logo
The secret to actually trusting each other

The secret to actually trusting each other

Vox07-05-2025
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.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

There's a big, important limit on Trump's power to seize control of DC's police
There's a big, important limit on Trump's power to seize control of DC's police

Vox

time19 minutes ago

  • Vox

There's a big, important limit on Trump's power to seize control of DC's police

is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. US Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro and President Donald Trump during his announcement that he will use his authority to place the DC Metropolitan Police Department under federal control, and that the National Guard will be deployed to Monday, President Donald Trump released an executive order invoking a rarely used federal law that allows him to temporarily seize control over Washington, DC's police force. Later the same day, DC's Democratic Mayor Muriel Bowser seemed to concede that there's nothing she can do about it. 'What I would point you to is the Home Rule Charter that gives the president the ability to determine the conditions of an emergency,' Bowser said Monday afternoon. 'We could contest that, but the authority is pretty broad.' SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. 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. Bowser is almost certainly correct that Trump can seize control of her city's police force, at least for a little while. The District of Columbia is not a state, and does not enjoy the same control over its internal affairs that, say, nearby Virginia or Maryland does. The Constitution gives Congress the power to 'exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever' over the nation's capital. If Congress wanted to, it could turn DC into a federal protectorate tomorrow. In 1974, however, Congress enacted the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, which generally gives DC residents the power to elect the city's leaders. But that law contains an exception that allows the president to briefly take command of DC's police. 'Whenever the President of the United States determines that special conditions of an emergency nature exist which require the use of the Metropolitan Police force for federal purposes,' the law provides, the president may require the city's mayor to provide him 'such services of the Metropolitan Police force as the President may deem necessary and appropriate.' The same law, however, also provides that presidential control over DC police must terminate after 30 days, unless Congress takes some action to extend it. So, assuming that the courts actually apply this 30-day limit to Trump, Trump's control over DC's local police will only last a month at most. Indeed, Trump's own executive order seems to acknowledge that his powers are time-limited. The order requires Mayor Bowser to 'provide the services of the Metropolitan Police force for Federal purposes for the maximum period permitted under section 740 of the Home Rule Act.' The Home Rule Act, moreover, is fairly adamant that this 30-day limit is real. It provides that, absent congressional action, 'no such services made available pursuant to the direction of the President … shall extend for any period in excess of 30 days.' So, if Trump does try to extend the time limit without Congress's consent, the courts should not permit him to do so. Trump often uses 'emergency' powers to address ordinary things Trump loves to declare emergencies. In his first 100 days in office, he declared eight of them, more than any other president — including himself in his first term. His DC police order is just the latest of these emergency declarations. Trump claims that 'crime is out of control in the District of Columbia,' and this supposed situation justifies invoking emergency powers to take control of DC's police. The idea that DC faces a genuine emergency is a farce. As pretty much everyone who has written about Monday's executive order has noted, violent crime rates in the city are at a 30-year low. So, even if you concede that crime is such a problem in DC that it justifies a federal response, that problem has existed for three decades. A persistent problem is the opposite of an emergency. That said, Bowser is correct that the Home Rule Act's text permits the president, and the president alone, to determine whether an emergency exists that justifies taking control of DC's police. The relevant language of the statute provides that Trump may invoke this power 'whenever the President of the United States determines that special conditions of an emergency nature exist.' Broadly speaking, it makes sense to give the president unreviewable authority to decide when to invoke certain emergency powers. The very nature of an emergency is that it is a sudden event that requires immediate action, without which matters could deteriorate rapidly. Think of a heart attack, a major natural disaster, or an insurrection. Suppose, for example, that a violent mob attacks the US Capitol during an important national event, such as the congressional certification of a presidential election. When Congress enacted the Home Rule Act, it quite sensibly could have thought that the president should be able to draw upon all nearby law enforcement officers to quell such an attack on the United States — without having to first seek permission from local elected officials, or a judge. Congress, of course, did not anticipate that the president might be complicit in such an attack. But that doesn't change the fact that the statute says what it says. A nation as large and diverse as the United States cannot function unless its chief executive has the power to take some unilateral actions. If a president abuses that authority, the proper remedy is often supposed to be the next election. It's worth noting that not every emergency statute is worded as permissively as the Home Rule Act's provision governing local police. In May, for example, a federal court struck down many of the ever-shifting tariffs that Trump imposed during his time back in office. One of the plaintiffs' primary arguments in that case, known as V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, is that Trump illegally tried to use an emergency statute to address an ordinary situation. Trump primarily relied on a statute known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) to justify his tariffs. That law gives him fairly broad authority to 'regulate' international transactions, but this power 'may only be exercised to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared.' Thus, the text of IEEPA is quite different from the text of the Home Rule Act. While the Home Rule Act permits the president to act whenever he determines that an emergency exists, IEEPA imposes two conditions on the president. One is that there must be an emergency declaration, but the other is that the president must invoke IEEPA to deal with an actual 'unusual and extraordinary threat.' Trump claims that many of his tariffs are justified because of trade deficits — the United States buys more goods from many nations than it sells — but the US has had trade deficits for at least two decades. So trade deficits are hardly an 'unusual and extraordinary threat.' Some of Trump's invocations of emergency power, in other words, are vulnerable to a legal challenge. But the question of whether any particular invocation may plausibly be challenged in court will turn on the specific wording of individual statutes. Will the courts actually enforce the 30-day limit? All of this said, the Home Rule Act does contain one very significant limit on presidential power: the 30-day limit. And the statute is quite clear that this limit should not be evaded. Again, it states that 'no' services made available to the president 'shall extend for any period in excess of 30 days, unless the Senate and the House of Representatives enact into law a joint resolution authorizing such an extension.' (The law also permits Congress to extend this 30-day limit by adjourning 'sine die,' meaning that Congress adjourns without formally setting a date for its return, something it typically only does for a brief period every year.) So what happens if, a month from now, Trump declares a new emergency and tries to seize control of DC's police for another 30 days? If the courts conclude that he can do that, they would make a mockery of the Home Rule Act's text. Presidents should not be allowed to wave away an explicit statutory limit on their authority by photocopying an old executive order and changing the dates.

