# Global trends in interpersonal and institutional trust

Trust functions as the fundamental social capital that sustains community cohesion, underpins macroeconomic stability, and validates the legitimacy of governance structures. An extensive analysis of contemporary global data indicates that humanity is not experiencing a uniform, ubiquitous evaporation of trust, but rather a profound structural stratification. Social trust is increasingly consolidating within localized, homogenous networks while eroding rapidly at the broader institutional and outgroup levels. This phenomenon reflects a worldwide transition from generalized trust—the civic belief that most unknown members of society are inherently reliable—to particularized trust, a defensive posture wherein confidence is strictly reserved for immediate familial, occupational, and ideological cohorts.

Evaluating this structural shift requires an exhaustive examination of demographic, geopolitical, economic, and technological indicators. By synthesizing longitudinal data from the World Values Survey (WVS), the Edelman Trust Barometer, the Pew Research Center, and regional barometers (Latinobarómetro, Afrobarometer, and Asian Barometer), distinct causal mechanisms emerge. Severe income inequality, affective political polarization, the fragmentation of shared epistemic environments via artificial intelligence, and the highly uneven distribution of state welfare all act as the primary structural drivers shaping the contemporary landscape of human trust.

## The Global Architecture of Trust

Sociological frameworks traditionally bifurcate the architecture of societal confidence into two distinct but interacting domains: institutional trust, which measures public confidence in macro-level entities such as national governments, media syndicates, corporate enterprises, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs); and interpersonal trust, which measures an individual's faith in the general reliability of other human beings within their society. Recent cross-national data indicates a severe decoupling of these domains, heavily influenced by an overarching societal crisis of confidence and a retreat into insularity.

### The Trajectory of Institutional Confidence

Global institutional trust has experienced a precipitous and sustained decline across almost all measurable sectors over the past two decades. Between the early 2000s and 2025, public trust in national governments, scientific and academic institutions, multinational corporations, the United Nations, and NGOs all suffered notable and continuous contractions [cite: 1, 2]. National governments, in particular, currently operate with a massive trust deficit. In numerous developed markets throughout Europe and North America, a larger percentage of the population actively distrusts major institutions than trusts them, frequently placing government entities in direct competition with global media organizations for the lowest credibility ratings [cite: 1].

Across 26 nations surveyed in early 2026, 69 percent of respondents expressed the active fear that government leaders are deliberately misleading the public—a stark 11-point increase since 2021 [cite: 3, 4, 5]. Furthermore, perceptions of institutional competence and ethics are severely depressed. While business remains the only institution broadly perceived as both competent and ethical by the global aggregate, global companies headquartered in foreign nations remain among the least-trusted entities, revealing a deep-seated skepticism regarding corporate commitments to societal impact outside of localized, nationalistic frameworks [cite: 1, 4]. 

### The Divergence Toward Insularity and Particularized Trust

While institutional trust has collapsed, generalized interpersonal trust has not uniformly evaporated; rather, its nature has transformed into defensive insularity. Data from 2026 reveals an acute shift from a "we" mentality to a "me" mentality. Globally, 70 percent of individuals report hesitation or outright unwillingness to trust someone who differs from them in cultural values, problem-solving approaches, or political backgrounds [cite: 4, 6]. This rising insularity is highest in developed markets, reaching 90 percent in Japan, 81 percent in Germany, and 70 percent in the United States [cite: 4]. 

Consequently, trust is being reallocated away from the generalized public sphere and concentrated into proximate, familiar entities. Globally, the most trusted figures are scientists (74 percent), teachers (70 percent), and immediate neighbors (61 percent), whereas journalists (48 percent), CEOs (48 percent), and government leaders (43 percent) face acute skepticism [cite: 6].

This systemic insularity is most prominently evidenced by the extraordinary psychological reliance currently placed upon the employer-employee relationship. In a landscape largely devoid of institutional credibility, "my employer" has emerged as the premier trust broker. Upwards of 78 percent of employees globally trust their employer, leading business and government institutions by significant margins [cite: 4, 7]. However, this hyper-localized trust also enforces ideological purity. An estimated 42 percent of employees state they would actively seek to change departments rather than report to a manager holding contrasting social or political values, and 34 percent would deliberately reduce their effort for a project lead with opposing beliefs [cite: 6, 8]. 

## Economic Stratification and Income Inequality

Economic indicators, particularly wealth inequality and the Gini coefficient, serve as the most reliable statistical predictors of generalized trust across global populations. Cross-national comparative studies unequivocally demonstrate that as a nation's income inequality rises, interpersonal and institutional trust correspondingly fall [cite: 9, 10]. 

### The Success and Well-Being Theory of Trust

Sociologists categorize this dynamic under the "success and well-being theory of trust," which posits that individuals possessing a higher subjective sense of control over their lives can afford to absorb the inherent risks of trusting strangers [cite: 11]. Generalized trust always carries the latent risk of betrayal by unfamiliar actors. High-income individuals enjoy greater economic security, stable employment, and systemic insulation from macroeconomic shocks. Consequently, they view the surrounding world as predictable, benign, and trustworthy [cite: 9, 11]. 

Conversely, low-income individuals, lacking a robust financial safety net, cannot afford the material costs of betrayal and thus adopt highly defensive, low-trust postures. Furthermore, vast economic disparities lead to geographic and social stratification, minimizing egalitarian social contact between different socioeconomic classes. This lack of interaction curtails the development of shared social capital, fostering outgroup derogation and localized suspicion [cite: 9, 12]. 

### The Expanding Mass-Class Divide

This macroeconomic reality is mirrored at the individual level through the widening "mass-class divide." Longitudinal data reveals that the global trust gap between high-income and low-income respondents is expanding at an alarming rate. In 2012, the global trust gap between the highest and lowest earners was a relatively modest six points. By 2026, this gap had more than doubled to an average of 15 to 16 points globally, and surged to a massive 29-point divide in the United States [cite: 4, 6, 13]. 

High-income earners consistently report significantly higher levels of generalized trust and institutional confidence, largely because existing systems yield tangible dividends for this demographic [cite: 13, 14]. Low-income respondents, by contrast, rate major institutions as 18 points less competent and 15 points less ethical than their high-income counterparts [cite: 4, 5]. This lack of trust correlates strongly with economic anxiety and a collapse in optimism; only 32 percent of global respondents believe the next generation will be better off, with optimism dropping to historic lows of 6 percent in France, 8 percent in Germany, and 21 percent in the United States [cite: 4, 5].

| Metric Category | Low-Income Respondents | High-Income Respondents | Global Trust Gap (2026) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **Institutional Trust Index** | 54% | 70% | 16 Points |
| **Perception of Institutional Competence** | Baseline | +18 Points | 18 Points |
| **Perception of Institutional Ethics** | Baseline | +15 Points | 15 Points |
| **Optimism for the Next Generation** | Lower Baseline | Higher Baseline | Severely Divergent |

### System Justification and Intergroup Bias

Curiously, experimental economics utilizing behavioral trust games reveals that interpersonal trust biases are heavily influenced by the psychological need for system justification. Humans are fundamentally motivated to rationalize and defend the social and economic systems upon which they depend, even if those systems generate inequality that is disadvantageous to them [cite: 15]. 

