What Increases Trust
Speaker’s Argumentation
The more thorough a speaker’s argumentation and the greater its social significance, the more people tend to trust the information. As D. Myers (2004) writes, “If a message from a trustworthy person is convincing, then as the source is forgotten or the ‘source–message’ link fades, its influence may wane, while the influence of an untrustworthy source may actually grow over time (if people remember the message but not why they initially discounted it) (Cook, Flay, 1978; Pratkanis et al., 1988).” This delayed persuasion, which takes effect after people forget the source or its connection to the information, is called the sleeper effect.
For example, while traveling around Moscow, Karamzin wrote from Kolomna on September 14, 1803: “As for the city’s name, for fun, it could be derived from the famous Italian family Colonna. It’s known that Pope Boniface VIII persecuted all the famous people of this family, and many sought refuge not only in other lands but in other parts of the world. Some could have come to Russia, received land from our grand princes, built a city, and named it after themselves.” Note: “for fun,” writes the historian, since nothing of the sort actually happened. However, this joke soon spread widely, the author was forgotten, and it began to be perceived as a possible hypothesis, even cited as a scientific version in books and journals. Eventually, the joke returned to Kolomna itself, and a chronicle in the Novogolutvin Monastery stated: “Kolomna, according to some chroniclers, was founded by a nobleman from Italy named Carlo Colonna around 1147.” (Gorbanevsky M. V. Names of the Moscow Land. Moscow, 1985. pp. 118–119).
However, logically sound arguments are more effective for a thoughtful, interested audience. For an indifferent audience, such arguments are less important; instead, their trust depends more on their liking or disliking the speaker (Chaiken, 1980; Petty et al., 1981).
Speaking Style
Trust also depends on the communicator’s manner of speaking. People trust a communicator more when they believe the person has no intention of persuading them. Those who defend positions contrary to their own interests also seem more truthful. Trust and perceived sincerity increase if the communicator speaks quickly (Miller et al., 1976), as rapid speech leaves listeners less time to find counterarguments.
Another way to inspire trust is to speak confidently. B. Erickson and colleagues (Erickson et al., 1978) asked university students to evaluate two witness testimonies: one delivered assertively, the other with some doubt. The first witness’s testimony inspired more trust.
We tend to believe everything that is said, especially when it is said beautifully.
— Anatole France
Speakers can also gain trust by expressing opinions that the audience agrees with. For example, a communicator who skillfully uses certain political values in their speech can earn greater trust from the audience (P. A. Bychkov, 2010).
Appearance and Trust
When making business decisions, people tend to rely more on partners whose appearance inspires trust, even though such trust may be misplaced. British psychologists from the University of Warwick found that people often judge a partner’s reliability, moral qualities, and character based on appearance, and it’s hard to overcome this psychological tendency.
In an experiment, researchers created photos of various people, each with two versions: one trustworthy-looking, the other suspicious and unappealing. Volunteers played a financial game where they could give money to a person in the photos, who would then decide how much profit to return. Thirteen out of fifteen participants gave their money to those with more trustworthy appearances. However, later, when told about the actual reliability of the people in the photos, it turned out that visual impressions were often misleading.
Thus, people decide whether to trust someone almost entirely based on appearance. This can be exploited, for example, during job interviews. The ability to appear trustworthy is often more important than education, experience, or recommendations (sciencemagic.ru).
Interestingly, women with heavy makeup are trusted less, according to British and American researchers. Participants rated women with no makeup, light makeup, and heavy makeup for attractiveness, intelligence, and trustworthiness. While more makeup increased ratings for beauty and intelligence, it decreased trustworthiness after closer examination.
There is a huge gap between the irrational, basic feeling of trust and its rationalization. Complete rationalization is never possible, just as we never have full knowledge of all circumstances when making decisions. Trust is more immediate, while distrust seeks justification and often invents reasons. We are wired to find irrational trust or distrust just as convincing as rational trust, even if we can’t explain it. We call it “intuition”: intuition saved me, intuition failed me, and so on (Zinchenko V. P., 2001, p. 43).
Social Status, Competence, and Authority
Trust in what someone says depends on their status and authority. As early as 1931, F. Tönnies wrote in the “Desk Dictionary of Sociology”: “Trust or distrust is influenced not only by personal experience but also by the authority and reputation of the individual as trustworthy or questionable.” Research confirms this.
In one experiment, the same person gave a talk about education in an African country to three groups of teachers. In the first group, he was introduced as a PE teacher who had worked in Africa; in the second, as a district education official who had visited the country; and in the third, as an associate professor studying African education. Although the content was identical, the “associate professor” was rated as providing a deep analysis, while the “PE teacher” was seen as rambling about something he didn’t understand. The “education official” received intermediate ratings.
