Institutional Resilience and the Sociological Erosion of Trust: A Comprehensive Analysis of United States Socioeconomic and Scientific Well-being

The historical trajectory of successful nations suggests that the architecture of prosperity is built upon the stability and inclusive nature of its institutions. As demonstrated by the extensive research of Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, and James A. Robinson, the distinction between high-income and low-income nations is not primarily a function of geography, climate, or culture, but rather the result of political and economic institutions that either foster or suppress the participation of the broader population.1 Central to the efficacy of these institutions is the presence of public trust. When citizens trust that institutions will protect their rights and provide a level playing field, they are incentivized to invest in education, innovate in technology, and participate in the democratic process, creating a self-sustaining cycle of national health.1 In the contemporary United States, however, this cycle is being threatened by a profound erosion of trust in science, government, and economic systems. This decline is not a biological or psychological inevitability but a byproduct of specific sociological influences that have transformed the American social environment at a pace far exceeding any change in human physiology.5

The Foundations of Institutional Prosperity: The Acemoglu-Robinson-Johnson Framework

The primary contribution of Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, and James A. Robinson—laureates of the 2024 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences—is the identification of “inclusive institutions” as the fundamental driver of long-term economic growth. Their theoretical framework posits that inclusive institutions, characterized by secure property rights, the rule of law, and an open political system, allow for the widespread distribution of power and opportunity.1 In contrast, extractive institutions are designed to concentrate power and wealth in the hands of a small elite, often by suppressing competition and limiting political rights.1

Trust is the essential lubricant that allows inclusive institutions to function. In a society where property rights are trusted, individuals feel secure in making long-term investments. In a political system where the government is trusted to be accountable, citizens engage in the democratic process with the expectation that their voices will influence policy.3 This institutional trust creates a “virtuous cycle”: prosperity reinforces the legitimacy of inclusive institutions, which in turn fosters further stability and growth. The laureates’ research into colonial history demonstrates that these institutional differences are persistent. Countries that inherited inclusive institutions through settler communities with low mortality rates—where settlers intended to stay and build representative systems—developed into the modern world’s richest nations.1 Conversely, where colonial mortality was high, extractive institutions were established to maximize resource removal, leading to persistent poverty and social instability.1

Comparative Dynamics of Institutional Frameworks

The failure of a nation in economic terms is frequently a failure of its institutions to maintain this inclusive character. When trust in the fairness of the system evaporates, the incentives for innovation are replaced by the necessity of “rent-seeking” or protecting one’s assets from an unpredictable or extractive state.3 The work of Johnson, in particular, highlights the relationship between institutional stability and the management of financial crises, suggesting that when the public loses trust in the financial and governmental systems to act in the collective interest, the resulting instability can lead to permanent economic decline.3

The Primacy of Sociological Influences in Trust Trends

To understand the current crisis of trust in the United States, it is imperative to distinguish between the static nature of human physiology and the dynamic nature of the social environment. Psychological and neurological research has identified various brain structures, such as the prefrontal cortex and the ventral striatum, that are involved in the decision to trust or distrust.10 These biological mechanisms, which evolved over millennia to handle social foraging and group survival, are relatively constant across the human species.6 However, the levels of trust within the American public have shifted dramatically within a single generation—a timeframe too short for any meaningful change in human physiology or genetics.7

The rapid fluctuations in trust trends must, therefore, be understood as byproducts of sociological influences. Sociology examines how large-scale social structures, norms, and collective experiences shape behavior.15 While an individual’s propensity to trust may have a minor genetic component (estimated at approximately 20%), the vast majority of the variation (80%) is explained by environmental and sociological factors.10 These factors include the quality of “abstract systems”—the faceless networks of expertise, such as the healthcare system or the legal framework, that organize modern life.5 When these systems fail to meet public expectations or appear hostile to certain groups, the sociological reaction is a rapid withdrawal of trust.5

