<p>This study examines the impact of trust propensity congruence in negotiation dyads. While high relational trust is often considered advantageous, the role of negotiators’ dispositional trust propensity, particularly in dyadic negotiations, remains less explored. Challenging prevailing theories that often emphasize the benefits of shared high trust, we draw from growing evidence on the advantages of a low-trust mindset characterized by skepticism. We propose and evaluate a counterintuitive argument: that congruent low trust propensity can benefit multi-issue negotiations, particularly in creating value on trade-off and compatible issues as well as overall joint gains. We investigate how the alignment (congruence at high or low levels) or misalignment (incongruence) of trust propensities between negotiators affects their ability to create value across distributive, compatible, and trade-off issues. Using polynomial regression and response surface methodology with data from 160 negotiators (80 dyads), our findings reveal that congruent low-trust propensity dyads achieved superior joint gains on trade-off, compatible, and overall joint gains across all issues, compared to congruent high-trust or incongruent dyads. Distributive gains were unaffected by trust propensity of negotiators. Additionally, recruiter trust propensity exhibited a distinct U-shaped effect on total joint gains. This research provides a more nuanced understanding of how personality congruence in trusting tendencies affects negotiation outcomes, offering significant theoretical contributions and practical implications for strategically navigating trust in negotiation contexts.</p>