Who to trust is a daily decision, and those decision-making moments present themselves so often that we may not realize we’re making them. When someone speaks to me in a line waiting for a movie, I generally don’t think they are secretly planning to steal my purse. When someone gives me directions, I don’t think they are trying to deceive me. I am not paranoid—but I am a woman—and the new 2025 Edelman study on trust tells me that I am much more likely to be suspicious of people (and institutions) than men are.

Honestly, my first guess would have been that men are overall more wary. But according to the Edelman Trust Barometer—a global survey that measures public trust in business, government, media, and non-governmental organizations—there is a consistent gender gap: women report less confidence in institutions and people than men do.

As I think about it, it makes sense. Most women (though certainly not all) are smaller, weaker, and less trained in fighting techniques than are their male counterparts. They are less likely to have served in the military, and they have to be more wary of sexual aggression. But the trust gap also exists surrounding media, non-profit organizations, corporations, and government leaders. Women are more skeptical about colleagues as well as strangers and acquaintances.

What’s that about?

To find an answer, I have to range a bit out of my expertise. As a behavioral scientist, cultural impact or life experience are my general scapegoats. In this case, I need to first look at our DNA—and our evolutionary and social biology.

Socio-biologists ask what kind of genes enabled us to survive long enough to pass on our genes. Women, and I would add, other marginalized groups, have long had to be hyper-aware of making errors that could cost them their lives, their health, their children, or their freedom. Independent lives and personal choice have only been possible in the most recent of historical records. Even today, women are more likely to be prey than predator; every interaction requires them to think about whether praise is a prelude to a pass, or giving a ride to someone might endanger their life (think Ted Bundy).

But it is not just physical vulnerability that makes women less trusting. Women are not making the same pay as men for the same work. The growth in women’s entrepreneurship and business ownership is limited by factors such as the corporate “glass ceiling” and fewer opportunities for funding from investment organizations and banks.

Feeling excluded from the top rung of the ladder (whether that’s while working for a grocery chain or the Atomic Energy Commission) can make one cynical, especially if it seems the door is closing on the rooms where big decision happen. Women still struggle to land CEO jobs—we know that. But it’s not just those at the top of the ladder; they may feel dismissed or demeaned in almost any work environment.

What I am saying is that both historically and contemporarily, women. have learned to be suspicious of others.

So, what’s wrong with that? Plenty.

Mistrusting others build a negative frame towards the world, impede women from making fortuitous connections, and support internal fears that inhibit risk-taking when risk-taking opens the door to opportunity. It can also make the day fraught with fear rather than emotional expansion. And besides, there is a reason why daily social life requires a certain amount of random trust.

In Talking to Strangers, Malcolm Gladwell writes about how inconvenient it would be if we had to be cautious about our every interaction. We accept that the UPS driver is really the UPS driver, even though we’ve heard stories about the rare case in which someone with nefarious intentions poses as the real deal. So, we default to trust—since most interactions are what they seem to be. And even though we know that people can encounter a truly bad and clever scammer (notorious swindler Bernie Madoff, for example), we cannot afford the time and mind space to consider that everyone we meet might be out to get us. Still, it makes sense that the less powerful you feel, the more you might look for signs that you should be skeptical and cautious. And let’s add to that, a reasonable reaction to the world media’s constant messages about various misdeeds and evil-doers. We are highly influenced by what we see online and on TV.

Of course, men are also exposed to manipulated information foisted on them by hyperbolic “influencers,” but it may be that they are not as generally afraid for themselves or as likely to be afraid for their children. Perhaps men are more self-confident about being able to handle the scoundrels. Perhaps they should be as untrusting as women, but the data says they are not. This difference might be shaped by boys learning to be protectors, whereas girls are often taught to look for someone who can protect them. Women’s parents frequently urge their daughters to be mistrustful and question motives, especially, but not only, about sex. Men get the message that they should be able to rely only on themselves, except when they are on sports teams or in the military.

I recognize that I am using gender in a rather primitive way. Gender is only one part of who we are as a person, and the ability to trust or the need to be supremely cautious varies, particularly with groups that have more than average risk. If you are transgender, a gay male, a lesbian, or a racial or religious minority, your cautiousness may heighten because it is a rational approach to your life. Your daily activity may bring you into contact with people who would willingly harm you. Then gender may be the least of your problems. So, I get it; other status markers complicate the trust gap between men and women.

Still, that gender difference in trust maintains—and I believe it also remains for good reason. Traditionally, women are the protectors of children. They are often blindly hated by men. As evolutionary biology suggests, women who survived long enough to have offspring that lived to adulthood must have been hyper-aware and cunning to live that long.

But in practical terms, where does this leave us? We don’t, and according to Malcolm Gladwell, we can’t, afford to distrust everyone we don’t know. It interferes with cooperation, consensus, generosity, and even the ability to believe in hallowed major institutions. Without trust, we may not be able to follow our doctor’s recommendations or believe it’s worth voting for any political candidate. We may become paranoid and pathologize anyone who is “not one of us.”

So, one last thought. I know there are times to be cautious. I do not want anyone to ignore red flags or gut instincts that tell them to be skeptical. But I also know that we need to be brave and inclusive to form and keep communities, as well as relationships with partners, lovers, friends, and business associates. I hope we re-examine some of our fears and let down some of our self-imposed walls, so that we live more comfortably in a diverse and challenging world.