Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/21515581.2022.2066539
Dag Wollebæk, Audun Fladmoe, Kari Steen-Johnsen
ABSTRACT Empirical results regarding the role of interpersonal trust in the pandemic setting have been inconsistent. We argue that one explanation may be an inherent weakness in the standard measure of generalised trust, requesting respondents to choose between the options ‘most people can be trusted' and ‘you can't be careful enough in dealing with people'. The item measures two inter-related yet separate dimensions - trust and caution. A sense of caution is likely to be activated within the pandemic; some respondents may interpret ‘being careful’ as avoiding infection or spreading the virus. This may lead to 1) exaggerated negative trends in trust after the pandemic outbreak and 2) misrepresentation of the relationship between trust and compliance with guidelines. This is more likely to occur if respondents are primed to think about the pandemic. Analyses of several survey data sets from Norway confirmed that the standard question showed a decline in trust levels after the pandemic outbreak and a weakly negative correlation with social distancing. Alternative operationalisations without reference to caution suggested a small increase in trust and neutral or a weakly positive correlation with social distancing. Our results imply that the standard question should be used with caution in pandemic research.
{"title":"‘You can’t be careful enough’: Measuring interpersonal trust during a pandemic","authors":"Dag Wollebæk, Audun Fladmoe, Kari Steen-Johnsen","doi":"10.1080/21515581.2022.2066539","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2022.2066539","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Empirical results regarding the role of interpersonal trust in the pandemic setting have been inconsistent. We argue that one explanation may be an inherent weakness in the standard measure of generalised trust, requesting respondents to choose between the options ‘most people can be trusted' and ‘you can't be careful enough in dealing with people'. The item measures two inter-related yet separate dimensions - trust and caution. A sense of caution is likely to be activated within the pandemic; some respondents may interpret ‘being careful’ as avoiding infection or spreading the virus. This may lead to 1) exaggerated negative trends in trust after the pandemic outbreak and 2) misrepresentation of the relationship between trust and compliance with guidelines. This is more likely to occur if respondents are primed to think about the pandemic. Analyses of several survey data sets from Norway confirmed that the standard question showed a decline in trust levels after the pandemic outbreak and a weakly negative correlation with social distancing. Alternative operationalisations without reference to caution suggested a small increase in trust and neutral or a weakly positive correlation with social distancing. Our results imply that the standard question should be used with caution in pandemic research.","PeriodicalId":44602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trust Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43511185","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/21515581.2022.2029742
Umair Majid, Aghna Wasim, J. Truong, S. Bakshi
ABSTRACT Among the most important factors that determine whether public health recommendations receive widespread adherence during pandemics is public trust in the information disseminated by governments, health care providers, and the media. However, there remains uncertainty pertaining to the role of public trust in the acceptance and maintenance of public health recommendations during outbreaks. This systematic review and thematic analysis examined 41 studies on previous pandemics, epidemics, and global outbreaks in the twenty-first century to identify the relationship between public trust in the government, health care providers, and the media, and the acceptance, uptake, and maintenance of health behaviours that contain the spread of infectious disease. We found inconsistency in public trust towards the government and the media across multiple countries, while trust in health care providers was generally reported to be high with a few exceptions. We identified several unintended outcomes of mistrust when communicating public health recommendations such as non-compliance with recommended health measures, seeking information from alternative sources, and vaccine hesitancy. We conclude this paper by discussing the importance of public trust in promoting compliance with public health recommendations and the uptake of protective behaviours, as well as the downstream implications of mistrust that may develop in the COVID-19 pandemic.
