

 We next collapsed data across violation type and more closely examined how number of components shaped apology evaluations. More components added together in an apology tended to yield a more positively evaluated apology than fewer components: 1‐Component ( M = 3.08, SD = 0.55); 2‐Component ( M = 3.11, SD = 0.55); 3‐Component ( M = 3.12, SD = 0.45); 4‐Component ( M = 3.29, SD = 0.54); 5‐Component ( M = 3.22, SD = 0.66); and 6‐Component ( M = 3.37, SD = 0.80). Following the pattern of data observed in Study 1, planned comparison t ‐tests were conducted within the framework of a one‐way ANOVA. Results confirmed that a 6‐Component apology was evaluated as more favorable than either a 1‐Component, t (416) = 2.85, p = .005 or 3‐Component apology t (416) = 2.47, p = .014. Moreover, as in Study 1 , no difference emerged when comparing the efficacy of a single‐ and 3‐component apology, t (416) = 0.37, p = .71.

 A two‐way between‐subjects ANOVA was conducted where apology efficacy was the dependent variable. As in Study 1 , to maintain statistical independence of observations, prior to conducting analyses to compare participants in the different Number of Components conditions, for conditions where participants evaluated more than 1 apology, we created a single efficacy score for each participant in that condition. Replicating the findings of Study 1 , two significant main effects emerged (Table 4 ). Participants evaluated apologies following a competence‐based violation ( M = 3.26, SD = 0.58) more favorably than apologies following an integrity‐based violation ( M = 3.12, SD = 0.63), F (1, 410) = 6.48, p = .011. Moreover, the number of apology components also affected the evaluations of apology effectiveness, F (5, 410) = 2.64, p = .023. As in Study 1 , no statistical interaction emerged, F (1, 410) = 0.683, p = .637, suggesting that the efficacy of the number of components was not moderated by the type of violation.

 The procedure for Study 2 was very similar to that of Study 1 . After reading either the competence‐based or integrity‐based trust violation scenario based on the Kim et al. ( 2004 , 2006 , 2013 ) used in Study 1 , depending on condition, participants evaluated either: each of the six 1‐Component apology statements; or each of the 15 possible 2‐Component apology statements; or each of the 20 possible 3‐Component apology statements; or each of the 15 possible 4‐Component apology statements; or each of the six possible 5‐Component apology statements; or the single 6‐Component apology statement (see Table 1 for the wording of each individual component statement).

 Whereas Study 1 provided insight into reactions to definitions of apology components and the perceived efficacy of those components, we sought to replicate and expand upon our findings in two ways. First, to provide a more fine‐grained analysis on the number of apology components, we now examined the relative efficacy of the following: 1‐, 2‐, 3‐, 4‐, 5‐, and 6‐Component apologies (as compared to only 1‐, 3‐, and 6‐Component apologies presented in Study 1 ). Second, whereas Study 1 participants were told to evaluate an apology which contained labels of the individual components and their definitions, to provide more realism we sought to capture the perceived efficacy of these components when they were presented as actual verbalizations from parties within the Kim et al. studies ( 2004 , 2006 , 2013 ), rather than as definitions (see the Statement columns of Table 1 ). That is, we created statements which contextualized the definitions of each of the six components and had participants evaluate these response(s). We did not label or define components for participants.

 Discussion

 Across two studies, we examined whether certain components of an apology, taken individually and collectively, were perceived as more critical for the apology to be perceived as effective. Based on the previous research, it was also important to examine whether these components might be differentially perceived if the apology were being offered for the violation of competence‐based versus integrity‐based trustworthiness. Across both experiments, strong and consistent results were obtained. First, the greater the number of designated components in an apology, the more effective it was perceived to be. In the first study, this was clear when comparing the definitions within the 6‐component apology against the definitions within the components taken one or three at a time; in the second study, this was true when comparing greater number of components to a lesser number of components. Second, the more positive reaction to the greater number of components occurred equally for both competence‐ and integrity‐based offenses, although in general apologies for competence‐based offenses were perceived as significantly more effective than apologies for integrity‐based offenses. This is in line with Kim et al. (2004), who have documented that apologies are more effective in competence‐based offenses than they are in integrity‐based offenses. Third, it appears that certain components are more critical than others, but it does depend on how many components are aggregated together and the context in which they were presented.

 When presented one component at a time, we found that an Acknowledgement of Responsibility was viewed as most important, Offer of Repair second, and Explanation third; specifically, the components of Offer of Repair and Declaration of Repentance were tied for most efficacious, and Acknowledgment of Responsibility was the third most important. Thus, while there was some general consistency in the order of importance of the components, the context of the Kim et al. (2004, 2006, 2013) scenario may have downplayed the importance of an Explanation and increased the importance of a Declaration of Repentance. However, across both of our studies, the data indicated that Request for Forgiveness was least critical. When components are evaluated three at a time, the importance of certain component aggregates emerges more consistently. Both studies revealed that when an apology contains an Explanation for the offense, an Acknowledgment of Responsibility, and an Offer of Repair (EAO), the apology is perceived as significantly more effective than when it only contains an Expression of Regret, a Declaration of Repentance, and a Request for Forgiveness (RDF).

 Taken together, the results illustrate that while more components are better than fewer, some components are clearly more important than others. In addition, the context of the apology matters, but only to some degree. While context appeared to affect the perceived importance of some components (such as Acknowledgement of Responsibility and Explanation), it did not affect other components (such as Request for Forgiveness, which was seen as least important in both studies).

 Contributions to Theory Development The first and most important question is, how do we explain these results? The results seem to indicate that following some form of violation (of trust, of expectations, or of treatment), victims are highly sensitive since the violation most likely threatens their confidence in their own judgment and sense of personal efficacy. Uncertainty and tension are created by this disconfirmation, and the victim seeks information from the violator that works to restore their own sense of judgment and efficacy. As noted by Kim et al. (2004, 2006), this impact is not as great when a victim has misjudged the actor's competence as it is when victim has misjudged the actor's integrity. In the first case, the actor could have made a mistake which may or may not have been under his or her control, and an explanation about that mistake may be adequate for us to restore our confidence in the other. In the second case, the actor may have misread the other's fundamental character and honesty, and simple explanations or other verbal statements will not easily restore those character judgments. It is not just the nature of the violation that affects an apology's effectiveness but also the fact that the victim looks for certain specific assurances in the statements that will serve to reduce the distress and uncertainty created by the violation. While there are variations across the two studies, our results show that while more components are better in general, the presence of three particular components included in a single apology is particularly valuable (not necessarily in any specific order): An Explanation for why the violation may have occurred, which is an effort by the violator to affect the victim's sense‐making about the violation in a way that might make the violation seem more understandable, less intentional, or less dissonance‐creating to the victim.

