EGOS 2006 Bergen - Sub-theme 11 (due: 11 June 2006)
The dynamics of employment-related community trust – gender and
experience in the UK Coalfield Communities.
Gráinne Collins
Employment Research Centre,
Trinity College Dublin,
College Green, Dublin 2, Eire.
collinsg @ tcd.ie
http://www.tcd.ie/ERC/biogcollins.php
Michael Grimsley
Faculty of Arts, Computing, Engineering & Sciences,
Sheffield Hallam University,
Howard Street, Sheffield, UK, S1 1WB
m.f.grimsley @ shu.ac.uk
http://aces.shu.ac.uk/cmsmg/
Anthony Meehan (corresponding author)
Computing Department,
The Open University,
Walton Hall,
Milton Keynes, UK, MK7 6AA
a.s.meehan @ open.ac.uk
http://mcs.open.ac.uk/am4469/
Note to (critical) readers: The tables in this draft paper are in a ‘raw’ state and so are not
always straightforward to interpret. We apologise for this and hope that, in many cases,
close scrutiny of the tables, which are grouped at the end of the paper, is not needed to
engage with the body of the paper.
Introduction
Trust is widely accepted as an important factor in the economic, social and psychological
well-being of individuals, communities and societies alike (Coleman 1990; Fukuyama
1995; Giddens 1991; Green et al. 2000; Gilbertson et al. 2005; Grootaert 1998; Lin,
2001; Luhmann 2000; Putnam, 1993, 2000, 2001; Warren, 2001). Recently, it has been
argued that the mechanisms by which these concepts operate are poorly articulated or
1
even fudged (Li et al. 2005). In this paper we seek to identify possible ‘mechanisms’ of
trust by probing the way in which trust changes in light of peoples’ lived experience and
specifically in their experience of employment and worklessness1.
To identify mechanisms of trust we consider the linkages and pathways between levels of
trust in the community and possible drivers of such trust levels, both within and between
the socio-economic boundary of employment status, and the socio-demographic
boundary of gender. We look at the dynamics of trust by examining changing levels of
expressed trust at two time points as people move (or fail to move) across the boundary
between worklessness and employment. Data are drawn from a large-scale longitudinal
study in a sub-region of the UK. Historically a significant proportion of the male
population of the area was employed in coal mining and heavy industry; more recently
the area is characterised by high unemployment and very high levels of economic
inactivity. Between the two waves of data collection, employment in the region changed
as new types of work became available. This new employment was the result of local,
national and European regenerative investment (Gilbertson et al. 2005; Green et al. 2000,
2001, 2005). The two waves of the survey provide community-level ‘snap shots’ of trust
in 2000 and 2004 respectively and allow us to identify both persistent effects and volatile
features of trust expression by people who have work or who are workless over the
period of four years. We are able to explore more fully the effects of changing
employment status on trust levels by examining the experiences of a subset of individuals
of working age for whom we have information from both waves of the survey. We
examine the effects on trust of losing, keeping or gaining a job, and of enduring
worklessness. Specifically, we look at the linkages between trust in employers and other
expressions of trust relations in the community, both in relation to family, friends and
neighbours and in relation to institutions of community government and local
employment.
1
Worklessness includes people who are looking for work as well as people who are economically inactive
for whatever reason.
2
Recognising the gendered nature of employment, perhaps particularly in the study area,
we are alert to the possibility that employment-related trust may reflect different
gendered experiences (both positive and negative) of employment and worklessness.
Accordingly our analysis considers gender effects from the outset.
The paper begins with a summary account of the role of trust in communities. We then
examine the evidence for different arenas of trust relations (‘horizontal’ and ‘vertical’)
and for some of the underpinning experiential dimensions of trust, from which we
abstract the notion of ‘empowerment’. We then provide a brief description of the study
area and the changes in employment between 2000 and 2004, of the surveys which
provided the data for our study and of our statistical analytic techniques. In terms of
contributions, we show the effects of two ‘boundary crossings’ in relation to community
trust: between different employment categories and between workplace and community.
