The Foundation of Trust

Bernecker, S., & Grundmann, T. (2026). How communicative trust shapes cognitive trust. Frontiers               in Communication, 1–8.

 Trust is the starting point for any conversation. Cognitive trust. Believing a person knows what they’re talking about and that they aren’t actively trying to deceive you. Communicative trust entails that a person's communication is human-centered. Grice’s conversational maxims: Quality- make sure your speech is true. Quantity- giving the right amount of information. Not too much, not too little. Relation- being relevant to the topic at hand. Manner- being clear, avoiding obscurity, and being orderly. Use plain language. When you communicate with highly technical words, people can tune you out. Using these builds trust over time. Emotional resonance. If organizations want to master cognitive trust, they must master communicative trust.

 

Cheng, Y., & Shen, H. (2021). Decisions to react after mass shootings: Exploring Negative affect,                     Relational  Trust, and public behavioral intentions toward the National Rifle Association.                           Journal  of Applied Communication Research, 50(1), 19–36.

This research was done after the Parkland, Florida school shooting regarding stakeholder trust in the National Rifle Association. Due to public pressure, many long-standing partners of the NRA began to pull out. The literature reviewed breaks down human reaction into two pillars of perception: negative affect and relational trust. The time to build trust in your stakeholders is before the crisis. This aligns with previous research. If stakeholders' prior relationship with an organization is positive, it is likely that during a crisis, the organization’s reputation will not be harmed. Also, before communicating with stakeholders, we need to understand their values, and during a crisis, we need to meet their emotional needs in crisis communication.

 

Fiveable. (2024). Dialogic Theory – Intro to Public Relations. https://fiveable.me/introduction-public-           relations/key-terms/dialogic-theory

           Dialogic Theory suggests that stakeholders should be treated as active participants and that                        organization should encourage dialogue between organizations and stakeholders. One-way                        broadcasts messaging is the opposite of Dialogic Theory.

 

Greenwood, M., & Buren III, H. (2010). Trust and Stakeholder Theory: Trustworthiness in the                         Organisation- Stakeholder Relationship. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(3), 425–438.

 This scholarship discussed organization-stakeholder relationships. Three elements of trust: rational prediction of outcomes compared with risk, emotion, and ethical obligation not to abuse trust. Three elements of trustworthiness: ability, benevolence, and integrity. The reputation of an organization, based on previous behavior, can mitigate risks in the future. Effective, honest communication can position an organization to gain its stakeholders' trust. If stakeholders are used to personal, direct, and immediate contact with an organization, then, when met with social reporting, standardized, or time-delayed messaging, they may begin to distrust an organization. Also, trust and distrust don’t necessarily go hand in hand. Trust and distrust are on a split continuum.

 

Grissom, J. A., & Condon, L. (2021). Leading Schools and Districts in Times of Crisis. Educational                Reseacher, 50(5), 315-324.

 Disasters will happen, they are no longer rare and organizations have to be prepared before the disaster strikes. Crisis management isn’t just reacting. It starts with mitigation, preparedness, response, recovery, and learning. Leaders need three core competencies to be effective during a crisis. Analysis- making rapid sound decisions. Communication- speaking transparently.  Emotional Intelligence- managing your own stress and showing empathy to others.

             

Lee, H., & Jahng, M. R. (2020). The Role of Storytelling in Crisis Communication: A Test of Crisis                 Severity, Crisis Responsibility, and Organizational Trust. Journalism & Mass Communication                 Quarterly, 97(4), 981–1002.

 Narrative Engagement Theory can override reasonable logic. Fictitious CEO letters were presented to a test group. They manipulated the apology letter. Personal apology versus fact-based letter. They also manipulated who was at fault for the crisis. Internal versus external. Situational Crisis Communication Theory. Can narrative override logic? The personal letters humanized the brand and built trust with the readers. Vulnerability can shield accountability. The authors were able to prove that as humans, we can rewrite a story in our heads to meet our emotional needs. However, companies shouldn’t do that. If a company uses emotional storytelling for a crisis, the public can eventually grow to see right through that trick. The narrative can’t obscure the truth. You have to tell people the damage and how to recover. Authentic communication demands honesty.

