Generalized social trust across 22 European countries: A multi-level analysis of four competing models

Concern with what can explain variation in generalized social trust has led to an abundance of theoretical models. Defining generalized social trust as a belief in human benevolence, we focus on the emancipation theory and social capital theory as well as the ethnic diversity and economic development models of trust. We then determine which dimensions of individuals’ behavior and attitudes as well as of their national context are the most important predictors. Using data from 20 countries that participated in round one of the European Social Survey, we test these models at their respective level of analysis, individual and/or national. Our analysis revealed that individuals’ own trust in the political system as a moral and competent institution was the most important predictor of generalized social trust at the individual level, while a country’s level of affluence was the most important contextual predictor, indicating that different dimensions are significant at the two levels of analysis. This analysis also raised further questions as to the meaning of social capital at the two levels of analysis and the conceptual equivalence of its civic engagement dimension across cultures.

Beyond the United States and Japan: Testing Yamagishi's emancipation theory of trust across 31 nations

We examined the relationship between Individualism/Collectivism and generalized social trust across 31 European nations participating in the European Social Survey. Using multi-level regression analyses, the current study provides the first empirical investigation of the effects of cultural norms of Individualism/Collectivism on generalized social trust while accounting for individuals' own cultural orientations within the same analysis. The results provide clear support for Yamagishi and Yamagishi (1994) emancipation theory of trust, showing a significant and positive relationship between Individualism/Collectivism and generalized social trust, over and above the effect of a country political history of communism and ethnic heterogeneity. Having controlled for individual effects of Individualism/Collectivism it is clear that the results of the current analysis cannot be reduced to an individual-level explanation, but must be interpreted within the context Of macrosocial processes. We conclude by discussing potential mechanisms that could explain why national individualism is more likely to foster trust among people than collectivism.