People seem more truthful when they defend positions contrary to their own interests. E. Eagly, W. Wood, and S. Chaiken (1978) found that students perceived a speech against a polluting company as more unbiased and convincing if it was delivered by a politician representing business interests or to a pro-business audience, rather than by an environmentalist to environmentalists. When people are willing to sacrifice their own well-being for their beliefs, as Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr. did, others stop doubting their sincerity (Myers, 2004, p. 295).
Openness about one’s own shortcomings can also inspire trust. For example, residents of a large German city voted for a mayoral candidate who was a former communist and openly admitted to being gay, believing his honesty meant he wouldn’t steal from the city treasury, unlike the previous mayor.
Trust can also be based on third-party recommendations. For example, a newcomer is accepted more quickly if recommended by someone with high credibility from another organization.
Diplomas on the Wall Increase Trust
In the West, it’s common for professionals—dentists, psychotherapists, etc.—to display their diplomas in their offices. A Superjob.ru survey found that most Russians would also like to see specialists’ diplomas. 73% of economically active Russians support this practice, especially women (77% vs. 69% of men), young people under 24 (76%), and those earning less than 25,000 rubles per month (78%). Among those over 45 and those earning more than 45,000 rubles, support drops to 63% and 65% respectively.
15% of Russians (18% of men, 13% of women) don’t want to check diplomas, believing that academic success doesn’t guarantee competence: “Any diploma should be backed by practical work.” Skepticism is higher among those over 45 (24%) and those earning over 45,000 rubles (20%). Some see diplomas as showing off or worry about forgeries.
12% were undecided, saying, “A specialist’s qualifications are shown by results, not the number or beauty of certificates,” or “Clients look at the person, not the diploma.”
Most professionals surveyed are willing to display their diplomas, especially journalists (78%), psychologists (77%), and architects (72%). They believe diplomas confirm their knowledge and competence. However, accountants (25%), economists (23%), lawyers, and designers (22% each) are more skeptical, citing issues with the value of diplomas in Russia and the prevalence of working outside one’s field.
Some professionals cite the widespread practice of buying diplomas, concerns about privacy, fear of competition, or modesty as reasons not to display diplomas. A few have already adopted the practice, mainly doctors, marketers (7% each), PR managers, lawyers (5% each), journalists, and psychologists (4% each). However, some report that displaying diplomas only provokes envy.
Others cite lack of corporate standards, declining education quality, or simply having too many diplomas to display.
Role and Similarity
Employees often trust the role a person plays, such as expert or mediator. Teams where members can take on such roles build trust faster. People are more likely to trust those similar to themselves—by profession, department, psychological type, or even appearance. This reduces the threshold for contradictions. That’s why some Russian companies have employees wear matching corporate T-shirts at least once a year. Even randomly assigning people to wear yellow or blue hats in the same room can make them see each other as members of rival teams. Unknown people are trusted much less.
What Undermines Trust
Trust is a dynamic aspect of communication. It’s hard to earn but can be lost instantly. Even a small mistake, misstep, or lie can destroy trust. As Arthur Schopenhauer wrote in “Aphorisms on the Wisdom of Life”: “He who has once broken trust will never regain it; whatever he does, the bitter fruits of this loss will not be long in coming.”
Children’s distrust of parents often arises because parents don’t trust their children. Some parents find it hard to delegate tasks, believing they can do them better and faster. Others don’t share their thoughts or problems, thinking their children are too young to understand. Some don’t take their children’s problems seriously or share them with others, betraying the child’s confidence.
Betrayal—deliberate, cunning actions, blatant breaches of obligations, or conscious deception—destroys trust. Examples include:
- Breaking promises, agreements, or commitments (infidelity, betrayal)
- Slander, false accusations
- Deliberately misleading someone
- Intrigue—using someone’s interests, ignorance, or ambitions for hostile purposes
Lost trust is like lost life—it cannot be regained.
— P. Syr
Gossip—rumors about someone or something, usually based on inaccurate or deliberately fabricated information—aims to sow distrust.
Inadequate Behavior also undermines trust. For example, some managers are overly critical, believing that only constant dissatisfaction will yield results. Such excessive criticism undermines people’s confidence, damages relationships, weakens trust, and leads to resistance.
Trust in an information source can also fade within a month (Cook, Flay, 1978; Pratkanis et al., 1988). Over time, a trustworthy source is forgotten, the “source–message” link fades, and its influence disappears. Meanwhile, the influence of an untrustworthy source may grow for the same reasons.