Mistakes and betrayals can cause developing interpersonal trust between parties to be broken, and damaged trust can have serious negative impacts on relationships, such as withdrawal from group interaction or the enactment of revenge. Research has suggested that the use of apologies helps to repair damaged trust. However, this research is almost exclusively based in westernized populations and has not begun to explore any cross-cultural differences. Therefore, the primary goal of this comparative cross-national laboratory study was to examine if, and how, the effectiveness of trust repair efforts differs across cultures. The effectiveness of three manipulated trust repair strategies (no response, apology, and account) was tested using students from universities in the United States (U.S.) and in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The results of the study indicate that fatalism, or the belief that events in life are meant to occur, was negatively related to initial trust and positively related to initial distrust toward one’s collaborative partner. It was also found that higher levels of fatalism were associated with more severe trust damage after a trust violation. Regarding the trust repair strategies, accounts were more effective at repairing trust than no response for high fatalism participants whereas apologies were more effective than accounts at reducing distrust after a violation for low fatalism participants, providing partial support for the idea that trust repair strategies are more effective when matched to the cultural self-construal of the victim. Finally, initial distrust and trust directly after the violation were predictive of taking revenge on the other player. Implications are discussed along with the study limitations and suggestions for future research.