DeSantis picks state Sen. Jay Collins to be Florida's lieutenant governor
DeSantis picks state Sen. Jay Collins to be Florida's lieutenant governor

San Francisco Chronicle​

timean hour ago

  • San Francisco Chronicle​

DeSantis picks state Sen. Jay Collins to be Florida's lieutenant governor

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) — Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis tapped Republican state Sen. Jay Collins to be his next lieutenant governor Tuesday. It's a closely watched appointment by the two-term governor, who can't run for reelection in 2026 and has been working to cement his legacy as his time leading the state winds down. If Collins, an Army combat veteran and nonprofit executive, decides to launch a bid to succeed DeSantis, the move could tee up another proxy fight between the popular GOP governor and President Donald Trump, who has already endorsed U.S. Rep. Byron Donalds for the job. 'What I was looking for is someone that can be lieutenant governor that will help us deliver more wins for the people of Florida — and then also that is capable of serving and leading as governor, if that need were ever to arise,' the governor said during the news conference in Tampa, which Collins represents. Collins was sworn in minutes after the announcement, with his wife Layla and their two young sons at his side, while the governor and first lady Casey DeSantis looked on. Collins pledged to help deliver on DeSantis' agenda, which he said has made Florida the country's 'conservative proving grounds." "The goal is to help him finish the mission and keep Florida strong," Collins said of DeSantis, adding, 'you don't flinch when the next mission comes up. You just say, 'Yes, sir. Let's go.'' Born in Montana, Collins has talked openly about personal challenges he has overcome, including experiencing homelessness while in high school. He went on to join the Army Special Forces and ultimately lost a leg, but continued to serve five more years as a Green Beret using a prosthetic leg post-amputation, according to a campaign biography. Taking the stage Tuesday, Collins made light of the injury he sustained, saying he was proud to serve the country that afforded him so many opportunities. 'I want you to know that I've got my sleeves rolled up, I've got my running leg on, and we are ready to get things done,' Collins said. In recent years, Collins has served as the chief operating officer of Operation BBQ Relief, which deploys cooks and mobile kitchens to deliver hot meals in the aftermath of natural disasters. In June, Collins also flew to Israel to help support state-funded flights to evacuate Americans as Israel and Iran traded missile strikes. "Why would you want to go in to Israel when Iran is raining rockets down? Most people would take a pass on that," DeSantis said of Collins, calling him 'the Chuck Norris of Florida politics.' The seat had been vacant since February, when then-lieutenant governor Jeanette Nuñez was appointed to lead one of the state's public universities. In Florida, the lieutenant governor position is largely ceremonial with few official responsibilities, apart from taking over if the governor cannot serve. Collins was first elected to Florida's Republican-dominated state Senate in 2022 and has been seen as one of DeSantis' key allies in the Legislature. In recent months, GOP legislators loyal to the president have increasingly sparred with the governor, who challenged Trump for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. The appointment is seen as a way for DeSantis to elevate a potential successor in 2026, though the governor has repeatedly talked up his wife, Casey DeSantis, for the job, while taking shots at Trump's pick. ___

Schumer favorability at lowest point in 20 years among New Yorkers: Poll
Schumer favorability at lowest point in 20 years among New Yorkers: Poll

The Hill

timean hour ago

  • The Hill

Schumer favorability at lowest point in 20 years among New Yorkers: Poll

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer's (D-N.Y.) favorability is at its lowest point among New Yorkers in the past 20 years, according to a new survey. The Siena College poll, released Tuesday, found that Schumer — who was first elected to the Senate in 1998 — is underwater among Big Apple voters, with 39 percent having a favorable view of the lawmaker. About 46 percent said the opposite. Overall, the Democratic leader's favorability rating in the state is at the lowest point since February 2005, at 38 percent. Half of the respondents, 50 percent, had an unfavorable view of the New York senator. Some 13 percent did not have an opinion, the survey found. The last time the New York Democrat's favorability was net positive was in Sienna's February poll, when 45 percent of respondents had a favorable view of the Senate minority leader. At the time, 41 percent said they have an unfavorable view of him. Schumer's favorability has also dropped among Democrats, according to the poll, with 49 percent of Democratic Party voters having a favorable view of the leader. Nearly four-in-10, 39 percent, had an unfavorable view of the veteran senator, the results show. The gap has narrowed since June, when 55 percent had a favorable view of Schumer, compared to 35 percent who said otherwise, the pollsters noted. An Economist/YouGov poll from mid-April found that just 23 percent of U.S. adults had a favorable view of Schumer, while 51 percent of Americans had an unfavorable outlook of the lawmaker. Later that month, the Democratic leader was asked about a survey showing that he had the lowest approval rating of any congressional leader, which he dismissed. 'Polls come and go. Our party is united,' he said at the time. 'We're on our front foot, we're stepping forward, going after Trump and having real success.' The Sienna poll was conducted from August 4-7 among 813 New York state registered voters. The margin of error was 4.2 percentage points.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store