In this paper, the results of a validation experiment for two existing computational trust models describing human trust are reported. One model uses experiences of performance in order to estimate the trust in different trustees. The second model in addition carries the notion of relative trust. The idea of relative trust is that trust in a certain trustee not solely depends on the experiences with that trustee, but also on trustees that are considered competitors of that trustee. In order to validate the models, parameter adaptation has been used to tailor the models towards human behavior. A comparison between the two models has also been made to see whether the notion of relative trust describes human trust behavior in a more accurate way. The results show that taking trust relativity into account indeed leads to a higher accuracy of the trust model. Finally, a number of assumptions underlying the two models are verified using an automated verification tool.