Assessing the Validity of Generalized Trust Questions: What Kind of Trust are we Measuring?
Assessing the Validity of Generalized Trust Questions: What Kind of Trust are we Measuring?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/ijpor/edq003
复制
发表时间：
2010-03
影响因子：
1.8
通讯作者：
Patrick Sturgis;Patten Smith
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Patrick Sturgis;Patten Smith
在社会资本的文献中，人们区分了对一般人的信任和对我们个人认识的人的信任。在这篇文章中，我们调查的参照系受访者使用时，回答两个常用的人际信任问题。我们的样本中有一半被问及受访者是否可以信任“大多数人”。另一半的样本则被问及另一个版本的问题，其中信任的对象仅限于“你所在地区的人”。“在回答了信任问题后，所有受访者都被要求用自己的话报告在制定回应时想到的人。与这些问题衡量普遍信任的普遍假设相反，我们发现相当多的受访者报告说，他们曾经考虑过自己认识的人。此外，那些说自己曾经考虑过自己认识的人的受访者，也比那些说自己考虑过抽象类别（如“一般人”）的人报告了更高的信任水平。“我们的研究结果表明，公众中不同问题格式和群体之间的信任差异至少部分来自问题解释的异质性。
In the social capital literature a distinction is made between trust expressed in people in general, and trust in people who are known to us personally. In this article we investigate the frames of reference respondents make use of when answering two commonly used interpersonal trust questions. Half of our sample was administered a version which asks respondents whether "most people" can be trusted. The other half of the sample was administered an alternative version of the question, in which the object of trust is restricted to "people in your local area." Immediately after answering the trust question all respondents were asked to report, in their own words, who came to mind when formulating their response. Counter to the widespread assumption that these questions measure generalized trust, we find that a substantial number of respondents report having thought about people who are known to them personally. Furthermore, respondents who report having thought about individuals who are known to them also report substantially higher levels of trust than people who say they thought about abstract categories such as "people in general." Our results suggest that apparent differences in trust across question formats and groups within the general public derive, at least in part, from heterogeneity in question interpretation.