DOCSLIB.ORG

Race and Trust

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Race and Trust 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”
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Human Development and Generalized Trust: Multilevel Evidence
    Anna Almakaeva1, Eduard Ponarin2, Christian Welzel3 HUMAN DEVELOPMENT AND GENERALIZED TRUST: MULTILEVEL EVIDENCE Generalized trust is one of the most debated topics in social sciences. A flood of papers attempting to examine its foundations has been published over the last few decades. However, only a handful of studies incorporates a multilevel approach and investigates how macro conditions shape the individual determinants of generalized trust. This investigation seeks to fill this gap, using the broad sample of the fifth round of the World Values Survey, multilevel regression modeling, human development as country-level moderator and trust in unknown people as a more perfect measure of generalized trust. We took six theories of trust origin suggested by Delhey and Newton (2003) as a starting point, and demonstrate that along with common factors (such as particularized trust and confidence in institutions), generalized trust can be influenced by a set of specific determinants which differ depending on the level of human development. In poorly developed societies, financial satisfaction was the only indicator that fostered generalized trust, while education decreased it. In highly developed countries it was active membership, open-access activities, emancipative values, age and education which contributed to the strengthening of trust. Key words: generalized trust, trust radius, trust theories, human development, multilevel regression modeling, moderation effect JEL: C21, D64 1 Laboratory for Comparative Social Research, HSE, Russia, [email protected] 2 Laboratory for Comparative Social Research, HSE, Russia, [email protected] 3 Leuphana University Lueneburg, Germany; Laboratory for Comparative Social Research, HSE, Russia, [email protected] 1. Introduction Trust, one of the most important ingredients for social life, eases human interactions and creates a solid basis for prolonged and successful cooperation between people.
    [Show full text]
  • Humans Adapt to Social Diversity Over Time
    Humans adapt to social diversity over time Miguel R. Ramosa,b,1, Matthew R. Bennettc, Douglas S. Masseyd,1, and Miles Hewstonea,e aDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6AE, United Kingdom; bCentro de Investigação e de Intervenção Social, Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL), 1649-026 Lisboa, Portugal; cDepartment of Social Policy, Sociology and Criminology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, United Kingdom; dOffice of Population Research, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544; and eSchool of Psychology, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia Contributed by Douglas S. Massey, March 1, 2019 (sent for review November 2, 2018; reviewed by Oliver Christ, Kathleen Mullan Harris, and Mary C. Waters) Humans have evolved cognitive processes favoring homogeneity, (21) recognizes that humans share an impulse to engage in contact stability, and structure. These processes are, however, incompatible with other people, even those in outgroups. Indeed, biological and with a socially diverse world, raising wide academic and political cultural anthropology contend that humans have evolved and concern about the future of modern societies. With data comprising fared better than other species because contact with outgroups 22 y of religious diversity worldwide, we show across multiple brings a variety of benefits that cannot be attained by intragroup surveys that humans are inclined to react negatively to threats to interactions. There is, for example, a biological advantage to homogeneity (i.e., changes in diversity are associated with lower gaining genetic variability through new mating opportunities (22) self-reported quality of life, explained by a decrease in trust in and intergroup contact allows individuals access to more diverse others) in the short term.
