SO36CH22-Smith ARI 3 June 2010 1:38 Race and Trust Sandra Susan Smith Department of Sociology, University of California, Berkeley, California 94710; email: [email protected] Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2010. 36:453–75 Key Words First published online as a Review in Advance on race/ethnicity, generalized trust, particularized trust, strategic trust, April 20, 2010 neighborhood context, ethnoracial socialization, social closure, The Annual Review of Sociology is online at reputation soc.annualreviews.org This article’s doi: Abstract 10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102526 This review considers that aspect of the voluminous trust literature by University of California - Berkeley on 08/03/10. For personal use only. Copyright c 2010 by Annual Reviews. ! that deals with race. After discussing the social conditions within which All rights reserved Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2010.36:453-475. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org trust becomes relevant and outlining the distinctive contours of the 0360-0572/10/0811-0453$20.00 three most common conceptualizations of trust—generalized, partic- ularized, and strategic—I elaborate on the extent and nature of eth- noracial trust differences and provide an overview of the explanations for these differences. Ethnoracial differences in generalized trust are at- tributed to historical and contemporary discrimination, neighborhood context, and ethnoracial socialization. The consequences for the radius- of-trust problem are discussed with regard to particularized trust. And ethnoracial differences in strategic trust are located in structures of trustworthiness—such as social closure—and reputational concerns. I end the review with a brief discussion of social and economic conse- quences for trust gaps. 453 SO36CH22-Smith ARI 3 June 2010 1:38 INTRODUCTION TRUST-RELEVANT A recent report by the Pew Research Center CONDITIONS (Taylor et al. 2007) indicates what social A review of the literature reveals the social con- scientists have been reporting for some time: ditions within which trust becomes relevant. Americans are closely divided on the question First, trust is relevant in situations in which the of trust. Slightly less than half report that outcomes about which trusters are invested are most people can be trusted, and 50% report at least in part contingent on trustees’ future that when dealing with most people, you can’t actions. These are situations in which trusters be too careful (Taylor et al. 2007). But trust give discretion to another to achieve an end is not evenly distributed across American that is important to them (Deutsch 1962, Baier society. Among its myriad predictors, three 1986, Coleman 1990, Hardin 2002). Second, demographic characteristics routinely stand trust situations are those in which trustees out. Age has a strong, positive, nonlinear have the freedom to choose between multiple effect (Smith 1997, Robinson & Jackson 2001, options. They can either act in ways consistent Uslaner 2002). Education also matters; people with trusters’ interests, or they can frustrate with more education trust more (Uslaner 2002, trusters’ ambitions. As many have argued Yamagishi 2001). And few writers on trust fail (Gambetta 1988, Giddens 1990, Hardin 2002), to discuss the extent and nature of, and explana- trust is irrelevant in situations in which the only tions for, ethnoracial differences in trust. This option that potential trustees have is to act in is for good reason. According to the political ways consistent with trusters’ interests. Indeed, scientist Uslaner (2002, p. 91), “Race is the according to Gambetta (1988, pp. 218–19), life experience that has the biggest impact on “For trust to be relevant, there must be the pos- trust.” sibility of exit, betrayal, defection.” Trustees’ This review of the literature on race and freedom to act, then, constitutes a second trust begins with a brief discussion of the characteristic of trust-relevant situations. A social conditions within which trust becomes third and most central characteristic is trusters’ relevant before moving on to discuss the three uncertainty, born from their relative ignorance most common conceptualizations of trust— about trustees’ motivations and intentions generalized, particularized, and strategic. For (Giddens 1990, Misztal 1996). The greater each conceptualization, I elaborate on the trusters’ ignorance about trustees’ motivations extent and nature of, and explanations for, and intentions, the greater is trusters’ risk. As ethnoracial differences. I conclude with a brief Giddens (1990, pp. 33) states, “There would discussion of the consequences for ethnoracial be no need to trust anyone whose activities gaps. Throughout the article I draw from were continually visible and whose thought by University of California - Berkeley on 08/03/10. For personal use only. qualitative and quantitative research on blacks, processes were transparent, or to trust any Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2010.36:453-475. