IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/somere/v54y2025i2p534-564.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Valid Are Trust Survey Measures? New Insights From Open-Ended Probing Data and Supervised Machine Learning

Author

Listed:
  • Camille Landesvatter
  • Paul C. Bauer

Abstract

Trust is a foundational concept of contemporary sociological theory. Still, empirical research on trust relies on a relatively small set of measures. These are increasingly debated, potentially undermining large swathes of empirical evidence. Drawing on a combination of open-ended probing data, supervised machine learning, and a U.S. representative quota sample, our study compares the validity of standard measures of generalized social trust with more recent, situation-specific measures of trust. We find that survey measures that refer to “strangers†in their question wording best reflect the concept of generalized trust, also known as trust in unknown others. While situation-specific measures should have the desirable property of further reducing variation in associations, that is, producing more similar frames of reference across respondents, they also seem to increase associations with known others, which is undesirable. In addition, we explore to what extent trust survey questions may evoke negative associations. We find that there is indeed variation across measures, which calls for more research.

Suggested Citation

  • Camille Landesvatter & Paul C. Bauer, 2025. "How Valid Are Trust Survey Measures? New Insights From Open-Ended Probing Data and Supervised Machine Learning," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 54(2), pages 534-564, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:54:y:2025:i:2:p:534-564
    DOI: 10.1177/00491241241234871
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00491241241234871
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/00491241241234871?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
    ---><---

    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:54:y:2025:i:2:p:534-564. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.