Understanding Trust: Global Conversations and Local Realities during the COVID-19 Pandemic

"...what shapes people's relationship with information is a complex and dynamic equation. Trust is driven by a multiplicity of factors, not only by accuracy or authority."

This paper, published by Internews, takes a closer look at what generates trust and distrust in information. The insights are derived primarily from research conducted as part of Internews' Rooted in Trust project, which works to understand the role of rumours and misinformation in the COVID-19 pandemic and to support humanitarian and media communicators to listen, engage, and respond to community information needs. The research involved mapping the information ecosystems in seven geographies through qualitative and quantitative data (more than 2,400 survey respondents, 230 qualitative interviews, and 130 focus groups). The insights shared in this publication seek to build understanding on the part of the community of media, public health, humanitarian aid, and government practitioners of what drives and solidifies trust and away from the judgments that can lead to a breakdown of trust.

The report shares the following seven insights:

1. Trust is not the same as reliance or influence - The report makes a distinction between reliance (frequently using a channel or source to access information) and trust, making the point that just because people rely on certain channels of information, it does not mean that they trust them. Often, people just turn to what is available and is good enough even if they are not sure if it is trustworthy. In addition, even if community leaders have influence, it does not mean they will be trusted on all aspects of health. "Failure to distinguish trust in information channels from reliance in these sources and from their influence potential can frequently explain, at least in part, why expected awareness raising campaigns fail to deliver behavior change."
2. Trust is not only about accuracy - The research highlights that accuracy encompasses more than the true-false binary and that accuracy is not always as central as we might expect. Facts matter but are not enough. For example, information can be factually correct, but if it is not in the language commonly understood or if it is not locally applicable or contextually relevant, it will not have impact.
3. Proximity is important, but not all who are near, feel close - For many communities, the sources they trust the most are either part of the community or close to it. However, while being part of the community is key to building trust, not all will trust information from local structures; in those cases, information from the outside may be more trusted. This is, for example, the case with population groups that feel stigmatised or marginalised in the environment they live in, as they are unlikely to trust voices that emanate from the community that stigmatises them.
4. Once lost, trust is hard to build - When a serious lack of confidence exists (in a specific channel, in specific types of information, or in the information ecosystem at large), it impacts the perception of COVID-19-related information. Even verified information and transparency in reporting processes are unlikely to overcome ingrained distrust in, for example, governments, the media, or health systems - which often arise in countries that have been affected by repeated and compounded crises.
5. Fear-inducing, hyperbolic, and definitive statements: short-term benefits, long-term costs - Overdramatised communication by authorities that sparks fear in the community as a way to foster behaviour change may prove efficient in the short term (such as in enforcing lock-down measures or other displacement restrictions), but it has been shown to backfire and bear long-term costs in terms of trust. For example, hearing all day long about the threat of COVID-19 and about large numbers of cases detected in the country while witnessing few cases in one's immediate community leads many to question the political, economic, or personal motivations that might explain this gap.
6. No trust without genuine acknowledgement - Even if information is correct, if it does not acknowledge people's local realities or have local relevance, this can lead to disengagement at best, and to distrust at worst. In almost all geographies covered in the research, researchers heard many anecdotes about how out of touch some of the guidelines and communications around COVID-19 have been. In this context, even correct factual information can get lost.
7. Humanitarians: choosing control over trust - The research showed that a large share of humanitarian communication efforts fail to account for the genuine information needs of people, their preferred way of accessing information, and the elements that might elicit distrust. As one respondent noted in relation to the media specifically: "Many humanitarians engage with media in the same way they communicate with beneficiaries: sending prefabricated informational materials for rapid dissemination with little bilateral communication or creative contribution from media to humanitarians." This approach acts as a barrier to effective engagement, which negatively affects their ability to meet the information needs of the communities they want to serve.

Based on these insights, the report makes a number of recommendations. In brief, they include:

• For humanitarians:
  • More trust, less control: provide ideas and support, and let local actors shape it.
  • Put acknowledgement of local realities front and centre.
  • Avoid putting too much pressure on one channel to communicate with communities.
  • Coordinate information exchange, but avoid creating common "messaging" (which can be cumbersome to coordinate at higher level), and instead delegate content creation to individual agencies and local actors.
• For media actors:
  • Build around lived realities faced by the audience to create content communities can relate to and trust.
  • Proactively engage actors that enjoy recognition and/or trust from community members.
• For governments and public health agencies:
  • Pursue accuracy in its broadest possible sense.
  • Trust community members, and accept the nuance.
  • Proactively diversify channels and partnerships to allow people to access information in their preferred modalities.
• For civil society, communities and community leaders:
  • Dare to say you don't know, but refer to those who do. Religious and community leaders in particular, but also all community members with spheres of influence, must acknowledge the central role they play as information gatekeepers and intermediaries.

To launch the report, Internews held a moderated discussion exploring the question, "Do Humanitarians Trust People?" The event explored trust relationships between communities and humanitarian agencies and questioned whether humanitarian agencies genuinely trust crisis-affected communities to know what is best for themselves, as well as how genuine they are about giving communities a voice in the decisions that affect their lives (see video below).