Community
Trust is a behavior, not a credential – and that explains the Rodgers-Fauci divide
Trust is a behavior, not a credential – and that explains the Rodgers Fauci divide. Originally published by The Conversation.
By John C. Besley, Professor of Public Relations, Michigan State University · 2026-08-31T13:20:01.500Z
Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Aaron Rodgers recently called Dr. Anthony Fauci an 'absolute coward' and a 'criminal.' Lauren Leigh Bacho/Getty Images Sport Following an appearance on The Pat McAfee Show https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoaLJzKPo84 on Aug. 3, 2026, Aaron Rodgers, quarterback for the Pittsburgh Steelers, received attention for calling Dr. Anthony Fauci an “absolute coward” and “criminal.” Rodgers’ comments were in response to Fauci invoking his Fifth Amendment rights at a congressional hearing https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7492089/2026/08/04/aaron rodgers pittsburgh steelers response fauci criticism/ on pandemic era policies and the origins of COVID 19. Fauci exercised his Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination more than 100 times, rather than answer questions about his role in the government’s pandemic response. The invocation came amid years of congressional investigations and hearings https://www.theguardian.com/us news/2026/jul/29/anthony fauci senate covid hearing takeaways scrutinizing his handling of the pandemic. Fauci’s testimony likely didn’t do much to build public trust https://theconversation.com/how journalists and communities work together to confront low levels of trust 286941 – invoking the Fifth Amendment dozens of times may have read as evasive even when it’s legally sound, and the format didn’t help either. Congressional hearings and press briefings aren’t, by design, places where people show much of themselves. Rodgers, on the other hand, has spent years doing the opposite – speaking candidly and often, in settings built for exactly that kind of rapport building. This isn’t unique to Rodgers. Many public figures – athletes, influencers, podcast hosts – have more regular opportunities to build rapport with audiences than experts do, at a time when Americans express decreased trust in experts https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2026/01/15/americans confidence in scientists/ overall. There’s a reason for that decreased trust. Trust research https://doi.org/10.1186/2049 3258 73 3 can both help make sense of why someone might pay attention to a football player’s opinion of the former head of The National Institutes of Health. But that research also highlights the limits of opinion surveys that simply ask people how much they trust various groups in society https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625231161302 . These “how much do you trust” questions probe Americans’ overall views of specific groups https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625231161302 , like scientists. The issue is that these questions sidestep deeper discussions about what makes people willing to put their trust in others. Many researchers, including me https://comartsci.msu.edu/our people/john c besley , study the intersection of trust and how scientists engage the public. One thing essential to understanding trust is to separate behaviors from beliefs. Trust behaviors vs. trustworthiness beliefs Trust researchers often treat trust as a type of behavior https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102192 rather than an overall evaluation about a group. When it comes to healthcare, this might mean looking at how willing people are to follow their doctor’s medical advice. It matters less whether people say they trust doctors https://news.gallup.com/poll/655106/americans ratings professions stay historically low.aspx on a survey and more how they behave in their daily lives. Trust behaviors involve making yourself vulnerable to someone else https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2024.2375802 , and such behaviors are everywhere in our lives, once you know to look for them. People demonstrate trust in automakers, mechanics, government employees who regulate and police roadways, and even other drivers by choosing to drive. People also demonstrate trust in economists, ecologists and epidemiologists, when they consider their advice while making personal or civic decisions. Defining trust as a type of behavior helps clarify the key question: What beliefs make people more likely to trust? Understanding what researchers often call trustworthiness beliefs https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1351425 – sometimes called perceptions – can help experts understand where they are falling short, whether in their behaviors or in how they communicate. Expertise beliefs aren’t enough Scholars have long known that people don’t just trust scientists because they believe they hold expertise https://doi.org/10.1086/266350 . What people believe about others’ character also matters.
Dr. Anthony Fauci’s relationship with public trust became a flashpoint during the COVID 19 pandemic. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images News via Getty Images While some research focuses on beliefs https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317505111 about expertise and character, other trust frameworks https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.24348410 break character into smaller parts. Benevolence beliefs can be understood as feeling that someone has goodwill https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759909376464 toward you and cares about your well being. Integrity beliefs focus on expectations about honesty and morality. For example, a scientist might show a real desire to help, but fail to show how they protect their work’s integrity – like by being transparent about a study’s limitations or disclosing potential conflicts of interest. Likewise, an expert might demonstrate integrity without communicating care for the people that their decisions might affect. Some researchers consider other character attributes too. Two common ones include beliefs about whether someone will listen and share information https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470241302758 and whether someone shares your values https://www.press.jhu.edu/books/title/12411/strategic science communication . These distinctions matter for experts who want to earn trust because the actions needed to demonstrate one aspect of trustworthiness may not demonstrate other aspects. For example, experts might put a lot of effort into listening to community needs to demonstrate integrity and openness, but miss opportunities to communicate the underlying benevolent motivations driving their work. A public health department might hold listening sessions before rolling out a new program, but if it doesn’t also explain why it’s investing in that program – what it’s trying to protect people from, and who benefits – residents may come away seeing a checkbox exercise rather than genuine care. Trust isn’t one size fits all Another challenge: Trustworthiness beliefs depend heavily on context https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1081086 . This is easy to see with expertise beliefs. The expertise you look for in a mechanic differs from what you look for in a doctor. Trustworthiness beliefs also aren’t the only thing that shapes whether someone follows expert advice. Behavior change research https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102192 points to other factors – like whether people believe an action actually benefits them, whether it’s socially accepted among their friends and family, and whether they feel capable of doing it. In other words, someone might trust Fauci and still not get vaccinated, if they don’t believe the shot benefits them or don’t think they can manage the side effects. How experts can earn trust Experts cannot assume that others see them as trustworthy or that people will pay attention to them while ignoring sources who have demonstrated other aspects of trustworthiness. Experts also cannot assume people will pay close attention https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780374533557/thinkingfastandslow/ to every choice they’re asked to make or the trustworthiness of every information source.
Psychology shows people aren’t always going to make a decision because of an expert’s recommendation. SOPA Images/LightRocket Collection via Getty Images People may also often rely on the most available information or follow potentially misleading cues like how compelling someone sounds, their appearance or existing beliefs. Camera ready influencers who interact regularly with audiences and health gurus who spend substantial time with their clients have many opportunities to shape beliefs about their ability, benevolence and integrity that busy experts cannot easily match. These examples point to the reality that bona fide experts need to take advantage of every opportunity to demonstrate trustworthiness https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586 026 01981 z in engaging ways. This way, trustworthiness beliefs already exist when people make choices and when encountering potential causes for concern like Fauci’s testimony. I often advise scientists https://doi.org/10.22323/2.23070801 to be more proactive in demonstrating their motivations and how they protect their work’s integrity while avoiding choices that may communicate a lack of concern or shared values https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2016.1223159 . Read more of our stories about Pittsburgh and Pennsylvania https://theconversation.com/us/pittsburgh news .
John C. Besley receives funding relevant to trust from the National Science Foundation, the USDA NIFA, the National Institutes of Health, and The Kavli Foundation. He has previously received funding from other science focused foundations and government research programs. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of funders.