Generalized Trust Through
Civic Engagement?
Evidence from Five National Panel Studies
Erik van Ingen
Sociology
Tilburg University
September 17, 2013
René Bekkers
Philanthropic Studies
VU University Amsterdam
MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim
1
Our question
• What is the influence of civic engagement
on generalized trust?
– Not: particularized trust, or risky investments
in social dilemma situations;
– But: the belief that most people can be trusted
• Does the level of trust change after people
change their involvement in voluntary
associations?
September 17, 2013
MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim
2
Additional questions
• How long does it take the participation
effect to emerge?
• Is it robust across countries?
• What types of civic engagement make the
largest contribution to trust?
September 17, 2013
MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim
3
Why Trust Matters
• More trusting societies have lower
corruption and crime, and higher
participation in elections and economic
growth.
• More trusting individuals are more
satisfied with their lives, have more
positive social relations, do better in
education and are in better health.
September 17, 2013
MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim
4
Virtuous circles in social capital
• “Civic engagement and trust are
mutually reinforcing”
• “The causal arrows among civic
involvement, [..] and social trust
are as tangled as well-tossed
spaghetti”
Robert D. Putnam (2000). Bowling Alone: The
Collapse and Revival of American Community.
New York: Simon & Schuster, page 137
September 17, 2013
MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim
5
How it might work
• Socialization: Engagement in voluntary
associations produces positive social
experiences, reinforcing the belief that
most people can be trusted.
• Contact, peer influence: Engagement in
voluntary associations exposes
participants to the beliefs of others,
‘risking infection’ with the belief that most
people can be trusted.
September 17, 2013
MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim
6
An alternative perspective
• Volunteering requires trust.
• If you don’t trust fellow citizens to be
honest and keep their promises,
contributions are wasted easily.
• Free riders are distrustors.
• Trustors are optimists by nature, and trust
doesn’t change much over time.
Eric Uslaner (2002). The Moral Foundations of
Trust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
September 17, 2013
MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim
7
September 17, 2013
MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim
8
Data and methods of previous
studies
• Most studies use cross-sectional data,
including a limited set of controls.
• Selection and omitted variables are a huge
problem here.
• Studies using longitudinal panel data have
almost all used inadequate regression
models.
• Selection and omitted variables are still a
problem here.
September 17, 2013
MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim
9
The evidence thus far
• Delhey & Newton (2003): trust and
membership are only weakly correlated in
most countries – due to low reliability
• Brehm & Rahn (1997): reciprocal
influences between trust and membership
in US using 2SLS
• Uslaner (2002): results obtained from
2SLS not robust in different specifications
September 17, 2013
MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim
10
Collecting better data
• D.H. Smith (1966) and Stolle (2003): we
need panel data
• Claibourn & Martin (2000): no effect of
changes in memberships on changes in
trust in US panel study of political
socialization
• Giving in the Netherlands Panel Study
includes trust + volunteering questions
since 2002
September 17, 2013
MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim
11
A theory on selection for trust
• ‘Interactionism’ in personality and social
psychology
• Individual differences in trust shape
perceptions of contributions to collective
goods
• Failures to contribute by others are ‘noise’
to trustors; ‘evidence’ for misanthropists
• Justification-effects reinforce prior
differences in trust
September 17, 2013
MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim
12
As a result…
• Trustors are more likely to (be asked to)
start volunteering, and less likely to quit
• Misanthropists are less likely to (be asked
to) start volunteering, and more likely to
quit
• Trustors may become more trusting and
misanthropists may become less trusting
as a result of changes in volunteering
September 17, 2013
MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim
13
It’s all about selection!
• BTW, note also:
– Individuals with larger networks are more
likely to be asked to start and continue
volunteering
– Individuals in better (mental) health are more
able to continue volunteering
– More happy/satisfied individuals are more
likely to help others (and be helped in return)
September 17, 2013
MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim
14
Development of generalized social
trust (‘most people can be trusted’)
3.5
3.4
3.3
never
quit
3.2
joined
sustained
3.1
3
2.9
2002
2004
2006
Bekkers, R. (2012). ‘Trust and Volunteering: Selection or Causation? Evidence From a 4 Year Panel
Study’. Political Behaviour, 32 (2): 225-247. DOI 10.1007/s11109-011-9165-x. (open access)
September 17, 2013
MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim
Source: GINPS
15
How to get this published…
• At APSR, you can suggest reviewers. I
suggested a protagonist and an antagonist.
