2021
DOI: 10.1080/21515581.2022.2066539
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

‘You can’t be careful enough’: Measuring interpersonal trust during a pandemic

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
7
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
2
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The standard question aim is to measure whether respondents exercise caution to avoid being cheated. However, in the context of a pandemic in which we need to be cautious in our social interactions for a very different reason—anyone can be a carrier of a transmissible disease—this aim may be thwarted: There is now solid evidence that, even if we believe that most people can be trusted, we may still reply that one cannot be too careful ( 40 ).…”
Section: Measures and Designmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The standard question aim is to measure whether respondents exercise caution to avoid being cheated. However, in the context of a pandemic in which we need to be cautious in our social interactions for a very different reason—anyone can be a carrier of a transmissible disease—this aim may be thwarted: There is now solid evidence that, even if we believe that most people can be trusted, we may still reply that one cannot be too careful ( 40 ).…”
Section: Measures and Designmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the other hand, we use a measure from previous research that taps into "generalized trust." These two operationalizations are important because, as Wollebaek et al (2022) show, the inconsistent results regarding interpersonal trust during the pandemic can be attributed to the use of different measures in survey research (see also the discussion above on trust and compliance). Standard generalized trust measures ask respondents whether "most people can be trusted" or that "one cannot be too careful when dealing with others."…”
Section: Survey Operationalizations and Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In Sweden, people with higher institutional trust were more likely to practice careful hand hygiene (an official recommendation) but less likely to wear a facemask (a "nonrecommendation") (Johansson et al, 2021, p. 3). A general problem with this research is that different measures of trust are often used, which might be the reason for inconsistencies in the results (e.g., using the standard measure of generalized trust vs. other measures of interpersonal trust, see Wollebaek et al, 2022 and the operationalization section of this article). Nevertheless, we conclude that theoretically there are good reasons to consider both forms of trust when analyzing COVID-19 compliance behavior.…”
Section: Other Factors Explaining Covid-19 Compliancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Past research on the role of trust and COVID-19 behaviors is often both contradictory and dependent on the measures used (see Wollebaek et al, 2021). However, previous research has demonstrated 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1080631 that variations in societal and interpersonal trust influenced one's compliance to health directives and behaviors during the pandemic.…”
Section: Trust Gender and Fear Of Covid-19 In Adultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Not all members of society are truthful, and this might impact mortality ( Reiersen et al, 2022 ). Nonetheless, while the emergent findings on institutional trust appear consistent within the context of COVID-19, there has been little work on the role of interpersonal trust (see Wollebæk et al, 2021 ), with some studies showing both negative ( Iacono et al, 2021 ) and positive ( Kye and Hwang, 2020 ) effects of the pandemic on interpersonal trust. Regarding fear of COVID-19; those with decreased interpersonal trust may be expected to show increased fear, as those who experience greater worry may be less trusting of groups ( Jørgensen et al, 2021 ), and tend to be more adherent to social distancing guidelines ( Oosterhoff and Palmer, 2020 ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%