Hot Take #6 Is trust really a mathematical equation?
What’s the reason most people mention for wanting to leave their job? Not trusting their employer or its leadership. What quality do you value in a friend more than any other? Maybe trustworthiness is between them ?
Now think about the people you can trust for help in your personal or professional life. How many would you count? Most probably, it will be a sad “I’ll laugh about this in therapy” kind of number.
The good news? Apparently, you can think of trust as a mathematical equation. That means you can do something about it and influence the result. According to Cowley and Purse:
“The trust equation suggests that the degree to which we are trusted by others is a function of four factors, three of which contribute positively towards how well we are trusted, and one negatively.”
The equation states that there are three positive factors: credibility, reliability, and intimacy. The higher these are, the more trustworthy we are perceived to be.
Credibility refers to how much people believe in us. If people generally see us as believable and convincing then we have credibility with them.
Reliability is the quality of performing consistently well. Is the extent to which people see us as reliable and dependable.
Intimacy refers to the closeness of the relationship people feel they can have with us.
In the equation, there is a fourth factor that can have a negative impact on trust. The degree of how trustworthy we are is based on the sum of the three positive factors divided by how much others perceive us to be self-oriented.
Self-orientation refers to how much people detect in us an attitude of self-centredness and focus on our own agenda and goals.
To sum it up, what this equation is trying to tell is that to build trust, we must increase our levels of credibility, reliability, and intimacy while seriously reducing levels of self-orientation.
But can trust really be summed up to the result of this equation?
A major criticism of the data and ‘science’ behind the Trust Equation is that the researchers rely on self-assessments which are susceptible to biases.
Another limit of this tool is the lack of accuracy in the interpretation of the dimensions. Let’s take Credibility ! It’s past reputation always relevant or reliable? For example, most recent research shows reputation only matters when it comes to trust if the circumstances are pretty much the same. So the right assesment is not to rely on reputation but to examine current motives and incentives.
Want more? Let’s look also at how some may interpret Self-Orientation in relation with the same old debate giving trust from the start vs earning trust. Studies show expecting others to be selfish can be a self-fulfilling prophecy: “those who expect people to act selfishly, actually experience uncooperative behaviour from others more often.”
Besides the subjective interpretations that may appear, the name “equation” also implies it has the workings of a mathematical equation which is highly problematic for such a complex combination of social elements.
So rather than talking about the science behind it , it might be more useful to apply this as a conceptual model. Or maybe like a Map vs Territory model given the real complexity of trust :-)
“In the early 1900s, as the London underground transport system was booming, commuters still struggled to understand how to get from A to B.
The original underground map was 'realistic', though obviously a representation of reality, it still tended to leave people confused. Then, in 1931, a draftsperson named Harry Beck came up with an alternative that embraced a conceptual representation rather than even trying to represent geographic reality. He let go of locational accuracy — deleting rivers, parks and shifting locations — and created a diagram to empower people to quickly get from A to B. It was adopted in 1933 and it's usefulness to commuters has seen Beck's approach adopted globally.”
The learning here is that any map describes a conceptual understanding of a territory. Maps, by definition, focus on some elements and not others, represent reality and omit a lot in the process, can be outdated, and are open to interpretation. Similarly, all Mental Models are simplified representations of what they attempt to represent.
The Map vs Territory is a reminder that our Mental Models and simplified understanding of reality, while often useful and essential for us to take action in a complex world, they are ultimately incomplete and inaccurate representations of reality.
My challenge for you
Initially, this equation was thought as a function of four factors, three of which contribute positively towards how well we are trusted, and one negatively. My invite to you is to try to make your very own trust equation that applies to you.
How to do that?
Step 1: Think of what are the 3 most important factors for you in order to trust a person?
Step 2: Now do the opposite and think of what is the most important factor that makes you lose trust in a person.
Step 3: Give each factor a rating between 1 to 5.
Step 4: Replace the factors in the initial equation with your very own factors.
< The sum of the 3 most important factors for you in order to trust a person / (divided by) the most important factor that makes you lose trust in a person >
Step 5: What is the equation telling you when you look at it concerning what’s important for you in a trusting relationship? Does it still apply that the higher the result is, the more trustworthy we perceive the person we are evaluating against the equation? Just please note that this exercise doesn't have any scientific research behind it, so treat it purely as curious “experiment”!
And if I made you curious, please explore the rest of the fun facts and resources down below
📚️ Recommendations worth exploring
➡️ To read on your commute to work
The assumption is that if you make someone happy, they are going to be more likely to trust you only works if they are already predisposed to trust you, Lount said.
Contrary to lay wisdom, this research shows that high trusters were significantly better than low trusters at detecting lies.
Humans can identify permanent altruistic dispositions in 20's. As this mechanism raises opportunities for selective interactions between altruists, these findings are discussed with respect to their relevance for explaining the evolution of altruism through assortment.
Some very interesting lie-detection research has been done by Paul Ekman. His research was the inspiration for the show Lie to Me.
Do women trust women or men more? What about the other way around?During an experiment where subjects make their choices, first with a completely unknown partner and then a partner of known gender (or vice versa), it was found limited influence for gender information on trust behavior.
➡️ For the bookworms: Trust Factor by Paul Zak
➡️ Binge-eating while binge-watching
Trust is the foundation for everything we do. But what do we do when it's broken? In an eye-opening talk, Harvard Business School professor Frances Frei gives a crash course in trust: how to build it, maintain it and rebuild it -- something she worked on during a recent stint at Uber. "If we can learn to trust one another more, we can have unprecedented human progress," Frei says.
➡️ For podcast lovers
We have to be vulnerable in order to build trust in our relationships. But as Jacob Morgan says, “Vulnerability for leaders is not the same as it is for everybody else.”
In this episode of Think Fast, Talk Smart, Morgan shares his “vulnerable leadership equation” and how leaders can use it to transform the way they interact with others — creating more trust, unlocking people’s potential, and building successful teams and organizations.
He explains that owning up to your mistakes and struggles might make you vulnerable, but it doesn’t necessarily make you a leader. Leading with vulnerability goes a step further, saying, “Here's what I learned from the mistake that I made [and] steps that I'm going to put into place to make sure this doesn't happen again.”
➡️Laugh & learn
🤝Let’s work together!
When you are ready, here's how I can support you:
See you again next time, with another hot take 🔥
If you’re hungry for even more content, you can follow me on Facebook & Instagram.