If you feel like we’re living in an era marked by increased mistrust, political tension, and cynicism — you’re not alone, research confirms this shift. Research shows that in 1972, half of Americans believed that most people were trustful. By 2018, the percentage had fallen to only a third. 

The rise in distrust and cynicism is a central theme in the book Hope for Cynics: The Surprising Science of Human Goodness, by Stanford psychologist Jamil Zaki. Zaki explains that cynicism is not just human nature, it is directly impacted by our environment. “If you look across both space and time, inequality and cynicism track one another,” Zaki says. “So in more unequal nations, states, and counties people trust each other a lot less. In times that have been more unequal, people have generally trusted each other a lot less than during more egalitarian times.”

What we hear in the media on a daily basis also feeds our fears and disillusionment, fostering distrust. “There's something known as ‘mean world syndrome,’” Zaki continues. “The more that people tune into the news, whether it's on their phones, on the radio, on television — the worse they think people are. You might go the realist route and say, ‘well, yeah, because they're informed.’ But it turns out that the more that people tune into the news, the more wrong they are about others.” 

Zaki, who also directs the Stanford Social Neuroscience Lab, explains that there’s some science pointing to the fact that cynicism can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. “Human beings are psychologically adaptive, we are molded by our environment,” Zaki says. “And so if you're in an environment where it feels like people can't trust each other, where people have to look out only for themselves, then you will become mistrustful. You will become more selfish.”

Tania Israel, professor of counseling psychology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and author of Facing the Fracture: How to Navigate the Challenges of Living in a Divided Nation, says the remedy for dealing with people we don’t agree with is not to disengage or set boundaries. Instead, she suggests a three-pronged approach to bring about a less contentious dialogue. First, to reduce our consumption of negativity from our phones and TV. Second, broaden our own capacity for understanding and empathizing. For example, Israel says: “We so seldom say, ‘here's what I'm thinking, these are the limits of my understanding. What am I missing?’ And really inviting something that's outside of what we have been focusing on in terms of information or narrative.”  

Finally, Israel advocates for engaging with your community — participating and demonstrating that you are open. “Not to say that we need to change our minds,” Israel points out. “Or not to say that we need to agree with where that other person is coming from, but to always want to know where they're coming from. More is a great stance to be in.”  

Delve deeper into life, philosophy, and what makes us human by joining the Life Examined discussion group on Facebook.