In behavioral trials, higher-income individuals frequently demonstrate ingroup favoritism, exhibiting higher levels of unreciprocated trust toward other wealthy individuals than toward those with lower incomes. Conversely, lower-income individuals—influenced by the psychological imperative to view the overarching system as legitimate—frequently exhibit outgroup favoritism. They reliably extend more trust toward higher-income individuals than toward their fellow lower-income peers, essentially penalizing members of their own socioeconomic stratum in interpersonal interactions [cite: 15].

## Geographic Disparities and Regional Dynamics

The distribution of interpersonal trust is highly uneven across the global landscape and correlates robustly with per capita gross domestic product (GDP), institutional stability, and the structural integrity of social welfare systems [cite: 16, 17]. Nations that successfully mitigate economic volatility and maintain transparent civil services consistently register the highest levels of interpersonal trust. In contrast, nations suffering from acute political instability, high violent crime rates, and stark wealth stratification register severe trust deficits.



The following table synthesizes the stark regional contrasts in generalized trust, comparing the percentage of citizens who agree that "most people can be trusted" across selected global markets based on data spanning 2024 to 2026.

| Region | Country | Generalized Interpersonal Trust | Income Classification | Structural Context |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **Northern Europe** | Sweden | 83% | High-Income | Robust welfare state, low corruption [cite: 16, 18]. |
| **Northern Europe** | Denmark | 74% | High-Income | High social safety net, civic transparency [cite: 19]. |
| **North America** | Canada | 73% | High-Income | Moderate polarization, stable institutions [cite: 18]. |
| **East Asia** | China | 63% | Upper-Middle Income | Collectivist traditions, high state capacity [cite: 19]. |
| **North America** | United States | 55% | High-Income | Severe polarization, vast mass-class divide [cite: 16, 18]. |
| **Latin America** | Mexico | 26% | Middle-Income | High violent crime, volatile economy [cite: 20, 21]. |
| **Middle East** | Turkey | 14% | Middle-Income | Political volatility, economic instability [cite: 16, 18]. |
| **Latin America** | Brazil | 11% | Middle-Income | Extreme inequality, institutional corruption [cite: 19, 22]. |
| **Latin America** | Peru | 4% | Middle-Income | Chronic political crises, deep stratification [cite: 19]. |

### The Nordic Trust Paradigm
The Nordic states—comprising Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland—consistently dominate global indices for both institutional and interpersonal trust. In these societies, upwards of 60 to 83 percent of respondents believe that most people can be trusted [cite: 10, 16, 18, 19]. This phenomenon is deeply intertwined with the robust Nordic welfare model, which ensures low income inequality, extensive social safety nets, and highly reliable public services. The predictable and fair delivery of these services engenders deep institutional legitimacy, which subsequently translates into a highly trusting civic culture. Citizens in these nations generally feel that they receive a fair return on their high taxation rates [cite: 12, 23, 24]. 

However, regional sociologists identify this high baseline trust as a structural "double-edged sword." The sustainability of a high-tax, high-benefit welfare state relies implicitly on a vast majority of "hard-riders"—law-abiding citizens who are industrious, honest, and contribute more than they extract [cite: 25]. Extremely high levels of unverified social trust render these welfare systems highly vulnerable to exploitation by "easy-riders," individuals who seek illegitimate social benefits without participating equitably. Consequently, the maintenance of the Nordic trust model necessitates the presence of "tough-riders" within the population who are willing to informally discipline norm violations and prevent blind trust from enabling systemic abuse [cite: 25].

### Latin America and the Security Deficit
Conversely, Latin America exhibits some of the lowest interpersonal trust metrics in recorded global data. The regional average for interpersonal trust has languished between 12 and 18 percent for over a decade, indicating a chronic deficit of social capital [cite: 26]. Extreme outliers such as Peru, Nicaragua, and Colombia register generalized trust levels at or below 6 percent, while in Brazil, less than 15 percent of the population believes others can be trusted [cite: 19, 21, 22]. Mexico represents the regional ceiling, with interpersonal trust at merely 26 percent as of 2024 [cite: 20, 21]. 

The primary causal mechanisms for this deficit include chronic political instability, systemic institutional corruption, and severe, pervasive violent crime. Decades of state failure have forced populations to rely exclusively on immediate familial and neighborhood networks for economic survival and physical security, actively cultivating deep suspicion of strangers as a necessary protective mechanism [cite: 12, 19, 26]. Interestingly, while institutional trust in Latin American governments saw a brief, localized resurgence between 2018 and 2020—driven by pandemic-era relief policies and the election of outsider candidates challenging traditional party systems—this temporary political optimism did not generate a corresponding recovery in interpersonal trust, underscoring how deeply entrenched civic suspicion has become [cite: 12].

### The African Context and Interethnic Dynamics
Across the African continent, historical legacies of colonialism, fragile state institutions, and arbitrarily drawn borders significantly complicate the trust landscape. Data from the 2021–2023 Afrobarometer (encompassing surveys across 39 countries) highlights profound societal struggles with interethnic trust. On average, only 21 percent of citizens trust individuals from other ethnic groups "a lot," while 36 percent trust them "somewhat" [cite: 27, 28]. 

Despite these low baseline trust indicators regarding outgroups, the data reveals a remarkable resilience in the desire for social coexistence. Fully 90 percent of surveyed Africans report no objection to having neighbors from different ethnic backgrounds, and 89 percent are open to interethnic marriages within their immediate families [cite: 27]. Identity politics, however, reflect growing administrative friction. The share of citizens who feel primarily connected to their national identity over their localized ethnic identity has dropped by 12 percentage points over the last decade. Concurrently, 41 percent of respondents report that their specific ethnic group is treated unfairly by their government, highlighting how perceived institutional bias degrades broader social cohesion [cite: 27].

### The Asian Bimodal Distribution
The Asia-Pacific region demonstrates a distinct bimodal distribution of trust. High-trust societies include China and India, where upwards of 56 to 63 percent of the population reports high generalized trust [cite: 19, 22]. Australia similarly maintains strong social trust at approximately 69 percent [cite: 18]. 

