
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


The Hill
29 minutes ago
- The Hill
To become governor, Kamala Harris must leap hurdles she created
I have no inside knowledge or insight as to whether Kamala Harris will run for governor of California in 2026. I'm not looped into her inner circle or decision-making process. But as someone who has advised many potential candidates about whether to run for offices from president to city council, I do have some perspective on what she should be considering. Having managed four campaigns for governor of California, I know the process is often harrowing and humbling for those who throw their hat in the ring. The state's electorate is not on the whole very attentive to politics, picking up only bits and snippets about candidates, many of them negative, and the media is out to turn over every rock to expose every frailty, screw-up, inconsistency and verbal slip. In Harris's case, she is already well known to voters, having been on the statewide ballot eight times, and having served as vice president, U.S. senator and attorney general. But she will be tested on two issues having nothing to do with her service as a senator or attorney general. If she does run, she will be pestered unmercifully about whether she would just be using the governorship as a holding room on her way to another White House bid. She would, of course, have to issue a pro forma pledge to serve a full term. The question is whether voters would believe have witnessed presidential fever infect their governors before. Jerry Brown was elected the first time in 1974. A little more than a year after being inaugurated, he was gallivanting off to Maryland and other states campaigning for president. Brown then ran yet again for president just over six months into his second term. Pete Wilson was handily reelected in 1994, then announced he was running for president less than five months after being sworn in. A perhaps even more serious problem for Harris is the current orgy of reporting about the new book, 'Original Sin,' which purports to tell the inside story of Joe Biden's physical and mental decline — and the complicity of those close to him in covering up and making excuses for his lapses. Some Democrats have tried to push back on the book by questioning this or picking at that, but come on, millions of Americans witnessed firsthand the pathetic and alarming former shell of himself that Biden displayed during the debate with Trump. Already, announced gubernatorial candidate Antonio Villaraigosa (D), the former L.A. mayor, has very publicly taken Harris to task, demanding to know what she knew and when she knew it and criticizing her for not sounding an alarm about Biden's decrepitude. Just wait until the press gets her in their sights. And Harris will really have no good option: She will either have to throw Biden under the bus — an uncomfortable route given his recent cancer diagnosis, and her mum's-the-word approach until now — or claim she didn't witness the deterioration while sitting at his elbow, thus implicating herself in the cover-up. The emperor has no clothes, anyone? With all due respect to Harris, there is also the matter of her own presidential campaign. From a Democratic point of view, it was a total failure. She not only lost to Trump, of all people, but was the only Democratic nominee in the last 20 years to lose the popular vote. She lost all seven swing states — five of which had Democratic governors, and five of which had not one, but two Democratic senators. Democrats lost the Senate and failed to take back the House. She actually got a smaller share of the vote here in her own home state than Biden had in 2020. She even received fewer women's votes than Biden did in 2020. Does any of that shout, 'Hey, I should be able to waltz into the governor's office of the biggest state as a consolation prize?' Now, no doubt, a lot of Democrats in California would still support her, even if only as a big middle finger to Trump. But going for governor would inevitably result in a relitigation of questions about her flop of a run for president, as laid out in the best-selling book 'Fight,' a detailed chronicle of the 2024 race that sheds light on many of the missteps and mismanagement of her campaign. Again, I don't have a clue about Harris's intentions. But I do have some free advice about what she should be thinking about in making her decision. She's welcome. Garry South is a veteran Democratic strategist who has managed four campaigns for governor of California and two for lieutenant governor.


