.png)
Built with insights from behavioral scientists worldwide. Practical learning for leaders responsible for communication and trust
.png)
We're working on getting insights, tools, and techniques straight to your inbox on a weekly basis. No commitment required, we'll reach out again when we're ready to see if you still want to receive weekly emails.
By submitting this form, you agree to receive recurring marketing communications from Piar at the email you provide. To opt out, click unsubscribe at the bottom of our emails. By submitting this form, you also agree to our Terms & Privacy Policy
Trust sits at the core of every announcement, partnership briefing, or internal update. As audiences grow more skeptical and filter information with care, teams benefit from a clear trust check before sending out any message. The framework for assessing trust draws from decades of academic research on organizational trust, credibility perception, and stakeholder relationships.
Roger Mayer, James Davis, and F. David Schoorman's seminal 1995 research in the Academy of Management Review established what remains the most widely validated model of organizational trust. Their integrative framework identified three core components of trustworthiness that stakeholders assess when deciding whether to trust an organization or message: ability, benevolence, and integrity.
Ability refers to the skills, competencies, and characteristics that enable a party to have influence within a specific domain. For communications purposes, this translates to demonstrated expertise and track record. Stakeholders assess whether the organization has the capability to deliver on its commitments, whether past performance supports current claims, and whether the organization can actually execute what it promises.
Benevolence represents the extent to which a trustee is believed to want to do good to the trustor, aside from an egocentric profit motive. In stakeholder relationships, this means perception that the organization genuinely cares about stakeholder interests. Stakeholders evaluate whether the organization considers their wellbeing in its decisions and whether it will sacrifice some self-interest to protect stakeholder welfare.
Integrity involves the trustor's perception that the trustee adheres to a set of principles that the trustor finds acceptable. This includes consistency between words and actions, honest communication, and fair dealing. Stakeholders examine whether organizational behaviors align with stated values and whether they can rely on the organization to keep its word.
A 2023 review of experimental research on organizational trust, published in the Journal of Trust Research by researchers at the University of Arizona, analyzed 119 experimental studies spanning multiple decades. The analysis validated Mayer's three-component framework across diverse organizational contexts and relationship types. The research demonstrated that ability emerged as particularly influential in early-stage relationships, when stakeholders have limited information about an organization's intentions. Benevolence and integrity became more salient as relationships developed over time and stakeholders gained more data points about organizational behavior (Schilke, Powell, & Schweitzer, 2023).
The meta-analysis by Colquitt, Scott, and LePine at the University of Florida synthesized 132 independent studies on trust. Their structural equation modeling found correlation coefficients of 0.67 for ability, 0.63 for benevolence, and 0.67 for integrity in predicting trust levels. The roughly equal importance across all three dimensions suggests that organizations cannot compensate for weakness in one area through strength in another. Stakeholders require adequate levels of all three components to develop genuine trust (Colquitt, Scott, & LePine, 2007).
The research found that these three components predicted trust behaviors and significantly influenced affective commitment. Affective commitment represents desire to maintain a relationship based on emotional attachment and identification with the organization beyond calculated cost-benefit analysis. For long-term stakeholder relationships, this emotional dimension matters as much as rational trust assessment.
Research by Aurifeille and Medlin examining trust dimensions in business relationships found that while credibility (combining honesty, reliability, and expectancy) matters, benevolence proved more strongly associated with relationship performance. Their empirical work in the software industry demonstrated that when managers perceive the other organization as willing to look after their interests and collective wellbeing, relationship outcomes improve measurably. This suggests that for ongoing stakeholder relationships, demonstrating genuine concern for stakeholder welfare may matter more than simply establishing competence (Aurifeille & Medlin, 2009).
The Annual Review of Organizational Psychology published a comprehensive analysis in 2022 examining trust within workplace contexts. The review identified two distinct waves of trust research: Wave 1 established foundational building blocks including the three-component model, while Wave 2 questioned assumptions and examined alternatives such as how trust operates differently in virtual versus in-person settings, how trust forms and evolves in temporary teams, and how trust repair occurs after violations (Dirks & de Jong, 2022).
The research revealed that trust operates through different mechanisms in new relationships versus established ones. Initial trust formation relies heavily on category-based processing where stakeholders use readily available cues like organizational reputation, physical appearance of communications materials, and surface-level demographic similarities to make quick assessments. As relationships develop, stakeholders shift to more individuated processing based on accumulated behavioral evidence and direct interaction history.
For PR practitioners, this progression suggests different communication priorities at different relationship stages. In initial communications to new stakeholder groups, surface-level credibility signals matter considerably. Professional production quality, organizational credentials, third-party endorsements, and transparent attribution of claims all influence category-based trust assessments. As relationships mature, these surface signals become less important relative to demonstrated behavioral consistency, authentic engagement with stakeholder concerns, and follow-through on commitments.