{"title":"Public trust in governments, health care providers, and the media during pandemics: A systematic review","authors":"Umair Majid, Aghna Wasim, J. Truong, S. Bakshi","doi":"10.1080/21515581.2022.2029742","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2022.2029742","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Among the most important factors that determine whether public health recommendations receive widespread adherence during pandemics is public trust in the information disseminated by governments, health care providers, and the media. However, there remains uncertainty pertaining to the role of public trust in the acceptance and maintenance of public health recommendations during outbreaks. This systematic review and thematic analysis examined 41 studies on previous pandemics, epidemics, and global outbreaks in the twenty-first century to identify the relationship between public trust in the government, health care providers, and the media, and the acceptance, uptake, and maintenance of health behaviours that contain the spread of infectious disease. We found inconsistency in public trust towards the government and the media across multiple countries, while trust in health care providers was generally reported to be high with a few exceptions. We identified several unintended outcomes of mistrust when communicating public health recommendations such as non-compliance with recommended health measures, seeking information from alternative sources, and vaccine hesitancy. We conclude this paper by discussing the importance of public trust in promoting compliance with public health recommendations and the uptake of protective behaviours, as well as the downstream implications of mistrust that may develop in the COVID-19 pandemic.","PeriodicalId":44602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trust Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48068150","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/21515581.2022.2075373
Anne Reif, Lars Guenther
ABSTRACT Over the past several years, scholars have debated the public’s (dis)trust in science. Since the ‘science and society’ paradigm of science communication has defined the crisis of trust between science and the public as a major concern, this article is interested in how public (dis)trust in science is measured in representative surveys of public perceptions of science and technology. The goal is to systematise survey measures using a theoretical model of (dis)trust in science as a multidimensional variable that is relevant to the relationship between the public, (intermediaries) and science. A systematic review of items and open-ended questions (n = 736) used in 20 representative surveys from various countries was conducted. The results show that surveys rarely measure distrust in science, and instead focus on trust in science – mainly at the macro-level – rather than trust in scientists (micro-level) or scientific organisations (meso-level). Benevolence is the dimension of trust considered most frequently; the media is predominantly included as a general type of contact with science without a direct link to (dis)trust. Hence, representative surveys cover a number of different aspects of public (dis)trust in science. However, there is room for improvement. Thus, this paper concludes with recommendations for future measures.
{"title":"How representative surveys measure public (dis)trust in science: A systematisation and analysis of survey items and open-ended questions","authors":"Anne Reif, Lars Guenther","doi":"10.1080/21515581.2022.2075373","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2022.2075373","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Over the past several years, scholars have debated the public’s (dis)trust in science. Since the ‘science and society’ paradigm of science communication has defined the crisis of trust between science and the public as a major concern, this article is interested in how public (dis)trust in science is measured in representative surveys of public perceptions of science and technology. The goal is to systematise survey measures using a theoretical model of (dis)trust in science as a multidimensional variable that is relevant to the relationship between the public, (intermediaries) and science. A systematic review of items and open-ended questions (n = 736) used in 20 representative surveys from various countries was conducted. The results show that surveys rarely measure distrust in science, and instead focus on trust in science – mainly at the macro-level – rather than trust in scientists (micro-level) or scientific organisations (meso-level). Benevolence is the dimension of trust considered most frequently; the media is predominantly included as a general type of contact with science without a direct link to (dis)trust. Hence, representative surveys cover a number of different aspects of public (dis)trust in science. However, there is room for improvement. Thus, this paper concludes with recommendations for future measures.","PeriodicalId":44602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trust Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46163183","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/21515581.2021.1946821
A. Seligman
This paper explores the connection between trust and confidence on the one hand and different forms of knowledge (abstract and general viz. particular and concrete) on the other. While the distinction between trust and confidence was first made by Niklas Luhmann their connection to forms of knowledge and so attitudes towards difference is new. Making use of insights afforded to us by John Dewey, I argue here for the dependence of trust on an ability to abide with ambiguity and the loss of control that the eschewal of generalised categories of knowledge implies. Finally, I draw social and political implications from these insights in terms of the ability to live with differences, with the stranger and with those ‘others' who cannot be known and so contained within abstract categories.
