Assessing Trust and Trustworthiness

Estimated reading time at 200 wpm: 11 minutes

Yesterday I wrote about ‘Assessing Accountability’. That made me think more about the concept. I included words related to ‘trust’, ‘honesty’ etc.

As I’m writing this I’m having vague recollections of persons in my past asserting that they ‘trust [such and such person] implicitly!!’, whilst waving hands around to get the point across. In public and personal life I think I can safely say that most people know that you can only trust a person within certain limits. Those limits may decided quite rightly at a personal level, or often times at a professional level. 

Trust is not easy to define. If you trust someone it doesn’t have to be 100%. What are you trusting them with? It could be your money, confidential information, your heart, your well-being, safety, health, and even private thoughts and feelings you’d share with few others or no one else etc. You’d expect them to ‘hold water’ – in a manner of speaking. But since trust can’t be 100% across all aspects of things, you may say, “Well, I’d trust Mr X with this bit but not with that bit“.  There is a kind of trust where you know that the ‘other’ will be almost 100% honest. That sort of honesty can be painful but useful. The parties know that there is nothing personal in any ‘discomfort’ delivered. The honesty which is valued strengthens the trust.

There may be a small handful of people you could trust highly with most things, to say about 90 or 95%. A deep and meaningful trust is a good feeling. For both parties in a sound relationship of trust, they are stronger. I could easily veer into ‘friendship’ but that’s a rather complicated concept – unless of course you’re a Facebook or WhatsApp addict!

The conversation between Tucker and Riker is informative of a trust that Tucker feels with his Captain Archer (Star Trek Enterprise S4 Ep22). If you just read a transcript of what Tucker says, it would not be the same. The intonations and non-verbals, tell much. Capt Archer is a difficult man at times, and he’d haul Tucker over the coals on occasions. But Tucker knows deep in himself that he can trust Archer. It is a very deep sort of trust.

The Fabric of Trust

It’s a very broad picture I’m painting, so I’m unable to stop to explore minor exceptions. I’m not going to go into all the things that we may trust people to do or not do – it’s not essential to this exploration.

But I’m thinking what is this ‘trust’ about. I think that at the end of the day, it is about carrying out some actions, service or performance – that is what all humans rely on others for. When we ‘trust’ people, we depend on them to do certain things that are in our interests – or not to do things that are against our better interests.

Honesty and transparency are widely regarded as the foundational blocks of trust in any friendship. This perspective holds significant weight, yet the nature of trust reveals itself to be a rich tapestry woven from multiple, interconnected threads.

At its core, trust is a profound belief in the reliability, integrity, and benevolent intentions of another. It represents a willingness to be vulnerable, to place something of value—be it personal information, emotional well-being, or reliance on another’s actions—into someone else’s hands with the expectation that it will be handled with care.

The Philosophical Lens: A Calculated Leap of Faith

Philosophers have long debated the nature of trust. Many see it as a rational calculation, a prediction based on past behaviour and available evidence. An individual trusts a friend to keep a secret because that friend has proven to be discreet in the past. In this view, honesty and transparency are crucial data points in a risk assessment.

However, other philosophical perspectives suggest that trust transcends mere calculation. It involves a leap of faith, a willingness to believe in someone’s goodwill even in the absence of complete information. This is where the emotional and relational aspects of trust come into play. It is not just about knowing a friend is honest; it is about feeling secure in their presence.

The Psychological Scaffolding: Building Trust Brick by Brick

Psychology offers a more granular view of how trust is constructed and maintained within friendships. An emphasis on honesty and transparency aligns perfectly with the initial stages of trust development. Without a baseline of truthful communication, the foundation is weak and prone to collapse.

A comprehensive framework for understanding the components of trust has been popularised by researcher and author Brené Brown. Her acronym, BRAVING, offers a multifaceted perspective on what it takes to build and maintain trust:

• Boundaries: Respecting another’s boundaries is a clear signal of respect and a cornerstone of trust. It demonstrates that each person is seen as a separate individual with their own needs and limits.
• Reliability: This is about doing what one says they will do, consistently. It is the repeated proof that a person is dependable.
• Accountability: Owning mistakes, apologizing, and making amends is crucial. This shows a willingness to take responsibility for one’s actions and their impact on the friendship.
• Vault: This speaks directly to the idea of confidentiality. What is shared in confidence must be kept in the “vault.” Gossiping or sharing information that is not one’s own to share is a swift destroyer of trust.
• Integrity: This is about choosing courage over comfort; choosing what is right over what is fun, fast, or easy; and practicing stated values, not just professing them. It is about being true to one’s word and acting in a way that is consistent with one’s beliefs.
• Non-judgment: Being able to ask for help and share vulnerabilities without fear of judgment is a key component of a trusting friendship. It creates a safe space for authenticity.
• Generosity: Assuming the most generous thing about another person’s words, intentions, and behaviour is a powerful practice. It means giving them the benefit of the doubt.

The Nuances of Honesty and Transparency

While honesty and transparency are undeniably critical, it is also important to acknowledge their complexities. Unfiltered, “brutal” honesty can sometimes be weaponised, causing harm rather than fostering closeness. The delivery of a truth matters. Transparency, too, has its limits. A healthy friendship does not require the complete disclosure of every thought and feeling. Each individual is entitled to a private inner world.