We provide reinforcing empirical evidence that at least two linked trust arenas reflecting
vertical and horizontal community relations may be distinguished. We show that trust in
employers contributes to both these arenas of trust but that the relative contribution may
change over time. We are able to identify a link between trust in employers and trust
outside the workplace between friends, family and local community institutions. We
examine the nature of ‘spill-over’ effects between the different trust arenas and the
effects of change in employment status and trust in employers on these processes.
Gender differences are most marked when modelling change in vertical trust and trust in
local employers. We conclude that differences are rooted in different experiences as
women and men move between worklessness and employment. In seeking to understand
these differences we relate these results to research on gender and employment which
suggests that women are more likely to be home-centred or have adaptive preferences
and that there is a gendered difference in fear of job loss and gendered affect in
employment generally (Collins 2005; Collins and Wickham 2004; Hakim 1995).
3
We conclude the paper with a brief consideration of how community trust may be
affected by changes in the predominant forms of employment available to a community
and some possible implications this may have for regenerative employment policy.
Community trust and dimensions of personal experience
Trust can be seen as an 'act of faith' by one party in respect of the (future) conduct of
another (Giddens 1991). The decision to trust reduces the effort needed by one party to
acquire and maintain relevant information on another. Community relations operate on
the basis of some level of trust which enables people to ‘act’ in the world. If trust is low,
acting in the world requires a considerable ‘act of faith’ or ‘leap in the dark’. If it is high,
the leap is smaller. The magnitude of the leap may be associated with a proportional
sense of anxiety that may induce a sense of, or even actual, exclusion (Luhmann, 2001).
When trust is high a community may achieve objectives that would not be otherwise
attainable (Coleman, 1990; Fukuyama, 1995); community trust relations are an
expression of a community’s capacity to achieve a better quality of life than would
otherwise be available if its members acted merely as maximising individuals (Li et al
2005; Lin, 2001; Warren, 2001).
Theorists have been telling us for decades how important it is for business to have the
‘right’ societal environment. This environment includes pro-business attitudes, property
rights, intellectual and human resources but also a level of general trust in the society.
Without this environment, business fails to grow and thrive. In workplace relations, as in
other social relations, trust facilitates cooperation to the long-term benefit of all parties.
In this context, we note that whilst there is an appreciable literature on how trust is
important for the economic realm, less has been said about the effects of changes in the
economic realm and its knock-on effects on trust. So trust is taken to be a prerequisite for
economic success but very little work has attempted to understand the two way linkage
between work-related trust and trust in the community.
4
Yet it is also wrong to assume community trust is a unified concept. Within
communities, individuals relate to other individuals, but also to a wide range of
institutions. Some institutions are intimate (family, community associations) others
remote (local elected council); some are well-defined, others weakly defined or
amorphous (friendship networks, parents’ school gate communities).
Different community relations entail different forms of information / knowledge and risk
and therefore different levels or types of trust (Lewicki and Bunker 1996). Braithwaite
and Levi (1998) suggest that it is possible to differentiate between two relational arenas
of trust: vertical and horizontal. Vertical trust reflects the quality of relations between
people as ‘citizens’ and institutions of community governance and their associated
services (education, health, police, justice, transport, &c). Horizontal trust reflects
cohesion between friends, family and neighbours. Grimsley et al. (2003) have
demonstrated empirical evidence for such a distinction. (Precisely how the workplace fits
into this picture is something of an open question that we explore in this paper.)
Grimsley et al. (2004) demonstrate that at least three experiential factors underpin
expressed levels of trust: well-informedness (the extent to which individuals feel well
informed about the local community), personal control (the extent to which individuals
experience a sense of control over their lives), and influence (the extent to which people
feel able to influence community life) As indicated above, information or knowledge of
others is seen as underpinning trust. Information of different forms circulates within
communities and workplaces. Information about and perceptions of competence,
reliability, dependability, accountability and responsiveness circulate in the workplace
and abroad in the community. All of these contribute to reputation. The concepts of
influence and control have a number of interpretations in the literature. Inevitably, this
makes it difficult to ensure a consistent interpretation, see Skinner (1996) for a useful
review). Influence and control are sometimes subsumed in a single dimension
(Bacharach, Lawler 1980). Other interpretations maintain a distinction between influence
and control so that influence corresponds to access to, and/or participation in, decision
processes, e.g. the expectation of having the power to participate in making decisions in
5
order to obtain desirable consequences (Rodin 1990). In the context of employment,
influence is readily interpreted as the ability to contribute to the formulation or
determination of employment conditions, such as via trades union and similar
consultative fora. This interpretation appears to be shared by Warren (2001) when
examining political empowerment, and by Hirschman (1970) in considering the nature of
‘voice’. Seen in this sense, influence is distinct from a ‘sense of personal control’. A
sense of control, then, may be considered as related to autonomy, for example, the extent
to which a worker has more or less freedom in relation to choice of their employer or
organisation of work vis-à-vis domestic life. A sense of control is important for personal
well-being and lack of personal control may have deleterious effects on mental and
physical health (Skinner 1996) providing a link between low trust environments and
health.