{"title":"Trust, experience and embodied knowledge or lessons from John Dewey on the dangers of abstraction","authors":"A. Seligman","doi":"10.1080/21515581.2021.1946821","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2021.1946821","url":null,"abstract":"This paper explores the connection between trust and confidence on the one hand and different forms of knowledge (abstract and general viz. particular and concrete) on the other. While the distinction between trust and confidence was first made by Niklas Luhmann their connection to forms of knowledge and so attitudes towards difference is new. Making use of insights afforded to us by John Dewey, I argue here for the dependence of trust on an ability to abide with ambiguity and the loss of control that the eschewal of generalised categories of knowledge implies. Finally, I draw social and political implications from these insights in terms of the ability to live with differences, with the stranger and with those ‘others' who cannot be known and so contained within abstract categories.","PeriodicalId":44602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trust Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44512516","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/21515581.2021.2030892
Guido Möllering
It is a sign of the times that an increasing proportion of papers submitted to, and published in, Journal of Trust Research (JTR) address the broad area of political trust. These studies mostly consider how members of the public do or don’t trust in various societal institutions. At the same time they work on the premise that such trust matters in the sense that, notably, an erosion of trust could severely impede cohesion and collaboration at large (see, for example, Festenstein, 2020; Hetherington, 2005). This makes trust and trusting political. Trust as an attitude with behavioural consequences connects, enables and comforts – or, when it is lacking or even turning into distrust, it separates, prevents and worries – in social relations. Thus, from the interpersonal to the institutional level, we might see trust as a vote on whom people are prepared to cooperate with (e.g. Hamm et al., 2016). The politics of trust revolve around securing allegiance and maintaining alliances of people with common interests. And trust implies a special form of reliance on others whom we can control and understand only partly at best. Especially in times of grand challenges, transformations and disruptions, ‘Who trusts whom?’ is just as much a political as a personal question. Any answer given reflects and affects ongoing social dynamics. The articles contained in this new JTR issue all speak to some extent to this political interpretation of trust and trusting. As usual, they were not curated based on this theme, but were simply next in the publication pipeline. Still, as I will attempt below, they can be connected as they all show us the political implications of trusting in current societies. First, Adam Seligman’s (2021) article on ‘Trust, experience and embodied knowledge or lessons from John Dewey on the dangers of abstraction’ essentially (re-)conceptualises trust as distinct from confidence. In short – and in my personal interpretation – to Seligman trusting means to suspend judgement and, in particular, to be able to deal with ambiguity, relying on experience rather than abstract knowledge. What makes his conceptual exploration ‘political’ is that he frames it in the context of (the troubles of) civil society. In particular, Seligman points out that trust matters where people lack the knowledge and ability to rely on abstractions of others – which would be a matter of confidence. This means that trust is essentially relevant in relation to strangers. The strangeness we all represent to each other could prevent us from starting cooperative interactions or relationships and from gaining the experiences that enable us to further extend trust. If we lose the ability to trust in this sense, ‘there can be no civil society to speak of’ (Seligman, 2021, p. 19). We might imagine it this way: Populists tell us to rely only on the people and things we (already) know. Hence they ask us to use confidence. Trust as experience, in contrast, lets us be open to what we do
这是一个时代的标志，越来越多的论文提交和发表在信任研究杂志(JTR)上，涉及政治信任的广泛领域。这些研究主要考虑公众如何信任或不信任各种社会机构。与此同时，他们的工作前提是，这种信任很重要，因为值得注意的是，信任的侵蚀可能严重阻碍凝聚力和协作(例如，参见Festenstein, 2020;海瑟林顿,2005)。这使得信任和信任具有政治性。信任作为一种具有行为后果的态度，在社会关系中起着连接、促进和安慰作用——或者，当缺乏信任甚至变成不信任时，它会使社会关系分离、阻碍和担忧。因此，从人际关系到制度层面，我们可以将信任视为人们准备与谁合作的投票(例如Hamm et al.， 2016)。信任的政治围绕着确保忠诚和维持有共同利益的人的联盟。而信任意味着对他人的一种特殊形式的依赖，我们可以控制这些人，充其量也只能部分地理解他们。尤其是在面临巨大挑战、变革和颠覆的时代，“谁信任谁?”这既是一个个人问题，也是一个政治问题。给出的任何答案都反映并影响着当前的社会动态。新一期《JTR》所载的文章都在一定程度上说明了这种对信任和信任的政治解释。像往常一样，它们不是基于这个主题进行策划的，而只是发布管道中的下一个。然而，正如我将在下面尝试的那样，它们可以联系在一起，因为它们都向我们展示了信任在当前社会中的政治含义。首先，亚当·塞利格曼(Adam Seligman, 2021)关于“信任、经验和体现的知识或约翰·杜威关于抽象危险的教训”的文章从本质上(重新)将信任概念化为与信心不同的概念。简而言之——以我个人的理解——对塞利格曼来说，信任意味着暂停判断，特别是能够处理模棱两可的问题，依靠经验而不是抽象的知识。他的概念探索之所以具有“政治性”，是因为他将其置于公民社会的(麻烦)背景中。塞利格曼特别指出，当人们缺乏依赖他人抽象概念的知识和能力时，信任至关重要——这将是一个信心问题。这意味着信任本质上是与陌生人相关的。我们彼此之间的陌生感可能会阻止我们开始合作互动或关系，也会阻止我们获得使我们能够进一步扩大信任的经验。如果我们在这个意义上失去信任的能力，“就没有公民社会可言”(塞利格曼，2021年，第19页)。我们可以这样想象:民粹主义者告诉我们只依赖我们(已经)认识的人和事。因此，他们要求我们使用信心。相比之下，信任作为一种经验，让我们对自己(还)不知道的事情敞开心扉。它使一个开放的社会能够处理多样性和模糊性。因此，拒绝信任就变成了一种政治举动，即拒绝陌生人的怀疑，这实际上意味着排斥，甚至更糟。民粹主义可能在政治上对信任造成的损害也是本期《JTR》第二篇文章的一个强烈主题，这篇文章是马特·伯格鲍尔和利瓦伊·艾伦(2021年)的《对美国政党的信任和对公共政策的支持:为什么共和党人受益于政治不信任》。他们的核心贡献是分析人们对公共政策的支持如何受到人们是否相信政党执政时道德和诚实的影响。简而言之，他们发现那些信任共和党的人更不愿意这么做
