Put more generally: In settings that are important to us and where we could be devalued based on stereotypes about our identity, we feel safer with our own kind.

Material features of a setting reflect society, its history and culture. They signal what’s valued— which traditions, values, achievements— and who belongs.

As to method, Mary Murphy and her colleagues have developed a deft and usable approach they call a “cues audit.” In settings like corporate divisions, academic departments, non-profit organizations, boards, classrooms, small businesses, and churches, do three things.

First, educate. Explain how features of settings— the proportion of different identities in the setting; the pictures on the wall; the references people use in their speech; the style differences in people’s clothing; the language people use to designate different identities— can cause churn in some people while going unnoticed by others.

Second, these efforts should involve the participation of as many people as possible. When people feel they haven’t been heard they tend not to trust. But when their input is a regular, normalized part of how a setting functions, they’re better able to trust it even when they disagree.

Welcoming. When we enter a setting that is important to us— a university, a recreational area, a diversity workshop, a workplace— a churn-causing question hangs in the air: How will my identity— who I am— affect my experience here? To build trust in diverse settings, it’s important to give people a welcoming experience that addresses that question.