Are Surveys on Trust Trustworthy?

Miller, Alan S.; Mitamura, Tomoko

doi:10.2307/3090141

Cited by 196 publications

(148 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

131

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In fact, one problem with this trust measure is that it seems perfectly possible to agree with both answer categories for the very reason that beliefs and preferences both influence trusting behavior. A recent study (Miller and Mitamura 2003) pointed out that a risk-averse or cautious person may share the view that "most people can be trusted" but that at the same time prudence or risk aversion may induce the person to say "Can't be too careful" because the person is unwilling to accept small probability risks that have large payoff consequences. Miller and Mitamura show that this "confound" is highly problematic when this question is used to measure trust across cultures.…”

Section: What Is Trust and How Can We Measure It?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To rule out having reasonable people agree with both answer categories, Miller and Mitamura (2003) propose "one-dimensional" questions that directly distinguish between trust and distrust such as "Do you think that most people can be trusted?" with answer categories on a 7-point Likert scale from "not at all" (coded as 1) and "complete trust" (coded as 7).…”

Section: What Is Trust and How Can We Measure It?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

On The Economics and Biology of Trust

Fehr

2009

Journal of the European Economic Association

567

355

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, many social scientists have claimed that trust plays an important role in economic and social transactions. Despite its proposed importance, the measurement and the definition of trust seem to be not fully settled, and the identification of the exact role of trust in economic interactions has proven to be elusive. It is still not clear whether trust is just an epiphenomenon of good institutions or whether it plays an independent causal role capable of shaping important aggregate economic outcomes. In this paper, I rely on a behavioral definition of trust that enables us to relate it to economic primitives such as preferences and beliefs. I review strong biological and behavioral evidence indicating that trusting is not just a special case of risk-taking, but based on important forms of social preferences such as betrayal aversion. Behaviorally defined trust also opens the door for understanding national and ethnic trust differences in terms of differences in preferences and beliefs, and it suggests ways to examine and interpret a causal role of trust. ON THE ECONOMICS AND BIOLOGY OF TRUST Ernst Fehr University of Zurich AbstractIn recent years, many social scientists have claimed that trust plays an important role in economic and social transactions. Despite its proposed importance, the measurement and the definition of trust seem to be not fully settled, and the identification of the exact role of trust in economic interactions has proven to be elusive. It is still not clear whether trust is just an epiphenomenon of good institutions or whether it plays an independent causal role capable of shaping important aggregate economic outcomes. In this paper, I rely on a behavioral definition of trust that enables us to relate it to economic primitives such as preferences and beliefs. I review strong biological and behavioral evidence indicating that trusting is not just a special case of risk-taking, but based on important forms of social preferences such as betrayal aversion. Behaviorally defined trust also opens the door for understanding national and ethnic trust differences in terms of differences in preferences and beliefs, and it suggests ways to examine and interpret a causal role of trust. (JEL: A13, C90, D10, O10)

show abstract

Section: What Is Trust and How Can We Measure It?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: What Is Trust and How Can We Measure It?mentioning

confidence: 99%

On The Economics and Biology of Trust

Fehr

2009

Journal of the European Economic Association

567

355

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Japanese case is particularly interesting as certain studies questioning the standard trust measure are based on comparisons between the US and Japan (e.g. Miller and Mitamura, 2003). This and other studies therefore may suggest that the problem is not with the trust measure per se, but its implementation in Japan where it may fail to accurately estimate actual trust.…”

Section: Insert Figure 2 About Herementioning

confidence: 99%

Combating Corruption: On the Interplay between Institutional Quality and Social Trust

Bjørnskov

2011

The Journal of Law and Economics

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this paper is to explore under which conditions institutional quality leads to lower corruption. A model of a simple economy where firms both chose between bribing or not bribing bureaucrats to avoid costs and between entering the official or unofficial economy shows that the effects of increasing institutional quality may be ambiguous due to perverse effects of institutions in the unofficial economy.Employing a recent index of corruption based on objective data, the paper shows that formal institutions are more effective in combating corruption in countries with high levels of social trust. The paper concludes by discussing the welfare and political implications of the findings.JEL Codes: D72, K42, Z13

show abstract

“…Reeskens and Hooghe (2008) ask whether the standard GSS item can be cross-culturally compared. Like Miller and Mitamura (2003) they demonstrate that the structure of the item is problematic. For example, the item shows high variability even among the same respondents (measurement error), the wording is problematic, and it is not clear to the respondent who the appropriate target ('other people') might be.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Others have expressed concern about what the standard GSS item measures. For example, Miller and Mitamura (2003) contend that the standard GSS item taps 'caution' rather than trust. The standard wording they argue has two parts and each part is conceptually distinct.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%