The Speed of Social Change vs. Biological Evolution

As noted in life-course theory, the social factors influencing an individual at age 65 today are markedly different from those that will influence an individual of the same age in twenty years.17 Demographic shifts, changes in family structure, the introduction of digital technologies, and the evolution of political divides create a “social ecology” that is in constant flux.7 These shifts “get under the skin” by creating social stressors that trigger the body’s evolutionary stress responses—such as allostasis, the process of maintaining stability through physiological change—but the root cause remains firmly in the external social structure.7 Therefore, the modern “epidemic of distrust” is not a failure of the human brain, but a failure of the social and institutional environment to provide the conditions under which the human brain is evolved to trust.7

The Correlation Between Knowledge and Distrust: The Scientific Deficit Model

The relationship between public knowledge and institutional trust is often framed through the “deficit model,” which suggests that a lack of information is the primary driver of skepticism toward science and government.5 According to this model, if the public were better informed about scientific facts or governmental processes, trust would naturally increase. However, contemporary sociological research suggests that this relationship is far more complex and that the deficit model is often inadequate for explaining modern distrust.5

In the context of science, the correlation between knowledge and trust is most visible when looking at “literacy of process” rather than “literacy of facts.” Data from the National Science Foundation and Pew Research Center indicate that Americans who understand the how of science—such as the role of control groups, the necessity of hypothesis testing, and the inherent nature of uncertainty—express significantly higher levels of confidence in scientific institutions.23 Trust is not merely about knowing that a vaccine works; it is about trusting the social structure of science that produces and validates that knowledge.22 When individuals do not understand that science is a community-based enterprise designed to filter out individual bias, they are more likely to view scientific consensus as a form of elite manipulation.22

Scientific Literacy and Public Confidence (2020 Data)

Conversely, there is evidence that for certain ideologically controversial issues, such as climate change, increased knowledge can actually lead to higher levels of polarization. This phenomenon, known as motivated reasoning, occurs when individuals use their scientific knowledge to better defend their existing ideological or partisan identities.22 In these cases, the sociological influence of the peer group and the “social connection” seeking behavior of the individual override the objective facts, leading to a situation where the most informed individuals are also the most polarized.6 This underscores the reality that trust is a relational concept, not just an informational one; repairing distrust requires rebuilding the relationship between the institution and the public, rather than simply bombarding the public with more data.5

Civic Knowledge and the Erosion of Governmental Trust

A parallel dynamic exists in the realm of governmental institutions. Civic knowledge—an understanding of the constitutional design, the Bill of Rights, and the functions of the three branches of government—is widely seen as a prerequisite for a functioning democracy.16 However, surveys of the American public consistently show a low level of civic literacy. The American Bar Association found in 2023 that 70% of respondents consider the public’s understanding of how government works to be “not very informed” or “not at all informed”.26

The correlation between civic knowledge and trust is complicated by the “satisfaction paradox.” While high levels of civic engagement are generally correlated with higher levels of trust in local government and political parties, individuals with the highest levels of civic knowledge often express the least satisfaction with the state of American democracy.26 This suggests that a deeper understanding of the “rules of the game” can lead to greater awareness of when those rules are being broken or when institutions are failing to live up to their inclusive ideals.27

Despite this paradox, a complete lack of civic knowledge is a primary driver of disengagement. Citizens who cannot define the “rule of law” or explain the functions of the legislative branch are less likely to vote and more likely to feel that the federal government is a distant, corrupt, and “faceless” entity.5 This disengagement allows for the further deterioration of institutions, as an uninformed public is less capable of demanding accountability from the elites who control extractive mechanisms.3

Quantifying the Academic Decline in Science and Government

The crisis of trust in the United States is exacerbated by a measurable decrease in the academic focus on science, history, and civics in the nation’s K-12 education system. This decline is not merely a matter of shifting priorities but is a quantifiable trend that has been documented over the past three decades.30

Data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the gold standard for measuring American student achievement, reveals a significant and sustained drop in proficiency in these core subjects. In U.S. History, eighth-grade scores began a downward trajectory in 2014 and have now returned to 1994 levels.32 Only 13% to 14% of eighth-grade students performed at or above the “Proficient” level in 2022, while 40% fell below the “Basic” level.33 This means that nearly half of American eighth graders cannot identify or place in context fundamental historical people, places, and documents.32