To facilitate analysis of the survey data (see below), we are led to combine the three
experiential factors as a single measure of empowerment via an analytic-synthetic schema
represented graphically in Figure 1.
Efficacy
(contingency)
Personal
control
Influence
Empowerment
Informed
participation
Informed
choice of action
Well-informedness
Figure 1. Experiential dimensions of empowerment.
6
Pairwise, the three basis dimensions can be seen as giving rise to other compound
experiential dimensions: well-informedness and personal control engender a sense of
informed choice of personal action; well-informedness and influence engender a sense of
informed participation (or expression of perceived needs); personal control and influence
induce a sense of efficacy (or contingency, where actions lead to anticipated outcomes).
We consider the experience that combines all of these as a sense of empowerment. The
empowered individual senses that they exert well-informed influence, make wellinformed choices and that their actions are efficacious. Such an individual, we suggest,
feels well placed to act in a trusting way: .to make the leap in the dark which exposes
them to risk in relation to the conduct of others.
Study Area, Data and Methods
The study was undertaken in an area of South Yorkshire in the UK. Compared with the
rest of the UK, the study area has very high levels of economic inactivity in both men and
women (about twice the national average). This is partly related to a high percentage of
long-term sickness and incapacity. Incapacity in men is conventionally explained in terms
of historic employment in heavy industry, especially in coal mining, steel making and
heavy engineering. Table 1 (after Gilbertson et al. 2005, p35) presents an comparative
overview of employment-related data for the study area and the UK, over the
approximate study period.
During the relevant four years the area was the focus of several regenerative initiatives.
There was a three point increase in the percentages of both women and men of working
age who were economically active (Table 1). In the UK as a whole there was virtually no
change, with a one per cent reduction for women and a one per cent increase for men.
For both women and men, the increase in economic activity is largely reflected in
increased rates of full-time employment (three percentage points in each case). There was
been a small reduction in the proportion of women and men in part-time work.
7
Additionally, more women and men were actively looking for work. Against the UK
trend, there was an appreciable fall in the proportion of people who were self-employed.
Table 1. Economic (Employment) Status: Working age Study Area and UK
The South Yorkshire Social Capital (SYCS) survey – is a longitudinal study of nine
communities in the South Yorkshire coalfield. The survey involved two linked samples
from the study area. The first survey (wave 1), undertaken in 2000, had 4220 respondents
(Green et al. 2000); the second (wave 2) occurred in 2004 had 3771 respondents
(Gilbertson et al. 2005). These surveys include a longitudinal sub-sample of 1071
respondents who were common to both surveys. The present analyses are mainly
confined to sub-samples of respondents who were of working age: 16 to 59 for women
and 16 to 65 for men. There were 2984 and 2431 working age respondents in the
respective surveys. In the longitudinal sub-sample there were 586 people who were still
of working age in 2004.
The survey datasets were collected to explore, inter alia, the social formations and
developments of communities in the South Yorkshire coalfields. For this, a variety of
responses relating to trust were recorded using questionnaire items employed in previous
studies2. These included questions, with responses measured on a five point rating scale,
on how much the respondent trusted, family, friends, neighbours, local politicians, the
local council and, crucially, local employers. The surveys also recorded the three
experiential items reflecting empowerment (as considered above): well-informedness,
personal control and influence. The three variables were scored on a 4-point and two 5point Likert scales respectively.