Research from LUT University Finland published in 2021 systematically reviewed 20 years of empirical studies on employee trust repair. The analysis identified specific mechanisms for rebuilding trust after violations: apologies that take appropriate responsibility, denials that are factually accurate and verifiable, explanations that provide legitimate context, and promises accompanied by concrete behavioral changes. The research found that early intervention with trust repair strategies prevents small violations from escalating into larger breaches that become much more difficult to address (Kähkönen et al., 2021).
The trust repair research has direct application to crisis communications and reputation management. Organizations that acknowledge problems promptly, explain what went wrong, take responsibility for their role, and implement visible corrective measures can often maintain or quickly restore stakeholder trust. Those that deny, deflect, or delay acknowledgment allow stakeholder skepticism to harden into entrenched distrust that persists even after eventual acknowledgment and correction.
For each message or campaign plan, gather the project team and assess four elements using a simple scoring approach. These elements align with the academic research on trust components while remaining practical for rapid campaign assessment.
Credibility: The message should draw on legitimate expertise and authoritative sources. Claims need verification through independent evidence, and the messenger should have relevant credentials or track record in this domain. Research demonstrates that credibility assessments happen quickly, often within seconds of initial exposure to a message. Stakeholders use heuristic cues including source expertise, citation of data, acknowledgment of limitations, and transparency about methodology.
A 2024 study from Deakin University examining multidimensional organizational trust in hybrid work environments found that consistent communication emerged as a significant behavioral element of trust. The research validated a new measurement scale showing that communication consistency, defined as regular and predictable information sharing, predicted trust even controlling for message content quality. This suggests that for campaign planning, establishing and maintaining regular communication rhythms matters as much as what specific messages say (Fischer, Walsh, & Harms, 2022).
Reliability: The organization should demonstrate ability to deliver on past commitments through historical performance that supports current promises. Timelines and expectations need to be realistic given organizational capabilities. The research on trust development shows that reliability perceptions accumulate gradually through repeated interactions. Each commitment kept strengthens stakeholder confidence in future promises, while each commitment broken or timeline missed erodes that confidence.
For campaign communications, this means messages need grounding in genuine organizational capability. Stakeholders increasingly fact-check organizational statements against readily available information about past performance. Promises that exceed demonstrated capability trigger skepticism even when technically accurate.
Intimacy: The message should acknowledge stakeholder perspectives and concerns using accessible and familiar language. Examples and references should reflect stakeholder contexts. Research on dialogic communication demonstrates that stakeholders assess whether organizations genuinely understand their situation versus simply broadcasting generic messages.
The concept of intimacy in the trust framework maps onto benevolence in academic research. Both capture stakeholder assessment of whether the organization truly cares about their welfare and perspectives. Messages that demonstrate understanding of stakeholder constraints, acknowledge trade-offs that affect stakeholders, or explicitly consider stakeholder input in decision-making all signal benevolence that builds trust.
Self-Orientation: The message should focus on mutual benefit. Framing should suggest win-win outcomes, and low self-orientation (focus on mutual benefit) strengthens trust by demonstrating benevolence.
Academic research on self-orientation as a trust component shows that stakeholders make rapid assessments about whose interests drive organizational behavior. Messages that lead with organizational achievements, emphasize benefits to the organization, or frame stakeholder actions purely in terms of organizational needs all signal high self-orientation that undermines trust. Messages that lead with stakeholder benefits, acknowledge organizational requests as asks, or explicitly discuss how proposals serve mutual interests all signal lower self-orientation that builds trust.
For each campaign message, teams can score these four elements on a simple one-to-five scale. The scoring process forces specificity about what evidence supports each element. Claiming "we have high credibility" without identifying specific credentials, endorsements, or track record provides no useful guidance for strengthening the message. Noting "our credibility score is three because we have relevant expertise but have not publicly demonstrated it to this stakeholder group" identifies a specific gap to address.
Write down the scores. Any element that lags signals where to pause and make improvements before the message goes wide. If reliability is low, bring in supporting evidence or references from past success. If intimacy reads thin, rewrite with familiar names, clear language, or open-ended questions that invite stakeholder input.
Teams that keep a short log of these checks spot trouble before the public does. Trust audits support stronger campaigns with clearer, more credible results when conducted consistently.
Research from the Islamic Azad University published in International Education Studies examined the relationship between organizational trust and organizational silence. Using structural equation modeling, the research found that organizational trust had direct impacts on organizational commitment (coefficient 0.45) and job satisfaction (0.39), with additional indirect effects through reduced organizational silence. This provides a model for measuring trust's influence on stakeholder engagement behaviors.
When stakeholders trust an organization, they are more likely to provide honest feedback, share concerns proactively, and engage authentically in dialogue. When trust is low, stakeholders stay silent about problems, withhold information, and limit engagement to superficial compliance. For PR campaigns, this means trust assessments can use stakeholder engagement quality as a diagnostic signal. If feedback becomes perfunctory, if questions dry up, if interactions feel forced, these patterns may indicate declining trust that requires attention.
