In this paper we ask whether individuals decide that people are generally trustworthy or untrustworthy by extrapolating from their experiences in localized interactions or whether a more fixed predisposition drives assessments of trustworthiness. These two contrasting theoretical perspectives on generalized trust can be translated into empirically testable models and adjudicated using confirmatory tetrad analysis. This paper is among the first substantive applications of confirmatory tetrad analysis and illustrates an important advantage of this technique—the ability to distinguish between causal and reflective indicators of a latent variable. We find that individuals develop a generalized expectation of trustworthiness based on their experiences with different groups of people in localized settings. We demonstrate the robustness of our results across disparate samples and spatially dissimilar survey sites.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArrowKenneth. 1974. The Limits of Organization.New York: Norton.
2.
AbelsonRobert P.1976. “Script Processing in Attitude Formation and Decision-Making.” In Cognition and Social Behavior, edited byCarrollJ.S.PayneJ.W.. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
AlmondGabriel A.VerbaSidney. 1963. The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations.Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Co.
5.
BarberBernard. 1983. The Logic and Limits of Trust.New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.
6.
BeckerLawrence C.1996. “Trust as Noncognitive Security about Motives”. Ethics10: 743–61.
7.
BeyerleinKraigHippJohn. 2006. “From Pews to Participation: The Effect of Congregation Activity and Context on Bridging Civic Engagement.”Social Problems53: 97–117.
8.
BollenKenneth A.1989. Structural Equations with Latent Variables.New York: Wiley.
9.
BollenKenneth ALennoxRichard. 1991. “Conventional Wisdom on Measurement: A Structural Equation Perspective.”Psychological Bulletin110: 305–314.
10.
BollenKenneth A.TingKwok-fai. 1993. “Confirmatory Tetrad Analysis.” Pp. 147–176 in Sociological Methodology, Vol. 23, edited byMarsdenPeter V.. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
11.
BollenKenneth A.TingKwok-fai2000. “A Tetrad Test for Causal Indicators.”Psychological Methods5: 3–22.
12.
BowlbyJohn. 1969. Attachment and Loss, Vol. 1. New York: Basic Books.
13.
BurnsNancyKinderDonald. 2000. “Social Trust and Democratic Politics.”Report to the National Election Studies Board. Based on the 2000 NES Special Topic Pilot Study.
14.
BurnsNancyKinderDonaldRahnWendy. 2003. “Social Trust and Democratic Politics.”Paper presented at the Mid-West Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
15.
CalhounCraig. 1993. “Civil Society and the Public Sphere”.Public Culture52: 67–80.
16.
CookKaren S.2005. “Networks, Norms, and Trust: The Social Psychology of Social Capital: 2004 Cooley Mead Award Address.”Social Psychology Quarterly68: 4–14.
17.
CostaPaul T.McCraeRobert R.. 1992. Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEW Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Manual.Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
18.
CouchLaurie L.JonesWarren H.. 1997. “Measuring Levels of Trust.”Journal of Research in Personality31: 319–336.
19.
DeutschMorton. 1958. “Trust and Suspicion.”Conflict Resolution2: 265–279.
20.
EdwardsJeffrey R.BagozziRichard P.. 2000. “On the Nature and Direction of Relationships between Constructs and Measures.”Psychological Methods5: 155–174.
21.
EriksonErik H.1964. Childhood and Society.New York: Norton.
22.
FineGary AlanHarringtonBrooke. 2004. “Tiny Publics: Small Groups and Civil Society.”Sociological Theory22: 341–356.
23.
FukuyamaFrancis. 1995. Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity.New York: The Free Press.
24.
GiddensAnthony. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity.Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
25.
HardinRussell. 2002. Trust and Trustworthiness.New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
26.
HippJohn R.BollenKenneth A.. 2003. “Model Fit in Structural Equation Models with Censored, Ordinal, and Dichotomous Variables: Testing Vanishing Tetrads.”Sociological Methodology33: 267–305.
27.
HippJohn R.BauerDaniel J.BollenKenneth A.. 2005. “Conducting Tetrad Tests of Model Fit and Contrasts of Tetrad-Nested Models: A New SAS Macro.”Structural Equation Modeling12: 76–93.
