The secret to actually trusting each other
Among all the mental calculations and decisions we make each day as complex social beings, we choose, actively or implicitly, to trust. By staying in our relationships, we trust our partners won't betray us. By showing up at the stop, we trust that the bus will arrive. By making the reservation, we trust our friends will show up for dinner.
But that trust is fraying.
A 2019 Pew Research Center report on trust found that 71 percent of respondents thought interpersonal trust — in other words, confidence they had in their fellow citizens — had waned over the last two decades. The share of Americans who generally trust one another has dropped to 30 percent since the 1970s, when half of Americans placed trust in others, the authors of this year's World Happiness Report found. Conversely, each successive generation is less likely than the one before to value honesty. This mistrust extends beyond interpersonal relationships: Hardly a quarter of respondents in a 2024 Pew survey said they trusted the government to do the right thing.
There are a multitude of factors prompting this rise in distrust. Some have suggested economic inequality, technology, and increasing diversity in the US (along with ethnic segregation) are to blame. But a major contributor seems to be political polarization. The 2019 Pew survey, for instance, found that over 40 percent of Americans don't trust others to cast informed votes in elections or to have civil conversations with those who have differing opinions.
Trust is a necessary component in every relationship. Without it, we're unable to be vulnerable, to share our dreams, to hold secrets, to feel safe. Hardly anyone would prefer to be made the fool — healthy skepticism can prevent you from clicking on a phishing link in an email or joining a multilevel marketing scheme — but a life of cynicism isn't preferable either.
Vox Culture
Culture reflects society. Get our best explainers on everything from money to entertainment to what everyone is talking about online. Email (required)
Sign Up
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
'There are a lot of people who claim that they don't trust anybody,' says Peter Kim, a professor of management and organization at the USC Marshall School of Business and author of How Trust Works: The Science of How Relationships Are Built, Broken and Repaired. 'But if that were the case, how could anyone possibly function? You have to be able to trust that when you're walking down the street, someone won't shoot you. You have to trust that the meals you order at a restaurant haven't been poisoned.'
How do we decide to trust?
Trust, according to Oliver Schilke, a professor and director of the Center for Trust Studies at the University of Arizona, is a willingness to make yourself vulnerable to another with the expectation that their actions will be beneficial to you. Research has established that when weighing whether to trust someone, people generally make judgments about their competence, benevolence, and integrity.
Within the first few minutes of meeting someone, we make assessments based on these three factors, Kim says — and that first impression is usually positive. We generally trust others, at least initially. What do we base these judgments on? Others' appearance, how they speak, whether they grew up in the same hometown, their reputation, whether they look like us. But these cues are imperfect, Kim says. The more we get to know new colleagues, neighbors, friends of friends, the more information we have to go on. We learn whether our initial trust was accurate based on their actions, whether they actually prove to be a trustworthy person. Or we get burned and discover maybe they weren't.
Are we all born inherently trustful? To determine whether this inclination to trust comes from nature or nurture, Schilke and his colleagues studied adult twins and found that genetics plays a role in how trusting we are, but not how distrusting.
Distrust, the researchers found, is a unique experience, shaped by past experiences throughout life, especially childhood — parents and peers influence who you're wary of. Those who have experienced betrayals early in life report lower levels of trust as they age. If you had a negative experience with a specific type of person — a teacher, a romantic partner, an authority figure — you may be more likely to find all people who share those characteristics untrustworthy. 'This is something that we do without thinking,' Schilke says. 'It's essentially a form of stereotyping. If that one person treated me bad, the other person that's similar is going to do the same thing.'
Trust, on the other hand, is inherited through genes. 'Some people are just genetically more trusting than others,' Schilke says. Trust can be inborn, while suspicion is learned.
Past behavior is informative when it comes to who you trust, Schilke says. If a friend consistently cancels plans at the last minute, you can assume they'll behave similarly yet again. But we also make calculations about the future when we decide to trust someone. If you expect to have a long-term relationship with someone, whether by choice or happenstance — maybe you work on the same team or live in the same neighborhood — the more likely you are to place trust in them. When you're stuck with a person for the foreseeable future, you hope they want to keep the peace. 'There's a reason to think that this person will be more trustworthy because they don't want to screw up that future relationship,' Schilke says.
