Is trust a zero-sum game? What happens when institutional sources get it wrong

Area of Science:

• Social Psychology
• Media Studies
• Communication Science

Background:

• Declining trust in mainstream institutions correlates with increased reliance on alternative media and conspiracy theories.
• Limited research exists on trust dynamics across multiple information sources.
• Understanding how trust shifts in response to errors is crucial in the current media environment.

Purpose of the Study:

• To investigate the dynamics of trust across various media sources when an error occurs.
• To test four distinct models of trust dynamics: independent judgment, zero-sum competition, generalized distrust, and politicization effects.
• To examine reactions to errors in both food regulations and COVID-19 precaution contexts.

Main Methods:

• Conducted three experimental studies with a total of 2,951 participants.
• Examined participant reactions to a source making a serious error.
• Analyzed trust levels in the erring source, its competitors, and the broader media landscape.

Main Results:

• Trust decreased for the specific source that made an error, irrespective of whether it was mainstream, counter-mainstream, or neutral.
• Trust did not increase for competing sources when one source erred, challenging zero-sum competition models.
• Errors sometimes led to a generalized loss of trust across all sources, indicating holistic media landscape evaluation.
• Perceived politicization of a source correlated with decreased trust in that source and increased trust in its competitors.

Conclusions:

• Trust in individual media sources may be judged independently, but errors can also trigger broader distrust in the media.
• The politicization of information sources significantly influences trust and competitor preference.
• Findings suggest a complex interplay between source-specific evaluation, generalized media distrust, and the perceived political leaning of information providers.