 An Offer of Repair, which may restore the tangible or economic damage that occurred as a result of the violation.

 An Acknowledgement of Responsibility, in which the violator assumes responsibility for having created the violation, hence limiting the number of alternative explanations for why the violation occurred. Note that some of these findings support results from past research, while others challenge those results. Speaking to the first of these components, the importance of explanations or “accounts” has been significantly documented in research on procedural justice and trust repair. As noted earlier, Shapiro (1991) showed the importance of an explanation in repairing trust following deception, and subsequent work by Ohbuchi, Kameda, and Agarie (1989) explored how the characteristics of both the explanations and the explainer had a significant impact on whether the victim accepted the explanation. Speaking to the second of these components, the Offer of Repair offers a promise that whatever tangible or economic damage may have been done can be repaired. As noted in the introduction, there has been a significant debate in the research literature about whether apologies can be effective at all—that is, whether they are no more than “cheap talk”—under conditions when real, tangible, economic damage has been done. Our results seem to indicate that even a verbal commitment to restore damage done by the violation is seen as an important apology component by the victim but clearly would have to be followed by actual repair–restoration to assure full credibility (see Kramer & Lewicki, 2010, for a fuller treatment of these literatures). Finally, speaking to the third of these components, our results indicated that an Acknowledgment of Responsibility was deemed to be quite important. This was true even in Study 2, where the phrasing was drawn from scenarios used by Kim et al. (2004, 2006, 2013). A victim wants to know that the violator acknowledges ownership for creating the violation, even when taking such ownership may undermine the victim's perception of the violator's integrity. In Kim et al. (2004), the authors argue from their results that denial of responsibility was a more effective strategy after an integrity‐based violation. In contrast, our results tend to show that Acknowledgment of Responsibility was deemed to be important, ranked first when the definitions alone were rated, third when the actual statements were rated in context, and in the critical “top three” in both studies. Since the Kim et al. finding (and a subsequent study by Ferrin, Kim, Cooper, & Dirks, 2007) stresses the importance of “denial” or “silence” as prescriptive advise for dealing with integrity‐based trust violations, our findings raise questions about the ubiquity of this approach, and further investigation is required as to the conditions under which taking responsibility versus denying responsibility for an offense can be concluded as sound prescriptive advice. Although we did not include a denial condition in our studies, future work may examine whether a complete apology (i.e., containing all six components) may surpass the efficacy of a denial. Although our study design allowed us to examine reactions to apologies, and whether they differed, across two main types of trust‐violation contexts (i.e., competence‐ and integrity‐based violations), future work would benefit from examining whether the number of components (and specific components) depends on other potential moderators. For instance, the severity of the violation, the timing of the apology, and the cultural context in which the violation occurred are important aspects which deserve to be examined in future studies. One contextual feature which we anticipate to be particularly influential is the nature of the prior relationship between the parties. In our two studies, we placed participants into the accounting scenario between a job candidate and potential employer. From the subject's point of view (the Accounting Manager), in our scenario drawn from Kim et al.'s (2004, 2006, 2013) influential work, he or she has not directly experienced the violation (and hence been in the victim's shoes) nor heard accounts of it from anyone directly involved in the violation. Moreover, the relationship between the Accounting Manager, the HR Director and the candidate is a transactional one regarding an arms‐length hiring decision and not one in which the violator and victim have any kind of established, long‐standing history or meaningful, emotion‐based relationship. Hence, any evaluation of these apology components may significantly differ in perceived efficacy and impact if one is evaluating them directly from the victim's shoes, and if the violation has occurred in the context of a strong preestablished relationship such as a business partnership, personal friendship, or marriage. Again, future research will need to investigate the resilience of our findings when these important context elements are evaluated in subsequent studies (c.f. Chapman & Thomas, 2006). In addition to examining the role of contextual moderators, future work may also seek to adopt a person × situation framework, as optimally effective apologies not only depend on what component(s) are said, but also depend on individual differences associated with the recipient. For instance, Fehr and Gelfand (2010) argued that an apology is most effective when its contents match with the victim's specific type of self‐construal—independent, relational, or collective. These authors investigated apologies that took one of three different forms: offers of compensation, expressions of empathy, or acknowledgment of norms or rules that had been violated (note that by this categorization, offers of compensation are similar to our Offers of Repair, expressions of empathy are similar to our Expression of Regret, and acknowledgement of rule violation are similar to our Acknowledgment of Responsibility). They found that the relationship between each of the three apology types and the willingness of the victim to forgive the perpetrator depended on one's self‐construal. Thus, their work suggests that the efficacy of which components, and how many components, are stated may depend on the psychological orientation and/or values of the receiver. ||||| There are six components to an apology – and the more of them you include when you say you’re sorry, the more effective your apology will be, according to new research.

 But if you’re pressed for time or space, there are two elements that are the most critical to having your apology accepted.

 “Apologies really do work, but you should make sure you hit as many of the six key components as possible,” said Roy Lewicki, lead author of the study and professor emeritus of management and human resources at The Ohio State University’s Fisher College of Business.

 In two separate experiments, Lewicki and his co-authors tested how 755 people reacted to apologies containing anywhere from one to all six of these elements:

 1. Expression of regret

 2. Explanation of what went wrong

 3. Acknowledgment of responsibility

 4. Declaration of repentance

 5. Offer of repair

 6. Request for forgiveness

 The research is published in the May 2016 issue of the journal Negotiation and Conflict Management Research. Lewicki’s co-authors were Robert Lount, associate professor of management and human resources at Ohio State, and Beth Polin of Eastern Kentucky University.

 While the best apologies contained all six elements, not all of these components are equal, the study found.

 “Our findings showed that the most important component is an acknowledgment of responsibility. Say it is your fault, that you made a mistake,” Lewicki said.

 The second most important element was an offer of repair.