In stark contrast, nations such as South Korea, Thailand, and Malaysia register significantly lower trust metrics, creating distinct "medium" and "low" tiers within the region [cite: 22, 29]. Research utilizing the Asian Barometer Survey indicates that in many Asian contexts, traditionalist and authoritarian cultural values act as powerful moderating variables. These values can occasionally reinforce interpersonal trust and social cohesion at the local, communal level, while simultaneously buffering populations against the negative societal impacts of declining political trust and a fragmented media landscape [cite: 30]. However, even within the Asia-Pacific region, an inward-looking trust environment is expanding, with respondents displaying a growing preference for domestic corporations over foreign entities and a marked hesitancy to engage with ideologically dissimilar individuals [cite: 13].

## Political Polarization and Social Identity

Political polarization has fundamentally altered the radius of human trust in the twenty-first century, transforming generalized social capital into weaponized tribal loyalty. Trust is increasingly deployed not as a neutral assessment of a stranger's basic reliability, but as a politically signaled heuristic designed to identify ingroup affiliation.

The measurement of generalized trust is now inextricably entangled with affective polarization—the tendency of citizens to view out-party members negatively while exhibiting blind loyalty to their own political faction. However, empirical research indicates it is not merely actual polarization that destroys trust, but *perceived* polarization. Longitudinal panel data from the United States demonstrates that when citizens perceive the average person in their nation to be highly partisan, extreme, and close-minded, it induces profound feelings of estrangement from society at large [cite: 31]. This perception alone drives down generalized trust, reducing the average citizen's willingness to cooperate with unfamiliar others or contribute to public goods [cite: 31, 32, 33]. 

Furthermore, strong partisan identities act as a powerful linkage mechanism to political institutions. Increases in partisan strength are positively related to political trust for the individual's preferred party, but operate at the direct expense of generalized interpersonal trust [cite: 33]. As citizens align more closely with distinct political identities, their capacity to trust the "average" member of society diminishes. 

### Bureaucratic Encounters and Political Signaling
This dynamic extends deeply into the administrative functions of the state. Elected officials, grassroots coalitions, and political elites routinely engage in "political signaling" to distinguish publicly salient policies and establish partisan battlelines [cite: 34]. These signals cascade down to the citizenry, shaping how individuals respond to survey data and how they interact with government bureaucracy. 

Research indicates that cognitive responses to elite signals dictate public preference and trust. Politically sophisticated citizens are more likely to receive and internalize these signals, aligning their trust judgments with their partisan identity [cite: 35]. This signaling also influences frontline administrative law. If policymakers are conditioned by group reputations or negative stereotypes (e.g., signaling regarding low-income constituents or minority groups), these biases are often absorbed by administrative law judges and hearing examiners, leading to procedural disadvantages for marginalized groups [cite: 34]. When citizens perceive that administrative outcomes are driven by political signaling rather than objective fairness, trust in both the government and the broader society erodes [cite: 34, 36].

### The Religiosity Paradox
Religious affiliation provides a highly complex lens through which to view trust formation, presenting a well-documented sociological paradox. Regular participation in religious institutions fosters high levels of localized social capital, solidarity, and mutual support [cite: 37, 38]. This active social belonging is a strong predictor of elevated interpersonal trust within the immediate community.

However, the nature of this trust is deeply particularized. Research utilizing the General Social Survey and the World Values Survey demonstrates a clear divergence: while social religiosity (e.g., attending services, belonging to a congregation) increases ingroup trust, strict individual religiosity and the prioritization of exclusive theological belief frequently predict lower generalized trust toward outgroups [cite: 37, 38]. In highly fundamentalist or exclusive denominations, religion directs trust entirely inward, leading to the isolation of social groups and a measurable decrease in the willingness to trust strangers or individuals of different faiths [cite: 37, 39].

Interestingly, this paradox is heavily mediated by the overarching national context. In nations characterized by high baseline religious pluralism, strong personal religious belief can act as a psychological buffer that protects an individual's self-rated health and well-being, successfully offsetting the negative psychological impacts of holding low trust in outgroups [cite: 40]. 

## Technological Disruption and the Information Environment

Technological disruption, driven by algorithmic social media feeds and the rapid proliferation of artificial intelligence (AI), is radically reshaping human cognitive processing and social interaction. These technologies present entirely new vectors for the rapid deterioration of interpersonal and institutional trust.

### Algorithmic Amplification and Psychological Distress
Social media platforms operate as persuasive technologies engineered explicitly to capture and retain user attention via algorithmic curation [cite: 41, 42]. These underlying structures inherently prioritize sensationalism, emotional resonance, and outrage over factual accuracy or nuanced discourse. For younger demographics particularly, this creates a deeply paradoxical environment: platforms theoretically designed to enhance social connectivity ultimately breed cultures of superficiality, comparison, and profound psychological distress [cite: 41, 42]. 

The constant curation of online personas and the endless scrolling facilitated by infinite content feeds erode the societal capacity for deep, authentic conversation and critical thinking [cite: 41, 42]. When digital interaction relies on the constant need for social validation and exposes users to cyberbullying and curated perfection, it inherently hollows out the psychological bedrock required to form resilient interpersonal trust in the physical world.

### Artificial Intelligence and Epistemic Fragmentation
Generative AI and advanced conversational agents present an even more intimate disruption to human socialization. Human-AI interaction studies, grounded in Media Equation Theory, reveal that humans readily anthropomorphize algorithms, projecting emotion, intentionality, and empathy onto non-human computational systems [cite: 43]. This dynamic has given rise to robust parasocial relationships, wherein individuals form intense, one-sided emotional attachments to AI chatbots [cite: 43, 44]. 

As internet usage has skyrocketed and human loneliness reaches epidemic proportions globally, significant segments of the population are turning to virtual agents for emotional regulation and therapeutic discussion rather than seeking human connection [cite: 43, 44]. A recent survey highlighted that 25 percent of young adults believe AI possesses the potential to entirely replace real-life romantic relationships [cite: 44]. 

While AI can provide highly accessible emotional support, it poses a severe, long-term threat to social cohesion. The distinct lack of genuine human empathy in AI retards the development of complex human conflict-resolution skills. Furthermore, an overreliance on frictionless, algorithmically tailored AI companions actively diminishes a user's psychological tolerance for the inherent friction, unpredictability, and emotional labor required to maintain real human relationships [cite: 43, 44]. When individuals retreat into personalized digital echo chambers that never challenge their biases, the social muscle memory required to trust, negotiate with, and cooperate with unpredictable human strangers atrophies. 

Simultaneously, the proliferation of generative AI outputs, deepfakes, and highly convincing synthetic media has triggered a profound epistemic crisis. When digital evidence can no longer be easily authenticated by the average citizen, the foundational baseline for verifying reality collapses. This epistemic uncertainty directly undermines public trust in digital media, journalistic institutions, and the very concept of shared objective truth [cite: 43].