28.
JonesKaren. 1996. “Trust as an Affective Attitude.”Ethics10: 74–125.
29.
JonesKaren2004. “Trust and Terror.” Pp. 3–18 in Moral Psychology: Feminist Ethics and Social Theory, edited byDesAutelsPeggyWalkerMargaret Urban. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
30.
LahnoBernd. 1995. “Trust and Strategic Rationality.”Rationality and Society7: 442–64.
31.
OffeClaus. 1999. “How Can We Trust Our Fellow Citizens?” pp. 42–87 in Democracy and Trust, edited byWarrenMark. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
32.
PaxtonPamela. 1999. “Is Social Capital Declining in the United States? A Multiple Indicator Assessment.”American Journal of Sociology105: 88–127.
33.
PaxtonPamela2002. “Social Capital and Democracy: An Interdependent Relationship.”American Sociological Review67: 254–77.
34.
Pew Research Center. 1998. Trust and Citizen Engagement in Metropolitan Philadelphia: A Case Study.Washington, D.C.: The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.
35.
PutnamRobert D.2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of the American Community.New York: Simon & Schuster.
36.
RahnWendy M.TransueJohn E.. 1998. “Social Trust and Value Change: The Decline in Social Capital in American Youth, 1976–1995.”Political Psychology19 (3): 545–565.
37.
RobinsonRobert V.JacksonElton F.. 2001. “Is Trust in Others Declining in America? An Age-Period-Cohort Analysis.”Social Science Research30: 117–145.
38.
Roper Center for Public Opinion Research. 2000. Social Capital Community Benchmark Surveyhttp://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/data_access/data/datasets/social_capital_community_survey.html.
39.
RosenbergMorris. 1956. “Misanthropy and Political Ideology.”American Sociological Review21: 690–95.
40.
RotterJulian B.1971. “Generalized Expectancies for Interpersonal Trust.”American Psychologist26: 443–450.
41.
SchankRogerAbelsonRobert. 1977. Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding: An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associations.
42.
StackLois C.1978. “Trust.” Pp. 561–599 in Dimensions of Personality, edited byLondonHarveyExnerJohn E.Jr. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
43.
StolleDietlind. 2001. “Clubs and Congregations: The Benefits of Joining an Association.” Pp. 202–244 in Trust in Society, edited byCookKaren S.. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
44.
TönniesFerdinand. [1887] 1957. Community and Society: Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft. Translated and supplemented byLoomisC. P.. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.
45.
UslanerEric M.1999. “Democracy and Social Capital.” Pp. 121–150 in Democracy and Trust, edited byWarrenMark E.. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
46.
UslanerEric M.2002. The Moral Foundations of Trust.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
47.
WelchMichael R.SikkinkDavidSartainEricBondCarolyn. 2004. “Trust in God and Trust in Man. The Ambivalent Role of Religion in Shaping Dimensions of Social Trust.”Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion43: 317–343.
48.
WrightsmanLawrence S.1992. Assumptions about Human Nature: Implications for Researchers and Practitioners.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
49.
YamagishiToshio. 1998. Structure of Trust: Evolutionary Game for Mind and Society.Tokyo, Japan: University of Tokyo Press.
50.
YamagishiToshioYamagishiMidori. 1994. “Trust and Commitment in the United States and Japan.”Motivation and Emotion18: 129–66.
51.
YosanoArinoriHayashiNahoko. 2005. “Social Stratification, Intermediary Groups, and Creation of Trustfulness.”Sociological Theory and Methods20: 27–44. Jennifer Glanville is Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Iowa. Her previous and current work focuses on the influence of involvement in voluntary associations on trust and social network structure. Other current research examines the influence of different forms of social capital on educational achievement and the measurement, causes, and consequences of school engagement.. Pamela Paxton is Associate Professor of Sociology and Political Science (by courtesy) at the Ohio State University. Some of her previous research on trust and social capital appears in American Sociological Review, American Journal of Sociology, and Social Forces. Her current research focuses on women's political participation over time and linking social capital and social networks.
