Who Do We Trust More? The Psychology of Trust – Part 1

Among all the current crises, the crisis of trust is causing the most serious concerns today. As a result, there is a growing opinion that modern society is steadily turning into a society of lies, where trust becomes one of the highest values, attracting maximum attention. In Professor Ilyin’s new book, this topic is explored in depth, drawing on the latest scientific data.

Knowing Others and Trusting Them

It’s no surprise that people tend to trust those who are closer to them and whom they know better. Genuine trust arises from getting to know another person through long-term interaction. The experience of interacting with others forms the basis for time-tested and evolving mutual expectations (trust).

Asking for advice is the greatest trust one person can give another.
– Giovanni Boccaccio

As shown by S. P. Tabkharova (2008), as closeness and familiarity with a partner increase, the number of distrust criteria decreases, while the number of trust criteria grows. Most positive traits are most significant for trusting someone close, while negative traits are more important for distrusting a stranger. However, personal characteristics (attitudes toward people) and group factors (gender, age, type of professional activity) also influence the balance of trust and distrust criteria for different categories of people. This balance is determined by the functions that trust and distrust serve in a person’s life.

For example, in a study by T. S. Pukhareva, it was found that the vast majority of students trust their parents (97.8%) and relatives (82.6%). Many students also trust their friends (from 30.4% to 72.5%), less often their spouse (from 6.5% to 67.5%), and even less often their classmates (from 11.4% to 35.0%).

Students partially trust superiors (57-93%) and completely distrust them (7-43%).

This wide range of data is due to the fact that students from three different faculties-law, economics, and psychology-were surveyed, and they clearly differ in their mindset and attitudes toward people. Law students were the least trusting (friends-30.4%, classmates-17.4%, spouse-6.5%), while psychology students were the most trusting (friends-72.5%, spouse-67.5%, classmates-35.0%). Economics students were in between (47.7%, 36.3%, 11.4% respectively).

I take responsibility for the actions of the person I believe in. I rely on them and, in a sense, sacrifice myself and my reputation for this belief. This creates not just a relationship of trust, but a shared responsibility, which initially belongs to me, not the person I trust, since I initiated this new relationship.
– G. Zavershinsky, “Trust or Conviction?” (portal-slovo.ru)

As F. T�nnies (1998) writes, “We often trust many people based on the most superficial knowledge of them, barely knowing them, knowing nothing except that they are in a certain place and hold a certain position-this is institutionalized trust. If personal trust is always significantly influenced by the personality of the trusting person-their mind and especially their knowledge of people, i.e., experience-then, in general, a naive and inexperienced person is gullible, while a smart and experienced person is skeptical. This difference almost disappears with institutionalized trust. We don’t know the train engineer, the ship’s captain, or the doctor performing surgery on us, but we trust them because we assume that an inexperienced person wouldn’t be put in such a position.”

This kind of trust is based not on personal knowledge, but on the belief that only qualified people are assigned professional duties. In such cases, non-psychological factors of trust are considered (for example, the object’s economic stability, public image, reputation, significant and long-term experience in the field, and social status).

It’s a different matter when we have to trust or distrust someone we interact with directly. What does trust depend on in these cases? Image is the persona someone creates for more successful interaction with others (E. A. Petrova, 2003). It’s a holistic system of external characteristics meant to highlight or create the uniqueness of a person. The focus is on the external, but it’s necessary to represent the person’s inner core, intellectual, and moral qualities. Image is revealed through actions, relationships, and emotionally charged impressions, and is meant to influence others (V. N. Cherepanova, 1998). Image is not fixed; it constantly adapts to the environment and transforms. Its formation requires certain knowledge and skills.

Honesty and Sincerity as Personality Traits

For some reason, psychologists rarely consider these personality traits as important criteria for trust, although they may be implied when discussing morality. Perhaps it’s because it seems obvious that we trust honest people.

Trust only those who have the courage to contradict you when necessary and who value your good name over your favor.
– A. V. Suvorov

Honesty is a moral quality that includes truthfulness, integrity, loyalty to decisions made, and sincerity with others and oneself regarding one’s motives, as well as recognizing and respecting the rights of others to what legally belongs to them.

It’s interesting to ask whether most people can be considered honest. According to V. V. Znakov (1999), who surveyed students, most (151 out of 196) believe that people are generally prone to dishonesty for personal gain.

