IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jscscx/v12y2023i10p583-d1265365.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reconsidering the Empirical Measurement of Trust towards Unknown Others

Author

Listed:
  • Ákos Bodor

    (Institute for Regional Studies, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies, 7621 Pécs, Hungary)

  • Zoltán Grünhut

    (Institute for Regional Studies, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies, 7621 Pécs, Hungary)

  • Dávid Erát

    (Department of Sociology, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Pécs, 7624 Pécs, Hungary)

  • Márk Hegedüs

    (Institute for Regional Studies, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies, 7621 Pécs, Hungary)

Abstract

Trust towards unknown others is a fundamental issue in trust research. Actually, it can be said that this problematization is a generative source for the whole scientific framing of trust, regardless of its specific perspective, whether it is a psychological, situational, institutional or structural-cultural interpretation. This means that the notion of ‘generalized trust’ is definitely a core concept and a reference point for all research agendas in the field of trust studies. However, this status of the notion is heavily criticized both from a theoretical and empirical point of view. The current paper tries to contribute to these academic discourses by proposing an extended reading of the concept of trust towards unknown others. By doing this, the paper suggests that the focus cannot be only on the aspect of how one perceives others’ trustworthiness, which is measured by the so-called ‘standard trust variable’; it should also be considered how the given agent relates herself/himself to other people’s otherness. Therefore, the argument simply claims that trusting people in general means being open to others’ otherness. If this link cannot be explored, then trust in unknown others is constrained and limited. Using data obtained from the last two rounds of the European Social Survey, the paper presents a 31-country-based comparative statistical analysis realized on both macro- and micro-levels in order to find out whether the above-described theoretical linkage is verifiable or not.

Suggested Citation

  • Ákos Bodor & Zoltán Grünhut & Dávid Erát & Márk Hegedüs, 2023. "Reconsidering the Empirical Measurement of Trust towards Unknown Others," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-18, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:12:y:2023:i:10:p:583-:d:1265365
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/12/10/583/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/12/10/583/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andreas Bergh & Christian Bjørnskov, 2011. "Historical Trust Levels Predict the Current Size of the Welfare State," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(1), pages 1-19, February.
    2. Amjad Ali & Sabz Ali & Sajjad Ahmad Khan & Dost Muhammad Khan & Kamran Abbas & Alamgir Khalil & Sadaf Manzoor & Umair Khalil, 2019. "Sample size issues in multilevel logistic regression models," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-13, November.
    3. Bergh, Andreas & Bjørnskov, Christian, 2014. "Trust, welfare states and income equality: Sorting out the causality," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 183-199.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bellani, Luna & Scervini, Francesco, 2020. "Heterogeneity in preferences for redistribution and public spending: A cross-country analysis," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    2. Nicholas Charron & Niklas Harring & Victor Lapuente, 2021. "Trust, regulation, and redistribution why some governments overregulate and under‐redistribute," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(1), pages 3-16, January.
    3. Johan Graafland & Bjorn Lous, 2019. "Income Inequality, Life Satisfaction Inequality and Trust: A Cross Country Panel Analysis," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 20(6), pages 1717-1737, August.
    4. Naoki Akaeda, 2023. "Does Social Policy Crowd Out or Crowd In Social Trust? The Perspectives of Transfer Share, Low-Income Targeting, and Universalism," LIS Working papers 870, LIS Cross-National Data Center in Luxembourg.
    5. Antonino Callea & Dalila De Rosa & Giovanni Ferri & Francesca Lipari & Marco Costanzi, 2022. "Can Emotional Intelligence promote Individual Wellbeing and protect from perceptions' traps?," CERBE Working Papers wpC39, CERBE Center for Relationship Banking and Economics.
    6. Lous, Bjorn, 2020. "On free markets, income inequality, happiness and trust," Other publications TiSEM e2480eed-722b-4e2a-8e29-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    7. Gur, Nurullah & Bjørnskov, Christian, 2017. "Trust and delegation: Theory and evidence," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 644-657.
    8. Peiró-Palomino, Jesús & Gianmoena, Lisa & Picazo-Tadeo, Andrés J. & Rios, Vicente, 2024. "Social trust and the advanced aspects of social progress. Evidence for the European regions," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    9. Fabio Sabatini & Francesco Sarracino & Eiji Yamamura, 2014. "Social norms on rent seeking and preferences for redistribution," Econometica Working Papers wp55, Econometica.
    10. Andrea Celico & Martin Rode, 2024. "Can we all be Denmark? The role of civic attitudes in welfare state reforms," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 51(1), pages 87-125, February.
    11. Borisova, Ekaterina & Govorun, Andrei & Ivanov, Denis & Levina, Irina, 2018. "Social capital and preferences for redistribution to target groups," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 56-67.
    12. Collewet, Marion & Fairley, Kim & Kessels, Roselinde & Knoef, Marike & van Vliet, Olaf, 2024. "The design of welfare: unraveling taxpayers' preferences," OSF Preprints 4am7e, Center for Open Science.
    13. Niklas Potrafke, 2016. "Policies against human trafficking: the role of religion and political institutions," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 353-386, November.
    14. Elert, Niklas & Stam, Erik & Stenkula, Mikael, 2019. "Intrapreneurship and Trust," Working Paper Series 1280, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    15. Markus Leibrecht & Hans Pitlik, 2014. "Generalised Trust, Institutional and Political Constraints on the Executive and Deregulation of Markets," WIFO Working Papers 481, WIFO.
    16. Forte, Anabel & Peiró-Palomino, Jesús & Tortosa-Ausina, Emili, 2015. "Does social capital matter for European regional growth?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 47-64.
    17. Georg Kanitsar, 2022. "The Inequality-Trust Nexus Revisited: At What Level of Aggregation Does Income Inequality Matter for Social Trust?," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 163(1), pages 171-195, August.
    18. Fabio Sabatini & Marco Ventura & Eiji Yamamura & Luca Zamparelli, 2020. "Fairness and the Unselfish Demand for Redistribution by Taxpayers and Welfare Recipients," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 86(3), pages 971-988, January.
    19. Yann Algan & Pierre Cahuc & Marc Sangnier, 2016. "Trust and the Welfare State: the Twin Peaks Curve," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 126(593), pages 861-883, June.
    20. Rode, Martin & Sáenz de Viteri, Andrea, 2018. "Expressive attitudes to compensation: The case of globalization," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 42-55.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:12:y:2023:i:10:p:583-:d:1265365. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.