Agreeableness · Facet A1
Trust is your default setting toward people you do not know yet: how much good faith you extend before anyone has earned it. It measures neither how much you like people nor how easily you are fooled. High scorers hand the benefit of the doubt over first; low scorers wait for evidence, and honest people learn to be patient.
Free, no sign-up, results right away
Trust in the Big Five records the assumption you start from. The ten statements ask whether people generally strike you as honest, whether you expect fair dealing, and how much proof you need before you stop watching. The scale takes no position on whether that assumption fits your life: it measures the starting point rather than the record.
The facet belongs to Agreeableness, the domain that gathers how you treat other people. Trust is its inward half: it describes your read of others rather than your conduct toward them. Somebody can expect the worst of strangers and still behave impeccably toward each of them.
This scale keeps its distance from its own family too. It correlates 0.42 with the rest of Agreeableness, the second loosest link in that domain and the sixth loosest of all thirty facets. A trusting person is therefore not automatically a soft one, and a wary person not automatically difficult to work with.
The scale keeps the name Trust across the research literature, and survey work on the same territory calls it interpersonal or generalised trust. Our items are the public domain IPIP set arranged by Johnson.
The everyday word carries more freight than the scale does, and each of these three distinctions changes how a score reads.
Trust is an expectation, not a verdict on your judgement. Nothing in the scale asks whether you check contracts, verify claims or notice that a story has stopped adding up. A high scorer can start from goodwill and still update fast. The score describes the opening position: confidence first, proof later.
The neighbouring facet asks whether you play straight yourself, while this one asks what you expect from everybody else. They move together only moderately, correlating 0.31, which leaves room for the blunt sceptic and the trusting operator. Candour is conduct; trust is a reading of other people.
The arrow points outward here. This facet counts the confidence you extend, not the confidence you deserve, and those are separate questions. Whether you keep your own word sits closer to Dutifulness (C3), which correlates 0.29 with this scale: a real link, plainly not the same measurement.
Neither end is the safer personality. One saves time and occasionally pays for it, the other pays a little every time and is rarely caught out.
You take it that the person across the table means what they say, so cooperation starts before anybody has proved anything. Teams form quickly and information moves freely, none of it held back as a deposit. The bill comes rarely and comes large: the few who exploit an open door get much further with you.
You assume good intent by default. That openness makes cooperation fast and warm around you, and it deserves protection from the few who would use it.
You watch first, and what you watch for is the fit between what people say and what they do. The habit catches a bad actor early and keeps you out of arrangements that look better than they are. The cost is speed and warmth: honest people serve a probation nobody told them about, and some read the delay as a judgement.
Trust is earned with you, not assumed. You read intentions carefully, which protects you well and asks patience from honest people getting to know you.
Four people in ten sit in the middle band, which works like a short probation nobody announces. Goodwill goes out early and is measured quietly against what follows. Almost everyone gets the benefit of the doubt; almost nobody gets an unlimited one.
Low, average and high split the sample 30/40/30, the convention Johnson uses for these norms. The bands say where a score falls among other people, not who is right about anyone: a low score is not wisdom, and a high one is not innocence.
Ten answers add up to a raw score between 10 and 50. The curve below covers 135,947 finished profiles of the long version, and the shape is not symmetric.
| Percentile | Raw score |
|---|---|
| 10 | 23 |
| 25 | 29 |
| 50 | 35 |
| 75 | 40 |
| 90 | 43 |
The median is 35 and half of all profiles fall between 29 and 40. That eleven point middle is the widest of the six Agreeableness facets, so this scale separates people more than its neighbours. A percentile compares you with people of your own sex and age who took this test online.
One of these comparisons is smaller than nearly anyone expects, and the other runs against the folklore about growing older.
Women average 33.7 points and men 32.9. The gap of 0.8 is the smallest of the six Agreeableness facets, while the same sample separates the sexes by 2.9 points on Sympathy. Age does more, and it does it upward: men climb from 32.4 under 21 to 35.4 past 60, women from 33.3 to 36.1. About 250 people per sex sit in that oldest cell, so read the far end as a hint.