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org whites, Latinos, and Asians, but for three system whose workings were wholly known reasons, the bulk of my focus is on blacks and and understood. It has been said that trust is ‘a whites: Most of the race and trust literature fo- device for coping with the freedom of others,’ cuses on these two groups; ethnoracial gaps in but the prime condition of requirements for trust are the starkest between these two groups; trust is not lack of power but lack of full and huge black-white gaps in trust cannot be information.” Finally, trust is relevant in accounted for by class differentials, making situations in which the costs associated with an examination of these two groups partic- a negative outcome are significant and poten- ularly fascinating. This review is in part an tially greater than the benefits associated with effort to understand this large and unyielding a positive outcome (Deutsch 1958, Coleman gap. 1990). Although trust situations facilitate the 454 Smith SO36CH22-Smith ARI 3 June 2010 1:38 possibility of getting things done, they can also reflection of individuals’ internal states (see create possibilities for major losses. Uslaner 2002 for a discussion of the moral Given this brief outline of the primary foundations of generalized trust) or is a product characteristics of trust-relevant situations, of early life experiences (Erikson 1964). Draw- what is trust? A careful reading of the volu- ing from social learning theory, theorists in this minous and flourishing trust literature, with vein argue that through early life experiences, noteworthy contributions from moral philoso- especially those with parents (Rotenberg 1995, phers (Baier 1986, Hertzberg 1988, Seligman Weissman & LaRue 1998, King 2002), indi- 1997), political scientists (Fukuyama 1995, viduals develop a general expectancy of others’ Hardin 2002, Uslaner 2002), psychologists behavior. Thus, although not necessarily con- (Deutsch 1958; Rotter 1967, 1980; Yamagishi stant, generalized trust is relatively stable over & Yamagishi 1994; Yamagishi 2001), and soci- time; it is not contingent on reciprocity or on ologists (Luhmann 1979, Barber 1983, Misztal evidence of another’s trustworthiness (Uslaner 1996, Sztompka 1999), reveals three primary 2002). Although generalized trust theorists do conceptualizations of trust—generalized, par- not discount the relevance of situational speci- ticularized, and strategic. While proponents ficity in determining whether or not individuals of each approach theorize about how and why trust—generalized trust will change in different individuals respond the way they do when environments or, to a lesser extent, as a function placed in trust-relevant situations, they offer of individuals’ life experiences—they do argue fundamentally different insights about (a) what that individuals’ trust is in great part contingent trust is a property of, (b) what trust is based on individuals’ psychological disposition to on, (c) to whom or what trust is applicable, and trust (Aguilar 1984, Yamagishi 2001). (d ) how trust functions in the larger society. To what extent are Americans disposed to In what follows, I outline the nature of trust trust? Generalized trust has been studied in as conceptualized by these different schools of primarily two ways: with experimental stud- thought. Then, for each, I provide an overview ies, such as prisoner’s dilemma games, where of the literature on the extent and nature of eth- researchers examine individuals’ willingness to noracial differences and explanations for these. place trust in strangers—i.e., cooperate—under risky circumstances; and with standard survey questions that ask respondents about their per- GENERALIZED TRUST ceptions of the general trustworthiness of most One of the most widely adopted conceptual- others. For roughly 60 years, researchers and izations of trust is that proposed by the social pollsters have surveyed Americans about their psychologist Julian Rotter, who defined trust trust in other people, most notably for the by University of California - Berkeley on 08/03/10. For personal use only. as “a generalized expectancy held by an indi- General Social Survey (GSS: 1972–1998) and Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2010.36:453-475. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org vidual that the word, promise, oral or written the National Election Study (NES: 1964– statement of another individual or group can 1998). To determine trust in other people, re- be relied on” (Rotter 1980, p. 1). It is the belief spondents have been asked the following stan- that “most people”