For the entire sample at wave 1, initial principal component analysis (PCA) of the
correlation matrix for the six trust measures demonstrated that around 57 per cent of their
variation could be accounted for by two underlying dimensions (Grimsley et al 2003). An
2
For the full list of items and their sources see Green G, Grimsley M, Suokas A et al. 2000. Social capital,
health and economy in South Yorkshire coalfield communities. CRESR, Sheffield Hallam University pp
15, 36 – 37.
8
oblique rotation of this structure showed one factor, interpreted as vertical trust,
associated with trust in local politicians, the local council and local employers, and a
second factor, interpreted as horizontal trust, associated with trust in neighbours, family
and friends. These factors had a low, but statistically significant, positive correlation (r =
0.18) and overall measures of vertical and horizontal trust were hence obtained by simply
summing the three trust responses incorporated in the two factors. Each score thus had a
minimum value (lowest trust) of three and a maximum of fifteen. A further PCA of the
three positively correlated experiential items (well-informedness, personal control,
influence) revealed a single component with approximately equal and high positive
loadings on each item (Grimsley et al 2004). It appeared reasonable, therefore, to sum
responses on these three measures to give an overall “empowerment” score with the
range three to fourteen (Green et al, 2000). Similar procedures were adopted in the initial
analyses of the sample at wave 2 (Gilbertson et al, 2005).
For this paper, factor analyses of the six trust measures at waves 1 and 2, were repeated
for the sub-samples of working age respondents. Results were consistent with those
found for the all age samples. To facilitate multivariate analyses, outcome variables for
individual and overall trust were recoded into three discrete ordered categories: Low,
Moderate and High. Multinomial or conditional logistic models (Agresti, 1990) were then
applied to these three outcomes to explore links with the three experiential factors and
overall “empowerment” both within and across the boundaries of gender and
employment status3.
Finally, the dynamics of employment status and trust change in light of employmentrelated ‘boundary crossings’ were modelled using both multinomial and general linear
methods. Further details of methods are provided in the context of the presentation of
results, below.
3
Note that results from ordinal logistic modelling have not been used as the proportional odds assumption
was invariably violated.
9
Community Trust Forms and Trust in Employers
When considering community trust relations we observed that, following Braithwaite and
Levy (1998) and Grimsley et al. (2003), there appeared to be (at least) two different
forms of community trust relations: horizontal trust between family, friends and
neighbours, and vertical trust expressed in community institutions. The survey data were
analysed with a view to confirming or rejecting the persistence of this distinction over
time. There is no basis to consider a priori that these trust forms are independent.
Accordingly, we used PCA and factor analysis to identify the underlying components or
dimensions of trust. For the sub-samples of working age at wave 1 and wave 2, the first
two components accounted for 56 per cent and 64 per cent of total variation in the six
trust measures. The obliquely rotated two factor solutions are given in Table 2 (wave 1
analysis was considered above and is incorporated here for purposes of comparison). In
the table the squared values of the coefficients (in columns) indicate the unique
contribution of each of the six measures to each of the two components or dimensions.
The analysis strongly suggests the persistence of a distinction between trust component 1,
interpreted as vertical trust, and trust component 2, interpreted as horizontal trust. The
obliquely rotated factor structures give positive correlations between trust components 1
and 2 (vertical and horizontal trust relations) of 0.18 and 0.24, respectively - both
significant at the 0.01 level, which suggests that vertical trust may ‘spill over’ into
horizontal trust and vice versa.
Table 2. Components of Community Trust 2000-2004: vertical (1) and horizontal (2) trust dimensions in
the two waves (working age only)
Of particular note is the change in the relative contribution to trust in employers to
horizontal trust between 2000 and 2004. In 2000 trust in employers contributed 0.52 to
vertical trust and 0.11 to horizontal trust. In 2004 trust in employers contributed 0.39 to
vertical trust and 0.36 to horizontal trust. In the sections that follow, we shall
periodically return to this observation as we attempt to understand the basis for the
(re)emergence of the horizontality of employer trust.
