Whatever you teach & however you teach it, trust plays a large part in how people perceive your lessons. Not just the trust you intend to communicate, but the trust others believe you’re giving them. That difference—between expectation & perception—turns out to be far more consequential than we often assume.
A recent study in Frontiers in Psychology digs into this idea by examining trust (in)congruence: the mismatch between how much trust subordinates expect from a leader & how much trust they feel they actually receive. Although the research sits in organisational psychology, I feel that the parallels with language classrooms classrooms are worth considering.
The study
The researchers analysed three-wave dyadic data from 330 supervisor–subordinate pairs, measuring two key constructs:
- Three‑wave means data were collected at three different points in time, allowing the researchers to track how trust perceptions evolve.
- Dyadic means data came from both members of each pair, giving a relational, not one‑sided, picture.
This design mirrors something we rarely measure in language classrooms: relationships shift, & so does the trust learners think we place in them.
They measured:
- Expected leader trust (ELT): how much trust employees think they should receive
- Perceived leader trust (PLT): how much trust they feel they actually receive
Using some statistical wizzadry I won’t claim to understand (a Rising Ridge Congruence Asymmetry model if you must know), the researchers explored how different combinations of ELT & PLT influenced two outcomes:
- Ambivalent relational identification (ARI): feeling both connected to & distanced from the leader
- Upward ingratiation (UI): strategic behaviours aimed at pleasing the leader
The findings
Several findings resonate strongly with teacher–student dynamics:
- Alignment matters: When ELT (remember that’s expected leader trust, not English Language Teaching) & PLT matched, ingratiation behaviours were significantly lower.
In classroom terms, if your learners feel the trust you think you’re giving them, they tend to relax into the lesson rather than trying to impress you. - High trust isn’t always comfortable: When ELT was high—even if PLT was also high—people were more likely to ingratiate. High expectations can create pressure to perform.
You might see this when a learner pushes themselves a bit too hard because they don’t want to “let you down”, even if you never intended to create that pressure. - Mismatch creates identity tension: When ELT exceeded PLT, ingratiation increased. People try harder to “earn” the trust they feel they’re missing.
In lessons, this could look like students over‑complying, playing it safe, or trying to “earn back” trust they think they’ve lost — even when you never felt they’d lost ity. - Identity conflict mediates behaviour: ARI explained why misaligned trust leads to strategic behaviour.
When learners aren’t quite sure where they stand with you, they often shift into impression‑management mode, focusing more on looking competent than experimenting with language.
These findings echo work in education by Sarah Mercer on teacher–student relationships, Amy Tsui on classroom identity, & Dörnyei’s research on learner agency. They also align with sociocultural perspectives suggesting that trust is co‑constructed moment by moment.
Why this matters for ELT
Although the study comes from organisational psychology, the mechanisms are deeply relevant to language classrooms, where identity, face, & relational dynamics shape participation. Learners often calibrate their behaviour based on how much trust they believe the teacher places in them—sometimes over‑performing, sometimes withdrawing, sometimes trying to “please” rather than take risks.
Teacher Takeaways?
- Make trust visible: Learners may not interpret your intentions as you expect. Small signals—inviting opinions, acknowledging effort, allowing autonomy—help align perceived & intended trust.
Maybe a quick “I trust your judgement here” or letting them choose how to complete a task can shift the whole classroom atmosphere. - Watch for strategic participation: Over‑agreement, excessive praise, or reluctance to take risks may indicate relational ambivalence rather than genuine confidence.
If you notice this, a simple reassurance that mistakes are expected can help learners move from performing to participating. - Calibrate expectations: High trust is motivating for some learners but anxiety‑inducing for others. Offering choice & acknowledging different comfort levels can reduce pressure.
Maybe saying “You don’t have to get this perfect—just try it your way” can lower the stakes enough for real learning to happen.
Do you ever notice learners trying to “earn” your trust in subtle ways?
Leave a Reply