How Do You Build Public Trust? Realize One Size Does Not Fit All.
The idea of “custom-building” trustworthiness is meant to convey two ideas:
- Acceptance and understanding of differences across people and contexts
- The need for effort and feedback to ensure appropriate adjustments
Custom-building refers to a process of making adaptations to meet the specific needs or desires that various people may experience in various contexts.
Elsewhere, we defined trust as a “willingness to be vulnerable,” based on perceptions of trustworthiness, which are in turn related to the reduction of risks. If we add to this the recognition that vulnerability is inherently subjective and that different people will experience different vulnerabilities, this likely means that the characteristics and actions needed to accept those vulnerabilities (i.e., the elements of trustworthiness) will also differ. There is some evidence for this perspective in the literature. For example, a study by Mariska Kappmeier (2017)1 found different facets of trustworthiness predicted trust among Black and white Bostonians. Specifically, the perception of integrity was most important for predicting trust in the police by white citizens. Meanwhile, among Black citizens, perceptions of compassion and compatibility were the best predictors. These differences suggest that groups having different vulnerabilities use different criteria to evaluate a target’s “worthiness” to be trusted.
How Do You Custom-Build Trustworthiness?
Building trustworthiness that “fits” a specific population requires effort. That effort includes thinking through how those specific groups think about their salient vulnerabilities. Below we will explore some questions which may be helpful to ponder, as well as some potential answers. You can also print the “customizing trustworthiness worksheet” for reflection and group discussion among your team. Note that some of the questions are difficult to answer without engaging with the populations you seek to have trust you.
Because different populations may have different vulnerabilities, thinking through those vulnerabilities is likely to be more manageable if you separately consider each group that you wish to engage.
Do you intend to engage “the general public?” Marginalized groups? Which marginalized groups? Court users? What types of court users? Neighborhood leaders? What types of leaders, and who do they serve?
Do you want them to trust you to control crime? To protect rights? To ensure justice in process or justice in outcomes? To listen to them? To do your job?
Usually, when we want people to trust us, it is because their trust leads them to behave differently. Why do you want people to trust you? What would they do if they trusted you? Would they attend your public engagements? Follow your directives? Not protest against you? Work collaboratively with you on specific issues? Respect your efforts?
What are the potential risks or harms that the population cares about? In what ways do they feel that your actions could hurt them?
For example, are the potential harms they could experience physical, material, emotional? Do they primarily impact individuals or communities? Do the courts actually control those risks, only seem to control them, or are they actually controlled by other entities altogether?
What would it look like to the public if you were worthy of being entrusted with their vulnerability? How would they know you are worthy of trust in contexts where they feel vulnerable and which they care deeply about (like contexts involving their families)? What does it mean to demonstrate ability, benevolence, integrity in how you handle vulnerability for this population? Is your trustworthiness expressed in direct experiences with you or vicarious experiences through media, friends, family?
The public may not be aware of what the courts can and cannot do, and some creativity might be required to be responsive to their vulnerabilities within current court contexts. How could you adjust your processes, outcomes, or messaging? What can you NOT do? Can you employ help from others to do the things that are important to the public, and which you cannot do yourself?
It is also important to consider what aspects of the trustor, context, and previous experiences are likely to get in the way of building trust as you have outlined above, and who else you may need at the table to help. For example, are there important previous events in need of acknowledgement for some individuals or communities? Are there important social barriers (norms, culture, etc.)? Do you need to ask for additional collaborators to do the things you/your court can not do?
[1] Kappmeier, M. (2017). Trust and Challenges in Policing – Trust differences between minority and majority communities in their police. Paper presented at the International Society for Political Psychology, Edinburgh.