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

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.

Measuring particularized trust: A name generator approach

“…With these advances, the measurement equivalence of EPT-K and EPT-F should be established statistically. While research has investigated the measurement equivalence of numerous generalized trust instruments (Freitag and Bauer 2013;Reeskens and Hooghe 2008;Robbins 2021a), research has yet to explore whether measures of particularized trust hold across demographic groups and cultures. Without establishing measurement equivalence, observed differences between groups and time points may be an artifact of the measurement instrument and not necessarily true differences in levels of particularized trust.…”

“…While scholars of generalized trust have recently proposed-and offered psychometric tests of-solutions to these longstanding measurement issues (Robbins 2021ab, 2022, similar improvements in measurement have yet to appear in the literature on particularized trust. This stalled evolution in the advancement of measurement instruments is striking, especially given longstanding concerns about the measurement non-equivalence of traditional measures; that is, whether answer scales and terms used in measures of particularized trust are interpreted the same way across groups, respondents, and time (Bauer and Landesvatter 2022;Delhey et al 2011;Freitag and Bauer 2013;Reeskens and Hooghe 2008;Robbins 2021a;Sturgis and Smith 2010;Torpe and Lolle 2011;Uslaner 2002). If one group of respondents interprets survey questions about particularized trust differently than another group of respondents, then an observed difference between groups would not be a function of true differences in particularized trust.…”

Valid and Reliable Measures of Generalized Trust: Evidence from a Nationally Representative Survey and Behavioral Experiment

“…I improve on previous research by including two new racial categories (East Asian and South Asian) and two new low-cost matters, resulting in short-and longform versions of SFT and IST: SFT-24 (6 faces, four matters), SFT-60 (10 faces, six matters), IST-4 (four matters), and IST-6 (six matters). Analyses of a nationally representative probability sample (N = 1,264) and a follow-up study of a one-shot investment game (N = 600) support the conclusions of Bauer and Freitag (2018) and Robbins (2021Robbins ( , 2022Robbins ( , 2023:…”

“…With these newly proposed scales, Robbins (2021Robbins ( , 2022Robbins ( , 2023 assessed their face validity and content validity and performed various measurement validation tests. Using a mix of cross-sectional and two-wave convenience samples from the general population and a behavioral economics subject pool, Robbins (2021Robbins ( , 2022Robbins ( , 2023 found strong empirical support for the reliability, validity, and measurement invariance of SFT and IST. Robbins (2021Robbins ( , 2022Robbins ( , 2023) also detailed how traditional measures of generalized trust are less valid and exhibit greater measurement nonequivalence than SFT and IST.…”

“…Robbins (2022) contends, as a result, that SFT and IST have greater face validity and content validity than traditional measures of generalized trust. Through a series of measurement validation tests, Robbins (2021Robbins ( , 2022Robbins ( , 2023 establishes the reliability (internal consistency, test-retest reliability), validity (factorial, convergent, discriminant, concurrent, predictive, known groups), and measurement equivalence of SFT and IST across demographic groups, samples, and time. He also shows that common generalized trust scales-the Misanthropy Scale (MST) and Generalized Social Trust Scale (GST)-appear to be less valid, less reliable, and less equivalent across demographic groups than SFT and IST.…”