The closest relative of this facet lives in another domain. Trust tracks Friendliness at 0.51 and Cheerfulness at 0.44, both from Extraversion, while its nearest sister at home, Altruism, reaches 0.49. The bars below show the rest of that company.
At work the score shows in how fast you hand something over. High scorers delegate early and share what they know without a ledger, and momentum is the reward; the exposure is a contract skimmed and a promise taken at face value. Low scorers build the checks in from the first meeting, catching a poor deal while it is cheap, at the price of the time a good partner spends proving the obvious.
Close relationships put the same setting under a brighter light, because there is no procedure to hide behind. High trust makes closeness quick and comfortable, and a betrayal then costs more than it would have cost somebody guarded. Low trust asks the other person to keep demonstrating something, which wears on both while it lasts and tends to hold well afterwards, because it was never handed over cheaply.
For growth the realistic aim is calibration rather than more trust or less of it. At the high end what moves is the short list of decisions where the stakes justify a second look, and that list stays short. At the low end what moves is the length of the probation, which shortens on evidence rather than on resolve.
Heritability estimates for Big Five traits cluster around the halfway mark, and most of the remainder traces to experiences that even siblings do not share. For a trait built out of what you expect from other people, it is tempting to assume experience writes the score. The evidence is milder: a position relative to everybody else barely reshuffles across a decade.
The age pattern runs opposite to the folk version in which people grow more cynical. Trust climbs across adulthood in our norms, by roughly three points from the youngest group to the oldest, and in both sexes. These are different people compared at different ages rather than one person followed through life, so it is a tendency and not a schedule.
A single number also leaves out the pairing. Trust high with Cooperation low describes somebody who believes you and argues with you anyway, which behaves nothing like both of them running high. Combinations are where the paid analysis works.
Free, no sign-up, results right away
The 300 item version measures Trust with 10 statements and the 120 item version with 4. Six of the ten point toward trust and four away from it, and the four are flipped before anything is added up; the short version keeps three and one. The total is read against the norm table for your sex and age band, which turns it into a percentile.
Alpha shows how closely the statements of one scale agree with each other. In research, 0.70 and above is usually treated as solid. We counted these numbers on Johnson’s open data, so they can be checked against the published values.
The statements themselves are not printed here. Reading the items before answering them changes the answers, so they appear once the test has started.
300 questions · about 35 minutes
Take the full test120 questions · about 15 minutes
Take the short versionFree, no sign-up, results right away
Put the slider where you think you stand next to other people, then take the test and see how far the guess was off.
0 means lower than almost everyone who took the test, 100 means higher than almost everyone.
This is a guess, not a measurement. The test compares your answers with norms from real people.
No, and the scale has no correct end. A low score describes somebody who issues confidence against evidence, an advantage wherever the stakes are high and the other party is unknown. A high score describes somebody who starts cooperating sooner.
Not on its own. Trust covers what you expect before evidence arrives and says nothing about what you do once it does. Judgement, checking and how fast you change your mind sit outside this measurement. Naivety would be a high score plus an unwillingness to update.
Our norms show the climb plainly: about three points from the under 21 group to the over 60 group, in both sexes. What the data cannot supply is the reason. Adults choose their company more freely than teenagers do, and older volunteers are a selective bunch either way. The rise is solid here; its causes stay open.
Agreeableness is the domain and Trust is one of its six facets, but this one keeps more distance than most. It correlates 0.42 with the rest of its own domain, the second loosest link in that family. Somebody can land in the average band overall while sitting at either extreme on this scale.
On the 10 to 50 scale the middle band runs from 30 to 38 in these norms, so a raw 35 is ordinary rather than good. The high band opens at 39, about one profile in five reaches 40, and the top tenth starts at 43. A score of 29 or below falls in the low band.
Better than usual here. Alpha is 0.858 for the four statement version against 0.886 for the ten, a drop of under three hundredths and among the five smallest across the thirty facets. Both figures come from the open data published by Johnson.
Take the long form for the sharpest reading of this facet, or the short one when you have ten minutes. Either way the score costs nothing, and the percentile appears the moment you finish.
Free, no sign-up, results right away