“再小心也不为过”:在大流行期间衡量人际信任

IF 1.9 Q3 MANAGEMENT Journal of Trust Research Pub Date : 2021-07-03 DOI:10.1080/21515581.2022.2066539
Dag Wollebæk, Audun Fladmoe, Kari Steen-Johnsen
{"title":"“再小心也不为过”:在大流行期间衡量人际信任","authors":"Dag Wollebæk, Audun Fladmoe, Kari Steen-Johnsen","doi":"10.1080/21515581.2022.2066539","DOIUrl":null,"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":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"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\":null,\"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\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Trust Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2022.2066539\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Trust Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2022.2066539","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

关于人际信任在疫情环境中的作用的实证结果并不一致。我们认为,一种解释可能是广义信任标准衡量的固有弱点,要求受访者在“大多数人都可以信任”和“与人打交道时不够小心”之间做出选择。该项目衡量两个相互关联但又相互独立的层面——信任和谨慎。在新冠疫情中,谨慎意识可能会被激活;一些受访者可能将“小心”解释为避免感染或传播病毒。这可能导致1)疫情爆发后信任的负面趋势被夸大,2)对信任与遵守指南之间关系的歪曲。如果受访者准备好思考疫情,这种情况更有可能发生。对挪威几组调查数据的分析证实,标准问题显示,疫情爆发后,信任水平下降,与社交距离呈弱负相关。不谨慎的替代操作表明,信任度略有增加,与社交距离呈中性或弱正相关。我们的研究结果表明,在流行病研究中应谨慎使用标准问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
‘You can’t be careful enough’: Measuring interpersonal trust during a pandemic
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
42.90%
发文量
9
期刊介绍: As an inter-disciplinary and cross-cultural journal dedicated to advancing a cross-level, context-rich, process-oriented, and practice-relevant journal, JTR provides a focal point for an open dialogue and debate between diverse researchers, thus enhancing the understanding of trust in general and trust-related management in particular, especially in its organizational and social context in the broadest sense. Through both theoretical development and empirical investigation, JTR seeks to open the "black-box" of trust in various contexts.
期刊最新文献
Trust and distrust in public governance settings: Conceptualising and testing the link in regulatory relations. Social trust during the pandemic: Longitudinal evidence from three waves of the Swiss household panel study Integrating focal vulnerability into trust research Capturing the conversation of trust research On the intricate relationship between data and theory, and the potential gain afforded by capturing very low levels of media trust: Commentary on Mangold (2024)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1