An analysis of the approaches to measuring trust
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17308/econ.2023.1/10962Keywords:
trust, survey-based approach, experiment-based approach, social dysfunctionsAbstract
Subject. An unstable environment has a significant effect on the functioning of society and its sustainable development. One of the factors determining the potential for sustainable development is trust. To study the potential of trust as a factor of stability in society it is necessary to measure the level of trust. This is, however, hindered by the lack of a unified approach and the limitations of the existing approaches. Purpose. The purpose of our study was to analyse the main approaches to measuring the level of trust in a community and to identify the limitations of each approach. We analysed the survey-based and the experiment-based approaches, as well as cases of the indirect assessment of the level of trust based on social dysfunctions and using econometric tools. Methodology. To achieve our purpose, we studied the relevant literature by both Russian and international scholars and methodological guidelines of international organisations concerning the subject. We also used the dialectical method and performed an analysis. Conclusions. In this article, we systematised the existing methods and approaches to measuring the level of trust in society and analysed the main advantages and disadvantages of the survey- and experiment-based approaches that are most commonly used to measure trust. We also studied the cases of measuring the level of trust based on social dysfunctions and social capital. Taking into account the limitations of the existing methods and approaches, we considered the possibility of using mathematical modelling in order to search for connections between various socio-economic parameters and the level of trust (the article presents a model with latent variables and describes its advantages). As a result, we determined the strengths and the limitations of the existing approaches to measuring trust and identified the need for further research in the area and elaboration of these approaches.
Downloads
References
Дементьев, В. Е. (2021). Уверенность в будущем как фактор экономического развития // Экономическое Возрождение России, 1, 54–62. [Dementyev V.E. (2021). Confidence in the future as an economic development factor. The Economic Revival of Russia, 1, 54–62. (In Russian).]
Кривопусков, В. В. (2013). Методологические основания социологического исследования доверия как фактора консолидации российского общества // Гуманитарные, Социально-Экономические и Общественные Науки. Серия: Социологические Науки, 1. [Krivopuskov, V. V. (2013). Conceptualization of trust as a sociological phenomenon. Humanities, Social-economic and Social Sciences. Series: Social Sciences, 1. (In Russian).] http://www.online-science.ru/m/products/social_sciense/gid297/pg0/
Полтерович, В. М. (2022). Экономическая теория и формирование человеческих качеств // AlterEconomics, 19(2), 201–211. [Polterovich, V. M. (2022). Economic theory and the formation of human qualities. AlterEconomics, 19(2), 201–211. (In Russian).]
Трындина, Н. С., & Устюжанина, Е. В. (2023). Доверие как экономическая категория: подходы к классификации и систематизации // Креативная Экономика, 17(1). [Tryndina, N. S., & Ustyuzhina, E. V. (2023). Trust as an economic category: approaches to classification and systematisation. Creative Economy, 17(1). (In Russian).] https://doi.org/10.18334/ce.17.1.116590
Algan, Y., & Cahuc, P. (2014). Trust, Growth, and Well-Being: New Evidence and Policy Implications. Handbook of Economic Growth, 2(7464), 49–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-53538-2.00002-2
Benz, M., Frey, B. S., & Stutzer, A. A. S. (2005). Introducing Procedural Utility: Not Only What, But Also How Matters. SSRN Electronic Journal, 160(3), 377–401. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.338568
Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (1995). Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games and Economic Behavior, 10, 122–142.
Bertelsen, M., Alsop, R., Bertelsen, M. F., & Holland, J. (2006). Empowerment in Practice: From Analysis to Implementation. Development, 390. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/WBI/Resources/EmpowermentLearningModulebody.pdf
Boarini, R., Comola, M., Smith, C., Manchin, R., & de Keulenaer, F. (2012). What Makes for a Better Life?: The Determinants of Subjective Well-Being in OECD Countries - Evidence from the Gallup World Poll. In OECD Statistics Working Papers (Issue 2012/03). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k9b9ltjm937-en
Bolton, G. E., & Ockenfels, A. (2006). Inequality aversion, efficiency, and maximin preferences in simple distribution experiments: Comment. American Economic Review, 96(5), 1906–1911. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.96.5.1906
Bourdieu, P. (2018). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. In R. & K. Paul (Ed.), Inequality: Classic Readings in Race, Class, and Gender. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315680347-10
Brehm, J., & Rahn, W. (1997). Individual-Level Evidence for the Causes and Consequences of Social Capital. American Journal of Political Science, 41(3), 999. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111684
Cameron, L. A. (1999). Raising the stakes in the ultimatum game: Experimental evidence from Indonesia. Economic Inquiry, 37(1), 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7295.1999.tb01415.x
Carpenter, J., Verhoogen, E., & Burks, S. (2005). The effect of stakes in distribution experiments. Economics Letters, 86(3), 393–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2004.08.007
Coleman, J. S. (2009). Social capital in the creation of human capital. Knowledge and Social Capital, 94, 17–42. https://doi.org/10.1086/228943
Delhey, J., Newton, K., & Welzel, C. (2011). How general is trust in “most people”? Solving the radius of trust problem. American Sociological Review, 76(5), 786–807. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122411420817
Falk, A., & Fischbacher, U. (2006). A theory of reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior, 54(2), 293–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2005.03.001
Fehr, E., & Schmidt, Kl. M. (2011). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Advances in Behavioral Economics, 114(3), 271–296. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvcm4j8j.14
Fehr, E., Tougareva, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2014). Do high stakes and competition undermine fair behaviour? Evidence from Russia. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 108, 354–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2013.09.005
Felte, E. (2001). Finders keepers. Reader’s Digest.
