Three essays on the concept of trust and its foundations

The present dissertation focuses on trust and comprises three empirical essays on the concept itself and its foundations. All three essays investigate trust as an expectation and rely on selfreport measures of trust. Whereas the first two chapters investigate social trust, the third chapter investigates political trust. Essentially, there are three related important debates to which the following chapters contribute. A first debate discusses problems with current selfreport measures. Scholars recently started to question whether standard trust questions really measure the same across countries and languages. Chapter 1 engages in this debate. Using data from Switzerland it studies whether different trust questions measure the same latent trust constructs across individuals belonging to three different culturallinguistic regions. The second debate concerns the socalled forms or dimensions of trust. Recently, scholars started investigating whether trust is a onedimensional construct, i.e. whether an individual's trust judgment differs for categories of trustees such as strangers, neighbors, family members and friends or not. Relying on confirmatory factor analysis Chapter 2 investigates whether individuals really do make a difference between different trustee categories and to what extent these judgments can be summarized into higherorder latent trust constructs. The third debate is concerned with causes of differences in trust across humans. Chapter 3 focuses on the role of laterlife experiences, more precisely victimization experiences and investigates their causal relationship with generalized social trust. Chapter 4 focuses on the impact of direct democratic institutions on the trust relationship between citizens and political authorities.

The Interplay of Power and Trust in Platform Ecosystems of the Enterprise Application Software Industry

In recent years, the formerly oligopolistic Enterprise Application Software (EAS) industry began to disintegrate into focal inter-firm networks with one huge, powerful, and multi-national plat-form vendor as the center, surrounded by hundreds or even thousands of small, niche players that act as complementors. From a theoretical point of view, these platform ecosystems may be governed by two organizing principles - trust and power. However, it is neither from a practical nor from a theoretical perspective clear, how trust and power relate to each other, i.e. whether they act as complements or substitutes. This study tries to elaborate our understanding of the relationship of trust and power by exploring their interplay using multi-dimensional conceptual-izations of trust and power, and by investigating potential dynamics in this interplay over the course of a partnership. Based on an exploratory multiple-case study of seven dyadic partner-ships between four platform vendors, and seven complementors, we find six different patterns of how trust and power interact over time. These patterns bear important implications for the suc-cessful management of partnerships between platform vendors and complementors, and clarify the theoretical debate surrounding the relationship of trust and power.

Ethnic Diversity, Social Trust and the Moderating Role of Integration Policy

Increasing ethnic diversity and whether or not it impacts on trust are highly debated topics. Numerous studies report a negative relationship between diversity and trust, particularly in the US. A growing body of follow-up studies examined the extent to which these findings can be transferred to Europe, but the results remain inconclusive. Moving beyond the discussion of the mere existence or absence of diversity effects on trust, this study is concerned with the moderation of this relationship: It addresses the neglected role of subnational integration policies influencing diversity’s impact on trust. Empirical tests not only indicate that integration policies moderate the relationship, but also suggest that the influence of policies varies substantively according to the specific policy aspect under consideration.

Direct democracy and political trust: Enhancing trust, initiating distrust–or both?

This study investigates the relationship between direct democracy and political trust. We suggest a solution to the controversy in research centering on positive versus negative effects of direct democracy by analytically differentiating between the availability of direct democratic rights and the actual use of those rights. Theoretically, greater availability of direct democratic rights may enhance political trust by increasing citizens’ perception that political authorities can be controlled as well as by incentivizing political authorities to act trustworthily. In contrast, the actual use of the corresponding direct democratic instruments may initiate distrust as it signals to citizens that political authorities do not act in the public’s interest. We test both hypotheses for the very first time with sub-national data of Switzerland. The empirical results seem to support our theoretical arguments.

Direct Democracy and Institutional Trust: Relationships and Differences across Personality Traits

Direct democracy plays a prominent role in the explanation of institutional trust. To date, however, empirical findings on the effects of direct democracy remain inconclusive. In this article, we argue that this inconclusiveness can be partly ascribed to the diverse effects direct democracy has on individuals. In other words, direct democracy influences institutional trust, but how and to what degree depends on individuals’ personality traits. Running hierarchical analyses of unique survey data from a random sample of eligible Swiss voters, we document three findings: First, we show that the number of ballot measures is not directly associated with institutional trust. Second, we demonstrate that the Big Five personality traits affect the propensity to trust. Third, some of these traits also alter the relationship between direct democracy and institutional trust, suggesting that certain personality types are more likely to be sensitive to popular votes than others and that not everyone is equally likely to respond to political stimuli, even in highly democratic environments.