## Conclusions and Future Outlook

The empirical data across the global landscape points to a distinct evolution rather than a simple, linear evaporation of trust. Trust is a highly reactive and rational phenomenon, intricately calibrated to the economic security, institutional fairness, and technological environment of the individual. 

Where governance is transparent, social welfare is guaranteed, and economic inequality is minimal—as observed primarily in Northern Europe—generalized trust thrives, facilitating robust economic growth and societal resilience. Conversely, the vast majority of the global population resides in middle- to low-income environments characterized by widening wealth gaps, rising political sectarianism, and highly unreliable institutions. In these environments, human beings are highly rational actors who adapt to systemic risk by withdrawing their trust from the unpredictable generalized public sphere and consolidating it strictly within familiar, ideologically pure, and highly localized networks. 

Reversing this global slide into insularity requires interventions that extend far beyond corporate public relations or political rhetoric. The data overwhelmingly suggests that broad-scale interpersonal trust can only be regenerated through the implementation of structural policies that materially reduce economic stratification, secure transparent and highly accountable civic institutions, and deliberately moderate the polarizing, isolating effects of persuasive digital technologies. Until the material and psychological risks of trusting strangers are minimized by stable societal safety nets, the global trust recession will likely deepen, further fragmenting nations into guarded, alienated, and defensive enclaves.

[image delta #1, 0 bytes]