Longitudinal Trends in NAEP Eighth-Grade Scores (Scale 0-300/500)

In science, eighth-grade scores in 2024 were 4 points lower than in 2019, erasing a decade of progress and returning to the levels of 2009.36 Perhaps more concerning is the widening gap between the highest- and lowest-performing students; while top-tier students have remained relatively steady, the lowest 10th and 25th percentiles have seen the largest declines in the history of the assessment.38 The sociological implication of this trend is a “literacy divide” that mirrors the broader “diploma divide” in American society, where trust in institutions is increasingly concentrated among the highly educated elite while the rest of the population is left with a “deficit” of both knowledge and trust.5

The Narrowing of the Curriculum: A Sociological Policy Shift

The decline in academic achievement in science and government is a direct result of sociological and political shifts in educational policy. Beginning in the 1990s and accelerating with the 2001 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law, the American education system shifted toward a high-stakes accountability model focused almost exclusively on reading and mathematics.30 This policy shift created a “crowding out” effect, where instructional time for non-tested subjects like social studies and science was drastically reduced, particularly in elementary schools.30

National surveys indicate that since 1999, elementary school students have lost approximately one hour of social studies instruction per week.31 In some states, such as North Carolina, elementary teachers report teaching social studies for as little as 30 minutes per week.41 Because science was integrated into some state accountability formulas later than reading and math, it fared slightly better in some regions, but the overall trend remains one of marginalization.42 The long-term sociological harm of this curriculum narrowing is that it deprives students of the “discipline-specific practices”—such as hypothesizing, weighing evidence, and historical analysis—that are essential for navigating a complex society and for building trust in the institutions that rely on those very practices.30

The Harmful Impact of Distrust on National Well-being

The erosion of trust in science, government, and economic institutions has profound and cascading effects on the nation’s overall well-being. These harms are not limited to the political sphere but manifest in public health crises, a hollowed-out governmental capacity, and a stagnation of the economic “virtuous cycle” described by Acemoglu and his colleagues.9

Public Health and the Collective Action Problem

A society with low levels of trust in scientific and medical institutions is fundamentally less capable of responding to public health emergencies. The COVID-19 pandemic served as a “critical juncture” that exposed the fragility of the American trust architecture.3 Data shows that trust in science was the single most important predictor of support for public health guidelines, eclipsing even political party identification.44

When trust in science declined, the result was a direct increase in mortality and morbidity. The “partisan gap” in trust—where confidence in scientists fell from 58% in 2020 to 36% in 2025—undermined the collective behaviors necessary to slow the spread of disease.44 This distrust has since metastasized into a broader skepticism of routine medical practices, with a significant rise in the belief that childhood vaccines are dangerous.5 This “social contagion” of distrust creates a “misdistrust” or “mistrust” state that leaves the entire population vulnerable to future pandemics and the return of eradicated diseases.43

The Hollowing Out of Government Capacity and Expertise

Distrust in the “abstract systems” of government leads to a hollowing out of the state’s capacity to deliver essential services. When the public views the civil service as a “collection of partisan hacks” or as an inherently corrupt bureaucracy, the government becomes an “employer of last resort”.43 This results in a measurable erosion of expertise; as mission-critical technical skills leave the public sector and are not replaced, the state loses its ability to handle complex infrastructure, weather warnings, and disaster response.43

The FAS workshop on “Broken Trust” highlighted that this process creates a “cascading impact”: as the government becomes less effective due to the loss of talent, public trust falls further, leading to even less engagement and a further reduction in capacity.43 This cycle can lead to “worst-case scenarios” where essential functions—such as ship-building or large-scale procurement—are outsourced to consolidated private monopolies without any in-house management, fundamentally compromising national security and economic stability.43

The Economic “Distrust Trap” and the Stagnation of Innovation

The most profound long-term harm of institutional distrust is what economist Alex Tabarrok calls the “distrust trap.” This is a reinforcing cycle where low levels of trust lead to a demand for greater regulation, which in turn stifles economic growth and breeds further distrust.9 In societies characterized by high distrust, economic actors are less likely to invest in innovative projects that have high social returns but are difficult to protect from seizure or corruption.9 Instead, they prioritize short-term gains, “rent-seeking” behaviors, and investments that favor their immediate in-group at the expense of the wider population.9