Three easy ways to foster trust, according to a psychologist
Anthony Chambers, a clinical psychologist and director of the Center for Applied Psychological and Family Studies at Northwestern University, offers a few tips for how to build more trust in your relationships: Approach differences with curiosity : No two people are completely aligned all the time. Don't judge others when you disagree, but dig deeper to discover why they feel the way they do.
Embrace a team mindset : 'When we know we are with a partner that is looking out for our best interests and is always thinking about how any decision impacts both of us,' Chambers says, 'then we feel like we have a teammate we can trust.' Creating a shared vision for the future with your partner, friend, or loved one lets them know you're as invested in this relationship as they are.
Lean into transparency: You don't need to disclose all aspects of your life to every close connection, but when you're open and transparent with others, they feel more secure and less likely to be blindsided.
Indeed, trust is specific to the people in a particular relationship. In a study, Jaimie Arona Krems, an associate professor of psychology and the director of the UCLA Center for Friendship Research, and her co-authors found that even when someone is generally dishonest, if they haven't betrayed our confidence, we still trust them. 'You might be really untrustworthy, kind of rogue toward most people,' Krems says, 'but if I can trust you and you don't share my secrets, well, that's really valuable to me.' In other words, someone's reputation says a lot, but their actions toward you as an individual are important, too.
Once trust is granted, people generally work hard to maintain it. 'When we're trusted, very few of us use that as an opportunity to exploit other people,' Kim says. Popular wisdom online and off encourages us to be on guard, that bad actors and scammers lurk around every corner, waiting to take advantage of the naive. Of course, betrayals occur and trust is sometimes broken. But a fascinating interplay between the lending and keeping of trust is that once we believe we've earned someone's trust, we become more trustworthy. 'Most of us, when we're trusted, we want to prove them right,' Kim says. 'We want to prove that we're worthy of the trust that we've been given. There's a self-fulfilling prophecy that occurs.'
When trust is destroyed
When it comes to breaches of trust, we tend to attribute these actions to incompetence or ill intent, Kim says. Someone spilled your secrets either because they're loose-lipped, or because they want to embarrass you or see you fail. In reality, a person's motives are never so clear-cut. Assuming someone acted out of malice 'is the kiss of death in any relationship, even longer-standing relationships,' Kim says, 'because it's almost impossible to overcome that kind of attribution.'
The more familiar the person who betrayed your trust, the more likely you are to assume incompetence rather than malice because you're motivated to maintain the relationship. This is why people may make excuses for their partners after infidelity. Strangers or people with whom you have no intention of preserving a relationship, on the other hand, you might perceive as bad actors with no integrity.
However, it's likely the betrayer didn't know what they were doing was wrong, Kim says. Maybe the person you were casually dating thought it appropriate to continue seeing other people, but you didn't. If your predetermined rules of engagement don't align with another's, you may see minor breaches of trust as a lack of integrity, Kim says.
Trust is a ladder: each kept promise, each show of loyalty gives way to another.
The recent trend toward increased isolation could also have implications for trust. Those who feel socially isolated become hypervigilant for social threats, like conflict and rejection, research shows — they see the world as a dangerous place and therefore go to great lengths to protect their own safety. If you see others in your community as inherently suspicious or dangerous, you're less likely to engage with them, furthering the cycle of isolation and loneliness. Ironically, though, lonelier people tend to be more trusting because they may yearn for social intimacy, even though they don't expect others to be trustworthy. They may fear their conversation partner is judging them or is dismissive, leading them to further withdraw.
Distrust doesn't only apply to the perception of others — it extends to ourselves. If your trust has been betrayed enough times, you can begin to question your own judgment, wondering how you could have been so naive, missed the red flags. 'And that mistrust of ourselves can often lead to us just questioning whether or not we could ever trust again,' says licensed marriage and family therapist Moe Ari Brown, a love and connection expert at the dating app Hinge, 'whether or not we can even trust ourselves to make the right choice.' You might believe that the safest thing to do is to isolate to avoid pain.
