Measuring Levels of Trust

Couch, Laurie L.; Jones, Warren H.

doi:10.1006/jrpe.1997.2186

Cited by 138 publications

(110 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…27 Furthermore, it is important to point out that marital quality and symptoms of depression are known to be reliably related. 28 Similar to the present study which revealed that increase of severity of depression was associated with poor marital quality. Bookwala and jacobs found that negative marital processes (e.g., level of disagreement) were associated with more depressed affect, and positive marital processes (e.g., marital happiness) were associated with lower depressed affect in young and old married individuals.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Marital quality and its relation with depression: a case-control study

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Marital quality and its relation with depression: a case-control study

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Moreover, multi-item trust measures (e.g., Couch, Adams, & Jones, 1996;Couch & Jones, 1997;Yamagishi & Yamagishi, 1994) might give more robust results than the single-item measure we used.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We measure trust with the following question from the World Values Survey: "Do you think most people would try to take advantage of you if they got a chance, or would they try to be fair?" Although more elaborate measurement tools for trust have been developed (e.g., Couch, Adams, & Jones, 1996;Couch & Jones, 1997;Yamagishi & Yamagishi, 1994) and trust attitudes elicited by surveys might predict trusting behavior only weakly (Glaeser, Laibson, Scheinkman, & Soutter, 2000), we have opted for the simple self-report measure for practical reasons. Strictly speaking, the World Value Survey question elicits a diffuse expectation of others' trustworthiness, different from history-based trust founded on previous interactions.…”

Section: The Present Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Can Trust Facilitate Bribery? Experimental Evidence from China, Italy, Japan, and The Netherlands

Jiang

Lindemans²,

Bicchieri³

2015

Social Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article investigates the impact of trust on bribery. We measure trust with a survey question from the World values survey on whether respondents think others would take advantage of them if given the chance, and we observe bribery behavior in an experimental bribery game. The research was conducted in china and Italy, which have relatively high perceived-corruption levels, as well as in Japan and the netherlands, which have relatively low perceived-corruption levels. In the bribery game, participants have the opportunity to bribe another participant to cheat to their advantage. We hypothesized that honoring bribing agreements depends on trust, the endorsement of such agreements is independent of trust. We find evidence that trust enables bribery in the two low-corruption countries, but no evidence that trust enables bribery in the two high-corruption countries. More specifically, trust predicts bribers' trustworthiness in honoring the bribery agreement once they enter into one. The results reveal a dark side of trust: It supports socially detrimental cooperation when a deal is unenforceable.

show abstract

“…Because personality traits have been shown to be partially innate and are generally formed early on in life (Bouchard and McGue 2003;McCrae 1988, 1992), they may likely precede both types of trust. Indeed, recent studies have shown that social trust is influenced by personality, either in terms of the broader traits in the Big Five personality scheme-especially Agreeableness, Openness and Neuroticism Mondak and Halperin 2008)-or more specific facets such as optimism and a sense of control (Couch and Jones 1997;Uslaner 2002; see also Hirashi et al 2008;Oskarsson et al 2012). In fact, social trust has in itself been suggested to be a facet under the trait Agreeableness in the Big Five framework (cf.…”

Section: Causal or Confounded? The Relationship Between Institutionalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trusting the State, Trusting Each Other? The Effect of Institutional Trust on Social Trust

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Trust in state institutions is a prominent explanation of social trust. However, previous-mainly cross-sectional-analyses provide limited causal evidence regarding the relationship between institutional trust and social trust and it is thus essentially unknown whether an observed relationship reflects reverse causality (social trust forming institutional trust), or both forms of trust reflecting deep-seated dispositions (common confounding). Against the backdrop of the shortcomings of previous cross-sectional analyses, this paper utilizes two Danish panel surveys containing measures of both types of trust for the same individuals surveyed at multiple points in time over a long time-span (up to 18 years) to address the potentially reverse and/or spurious relationship. Using individual fixed effects and cross-lagged panel models, the results provide strong evidence of trust in state institutions exercising a causal impact on social trust, whereas the evidence for a reverse relationship is limited.

show abstract

Measuring Levels of Trust

Cited by 138 publications

References 26 publications

Marital quality and its relation with depression: a case-control study

Marital quality and its relation with depression: a case-control study

Can Trust Facilitate Bribery? Experimental Evidence from China, Italy, Japan, and The Netherlands

Trusting the State, Trusting Each Other? The Effect of Institutional Trust on Social Trust

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About