E. G. Ksenofontova (1988) found that “internals” (those who believe they control their own fate) are more truthful than “externals” (those who attribute outcomes to external factors). But according to Znakov, internals themselves trust people, believing that most are honest. Znakov also found that women rate themselves as more honest than men. Does this mean women trust each other more than men do?

Sincerity is the degree of openness in expressing one’s thoughts and feelings, truthfulness, and candor. The opposite quality, which leads to distrust, is hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy is a negative moral quality where immoral actions are given a moral meaning, noble motives, and humanitarian goals.

Most positive traits are most significant for trusting someone close, while negative traits are more important for distrusting a stranger. Some traits are seen by the same respondents as criteria for trust with close people and as criteria for distrust with strangers. This depends on individual, group, and situational factors in how the person being evaluated is perceived.

Differences in Trust/Distrust Criteria

A. B. Kupreychenko and S. P. Tabkharova (2005) believe that a person can show a high level of trust in someone based on some indicators, and a high level of distrust based on others. Through surveys and focus groups, they identified primary characteristics of people who can and cannot be trusted. These characteristics differ significantly. The most important distrust criteria are formal-dynamic indicators (appearance, behavior, temperament, social group membership, etc.). Social perceptions, stereotypes, and prejudices influence how these characteristics are evaluated. Trust criteria are more often substantive characteristics of interpersonal relationships and the subject’s values. In this case, trust arises from mutual evaluation of partners’ qualities, especially morality, reliability, unity, and openness. Grounds for distrust include immorality, unreliability, secrecy, dependency, conflict, and so on.

A study was conducted to examine trust/distrust criteria in business and friendship relationships using a proprietary methodology. Frequency analysis revealed both common and specific criteria for trust and distrust in these relationships.

Common Criteria for Trust and Distrust

Common trust criteria in both business and friendship include being “open,” “sincere,” “reliable,” “helpful to me,” “smart,” “non-confrontational,” “easy to communicate with,” “polite,” “optimistic,” “beloved,” “easy to interact with,” “caring,” “loving stability,” “highly moral,” “balanced,” “charming,” “having life goals and a worldview similar to mine,” “brave,” “having interests like mine,” and “active.”

Common distrust criteria in both business and friendship include being “unpleasant,” “hostile,” “unreliable,” “impolite,” “competing with me,” “stupid,” “aggressive,” and “conflict-prone.”

Although these characteristics are common, their significance varies between business and friendship. For example, the distrust criterion “conflict-prone” is very significant in business (85%) but less so in friendship (55%). The criterion “unpleasant” is more significant in friendship (90%) than in business (65%). These criteria are common but not equally important in both contexts.

Equivalent trust criteria include: “openness” (95-85%), “sincerity” (90-95%), “reliability” (85-80%), “non-confrontational” (75-80%), “optimism” (70-65%), “caring” (65%), “helpful to me” (80-75%), “balanced” (60%), “easy to communicate with” (75%), and others. These traits are equally important for trust regardless of the relationship type. Equivalent distrust criteria include “unreliable” (80-75%) and “aggressive” (55-60%).

Specific Criteria for Trust and Distrust

In business relationships, highly significant trust criteria are “organization” (65%), “confidence” (60%), “education” (60%), “luck” (55%), and “non-aggressiveness” (55%). Distrust criteria in business include “cunning” (70%), “unpredictability” (70%), “disorganization” (65%), “lack of education” (65%), “dependency” (60%), “instability” (55%), and “lack of confidence” (55%).

In friendships, trust criteria include “non-aggressiveness” (60%), “resourcefulness” (60%), and “strength” (55%). Distrust criteria include “difficulty interacting” (80%), “difficulty communicating” (55%), “boastfulness” (75%), “immorality” (65%), and “belonging to a hostile social group” (60%).

Thus, organizational and intellectual qualities are important for trust in business relationships, while non-aggressiveness, resourcefulness, and strength are important in friendships. Interestingly, organizational and business qualities are also significant for distrust in business relationships, making trust and distrust criteria largely symmetrical in business. In friendships, this symmetry is not observed; intellectual and organizational qualities important in business are not significant in friendships.

V. G. Tylec, 2007, p. 244

It was found that Machiavellians inspire trust and their lies seem believable. They lie more often not only in business but also in intimate relationships. For example, J. McHoskey and colleagues (1998) found that a high level of Machiavellianism is positively associated with a tendency to deceive marital and sexual partners, to cheat, and to pretend to be in love.

In addition to the personality traits of those who are trusted or not, other factors also matter: argumentation, authority, appearance, and social status.