IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/somere/v53y2024i2p760-803.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Empirical Comparison of Four Generalized Trust Scales: Test–Retest Reliability, Measurement Invariance, Predictive Validity, and Replicability

Author

Listed:
  • Blaine G. Robbins

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Blaine G. Robbins, 2024. "An Empirical Comparison of Four Generalized Trust Scales: Test–Retest Reliability, Measurement Invariance, Predictive Validity, and Replicability," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 53(2), pages 760-803, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:53:y:2024:i:2:p:760-803
    DOI: 10.1177/00491241211055765
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00491241211055765
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/00491241211055765?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. Niclas Berggren & Henrik Jordahl, 2006. "Free to Trust: Economic Freedom and Social Capital," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(2), pages 141-169, May.
    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. D’Hernoncourt, Johanna & Méon, Pierre-Guillaume, 2012. "The not so dark side of trust: Does trust increase the size of the shadow economy?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 81(1), pages 97-121.
    2. Ginny Seung Choi & Virgil Henry Storr, 2020. "Market interactions, trust and reciprocity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-32, May.
    3. Giacomo Degli Antoni & Gianluca Grimalda, 2012. "The value of real voluntary associations," Econometica Working Papers wp37, Econometica.
    4. Johannes Abeler & Armin Falk & Fabian Kosse, 2021. "Malleability of Preferences for Honesty," CESifo Working Paper Series 9033, CESifo.
    5. Joshua Hall & Robert Lawson, 2008. "Theory and evidence on economic freedom and economic growth: A comment," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 15(18), pages 1-6.
    6. Oasis Kodila-Tedika & Julius Agbor, 2016. "Does Trust Matter for Entrepreneurship: Evidence from a Cross-Section of Countries," Economies, MDPI, vol. 4(1), pages 1-17, March.
    7. Diego Marino Fages, 2023. "Migration and trust: Evidence on assimilation from internal migrants," Discussion Papers 2023-08, Nottingham Interdisciplinary Centre for Economic and Political Research (NICEP).
    8. Soumyananda Dinda, 2014. "Inclusive growth through creation of human and social capital," International Journal of Social Economics, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 41(10), pages 878-895, October.
    9. Sun-Ki Chai & Dolgorsuren Dorj & Katerina Sherstyuk, 2018. "Cultural Values and Behavior in Dictator, Ultimatum, and Trust Games: An Experimental Study," Research in Experimental Economics, in: Experimental Economics and Culture, volume 20, pages 89-166, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    10. Bellemare, Charles & Kroger, Sabine, 2007. "On representative social capital," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 183-202, January.
    11. Bohdan Kukharskyy & Michael Pflüger, 2011. "Relational Contracts and the Economic Well-Being of Nations," Working Papers 095, Bavarian Graduate Program in Economics (BGPE).
    12. Niclas Berggren & Therese Nilsson, 2013. "Does Economic Freedom Foster Tolerance?," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(2), pages 177-207, May.
    13. Olalekan Charles Okunlola & Anthony E. Akinlo, 2021. "Does economic freedom enhance quality of life in Africa?," International Review of Economics, Springer;Happiness Economics and Interpersonal Relations (HEIRS), vol. 68(3), pages 357-387, September.
    14. Stefan Kohler & European University Institute, 2006. "Inequality Aversion and Stochastic Decision-making: Experimental Evidence from Zimbabwean Villages after Land Reform," Economics Series Working Papers GPRG-WPS-061, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    15. Maite D. Laméris & Richard Jong-A-Pin & Rasmus Wiese, 2018. "An Experimental Test of the Validity of Survey-Measured Political Ideology," CESifo Working Paper Series 7139, CESifo.
    16. Dhami, Sanjit & Wei, Mengxing & Mamidi, Pavan, 2024. "Religious identity, trust, reciprocity, and prosociality: Theory and evidence," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).
    17. Jeffrey V. Butler & Paola Giuliano & Luigi Guiso, 2015. "Trust, Values, And False Consensus," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 56(3), pages 889-915, August.
    18. Paul C Bauer & Florian Keusch & Frauke Kreuter, 2019. "Trust and cooperative behavior: Evidence from the realm of data-sharing," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-18, August.
    19. Daniel McFadden, 2009. "The human side of mechanism design: a tribute to Leo Hurwicz and Jean-Jacque Laffont," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 13(1), pages 77-100, April.
    20. Gereke, Johanna & Schaub, Max & Baldassarri, Delia, 2018. "Ethnic diversity, poverty and social trust in Germany: Evidence from a behavioral measure of trust," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 13(7), pages 1-15.

    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:53:y:2024:i:2:p:760-803. 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.