    [Show full text]
  • Storefront Toolkit: Understanding and Measuring “Trust” by Haifa Alarasi, Ma Liang & Stuart Burkimsher Instructor: Professor Susan Ruddick
    PLA1503 – Planning and Social Policy Storefront Toolkit: Understanding and Measuring “Trust” By Haifa Alarasi, Ma Liang & Stuart Burkimsher Instructor: Professor Susan Ruddick Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... iii Research Strategy ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Background ................................................................................................................................................. 2 Trust vs. Social Capital ........................................................................................................................... 2 What Does the Term “Social Capital” Mean? ..................................................................................... 2 Bonding, Bridging, Linking ................................................................................................................... 3 Solidarity & Reciprocity ......................................................................................................................... 4 “Trust” as A Conceptual Model ............................................................................................................ 5 Measuring Trust: Methods & Case Studies From the Literature .......................................................... 7 Building Informal Trust: A Few Findings ...........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Generalized Trust and Economic Growth: the Nexus in MENA Countries
    economies Article Generalized Trust and Economic Growth: The Nexus in MENA Countries Rania S. Miniesy * and Mariam AbdelKarim Department of Economics, The British University in Egypt, El Sherouk City 11837, Egypt; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: This study mainly examines the relationship between generalized/horizontal/social trust and economic growth in countries in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, considering the substantial decline in their trust values since 2005. The study utilizes a multiple linear regression model based on panel data comprising 104 countries over the period from 1999 to 2020. Trust data were obtained from the last four waves of the World Values Survey (WVS). A Pooled Ordinary Least Squares (POLS) estimation technique was used, and interaction terms between trust and several dummy variables were employed. The results show an overall positive and significant relation- ship between trust and economic growth in the general model and for all country classifications, except for MENA, where the overall relationship is negative but almost negligible. Trust has the highest impact on growth in transition economies, followed in order by developing Asia, developed, developing/Sub-Saharan Africa, developing America, and then MENA countries. Further investiga- tions reveal that the overall negative/reversed effect of trust on economic growth in MENA is only during waves 6 and 7, where the coefficients are sizable. Keywords: generalized trust; horizontal trust; social trust; social capital; economic growth; democ- racy; MENA; developing countries; Arab Spring; WVS Citation: Miniesy, Rania S., and JEL Classification: O17; O43; O57 Mariam AbdelKarim. 2021. Generalized Trust and Economic Growth: The Nexus in MENA Countries.
    [Show full text]
  • Equality and Social Trust*
    Center for European Studies Working Paper Series #117 All for All: Equality and Social Trust* by Bo Rothstein Eric M. Uslaner Department of Political Science Government and Politics Göteborg University University of Maryland Box 711 3140 Tydings Hall SE 405 30 Göteborg, SWEDEN College Park, MD 20742 Phone: 0046 31 773 1224 Phone: 301-405-4151 Fax: 0046 31 773 45 99 Fax: 301-314-9690 [email protected] [email protected] Abstract The importance of social trust has become widely accepted in the social sciences. A number of explanations have been put forward for the stark variation in social trust among countries. Among these, participation in voluntary associations received most attention. Yet, there is scant evidence that participation can lead to trust. In this paper, we shall examine a variable that has not gotten the attention we think it deserves in the discussion about the sources of generalized trust, namely equality. We conceptualize equality in two dimensions: one is economic equality and the other is equality of opportunity. The omission of both these dimensions of equality in the social capital literature is peculiar for several reasons. One is that it is obvious that the countries that score highest on social trust also rank highest on economic equality, namely the Nordic countries, the Netherlands, and Canada. Secondly, these are countries that have put a lot of effort in creating equality of opportunity, not least in regard to their policies for public education, labor market opportunities and (more recently) gender equality. The argument for increasing social trust by reducing inequality has largely been ignored in the policy debates about social trust.
    [Show full text]
  • Self-Rated Health, Generalized Trust, and the Affordable Care Act: a US Panel Study, 2006–2014
    http://www.diva-portal.org This is the published version of a paper published in Social Science and Medicine. Citation for the original published paper (version of record): Mewes, J., Giordano, G N. (2017) Self-rated health, generalized trust, and the Affordable Care Act: a US panel study, 2006–2014. Social Science and Medicine, 190: 48-56 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.08.012 Access to the published version may require subscription. N.B. When citing this work, cite the original published paper. Permanent link to this version: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-138804 Social Science & Medicine 190 (2017) 48e56 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Social Science & Medicine journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/socscimed Self-rated health, generalized trust, and the Affordable Care Act: A US panel study, 2006e2014 * Jan Mewes a, , Giuseppe Nicola Giordano b a Department of Sociology, Umeå University, Sweden b Department of Clinical Sciences, Genetic and Molecular Epidemiology Unit (GAME), Skåne University Hospital Malmo,€ Lund University, Sweden article info abstract Article history: Previous research shows that generalized trust, the belief that most people can be trusted, is conducive to Received 13 April 2017 people's health. However, only recently have longitudinal studies suggested an additional reciprocal Received in revised form pathway from health back to trust. Drawing on a diverse body of literature that shows how egalitarian 10 August 2017 social policy contributes to the promotion of generalized trust, we hypothesize that this other ‘reverse’ Accepted 14 August 2017 pathway could be sensitive to health insurance context.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Political Institutions in a Comparative Perspective
