While the literature on trust has produced various conceptual models, there is also some confusion concerning different types of trust and their formation. In this article, three contested points are empirically clarified. First, are there really different forms of trust as much of the literature suggests? Second, if so, then how are these different types of trust related to each other? Third, what are the foundations of these different forms of trust? Relying on data from the German Socio‐Economic Panel, it is concluded that two types of trust can be empirically identified: an intimate trust in people close to the truster, as well as an abstract trust in people in general. Although these types of trust constitute separate dimensions, they are positively related to each other. Furthermore, this article challenges the widely held assumption that experiences are most relevant for particularised trust, while generalised trust is based on psychological predispositions. It is argued instead for a sphere‐specific logic of trust formation: It is the radius of experiences and predispositions that matters for the radius of trust. Finally, the analysis goes beyond the existing research by highlighting hitherto unknown conditions under which trust in familiar domains is more or less likely to extend to generalised trust.

What citizens think about Muslim immigrants has important implications for some of the most pressing challenges facing Western democracies. To advance contemporary understanding of what ‘Islamophobia’ really is – for example, whether it is a dislike based on immigrants’ ethnic background, religious identity or specific religious behaviors – this study fielded a representative online survey experiment in the UK in summer 2015. The results suggest that Muslim immigrants are not per se viewed more negatively than Christian immigrants. Instead, the study finds evidence that citizens’ uneasiness with Muslim immigration is first and foremost the result of a rejection of fundamentalist forms of religiosity. This suggests that common explanations, which are based on simple dichotomies between liberal supporters and conservative critics of immigration, need to be re-evaluated. While the politically left and culturally liberal have more positive attitudes toward immigrants than right-leaning individuals and conservatives, they are also far more critical of religious groups. The study concludes that a large part of the current political controversy over Muslim immigration is related to this double opposition: it is less about immigrants versus natives or even Muslim versus Christians than about political liberalism versus religious fundamentalism.

This contribution examines the role of religion as source of social trust. Going beyond the scope of the existing literature, we jointly evaluate the effect of individual religiosity and regional religious context by means of multi level analysis of 97 small-scale German regions. The results based on the German SocioEconomic Panel suggest that there is a double positive effect of Protestantism: Not only do Protestants tend to be more trusting, but a Protestant context also increases one's trust-regardless of individual religious beliefs. Conversely, social trust is less developed in Catholic-dominated regions. In addition, although Catholic individuals are more trusting than the non-religious individuals, they do not differ from members of smaller Christian groups or Muslims. At same time, the notion that certain religious groups and especially religious minorities are distrustful of the wider society is not substantiated by empirical evidence. Furthermore, while church attendance is a powerful predictor for social trust, a context effect for regional levels of devoutness could not be detected. Finally, religious diversity decreases social trust for Muslims only, but not to a degree as to pose a threat to social integration.

Scholars have recently stressed two important avenues for the study of cultural diversity and social capital: the role of political integration regimes as well as alternative indicators to generalised trust. This article addresses both. Focusing on Germany, it provides the first study of the relationship between cultural diversity and social capital in a country implementing an ‘assimilationist’ model of integration. As a further innovation, the article contrasts social trust with an alternative, yet often neglected form of social capital, namely norms of reciprocity. Results based on data from the German Socio‐Economic Panel (GSOEP) and using multi‐level analyses of 97 German regions suggest a negative relationship between cultural diversity and social trust in Germany. Assimilationist policies have not (yet) led to efficient integration of minority groups and a value convergence that could bridge cultural divides. Nevertheless, cultural diversity does not erode the commitment to norms of reciprocity, which may therefore be regarded as an alternative foundation of social cohesion in culturally diverse societies.

Sexual violence is believed to be widespread during war. Yet empirical evidence concerning its prevalence is often limited. Victims, out of feelings of shame or fear, underreport this form of violence. We tackle this problem by administering a list experiment in a representative survey in Sri Lanka, which is only recently recovering from an ethnic civil war between Sinhalese and Tamils. This unobtrusive method reveals that around 13 percent of the Sri Lankan population has personally experienced sexual assault during the war—a prevalence ten times higher than elicited by direct questioning. We also identify vulnerable groups: Tamils who have collaborated with rebel groups and the male-displaced population suspected of collaboration with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. Our experimental evidence thus lends support to reports on the asymmetric use of sexual violence by government forces, qualifies conventional wisdom on sexual violence during war, and has important implications for policy.