Spill‐Up and Spill‐Over of Trust: An Extended Test of Cultural and Institutional Theories of Trust in South Korea¹

Abstract

In comparison to the heated debate over the origins of trust in political institutions, few studies have empirically examined the linkage between trust in political and nonpolitical institutions at the individual level. In this study, we utilize a two-step methodology to investigate attitudes toward the government in the broader context of attitudes toward related nonpolitical institutions in South Korea. Results from latent class analysis reveal that political trust is an integrated part of a more general set of attitudes toward social and economic institutions. In addition, results from multinomial logistic regression analysis corroborate past studies that found a positive relationship between perceptions of institutional performance and trust in institutions while partially supporting theories advocating the importance of interpersonal trust for institutional trust. This study points to the possibility of interpersonal trust ''spilling up'' to trust in institutions and the likelihood that trust in one institution ''spills over'' to trust in other related institutions.

Can We Trust Measures of Political Trust? Assessing Measurement Equivalence in Diverse Regime Types

“…Hooghe ( 2011 ) uses factor analysis to show that British citizens do not distinguish between MPs, governing parties, opposition parties or the head of state regardless of political sophistication or education. Suh et al ( 2012 , 516) demonstrate in a latent class analysis that trust in government is part of a broader set of attitudes towards public and private institutions like companies and civil associations in South Korea. A number of studies implement a multiple group confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA) of political trust models in the European Social Survey (ESS), all finding relatively strong evidence for the equivalence of political trust across subsets of countries and time points.…”

“…Although there is considerable consensus about the importance of political trust, there is little consensus about its definition or measurement. Hooghe ( 2011 , 270) criticizes researchers’ dependence on standard “trust in government” survey questions “without questioning their validity or even wondering what political trust actually refers to, or what place the concept could have in democratic society.” Researchers do not usually propose clear definitions of political trust but often take it to be a proxy for political legitimacy (Almond and Verba 1963 ; Anderson and Tverdova 2003 ; Chang and Chu 2006 ; Christensen and Laegreid 2005 ; Coromina and Davidov 2013 ; Hooghe 2011 ; Hutchison and Johnson 2011 ; Kim and Voorhees 2011 ; Mishler and Rose 2001 ; Newton 2007 ; Suh et al 2012 ). A measure of political trust carries implicit information about what constitutes a trustworthy institution for citizens.…”

Perceived Competence and Benevolence of Political Institutions as Culturally Universal Facilitators of Political Trust

“…Institutional theories seem to have received more consistent empirical support than cultural theories in various parts of the world, including the United States (Brehm & Rahn, 1997; Newton & Norris, 2000), Canada (Newton & Norris, 2000), Europe (Luhiste, 2006; Mishler & Rose, 2001, 2005; Newton & Norris, 2000), East Asia (Suh, Chang, & Lim, 2012), and Latin America (Ross & Escobar-Lemmon, 2011). Even among democracies, political trust in new and established democracies differs (Denters, Gabriel, & Torcal, 2007).…”

In the smoke of the people’s opium: The influence of religious beliefs and activities on protest participation

“…The possible answers include no trust at all, not very much confidence, quite a lot of confidence, or a great deal of confidence in the Parliament. Also, following the social capital perspective, I explore the possibility, suggested by the social capital approach, that a positive association exists between the respondent’s degree of generalized trust with others and engaging in claims-making (Putnam, 1993; Suh et al, 2012). Generalized social trust is measured as a binary variable by questioning whether most people can be trusted or if one needs to be very careful.…”