    Crafting Trust The Role of Political Institutions in a Comparative Perspective Markus Freitag University of Konstanz, Germany Marc B tihlmann Centre for Democracy, Aarau, Switzerland In this article, the authors evaluate the origins of generalized trust. In addi­ tion to examining individual-level determinants, the analytic focus is on the political-institutional context. In contrast to most of the analyses to date, the authors conduct hierarchical analyses of the World Values Surveys (1995- 1997 and 1999-2001) to simultaneously test for differences among respond­ ents in 58 countries and for variations in levels of trust between countries with different institutional configurations. In addition, the authors extend the institutional theory of trust by introducing the power-sharing quality of institutions-a rather neglected institutional dimension hitherto. With regard to the most important contextual factors, the authors find that countries whose authorities are seen as incorruptible, whose institutions of the welfare state reduce income disparities, and whose political interests are represented in a manner proportional to their weight have citizens who are more likely to place trust in one another. Keywords: social capital; trust; institutions; comparative politics; multi/evel analysis rust is the "core of social capital" and one of the key resources for Tthe development of modern societies. 1 A high level of social trust promotes an inclusive and open society, increases the likelihood of invest­ ment in the future, promotes economic development, and fosters societal happiness and a general feeling of well-being (Fukuyama, 1995; Gabriel, Kunz, Rossdeutscher, & Deth, 2002; Herreros, 2004; Herreros & Criado, 2008; Newton, 2001; Stadelmann-Steffen & Freitag, 2007; Uslaner, 2002; Whiteley, 2000).
    [Show full text]
  • Generalized Trust and Intelligence in the United States
    Generalized Trust and Intelligence in the United States Noah Carl*, Francesco C. Billari Department of Sociology and Nuffield College, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom Abstract Generalized trust refers to trust in other members of society; it may be distinguished from particularized trust, which corresponds to trust in the family and close friends. An extensive empirical literature has established that generalized trust is an important aspect of civic culture. It has been linked to a variety of positive outcomes at the individual level, such as entrepreneurship, volunteering, self-rated health, and happiness. However, two recent studies have found that it is highly correlated with intelligence, which raises the possibility that the other relationships in which it has been implicated may be spurious. Here we replicate the association between intelligence and generalized trust in a large, nationally representative sample of U.S. adults. We also show that, after adjusting for intelligence, generalized trust continues to be strongly associated with both self-rated health and happiness. In the context of substantial variation across countries, these results bolster the view that generalized trust is a valuable social resource, not only for the individual but for the wider society as well. Citation: Carl N, Billari FC (2014) Generalized Trust and Intelligence in the United States. PLoS ONE 9(3): e91786. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0091786 Editor: Jennifer Beam Dowd, Hunter College, City University of New York (CUNY), CUNY School of Public Health, United States of America Received November 12, 2013; Accepted February 13, 2014; Published March 11, 2014 Copyright: ß 2014 Carl, Billari.
    [Show full text]
  • The Generalized Trust Questions in the 2006 ANES Pilot Study Eric M
    The Generalized Trust Questions in the 2006 ANES Pilot Study Eric M. Uslaner Department of Government and Politics University of Maryland–College Park College Park, MD 20742 [email protected] Uslaner, “The Generalized Trust Questions in the 2006 ANES Pilot Study” (1) The ANES and the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NSLY) will begin a long- term collaboration focusing on parent-child socialization. This collaboration offers a unique opportunity to trace the roots of youth socialization on political and social attitudes. The ANES- NSLY surveys will include key measures of social capital, most notably generalized trust. The ANES and NSLY have traditionally used different questions to measure generalized trust. The 2006 ANES Pilot survey asked both questions (as well as two new measures). The ANES may change the wording of the traditional “standard” question to the NLSY measure–or perhaps to one of the two new measures. In this report, I investigate how well these measures perform–in comparison with each other and with the theoretical expectations about the determinants and consequences of trust. Would a change in question wording make a difference? Trust, on my view (Uslaner, 2002, chs. 2, 4, 6) is a value that is transmitted from parents to children and is highly stable over time. This perspective stands in contrast to other conceptualizations of trust that emphasize the fragility of trust and its roots in immediate experience. Hardin (2002) sees trust as reflecting an “encapsulated interest.” I will trust you if I believe that you will act in my interests. Brehm and Rahn (1997), among others, argue that trust in other people reflects a broader faith in social and political institutions.