{"title":"Trust is political","authors":"Guido Möllering","doi":"10.1080/21515581.2021.2030892","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2021.2030892","url":null,"abstract":"It is a sign of the times that an increasing proportion of papers submitted to, and published in, Journal of Trust Research (JTR) address the broad area of political trust. These studies mostly consider how members of the public do or don’t trust in various societal institutions. At the same time they work on the premise that such trust matters in the sense that, notably, an erosion of trust could severely impede cohesion and collaboration at large (see, for example, Festenstein, 2020; Hetherington, 2005). This makes trust and trusting political. Trust as an attitude with behavioural consequences connects, enables and comforts – or, when it is lacking or even turning into distrust, it separates, prevents and worries – in social relations. Thus, from the interpersonal to the institutional level, we might see trust as a vote on whom people are prepared to cooperate with (e.g. Hamm et al., 2016). The politics of trust revolve around securing allegiance and maintaining alliances of people with common interests. And trust implies a special form of reliance on others whom we can control and understand only partly at best. Especially in times of grand challenges, transformations and disruptions, ‘Who trusts whom?’ is just as much a political as a personal question. Any answer given reflects and affects ongoing social dynamics. The articles contained in this new JTR issue all speak to some extent to this political interpretation of trust and trusting. As usual, they were not curated based on this theme, but were simply next in the publication pipeline. Still, as I will attempt below, they can be connected as they all show us the political implications of trusting in current societies. First, Adam Seligman’s (2021) article on ‘Trust, experience and embodied knowledge or lessons from John Dewey on the dangers of abstraction’ essentially (re-)conceptualises trust as distinct from confidence. In short – and in my personal interpretation – to Seligman trusting means to suspend judgement and, in particular, to be able to deal with ambiguity, relying on experience rather than abstract knowledge. What makes his conceptual exploration ‘political’ is that he frames it in the context of (the troubles of) civil society. In particular, Seligman points out that trust matters where people lack the knowledge and ability to rely on abstractions of others – which would be a matter of confidence. This means that trust is essentially relevant in relation to strangers. The strangeness we all represent to each other could prevent us from starting cooperative interactions or relationships and from gaining the experiences that enable us to further extend trust. If we lose the ability to trust in this sense, ‘there can be no civil society to speak of’ (Seligman, 2021, p. 19). We might imagine it this way: Populists tell us to rely only on the people and things we (already) know. Hence they ask us to use confidence. Trust as experience, in contrast, lets us be open to what we do ","PeriodicalId":44602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trust Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44858679","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/21515581.2022.2026781
A. Koivula, S. Malinen, Arttu Saarinen
ABSTRACT In this article, we examine how political trust is associated with participation in political discussions on social media and voting activity. We explore whether social media can provide platforms for those who are passive in terms of formal political participation. Our data were derived from a representative survey based on a sample collected in 2017 from the Finnish population register (N = 2470). Our key findings were that online and offline participation were highly linked to each other. Those citizens who participated formally by voting were also more likely to participate online. Moreover, we found a moderating effect of political trust on the relationship between online and offline participation. Therefore, we concluded that social media platforms also provide channels for political participation for individuals with low political trust who do not participate formally by voting.
