Trust and compliance: Milieu-specific differences in social cohesion during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany

Abstract

As a response to the COVID-19 pandemic, an increase in social cohesion was observed during the first wave and its aftermath. A closer look reveals heterogeneous responses regarding aspects of cohesion—such as trust in others and compliance with containment measures—that differ by individual socioeconomic and cultural characteristics. How these characteristics affect social cohesion in combination is rarely investigated. Therefore, we introduce the concept of social milieus, which addresses the interrelation of socioeconomic and cultural characteristics on the level of social groups, into the international debate. While previous studies have applied this concept to the analysis of social cohesion during the pandemic, they exhibit theoretical and empirical shortcomings. Hence, we develop a new theoretical model of social milieus and an empirical typology using the German sample of the European Social Survey. This typology is matched with data from the Research Institute Social Cohesion (RISC) for a milieu-specific analysis of social cohesion. Results show considerable heterogeneity in social cohesion during the first wave of the pandemic in Germany. Three social milieus with potentially conflicting modes of social cohesion regarding trust and compliance stand out while other milieus are less diverging as presumed in the literature. These modes can be interpreted as emerging from a combination of the milieus' socioeconomic position and basic human values. Thus, the new theoretical model and empirical typology of social milieus contribute to the understanding of how social cohesion has been contested between social milieus early in the pandemic.

Do values and political attitudes affect help-seeking? Exploring reported help-seeking for mental health problems in a general population sample using a milieu framework

“…First, no standard typology of milieus in Germany exists, and all existing typologies were limited regarding the conceptualizing of values, the consideration of socio-economic characteristics or replicability (Schröder et al. , 2022 ). For reasons of consistency and comparability, a milieu-typology already used in other research fields (Müller-Hilmer and Gagné, 2018 ) was chosen for the present study.…”

Social Cohesion and Covid-19: an integrative review

“…Sixteen of the pieces of work involved an analysis of two or more nations [39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54] ; twelve were based in the United Kingdom 27,[55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65] ; seven in the United States of America [66][67][68][69][70][71][72] ; four each in Germany [73][74][75][76] , Australia [77][78][79][80] and Aotearoa-NZ [81][82][83][84] ; two each in Iran 85,86 and South Africa 87,…”

“…Twenty-two of these used only quantitative data 47, 48, 51, 56, 58, 65, 67, 69-71, 73, 75, 78, 80, 82, 91, 92, 95, 97-100 , thirteen of these used only qualitative data 49,50,55,63,64,68,77,79,83,86,87,90,94 and five of these used a combination of the two [59][60][61][62]93 . Three papers combined theoretical and quantitative analysis 57,74,76 . Twenty-eight of the papers' primary focus was the interplay between pandemic conditions and social cohesion in their location(s) of interest 27, 40, 41, 46, 48, 54, 58-61, 63, 65, 68, 73, 75, 76, 79, 81, 83-85, 87, 88, 90, 95, 98, 101, 102 .…”

“…Where sameness and difference were important to constructions of social cohesion, the axes thereof offered included ethnic groupings 60,65,77,78,83 , shared identity 27,60,61,80,97,102 , norms 91,102 , values 49,76,92 and behavioural conformity or contagion 50,55,76,77 . For example, Lalot et al 65 , drawing on Bottoni 104 , present and measure frequency of contact with those of different ethnicity as an indication of greater social cohesion in a society.…”

“…Accounts which emphasised group members' working together or their choice to act for the good of the collective expressed these behaviours in reference to collective action 39,42,43,52,55,65,66,79,80,87,99 , co-operation 42,76,90,97,98 , collaboration 53,88 , limited conflicts of interest 45 , the pursuit of a shared goal 49 , enactment of social or civic responsibility 27,47,50,55,87 , a latent orientation to the common good 66,75,86 , mutual aid 45,85 , altruism 66,78 and solidarity 45,46,49,50,66,91,103 . In this respect, Garber and Vinetz 66 consider the tension between adjacent processes of individualised identity and low trust in public officials, and the importance of cohesion as collective buy-in for public health interventions such as mask wearing.…”