This impulse is a form of self-protection, Brown says. But without interrogating the source of the insecurity — often a past breach of trust — and some self-compassion that you (and those with whom you interact) are worthy of a vulnerable, honest relationship, you might find it difficult to open up. 'You can't make yourself feel trusting,' Brown says. 'It really is a process that happens through consistency over time — consistency on your part to remain open, even when you want to close.'
How to extend just a little more trust
But complete distrust creates a chasm between all people and closes off the ability to form meaningful relationships. If you struggle to see minor breaches of trust as evidence of human fallibility, you might assume everyone acts in bad faith and be more likely to prematurely end relationships. 'People who never trust also don't receive feedback,' Schilke says. 'If you don't make the first step, you don't learn who can be trusted or not. They're not even exposed to that learning experience.' High trusters, on the other hand, may get burned every now and then, but they gain information from the betrayal: I'll never do that again.
Vulnerability and trust are mutually beneficial forces, each one feeding the other. Sharing a secret and trusting that the other person won't spill breeds more intimacy, greater closeness, research shows. When the secret-keeper proves trustworthy, you're more likely to confide in them again. The secret-keeper, meanwhile, is secure in their role as a confidante and trusts you more, too. To build trust, you've got to open yourself up to potentially being hurt. 'Being vulnerable to someone else is a first step,' Krems says. 'Yes, it can be scary, but that means that they might be more likely to be vulnerable to you then.'
Blind trust isn't exactly ideal either. A healthy dose of distrust is what compels us to not leave our wallets unattended in a crowded bar and to lock our doors. A level of discernment is protective against these malicious forces.
You don't need to extend full confidence in another to be a little more trusting. Trust is contextual — you trust your doctor to give medical guidance and a mechanic to service your car — and incremental. You may not want your new neighbor to pet sit for a week, but you do trust them to water your plants for a few days. Trust is a ladder in that way: each kept promise, each show of loyalty gives way to another.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Amid Trump's deportations, citizenship brings relief and security to some new Americans
Nabil Souidi said he's been 'I follow all the news, and I was like, no, I'm not going to travel until I get my citizenship,' said Souidi, who is originally from Algeria. He said he followed the Get N.H. Morning Report A weekday newsletter delivering the N.H. news you need to know right to your inbox. Enter Email Sign Up Now, Souidi said, the trips he's been putting off – like visiting his brother in Canada – are back on. He said he's relieved to finally have his citizenship, and he's happy to be able to travel with ease. Advertisement His wife, Nesrine Bouziane watched the ceremony with their 2-year-old son, Amir Souidi. She filmed the entire ceremony, while her son quietly enjoyed some screen time. Bouziane said watching the news in the lead-up to the ceremony had been nerve-wracking, and she was nervous about whether her husband's application for citizenship would be accepted. The news about the Advertisement 'We're all Americans now,' said Bouziane, who was born in the United States. Bouziane and Souidi met through friends in Boston in 2019 when Souidi was visiting on vacation. Their relationship deepened over WhatsApp messages they exchanged over the next two years, and they married in 2021. They now live together in Nashua, and they're expecting their second child in August. 'I think it's a relief for him, and he's more comfortable,' Bouziane said of her husband securing his citizenship. Nesrine Bouziane, left, her husband Nabil Souidi, center, and their son, Amir Souidi, are pictured after Nabil Souidi was granted American citizenship in a naturalization ceremony on Friday hosted by New Hampshire's Secretary of State David Scanlan at the State Archives in Concord, N.H. Amanda Gokee This year was the second annual naturalization ceremony New Hampshire's Secretary of State David Scanlan has hosted at the State Archives. Similar events are held at other venues around the state. During Friday's naturalization event, 25 people from 17 different countries were granted American citizenship. 'It's that diversity that is really important to making us a strong, vibrant country that stands for freedom around the world,' said Scanlan. Governor Kelly A. Ayotte also addressed the new Americans, calling it an important moment in their lives and an important moment for the country. 