Negotiations have an essential role in our lives as they help us to find mutually beneficial solutions and resolve conflicts. It leads to effective communication and collaboration between the involved parties. Negotiation among parties has high importance to have an outcome that is suitable for all. In such scenarios, negotiation agents can be used by the involved parties. Negotiation agents have explanations that indicate the behavior that the agent is going to follow in the process. This research paper focuses on trust between humans and agents regarding different explanations of the agents. In the research, the negotiation strategy conceder is used in the negotiation with an opposite and truthful explanation of itself. The results from the experiments are compared with each other using the scores of the participants which are measured through a questionnaire. By investigating the effect of different explanations, the research paper aims to answer the question ”What’s the effect of an agent using a truthful explanation of their conceder negotiation style versus an opposite explanation on how much humans trust the agent to negotiate for them?”. The goal is to achieve a trust connection between humans and agents. The main conclusion and the hypothesis of the research are ”people tend to trust less on an agent that does not do what it states in its explanation.” The results of the experiment, discussion of the results, and the conclusion can be found in sections 4, 5, and 7 respectively