Hearing the word “trust”, different people will understand it differently. Here is one of the common definitions: “a trusting relationship is a relationship that is characterized by openness and confidence that the partner can be relied upon "The idea that can be taken from this definition is that we open up when we can assume that our partner will behave in a predictable manner. Namely, predictably skillfully, responsibly and friendly to us. Trust has an interesting property: when it is there, we hardly notice it. This looks like a normal, natural state of a person. But if trust is under threat, we notice it! It is at this moment that it seems very valuable! The brain gets scared, because if trust is lost, it does not feel safe. This is how a baby gets scared when left without the usual care. Left alone in the forest, without his mother, he can die. There are cases when people, having suddenly lost trust, nevertheless value their relationships and want to maintain the ability to rely on each other and behave openly and relaxed. To understand how you can To restore damaged trust, it is advisable to study the very mechanism of its formation. Try to make a list of people you trust. How many people will be on it? How do you relate to them? How did you develop trust in these people? As a rule, trust is based on the confidence that the partner is competent in certain skills, behaves responsibly and balancedly, and is friendly to you. In the old days, trust was accepted reason in line with generally accepted norms and values: the more a person corresponds to them, the more it was customary to trust him. Moreover, very high demands were placed on trust. Loss of trust often resulted in a break in the relationship. Trust was seen as something beyond repair: it either exists or it doesn’t. Variations were not allowed. This, of course, made sense: you want to trust completely in order to feel stable and safe in a relationship. In eras when life was constantly under threat, the cost of a mistake in trust was very high. And even in relatively safe times, the memory of damage to trust leaves a stain on the relationship. It, a stain, clearly violates the purity and simplicity of communication. Such an approach: “either you have it or you don’t” - in our time does not look very mature and humane. It does not give a person the right to make a mistake, nor the opportunity to correct it after realizing it. If people are connected by strong enough bonds of affection, and both partners are ready to work on mistakes, they have a chance to start building relationships in new conditions and according to new rules. Relationships, of course , will not be the same, but will be aware and responsible, which will be the beginning of deeper trust. “The best way to know if you can trust someone is to trust them.” Ernest Hemingway (American writer) In my opinion, Hemingway here suggests first trying to trust, and then, depending on the results of the interaction, building the relationship further. In other words, gain experience and build on it. This is a more mature approach to the complex topic of trust. It is considered here not as something initially given and indivisible, but as a living and moving process of communication between two people, taking into account the activity of each. Communication experience provides information about whether it is possible to predict the behavior of another person. “Trust, but verify!” - this saying also suggests trusting first in order to gain knowledge about the possibility of trust. Trust not blindly, but with open eyes and reflection. Scientists have found that to maintain trust, it is enough if when turning to another person for help or support there is no predictably positive reaction in 5-10 percent of cases. If the percentage of failures is higher, it is difficult or impossible to trust (the predictability effect does not work). It is important to remember that experience of interaction in a narrow field, for example, in production, is logical to be considered the basis for trust in this particular field. It would be a mistake to think that this isreason to give out ALL personal information and count on support in ALL cases of life. However, this mistake is quite common. The halo effect (halo effect) comes into play. The halo effect is one of the cognitive distortions characteristic of our thinking. It manifests itself as a transfer of perception of one of the aspects of the personality to the entire personality. For example, a handsome person seems more intelligent, or a good specialist in any field is expected to have the ability to communicate correctly, or organizational skills are expected from a performer. In this case, there is a high risk of disappointment - and in a person who is assigned greater and broader competence than that which he already owns, and in himself, if high expectations are placed on his own successes. For predictability of behavior, it is good when there is sufficient experience of interaction or experience of independent activity to know oneself. What to do if experience is not enough? To provide “credit” trust” at first it is enough to determine the possible behavior of people based on similarity: “a fisherman sees a fisherman from afar.” During long-term communication, it is important to find out the basic values ​​and attitudes of a person. It is they, being the core of the personality, that make behavior predictable. So, for the formation of trust, the following are important: - experience of communication - security of contact - similarity of basic values ​​Now let’s consider the qualities of the second equal participant in the contact: the one who trusts. For a comprehensive understanding of communication, it is necessary to remember that both people are active participants. And in order to understand how trust is formed and maintained, it would be good to think about how a person relates to the PERCEPTION of the personality of the one he plans to trust. Is he ready, based on first impression, to behave in a relationship as if the partner is trustworthy, or not ready? Or, despite the fact that reality does not provide bad signals, he maintains a “readiness for betrayal” in himself? And therefore, he never builds trusting relationships with anyone? How does this “negative filter” turn on, as one of the cognitive distortions? It originates in a previous, traumatic experience. After a trauma, when a person acutely experiences his vulnerability and fragility, a defense mechanism arises in him: the hypothesis that the world is not trustworthy, that you need to “keep your eyes open” with it, otherwise everything is lost! Further, any experience of mistrustful relationships lies in memory bank, confirming the correctness of this hypothesis. And facts that contradict it are not simply brushed aside. Attention is not even fixed on them as if they were something “incredible.” “No one can be trusted, for safety reasons, so cases when a person behaves well and predictably should also be questioned.” So, we can supplement the model of trust formation: - communication experience - security of contact - similarity of values ​​- trust in the world Sometimes you can find such a paradoxical the opinion that trust in the world manifests itself as a “propensity to take risks.” This is, as it were, proof by contradiction, where “willingness to trust” is a positive definition, and “willingness to take risks and trust” is negative, but relating to the same process . The second, negative definition, contains, like the factory settings of electronics, the assumption that trust is always under threat. This is the expectation of betrayal. Pure trust is impossible if you keep this view in your mind. “Trust is just a game behind which lies the courage to take risks, to be vulnerable, and to bear the consequences of that decision.” Carl Whitaker, the author of this quote, was a famous psychotherapist and marriage counselor who tried to convey his ideas to clients as convincingly as possible. In family psychotherapy, the topic of trust is extremely relevant. I believe that in this statement, C. Whitaker used a provocation, taking the idea of ​​distrust to the point of absurdity, in order to highlight its ineffectiveness for many real-life situations. As a result, it becomes obvious to us that in order to build relationships, it is worth making a decision: to behave relaxed and trustingly, but at the same time.