Trust Amongst College Students 1

Trust Amongst College Students: Repairing the Environment After It Has Been Compromised

Lucy Orr

University of Memphis
Trust Amongst College Students 2

Trust Amongst College Students: Repairing the Environment After It Has Been Compromised

Trust is much more than an individual's willingness and comfortability to tell someone

the most intimate details of their life, it is a key element in an environment that has a goal of

fostering growth and maintaining relationships. Although the idea of trust may seem like a

foundation given within higher education, meaning that it seems obvious that institutions would

strive for it, what happens when the student environment becomes compromised? The

compromising of trust amongst college students, whether it be from an institution, department, or

staff member can be damaging to the overall functionality of the environment as a whole. For

myself personally, I have recently come into contact with students that no longer trust their

scholarship academic advisor. This is to no fault of their advisors but of the distrust they have for

the environment that has been created. By critically reviewing the presence or lack of trust in an

environment within higher education that is predominantly utilized by college students, I hope to

grow a greater familiarity with rebuilding trust.

To begin, understanding the foundational makeup of trust is important in getting an

overall view into why students may no longer have it. It is well known that “trust is integral to

many intimate, valued, and valuable relationships,” but is beneficial to recognize that “some

basic trust may also be reflected in our respect for others: seeing them as worthy of a certain

regard” (Kleinig, p.3, 2016). The mere definition of trust mentions things such as integrity,

assured reliance, and strength as being qualities of an individual that would be considered

trustworthy (Merriam-Webster, 2015). So, although an individual may uphold these identifying

characteristics of being trustworthy, if an institution has a history of failing within this category,

students are most likely going to question the reliability of the new environment.
Trust Amongst College Students 3

The conflict of trust not being given or present within a department in a higher education

institution is one I am currently working through. Within my role, I am given the opportunity to

work with students within an academic scholarship program. This specific scholarship program

is advised by a leadership coordinator that helps them maintain their requirements and work

towards completing their degree. Although our current coordinator is both confident and

respectable, students are struggling to connect with them, refusing to make an appearance or

maintain their requirements. When I first started this role, I did not understand why this was until

I had a student directly tell me that they had no interest in forming a bond with me because they

could not trust that me or the coordinator would be present for more than a year. A light went off

for me this day, allowing me to make the connection that the lack of effort and communication

was not coming from a lack of ability but from a lack of trust. Our students had not had a

consistent coordinator throughout the entirety of the program, meaning that students within their

fourth year had been advised by four separate coordinators. This lack of consistency has broken

the basic foundational element of trust mentioned earlier that revolved around needing to see

individuals as worthy, in regard to us allowing them to gain our trust. Although having a student

tell me bluntly about their lack of desire to form a relationship with me was unsettling at first,

after quick analysis of the situation, I realized that the emotional implications of the environment

no longer felt safe to them. Not having a coordinator or advisor that has stuck around has made

them feel like they are in a constant state of reintroducing themselves, avoiding an experience

that allows them to get past a baseline conversation.

Trust is such a fundamental element within higher education and the relationships that

students have with administration. So, my own personal experiences with the side effects of

distrust making an appearance so early in my career has caused me to dive deeper into how we
Trust Amongst College Students 4

work to correct such an issue. Firstly, I started looking into Erikson’s Psychosocial stages,

focusing on “Trust vs. Distrust.” Although this stage is the first that infant children will work

through, I thought it was important to note the difference between the two concepts and the side

effects of either having or lacking trust.With this stage focusing on the act of a caregiver and

how a child responds to that care, I thought about this process as if the coordinator in my

particular situation is the caregiver and the students are the child. Erikson makes note that side

effects of a caregiver being proven trustworthy can be a confidence that needs will be met, that

the environment is safe, and a confidence in their abilities (Orenstein & Lewis, 2020). The side

effects for being proven distrustworthy can be seen as the opposite. Regardless of Erikson’s

original intention with his creation of these stages, it is important to note the difference in

behavior and action when trust is not present within an environment.