## Sources

1. [GlobeScan](https://globescan.com/2026/02/11/insight-of-the-week-trust-in-institutions-global/)
2. [SCORE India](https://scoreindia.org/blog/how-is-the-global-trust-landscape-evolving/)
3. [Edelman Smithfield](https://www.edelmansmithfield.com/financial-services-sector-trusted-first-time-global-financial-crisis)
4. [Edelman Trust Barometer](https://www.edelman.com/trust/2025/trust-barometer)
5. [Edelman 25 Years](https://www.edelman.com/trust/25years)
6. [JMSR Online](https://www.jmsr-online.com/article/artificial-intelligence-and-social-interactions-understanding-ai-s-role-in-shaping-human-psychology-and-social-dynamics-220/)
7. [APA Monitor](https://www.apa.org/monitor/2025/01/trends-harnessing-power-of-artificial-intelligence)
8. [UNC The Mix 2025](https://chuckstone.web.unc.edu/the-mix-2025-investigating-ais-impacts-on-education-and-media/the-mix-2025-the-impact-of-ai-on-relationships-and-trust/)
9. [arXiv](https://arxiv.org/html/2408.10351v1)
10. [DSU Scholar](https://scholar.dsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1222&context=ccspapers)
11. [Open Research Europe](https://open-research-europe.ec.europa.eu/articles/6-123)
12. [NCBI PMC 6185847](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6185847/)
13. [NCBI PMC 8502873](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8502873/)
14. [GINI Research](https://gini-research.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/DP_20_Does-Income-Inequality-Negatively-Affect-General-Trust_.pdf)
15. [ResearchGate](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254111257_Social_Class_Predicts_Generalized_Trust_But_Only_in_Wealthy_Societies)
16. [Keystone Education Group](https://www.keg.com/press/rise-of-the-nordics-student-interest-up-33-as-demand-shifts-toward-stability-and-value)
17. [DiVA Portal](https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:2053207/FULLTEXT01.pdf)
18. [SOU Honors College](https://sou.edu/academics/honors-college-democracy-project-2023-nordic-dispatches-week-two/)
19. [OECD Norway](https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/oecd-survey-on-drivers-of-trust-in-public-institutions-2024-results-country-notes_a8004759-en/norway_d9a67b9b-en.html)
20. [SDU Find Researcher](https://portal.findresearcher.sdu.dk/en/publications/social-trust-as-the-nordic-x-factor-a-double-edged-sword/)
21. [NCBI PMC 8932466](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8932466/)
22. [Politics StackExchange](https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/63376/what-is-a-possible-theoretical-relationship-between-social-trust-and-political-p)
23. [Oxford Academic IJPOR](https://academic.oup.com/ijpor/article/25/1/23/733410)
24. [PubMed 29108592](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29108592/)
25. [EUI Cadmus](https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstreams/64538fcb-55a2-5920-85e3-2ce634db875a/download)
26. [Ipsos Global Advisor](https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2022-03/Global%20Advisor%20-%20Interpersonal%20Trust%202022%20-%20Graphic%20Report_0.pdf)
27. [NCBI PMC 3997396](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3997396/)
28. [Asian Barometer Home](https://asianbarometer.org/)
29. [Asian Barometer Data](https://asianbarometer.org/datar?page=d10)
30. [Asian Barometer Survey](https://asianbarometer.org/survey.html?page=s20)
31. [ResearchGate Signaling](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315106946_Trust_Fairness_and_Signalling_Studying_the_interaction_between_officials_and_citizens)
32. [Harvard HKS Publications](https://appext.hks.harvard.edu/publications/getFile.aspx?Id=18)
33. [MDPI Social Sciences](https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/6/1/3)
34. [WZB Bibliothek](https://bibliothek.wzb.eu/pdf/2025/ii25-601.pdf)
35. [MIT Press ISEC](https://direct.mit.edu/isec/article/49/3/164/128034/Boom-Bling-Backbone-or-Blip-The-Signaling-Inherent)
36. [UNDP Latin America Blog](https://www.undp.org/latin-america/blog/whom-do-we-trust-less-institutions-and-more-communities-lac)
37. [BTI Project Mexico](https://bti-project.org/en/reports/country-report/MEX)
38. [Visual Capitalist Trust Map](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-where-people-trust-each-other-most-by-country/)
39. [Latinometrics Trust](https://www.latinometrics.com/articles/trust-2025-01-30-0)
40. [Latinobarómetro 2024 Results](https://www.latinobarometro.org/documents/LAT-2024/latinobarometro-2024-results-by-country.pdf)
41. [ResearchGate Religiosity](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284281505_Does_Religion_Breed_Trust_A_Cross-National_Study_of_the_Effects_of_Religious_Involvement_Religious_Faith_and_Religious_Context_on_Social_Trust)
42. [Rutgers Scholarship](https://scholarship.libraries.rutgers.edu/esploro/outputs/preprint/Religiosity-and-trust-evidence-from-the/991031561925704646)
43. [PubMed 34396483](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34396483/)
44. [ResearchGate Prosociality](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340709542_Religiosity_shared_identity_trust_and_punishment_of_norm_violations_No_evidence_of_generalized_prosociality)
45. [Taylor & Francis Online](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311886.2023.2191443)
46. [Asian Barometer News](https://asianbarometer.org/)
47. [Asian Barometer Survey Timetable](https://asianbarometer.org/survey.jsp)
48. [MDPI Media Trust](https://www.mdpi.com/2673-5172/7/1/8)
49. [Telum Media APAC](https://insights.telummedia.com/pr-news/study-highlight-the-2026-edelman-trust-barometer-for-asia-pacific)
50. [Asian Barometer Content](https://asianbarometer.org/content?nid=91)
51. [Afrobarometer Interethnic Trust](https://www.afrobarometer.org/articles/africans-struggle-with-interethnic-trust-but-embrace-coexistence-new-afrobarometer-pan-africa-profile-shows/)
52. [Edelman Trust 2025](https://www.edelman.com/trust/2025/trust-barometer)
53. [Pew Research Trust 2025](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/12/01/where-most-people-trust-others-and-where-they-dont-around-the-world/)
54. [OECD Trust Results 2024](https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/oecd-survey-on-drivers-of-trust-in-public-institutions-2024-results_9a20554b-en/full-report/overview-new-trends-persistent-patterns-and-necessary-changes_f3abe0c7.html)
55. [Asian Barometer Survey Topics](https://asianbarometer.org/survey.html?page=s30)
56. [WAPOR Southeast Asia](https://wapor.org/wp-content/uploads/Rood-et-al.-Shifts-in-Democratic-Attitude-Patterns-of-Southeast-Asian-Countries-2010-to-2023.pdf)
57. [Asian Barometer Data Release](https://asianbarometer.org/datar?page=d10)
58. [NUS Asian Barometer](https://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/docs/default-source/ips/presentation-slides_ips-forum-on-singaporeans-political-attitudes_asian-barometer-survey.pdf)
59. [IHSN Catalog ABS](https://catalog.ihsn.org/catalog/3001)
60. [UNDP LAC Trust Blog](https://www.undp.org/latin-america/blog/whom-do-we-trust-less-institutions-and-more-communities-lac)
61. [BTI Mexico PDF](https://bti-project.org/fileadmin/api/content/en/downloads/reports/country_report_2024_MEX.pdf)
62. [Latinometrics Substack](https://mail.latinometrics.com/p/trust)
63. [Latinobarómetro Results English](https://www.latinobarometro.org/documents/LAT-2024/latinobarometro-2024-results-eng.pdf)
64. [Latinobarómetro Time Series](https://www.latinobarometro.org/time-series)
65. [Afrobarometer Pan-Africa Profile](https://www.afrobarometer.org/articles/africans-struggle-with-interethnic-trust-but-embrace-coexistence-new-afrobarometer-pan-africa-profile-shows/)
66. [World Bank Microdata](https://microdata.worldbank.org/index.php/catalog/6664)
67. [Afrobarometer Round 9 Manual](https://www.afrobarometer.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Round-9-Survey-Manual.pdf)
68. [Retroharmonize Afrobarometer](https://retroharmonize.dataobservatory.eu/articles/afrobarometer.html)
69. [IHSN Afrobarometer Docs](https://datacatalog.ihsn.org/catalog/12932/pdf-documentation)
70. [Our World in Data Trust](https://ourworldindata.org/trust)
71. [WVS Publications](https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/AJPublications.jsp?CndPUTYPE=1&PUID=87&CndPUTYPE=1&PUID=87)
72. [World Values Survey](https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/)
73. [WVS Welcome](https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSContents.jsp?CMSID=Welcome&CMSID=Welcome)
74. [WVS Home](https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSContents.jsp?CMSID=Home&CMSID=Home)
75. [Pew Trust Around the World](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/12/01/where-most-people-trust-others-and-where-they-dont-around-the-world/)
76. [Institute for PR Trust](https://instituteforpr.org/how-does-trust-differ-across-the-globe/)
77. [UNU-WIDER Trust Paper](https://www.wider.unu.edu/sites/default/files/Publications/Working-paper/PDF/wp2025-34-trust-changing-world.pdf)
78. [Visual Capitalist Trust Ranked](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-where-people-trust-each-other-most-by-country/)
79. [IHSN WVS Wave 7](https://catalog.ihsn.org/catalog/12303/pdf-documentation)
80. [KCL Confidence in Institutions](https://www.kcl.ac.uk/policy-institute/assets/confidence-in-institutions.pdf)
81. [WVS Welcome Page](https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSContents.jsp?CMSID=Welcome&CMSID=Welcome)
82. [WVS Documentation Wave 7](https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSDocumentationWV7.jsp)
83. [WVS Country 3460](https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSDocumentationWV7.jsp?COUNTRY=3460)
84. [Statista UK Trust](https://www.statista.com/chart/7676/the-uk-ranks-low-for-trust-in-government/)
85. [Pew Trust Summary](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/12/01/where-most-people-trust-others-and-where-they-dont-around-the-world/)
86. [Visual Capitalist Charted Trust](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charted-where-people-trust-each-other-most-and-least-in-the-world/)
87. [Our World in Data Grapher](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/perceived-trust-between-people)
88. [Our World in Data Trust Intro](https://ourworldindata.org/trust)
89. [Google Time Sweden](https://www.google.com/search?q=time+in+Sweden)
90. [Google Time China](https://www.google.com/search?q=time+in+China)
91. [Google Time US](https://www.google.com/search?q=time+in+United+States+of+America)
92. [Google Time Mexico](https://www.google.com/search?q=time+in+Mexico)
93. [Google Time Brazil](https://www.google.com/search?q=time+in+Brazil)
94. [Edelman Trust Barometer 2026](https://www.edelman.com/news-awards/2026-edelman-trust-barometer-society-slides-into-insularity)
95. [PRSA Edelman Trust](https://prsay.prsa.org/2026/01/23/edelman-trust-barometer-economic-anxiety-ai-fears-distrust-making-people-insular/)
96. [Edelman Top 10 Final](https://www.edelman.com/sites/g/files/aatuss191/files/2026-01/ETB%202026_Top10%20Final.pdf)
97. [Interfaith America Edelman](https://www.interfaithamerica.org/article/2026-edelman-trust-barometer/)
98. [Seven Letter Comms Takeaways](https://sevenletter.com/communication-messaging-takeaways-from-2026-edelman-trust-barometer/)