 “One concern about apologies is that talk is cheap. But by saying, ‘I’ll fix what is wrong,’ you’re committing to take action to undo the damage,” he said.

 The next three elements were essentially tied for third in effectiveness: expression of regret, explanation of what went wrong and declaration of repentance.

 The least effective element of an apology is a request for forgiveness. “That’s the one you can leave out if you have to,” Lewicki said.

 The first study involved 333 adults recruited online through Amazon’s MTURK program. All the participants read a scenario in which they were the manager of an accounting department that was hiring a new employee.

 At a previous job, the potential employee had filed an incorrect tax return that understated a client’s capital gains income. When confronted about the issue, the job candidate apologized.

 The participants were told that the apology contained one, three or all six of the apology components. They were then asked to rate on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 5 (very) how effective, credible and adequate the apology statement would be.

 The second study included 422 undergraduate students. The students read the same scenario as in the first study, but instead of being told which components the apology contained, they read an actual apology that included anywhere from one to six statements based on the six elements. For example, for acknowledgment of responsibility, the apology statement read “I was wrong in what I did, and I accepted responsibility for my actions.”

 They again rated how effective, credible and adequate the apology statement would be.

 The results of the two studies were not identical, but they were very similar, Lewicki said. For both studies, the more elements that the apology contained, the more effective it was rated.

 When the elements were evaluated one at a time, there was general consistency in the importance of the components across the two studies, with slight variations. But in both studies, the request for forgiveness was seen as least important.

 In both studies, half the respondents were told the job applicant’s incorrect tax return was related to competence: He was not knowledgeable in all relevant tax codes. The other half were told it was related to integrity: He knowingly filed the tax return incorrectly.

 The value of each of the six components was the same whether the apology was related to failures of competence or integrity. But overall, participants were less likely to accept apologies when the job applicant showed a lack of integrity versus a lack of competence.

 Lewicki noted that, in this work, participants simply read apology statements. But the emotion and voice inflection of a spoken apology may have powerful effects, as well.

 “Clearly, things like eye contact and appropriate expression of sincerity are important when you give a face-to-face apology,” he said. ||||| Elton John once sang that sorry seemed to be hardest word but now scientists have found that the perfect apology requires more than just the word 'sorry' itself.

 Based on the findings of a new study, researchers said there are six key elements to make one's apology more sincere and easy to accept with two being very critical in ensuring acceptance.

 They are accepting one's own fault and offering to repair the damage when making an apology, according to Ohio State University researchers.

 The study looked at how 755 volunteers reacted to apologies that contained some or all of the six key elements in two separate parts.

 The first part involved 333 adults acting out a fictional scenario where they were an accounting department manager interviewing a potential employee.

 The applicant had filed an incorrect tax return during their previous work but when asked during the fake interview about it, they apologised.

 The adults involved in the study then had to rate different apologies which contained one, three or all of the sorry elements listed above. The scale was between one (not at all) and five (very), MailOnline reported.

 In the second part of the research, 422 undergraduates had the same scenario but this time they did not know what elements were within the apologies and had to rate it in a similar fashion.

Summary: – A true apology involves a lot more than saying, "I'm sorry," and scientists are reporting in the journal Negotiation and Conflict Management Research that they've broken down effective apologies to six basic elements—and that two of them are by far the most important aspects. First, the six elements as laid out by Ohio State University researchers are: Expressing regret Explaining what went wrong Acknowledging responsibility Declaring repentance Offering to repair Asking forgiveness If you've got the time (and lack of ego) to squeeze in all six, the greater your chances of being forgiven, according to several hundred adults and undergrads asked to evaluate a hypothetical apology, reports the Telegraph. If you have to leave out one element, asking to be forgiven is the one to go. But owning up to your misstep and offering to fix it are by far the most effective of the remaining five. "Our findings showed that the most important component is an acknowledgement of responsibility—say it is your fault, that you made a mistake," the lead researcher says. But that's not all. "One concern about apologies is that talk is cheap. But by saying, 'I'll fix what is wrong,' you're committing to take action to undo the damage." (Check how these top five political apologies stack up.)


This amount includes applicable customs duties, taxes, brokerage and other fees. This amount is subject to change until you make payment. For additional information, see the Global Shipping Program terms and conditions - opens in a new window or tab

 This amount includes applicable customs duties, taxes, brokerage and other fees. This amount is subject to change until you make payment. If you reside in an EU member state besides UK, import VAT on this purchase is not recoverable. For additional information, see the Global Shipping Program terms and conditions- opens in a new window or tab ||||| Special financing available Select PayPal Credit at checkout to have the option to pay over time. Qualifying purchases could enjoy No Interest if paid in full in 6 months on purchases of $99 or more. Other offers may also be available. Interest will be charged to your account from the purchase date if the balance is not paid in full within 6 months. Minimum monthly payments are required. Subject to credit approval. See terms - opens in a new window or tab The PayPal Credit account is issued by Synchrony Bank. ||||| To be provided at checkout

 (estimated and based on max bid) To be provided at checkout

 By clicking, you commit to buy this item from the seller if you are the winning bidder.

 By clicking, you are committing to buy this item from the seller if you are the winning bidder and have read and agree to the Global Shipping Program terms and conditions - opens in a new window or tab . Import charges previously quoted are subject to change if you increase you maximum bid amount.

 Place bid

 Review and confirm your bid

 Bid confirmation

 d

 h

 m

 s

 day

 hour

 hours

 FREE shipping

 See item description

 (Approximately ##1##)

 (Enter ##1## or more)

 (Enter more than ##1##)

 Your max bid:

 Increase max bid

 Place bid

 Confirm bid

 Increase max bid

 Cancel

 Change bid

 Close

 , you've been outbid. Don't let it get away - bid again!

 , you're the highest bidder on this item. Hope you win it!

 , you're the first bidder. Hope you win!

 , you're currently the high bidder, but you're close to getting outbid.

 , this auction is almost over and you're currently the high bidder.

 , you're the high bidder, but the reserve price hasn't been met.

 Please enter your bid again.

 Please enter a valid number as the bid price.

 Enter an amount that is equal or greater than the minimum bid required. This can be found under the bid entry box.

 Maximum bids can't be lowered once they're submitted.

