Measuring particularized trust: A name generator approach

Robbins, Blaine G.

doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2022.09.007

Cited by 5 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 100 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…I improve on previous research by including two new racial categories (East Asian and South Asian) and two new low-cost matters, resulting in short-and longform versions of SFT and IST: SFT-24 (6 faces, four matters), SFT-60 (10 faces, six matters), IST-4 (four matters), and IST-6 (six matters). Analyses of a nationally representative probability sample (N = 1,264) and a follow-up study of a one-shot investment game (N = 600) support the conclusions of Bauer and Freitag (2018) and Robbins (2021Robbins ( , 2022Robbins ( , 2023:…”

Section: Original Articlementioning

confidence: 77%

“…With these newly proposed scales, Robbins (2021Robbins ( , 2022Robbins ( , 2023 assessed their face validity and content validity and performed various measurement validation tests. Using a mix of cross-sectional and two-wave convenience samples from the general population and a behavioral economics subject pool, Robbins (2021Robbins ( , 2022Robbins ( , 2023 found strong empirical support for the reliability, validity, and measurement invariance of SFT and IST. Robbins (2021Robbins ( , 2022Robbins ( , 2023) also detailed how traditional measures of generalized trust are less valid and exhibit greater measurement nonequivalence than SFT and IST.…”

Section: Original Articlementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Robbins (2022) contends, as a result, that SFT and IST have greater face validity and content validity than traditional measures of generalized trust. Through a series of measurement validation tests, Robbins (2021Robbins ( , 2022Robbins ( , 2023 establishes the reliability (internal consistency, test-retest reliability), validity (factorial, convergent, discriminant, concurrent, predictive, known groups), and measurement equivalence of SFT and IST across demographic groups, samples, and time. He also shows that common generalized trust scales-the Misanthropy Scale (MST) and Generalized Social Trust Scale (GST)-appear to be less valid, less reliable, and less equivalent across demographic groups than SFT and IST.…”

Section: Recent Advances In the Measurement Of Generalized Trustmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fourth, confidentiality and anonymity greatly reduce social desirability bias (Bradburn et al 1978). Robbins (2021Robbins ( , 2022Robbins ( , 2023 anonymized survey respondents in Qualtrics to achieve this goal. homicide, ethnic fractionalization, and income inequality, as previously observed in the literature using traditional measures of generalized trust (Dinesen et al 2020;Messner et al 2004;Putnam 2000;Rosenfeld et al 2007;Rothstein and Uslaner 2005;Uslaner 2002).…”

Section: Recent Advances In the Measurement Of Generalized Trustmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The first goal of this survey is to establish the internal consistency, factor structure, and convergent validity of SFT and IST. I do this for (a) the original scales developed by Robbins (2021Robbins ( , 2022Robbins ( , 2023, where SFT and IST consist of four trust objects (or matters of trust) and SFT consists of six faces (male and female White, Black, and Latinx faces), and (b) new long-form versions of SFT and IST that include two new trust objects (TIRE, WALLET) and four new faces (male and female East and South Asian faces). Following previous research, I use MST and GST as benchmarks for convergent validity and discriminant validity.…”

Section: Online Surveymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Valid and Reliable Measures of Generalized Trust: Evidence from a Nationally Representative Survey and Behavioral Experiment

Robbins

2023

Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Generalized trust has been one of the most frequently examined constructs since researchers first introduced measures of it in the 1940s. Despite its significance, there is a growing consensus that traditional measures of generalized trust are prone to measurement invalidity and nonequivalence, calling into question sociological knowledge about generalized trust. In this article, I advance trust research in sociology by (1) refining two new self-report measures of generalized trust—the Stranger Face Trust scale (SFT) and the Imaginary Stranger Trust scale (IST)—and (2) assessing their empirical performance on a nationally representative probability sample (N = 1,264). I compare the reliability and validity of SFT, IST, and traditional measures of generalized trust across a range of measurement validation tests. Results suggest that SFT provides the most accurate and consistent measure of generalized trust.

show abstract