**Sources:**
1. [globescan.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQHl7AudedRoUi_TJhEQPAU1r8eCrf5AGt1yemMM7ENVvujI3xG1AczmBPHv3vPw73mxxuRo0tIiQ8mjLDT_KLr1lSFXXfvLZyzjBzqbKbXNXsVAbatkH6rXOhvLGa25Q0OwAnZ04rfzwCuQ1Q_txLpoNbAMVAzvM33Mq2cPXnG2Bqz6YZJazYc=)
2. [unu.edu](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQGgUflq5RcUseyP7CaOvMGlwgtv1U0VBNbG7EIr6C_XRNi8_AOQNxlSoXOtfaclWCSBtJdbgs12bp-GDqqsMc0oCT0A_WDNKF69mnzku8HGJ81BOuGwuYzlcvPlYHnhHP9-3VBnrDHrsipuk6wM9tEfLsW4lgL1g7jPkIC_OLidtKFNQljPTgVogAYHVzq8qB3sM2N0kyNe19nomITt2PUil3Nm9w==)
3. [statista.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQF0PO3MsDcEOhyExnSRwmfsYDO8ufmtwoPPaosvmlnzLwnZhQ2RCAv6ovI2Nyu7DmZ6X8K9ZsC5ZKwBer8lBVUKLBveoN4qg-Rw2X15Tqq_9HdMo9S2PWQX_hnxh2Z4BI4D_p-RnDgeCVkilPR73F80e9ZLPdpYgcZwFiOVBwEax8uY)
4. [edelman.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQHrIvQNP1S9u0XmPJopiZQBme6jI3t-JiJyiMyscXb0Qti23R7vCcPYucqPBxKfgQdO9JPjAU-ydtWEEH_60jmMh7jF0IPUSVLgwv3vOtT53AEhK9zZgOsGFFlt0NNi3nBoijLdwHQHFWuUsCe2ebmgyD8iZvJKKRaet9IA5GCDLEIljCaFIR-dXzrfqFZfI4bxzgw7)
5. [prsa.org](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQE47J0dPV8woikAC6INDVJF_kmjNAtqIaiZT1TbECdcPZ9s5DPTmCRikNDsodoU26dIIxgsVdwK88E0RgJhJuvxoZ6_ewToqolOoYpPFM0lQLjw_GmD0NWbinVkkTrBvzIIjkL6gTF5nTErTekvnPILntJE84FxPY1zq-DqxiO9NUXkHmb7et_r_d960cdTMVAT_tOZ4Mtxsx6EbAoOxlyFlGK3FUmy3UE=)
6. [edelman.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQG9QfHTCjqvYNluMzf5pzQ6fFLfqSjMX9zZnCSqXbGfg9cKYSowPQ8r1MBbT_-qZS5Rht7_VHAxbMLP3rLaXQVidFwq_pVKzUAmChusTPMJe_wQ3-7tZuSJWGGFmFto5caL-0uWOtpBkSY1mWo18lbbh218PEQxLCs3vToAzHnleug75vPu5sGJa5nS1QLIqg==)
7. [edelman.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQHwewbvQRJa3K06pwLiIn9X-tmj3us4OYxvOeIJRogxQX8gCZtRbLO2oXkO6mcNlGvRcPMdcK5kSj42GhsflL_CZEFjwiHNMp9bL7t059W99_s-iNnbgTjrnMA=)
8. [interfaithamerica.org](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQFNmYkk_M7Z3LkxKb3SPf7Dg34kWdKkX3Gv1qUuyDHijCQ59-YOA14RvKM96WvNsRwB5S7Y1pm2iYOEBscWR4PMHK7B5yHDRA8UsjeRfIgDDxRNlxIdPT1wATf0QHSVGimwSgx8G-QeTk062lI0kRVoHog5pK1OX9czKh2Q)
9. [gini-research.org](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQG4cW7de0itfB27PBbX7Taxc8mBRYY-lJRdZzHGcaPNDmJUtt2SP-4WEzJDLN7DyphnOfLfTaQ7H6RiTon0sRxKCXbVLoNToHhhed0tj0ZHICRf2LyfodvhLwDfFTfC5PS1qzpQc_23xK4SF1sXCFFfTJA-SuajzBIOnm-eNIqnyGF17onGmCUpHbMDkh77qVpFOZZPb6KepHy35ZarretuSuESooUxdufeP7A=)
10. [ourworldindata.org](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQFuG1ZcaZsZ2M1DlqaEWpdYCa6q1qY6G-oX4BCRB9UmVJ_mmHhyy_zj5FXR3ZFDv7aVAud0UMmxp_eUui5IubsOASg0IMyN_W9kZcBrlE4xiJGmNLXm)
11. [nih.gov](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQH3mU5BJ85LQYBzaGaeMZd6tmCrfchz1-pbGgE-o8h_ZgU-EO0-mMoczIpvMJH-Knp2W3FQHYkyp1t58CH4eNpDgTZTk-qRfOcE81rXNEuG09Lsu1KzLveFaB5IHRbL-sthRv7QFPg=)
12. [undp.org](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQFF1wm3XhVwB8MBSPwBL6FCsaf7OcQcQf4MKoK5pZxxB9jJaY6vbow9X8RPnP0F48UNRxAcsQ2YhkrEqjTcuI2WxbZ7WFu5TgrYm90kE051O4KybFFmx_5sTZhBy46akmrefBMjeEnchyccZKxnZ8Hw0Fl8hZLnkQNXpnT1O0_fz7HIArcAL3Q-MeuQIoyUdYKLjPHJC92WCg==)
13. [telummedia.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQHbg2ZWcc3epGmBCVB3fEqFKW6vVrwD4fz4ng8-4Kjg901-TjIi0tA_WQfWlDArHjv0X_E-gVd3TndWl6kK4tWdTpZbceGgLRyIQONpMu12DXrxxZhJKQXV_7F8MVTmC2RBCOD4b2I5BCyuUTJZRCLPV1_EwmHpGuHRxWbuvdTn8Ip0zkS816D9vEm-RAgXLM6TzitrxDJ3QujgGUQAEA==)
14. [scoreindia.org](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQFyXKIoAZtGl6r-MLpM7x26-MGtm_T91TrFKyZ1iHNclmZkHLmgQ6HwL0wlQFC70aOwxB4zTEabLtETBdzOQuXVrC5UXU78si1yJRzJyceVs8v1XVSkJaBWQRNzl7VUvGBfFYeCsMvOvUEN36dbqSJqrrmQgYp_9DoB3his)
15. [nih.gov](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQFGtIv5NaooEQ8Y3HfhhP7iJI8IChV4tUEkX9cCsNWBp4FHTTsG6us2t0F9TMzRzOAyjs0-zHMnlH-2ico46znq2ERAkxqUMGAOHN0BLZvMkez-gXU3rpuB0pQfArqL-NAr6FhKBGk=)