Therefore, the initial assertion that honesty and transparency are foundational is a powerful and accurate starting point. They are the essential mortar that binds the initial blocks of trust. They create the primary sense of safety and predictability. However, for that foundation to support a deep and lasting friendship, it must be reinforced by the other pillars of trust: reliability, accountability, the sanctity of confidentiality, integrity in action, a non-judgmental stance, and a spirit of generosity. In essence, trust is an ongoing practice, a continuous process of building and rebuilding through a multitude of conscious and caring actions.

Needs

The idea that the mutual exchange of needs is a core part of building trust is not just an addition to the other components; it can be seen as the dynamic, living process through which those components are demonstrated and proven.

While qualities like honesty, reliability, and integrity (as captured in the BRAVING framework) are essential characteristics of a trustworthy person, the active fulfillment of needs is how trustworthiness is experienced in a relationship. It is the verb to trust’s noun.

I draw on key psychological concepts.

Attachment Theory: Needs as the Basis for Security

Pioneering psychologist John Bowlby’s attachment theory, initially focused on infants and caregivers, provides a powerful model for adult relationships. A child develops a secure attachment (and thus, foundational trust) with a caregiver who reliably and sensitively responds to their needs for safety, comfort, and nourishment. This caregiver becomes a “secure base.”

In adult friendships and romantic partnerships, the same principle applies. When a person consistently shows up to meet another’s core emotional needs—for comfort in times of distress, for celebration in times of joy, for reassurance when insecure—they become a source of psychological safety. This consistent meeting of needs proves, through action, that they are a reliable and caring presence. Trust, in this sense, is the felt security that one’s needs will be seen and met with care.

Interdependence and Social Exchange: The Evidence of Benevolence

Interdependence theory and social exchange theory view relationships as a dynamic of give and take. While this may sound transactional, at its core, it’s about mutual care. A need being met is a profound benefit or “reward” in a relationship.

When this exchange is reciprocal and balanced over time, it builds trust on two levels:

• Reliability: It demonstrates that the other person is a dependable partner who will contribute to one’s well-being.
• Benevolence: It proves that the other person genuinely cares for one’s welfare and is motivated to act in their best interest. They aren’t just acting out of obligation, but out of a sincere desire to see the other person happy and supported.

This consistent, benevolent meeting of needs is some of the strongest evidence one can gather that a person is truly trustworthy.

Vulnerability: The Gateway to Deeper Trust

The exchange of needs begins with a profound act of vulnerability. To articulate a need (“I’m feeling lonely,” “I need help with this,” “I feel broken now.”) is to expose a part of oneself. It is an implicit act of trust to even make the request.

The response to this vulnerable act is a critical moment.

• If the need is met with understanding, generosity, and non-judgment, a powerful message is sent: “Your vulnerability is safe here. Your needs matter.” This reinforces and deepens trust immensely.
• If the need is dismissed, ignored, or ridiculed, the message is equally powerful: “Your needs are a burden. You are not safe to be vulnerable.” This is a fundamental breach that severely erodes trust.

Therefore, the mutual exchange of needs is a continuous loop of vulnerability and response. Each successful cycle strengthens the bond and solidifies trust in a way that passive observation cannot.

Needs as the Engine of Trust

The components of the BRAVING acronym (Boundaries, Reliability, Accountability, etc.) are the essential qualities of a trustworthy person and the rules of engagement for a trusting relationship.

The mutual exchange and fulfillment of needs is the active process through which these qualities are demonstrated and proven over time. It is how reliability is shown, how integrity is put into practice, and how generosity is expressed. Trust is indeed a need, and it is built and sustained by the beautiful, reciprocal dance of meeting the other needs inherent in being human and connected.

Trust must be connected closely to our ‘needs’ – and to a lesser extent our ‘wants’ (no exploration of what distinguishes the two today – and I warn time-wasters, not to get on the wrong side of me. Google is your friend, not me!. What are our ‘needs’? I also waste no time on this – please see and (Google) Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs and various related matters. And this is not to suggest that I think that’s the end of what ‘needs’ means.

So, having given some idea of what ‘needs’ may be, it’s now possible to appreciate better that if we trust someone or some entity, we come to expect that they may take care of some of our needs or not threaten them.

Overview

Life however is complicated. People are sometimes not 100% trustworthy – in fact that is the rule because ‘the humans’ are fallible and weak, individually or in their numbers. The level of trust we put in some person or entity may vary from time to time and by a range of factors, too many to explore here.

Patterns of conduct and performance are what lead us to induce or score people/entities as predictable in certain ways. We can then ‘trust’ that they will say or do a certain thing – within a fair margin of probability. The humans like life to be predictable because they are very intolerant of stress and anxiety (but they put on quite a brave face outwardly).  So ‘trust’ depends on patterns of performance.

If you’re employing someone to work on the plumbing in your home you would want to know, they are qualified, competent, will do what’s required in reasonable time, stick to their cost estimates, not endanger your household, damage your property or steal from you. Anything that alerts you to weaknesses in any of the latter, leads you to lower your reliability rating of them before they take up the job.

But in life it’s often not always possible to immediately trust someone. Accountability and trust may come after performance is seen. This is where the person/entity who is ‘accountable’ becomes readily open to scrutiny and relishes their performance being inspected or even probed.

To sum up, ‘accountability and ‘trustworthiness’ must go hand in hand. I cannot see one without the other. Mutual satisfaction and respect for needs are other cornerstones of trust.