 This seller requires the buyer to have a PayPal account to purchase this item. Get a PayPal account here

 Your bid is greater than or equal to the Buy It Now price. We recommend you purchase this item via Buy It Now. If you still wish to bid, you may do so below. ||||| By clicking, you are committing to buy this item from the seller if you are the winning bidder and have read and agree to the Global Shipping Program terms and conditions - opens in a new window or tab . Import charges previously quoted are subject to change if you increase you maximum bid amount.

 By clicking Confirm , you commit to buy this item from the seller if you are the winning bidder.

 By submitting your bid, you are committing to buy this item from the seller if you are the winning bidder. You have read and agree to the Global Shipping Program terms and conditions - opens in a new window or tab . Import charges previously quoted are subject to change if you increase you maximum bid amount.

 By placing a bid, you're committing to buy this item if you win.

 Really want to win? Try raising your high bid amount.

 Really want to win? Try raising your high bid amount.

 If someone else bids $31, we bid for you up to your max of $30.

 If no one else bids, you win and pay $21.

 If the current bid is $20, and you bid $30, we bid $21 for you.

 ButtonClick to expand the details about Quick bid

 Consider bidding the highest amount you're willing to pay. We'll bid for you, just enough to keep you in the lead. We'll keep your high bid amount hidden from everyone else.

 Help button.Click to expand the details about Quick bid

 Bid layer is updating the contents.

 d

 h

 m

 s

 day

 hour

 hours

 FREE shipping

 See item description

 + See item description for shipping

 Approximately:

 (Enter ##1## or more)

 (Enter more than ##1##)

 Your max bid:

 You've been outbid. Don't let it get away - place another bid.

 You've been outbid by an automatic bid placed earlier by another bidder.

 You're the highest bidder on this item!

 You're the first bidder on this item!

 You're the highest bidder on this item, but you're close to being outbid.

 This auction is almost over and you're currently the high bidder.

 You're the high bidder on this item, but the reserve price hasn't been met yet.

 You've been outbid by someone else.

 You can still win! Try bidding again.

 You've been outbid by someone else's max bid.

 You can still win! Try bidding again.

 Your bid wasn't accepted because it's the same as someone else's bid.

 Try raising your max bid.

 You're the highest bidder!

 To increase your chances of winning, try raising your bid.

 You're the first bidder. Good Luck!

 You're still the highest bidder!

 You increased your max bid to

 Please enter your bid again.

 Enter a valid amount for your bid.

 Enter a bid that is the minimum bid amount or higher.

 You have to bid at least

 Sorry, you can't lower your maximum bid once it's placed.

 This seller requires the buyer to have a PayPal account to purchase this item. Get a PayPal account here

 Your bid is the same as or more than the Buy It Now price.You can save time and money by buying it now.

 Place bid

 Review and confirm your bid

 Bid confirmation

 Increase max bid

 Enter a custom max bid more than ##2##

 Enter a custom max bid of ##2## or more

 + ##2## approximate import charges

 ##2## (approximately)

 Please enter a higher amount than the current bid.

 + ##2## for shipping

 + FREE SHIPPING

 Bid ##3## now

 Bid ##3##

Summary: – Someone bid nearly $100,000 on eBay for a Cheeto that bears a resemblance to gorilla Harambe, shot by handlers at the Cincinnati Zoo after dragging a small boy who had gotten into his enclosure. The seller says he found the cheese snack in a bag of Flamin' Hot Cheetos, reports the AP. Bidding began at $11.99 on Jan. 28 and ended early Tuesday morning with a winning bid of $99,900. The listing showed a picture of the Cheeto side-by-side with a gorilla climbing a tree. Similar listings have since appeared online; the Indianapolis Star notes you can still bid on a far more affordable Cheeto shaped like Harambe's "poop."


Amanda Bynes has been forced out of her Midtown Manhattan apartment, In Touch is exclusively reporting. The troubled star, who was arrested at her apartment on May 23 following a complaint that she was smoking marijuana in the building’s lobby, “was notified that she is no longer welcome as a tenant in the building in light of recent events,” an insider reveals.

 “At 9 p.m. on Tuesday, movers showed up and removed Amanda’s belongings from her apartment,” the insider adds. “She is officially gone from the building.”

 That could also explain why Amanda was spotted in Buffalo, N.Y., the following day (May 29), jumping on a trampoline at the Sky Zone gym.

 Amanda Bynes Claims Police Sexually Harassed Her

 An NYPD source tells In Touch that the plan to get Amanda out of the apartment had been in the works for weeks. “Even before her arrest, residents had constant complaints about the smell of marijuana coming from her apartment,” the source says. “She had also cursed out residents and the doormen, and the smell of pot from her apartment was really annoying people.”

 As In Touch previously reported, when the Easy A star first moved into the Biltmore apartment building in Times Square, the doormen were incredibly protective of her, but that quickly changed as her behavior became more and more erratic. Just a month after she moved in, it was one of the building staff who called police to report that Amanda was smoking a joint in the lobby on May 23.

 Exclusive: Photographer Details Amanda Bynes Drug Use Weeks Before Arrest

 When police arrived at her 36th-floor apartment, they found it filled with heavy smoke. They arrested the 27-year-old after she allegedly threw a foot-high bong out a window. Amanda was taken to Roosevelt Hospital for a psychological evaluation, and charged with reckless endangerment, tampering with evidence and possession of marijuana.

 Though Amanda has vehemently denied she does drugs, a photographer who recently spent time with Amanda in her apartment tells In Touch that Amanda had drugs on her.

 “She had at least a dozen hand-rolled joints on her,” he says. “She had them in her palm at one point — she'll smoke one halfway, put it out. Then light a new one. Then re-light the other half. It’s so weird! But she is constantly smoking weed.”

 In Touch reached out to Amanda for comment but she had not responded by press time. ||||| Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)

 Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

 Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)

 Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)

 Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)

 The Amanda Bynes situation just keeps getting uglier.

 The former child star on Sunday admitted via Twitter she had a nose job after her arrest late last month, while taking a shot at her concerned parents, Rick and Lynn.

 “My dad is as ugly as RuPaul!” she tweeted Sunday. “So thankful I look nothing like you both! I had nose surgery after my mug shots so my nose and I are gorgeous!

 PHOTOS: Amanda Bynes Shows Off Half-Shaved Head At The Gym

 The 27-year-old last month alluded to other procedures she’s had in the past, writing on May 5: “The reason I’ve asked all magazines and blogs to stop using old photos of me is I don’t look like that anymore!