16. [Link](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQF520bP0AbJtYMZAI2Au_0puoMYuIodO_KcvGSY9ZIXLAx8jkor7ikcHys8zo__xBTU5ifdk2QOl3ZyKwqhqizTwRgefgCucFqchkxXEtL9TkM9eaTZ0lG2C-nmxKt_2Aj5MCOHD-g6c-v4uGPWI0NhP9VIO6SrlXW7foziTrRoXn6c2daHoxjFWwGyp6-KKZsLbTW9_yWnqb8YwH3oClDQCdqIKU44yJTn7EyZ)
17. [instituteforpr.org](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQFzFGz-tlxIiiFBcCOpdm2wfVpkKn2JUwTapLi6zqaedKZ8KdYlBu8pTYI0WxXlerUfcDdAmJWjzuP5turlxqU1L1CwtIY7BSSByRf_Rwms5l-5NXMPyGYPtH2qakkwCQa7JO4f8BHfDeggch7LhVSh1s7VCX5-hg==)
18. [visualcapitalist.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQFpZRomYxPJ4-6w0TzSp2otqzOl98flbsrcOzDftibDdT60idoqSSj8g32RAg6lfswVWsg6idRF6V0FaT5AXmMDD3ibSgGl8bs0HrlZOh8wHsLXJIwqkOoYWUjou24KNm8ylUHZzg8qQ1N2Dei8rh_frwxc0oeTXP9U8HrgPrKcLRWYofzaVj6U30R5ZGx9aslCZhvazrAvJQ==)
19. [visualcapitalist.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQF2KEMNooMi8g1hDHzq2ILIJtyh1EVM9NOrrRw8SdR_046LQvJZc6ejwbuXMNGsSlS0HlWxiVqtW87XFWhe0nlxzFoCKmzO5fPUhdSRSnP5W91t1PGyC31382Ew0UKn45KqMBKerdPikQsp2LDI7nL1rgp9MT8AStBB_vBabKRzJa9kbpNe4VgOUB2s)
20. [bti-project.org](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQFJw0-IRqoGYN3_4vfMRBd3WLQlTjIIpHINUJN-YymeeiEEGAM2DUWgTIfhgSlfJGzn7mSSBpidIHWMm6GfrGFFn67UzNAthiH2L1LJv35wPoxbstUWV9sQVch6cdimb5Z66rS6MDMKRndA)
21. [latinometrics.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQFNNFX-QX0YeIuKziyJJIHRZvEggr-Mut8t17AlNQdAhCqOw556CNAPrVUb6ekG23Cu6jFuTqsdpC8kvW0ofhTTdG8VmEcThDnSAEK8bNtCDQ6QDsl6oeFlszUWi1ilfHKW2Po7UlXUyC1AT7GuaA==)
22. [ipsos.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQH8x9DfV-7jDnxLl60NoHMxnRMFkJZCasv27YegAJpjiEx-yzwsdvQipCDXCa6cNtCVngxvVltoBAN_0PKrTfLs5HkCB72cEMWRThg4BGklmhtmc9vPFXYfO5LtUrfQQ94Cae_LPImp_GyZ2QvFc4RNJROJytMImPYSAX0NrOgZwGyAVPejM9-aZiSGpkfcRWCYdnqVk83GCw9RiJ3e_gd4aHvwDPKx8acGifnnCsBcP_GzcJGIQcySqgjLFTS8AaMkOFNXOoOjkn72)
23. [diva-portal.org](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQHFkzc-CzAvzMEnZtWwnPV9u56bjusT0PhPgPdTpH4rCuBBeT75UPKGoNWkjj6fC3P5QatyTAPBNqwVmqNCuQtlnXo2mGFb1oOhyM3NiO9zzgcdpfrqUnMxiSAKAUJFI0fzDzCb5tojp4VFGc1JLgREHdMIwWCgFQ==)
24. [sou.edu](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQFvhlNhlEJeiDt7zwVhjkb-n6qWOY_Bujje1kiaHXQGJv3QzO1WwmQEiUXPhSfcB9qU3rejCTgaYF7myqOG3DfemPGYG0v2ltYhjU_gDrGdsK-3zsVI1bHTszIrvUyT7jyKQ6cpgRM7tj3IJhyQZk3nmNowTrHurydBs1uNDP7_ksfhmerxbVKZtxad8hH6E4c=)
25. [sdu.dk](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQGwxI-GROqfuaqwnFEhrE2IaCGi-AzHtHEllgZ3MlOEb_W-035lvWzbeHap1C2mwxgBGiUZmy78A7VmRChHsLtwx_CepGCI_MDxEaz3zhtTDbF5dLNo9Oaa5Nsxsz5jRrFILIxb7mXa8QiKCjhru9LbZShJVQyQVegnh1QcOTmrW9VaKAyBXO-Iufw3ckYN5PV_QWWCCzoVVC_ToIcXePlRAMtF)
26. [bti-project.org](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQHdu6-1i12BdNRFgWAuuoXHLSgGbCU0Djb0m7GW1YhWHCT8NMlY9l55XZX-1pjpz7NM9IrdJBOJ5qzEuKF7cWoHnoa8BksO4JqA9c33pxt8atkEewCStB2fei9qs6N64k3P-s06dHo6M2BOMMBd2e09bH0vXEwTMmEoTqC4_cvlz1q5hxDj6mCGS7lRtYmWlZCDaEU=)
27. [Link](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQH-V3in2sn_ZvKBqZAA_lvLo0ikt3COZ6RlrHjC-yr5Z7YgFBavEQs5MHoQliuUoqqeLOGvTqRlnAmbWYl6JLIX_iTLuY8c0wcqoZQ_MEiRGSmxitr37HTOe11MqMvU-OfBppYbR6F3EfjTClRR7KuVHLE7aEhpOeXgYvfEPSr4xMQ6BX9P8ocGgRNxJ-h66AhE8H-I43V96kte-MvNcJlehlvqqF5JsPjs0ykC2p9dBM8xPB6a5aHomAoLei-pRXqQ2uAbZjklMDs=)
28. [ihsn.org](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQEIXnqGNEkMklCgZgR7IaTHruZG5J0ZWDY0bPFzUf4XsSaCnuChkPHOSM-rZJa38WR3MdlD1hrYBKqnFFiBix60sZCBtRdxoYj2EQU3vmBDEoOkek1V8vRHrs4yJtWeIUdGqFcjc9nNdYf41D2DupJB_w==)
29. [nih.gov](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQFNqFpaAX2rPti6RzbHD4unpyhL0-ZBYrIbUF_l-Y5pT-KW8K-POEyBZQ0qISxhzTtGDgOWSfWJkxCJ-uVK3K6PwOYjxF4ulFJ5iOODzJLglhasRmkGhK0ut7PEFKcLuFFjUm-DRsU=)
30. [mdpi.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQEKzBw77pN8j-R6EhXvSFUhCjLk1Qklrn_oVkWQNsXWqiI0Y7724nZRxn2vRvUMn9nuiNRbkU-mI0sUGFeUFxWABudHDgyr3CDNsA3567gt7ZNNfDlv-ge7RA==)