{"title":"The voice of distrust? The relationship between political trust, online political participation and voting","authors":"A. Koivula, S. Malinen, Arttu Saarinen","doi":"10.1080/21515581.2022.2026781","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2022.2026781","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\u0000 In this article, we examine how political trust is associated with participation in political discussions on social media and voting activity. We explore whether social media can provide platforms for those who are passive in terms of formal political participation. Our data were derived from a representative survey based on a sample collected in 2017 from the Finnish population register (N = 2470). Our key findings were that online and offline participation were highly linked to each other. Those citizens who participated formally by voting were also more likely to participate online. Moreover, we found a moderating effect of political trust on the relationship between online and offline participation. Therefore, we concluded that social media platforms also provide channels for political participation for individuals with low political trust who do not participate formally by voting.","PeriodicalId":44602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trust Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46306658","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/21515581.2021.2014337
Gissur Ó. Erlingsson
ABSTRACT As a rule, citizens appreciate local more than central government. This paper proposes a new research agenda for multilevel trust studies by arguing that it is premature to believe that citizen’s proximity to officials by definition trumps distance. As in country-comparative studies, close attention needs to be paid to institutional quality in analyses of multilevel trust. To put this argument to work, a closer investigation of Sweden is conducted. Tracking three indicators of trust, with time-series stretching over two decades, Sweden turns out to be a curious outlier from the international pattern: Swedes trust their local government less than the state. To make this observation intelligible – while simultaneously aiming to contribute to a more nuanced theoretical understanding of multilevel trust – the mix of three features is identified for bringing this circumstance about: (1) the principal role Swedish municipalities have successively been given in implementing core welfare state assignments; (2) that several of the municipalities’ assignments are susceptible to corruption; and (3) that the increase in municipal responsibilities has neither been accompanied with institutions that guarantee accountability of politicians nor the impartiality of local bureaucracies.
{"title":"A stranger thing? Sweden as the upside down of multilevel trust","authors":"Gissur Ó. Erlingsson","doi":"10.1080/21515581.2021.2014337","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2021.2014337","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT As a rule, citizens appreciate local more than central government. This paper proposes a new research agenda for multilevel trust studies by arguing that it is premature to believe that citizen’s proximity to officials by definition trumps distance. As in country-comparative studies, close attention needs to be paid to institutional quality in analyses of multilevel trust. To put this argument to work, a closer investigation of Sweden is conducted. Tracking three indicators of trust, with time-series stretching over two decades, Sweden turns out to be a curious outlier from the international pattern: Swedes trust their local government less than the state. To make this observation intelligible – while simultaneously aiming to contribute to a more nuanced theoretical understanding of multilevel trust – the mix of three features is identified for bringing this circumstance about: (1) the principal role Swedish municipalities have successively been given in implementing core welfare state assignments; (2) that several of the municipalities’ assignments are susceptible to corruption; and (3) that the increase in municipal responsibilities has neither been accompanied with institutions that guarantee accountability of politicians nor the impartiality of local bureaucracies.","PeriodicalId":44602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trust Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41508562","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/21515581.2021.2014336
Matthew L. Bergbower, Levi G. Allen
While political trust is well researched by political scientists, little attention has been paid to the repercussions of citizens’ lack of trust in the major political parties. Political parties are the institutions responsible for forming governing coalitions and channelling the policy preferences of the majorities that elected them; thus, we hypothesise that distrust in the parties can have some unsavory consequences. Namely that trust can be weaponized by elites and lead to fervent opposition to the other party’s policy proposals. Using a unique dataset from the Pew Research Centre, and leveraging an innovative instrument, we analyze how support for public policy is affected by trusting the parties to govern ethically and honestly. Our results are heterogenous. We find that respondents who trust the Republicans to govern ethically and honestly reward the party with opposition to the Democrats’ policy positions. Conversely, we find no change in support for public policy among those who trust the Democrats to govern ethically and honestly. The theoretical implications of these results speak to the rise of populism in America, a topic we also briefly address in the conclusion.
