Do we trust others the way we want to be trusted?

Does being trustworthy make you better at trusting others? Or does it just make you more cautious because you know firsthand how easy it is to break trust? Maybe it depends on the context — after all, trust might work one way in an ideal world and another in the hyper-competitive reality of academia.

It’s a question that lingers in the academic world more often than we’d like to admit. Picture this: you’re in a group project, and the professor has carefully curated a team of individuals who, in theory, should work together seamlessly. But in reality, one person does all the heavy lifting, another vanishes until the night before the deadline and the rest contribute just enough to have their names on the final submission. After enough experiences like this, trust stops being the default and becomes something others have to earn. And the irony? While you remain trustworthy, you become more skeptical of others.

Academia is built on trust. We trust that our professors will grade fairly, that our peers won’t plagiarize and that when we collaborate, everyone will pull their weight. But reality doesn’t always work that way. Some students breeze through on others’ efforts, while those who are naturally dependable start questioning whether to take on the full load again or risk trusting their team. A meta-analysis published in the Journal of Applied Psychology examined the relationships between trust, trustworthiness and trust propensity. The study found that individuals who are more trustworthy tend to have higher expectations of others' trustworthiness. When these expectations are unmet, it can lead to decreased trust in future interactions.

Then there’s the trust we place in professors. Unlike student relationships, where trust is fluid and renegotiable, trust in professors feels more rigid. We expect fair grading, constructive feedback and unbiased evaluations. But what happens when a vague rubric, an unexpectedly harsh critique or an inconsistent grading scale shakes that trust? Unlike with peers, there’s an authority dynamic — challenging a professor carries risks, while accepting an unfair grade can feel powerless.

But trust, much like a well-structured research paper, is a two-way street. If you assume the worst in people, you might never give them the chance to prove you wrong. And if you trust too easily, you might find yourself doing all the citations while your classmates take credit for “teamwork.” So where’s the balance?

Maybe trust is like a GPA — it’s earned over time, built on consistency and can be destroyed by one bad semester (or, in this case, one particularly disastrous group project). After enough disappointments, it’s tempting to assume that every academic partnership will end in betrayal. But here’s the thing about teamwork — sometimes, it actually works. And if we refuse to engage at all, we might miss out on those rare moments when collaboration is productive, even enjoyable. Maybe the key isn’t to blindly trust or completely withdraw, but to set boundaries—give people the chance to be reliable, but have a backup plan just in case.

So, is trust directly tied to trustworthiness? In an ideal world, yes. In the academic world? It’s more of a negotiation. Trust isn’t just a fixed equation — it shifts based on context, past experiences and, let’s be honest, how much is at stake. But the way I see it, trusting others is always a risk, much like taking an advanced seminar when you’re not entirely sure you’re ready. Sometimes, you surprise yourself. Other times, you regret everything. But either way, you learn something.

Angarag Gantogoo is a Trinity junior. Her column, "Peopleology," typically runs on alternate Fridays.