An Achilles heel of voice communication is weak caller ID information, new research confirmed.

A large majority of consumers (86%) indicated that they wouldn’t answer a call — even if caller ID information were displayed — due to their lack of trust in the value and accuracy of that information. A similar percentage (85%) said they rarely or never trust caller ID for an unrecognized number.

Even more detrimental, nearly seven of 10 consumers said they have missed, ignored, or declined an important or wanted call because they lacked trust in the caller’s information, the consumer study commissioned by Numeracle Inc. showed.

“A New Era for Caller ID: Placing Trust at the Heart of the Conversation,” which surveyed 2,020 U.S. consumers, showed that being barraged by nuisance spam or fraudulent scam calls is a pervasive problem that occurs at least weekly to 77% of survey respondents.

Those who have been victimized by a scam call (43%) said they initially answered the call because of inaccurate caller ID information, leading them to believe the call was from a trusted person or business, the study found.

The study noted that the communications industry works continually to increase trust in caller identification, but the American public still views existing solutions with skepticism. It found that one-third of respondents do not feel they are protected and they felt “more could be done to provide verified and trusted caller ID information when receiving calls from unknown numbers.” Two-thirds of respondents said if they had more accurate information, it would encourage them to answer such calls.

“The issue of trust and accuracy regarding caller ID information is an important one. Greater accuracy does not always equate to increased trust, but in this context, the two are inextricably linked. Consumers perceive existing caller ID information to be inaccurate, and therefore, untrustworthy,” said Rebekah Johnson, founder and CEO of Numeracle.

“Little can be done to reduce the number of spam or scam calls being made each day, but there is an urgent need for a secure zero-trust ecosystem open to those willing to play by the rules. Inaction will only lead to further skepticism from consumers, and risks negatively impacting the perception of brands using voice as a primary communication channel,” Johnson said.

The research also analyzed the link between spam/scam calls and brand affinity. Consumers believe spam or scam calls likely come from financial services (62%), telecoms providers (40%), and e-commerce businesses (34%).

Such connotations between spam/scam calls and brands can significantly damage brand identity and affinity. Approximately three in 10 respondents said they would reconsider spending money with those brands, and one-fourth said they would lose trust completely in those brands.

Author and expert in self-sovereign and decentralized digital identity Kaliya Young, known as “IdentityWoman,” said, “The problem of ‘spam calls’ is also a problem of unreceived legitimate calls that are labeled as spam. Despite the variety of communication channels we have today, voice is still the primary channel for important life matters. We can’t afford to not have trusted and secure identities (caller IDs) in such a critical channel.”