Continuing, it's important to acknowledge that although we can make some connections

to Erikson’s development theory, there is a stark difference between the minimalist trust-giving

that an infant can grant compared to trust that is given by students within the college

environment. With infants, there are very little outside stressors separate from their caregiver,

whereas a college student is dealing with a multitude of outside circumstances separate from

their courses or extracurricular activities. Understanding this allows the concept of trust and

distrust being opposites within higher education to be eradicated. Cook writes that “There are

things you can do to help improve trust and others to reduce distrust. Refraining from telling lies

doesn't create trust, but it does reduce distrust compared to lying” (2014). Both trust and distrust

can be present in the environment, so having the ideology that an environment is either

completely one or the other is unrealistic. Working to assess the situation as it presents itself and

taking restorative action to better support students allows for trust to become a more dominant
Trust Amongst College Students 5

force though. How do we start the work to create an environment that functions with an

overarching theme of trust?

Although not an easy situation to tread through, Freelander notes two ways to rebuild

trust on campus as those are by understanding what your stance is and by creating an action plan

(2020). Understanding one’s stance can be evaluated by getting a clearer idea on what the

students or institution is in need of. Not every situation is going to look alike when discussing

trust, so making the effort to reach out to the needs being demonstrated is a key element in

moving forward in making an action plan. When it comes to creating the action plan, there must

be clear and concise goals that are put into place in order to properly gauge its progress once

started. Why is this though? Why is there such a need for measurable results? Although it may

seem obvious, “trust is a result of your words aligning with your actions,” so if students or staff

are able to recognize that these specific goals are being met, the likelihood of them gaining trust

for you or the institution heightens (Freelander, 2020).

It is difficult to work up to the goals presented by an action plan, but it is for the greater

good of both the students and professionals to know exactly what is being worked towards.

Taking this into consideration, Knerr writes that “colleges and universities need to demonstrate

that they’ll be there for their stakeholders—students most importantly—in moments of crisis as

well as for their lifelong need for professional and personal learning” (2020). Although this may

be more difficult when dealing with students whose trust has been compromised due to a lack of

staff retention, it is important to be open and communicative about what the goals are

surrounding their programming. The issues surrounding staff retention affect both students and

the institution, but an institution can easily replace a staff member, whereas it is more difficult

for a student to throw away their relationship with their advisors time and time again because
Trust Amongst College Students 6

they have to get a new one. The action plan created to best address the mistrust present within

my current programming needs to include swift trust theory, blind trust theory, and optimal trust.

Swift trust theory is defined just as it sounds, a form of trust that is earned through

student engagement. This is created with the use of activities that allow students to quickly gain

trust with the individuals in their surrounding environment (Mills, 2019). This theory could

easily be implemented in an environment that’s trust has been compromised because it is not

asking for complete and total trust in an individual. It is asking for a foundational trust for the

activities and space that has been created in that moment. The swift trust theory is not meant to

be used as a long-term solution to repairing trust within higher education institutions, but as a

way to get the initial push in the right direction. By using activities like the Myers-Briggs

strengths test or a true colors evaluations, advisors are able to knock the first wall down,

utilizing other trust theories moving forward to gain and rebuild relationships.

The blind trust theory is intriguing because of its lack of activities or start-up cost. This

theory is not necessarily worked towards but immediately given. For each of us, there is a certain

amount of trust that we offer someone upon meeting, and this type of practice defines the true

meaning of blind trust. Blind trust is given without explanation or action (Mollering, 2006). This

type of trust is either given or not given, there is no grey area that shows this trust on a spectrum.