    [Show full text]
  • Exploring the Genetic Aetiology of Trust in Adolescents: Combined Twin and DNA Analyses
    Wootton, R. E., Davis, O. S., Mottershaw, A. L., Wang, A., & Haworth, C. M. A. (2016). Exploring the genetic aetiology of trust in adolescents: Combined twin and DNA analyses. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 19(6), 638-646. https://doi.org/10.1017/thg.2016.84 Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record License (if available): CC BY Link to published version (if available): 10.1017/thg.2016.84 Link to publication record in Explore Bristol Research PDF-document This is the final published version of the article (version of record). It first appeared online via Cambridge University Press at https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/twin-research-and-human-genetics/article/exploring- the-genetic-etiology-of-trust-in-adolescents-combined-twin-and-dna- analyses/5BF8A9F5E74796F1903A0E8878C70825. Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher. University of Bristol - Explore Bristol Research General rights This document is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the reference above. Full terms of use are available: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/red/research-policy/pure/user-guides/ebr-terms/ Twin Research and Human Genetics Volume 19 Number 6 pp. 638–646 C The Author(s) 2016. This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. doi:10.1017/thg.2016.84 Exploring the Genetic Etiology of Trust in Adolescents: Combined Twin and DNA Analyses Robyn E.
    [Show full text]
  • The Science of Interpersonal Trust a Primer
    University of South Florida Scholar Commons Mental Health Law & Policy Faculty Publications Mental Health Law & Policy 1-2010 The cS ience of Interpersonal Trust Randy Borum University of South Florida, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/mhlp_facpub Part of the Clinical Psychology Commons, Defense and Security Studies Commons, International Relations Commons, Military and Veterans Studies Commons, and the Peace and Conflict Studies Commons Scholar Commons Citation Borum, Randy, "The cS ience of Interpersonal Trust" (2010). Mental Health Law & Policy Faculty Publications. 574. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/mhlp_facpub/574 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the Mental Health Law & Policy at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Mental Health Law & Policy Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. remp The views, opinions and/or findings contained in this report are those of The MITRE Corporation and should not be construed as an official government position, policy, or decision, unless designated by other documentation. UNCLASSIFIED The Science of Interpersonal Trust A Primer Written by Dr. Randy Borum with assistance from The MITRE Corporation The views, opinions and/or findings contained in this report are those of the author and should not be construed as an official government position, policy, or decision, unless designated by other documentation. Acknowledgements: Any merit in this primer is the product of a team effort. Any errors and omissions are solely my (RB) responsibility, and probably occurred because I neglected to seek or heed the counsel of some really smart and terrific people.
    [Show full text]
  • An Empirical Comparison of Four Generalized Trust Scales: Test-Retest Reliability, Measurement Invariance, Predictive Validity, and Replicability*
    1 An Empirical Comparison of Four Generalized Trust Scales: Test-Retest Reliability, Measurement Invariance, Predictive Validity, and Replicability* Blaine G. Robbins New York University Abu Dhabi September 18, 2021 Forthcoming at Sociological Methods & Research (Version 2) Abstract The Stranger Face Trust scale (SFT) and Imaginary Stranger Trust scale (IST) are two new self- report measures of generalized trust that assess trust in strangers—both real and imaginary— across four trust domains. Prior research has established the reliability and validity of SFT and IST, but a number of measurement validation tests remain. Across three separate studies, I assess the test-retest reliability, measurement invariance, predictive validity, and replicability of SFT and IST, with the misanthropy scale (MST) and generalized social trust scale (GST) serving as benchmarks. First, tests of internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and longitudinal measurement invariance established that all four generalized trust scales were acceptably reliable, with SFT and IST yielding greater overall reliability than MST and GST. Second, tests of multiple group measurement invariance revealed that SFT and IST were equivalent across gender, race, education, and age-groups, while MST and GST were non-equivalent across the same sociodemographic groups. Third, an investment game established the predictive validity of SFT and MST, with IST and GST yielding poor predictive validity. Fourth, tests of factor structure and measurement invariance indicated that all four generalized trust scales replicated across samples. The present findings bolster the validity, reliability, and measurement equivalence of SFT and IST, while illustrating the compromised validity and measurement non- equivalence of MST and GST. Implications for the measurement of generalized trust are discussed.
    [Show full text]