 “I had a nose job to remove skin that was like a webbing in between my eyes. I wasn’t going to tell anyone, but I look so much prettier in my new photos that I don’t want old photos used anymore!”

 PHOTOS: Amanda Bynes Handcuffed After New York Drug Bust

 After she was released from custody following her May 23 arrest in connection with criminal possession of marijuana, reckless endangerment, and felony tampering with physical evidence, she tweeted May 24, “I need to get another nose job after seeing my mugshot!”

 It’s worth noting that Bynes has used — or should we say overused? — the term “ugly” in her attacks on a number of individuals, including Rihanna, Courtney Love, Sports Illustrated model Chrissy Teigen and Playboy Playmate Jenny McCarthy.

 PHOTOS: Amanda Bynes Tweets More Racey Photos Of Herself

 Keep it right here on RadarOnline.com for the latest on Amanda Bynes.

Summary: – Amanda Bynes' increasingly strange behavior has finally gotten her booted from her apartment, an NYPD source tells In Touch. Days after she was arrested after allegedly throwing a foot-high bong out her window, "movers showed up and removed Amanda’s belongings from her apartment," the source says. Bynes "was notified that she is no longer welcome as a tenant in the building in light of recent events." And she might have been kicked out even without the alleged bong-throwing incident. "Even before her arrest, residents had constant complaints about the smell of marijuana coming from her apartment,” the source says. “She had also cursed out residents and the doormen, and the smell of pot from her apartment was really annoying people." Meanwhile, on Twitter, Bynes admitted she recently had a nose job ... and randomly called her dad "as ugly as RuPaul."


Map goes on sale in Oxford for £60,000 after being found inside novel belonging to illustrator Pauline Baynes

 A recently discovered map of Middle-earth annotated by JRR Tolkien reveals The Lord of the Rings author’s observation that Hobbiton is on the same latitude as Oxford, and implies that the Italian city of Ravenna could be the inspiration behind the fictional city of Minas Tirith.

 The map was found loose in a copy of the acclaimed illustrator Pauline Baynes’ copy of The Lord of the Rings. Baynes had removed the map from another edition of the novel as she began work on her own colour Map of Middle-earth for Tolkien, which would go on to be published by Allen & Unwin in 1970. Tolkien himself had then copiously annotated it in green ink and pencil, with Baynes adding her own notes to the document while she worked.

 Blackwell’s, which is currently exhibiting the map in Oxford and selling it for £60,000, called it “an important document, and perhaps the finest piece of Tolkien ephemera to emerge in the last 20 years at least”.

 It shows what Blackwell’s called “the exacting nature” of Tolkien’s creative vision: he corrects place names, provides extra ones, and gives Baynes a host of suggestions about the map’s various flora and fauna. Hobbiton, he notes, “ is assumed to be approx at latitude of Oxford”; Tolkien was a professor of Anglo-Saxon at Oxford University.

 Facebook Twitter Pinterest The notebooks reveal that Hobbiton is on the same latitude as Oxford, and imply that the Italian city of Ravenna could be the inspiration behind Minas Tirith. Photograph: Blackwell’s Rare Books

 The novelist also uses Belgrade, Cyprus, and Jerusalem as other reference points, and according to Blackwell’s suggests that “the city of Ravenna is the inspiration behind Minas Tirith - a key location in the third book of the Lord of The Rings trilogy”.

 “The map shows how completely obsessed he was with the details. Anyone else interfered at their peril,” said Sian Wainwright at Blackwell’s. “He was tricky to work with, but very rewarding in the end.”

 Correspondence between Tolkien and the late and acclaimed illustrator Baynes, who also worked on books for CS Lewis, as well as Baynes’s unpublished diary entries, gives further details about the sometimes thorny relationship between the two. On 21 August 1969, Baynes describes a visit to Tolkien and his wife in Bournemouth, “to chat about a poster map I have to do – he very uncooperative”.

 The author later apologies for having “been so dilatory”, and a later lunch sees the author “in great form – first names and kissing all round – and pleased with the map”.

 Henry Gott, modern first editions specialist at Blackwell’s Rare Books, said the map was “an exciting and important discovery: new to scholarship (though its existence is implied by correspondence between the two), it demonstrates the care exercised by both in their mapping of Tolkien’s creative vision”.

 “Before going on display in the shop this week, this had only ever been in private hands (Pauline Baynes’s for the majority of its existence). One of the points of interest is how much of a hand Tolkien had in the poster map; all of his suggestions, and there are many (the majority of the annotation on the map is his), are reflected in Baynes’s version,” said Gott. “The degree to which it is properly collaborative was not previously apparent, and couldn’t be without a document like this. Its importance is mostly to do with the insight it gives into that process.”

 Blackwell’s is selling a range of works by Baynes, who died in 2008, aged 85, including a range of her original signed drawings from the Narnia books. ||||| ---

 A map of Middle-earth annotated by JRR Tolkien himself has been discovered in a copy of The Lord of the Rings.

 Tolkien's comments, in green ink and pencil, show that Hobbiton is on the same latitude as Oxford, and the Italian city of Ravenna was the inspiration for the fortress city of Minas Tirith.

 He also references Belgrade, Cyprus, and Jerusalem as influences on how Middle-earth was supposed to look.

 The map was found loose in a copy of the books owned by illustrator Pauline Baynes, who worked on several of Tolkien's books, as well as CS Lewis' Tales of Narnia.

 A specialist at Blackwell's Rare Books in Oxford discovered Baynes had removed the map from another edition as she was working on her own version of Middle-earth for a 1970 edition of the trilogy.

 Tolkien's loving attention to detail is apparent in the annotations, as he worked with Baynes to bring his creative vision to life. In dozens of notes he gives her suggestions for flora and fauna, extra place names and corrects mistakes.

 The shop called it “an important document" which shows for the first time just how collaborative the duo's working process was. According to Blackwell's the map is "the finest piece of Tolkien ephemera to emerge in the last 20 years at least”.

 The map is currently being exhibited in Blackwell's and the shop plans to sell it later this month for £60,000.