The Relationship Between Trust and Regulatory Red Tape

Evidence from the World Values Survey suggests a strong correlation between social distrust and the amount of “red tape” required to open a business. In distrustful societies, the public demands more oversight because they do not trust business owners to act ethically; however, this regulation often becomes a mechanism for corruption and bribery, as officials use the rules to extract “rents” from the population.9

When the public loses trust in the economic “level playing field,” they become more supportive of policies that redistribute wealth to their specific group rather than policies that grow the overall economy.9 This shift from “growing the pie” to “fighting over the pieces” is a hallmark of extractive institutions and is a direct threat to the sustainable health of the nation.1 The Edelman Trust Barometer highlights that a “high sense of grievance”—the belief that the economic system is rigged to benefit the wealthy at the expense of everyone else—is now held by 61% of the global population, eroding trust in business and government alike and fostering support for “hostile activism” and social instability.47

The “Diploma Divide” as a Sociological Barrier to Trust

The current crisis of trust in the United States is deeply stratified by education, creating what sociologists call the “diploma divide”.5 This divide is one of the strongest predictors of whether an individual will trust scientific expertise or governmental institutions. Americans without a four-year college degree are significantly less likely to express confidence in scientists (56%) compared to those with a degree (84%).5

This stratification is a byproduct of the increasing homogeneity of expert communities. Scientists and high-level government officials are disproportionately likely to be liberal and secular, while the broader public remains more conservative and religious.5 When these “abstract systems” of expertise appear to be the exclusive domain of a specific social class that is insensitive to the values of others, trust collapses among the excluded groups.5 This is not a failure of individual psychology but a sociological misalignment between the demographic composition of institutions and the demographic composition of the nation.5

The result of this divide is the emergence of “hostile dissatisfaction” toward democracy among the most civically engaged but least trusting segments of the youth population.27 These young people see institutions as unresponsive to their needs and are increasingly open to non-institutional forms of change, including those that involve spreading disinformation or committing acts of property damage.47 Rebuilding trust, therefore, requires more than just academic instruction; it requires a structural diversification of institutions to include a broader range of religious, geographic, and ideological viewpoints, thereby making these “abstract systems” feel more representative of the entire public.5

Conclusion: Synthesis of Institutional and Sociological Decay

The evidence gathered in this report demonstrates that the United States is experiencing a systemic erosion of trust that is directly tied to its long-term national health. According to the framework established by Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson, the transition from inclusive to extractive tendencies begins with the breakdown of the “covenant” between the state and its citizens—the trust that rights will be protected and that the economy is a level playing field.1

This decline is driven by sociological factors that operate at a pace human biology cannot match. While our brains are evolved for social connection and foraging for reliable information, the rapid shifts in our social environment—including the narrowing of the academic curriculum, the polarization of expertise, and the rise of the “distrust trap”—have created an ecology where distrust is a rational, albeit harmful, response.6 The quantifiable decrease in science and government literacy in U.S. schools has further stripped the public of the tools needed to navigate and hold these institutions accountable, leading to a “vicious cycle” of disengagement and decay.29

To reverse these trends and restore the “virtuous cycle” of prosperity, the nation must address the sociological roots of distrust. This involves not only reinvesting in the academic focus on science and government to bridge the “knowledge gap,” but also reforming the institutions themselves to be more demographic and ideologically inclusive.5 Without such structural changes, the United States risks falling permanently into the “distrust trap,” where the erosion of institutional capital leads to a less safe, less innovative, and less prosperous nation for all its citizens.9