'This is a wonderful day, and we are thrilled to welcome you as an American citizen,' she said. In recent months, Ayotte has made cracking down on illegal immigration a top issue, But on Friday, Ayotte congratulated the cohort of New Americans for successfully navigating the United States' immigration system. Advertisement 'It's not an easy process to navigate through our system, but you stuck with it,' she said. Eva Castillo, an immigrant rights advocate, urged the new citizens to start voting and remain active in their local communities around issues that are important to them. For new Americans, she said, citizenship can provide an extra sense of security, especially as some immigrant communities have grown fearful amid the Trump administration's deportation efforts. Once people have obtained citizenship, she said, it's only under extreme circumstances that they can be deported. 'That gives you an extra layer of protection,' she said in an interview after the event. Maykol Mamedes, 33, and his wife Samantha Mamedes, 31, said they, too, were breathing a sigh of relief that Maykol had been granted citizenship Friday. 'You feel more secure,' Maykol Mamedes said after the event. He is originally from Brazil, and he now lives with his wife and two children in Nashua. Of the two of them, Samantha Mamedes said she was more worried about paperwork and proving her husband's documentation, especially when there was a delay in renewing his green card and no way to prove he was in the United States lawfully. 'It's a good feeling knowing that we're on the tail end,' she said. Along with their two kids, the family said they planned to mark the occasion by going out to eat. And they had an extra reason to celebrate: Samantha Mamedes said her birthday was on the same day as the naturalization ceremony. Maykol Mamedes, left, and his wife Samantha Mamedes, right, their two children after a naturalization ceremony in Concord, N.H., on Friday. Amanda Gokee Amanda Gokee can be reached at
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Medicaid handouts only create dependency. Able-bodied adults should work.
Does Medicaid need an overhaul? Does Republicans' proposed $800 billion cuts go too far – or not far enough? Readers respond in USA TODAY's Opinion Forum. With the deadline for President Donald Trump and Republicans' "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" on the horizon, Americans are turning their attention to a major provision of the budget bill: changes to Medicaid. The bill calls for sweeping changes, including cuts of nearly $800 billion to the program, a mandatory work requirement of 80 hours per month, and an overhaul of the current Medicaid and Medicare systems – consolidating them for the purpose of centralized enrollment. Additional changes include banning federal funding for gender-affirming care and transitioning procedures and reducing the amount of federal funding allotted to states for noncitizens. As Congress debates these provisions before a final vote in the Senate, Americans are sounding off – largely in support of the program. More than 71 million Americans benefit from Medicaid, and new polls from KFF Health found 83% of respondents have a favorable view of Medicaid. More than half of respondents who are enrolled in Medicaid say changes to the program will make it "very difficult" to afford medications (68%), see a health care provider (59%) or get alternate insurance coverage (56%). A June 11 Quinnipiac University poll found half of American voters polled said funding for Medicaid should go up, not down, while an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll released June 16 found that 50% of Americans think we spend too little on Medicaid. But we wanted to hear from you, our USA TODAY readers, directly. We asked what changes, if any, you want to see to the program and how Medicaid has impacted your life or the lives of those you know. Do the proposed cuts go too far? Or not far enough? Here's what you told us for our Opinion Forum. I couldn't have made it as a mom ‒ or cancer survivor ‒ without Medicaid As a Stage 3 breast cancer survivor, mother to a son with profound disabilities and a full-time working member of society, I've had to navigate the unimaginable. Without Medicaid, I could not have managed any of it. The program covers our son's in-home care, and it gave me the ability to focus on both my treatment and career. For families like mine, Medicaid is not a luxury ‒ it is the foundation that holds everything together. Proposed cuts threaten the care millions rely on. We must protect Medicaid so parents are not forced to choose among their health, their job and their children's needs. — Caroline Johnson, Louisville, Kentucky Able-bodied people should be working. Entitlements weren't meant to last forever. As I understand it, the only people who would be cut from Medicaid are able-bodied adults who would need to work a minimum number of hours a week to keep receiving it. I don't believe that disabled people, older folks and children would be affected. Also, illegal migrants would be kept off, because American taxpayers are not responsible for paying their way. We have enough American citizens who need help. Those who are not supposed to get these entitlements should be cut. These entitlement programs were never meant to be a way of life. They were supposed to be a safety net only for those who really needed them. Able-bodied adults should work. There is pride in working for what you need or want. Handouts only cause