 More: City maps reimagined in style of JRR Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings

Summary: – A one-of-a-kind map of Middle-earth filled with JRR Tolkien's own green ink and penciled notes has been found in renowned illustrator Pauline Baynes' copy of The Lord of the Rings. Baynes appears to have removed the map from an earlier edition as she began to work on a color map for a 1970 Allen & Unwin edition, reports the Independent. The map reveals the extent of the collaboration between the two, who had a sometimes rocky but ultimately thriving working relationship, and illustrates several reference points, including that Tolkien may have based Minas Tirith on the Italian city of Ravenna, put Hobbiton on the same latitude as Oxford, and used Belgrade, Cyprus, and Jerusalem for inspiration as well. The map is "an exciting and important discovery" that "demonstrates the care exercised by both in their mapping of Tolkien's creative vision," a specialist with Blackwell's Rare Books tells the Guardian. Blackwell's says it plans to sell "perhaps the finest piece of Tolkien ephemera to emerge in the last 20 years at least" for about $92,000. "The map shows how completely obsessed he was with the details," another expert with Blackwell's adds. "Anyone else interfered at their peril. He was tricky to work with, but very rewarding in the end." The notes from Tolkien, then a professor of Anglo-Saxon at Oxford University, include correcting place names, adding new ones, and suggesting flora and fauna. Baynes, who died in 2008 at the age of 85, also illustrated CS Lewis' Tales of Narnia. (Check out what Tolkien did to Beowulf.)


(CNN) -- World reaction poured in early Monday after President Barack Obama's announcement that terror leader Osama bin Laden was killed in Pakistan. The United States put its diplomatic facilities around the world on high alert and issued a global travel warning for Americans.

 Afghan President Hamid Karzai

 Karzai said he hopes the world believes that his country is "not the place of terrorism" after the announcement that the al Qaeda leader was killed in neighboring Pakistan.

 "If the international troops/forces are true allies of the Afghans -- they should come out and say that the killing of Afghans, children and elders which took place over the many years on a daily basis was not a good idea," Karzai said on RTA TV.

 Afghan opposition leader Abdullah Abdullah, Hope and Change

 Bin Laden's killing proves that Pakistan is a "haven" for terror groups, according to Abdullah.

 "Killing of Osama bin Laden is pleasant news for Afghans, and now it's proven that al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are not based in Afghanistan and Pakistan is a haven for them," he said.

 Arab League Secretary-General Amre Moussa

 "We have never been supporters of al Qaeda or any violence against civilians. This is a permanent and agreed upon Arab position regarding al Qaeda and any activities against civilians. And of course, our position against international terrorism is known."

 Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard

 Gillard congratulated the U.S. on the operation, and said she acknowledges the role of Pakistan in the fight against terror.

 "Our fight against terrorism does not end with bin Laden's death. We must remain vigilant against the threat posed by al Qaeda and the groups it has inspired," she said.

 "We will continue our support for the counterterrorism efforts of the United States and our partners, and we will continue our efforts in Afghanistan to ensure that the country never again becomes a safe haven for terrorism."

 British Foreign Secretary William Hague

 "I welcome this development. I congratulate the United States on the success of the operation. Osama Bin Laden will no longer be able to bring terror and murder and mayhem to the world."

 British Prime Minister David Cameron

 "Osama bin Laden was responsible for the worst terrorist atrocities the world has seen -- for 9/11 and for so many attacks, which have cost thousands of lives," he said. "This is a time to remember all those murdered by Osama bin Laden, and all those who lost loved ones," he said. "It is also a time too to thank all those who work round the clock to keep us safe from terrorism."

 Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Jiang Yu

 China believes "the death of Osama bin Laden is a milestone and a positive development for the international anti-terrorism efforts," Jiang said. "China believes that it is necessary to seek both a temporary solution and a permanent cure in fighting terrorism and to make great efforts to eliminate the soil on which terrorism relies to breed."

 European Commission President Barroso and European Council President Van Rompuy

 "Osama bin Laden was a criminal responsible for heinous terrorist attacks that cost the lives of thousands of innocent people," Barroso and Rompuy said in a joint statement. "His death makes the world a safer place and shows that such crimes do not remain unpunished."

 French President Nicolas Sarkozy

 Sarkozy said bin Laden's death was a result of a "remarkable U.S. commando" operation.

 "Osama Bin Laden was a promoter of the ideology of hatred and was the chief of a terrorist organization responsible for the deaths of thousands of victims, especially in Muslim countries," he said.

 "For his victims, justice has been done. Today, in France, we think of them and their families."

 German Chancellor Angela Merkel

 "With the commando action against Osama bin Laden and his killing, the U.S. military has achieved a decisive strike against al Qaeda," she said.

 "At his command and in his name, terror was enforced into many countries against men women and children, Christians as well as Muslims. Osama bin Laden suggested that he was operating in the name of Islam, but in reality he makes a mockery of the fundamental values of his own and every other religion."

 Iranian Foreign Ministry The Islamic Republic of Iran hopes that the death of Osama bin Laden will put an end to war and the killing of innocent people and restore peace to their region, according to the Islamic Republic News Agency.

 The IRNA website reports Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast reacted to news on bin Laden's killing by U.S. troops by saying, "The Islamic Republic of Iran believes that foreign countries now have no excuse for military buildup in the region to fight terrorism."

 Ismail Haniyeh, prime minister for the Hamas government in Gaza

 The prime minister condemned the killing, describing bin Laden as a Muslim "mujahid" or holy warrior.

 Al Qaeda and the Islamist radical group Hamas have no official relationship, but the Palestinian conflict with Israel has been the subject of frequent audio messages from al Qaeda.

 India's external affairs minister M. Krishnas

 India applauded the killing as a "historic development and victorious milestone in the global war" against terror.

 "Over the years, thousands of innocent lives of men, women and children have been tragically lost at the hands of terrorist groups," the minister said.

 "The world must not let down its united effort to overcome terrorism and eliminate the safe havens and sanctuaries that have been provided to terrorists in our own neighborhood."

 Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

 "Israel joins in the joy of the American people on this historic day in which Osama bin Laden was killed. ... This is a resounding victory for justice, freedom and for the joint values of all the countries that fight side by side determinedly against terror."

 Israeli President Shimon Peres

 "The end of bin Laden is a great piece of news for the free world," Peres said.

 "This man was a mega murderer, he killed thousands and thousands of people, people who were totally innocent, and would continue to kill, his purpose in life was to kill anybody who doesn't belong to him."