 

Liou, Y.-H. (2015). School Crisis Management: A Model of Dynamic Responsiveness to Crisis Life                Cycle: A Model of Dynamic Responsiveness to Crisis Life Cycle. Educational Administration                 Quarterly, 51(2), 247-289.

 This research studies an accidental student death on campus and the schools response to the crisis. They suggest a dynamic responsiveness model which blends chaos and complexity theories identifying crisis management as nonlinear. The study suggests three core aspects: flexibility, collaboration, and self-correcting mechanisms. The article argues that while a crisis handbook is nice and most certainly should be available, organizations have to be prepared for the unexpected, where the handbook may not indicate how to react. When the school district couldn’t reach their central office staff, they called neighboring schools and asked for help. They were able to improvise and pivot very quickly. You won’t always be able to follow the rule book, when things don’t go as planned.

 

M., B. (2024). Crisis communication and public trust: insights from social media use in Kazakhstan.               Bulletin of the L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University. Journalism Series, 148(3), 85–99. 

 When a crisis hits, where does the public go for information? Over half of the public goes to social media when an event occurs. However, a huge majority still go to traditional media. In the middle of a massive emergency, the audiences are split between traditional media and social media. Public attitudes harden quickly during a crisis if they aren’t being accurately informed. The “golden hour” of informing people is gone, because social media is moving at the speed of light. The public views organizations as being closed off and not a source of two-way communication. Asymmetrical communication- when an organization drafts a highly polished, defensive statement, broadcasts it, then turns off their communication. The public wants a conversation during a crisis, not announcements. Don’t ignore comments and actively choose not to interact with comments. The public assumes silence as mistrust. You can’t automate empathy. A crisis gives your organization an opportunity for transformation. If an organization handles a crisis with empathy, transparency, and physical presence, it can gain more trust after the crisis with the public than before. During a crisis, it forces an organization to prove who they are, in real time. You have to manage the narrative, or the public will think you aren’t managing the crisis. The crowd isn’t going to wait for your heavily crafted press release. You have a matter of minutes to get your voice heard. Be ready for a genuine two-way dialogue. Engage with the comments. Never underestimate being physically present.

 

McLean, H., & Power, M. R. (2014). When minutes count: Tension and trust in the relationship                     between  emergency managers and the media. Journalism, 15(3), 307–325.

When people face danger, they immediately start searching for information to validate their feelings. They turn to all different forms of media and depend on their accuracy, reliability, and timeliness. This communication plays a huge part during a crisis. When the media prioritizes speed over accuracy, mistakes can happen. Rescue efforts can be delayed, as was the case with Hurricane Katrina. Journalists get impatient during a crisis and go rogue. Emergency managers witness this, then withhold information from the media. To bridge this gap, both sides have to build trust.

Goal-based trust. Calculative trust. Respect-based trust. Knowledge-based trust. Rooted in familiarity and predictability. Takes time. You can manufacture this trust during a disaster. It must be established before the crisis. Don’t wait until a storm hits before you exchange business cards. Interpersonal. Not business.

 

Melewar, T. C., Foroudi, P., Gupta, S., Kitchen, P. J., & Foroudi, M. M. (2017). Integrating identity,              strategy and communications for trust, loyalty and commitment. European Journal of                                   Marketing, 51(3), 572–604.

 This research discusses how brands convey trustworthiness; however, the communication process for building trust with stakeholders can be applied across different categories. The organization has to be consistent in its messaging and branding to build trust with its stakeholders, which leads them to become loyal followers. Controlled communications can promote a positive image, while uncontrolled communication can have a detrimental impact on how the organization is perceived.

 

Reveilhac, M., & Boomgaarden, H. (2026). News Media and Citizens’ Trust Toward Authorities in                Times of Crisis. International Journal of Press/Politics, 31(3), 660–685.

Trust is subjective. Multilevel modeling allows you to gather a full perspective of stakeholders' trust and how it fluctuates over time. From a macro perspective, this study identified when a person’s trust broke down or declined. When a person’s risk perception heightens, their trust drops. A person’s trust isn’t linear; it feeds on risk perception. In this case, the media provides information to either build or break their trust.

Isolation builds paranoia and distrust. However, constant communication, even during a crisis, can build trust, knowing that you aren’t alone.

