Overview
Trust is the lifeblood of society. Without it, everything from our personal relationships to the broader economy would cease to function. Yet, trust is fragile. It is said to take years to build, but only seconds to break. But such oversimplifications risk omitting the interesting and important nuance of the psychology of trust.
Whereas some people generally prefer to see the good in others, and in turn trust people more, others take a more skeptical or even cynical stance, likely having experienced the pain of broken trust. Such trust or mistrust can be situational. But it can also be a more enduring part of our personality, informing our perceptions of people or society in general.
An interesting question arises from this nuance. Does our general trust or mistrust of society affect how much others might trust or mistrust us? Perhaps it even affects others’ perceptions of us, such as how “warm” (i.e., nice) or “competent” (i.e., smart) others think we are. And taking this train of thought a final step further, perhaps the perceiver’s own trust or mistrust of society affects these perceptions.
Whereas some people generally prefer to see the good in others, and in turn trust people more, others take a more skeptical or even cynical stance, likely having experienced the pain of broken trust. Such trust or mistrust can be situational. But it can also be a more enduring part of our personality, informing our perceptions of people or society in general.
An interesting question arises from this nuance. Does our general trust or mistrust of society affect how much others might trust or mistrust us? Perhaps it even affects others’ perceptions of us, such as how “warm” (i.e., nice) or “competent” (i.e., smart) others think we are. And taking this train of thought a final step further, perhaps the perceiver’s own trust or mistrust of society affects these perceptions.
The Experiment
We ran a within-subjects experiment with 205 people on the online research platform Prolific to test whether a person who either trusts or mistrusts society is viewed as more or less trustworthy, nice, and smart, and whether these results differ based on participants’ own trust or mistrust of society.
Participants were instructed to read a few brief descriptions of people, then answer a few survey questions about each person. We used two hypothetical people for this experiment, “Bryan,” a graduate student at a local university, and “Amelia,” a waitress at a local restaurant, who either trust or mistrust others generally. For each participant, we randomized whether Bryan or Amelia was the trusting person, while the other was the mistrusting person. We also randomized the order in which Bryan’s and Amelia’s descriptions were presented.
For the trust vs. mistrust manipulation, we stated that either Bryan or Amelia “is very trusting of others and prefers to see the good in people” while the other “does not trust others easily and generally believes that people take advantage of each other far too often.” Below is an example pair of texts that a participant could have seen. Each text began with "Below is a brief description of a person."
Participants were instructed to read a few brief descriptions of people, then answer a few survey questions about each person. We used two hypothetical people for this experiment, “Bryan,” a graduate student at a local university, and “Amelia,” a waitress at a local restaurant, who either trust or mistrust others generally. For each participant, we randomized whether Bryan or Amelia was the trusting person, while the other was the mistrusting person. We also randomized the order in which Bryan’s and Amelia’s descriptions were presented.
For the trust vs. mistrust manipulation, we stated that either Bryan or Amelia “is very trusting of others and prefers to see the good in people” while the other “does not trust others easily and generally believes that people take advantage of each other far too often.” Below is an example pair of texts that a participant could have seen. Each text began with "Below is a brief description of a person."
Bryan is a graduate student at a local university. He is very trusting of others and prefers to see the good in people.
Amelia is a waitress at a local restaurant. She does not trust others easily and generally believes that people take advantage of each other far too often.
After reading each description, participants were asked “To what extent do you think each of the following words describe [Bryan/Amelia]? (1 = Not at all, 7 = Very much)” on a 1-7 scale, with the words “Trustworthy,” “Friendly,” and “Smart” listed below. The order of these words was randomized to prevent order effects.
We also measured participants’ own trust in society, using a demographic survey at the end of the activity. Participants were asked, “To what extent do you think each of the following words describe you? (1 = Not at all, 7 = Very much)” on a 1-7 scale. Among the words was the phrase “Trusting of others” with the order of words again randomized.
We also measured participants’ own trust in society, using a demographic survey at the end of the activity. Participants were asked, “To what extent do you think each of the following words describe you? (1 = Not at all, 7 = Very much)” on a 1-7 scale. Among the words was the phrase “Trusting of others” with the order of words again randomized.
Results
First, we tested whether a person who is generally trusting or mistrusting of others is perceived as more or less trustworthy. A paired samples t-test revealed that perceived trustworthiness was significantly lower when Bryan or Amelia was mistrusting of others (avg. = 3.79) relative to trusting (avg. = 5.92), a very large difference of 56% (p < 0.001). The figure below illustrates this result.
Next, we tested whether being trusting or mistrusting affects perceptions of how nice and smart a person is. Interestingly, here is where the results diverged. Whereas a trusting person was perceived to be far nicer than a mistrusting person (avg. = 6.21, avg. = 3.46, p < 0.001), neither a trusting nor a mistrusting person was perceived to be smarter (avg. = 4.96, avg. = 4.88, p = 0.558). The figure below presents these results graphically.
Finally, we tested whether all of these results differed based on participants’ own trust in others. Indeed, they did, and in interesting ways. Even participants with low trust in others perceived our trusting person as significantly more trustworthy than our mistrusting person. This difference was even larger for participants with high degrees of trust in others. According to the results of a linear mixed-effects regression model, each additional point of participants’ own trust in others on our 1-7 scale was associated with a 0.43-point increase in the difference between our trusting and mistrusting person (p < 0.001).
For example, a participant with very low trust in others (1 out of 7) would be expected to rate our trusting person as only 0.61 points more trustworthy than the mistrusting person, but a participant with very high trust in others (7 out of 7) would likely rate our trusting person 3.21 points higher than our mistrusting person. The graph below presents the actual ratings of perceived trustworthiness (y-axis) of our trusting and mistrusting persons (lines with standard error bars), by participants’ trust in others (x-axis).
A similar result was identified for perceptions of niceness. Again, even low trusting participants perceived our trusting person as nicer than our mistrusting person, and this difference was much larger for high trusting participants—a 0.26-point increase in the difference per point (1-7 scale) of participants’ own trust in others (p = 0.001).
For example, a participant with very low trust in others (1 out of 7) would be expected to rate our trusting person as 1.84 points nicer than the mistrusting person, but a participant with very high trust in others (7 out of 7) would likely rate our trusting person 3.40 points higher than our mistrusting person. The graph below presents the actual ratings of perceived niceness (y-axis) of our trusting and mistrusting persons (lines with standard error bars), by participants’ trust in others (x-axis).
Most interesting of all was the difference for perceptions of how smart a (mis)trusting person is. Whereas participants with high trust in others perceived our trusting person as significantly smarter than our mistrusting person, this difference was completely reversed for participants with low degrees of trust in others. Each additional point of participants’ own trust in others on our 1-7 scale was associated with a 0.65-point increase in the difference between our trusting and mistrusting person (p < 0.001).
As an example, a participant with very high trust in others (7 out of 7) would be expected to rate our trusting person 1.69 points smarter than the mistrusting person. However, a participant with very low trust in others (1 out of 7) would rate our trusting person 2.20 points lower than our mistrusting person. The graph below presents the actual ratings of perceived smartness between our trusting and mistrusting persons, by participants’ trust in others.
More details regarding our methodology and statistical analysis can be found here.
Conclusion
The more we trust, the more likely our trust is to be broken. But those who trust can take heart in knowing that others view you positively, at least in the areas of friendliness and trustworthiness itself. The mistrusting are not completely at a loss either. If you’re trying to project an image of competence, showing a healthy dose of skepticism may serve you well.