The dance of trust for multicultural individuals: Cognitive paradoxes and limitations in trust development
Andre Pekerti & Catherine T. Kwantes
Abstract
Trust development in international business often occurs under conditions of unfamiliarity, uncertainty, vulnerability, anxiety, and time pressure (U2VAT-Conditions), which strain cognitive resources, increase reliance on automatic processing and category-based heuristics, shaping how trustors evaluate the trustworthiness of unfamiliar others. Drawing on economics, psychology, sociology, and identity research, we examine how and why, when multicultural identities are processed under strain, this processing affects trust formation. We integrate these lenses to present a conceptual model of how U2VAT-Conditions distort trustworthiness assessments. We introduce two cognitive paradoxes related to identity cues that can evoke efficiency and deliberation, thereby simultaneously enabling and distorting trustworthiness assessments. These insights are relevant to human resource management (HRM), where trust judgments shape HRM decisions, because they often occur under U2VAT-Conditions, and are vulnerable to cognitive depletion and bias. The paradoxes highlight why well-intentioned managers may misjudge multicultural employees, with implications for reflective, equitable, trust-based HRM practices. • Introduce U2VAT-Conditions (uncertainty, unfamiliarity, vulnerability, anxiety, time pressure) during trust development. • U2VAT conditions drain cognitive resources and reveal two paradoxes in how controlled and automatic processes interact under strain. • How n‑Cultural identities both facilitate and hinder trust judgments, creating opportunities and risks in HR contexts. • Practical HRM steps to reduce bias and cognitive overload in recruitment, evaluation, and cross‑cultural collaboration.
Evidence weight
Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40
| F · citation impact | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
| M · momentum | 0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07 |
| V · venue signal | 0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03 |
| R · text relevance † | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.