 

Schiavo, R., Eyal, G., Obregon, R., Quinn, S. C., Riess, H., & Boston-Fisher, N. (2022). The science              of trust: future directions, research gaps, and implications for health and risk communication. J                 Journal of Communication in Healthcare, 15(4), 245–259.

 You have to build an ecosystem of trust. Trust is heavily connected to empathy, honesty, compassion, and morality. We have to be sure that the work we do in communications ensures trust. We don’t build trust by demanding it. It’s not something that happens overnight. If stakeholders aren’t used to hearing from an organization on a somewhat regular basis, the stakeholders aren’t going to trust the organization when a crisis occurs. Trust has to be built over time. In the field of communication, there is no “magic bullet” approach. You can’t expect to push messages to the community and stakeholders and realistically expect them to respond favorably to you in a season of uncertainty, when they didn’t have a relationship with you prior.

             

Seeger, M. W., Heyart, B., Barton, E. A., & Bultnyck, S. (2001). Crisis Planning and Crisis                                 Communication in the Public Schools: Assessing Post Columbine Responses.                                                 Communication Research Reports, 18(4), 375–383.

 While leaders used to think violence was kept out of school and seen as a social problem, they quickly realized that their school buildings needed a safety plan in place. After the Columbine crisis, Michigan began to mandate crisis plans for all its schools. Bigger schools had a lot of work to do, and smaller schools were able to see gaps in the crisis plans as well. However, the crisis plans were only as good as the leaders writing them. They also began to realize that this wasn’t something that one department or organization could do on their own. They needed all stakeholders at the table to offer their input. They understood that collaboration was the most successful way to plan for a crisis.

             

Stein, A. (2006). We Thought It Could Never Happen Here: The Crisis Communications Response                to the Thurston High School Shootings. Journal of Promotion Management, 12(3/4), 99–128.

 A case study based on the May 1998 Thurston High School shooting in Springfield, Oregon. In this instance, every separate department and agency got together and formed a unified communication system. They didn’t overlap in their communication or communicate their own thoughts and plans separately. They all came together and made sure that the message that was being shared was unified and consistent. In this scenario, the public information officers did the exact opposite of gate-keeping theory. Instead of withholding information, they fed the media with constant facts to prevent rumors from stirring.

 

Thompson, B., Mazer, J. P., Payne, H. J., Jerome, A. M., Kirby, E. G., & Pfohl, W. (2017). Social                     Media and Active Shooter Events: A School Crisis Communication Challenge. Qualitative                      Research Reports in Communication, 18(1), 8–17.

 This 2017 study looked at the challenges of school crisis communication in an environment where everyone has a cell phone. Managing school safety today is more challenging than ever because everyone has access to technology. In a lot of instances, onlookers are taking pictures and spreading information before those qualified to handle the crisis are notified. One fake high school post, had an entire student body absent from school when there was no real threat. Since the school can’t contain the use of students using their phones, during this time, one solution the school had was to have prewritten message students could send to their parents if and when there was an emergency. They recognized the need to be proactive to avoid unnecessary criticism. So, the school met with the students and told them, if they needed to send a message, keep it simple, “Threat in the building. Everyone is safe.” The school recognized the need to address all of their stakeholders as quickly as they possibly could. One call to parents first, then inform social media. They also made sure the language they used for parents was language they could understand, simple and non-complex.

                                                         

Tracy, S. J., & Huffman, T. P. (2017). Compassion in the face of terror: a case study of recognizing                  suffering, co-creating hope, and developing trust in a would-be school shooting.                                              Communication Monographs, 84(1), 30–53.

 This scholarship was based on a hostage situation with a gunman who entered a school, and the school bookkeeper de-escalated the shooter. “The analysis provided a vivid and contextualized picture of compassion”. During a crisis, we have to communicate hope and compassion, and stop being defensive, which is our natural reaction. When a person is in crisis mode, their brain functions are imbalanced and take a while to decompress from their heightened state. We can’t meet or match that person’s energy when they are not thinking rationally, or we will make the crisis worse. Our communication during any crisis has to be human-centered first. Co-creating hope in your communication paves the way for the next step in creating trust.