Building on a conceptual distinction between trust in commitment and trust in competence, this study develops a fourfold typology of political trust. It then assigns respondents from a World Values Survey module conducted in 13 nondemocracies to those trust types using a clustering process guided by their corresponding ideal types. The results show that respondents reporting the same level of trust in government can belong to different trust types. Moreover, respondents from two trust types are particularly likely to engage in activism: one includes commitment trusters, who have high trust in government commitment but low trust in its competence, and the other includes those with low trust in both dimensions. This study effectively categorises respondents into conceptually derived trust types, reveals the effects of political trust on political participation in nondemocracies, and illustrates the value of constrained clustering for measuring multidimensional constructs based on a priori theoretical conceptualisation.
AhlquistJSBreunigC (2012) Model-based clustering and typologies in the social sciences. Political Analysis20(1): 92–112.
2.
BaajIBouraouiZCornuéjolsA, et al. (2024) Synergies between machine learning and reasoning – An introduction by the Kay R. Amel group. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning171: 109206.
3.
BasuSBanerjeeAMooneyR (2002) Semi-supervised clustering by seeding. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Machine Learning, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 8–12 July 2002, pp. 19–26. San Diego, CA: ICML.
4.
BélangerÉNadeauR (2005) Political trust and the vote in multiparty elections: The Canadian case. European Journal of Political Research44(1): 121–146.
5.
BertsouE (2019) Rethinking political distrust. European Political Science Review11(2): 213–230.
6.
BessiereCDe RaedtLKotthoffL, et al. (2016) Data Mining and Constraint Programming – Foundations of a Cross-disciplinary Approach. New York: Springer.
7.
CatterbergGMorenoA (2006) The individual bases of political trust: Trends in new and established democracies. International Journal of Public Opinion Research18(1): 31–48.
8.
CekaB (2013) The perils of political competition: Explaining participation and trust in political parties in Eastern Europe. Comparative Political Studies46(12): 1610–1635.
9.
CitrinJ (1974) Comment: The political relevance of trust in government. American Political Science Review68(3): 973–988.
10.
CitrinJLuksS (2001) Political trust revisited: Déjà vu all over again? In: HibbingJRTheiss-MorseE (eds) What Is It about Government That Americans Dislike. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp.9–27.
11.
CollierDLaPorteJSeawrightJ (2012) Putting typologies to work: Concept formation, measurement, and analytic rigor. Political Research Quarterly65(1): 217–232.
12.
DaltonRJ (2004) Democratic Challenges, Democratic Choices: The Erosion of Political Support in Advanced Industrial Democracies. New York: Oxford University Press.
13.
DaoT-B-HDuongK-CVrainC (2017) Constrained clustering by constraint programming. Artificial Intelligence244: 70–94.
14.
DavidsonIRaviSS (2005) Clustering with constraints: Feasibility issues and the k-means algorithm. In: Proceedings of the SIAM International Conference on Data Mining 2005, Newport Beach, CA, 21–23 April, pp.138–149. Philadelphia, PA: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics.
15.
EastonD (1975) A re-assessment of the concept of political support. British Journal of Political Science5(4): 435–457.
16.
FisherJvan Heerde-HudsonJTuckerA (2011) Why both theory and empirics suggest there is more than one form of trust: A response to Hooghe. British Journal of Politics and International Relations13(2): 276–281.
17.
FisherJvan HeerdeJTuckerA (2010) Does one trust judgement fit all? Linking theory and empirics. British Journal of Politics and International Relations12(2): 161–188.
GabrielOW (2017) Participation and political trust. In: ZmerliSvan der MeerTWG (eds) Handbook on Political Trust. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 228–241.
20.
GamsonWA (1968) Power and Discontent. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.
21.
GoertzGMahoneyJ (2012) A Tale of Two Cultures: Qualitative and Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
22.
Goul AndersenJHoffJ (2001) Democracy and Citizenship in Scandinavia. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
23.
HaerpferCInglehartRMorenoA, et al. (eds) (2024) World Values Survey: Round Seven – Country-pooled Datafile Version 6.0.0. Madrid; Vienna: JD Systems Institute & WVSA Secretariat.
24.
HetheringtonMJ (1999) The effect of political trust on the presidential vote, 1968–96. American Political Science Review93(2): 311–326.
25.
HoogheM (2011) Why there is basically only one form of political trust. British Journal of Politics and International Relations13(2): 269–275.
26.