{"title":"Trust in the American political parties and support for public policy: Why Republicans benefit from political distrust","authors":"Matthew L. Bergbower, Levi G. Allen","doi":"10.1080/21515581.2021.2014336","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2021.2014336","url":null,"abstract":"While political trust is well researched by political scientists, little attention has been paid to the repercussions of citizens’ lack of trust in the major political parties. Political parties are the institutions responsible for forming governing coalitions and channelling the policy preferences of the majorities that elected them; thus, we hypothesise that distrust in the parties can have some unsavory consequences. Namely that trust can be weaponized by elites and lead to fervent opposition to the other party’s policy proposals. Using a unique dataset from the Pew Research Centre, and leveraging an innovative instrument, we analyze how support for public policy is affected by trusting the parties to govern ethically and honestly. Our results are heterogenous. We find that respondents who trust the Republicans to govern ethically and honestly reward the party with opposition to the Democrats’ policy positions. Conversely, we find no change in support for public policy among those who trust the Democrats to govern ethically and honestly. The theoretical implications of these results speak to the rise of populism in America, a topic we also briefly address in the conclusion.","PeriodicalId":44602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trust Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49323225","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-07-02DOI: 10.1080/21515581.2021.1922911
Steven G. Young, R. McGrath
ABSTRACT Cooperation occupies nearly every aspect of human life. While previous research focuses on how situational factors and personality predict cooperation, less is known about how specific character strengths predict cooperation. In Study 1, we find that higher Self-Control values and lower Inquisitiveness values were associated with a larger contribution in the Trust Game. In Study 2, we find that kindness positively predicted the total amount of money earned in a Prisoner’s Dilemma game. However, Self-Control was not a significant predictor for any dependent measure. We discuss the theoretical and applied implications of these findings, compare our results to other research on dispositional predictors of trust and cooperation, and postulate that the oinconsistent role of Self-Control may be attribouted tof theoretical differences in the Trust and Prisoner’s Dilemma games. Finally, we offer future directions that can build on the present findings.
{"title":"Character strengths as predictors of trust and cooperation in economic decision-making","authors":"Steven G. Young, R. McGrath","doi":"10.1080/21515581.2021.1922911","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2021.1922911","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Cooperation occupies nearly every aspect of human life. While previous research focuses on how situational factors and personality predict cooperation, less is known about how specific character strengths predict cooperation. In Study 1, we find that higher Self-Control values and lower Inquisitiveness values were associated with a larger contribution in the Trust Game. In Study 2, we find that kindness positively predicted the total amount of money earned in a Prisoner’s Dilemma game. However, Self-Control was not a significant predictor for any dependent measure. We discuss the theoretical and applied implications of these findings, compare our results to other research on dispositional predictors of trust and cooperation, and postulate that the oinconsistent role of Self-Control may be attribouted tof theoretical differences in the Trust and Prisoner’s Dilemma games. Finally, we offer future directions that can build on the present findings.","PeriodicalId":44602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trust Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21515581.2021.1922911","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48256023","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-07-02DOI: 10.1080/21515581.2021.1927063
A. Gur
ABSTRACT Most healthcare providers experience some form of aggressive behaviour by patients and their relatives (i.e. customers). Customer aggressive behaviour (CAB) is detrimental to customers and healthcare providers, as well as to the overall service quality provided by the healthcare organisation. Drawing on the Social Exchange Theory, the purpose of the study was to examine whether customers’ trust in healthcare providers decreases incidents of CAB and in turn improves the perceived service quality of the clinic. Data were collected from 45 primary care clinics of the same organisation, including three sources: Customers (N=579); healthcare providers (N=398); and data provided by the organisation. The data were aggregated and analysed at the clinic level. The results confirmed a mediation model in which customer trust in healthcare providers reduced CAB as experienced by providers, which in turn led to higher levels of clinics’ perceived service quality. As CAB in this study was examined as a mediating factor, it was possible to investigate its role within the context of the organisational dynamic. Practically, these findings suggest that healthcare organisations should proactively create and nurture a culture of trust between customers and healthcare providers in order to promote service quality through reducing CAB.
{"title":"Customer trust and perceived service quality in the healthcare sector: Customer aggressive behaviour as a mediator","authors":"A. Gur","doi":"10.1080/21515581.2021.1927063","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2021.1927063","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Most healthcare providers experience some form of aggressive behaviour by patients and their relatives (i.e. customers). Customer aggressive behaviour (CAB) is detrimental to customers and healthcare providers, as well as to the overall service quality provided by the healthcare organisation. Drawing on the Social Exchange Theory, the purpose of the study was to examine whether customers’ trust in healthcare providers decreases incidents of CAB and in turn improves the perceived service quality of the clinic. Data were collected from 45 primary care clinics of the same organisation, including three sources: Customers (N=579); healthcare providers (N=398); and data provided by the organisation. The data were aggregated and analysed at the clinic level. The results confirmed a mediation model in which customer trust in healthcare providers reduced CAB as experienced by providers, which in turn led to higher levels of clinics’ perceived service quality. As CAB in this study was examined as a mediating factor, it was possible to investigate its role within the context of the organisational dynamic. Practically, these findings suggest that healthcare organisations should proactively create and nurture a culture of trust between customers and healthcare providers in order to promote service quality through reducing CAB.","PeriodicalId":44602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trust Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21515581.2021.1927063","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47035945","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：