 Italian foreign Minister Franco Frattini

 The foreign minister said "this is a great victory for the United States and for the entire international community" in the fight against terror.

 "It is a victory made possible by the determination of the United States in their hunt against the one responsible for the most tragic episode at the beginning of this century, 9/11, and numerous other tragedies," he said. "A victory that rewards the efforts that all of us next to the United States have fought and continue to fight against terrorism. A victory of good against evil, of justice against malignancy. It is a victory of the free and democratic world."

 Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan

 Spokesman Noriyuki Shikata said the nation would continue its work with the international community to combat terrorism.

 "We pay our respects to the efforts of those concerned, including the U.S. and Pakistan. We regard this as part of a united effort to fight against terrorism," Shikata said. "Japan has been working on assistance to both Pakistan and Afghanistan, and proactively tackling the issue of terrorism."

 Kenyan government spokesman Alfred Mutua

 The nation, which was bombed by al Qaeda in 1998, called his killing a "defining moment in the fight against" terrorism.

 "Kenya was the first country to be attacked by al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden's death comes as a relief to many of the victims of the bombings in East Africa," the spokesman said.

 Former Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri

 "The harm that Osama Bin Laden has inflicted to the image of Islam and the Arab causes is no less than the harm caused by enemies to the causes of Muslims and Arabs everywhere. ... Our national and Muslim history will not forgive this man. He has been, for two consecutive decades, a black mark in this history, and voluntarily poisoned the minds of thousands of youth with the culture of terrorism and killing and sabotage and destruction, and has placed Islam, which is a religion of justice and forgiveness and dialogue and good deeds, in a hostile position towards other civilizations, religions and cultures."

 Muslim Council of Britian:

 "Few will mourn the reported death of Osama bin Laden, least of all Muslims. Many Muslims will reflect on the 10 years that have passed in which our faith and our community have been seen through the prism of terrorism and security. The Muslim Council of Britain has consistently stood firm against terrorism and violence, and will continue to do so."

 NATO

 "This is a significant success for the security of NATO allies and all the nations which have joined us in our efforts to combat the scourge of global terrorism to make the world a safer place for all of us," it said in a statement. "NATO made clear that it considered the September 11 attacks on the United States an attack against all allies. We remember the thousands of innocent lives lost to terrorist atrocities in so many of our nations, in Afghanistan, and around the world."

 Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad

 "I would definitely view this as a major, indeed, mega-landmark event, marking the end of a life of a person who clearly was involved in outrageous acts of terror and destruction. It is certainly our hope that this would mark the beginning of an end of a very dark era."

 Pakistan foreign ministry

 The Pakistani foreign ministry issued a statement confirming the terror leader's death.

 "In an intelligence driven operation, Osama bin Laden was killed in the surroundings of Abbottabad in the early hours of this morning. This operation was conducted by the U.S. forces in accordance with declared U.S. policy that Osama bin Laden will be eliminated in a direct action by the U.S. forces, wherever found in the world," the ministry said.

 "Earlier today, President Obama telephoned President Zardari on the successful U.S. operation which resulted in killing of Osama bin Laden."

 The ministry said the killing highlights the resolve of Pakistan and the international community to combat terrorism.

 Russia

 Russia said it is ready to help step up efforts to combat terror, saying only joint efforts can produce results.

 "Russia was among the first countries to face the dangers inherent in global terrorism, and unfortunately knows what al Qaeda is not from hearsay," the Kremlin said. "Retribution will inevitably reach all terrorists."

 Spain's ruling Socialist Party

 "This is good news because it has put an end to the symbolic leader of international jihadi terrorism, the al Qaeda chief, the head of the most dangerous terrorist organization in the world."

 Turkish President Abdullah Gul

 "Terrorists and leaders of terrorists are captured alive or dead sooner or later," Gul said at a news conference. "It should teach a lesson that the leader of the world's most dangerous and sophisticated terrorist organization is captured this way.

 Uganda government spokesman Fred Opolot

 The East African nation pledged to continue its fight against terrorism. Ugandan troops are part of an African Union force helping fight the al-Shabaab -- an al Qaeda proxy -- in Somalia.

 "Uganda shall continue to support the ongoing fight against global terrorism and renews its commitment to bring to justice those who commit acts of terror in the country," the spokesman said.

 United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon

 The death of Osama bin Laden, announced by President [Barack] Obama last night, is a watershed moment in our common global fight against terrorism...... The crimes of Al Qaeda touched most continents, bringing tragedy and loss of life to thousands of men, women and children. ...This is a day to remember the victims and families of victims, here in the United States and everywhere in the world."

 The Vatican spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi

 "Osama bin Laden, as we all know, had the very grave responsibility of spreading division and hatred amongst the people, causing the death of countless of people, and of instrumentalizing religion for this end," he said. "In front of the death of man, a Christian never rejoices but rather reflects on the grave responsibility of each one in front of God and men, and hopes and commits himself so that every moment not be an occasion for hatred to grow but for peace."

 Yemeni government official

 A government official described the death of Osama bin Laden as "a truly historic moment."

 We welcome the news ... millions of people will sleep in peace tonight," the official said. "Osama bin Laden was more of a symbolic figure, a spiritual leader for al Qaeda."

 The official said it is too early to determine how his death will affect the war against terror.

 "But this is definitely a strong blow to the organization," said the official, who did not want to be named because he is not authorized to talk to the media.

 Embassy of the Republic of Yemen

 "The government of the Republic of Yemen welcomes the elimination of Usama Bin Laden, the founding father of the al Qaeda terrorist network. The successful operation, spearheaded by U.S. forces, marks a monumental milestone in the ongoing global war against terrorism." ||||| Senior Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh speaks to the media during a news conference in Gaza City May 2, 2011. The Palestinian Islamist group Hamas on Monday condemned the killing by U.S. forces of Osama bin Laden and mourned him as an ''Arab holy warrior''.

 RAMALLAH/GAZA The killing of Osama bin Laden by U.S. forces was welcomed on Monday by the Western-backed Palestinian Authority while its prospective power-sharing partner, Islamist Hamas, deplored his death.

 "Getting rid of bin Laden is good for the cause of peace worldwide but what counts is to overcome the discourse and the methods -- the violent methods -- that were created and encouraged by bin Laden and others in the world," Palestinian Authority (PA) spokesman Ghassan Khatib said.