Works cited

1. The Prize in Economic Sciences 2024 – Popular science …, accessed April 30, 2026, https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2024/popular-information/
2. The Economics Nobel Prize and Settler Mortality – Belfer Center, accessed April 30, 2026, https://www.belfercenter.org/research-analysis/economics-nobel-prize-and-settler-mortality
3. The Rules and Institutions that Govern Society | IE Insights, accessed April 30, 2026, https://www.ie.edu/insights/articles/the-rules-and-institutions-that-govern-society/
4. How Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson and James Robinson have …, accessed April 30, 2026, https://voxdev.org/topic/how-daron-acemoglu-simon-johnson-and-james-robinson-have-contributed-development-economics
5. The Strange New Politics of Science – Issues in Science and …, accessed April 30, 2026, https://issues.org/new-politics-science-mills-st-clair/
6. Fundamental features of social environments determine rate of social affiliation – PNAS, accessed April 30, 2026, https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2506243122
7. Kateryna Maltseva – LINKING SOCIAL STRESS, HEALTH AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR THROUGH THE LENS OF EVOLUTION – Semantic Scholar, accessed April 30, 2026, https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9483/ae880a9b07197b4bbc9ae43efb79f6fac560.pdf
8. The Nobel Prize for Institutions: A Critique of Acemoglu and Robinson’s Framework, accessed April 30, 2026, https://deveconhub.com/the-nobel-prize-for-institutions-a-critique-of-acemoglu-and-robinsons-framework/
9. The economic impact of distrust | World Economic Forum, accessed April 30, 2026, https://www.weforum.org/stories/2016/09/the-economic-impact-of-distrust/
10. Following the Majority: Social Influence in Trusting Behavior – PMC – NIH, accessed April 30, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6378867/
11. Following the Majority: Social Influence in Trusting Behavior – PubMed, accessed April 30, 2026, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30804747/
12. Trust – a Subject for Social Neuroscience? | Zeitschrift für Neuropsychologie, accessed April 30, 2026, https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/10.1024/1016-264X/a000053
13. Exploring the Relationship Between Social Ties and Resilience From Evolutionary Framework – Frontiers, accessed April 30, 2026, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-dynamics/articles/10.3389/fhumd.2021.683755/pdf
14. 1: INTRODUCTION TO CHILD DEVELOPMENT – Coastline College Documents, accessed April 30, 2026, https://documents.coastline.edu/Distance%20Learning/Open-Edu-Resources/PSYC%20C116%20OER%20Combined%20rev090624.pdf
15. Similarities and Differences Between Sociology and Psychology | NU – National University, accessed April 30, 2026, https://www.nu.edu/blog/similarities-and-differences-between-sociology-and-psychology/
16. Examining Political Knowledge and Trust in the U.S Federal …, accessed April 30, 2026, https://scholar.dominican.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1011&context=history-politics-international-studies-senior-theses
17. 1 Introduction and Overview, accessed April 30, 2026, https://commed.vcu.edu/Chronic_Disease/2013/IOMSociologyofAging
18. Contemporary and Future Status of Social Demography: An Analytical Review – SciRP.org, accessed April 30, 2026, https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=147439
19. A Conceptual Model of Aging for the Next Generation of Research – NCBI – NIH, accessed April 30, 2026, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK184355/
20. Social connection as a critical factor for mental and physical health: evidence, trends, challenges, and future implications – PMC, accessed April 30, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11403199/
21. Physiology and Neurobiology of Stress and Adaptation: Central Role of the Brain, accessed April 30, 2026, https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/physrev.00041.2006?rfr_dat=cr_p%09ub++0%09pubmed&url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori%3Arid%3Acrossref.org
22. What’s the relationship between understanding science and trusting it? – Wissenschaftskommunikation.de, accessed April 30, 2026, https://www.wissenschaftskommunikation.de/whats-the-relationship-between-understanding-science-and-trusting-it-4721/
23. Science and Technology: Public Perceptions, Awareness, and …, accessed April 30, 2026, https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20244/table/PPS-3
24. Science understanding between scientific literacy and trust: Contributions from psychological and educational research | Request PDF – ResearchGate, accessed April 30, 2026, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337906496_Science_understanding_between_scientific_literacy_and_trust_Contributions_from_psychological_and_educational_research
