On the inside of generalized trust: Trust dispositions as perceptions of self and others

Abstract

Generalized trust correlates strongly with many desirable institutional and societal characteristics and for this reason, variations in the level of generalized trust have been the object of intense scrutiny. However, the subjective contents of generalized trust have only been the object of theoretical, rather than empirical, investigation. This article adds some first, key insights into this issue and provides findings which fundamentally question the way we think about generalized trust. It investigates the subjective content of different levels of generalized trust in a mixed methods study analysing how trust dispositions relate to tolerance, solidarity and social identity. The study combines multiple correspondence analysis of survey data and thematic analysis of interview data in an iterative research design. The study suggests that generalized trust varies in multiple dimensions, rather than only one as assumed in survey items. First, generalized trust varies in a dimension of generalizability between whether trust should be generalized or not, rather than whether one should trust or not. Second, it varies in a dimension of justifications between assumptions of shared norms of trustworthiness and rational cooperation. In addition, the importance of experienced trustworthiness for generalized trust varies between different trust dispositions.

Does interacting with trustworthy people enhance mindfulness? An experience sampling study of mindfulness in everyday situations

“…This supports the idea that generalized trust can provide a sense of “ontological security” that helps people better situate themselves in their everyday life, including in a mindful manner [31]. And because sociological research has only recently started empirically examining the micro-foundations of generalized trust [70], our findings about the relative influence of generalized and particularized pathways of trustworthiness could help clarify the role played by trustworthiness perceptions and social interactions. For instance, it may be wise to pay less heed to salient but infrequent interactions with untrustworthy people and to concern ourselves more with the institutions that ensure the trustworthiness of our typical interaction [35].…”

“…We suggest that there is room for substantial future contributions in this area, particularly with complementary designs to ours. Such designs could experimentally manipulate trustworthiness and examine the consequences on mindfulness, attend more deeply to the role of mindfulness in the process of forming perceptions about social interactions, or longitudinally unpack how generalized trustworthiness is developed, considering both the individual differences emphasized in the psychology literature [13,41] and the institutional factors emphasized within sociology [34,70].…”

Trusting diversity: nationalist and multiculturalist orientations affect generalised trust through ethnic in‐group and out‐group trust

“…Still, the presentation of results in Figure is based on cross‐sectional survey data. As a counter‐argument, for instance, in sociology, it is often assumed that values are associated with trust because trust is simply part and parcel of a broader disposition (Bourdieau ; Frederiksen ). The assumption is that socialisation and personal biography inform a dispositional attitude towards other people in general.…”

“…By contrast, Delhey, Newton and Welzel (), along with Fukuyama (), think differently and argue that both the radius and level of generalised trust may vary in meaningful ways. Similarly, Frederiksen () finds that generalised trust is a complex phenomenon, characterised by various dynamics of inclusivity and exclusivity. Inspired by such findings, this paper investigates whether it is possible to compensate for the smaller trust radius we expect to find for nationalists by higher levels of trust towards the ethnic in‐group, and similarly, how multiculturalism is associated with the level and radius or, rather, the ethnic inclusivity of trust.…”

A comprehensive view of trust in education: Conclusions from a systematic literature review

“…First, while generalised trust refers to an abstract attitude toward people in general (including strangers) as well as towards groups of people or institutions, particularised trust works ‘at close social range’—it is directed at people or institutions that the individual knows personally and is built on interpersonal experience and interaction (Freitag & Bauer, 2016, 469; Frederiksen, 2019; Delhey & Newton, 2003, 2005; Granovetter, 1973). Generalised trust in other people is also labelled social trust (Bjørnskov, 2010).…”