This theory, compared to swift trust, can often look identical, outside of the activities that are

required for swift trust to occur appropriately. Both theories are given quickly upon meeting or

arrival, making a decision or not trust will or will not be given. Although these theories do not

represent the end-goal for the trust an institution may be trying to rebuild, they are a good outline

and starting place. With the previous trust theories mentioned being non substantial overtime, it

is important to note a trust theory that can be maintained. For the particular scenarios mentioned
Trust Amongst College Students 7

and the topic of rebuilding trust being the goal, the structure of optimal trust is imperative to

mention. Optimal trust is a realistic approach to the complicated discussion of distrust vs. trust. It

is written within the guidelines of this approach that “trust levels should be appropriate to the

context and may fall anywhere on the spectrum, from minimal trust to high trust, depending on

the person and situation”(Wicks et al., 1999). Optimal trust is able to be measured throughout

time, giving both students and staff an opportunity to gauge their comfortability with the

environment that has been created. Along with optimal trust, administration needs to be listening

to the needs of their students and hearing their reasonings behind potential class failures,

program retention decreasing, and lack of camaraderie amongst the staff. Optimal trust is not

about everything going perfectly or never needing to innovate an environment in the future but

about maintaining the trust that both students and staff have the institution and the programming

it provides (Hill & O'Hara O'Connor, 2005).

Each of these theories and practices could be used to repair trust within an environment

that has been compromised in the past. Since there are a multitude of ways that trust can be lost

within an institution, it is important that these activities are molded to fit the needs that are being

presented by the affected students. You would need to look at the blind trust theory much

differently if you were dealing with repairing trust amongst students and the recruitment office.

In this situation, blind trust is no longer able to take place because of the recruiters position

already being one of the first students to interact with. If this experience was negative,

administration would need to move to the swift trust theory to have the opportunity to engage

students with positive trust through actual activities.

In my own predicament, I could easily use all three of these methods to repair trust within

our office environment. With these students being in an academic scholarship program, they are
Trust Amongst College Students 8

required to maintain correspondence with their leadership coordinator. If the students do not trust

the person within that role, the entire team loses. It was previously mentioned that institutions

need to be doing much more than the bare minimum, making their students know they are valued

and that their experiences should be positive. Although staff retention is an issue that should be

addressed because of its overall effect on students, creating an environment that breeds trust in

the long run is the goal for myself at this particular time. I think it would be much more difficult

to employ the blind trust theory within the students curriculum because of their lack of interest

and overall displeasure they have gotten from consistently switching out coordinators. I do think

we could use some of the ideology of blind trust within advising and one-on-one meetings. This

could be done by asking students to blindly trust that I, as their new advisor, would answer any

question they had and if I did not have an answer at that time, that I would find one. This creates

an environment that is not necessarily grounded on trust but agreement that answers would be

given. I could easily move into the swift trust theory by switching into a group setting, offering a

slew of different activities that included both critical thinking and fundamental learning. With

this, they would have the opportunity to lean on their peers, as well as myself, to better

understand prompts or complete the given assignment. This builds a foundational trust that

supports relationship growth over time amongst everyone involved. Last but not least, the

implementation of optimal trust. Like I have mentioned before, optimal trust is done throughout

time, keeping institutions and professionals accountable when creating an environment that

breeds trust. I would hope to properly employ optimal trust by doing consistent check-ins

surrounding the mental and physical well-being, offering reminders associated with their

scholarship, and having an open-door policy for students who may need to just see a familiar

face.
Trust Amongst College Students 9

In conclusion, trust or the lack thereof goes far beyond a lack of integrity. It stems from a

multitude of different scenarios that may create an environment that feels disingenuous. When

addressing how to repair an environment within higher education that trust has been

compromised, a discussion surrounding blind trust theory, swift trust theory, and optimal trust

were discussed. Although blind trust and swift trust may go hand-in-hand, swift trust uses

activities to better support the manifestation of surface-level trust with students. Blind trust is

much more difficult to do when students have already been exposed to an environment. Optimal

trust could be considered to be the most important practice shared, showing its ability to be

consistently monitored over time. Optimal theory is not so much a specific activity but an action

that requires maintenance and reflection often. With the environment created within higher

education campuses being often regarded as sacred, it is imperative that students feel safe and

comfortable with their surroundings. This can only be properly upheld if there is a foundational

trust that students are able to make note of. After viewing my own struggles with students

trusting in our programming, I have realized just how instrumental trust is in the overall success

of an institution, and I now have the knowledge to properly work towards repairing the

environment that has been compromised.

Trust Amongst College Students 10

References