25. The relationship between adolescents’ civic knowledge, civic attitude, and civic behavior and their self-reported future likelihood of voting – PMC, accessed April 30, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4024445/
26. Successive Surveys the Impact of Civic Learning and Engagement – CivxNow, accessed April 30, 2026, https://civxnow.org/surveys/
27. Youth Trust Peers, Local Government, and Institutions They See Taking Action – Tufts Circle, accessed April 30, 2026, https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/youth-trust-peers-local-government-and-institutions-they-see-taking-action
28. Americans’ Knowledge of Civics Increases, Annenberg Survey Finds, accessed April 30, 2026, https://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/americans-knowledge-of-civics-increases-annenberg-survey-finds/
29. UN/DESA Policy Brief #108: Trust in public institutions: Trends and implications for economic security, accessed April 30, 2026, https://desapublications.un.org/policy-briefs/undesa-policy-brief-108-trust-public-institutions-trends-and-implications-economic
30. Social Studies and Science Get Short Shrift in Elementary Schools. Why That Matters, accessed April 30, 2026, https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/social-studies-and-science-get-short-shrift-in-elementary-schools-why-that-matters/2024/02
31. Crowding Out Social Studies: A Longitudinal Examination of National Trends in Instructional Time in Elementary Schools – ResearchGate, accessed April 30, 2026, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362901886_Crowding_Out_Social_Studies_A_Longitudinal_Examination_of_National_Trends_in_Instructional_Time_in_Elementary_Schools
32. NAEP Report Card: 2022 NAEP US History Assessment, accessed April 30, 2026, https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/highlights/ushistory/2022/
33. Policy Brief: The 2022 NAEP Scores in US History and Civics – The Conference Board, accessed April 30, 2026, https://www.conference-board.org/pdfdownload.cfm?masterProductID=46348
34. Trends and Research in U.S. History and Civics – National Assessment Governing Board, accessed April 30, 2026, https://www.nagb.gov/naep/understanding-nations-report-card-2022-trends-research/civics-and-us-history.html
35. NAEP Civics: Civics Highlights 2022, accessed April 30, 2026, https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/highlights/civics/2022/
36. NAEP Science: National Trends and Student Skills, accessed April 30, 2026, https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reports/science/2024/national-trends/
37. 5 Things You Need to Know About NAEP Science Results, accessed April 30, 2026, https://www.nagb.gov/powered-by-naep/the-2024-nations-report-card/top-5-things-to-know-about-naep-science-results.html
38. Explore Results for the 2024 NAEP Science Assessment, accessed April 30, 2026, https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reports/science/2024/
39. Path to STEM Employment – National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, accessed April 30, 2026, https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20261/path-to-stem-employment
40. Nation’s Report Card Shows Declines in 8th-Grade Science and 12th-Grade Math and Reading; Last in a Series of Post-Pandemic NAEP Data, accessed April 30, 2026, https://www.nagb.gov/news-and-events/news-releases/2025/declines-in-8th-grade-science-and-12th-grade-math-and-reading.html
41. Advocating for Social Studies: Documenting the Decline and Doing Something About It, accessed April 30, 2026, https://www.socialstudies.org/system/files/publications/articles/se_710507255.pdf
42. The Relationship Between Time Allocated for Science in Elementary Schools and State Accountability Policies, accessed April 30, 2026, https://edpolicyinca.org/sites/default/files/2023-11/science_education_-_2013_-_judson_-_the_relationship_between_time_allocated_for_science_in_elementary_schools_and_state.pdf
43. Broken Trust in Government: Signals and Worst Case Scenarios, accessed April 30, 2026, https://fas.org/publication/broken-trust-in-government-signals-and-worst-case-scenarios/
44. American Trust in Science & Institutions in the Time of COVID-19, accessed April 30, 2026, https://www.amacad.org/publication/daedalus/american-trust-science-institutions-time-covid-19
45. Is There a Crisis of Trust in Science and Medicine?, accessed April 30, 2026, https://magazine.hms.harvard.edu/articles/there-crisis-trust-science-and-medicine
46. Measuring Trust with Psychophysiological Signals: A Systematic Mapping Study of Approaches Used – MDPI, accessed April 30, 2026, https://www.mdpi.com/2414-4088/4/3/63
47. 2025 Edelman Trust Barometer, accessed April 30, 2026, https://www.edelman.com/trust/2025/trust-barometer