dependency, which is not good for anyone. Every citizen who is able should strive to be independent. The same should go for food stamps. It should only be for the really needy disabled, elderly and children with low incomes. — Renee Bertoni, Holley, New York Real government waste is MAGA's excess I am a retired Health and Human Services Department worker. I think this administration is so shortsighted about Medicaid and food assistance cuts for working families and individuals. If low-income people and working families have inadequate food and no medical coverage, it hinders their ability to work and function in society. All people deserve medical coverage and nutritious foods! I don't think I will ever support Republicans again. This is supposed to be a government for the people, by the people and of the people. These MAGA supporters are all lacking in human decency. Yes, I believe they will cut more and more because they are focused on self-indulgence. Increase taxes for the wealthy who have too much and know that "trickle-down economics" is just a buzz phrase. It doesn't work. Big cuts were made to the federal work force with no strategy and no concern for talented and dedicated employees, along with lots of publicity for fake fraud claims that didn't exist. The minions are hard at work trying to sell the public on their distorted strategy: more for them and less for everyone else. Let's think about the waste of the Trump military parade. That's what's shameful. — Joyce Schulz, Tawas City, Michigan As an ER doctor, I saw what cuts to Medicaid would cost us all As an emergency physician, I cared for uninsured patients who were signed up for Medicaid insurance in the emergency department. Medicaid health insurance allowed these patients to follow up with primary care doctors and providers who otherwise could not afford to care for uninsured people. Studies show that adding Medicaid insurance saves lives. And taking away Medicaid insurance leads to worse health outcomes. I am very concerned that any cuts to Medicaid insurance would lead to avoidable illness and even death for newly uninsured patients. Primary care physicians and specialists cannot afford to care for patients who lose their Medicaid health care coverage. Also, rural hospitals and rural clinics would lose a significant portion of their financial support from Medicaid. Primary care providers and rural hospitals would be forced to close their doors, leaving uninsured patients without access to care. I am afraid that Republican politicians will choose tax cuts for the rich over Medicaid health insurance for the poor. I think that Republican politicians should have their own government health insurance taken away from them. Why should taxpayers pay for the health insurance of these well-off Republicans who are voting to take away Medicaid from poor people? — Gary Young, Sacramento, California I've worked hard to get everything I have. Democrats don't seem to see people like me. I don't see the problem with having work requirements. If you can work, why not? As a taxpayer, I pay for my own medical insurance. I am single and have no dependents. I have no fault with us having a Medicaid program for the elderly, children and disabled, but that should be it unless you are working and need a short-term helping hand. I have been working full-time since I was 22, so I don't understand people having an issue with a work requirement to get medical coverage. I think we have to cut spending across the board. I hear Democrats talking about taking things away, but I don't seem to hear anything from them about how to cut spending. We are over $36 trillion in debt. If spending is not controlled, our country could go bankrupt, and then no one would have any programs to use. What is the Democrats' plan to get the debt under control? They had the past four years to do it, and you see where we are. I'm tired of the talk about these cuts going to the billionaires. We don't know for sure where it's going, and you can't understand how tired of this rhetoric people are. Additionally, I would like to see the cuts to the U.S. Agency for International Development and Department of Education all codified so these programs do not exist. There seems to have been a bit of waste and abuse over many years that needs to be dealt with. I make under $70,000 a year, so I have worked hard to get where I am. I was a Democrat for over 35 years, and about five years ago, I went Republican, as parties seem to have switched. I believe that the Democrat Party is full of elitists who feel we poor peons will do what they tell us, rather than realizing a lot of peons can think for ourselves and should not be condescended to and not told we are bad peons if we disagree with them. — Teresa Loy, Tucson, Arizona My brother was saved by Medicaid. Many more would die without it. My brother had AIDS/HIV and AIDS-related cancer. He was too sick to work and relied on Medicaid for all his medical benefits, both physical and mental. He eventually worked for the nonprofit Hope and Help in Orlando. He was a mentor to others, a champion, an activist, an orator and a published writer. He died in August 2020. All his efforts and the efforts of many would die in vain without their medication that was available through Medicaid. I'm extremely worried. The effects aren't self-contained, and the negative effects would permeate into an already strained system. Medical insurance is unaffordable in this country's economy, and it only gets worse. The Republicans need to vote according to the wants and needs of their constituents and reinstall empathy in their party. Maybe that will resonate and 'trickle down.' We have to limit tax cuts for the wealthiest. And here's a novel idea: Let's go back to a time when employers paid for employees' health care and pensions. Those two items can't be supported by today's salaries. — Karen O'Donnell, Lake Mary, Florida
