IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/somere/v51y2022i1p305-356.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring Generalized Trust: Two New Approaches

Author

Listed:
  • Blaine G. Robbins

Abstract

The Stranger Face Trust (SFT) questionnaire and the Imaginary Stranger Trust (IST) questionnaire are two new self-report measures of generalized trust that assess trust in real (SFT) and imaginary (IST) strangers across four trust domains. Both were designed to be objective, empirically valid, and easy to administer and score. To assess measurement validity and reliability, SFT and IST along with other common measures of social trust, sociodemographic characteristics, biographical characteristics, and a survey experiment were administered to a large representative sample of Qualtrics web-panel members ( N = 2,041). Confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation models established the internal consistency, convergent validity, discriminant validity, and criterion validity of SFT and IST. Further tests revealed that SFT and IST correlate with well-established predictors of generalized trust, while other correlates like the age–trust relation were called into question. Taken together, this article shows that SFT and IST are valid and reliable instruments for the measurement of generalized trust and that common measures of generalized trust appear to be less valid and less reliable. This article ends with a discussion of the implications and directions for future research.

Suggested Citation

  • Blaine G. Robbins, 2022. "Measuring Generalized Trust: Two New Approaches," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 51(1), pages 305-356, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:51:y:2022:i:1:p:305-356
    DOI: 10.1177/0049124119852371
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0049124119852371
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0049124119852371?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ernst Fehr & Urs Fischbacher & Bernhard von Rosenbladt & J�rgen Schupp & Gert G. Wagner, "undated". "A Nation-Wide Laboratory: Examining trust and trustworthiness by integrating behavioral experiments into representative surveys," IEW - Working Papers 141, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    2. Davidov, Eldad, 2009. "Measurement Equivalence of Nationalism and Constructive Patriotism in the ISSP: 34 Countries in a Comparative Perspective," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(1), pages 64-82, January.
    3. Pui-Wa Lei, 2009. "Evaluating estimation methods for ordinal data in structural equation modeling," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 495-507, May.
    4. Lars Torpe & Henrik Lolle, 2011. "Identifying Social Trust in Cross-Country Analysis: Do We Really Measure the Same?," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 103(3), pages 481-500, September.
    5. Alesina, Alberto & La Ferrara, Eliana, 2002. "Who trusts others?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(2), pages 207-234, August.
    6. Vincent Buskens & Jeroen Weesie, 2000. "An Experiment On The Effects Of Embeddedness In Trust Situations," Rationality and Society, , vol. 12(2), pages 227-253, May.
    7. Tim Reeskens & Marc Hooghe, 2008. "Cross-cultural measurement equivalence of generalized trust. Evidence from the European Social Survey (2002 and 2004)," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 85(3), pages 515-532, February.
    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. Naef, Michael & Schupp, Jürgen, 2009. "Measuring Trust: Experiments and Surveys in Contrast and Combination," IZA Discussion Papers 4087, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. Carin Cruijsen & Jakob Haan & David-Jan Jansen, 2016. "Trust and Financial Crisis Experiences," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 127(2), pages 577-600, June.
    3. Charron, Nicholas & Rothstein, Bo, 2016. "Does education lead to higher generalized trust? The importance of quality of government," International Journal of Educational Development, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 59-73.
    4. Johannes Abeler & Armin Falk & Fabian Kosse, 2021. "Malleability of Preferences for Honesty," CESifo Working Paper Series 9033, CESifo.
    5. Paschalis Arvanitidis & Athina Economou & Christos Kollias, 2016. "Terrorism’s effects on social capital in European countries," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 169(3), pages 231-250, December.
    6. Bellemare, Charles & Kroger, Sabine, 2007. "On representative social capital," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 183-202, January.
    7. repec:tiu:tiucen:200457 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Ara Jo, 2019. "The Effect of Migration on Trust in Communities of Origin," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 39(2), pages 1571-1585.
    9. Lisa Anderson & Jennifer Mellor & Jeffrey Milyo, 2006. "Induced heterogeneity in trust experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 9(3), pages 223-235, September.
    10. Lisa R. Anderson & Jennifer M. Mellor & Jeffrey Milyo, 2005. "An Experimental Study of the Effects of Inequality and Relative Deprivation on Trusting Behavior," Working Papers 14, Department of Economics, College of William and Mary.
    11. Martin G. Kocher, 2015. "How Trust in Social Dilemmas Evolves with Age," CESifo Working Paper Series 5447, CESifo.
    12. Stephany, Fabian & Braesemann, Fabian, 2017. "Bonds and bridges, and between: An empirical analysis of group-based trust," Working Papers 09, Agenda Austria.
    13. Sofianos, Andis, 2022. "Self-reported & revealed trust: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    14. Jeffrey Milyo & Jennifer M. Mellor & Lisa Anderson, 2004. "Do Liberals Play Nice? The Effects of Party and Political Ideology in Public Goods and Trust Games," Working Papers 0417, Department of Economics, University of Missouri.
    15. Iris Kesternich & James P. Smith & Joachim K. Winter & Maximiliane Hörl, 2020. "Early‐Life Circumstances Predict Measures of Trust among Adults: Evidence from Hunger Episodes in Post‐War Germany," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 122(1), pages 280-305, January.
    16. Ashraf, Nava & Bohnet, Iris & Piankov, Nikita, 2003. "Is Trust a Bad Investment?," Working Paper Series rwp03-047, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    17. Tim Reeskens, 2013. "But Who Are Those “Most People” That Can Be Trusted? Evaluating the Radius of Trust Across 29 European Societies," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 114(2), pages 703-722, November.
    18. Guglielmo Barone & Sauro Mocetti, 2016. "Inequality And Trust: New Evidence From Panel Data," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 54(2), pages 794-809, April.
    19. Nathan Nunn & Leonard Wantchekon, 2011. "The Slave Trade and the Origins of Mistrust in Africa," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(7), pages 3221-3252, December.
    20. Ho-Kong Chan & Kit-Chun Lam & Pak-Wai Liu, 2011. "The Structure of Trust in China and the U.S," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 100(4), pages 553-566, June.
    21. Heineck, Guido, 2014. "Love thy neighbor: Religion and prosocial behavior," BERG Working Paper Series 93, Bamberg University, Bamberg Economic Research Group.

    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:sae:somere:v:51:y:2022:i:1:p:305-356. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.