31. [nih.gov](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQFo5DUHFlA16u0YP3zowPUACjZvXtsd6UG8CsMejadBMml9oNMpuUuqq7-4I72Z6ri-Y2ZRza1RqiltUuaepxqQVq4v_leEof07HpC0AlnOF0Lr5MF0Noe8VkidAtfxaAHYFFx_cBA=)
32. [oup.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQFBETW4pAntcDDQnqTsc2iyNayNkkjRMVVVPk8JKUT47XVF_AJkK5uWoxWsEGEj9BZF2749mIiT69MzhmQuwDCJY4Qf7p27Pn5JTY4SHsgHjpEFaSpRlGJrfkoQ_bdZDitt7a7o5SPil9MW)
33. [nih.gov](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQFUKrLcz1fP8BjOdXWG-QmM9nhNocVHi3tag1dZUKxbuuKoTVtUf7hVTxj14ghUF5kxKlyuUpNsaqG4AUb9ZALLnA2varzUsbP3lS9E6BUnSGHl_aDtJLo5DKlBlNnQ)
34. [mdpi.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQG1SdvFEaAq86hD2AoPmdOhMdL8v-H5-j7hImDU9GJ1PtbuFXyLAtiIYLOS74yIgx0W0d0Z-j7hrJG0ajYqh-m9O0GV4gjXqfx3x1VdDjKRbaxYt-4KU5I8bg==)
35. [harvard.edu](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQFo3oUrwPY6gN24bIBuy-T3mTJ8uRS51B-xnGi8fV5BYXASeOcyi__tCeoB0l0GmFo7nH9HGqbH7V8Ooc5G60IU85emVYjdnOKMljL1oVmEjAGks47FWYBg0VLL2PiPzk-6IhYswC6LDDf0H2JEXc0d4TE0)
36. [researchgate.net](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQHkq7MtGealcR4-Pxm2csH6xtVKmnB8yKR_zvQYOuRHFl5weMlLPERBOVoJv4RjdwKGDUUZcg1eC0QqU6x5bdYbbLUMSNffBh4CT44si_VErmhuARDcreR4BuccgwqaGLfuSYllIbJbv2ULRLBeCL8Nw1B-xZS-K1TD_Q9BFi8myeYKPCDNxOSv8R-wXoBrair8Poi20cysUv0YcRierZMuj0wjy0m42ALj8wE_ID3KgOkHjaGuxsGseHL6tr64)
37. [researchgate.net](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQEoNwJWdhPARee2-SCW3eXKbf1eqlLKibZBBUouxunskTrP_h0S-iZW43uEetMCScwtBYArKTGNFH_DM91C2p5vS8UWAj_LeJwa-XRpbP6t8FAJ_w-Hp7qSGIDLq74HX8NdQ4yBvYUg2m1Lzlh0gdSE4eh9WZM0ejhXc23bvlOqa5mDoZfm0q1kEiVm32OL8mR5_1IXYUTRfUGyBd6HNb5D63l5iTp8EL5madPsWmEfX_DCG6EeOUMXHCLdD9wSnLkSa50vEATQ5ng7Zl_Q1x4LTiZSOPymQSkGEovFAKt3isPcpr1mnKqXNKxSzToSJaUpKpSaniHb)
38. [rutgers.edu](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQEdyrtHcI45HbhIm9bTxYSSyEc7g49TmZ58TGYP7JfbT1Ow_gJ_1bsWXxShscSAqY-2h7akDlfrgwDNHueKBI2bFot1iYmuH2oDTy0DNLwI4A-QmIs0rZoPCHj3oV_BusBN4OccMIWQ21LDlCILTC1unBLaakQ7_HKKljPbXqF8biBa9PTbD42KedfMR9Bell9HAh0DNRNPR-Ox2wz7M0ZO-aQpNPQ_6D8HZY3GcLb7D3rd)
39. [researchgate.net](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQGhg2XMF9lmXCGJCCq871vE57NZn5NA7J4XJAm3w386w0ZAzYG0Omi8Ezn4n-PJel9JvngecX4Cd_GkQ2I4sARxU1TcWBYGcTUl4HUZ6jmXL8MmeGjhoFrmi7T8ZjSDE3hbh1ECGsRCCHF6APVYuQiCBVcTWGayF6UbLizF3EAbICiuq1hgQw1KRgsL1-5evfZntAHcVOCkY6jc4tyi2n7yAlvRfHfC30XiMs1SUNjqO4ZXpkSsvZcluSbN-ujtHfwmYWXtT3ueWC-wK7_oktEaBxYR-g==)
40. [nih.gov](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQHjARVt2ivLS9H-NVfwkEjaHBClotrTrmi6cJk28JPEKzhAJ5KNtbvWLr7iQlWlPjMr1L4j7MLiPGTc3etXl7EJsnhMUF8225QZwRbN65R0eHtGSyRbZwRyd1GlEKlw)
41. [arxiv.org](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQFnYi4KM0JEDhWdzuA7vErzh2h-m3v_DR46pn-1KCI6nLwZHp9SJn6T0GSiSjx87ukqyRmyERiqb2BK0JhPG9kynaePo6XiOFzvGluYwnCySy3QFzDev__A)
42. [dsu.edu](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQEQJb9J3hqiwRHRzHGXg1r3TaN7df2L-Fa5u38u_V9sRvBNdyDQtNm1d75UiBeD3b-PcPnkLw-6jhEXIavwekRFIhbxLv2FHvqxdhJDnhDD8bxpLG0tWt6n9FGEip8bpv8qJnhzzachejrzdv37ZzwGodDSwYXiIKLvyftmVA41)
43. [jmsr-online.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQHkm2Pu7vmTkLhpu3k9XW96llHYaXCmZunD70Z0DIHp38Y2qGRf7vrFRlE_hFqTgSWQ2oF8rg6os1mDvXyZCpmg5bOBmXbHRHChDZZEnZ2XUTZHde0W_2DRb7PIyB7Nr1Y9lxun84yGxpZEvMAf0IOYEwC_zTvdY80Qe1G5Rat8q2R7wkhhFdstOdBEjEPue6jhBFDTu4mruoD7B4tU1-I487N5ZDKtGsYwVc98UM8XkXv2ldQ_Tg23vDjEugqORUSVAgwZmNvu5XcY2Z_lajWFoiDvH_Nt)
44. [unc.edu](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQHjLwpVvy7i3TG9DyGdq8BvRbJx0He-nasehuUuT_yLb8lfLku_mFxNCJ-_0X0vkm5UK6Z87siS4ulLXiKJ3TF0klJv5Gdloo8d8K-9sSn-7b4e3KS71F4z9WQUwxd_ls6My2m3NARoW9HTCSsp26on4hFhFkghHp2RINQh3iWwwLJV0qGZJxfu3JIrKzrO3lhZ9rjh85GB6OyWJNkFwm11NADL8KrgeXkoy2sdwGOiOT0wrsKJ7tZpiwWCXxIfhbYBKsfcyvhC3v-MYwY=)