an hour ago
Okinawa marks 80 years since WWII battle ended, pledges to share its tragic history
TOKYO -- Okinawa marked the 80th anniversary of the end of one of the harshest battles of World War II fought on the southern island. With global tensions escalating, its governor said on Monday it is the Okinawan 'mission' to keep telling the tragic history and its impact today. The Battle of Okinawa killed a quarter of the island's population, leading to a 27-year U.S. occupation and a heavy American troop presence to date. Monday's memorial comes one day after U.S. attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities, adding to a sense of uncertainty on the island about the heavy American military presence and in its remote islands, already worried about getting embroiled in a potential conflict in Taiwan. Gov. Denny Tamaki, noting the escalating global conflicts and nuclear threats, made a resolve to contribute to global peace studies, disarmament and the preservation of war remains. 'It is our mission, as those living in the present, to preserve and pass on the reality and lessons to future generations." U.S. troops landed on the main Okinawa island on April 1, 1945, beginning a battle in their push toward mainland Japan. The Battle of Okinawa lasted nearly three months, killing some 200,000 people — about 12,000 Americans and more than 188,000 Japanese, half of them Okinawan civilians including students and victims forced into mass suicides by Japan's military. Okinawa was sacrificed by Japan's Imperial Army to defend the mainland, historians say. The island group remained under U.S. occupation until its reversion in 1972, two decades longer than most of Japan. Monday's memorial was held at the Mabuni Hill in Itoman City, where the remains of most of the war dead reside. Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba was in a hot seat when he attended Monday's ceremony. Weeks earlier, one of his ruling party lawmakers Shoji Nishida, known for whitewashing Japan's wartime atrocities, denounced an inscription on a famous cenotaph dedicated to students as 'rewriting history' by portraying the Japanese army as having caused their deaths, while Americans liberated Okinawa. Nishida also called Okinawa's history education 'a mess.' His remark triggered an uproar in Okinawa, forcing Ishiba days later to apologize to the island's governor, who had criticized the remark as outrageous and distorting history. The Himeyuri Cenotaph commemorates student nurses who were abandoned near the end of the battle and killed, some in group suicides with teachers. Japan's wartime military told the people never to surrender to the enemy, or die. Nishida's remarks add to concerns about the whitewashing of Japan's embarrassing wartime past as memories of the tragedy fade and ignorance about the suffering grows. Ishiba, at Monday's memorial, said Japan's peace and prosperity is built on the sacrifices of Okinawa's history of hardship and that it is the government's responsibility to 'devote ourselves to achieve a peaceful and prosperous Okinawa." Okinawa remained under U.S. occupation from 1945 until the 1972 reversion to Japan. The U.S. military maintains a heavy presence there due to Okinawa's strategic importance for security in the Pacific. Their presence serves not only to help defend Japan but also for missions elsewhere, including in the South China Sea and the Middle East. Private properties were confiscated to build U.S. bases, and the base-dependent economy has hampered the growth of local industry. Fear of a Taiwan conflict rekindles bitter memories of the Battle of Okinawa. Historians and many residents say Okinawa was used as a pawn to save mainland Japan. There are also ancient tensions between Okinawa and the Japanese mainland, which annexed the islands, formerly the independent kingdom of the Ryukus, in 1879. Okinawa remains home to the majority of about 50,000 U.S. troops stationed in Japan under a bilateral security pact. The island, which accounts for only 0.6% of Japanese land, hosts 70% of U.S. military facilities. Even 53 years after its reversion to Japan, Okinawa is burdened with the heavy U.S. presence and faces noise, pollution, aircraft accidents and crime related to American troops, the governor said. Nearly 2,000 tons of unexploded U.S. bombs remain in Okinawa, with some regularly dug up. A recent explosion at a storage site at a U.S. military base caused minor injuries to four Japanese soldiers.
