The Science of Trust

Bridging work delivers measurable results. Now let’s use these metrics and design tech to scale it.

On a warm evening in Tennessee, an unlikely group sits together in a neutral community space. They are diverse by design — different races, ages, political views, and life experiences.

At first, the conversation is careful. People share memories — of Oak Ridge’s role in the Manhattan Project, of segregation, of how the community has changed. Slowly, something shifts. One participant has what they call an “aha moment”:

“I’m out of my bubble now, and so I can kind of hear these stories in a way that I was not able to hear them before.”

It’s part of Oak Ridge Periodic Tables, a local effort funded through the New Pluralists’ Healing Starts Here initiative to bridge divides and strengthen belonging in a city whose history is still seen through very different lenses.

The dialogue leads to action — bringing disability advocates and city officials together to co-design accessibility improvements, and forming a new Disability Advisory Board.

It’s human. It’s hopeful.

And, you might be thinking: That’s nice… but isn’t it just a drop in the ocean?

From drops to data

It might seem small compared to the rising tide of polarization in real life and online. But these ‘drops’ aren’t just symbolic. They’re more measurable than ever— and the evidence shows they add up.

The Healing Starts Here portfolio review examined 32 grantees working in rural towns, major cities, and cross-faith, cross-race, and cross-partisan initiatives. Rather than just tallying attendance or collecting feel-good anecdotes, the evaluation dug into how programs reframed entrenched narratives, shifted perceptions of who belongs, and built new local systems for collaboration.

Results were measurable:

• In one rural program, the share of participants who felt they had “a lot in common” with people from different backgrounds doubled.

• In a multi-faith initiative, 78% said they were more willing to collaborate across faith lines.

“Pluralism work is not about avoiding conflict, but about developing the muscles and trust to stay in relationship through conflict,” according to New Pluralists’ review.

A rigorous national test

This momentum builds on another large-scale, rigorous evaluation by the Listen First Project, a coalition of over 500 organizations working to bridge divides in the U.S.

To understand the impact of the hundreds of bridging initiatives, the coalition developed the Social Cohesion Impact Measurement (SCIM) framework. SCIM tracks four key shifts:

1. Empathy and perspective-taking

2. Respect for people with opposing views

3. Animosity toward political “others”

4. Confidence in having difficult conversations

Over two years, 25 organizations used SCIM to collect 2,798 matched pre- and post-surveys. The evaluation showed statistically significant positive changes across all four measures, averaging over 0.2 standard deviations — the social science threshold for meaningful impact.

Importantly, the participants were not those more ‘likely’ to be open to bridging, but reflected roughly the same baseline as the average American.

“The evidence shows that, yes, bridging has a positive impact,” write authors Julia Kamin of the Civic Health Project and Karissa Raskin of Listen First Project.

Scaling up globally

These methods hold up — even in conflict-heavy contexts.

Search for Common Ground, operating in 35 countries, uses its Peace Impact Framework to track five “vital signs” of peace:

1. Violence — actual and perceived safety

2. Agency — whether people feel they can influence change

3. Polarization — trust across divides

4. Legitimacy — trust in institutions

5. Investments — resources that support peace or fuel conflict

Their 2023 global impact report reflects examples of what changes when polarization drops. From reopening markets in conflict zones to fostering cross-party cooperation in parliaments, the results show that lowering polarization changes daily life.

Networked trust needs resources

This importance of "investment in peacebuilding and social cohesion" as the fifth ‘vital sign’ is underscored by a recent article by Columbia University's peace scientist -Peter T. Coleman. Studying not just war torn communities but also countries who have sustained peace, he concludes that peace is actively sustained through positive intergroup reciprocity — repeated, constructive interactions.

“To genuinely sustain peace, societies must intentionally engineer and cultivate positive reciprocity networks before conflict ever arises. This is neither idealism nor naiveté — it’s rigorous science, empirically supported, and tragically neglected,” writes Coleman.

What this means for tech

For those working at the intersection of technology and society, the lesson is clear: harm reduction — whether in social media, recommender systems, or AI companions — is necessary, but not sufficient.

The Council on Tech and Social Cohesion’s Blueprint for Prosocial Technology Design and Governance, authored by Dr. Lisa Schirch, makes the choice explicit:

• Antisocial tech fuels division, erodes trust, limits agency, and rewards cycles of hostility.

• Prosocial tech strengthens connection across difference, builds trust, expands agency, and rewards positive reciprocity.

The same indicators tracked by SCIM, Healing Starts Here, and the Peace Impact Framework can be translated directly into platform design goals and success metrics — making it possible to measure, in real time, whether a technology is helping or harming the social fabric.

Some are already taking up the challenge. New_ Public is experimenting with “locally cohesive” digital spaces that nurture trust, reciprocity, and shared problem-solving — the same conditions that make offline communities thrive.

If we can measure belonging in a Tennessee community center, we can measure it in the platforms where so much of life unfolds. The tools are here. What’s left is a choice: design for connection, or watch polarization tear us apart.

Lena Slachmuijlder is Senior Advisor at Search for Common Ground and Co-Chairs the Council on Tech and Social Cohesion.