Last updated: 9 March 2026

III. The Science of Trust

Trust is not a fixed concept, its meaning shifts across disciplines depending on context, purpose, and assumptions (McKnight & Chervany, 2001, p. 53). From a psychological perspective, trust is often conceptualised in terms of the trustor’s disposition—that is, the individual who places trust—or as a personality trait. Sociology asserts that trust is contingent upon institutional strength. Economics frames it as a rational choice or a mechanism for reducing transactional costs. Social psychology describes trust as grounded in an assessment of another’s trustworthiness (McKnight & Chervany, 2001, p. 41). Across these disciplines, trust is widely recognised as a “psychological state” based on optimistic expectations of the trustee’s actions—that is, the person in whom trust is placed (Rousseau et al., 1998, p. 395).

There are two principal forms of trust. Cognition-based trust refers to the trustor’s rational assessment of the trustees competence, reliability and dependability, which typically develops early in a relationship. Affective-based trust, on the other hand, is characterised by a more subjective assessment of the trustee’s benevolence and concern for the trustor, which develops as a relationship matures (McAllister, 1995, pp. 25, 28).

Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman further refine the concept by identifying three dimensions of perceived trustworthiness: ability, benevolence, and integrity. Ability refers to the trustee’s competence in performing a task; benevolence reflects the trustee’s goodwill toward the trustor; and integrity involves adherence to principles acceptable to the trustor (1995, p. 717). These dimensions help explain why trust may vary across contexts and individuals.

Trust also evolves through identifiable stages. Lewicki and Bunker outline a developmental model beginning with calculus-based trust, where individuals choose to cooperate based on a rational calculation of expected benefits versus potential costs. As interactions become more predictable, knowledge-based trust emerges, grounded in familiarity and reliability. In long-term relationships, identification-based trust may form, where parties internalise each other’s values and goals, fostering deep mutual understanding (1995, p. 147).

In one-time transactions, trust is most commonly based on an assessment of potential loss versus promised gain, weighted by any risk factors. In on-going relationships, the focus shifts to considerations of the degree and specific areas where trust may be afforded (Rousseau et al., 1998, p. 398). For example, one may trust a dog to guard their home or their children but not a ham sandwich.

For trust to provide value, two essential conditions must exist: Firstly, there must be an element of risk, where the trustor faces potential loss, damage or injury which could be avoided by not engaging with the trustee. Secondly, some form of interdependence, such as the need for the trustor to depend on the trustee to achieve a specific objective for the trustor (Williamson, 1993, p. 463). This combination results in vulnerability making trust a meaningful substitute for control (Rousseau et al., 1998, p. 395). Some studies contend that trust thrives most effectively in environments marked by low levels of control (Achrol, 1997, p. 65).

Based on this concise understanding of trust and its elements, the following definition can be extrapolated:

Trust is the willingness of one party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other party will execute a particular action crucial to the trusting party, irrespective of the trustor’s ability to monitor or control the trusted party (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995, p. 712).

In contrast, distrust is the absence of trust and may result in a confident negative expectation of another’s conduct which can jeopardise future transactions (Lewicki & Bunker, 1995, p. 147). While distrust reflects a general expectation of negative conduct, a direct breach of trust may produce more acute psychological effects.

In both interpersonal and organisational contexts, broken trust is known to elicit feelings of anger, sadness, and disorientation, particularly when the violation occurs within a relationship marked by dependence or vulnerability. These reactions can reflect the disruption of expected outcomes and/or the loss of perceived safety (Brooks & Montgomery, 2024, p. 3).

Trust-breakers may also experience emotional consequences, most notably guilt and regret, especially when the breach conflicts with internal moral standards or damages valued relationships. Sun et al. found that expressions of genuine remorse can positively influence trust repair, whereas strategic or insincere apologies tend to reinforce distrust (2025, p. 1037).

These findings indicate that trust is not merely an intellectual construct, it is embedded in the emotional fabric of human interaction, and its violation can carry measurable psychological costs for both parties.