Fleche, S., Smith, C., & Sorsa, P. (2012). Exploring determinants of subjective wellbeing in OECD countries: Evidence from the World Values Survey. In Journal of Poverty and Social Justice (Vol. 20, Issue 2). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1332/175982712X652122
Forsythe, R., Horowitz, J. L., Savin, N. E., & Sefton, M. (1994). Fairness in simple bargaining experiments. Games and Economic Behavior, 6(3), 347–369. https://doi.org/10.1006/game.1994.1021
Freitag, M., & Traunmüller, R. (2009). Spheres of trust: An empirical analysis of the foundations of particularised and generalised trust. European Journal of Political Research, 48(6), 782–803. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2009.00849.x
Frey, B. S., & Stutzer, A. (2005). Beyond outcomes: Measuring procedural utility. Oxford Economic Papers, 57(1), 90–111. https://doi.org/10.1093/oep/gpi002
Frey, B. S., & Stutzer, A. (2006). “Direct Democracy: Designing a Living Constitution.” In Democratic Constitutional Design and Public Policy. In R. Congleton & B. Swedenborg (Eds.), Analysis and Evidence. MA: MIT Press.
Helliwell, John F., dan R. D. P. (2004). The social context of well-being.” In Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. B: Biological Sciences, 359, 1435–1446. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1522
Helliwell, J. F., Huang, H., & Wang, S. (2017). New evidence on trust and well-being. The Oxford Handbook of Social and Political Trust, w22450, 409–446. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190274801.013.9
Hoffman, E., McCabe, K. A., & Smith, V. L. (1998). Behavioral foundations of reciprocity: Experimental economics and evolutionary psychology. Economic Inquiry, 36(3), 335–352. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7295.1998.tb01719.x
Justwan, F., Bakker, R., & Berejikian, J. D. (2018). Measuring social trust and trusting the measure. Social Science Journal, 55(2), 149–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2017.10.001
King, G., Murray, C. J. L., Salomon, J. A., & Tandon, A. (2004). Enhancing the Validity and Cross-Cultural Comparability of Measurement in Survey Research. American Political Science Review, 98(1), 191–207. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000305540400108X
Knack, S., & Keefer, P. (1997). Does social capital have an economic payoff? A cross-country investigation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(4), 1251–1288. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355300555475
Levitt, S. D., & List, J. A. (2007). What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(2), 153–174. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.21.2.153
List, J. A., & Cherry, T. L. (2008). Examining the role of fairness in high stakes allocation decisions. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 65(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2003.09.021
Morrone, A., Tontoranelli, N., & Ranuzzi, G. (2009). How Good is Trust ? PROGRESS OF SOCIETIES. In OECD Statistics Working Papers 2009/3. OECD Publishing.
Munier, B., & Zaharia, C. (2002). High stakes and acceptance behavior in ultimatum bargaining: A contribution from an international experiment. Theory and Decision, 53(3), 187–207. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022815832351
New Zealand Ministry of Justice. (2014). New Zealand Crime and Safety Survey.
Newton, K., & Zmerli, S. (2011). Three forms of trust and their association. European Political Science Review, 3(2), 169–200. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773910000330
OECD. (2017). OECD Guidelines on Measuring Trust. OECD Guidelines on Measuring Trust. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264278219-en
Parco, J. E., Rapoport, A., & Stein, W. E. (2002). Effects of financial incentives on the breakdown of mutual trust. Psychological Science, 13(3), 292–297. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00454
Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and Control of Response Bias. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, W. L. S. Andrews, & F. M. Andrews (Eds.), Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes (pp. 17–59). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-590241-0.50006-x
Paxton, P. (1999). Is social capital declining in the United States? A multiple indicator assessment. American Journal of Sociology, 105(1), 88–127. https://doi.org/10.1086/210268
Putnam, R. (1993). Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton University Press.
Robbins, B. (2018). Measuring Social Trust: Two New Approaches. SSRN Electronic Journal, 51(1), 305–356. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3212109
Rosenberg, M. (1957). Misanthropy and attitudes toward international affairs. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1(4), 340–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/002200275700100403
Rothstein, B., & Uslaner, E. M. (2005). All for All: Equality, Corruption, and Social Trust. World Politics, 58(1), 41–72. https://doi.org/10.1353/wp.2006.0022
Sen, A. K. (1992). Inequality Re-examined. Harvard University Press.
Sen, A. K. (2009). The Idea of Justice. Harvard University Press.
Slonim, R., & Roth, A. E. (1998). Learning in High Stakes Ultimatum Games: An Experiment in the Slovak Republic. Econometrica, 66(3), 569. https://doi.org/10.2307/2998575
Sturgis, P., Roberts, C., & Smith, P. (2014). Middle Alternatives Revisited: How the neither/nor Response Acts as a Way of Saying “I Don’t Know”? Sociological Methods and Research, 43(1), 15–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124112452527
Winkler, N., Kroh, M., & Spiess, M. (2006). Entwicklung einer deutschen Kurzskala zur zweidimensionalen Messung von sozialer Erwünschtheit. Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin, 1–31.
Zmerli, S., & Newton, K. (2008). Social trust and attitudes toward democracy. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(4), 706–724. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfn054
