The Erosion of Trust: Why We’re Less Trusting and How to Rebuild It
We navigate a complex social world every day, making countless mental calculations and decisions. At the heart of these interactions lies trust. We choose, consciously or unconsciously, to believe in others. We stay in our relationships, trusting that our partners will remain faithful. We wait at the bus stop, confident that the bus will eventually arrive. We make dinner reservations, secure in the expectation that our friends will show up.
However, this foundation of trust is showing signs of weakening. A 2019 Pew Research Center report revealed a concerning trend: 71 percent of respondents felt that interpersonal trust – the confidence people have in their fellow citizens – had declined over the past two decades. The World Happiness Report further corroborated this, finding that only 30 percent of Americans generally trust one another, a significant drop from the 1970s when half of Americans held such trust. This decline in trust also seems to be generational, with each successive generation valuing honesty less than the one before.
This erosion of trust isn’t confined to interpersonal relationships. A 2024 Pew survey found that barely a quarter of respondents trusted the government to do the right thing, signaling a broader societal skepticism.
What factors are driving this rise in distrust? Several possibilities have been suggested, including economic inequality, the pervasive influence of technology, and increasing diversity accompanied by ethnic segregation. However, political polarization appears to be a major contributing factor. The 2019 Pew survey revealed that over 40 percent of Americans don’t trust others to cast informed votes in elections or to engage in civil discourse with those holding different views.
Trust is an indispensable ingredient in any relationship. Without it, vulnerability becomes impossible. We cannot share our dreams, confide our secrets, or feel safe and secure. While healthy skepticism is valuable, preventing us from falling prey to scams or schemes, a life consumed by cynicism is hardly desirable.
Peter Kim, a professor of management and organization at the USC Marshall School of Business and author of "How Trust Works," emphasizes the fundamental role of trust in daily life. "There are a lot of people who claim that they don’t trust anybody," he says, "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."
Oliver Schilke, a professor and director of the Center for Trust Studies at the University of Arizona, defines trust as a willingness to make oneself vulnerable to another with the expectation that their actions will be beneficial. Research suggests that when deciding whether to trust someone, people generally assess their competence, benevolence, and integrity. Within the first few minutes of meeting someone, we form judgments based on these three factors, and these initial impressions are often positive. We tend to trust others, at least initially.
What do we base these judgments on? Appearance, manner of speaking, shared backgrounds, reputation, and perceived similarity all play a role. However, these cues are imperfect, and as we get to know new people, we gain more information to assess the accuracy of our initial trust. We learn whether they prove to be trustworthy or whether we were mistaken in our assessment.
Is our inclination to trust innate or learned? Schilke and his colleagues studied adult twins to investigate this question. They found that genetics influence how trusting we are, but not how distrusting. Distrust, they discovered, is a unique experience shaped by past experiences, particularly during childhood. Parents and peers significantly influence who we become wary of. Individuals who experienced betrayals early in life tend to exhibit lower levels of trust as they age.
A negative experience with a particular type of person – a teacher, a romantic partner, or an authority figure – can lead to generalizing distrust towards all people who share those characteristics. "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, appears to have a genetic component. "Some people are just genetically more trusting than others," Schilke says. Trust can be inborn, while suspicion is often learned. Past behavior provides valuable information when deciding whom to trust. If a friend consistently cancels plans at the last minute, it’s reasonable to anticipate similar behavior in the future. We also consider future implications when deciding to trust someone. If we anticipate a long-term relationship, we are more likely to place trust in that person. "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.
Anthony Chambers, a clinical psychologist and director of the Center for Applied Psychological and Family Studies at Northwestern University, offers advice on building trust in relationships. He emphasizes that trust is specific to the individuals involved.
Jaimie Arona Krems, an associate professor of psychology and the director of the UCLA Center for Friendship Research, found that even if someone is generally dishonest, we still trust them if they haven’t betrayed our confidence. "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." An individual’s reputation matters, but their actions towards you personally are equally important.
Once trust is granted, people generally strive to maintain it. "When we’re trusted, very few of us use that as an opportunity to exploit other people," Kim says. While caution is warranted, and betrayals do occur, the interplay between granting and maintaining trust is fascinating. 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 broken, we often attribute the breach to incompetence or malicious intent, Kim says. However, a person’s motives are rarely so straightforward. Assuming malice "is the kiss of death in any relationship," Kim says, "because it’s almost impossible to overcome that kind of attribution." The closer we are to the person who betrayed our trust, the more likely we are to attribute their actions to incompetence rather than malice, driven by a desire to preserve the relationship. Conversely, we may readily perceive strangers as inherently untrustworthy.
It’s also possible that the betrayer was unaware that their actions were wrong. If your expectations don’t align, you might interpret minor breaches of trust as a lack of integrity.
The increasing trend toward social isolation also impacts trust. Research shows that isolated individuals become hypervigilant to social threats, seeing the world as dangerous and withdrawing to protect themselves. Conversely, lonely people may paradoxically be more trusting, yearning for social intimacy despite expecting untrustworthiness.
Distrust can also extend inward, leading us to question our own judgment. "And that mistrust of ourselves can often lead to us just questioning whether or not we could ever trust again," says Moe Ari Brown, a licensed marriage and family therapist at Hinge. The safest course of action may seem to be isolation, but without addressing the source of insecurity and practicing self-compassion, opening up to others can be challenging. "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."
However, complete distrust creates a divide between people, hindering the formation of meaningful 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, gain valuable insights from betrayal, learning to avoid similar situations in the future.
Vulnerability and trust reinforce each other. Sharing a secret and trusting the other person not to reveal it fosters intimacy. When the secret-keeper proves trustworthy, you are more likely to confide in them again. The secret-keeper, in turn, is secure in their role as a confidante and trusts you more. To build trust, you must be willing to be vulnerable.
Blind trust isn’t ideal, however. A healthy dose of skepticism protects us. A level of discernment is necessary to guard against malicious actors. You don’t need to place complete confidence in someone to be more trusting. Trust is contextual and incremental. You might trust your doctor and mechanic in their professional capacities, but not your new neighbor to pet sit for a week, though you might trust them to water your plants.
Even if you are betrayed, you can choose not to assume the worst, remembering that people generally want to be virtuous and trustworthy. You can also clarify your expectations regarding trust by communicating what you need. You can agree not to see other people early in a relationship. We can choose to keep trusting, understanding that most people want to reciprocate goodwill. "If you seem like you’re looking after them," Kim says, "they will reciprocate."