Fox News
35 minutes ago
- Fox News
What that citizenship contest reality show gets right
It's not clear that "The American," the proposed reality TV show in which immigrants would compete to become naturalized U.S. citizens on the steps of the Capitol, will gain the cooperation of the Department of Homeland Security or ever see the light of day. But that hasn't stopped it from being cast in a negative light. As the New York Times described it: "Under Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary, the (Department of Homeland Security) has often focused on publicity and reality-TV tactics to showcase President Donald Trump's hard-line immigration policies." In other words, it's being cast as citizenship Hunger Games – though all the contestants would wind up on the fast track to naturalization. But that misses what's fundamentally positive about it: the focus on citizenship itself as the goal. It's a focus that's been missing in all the attention rightly paid to the illegal and undocumented – the fact that citizenship is on offer to those who work hard and play by the rules and should be encouraged, just as it was once the case a century ago, when America assimilated its last big wave of newcomers. This would not and should not require some sort of amnesty for illegals. According to the Pew Research Center, there are 13.5 million fully legal immigrants who are not citizens but could be – yet we've averaged only 730,000 naturalizations a year. A citizenship drive would help not just the new citizens but America. To become a citizen, one must swear to "support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America "and to bear arms to defend it." One must have some knowledge of what the Constitution says, in order to pass a written test – which is offered only in English. A wave of naturalization would make also our elections more fair. Per the Constitution, all congressional districts are based on their number of residents, not the number of citizens. That means that many Democrats from districts with large concentrations of noncitizen legal and illegal immigrants, have far fewer eligible voters in their districts than Republicans. In Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's 14th District in New York, a whopping 46% of residents are foreign-born – and only 192,000 votes were cast in 2024. In Ohio Republican Jim Jordan's 4th District, 96% of voters are native-born; 399,000 votes were cast last year. Keep in mind: noncitizens may not vote and have no voice in government. The Center for Immigration Studies has found that of 16 districts where more than one in four adults is not an American citizen, only one is represented by a Republican. These are, in other words, places where it takes fewer votes to win – and where Democrats hold the advantage. In light of the Trump vote among Hispanics, one cannot predict how naturalized immigrants would vote. As important as citizenship can be, there are real barriers – not just reality show theatrics – to achieving it. Taking the citizenship test costs $710 for each family member – and one must have studied 100 potential civics questions and be able to read English. ESL classes are available to be sure – but these can have long waiting lists and may be scheduled in the evening when immigrants are working night shifts. In Chicago, for instance, the public library offers a nine-week citizenship class in English only – and the ESL classes you'd need first have waiting lists. But a new, nationwide citizenship movement is plausible – because the U.S. has a record of a successful one. In 1910, the foreign-born percentage of the population in the US (14.7) was roughly as big as it is today (15.6). The assimilation that ensued is too often cast as inevitable. But our civil society – not government – took steps to introduce immigrants to the American system and lead them to citizenship. The settlement house movement, started by Jane Addams, founder of Hull House, in a working-class Italian immigrant neighborhood in Chicago relied on volunteers who moved in and "settled' in immigrant neighborhoods and offered everything from nutrition classes to music lessons. They specifically prepared their neighbors to become American citizens. In her memoir "Twenty Years at Hull House," Illinois-born Addams, a Quaker whose Republican father was a friend of Abraham Lincoln, wrote, "Every settlement has classes in citizenship in which the principles of American institutions are expounded." The goal was to "make clear the constitutional basis of a self-governing community." There were more than 400 such settlement houses across the country – all supported by local donors. It was a movement – and encouraging citizenship was part of it. There are some similar efforts ongoing today. In Reno, Nevada, the Northern Nevada Literacy Council pairs volunteers with immigrants – tutoring them in their homes by day because many work nights. They've helped many pass the citizenship test. In the village of Port Chester, New York – where immigrants from Central America have clustered – the George Washington Carver Center has added citizenship test tutoring by volunteers to its historic assistance for low-income Blacks. The potential benefits of a national citizenship push were captured well by Lillian Wald, founder of the Henry Street Settlement on the Lower East Side. New immigrants, she wrote in her memoir, "The House on Henry Street," "bring an enthusiasm for our institutions." She dreamed "of making his coming of age – his admission to citizenship, something of a rite." So it can still be. We should celebrate, not deride, a reality show that draws renewed attention to it.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
'Return to your country' Kabul tells Afghans rebuffed by Washington
The Taliban government on Saturday urged Afghans hoping to emigrate to the United States to instead return to Afghanistan, after Washington tightened entry conditions. US President Donald Trump this week announced a travel ban targeting 12 countries, including Afghanistan, which his proclamation said lacked "competent" central authorities for processing passports and vetting. Commenting on the ban on Saturday, Prime Minister Hassan Akhund urged Afghans to return to their country, saying they would be protected even if they worked with US-led forces in the two-decade fight against the Taliban insurgency. "For those who are worried that America has closed its doors to Afghans... I want to tell them, 'Return to your country, even if you have served the Americans for 20 or 30 years for their ends, and ruined the Islamic system'," he said in a speech marking the Eid al-Adha holiday, broadcast by state media. "You will not face abuse or trouble," he said, making reassurances that the Taliban Supreme Leader Hibatullah Akhundzada had "granted amnesty for all". After surging to power in 2021, Taliban authorities announced a general amnesty for Afghans who worked with the Western-backed forces and government. However, the United Nations has recorded reports of extrajudicial killings, detentions and abuses. In the past four years, the Taliban government has imposed a strict view of Islamic law and restrictions on women which the UN says amount to "gender apartheid". Afghans fled in droves to neighbouring countries during decades of conflict, but the chaotic withdrawal of US-led troops saw a new wave clamouring to escape Taliban government curbs and fears of reprisal for working with Washington. The United States has not had a working embassy in Afghanistan since 2021 and Afghans must apply for visas in third countries, principally Pakistan which has recently ramped up campaigns to expel Afghans. Since Trump returned to the White House in January, Afghans have gradually seen their chances of migrating to the United States or staying there shrink. Trump administration orders have disrupted refugee pathways and revoked legal protections temporarily shielding Afghans from deportation starting in July. qb-sw/rsc