What loneliness is more lonely than distrust?

George Eliot

 

Likewise, collectors of food for the charity plate, who would collect food in large vessels for the poor to eat, who do not have poor people to whom to distribute the food, sell the food to others and do not sell it to themselves, as it is stated: “And you shall be clear before God and before Israel” (Numbers 32:22). It is not sufficient that a person is without sin in the eyes of God. He must also appear upright in the eyes of other people so that they will not suspect him of wrongdoing.

גַּבָּאֵי תַמְחוּי, שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם עֲנִיִּים לְחַלֵּק — מוֹכְרִין לַאֲחֵרִים וְאֵין מוֹכְרִין לְעַצְמָן, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וִהְיִיתֶם נְקִיִּים מֵה׳ וּמִיִּשְׂרָאֵל״.

The Gemara (Yoma 38a) tells us that the priestly family of Garmu who were in charge of the show bread in the Beis HaMikdash never consumed products made from fine flour so no one would suspect them of pilfering from the Temple supply. Likewise the women of the family of Avtinas, whose priests were in charge of the incense, never wore perfume so no one should suspect them of pilfering from the Temple supply.

It seems to be endemic to human nature to doubt others. Here even great men needed to take extraordinary steps to be above suspicion. 

Let us study the psychology of doubt. According to researchers Roy J. Lewicki and Edward C. Tomlinson ( https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/distrust ) :

“Distrust is the confident expectation that another individual's motives, intentions, and behaviors are sinister and harmful to one's own interests. In interdependent relationships, this often entails a sense of fear and anticipation of discomfort or danger...Distrust has also been linked to lower job satisfaction, commitment, and motivation…

 

Distrust can also arise directly as the result of personal experiences among individuals, such as when one person breaks a promise to another. Distrust is likely to increase with the magnitude of the violation, the number of past violations, and the perception that the offender intended to commit the violation...Once in place, distrust forms a powerful frame on subsequent events in the relationship, such that even good-faith efforts by the offender to restore the relationship are met with skepticism and suspicion. The result is a "self-fulfilling prophecy," where every move the other person makes is interpreted as additional evidence that justifies an initial decision to distrust him/her. This distrust not only inhibits cooperation in the relationship, but also may result in retaliation that causes the conflict to escalate. When the other person reciprocates this sentiment, there is mutual distrust that further fuels the escalation of conflict.”

 

Lewicki and Tomlinson then try to differentiate between functional and dysfunctional distrust:

 

Functional distrust. Although distrust has generally been regarded as patently harmful, it should be acknowledged that there are potentially valuable benefits of some distrust. All of us have had experiences where we misjudged another as credible and trustworthy, only to be exploited. Hence, distrust can be a valuable mechanism that prevents us from falling prey to a naive view of other people that allows us to be blind to clues of their untrustworthiness (and thus making us willing co-conspirators to our own exploitation). A certain level of distrust is vital to preventing excessive group cohesion that precludes sound decision making. In addition, a certain amount of distrust allows us to set boundaries around another's behavior in a way that limits their freedom yet permits functional interaction (so, for example, I might trust my friend to walk my dog, but not trust them with a key to my house that would let them enter any time they choose). Vigilance of another, periodic monitoring of their behavior, and formal contracts are all reasonable and appropriate ways to ensure compliance and maintain "appropriate boundaries" in a relationship. It also may be appropriate to strictly compartmentalize and set boundaries in certain relationships, so that we minimize the areas in which one becomes vulnerable to another. In short, it is possible (and even advisable) to have a 'healthy dose' of distrust, particularly with people whom we do not know well.

 

Dysfunctional distrust. However, distrust can lead to adverse effects as well. As noted earlier, distrust is associated with a lack of cooperation, lower satisfaction and commitment, and possibly even retribution and actively hostile behavior. Taken to its extreme, distrust can give rise to paranoid cognitions -- false or exaggerated cognitions that one is subject to malevolent treatment by others. Such perceptions drive individuals to the point of hypervigilance (excessively trying to make sense of every action the other person takes) and rumination (brooding or stewing on the meaning of the other person's behavior and their intentions), resulting in a faulty diagnosis about whether the other can be trusted or not. Distrust leads the parties to reduce their willingness to share information and engage in problem solving in conflict situations, and hence to distributive bargaining approaches with the other party, an approach that usually overlooks integrative, value-creating opportunities. Distrust can also cause conflicts to escalate to the point of intractability, as positions harden and the parties become increasingly reluctant to yield concessions. The negative emotions that emerge with distrust---fear, suspicion and anger--cause the trustor to vilify and demonize the other party, and can even produce paranoid cognitions. This view becomes especially damaging when the parties use these perspectives of each other to justify retaliatory actions that cause the conflict to escalate out of control.

 

These observations point to the importance of mindfulness and self-regulation to use this instinct properly. The impact this can have on relationships is significant.