 Ismail Haniyeh, head of the Hamas administration in the Gaza Strip, called bin Laden a martyr.

 "We condemn the assassination and the killing of an Arab holy warrior," Haniyeh told reporters. "We regard this as a continuation of the American policy based on oppression and the shedding of Muslim and Arab blood."

 Hamas, classified by the United States and the European Union as a terrorist group over its violence against Israel, is due to sign a unity deal this week in Cairo with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah movement.

 Israel has condemned the agreement, saying it could sabotage any efforts to revive peace talks with the Palestinians. The deal envisages an interim unity government comprised of independents and Palestinian elections later in the year.

 The Fatah-led PA supports a negotiated peace with Israel to obtain a state in territories the Jewish state captured in a 1967 war. Hamas is officially sworn to Israel's destruction.

 Abbas has defended reconciliation with Hamas, saying it reflected a deep-seated Palestinian desire to close a rift with the group that seized Gaza from Fatah forces in 2007.

 The United States has responded coolly to the unity pact.

 MIXED MESSAGES

 In the West Bank city of Ramallah, the PA's view on the death of the mastermind of the September 11, 2001 attacks was shared by Ahmed Saleh, a 58-year-old retiree.

 "The world is better without bin Laden. This has removed a pillar of evil from the world," he said. "His heinous actions were exploited to allow hostile policies toward the Arabs and Muslims."

 But Umm Mohammed, a veiled woman, said she hoped news of bin Laden's death was a lie. "God willing, he will continue to conquer the West," she said.

 Palestinians hit the headlines after the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, carried out by al Qaeda, when a small group were filmed celebrating in East Jerusalem.

 At the time, there were bigger demonstrations in the Gaza Strip in support of the attacks. Palestinians partly blame their national plight on generations of U.S. support for Israel.

 But late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat banned such public displays and voiced sympathy for the dead in the United States.

 In Gaza, Hamas now faces a challenge from al Qaeda-inspired groups that consider it to be too moderate. One such group was behind last month's killing of a pro-Palestinian Italian activist in the territory.

 Abdel-Qader Abu Shaaban, a 53-year-old Palestinian from Gaza, described bin Laden's killing as "a very criminal act."

 "This is not a victory. If they assassinated bin Laden, there will be others stronger than him: politicians and military people," he said. ||||| Reaction to Osama bin Laden’s killing was mixed in the Muslim world, including in Pakistan, where former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf said that the United States should not have executed a mission within his country’s borders.

 “America coming to our territory and taking action is a violation of our sovereignty,” Musharraf told CNN-IBN. “Handling and execution of the operation [by U.S. forces] is not correct. The Pakistani government should have been kept in the loop.”

 Text Size -

 +

 reset POLITICO 44

 Though President Barack Obama did refer to Pakistani help in his remarks Sunday night, there was no mention of involvement in Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari’s statement, which said that Zadari was notified of bin Laden’s killing with a phone call from Obama.

 In a statement, the Pakistani foreign ministry celebrated bin Laden’s death as “a major setback to terrorist organizations around the world.”

 Over the border in Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai on Monday urged the Taliban not to seek retaliation.

 “We call on Taliban to learn from what happened yesterday and stop fighting,” Karzai said in a televised statement, AFP reported. “Talib, come to your country and stop the fighting and leave the weapon that the foreigners have put on your shoulders.”

 In Iran, foreign ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said that the United States has “no excuse” for continuing its military involvement in the Middle East now that bin Laden has been killed. “We hope that this development will end war, conflict, unrest and the death of innocent people, and help to establish peace and tranquility in the region,” he said in a statement quoted by Iran’s English-language Press TV.

 The leader of the Palestinian terror group Hamas condemned bin Laden’s killing as the assassination of “a Muslim and Arabic warrior,” The Associated Press reported. Bin Laden’s death, said Ismail Haniyeh, is “the continuation of the American oppression and shedding of blood of Muslims and Arabs.”

 The more moderate Palestinian Authority took an alternate view. “Getting rid of bin Laden is good for the cause of peace worldwide but what counts is to overcome the discourse and the methods — the violent methods — that were created and encouraged by bin Laden and others in the world,” spokesman Ghassan Khatib said, according to a Reuters report.

 While Hamas and other radical groups and individuals spoke out against the killing of bin Laden, the Al Qaeda leader’s image in the Muslim world has been in decline in the last few years, a Pew Research Group survey released Monday shows.

 Support for bin Laden was most widespread in Palestinian territories, where 34 percent of those surveyed said they had confidence in him, down from 52 percent in 2009 and 72 percent in 2003. In Egypt, 22 percent of Egyptians surveyed this year said they have confidence in bin Laden, down from 27 percent in 2005.

 Confidence in the Al Qaeda leader was never high in Turkey or in Lebanon — in 2003, his positives were 15 percent and 19 percent, respectively — but his numbers have fallen further since. In Turkey, three percent of those surveyed this year said they have confidence in bin Laden, while just one percent of those surveyed in Turkey said the same.

 And in Pakistan, where bin Laden was killed, support for him has dropped from 46 percent in 2003 to 18 percent in 2010.

Summary: – Reaction to Osama bin Laden's death is pouring in from around the world—and not everybody's cheering, Reuters reports: Hamas: “We condemn the assassination and the killing of an Arab holy warrior,” said Ismail Haniyeh, the group’s leader in the Gaza Strip. “We regard this as a continuation of the American policy based on oppression and the shedding of Muslim and Arab blood.” Pervez Musharraf: Pakistan’s former president said the US had violated “our sovereignty” by carrying out the mission, Politico reports. “The Pakistani government should have been kept in the loop.” Still, the country’s foreign ministry applauded the killing. The Vatican: "In front of the death of man, a Christian never rejoices but rather reflects on the grave responsibility of each one in front of God and men," said a spokesman, according to CNN. He did acknowledge that bin Laden spread "division and hatred." Civilians in Ramallah, in the West Bank, offered mixed views. One woman hoped the news was false: “God willing, he will continue to conquer the West,” she said. Another Palestinian called the killing “a very criminal act.” But others approved: “His heinous actions were exploited to allow hostile policies toward the Arabs and Muslims,” one says.