HoogheMMarienS (2013) A comparative analysis of the relation between political trust and forms of political participation in Europe. European Societies15(1): 131–152.
27.
KaaseM (1999) Interpersonal trust, political trust and non-institutionalised political participation in Western Europe. West European Politics22(3): 1–21.
28.
KarpatneAAtluriGFaghmousJH, et al. (2017) Theory-guided data science: A new paradigm for scientific discovery from data. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering29(10): 2318–2331.
29.
KaspersonREGoldingDTulerS (1992) Social distrust as a factor in siting hazardous facilities and communicating risks. Journal of Social Issues48(4): 161–187.
30.
LeviMStokerL (2000) Political trust and trustworthiness. Annual Review of Political Science3: 475–507.
31.
LiL (2022) Decoding political trust in China: A machine learning analysis. China Quarterly249: 1–20.
32.
MishlerWRoseR (2001) What are the origins of political trust? Testing institutional and cultural theories in post-communist societies. Comparative Political Studies34(1): 30–62.
33.
NewtonKZmerliS (2011) Three forms of trust and their association. European Political Science Review3(2): 169–200.
34.
NorrisP (1999) Introduction: The growth of critical citizens?. In: NorrisP (ed.) Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government. New York: Oxford University Press, pp.1–27.
35.
NorrisPJenningsWStokerG (2019) In praise of scepticism: Trust but verify. In: The 72nd Annual Conference of the World Association of Public Opinion Research, Toronto, ON, Canada, 19–21 May, pp.1–30.
36.
O’BrienKJ (2013) Rightful resistance revisited. Journal of Peasant Studies40(6): 1051–1062.
37.
O’BrienKJLiL (2006) Rightful Resistance in Rural China. New York: Cambridge University Press.
38.
PasseriniATackGGunsT (2017) Introduction to the special issue on combining constraint solving with mining and learning. Artificial Intelligence244: 1–5.
39.
RivettiPCavatortaF (2017) Functions of political trust in authoritarian settings. In: ZmerliSvan der MeerTWG (eds) Handbook on Political Trust. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp.53–68.
40.
RothsteinBStolleD (2008) The state and social capital: An institutional theory of generalized trust. Comparative Politics40(4): 441–459.
41.
RuelensANicaiseI (2020) Investigating a typology of trust orientations towards national and European institutions: A person-centered approach. Social Science Research87: 102414.
42.
SartoriG (1970) Concept misformation in comparative politics. American Political Science Review64(4): 1033–1053.
43.
SchnaudtC (2019) Political Confidence and Democracy in Europe: Antecedents and Consequences of Citizens’ Confidence in Representative and Regulative Institutions and Authorities. New York: Springer.
44.
SikaN (2020) Contentious activism and political trust in non-democratic regimes: Evidence from the MENA. Democratization27(8): 1515–1532.
45.
SmetsKvan HamC (2013) The embarrassment of riches? A meta-analysis of individual-level research on voter turnout. Electoral Studies32(2): 344–359.
46.
TarrowS (2000) Mad cows and social activists: Contentious politics in the trilateral democracies. In: PharrSJPutnamRD (eds) Disaffected Democracies: What’s Troubling the Trilateral Countries?Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp.270–290.
47.
Van de WalleSSixF (2014) Trust and distrust as distinct concepts: Why studying distrust in institutions is important. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice16(2): 158–174.
48.
van der MeerT (2010) In what we trust? A multi-level study into trust in parliament as an evaluation of state characteristics. International Review of Administrative Sciences76(3): 517–536.
49.
van der MeerTWGOuattaraE (2019) Putting ‘political’ back in political trust: An IRT test of the unidimensionality and cross-national equivalence of political trust measures. Quality & Quantity53(6): 2983–3002.
50.
WagstaffKCardieCRogersS, et al. (2001) Constrained k-means clustering with background knowledge. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Machine Learning, Williamstown, MA, 28 June–1 July 2001, pp.577–584. New York: ACM.
51.
WeberM (1949) The Methodology of the Social Sciences (trans. ShilsEAFinchHA). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
52.
WuCWilkesR (2018) Finding critical trusters: A response pattern model of political trust. International Journal of Comparative Sociology59(2): 110–138.
53.
WuttkeASchimpfCSchoenH (2020) When the whole is greater than the sum of its parts: On the conceptualization and measurement of populist attitudes and other multidimensional constructs. American Political Science Review114(2): 356–374.
