3 min · free · no account

Trust Test — Your Baseline Faith in People

Fifteen items separating general goodwill toward people from earned guardedness, and both from what you assume about motives when something is ambiguous.

Original scale

Items: 15
Time: 3 min
Scales: 3
Scale: 5-pt

Free, no account needed. Your answers are not shared.

You'll find out: Your baseline assumption about people's motives, and whether your caution comes from experience or just your default.

Want to understand what you’re about to do? The sections below explain what this assessment measures, where the questions came from, and what you’ll see at the end. Already decided? The start button is up top.

What this is really asking

Generalized trust — your default expectation about strangers — is one of the more consequential dispositions a person carries, and it is measured badly by asking whether you trust people, which invites either a flattering answer or a cynical one. This assessment separates three strands that behave differently.

Baseline goodwill covers your starting assumption about people you do not know. Guardedness covers protective caution, which is often earned rather than dispositional; it rises after specific experiences and does not necessarily indicate low goodwill. Motive charity covers what you assume when someone's behavior is ambiguous — whether an unanswered message reads as busy or as deliberate.

Motive charity is the strand that does most of the work in daily life, because most interpersonal situations are ambiguous and the reading you default to shapes your response before you have any actual information. High goodwill with low motive charity is a common and uncomfortable combination: believing people are broadly decent while reliably interpreting specific ambiguous acts as slights.

Trust is not a virtue to maximize. The research on generalized trust shows higher trust correlates with better outcomes on average — more cooperation, larger networks, better wellbeing — but people high in trust are also more exposed to exploitation, and low guardedness after repeated betrayal is not resilience. Well-calibrated trust means updating on evidence, which is a different thing from trusting more.

The parts it pulls apart

Baseline Goodwill — Assuming decency until shown otherwise
Guardedness — Walls built from past betrayal
Motive Charity — How you read other people's reasons

What lands on your screen at the end

You get three scores charted with an interpretation of each, plus a read on the combination — high goodwill alongside low motive charity is the pattern most worth knowing about, and a single trust score would hide it entirely.

Guardedness is charted inversely, with the interpretation noting that some guardedness is appropriate calibration rather than a deficit, particularly where it followed a specific experience.

Where these questions came from

Generalized trust research

Rotter, J. B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality, 35(4), 651–665. Yamagishi, T., & Yamagishi, M. (1994). Trust and commitment in the United States and Japan. Motivation and Emotion, 18(2), 129–166.

This version: An original 15-item scale drawing on the generalized trust literature, scored across three sub-dimensions. Not the Interpersonal Trust Scale.

For self-reflection and education. No account is required and your answers are not shared.

Common questions

What is generalized trust?

Your default expectation about people you do not personally know — whether the unfamiliar person is assumed to be broadly decent until shown otherwise. It is distinct from trust in specific individuals, which is built on evidence. Generalized trust varies widely between people and between countries, and it predicts cooperation, network size and reported wellbeing.

Is it better to be more trusting?

On average, with a real caveat. Higher generalized trust is associated with better social and health outcomes, partly because trusting people enter more cooperative situations and partly because they are better at reading who is trustworthy. But high trust with low discrimination increases exposure to exploitation. The goal is calibration — updating on evidence — rather than a higher score.

Why do I assume the worst about people's motives?

Usually a combination of past experience and the fact that ambiguity requires a default, and a suspicious default is cheaper to be wrong about in the short term. Assuming indifference and being wrong costs you a relationship slowly; assuming goodwill and being wrong can cost you immediately. This test separates that ambiguity-reading habit from your general view of people, because the two often disagree.

Can trust be rebuilt after betrayal?

Trust in a specific person and generalized trust rebuild on different timescales. Specific trust responds to consistent behavior over time and to the other person taking the breach seriously. Generalized trust moves more slowly and often needs experiences with people unconnected to the original breach, since the mechanism is accumulating counter-evidence rather than resolving the original event.