• The protagonist googled me, and sent me a
(very positive) review by email.
• The antagonist said the English language
required editing work, asked *basic*
questions about the fixed effects model
results, and complained that concepts
were used inconsistently.
September 17, 2013
MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim
16
Reminder
September 17, 2013
MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim
17
September 17, 2013
MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim
18
September 17, 2013
MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim
19
Further evidence: volunteering and
charitable confidence in 2006
Bekkers, R. & Bowman, W. (2009). The Relationship Between Confidence and Charitable
Organizations and Volunteering Revisited. Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38: 884-897.
Source: GINPS
September 17, 2013
MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim
20
Selection based on…
0.4
0.3
no controls
0.2
(p < .05)
0.1
0
sustained
started
quit
-0.1
trust and altruistic
values
base line score on
confidence (2004)
demographics
(p < .05)
-0.2
Bekkers, R. & Bowman, W. (2009). The Relationship Between Confidence and Charitable
Organizations and Volunteering Revisited. Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38: 884-897.
-0.3
September 17, 2013
Source: GINPS
MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim
21
The importance of replication
• Could the result be particular to the
Netherlands?
• Or to a selective sample of online panel
survey respondents?
• Perhaps volunteering doen’t produce trust,
but other forms of participation do?
• Let’s examine other countries, other forms
of participation, other survey modes.
September 17, 2013
MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim
22
New data & additional models
• Main source: Swiss Household Panel
• Additionally: BHPS, LISS, SHARE, GINPS
Hilda
• Fixed effects regression
• Change score models
– Two-wave transitions
• Enter / start ( 0 1 ) vs. Stay uninvolved ( 0 0 )
• Exit / quit ( 1 0 ) vs. Stay involved (1 1)
September 17, 2013
MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim
23
September 17, 2013
MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim
24
September 17, 2013
MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim
25
September 17, 2013
MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim
26
Adequate Testing, Please!
• Cross-sectional data are useless here
• We need longitudinal data to disentangle causes
and consequences of voluntary participation
• We should look at how people change over time
when they have started and quit volunteering
• Halaby (2004, Annual Review of Sociology):
controlling for Yt-1 is not enough
• Use fixed effects regression models, eliminating
variance between individuals
• XT in STATA
September 17, 2013
MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim
27
Changes in Trust - Switzerland
September 17, 2013
MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim
28
Changes in Trust – UK (BHPS)
September 17, 2013
MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim
29
Changes in Trust – AU & NL
September 17, 2013
MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim
30
September 17, 2013
MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim
31
Conclusions
• The relationship between participation
and trust mainly reflects between-person
variance.
• Within-person changes in trust are small
and not systematically related to changes
in participation.
• Prolonged participation seems to
encourage trust but that change
disappears over time.
September 17, 2013
MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim
32
Remaining questions
• What makes people trusting of others? We
still don’t know.
• There is a genetic basis for trust.
• As social scientists we should ask: which
environmental influences change trust?
• Experiences with strangers or friends?
• Life events such as completing education,
marriage, victimization, divorce?
September 17, 2013
MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim
33
How to get this published…
• At AJPS, you cannot suggest reviewers.
• Editors and reviewers dislike replications:
‘there is nothing new here’.
• Social Networks ‘liked the paper’ but did
not want to publish because ‘it is not about
social networks’.
• Political Psychology accepted the paper
with minimal revisions.
September 17, 2013
MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim
34
Reminder
September 17, 2013
MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim
35
Implications
• The methods and data used here can be
used to test other ‘benefits’ of civic
engagement, such as higher subjective well
being, better health, lower depression and
mortality.
• These ‘benefits’ will be quantified in a new
FP7 project called ‘ITSSOIN’.
• Does volunteering make you happy, bring
you a job, increase networks?
September 17, 2013
MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim
36
Further lessons
Learn.
Be fair.
Replicate.
Don’t give up.
Test adequately.
Spread the word.
September 17, 2013
MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim
37
Thanks, says
•
•
•
•
René Bekkers, r.bekkers@vu.nl
Blog: renebekkers.wordpress.com
Twitter: @renebekkers
‘Giving in the Netherlands’, Center for
Philanthropic Studies, Faculty of Social
Sciences, VU University Amsterdam:
www.geveninnederland.nl
September 17, 2013
MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim
38