Research demonstrates that trust operates differently across cultural contexts, requiring adaptation of standard frameworks. Studies examining Chinese versus American managers found distinctive configurations of affect-based and cognition-based trust. Chinese managers' guanxi networks showed higher affect-based trust built on personal relationships and emotional bonds, while American managers' professional networks emphasized cognition-based trust grounded in demonstrated competence and reliability.
For global campaigns or communications targeting diverse stakeholder groups, these cultural differences in trust formation have practical implications. In cultures that prioritize relationship-based trust, investing time in personal connection and demonstrated concern for stakeholder welfare may matter more than credentials and data. In cultures that prioritize competence-based trust, emphasizing expertise, evidence, and track record may be more effective than relationship appeals.
Research on how collectivistic versus individualistic cultures process information shows additional relevant patterns. Collectivist cultures tend to consider relational context more heavily when evaluating trust, while individualist cultures focus more on individual attributes and capabilities. Messages need cultural adaptation in trust signaling beyond language translation.
The framework works best as a repeatable process integrated into campaign planning. Teams should conduct trust audits at multiple campaign stages: during initial planning to identify trust-building opportunities, after developing creative concepts to assess whether execution delivers on trust components, and before launch to catch any gaps introduced during final production.
The audit process involves several steps. First, stakeholder segmentation recognizes that different stakeholder groups will assess trust components differently based on their relationship history, priorities, and information sources. Employees evaluate organizational trustworthiness based on direct experience with leadership follow-through. Investors assess based on financial performance and regulatory compliance. Community members focus on organizational impact on local quality of life. The trust audit must specify which stakeholder group's perspective is being assessed.
Second, evidence gathering requires teams to identify specific evidence that would support positive stakeholder assessments for each trust component. What credentials, data, or track record demonstrates ability? What behaviors, policies, or communications signal benevolence? What consistency between words and actions establishes integrity? This evidence-gathering process often reveals gaps where the organization possesses genuine trustworthiness attributes but has not effectively communicated them to stakeholders.
Third, message review assesses how effectively campaign messages communicate trust-supporting information with evidence inventory complete. Research shows that stakeholders evaluate trust based more on demonstrated behavior and verifiable evidence than on direct assertions. Messages that let evidence speak through concrete examples, specific data, and behavioral descriptions build trust more effectively than messages that simply declare trustworthiness.
Fourth, gap remediation requires a strategic choice when audit reveals trust component weaknesses. Can the gap be addressed through communication alone by better highlighting existing evidence of trustworthiness, or does it require behavioral or policy changes to create trustworthiness that does not currently exist? This distinction matters because communication cannot create trust that is not deserved. Attempts to claim trust attributes that organizational behavior does not support will backfire when stakeholders investigate.
Fifth, monitoring and adjustment recognizes that trust perceptions change based on stakeholder experience with the organization. Effective trust audits include post-campaign assessment of whether messages successfully built or maintained trust. This feedback loop allows teams to refine their understanding of which trust signals resonate most strongly with specific stakeholder groups and which fall flat.
A 2024 meta-analysis examining how humans form and maintain trust analyzed data from thousands of participants across multiple studies. The research found that trustworthiness (combining ability, benevolence, and integrity) showed a correlation of 0.47 with measured trust, confirming these components as primary trust antecedents. The study demonstrated that trust propensity (individual disposition to trust) showed a smaller but significant correlation of 0.22, confirming that while personality influences trust levels, situational factors based on actual trustworthiness matter more.
This finding has important implications for PR strategy. Organizations cannot rely on finding naturally trusting stakeholder audiences or cultivating generalized positive sentiment. Trust building requires demonstrating actual trustworthiness through competent performance, genuine concern for stakeholder interests, and behavioral integrity. Marketing communications that attempt to create trust perceptions without corresponding organizational trustworthiness may achieve short-term belief but fail to sustain trust when stakeholders gain more information through direct experience or third-party sources.
Research examining trust in innovation networks found that ability-based trust, benevolence-based trust, and integrity-based trust serve different functions. Ability trust drives whether stakeholders believe the organization can achieve stated objectives. Benevolence trust influences whether stakeholders believe organizational success will benefit them. Integrity trust determines whether stakeholders believe the organization will behave ethically even when not monitored. Campaign messages need to address all three functions.
Trust audits built on validated academic frameworks enable teams to systematically assess and strengthen the credibility of campaign communications. By explicitly evaluating ability, benevolence, and integrity signals in messages, teams can identify and address trust gaps before launch.
For a printable worksheet and clear step-by-step guide, download the free Decision Frameworks for PR Leaders resource at https://www.piar.co/resources.
...
Tanzeel “Tan” Sukhera is the Co-founder & CEO of Piar. Tan is based in Montreal, and has 7 years of experience in Media Monitoring & Social Listening, PR & Comms Measurement, Strategy &Analysis. Through events and workshops, Piar helps PR and communication leaders apply behavioral decision science to real-world campaigns, messaging, and stakeholder work. Learn more or reach out at piar.co.
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/tsukhera/ 👈