10
Whole-survey Analysis
Levels of Trust and Empowerment
Initial data exploration is via mean profiles for the key boundary defined sub-groups of
gender and employment status. The results are shown in Table 3. Average scores over the
two waves, together with relevant standard errors, have been computed for vertical and
horizontal trust, empowerment and trust in employers. As these outcomes are not
distributed Normally, simple, non-adjusted, differences in location between relevant subgroups have been tested using a non-parametric approach.
Table 3 Trust and empowerment: mean scores by gender & employment status
In both surveys, reported horizontal trust levels were high, relatively few respondents do
not completely trust friends and familiy; vertical trust, employer trust and empowerment
scores were mid-range. (It is best to consider these as relative levels rather than absolute
levels as there may well have been framing effects in responses.) Over the four years
there was a small increase in vertical trust, which appeared significant for the employed.
Employer trust showed a small but statistically significant increase for those in work.
Empowerment score rose significantly for women and the employed. There was an
appreciable decrease in horizontal trust.
People who were employed showed a persistent statistically significant higher level of
trust (all forms) and empowerment than people who are workless. And the gap between
employed and workless increases, often appreciably.
In relation to gender, on average women score consistently higher on trust and
empowerment than men. Between the two surveys, vertical and employer trust levels
converged between women and men, levels increasing for both, but more so for men.
Horizontal trust and empowerment diverged between women and men, the decline being
greater for men. The fall in horizontal trust was more pronounced for those in
employment than those who were workless, and for men more than women.
11
The findings above point to employment and gender effects for trust levels and
empowerment. These sub-group comparisons take no account of possible confounding
characteristics such as respondent age, education levels, household tenure or area of
residence. In the following sections, logistic modelling has been used to explore crosssectional relative differences in trust, and possible drivers of trust, between and within the
boundaries of gender and employment status. Such models adjust for, or take into
account, possible socio-demographic confounding factors.
Trust, Employment, Worklessness and Gender.
We begin by examining expressions of vertical trust, horizontal trust and employer trust
at the beginning and end of the study period using main effects multinomial logistic
models. Parameters for explanatory variables are expressed as odds ratios (together with
confidence intervals). In the multinomial case, adjusted odds ratios are given taking one
of the dependent states as base or reference. In the analyses below the base has been
taken as the Low category and the odds ratio is given just for the High category.
In Table 4, adjusted odds ratios are first given for employment status and gender for the
entire working age samples in the two years (model 1a). The second part of the table
considers models separately for the workless (1b) and employed (1c) which facilitates
gender comparisons within these two states.
Table 4. Relative changes in trust levels between 2000 and 2004 by employment status and gender (main
effects multinomial models).
According to model 1a, in the year 2000 workless respondents were (on average) 0.85
times as likely as employed respondents to express high vertical trust compared with low
vertical trust; a difference that was not statistically significant. (A slightly more
accessible translation might say that for every 100 employed respondents expressing high
vertical trust compared with those expressing low, only 85 workless respondents did
likewise.) By 2004, workless respondents exhibited an appreciably reduced likelihood of
expressing either high vertical trust or high employer trust. In contrast, the difference in
12
likelihood of workless respondents expressing high as opposed to low horizontal trust
relative to employed respondents has decreased to marginal statistical significance. This
is consistent with a secular fall in horizontal trust for both employed and workless but
there being a greater rate of fall for the employed as seen in table 3.
Table 2 indicated that employer trust contributes positively to both vertical trust and
horizontal trust. Thus the decline in vertical trust amongst workless respondents may be
accounted for in some measure by the relative decline in employer trust but there is a
need to understand why trust in employers has fallen amongst the workless (see below).
The changes in vertical trust serve to emphasise that the countervailing shift in horizontal
trust amongst the workless is more appreciable than suggested by the odds ratio
differences of 0.66 and 0.80. That is, the difference between the employed and workless
in horizontal trust would have been much smaller without the large decrease in trust in
employers. This may point to a community level ‘accommodation’ to worklessness
status between the workless and their family, friends and neighbours and possibly a
‘community of the workless’ effect in which support networks develop amongst the
(enduringly) workless.
In terms of gender, model 1a indicates that, allowing for employment status, men
exhibited lower relative trust levels compared with women for all three outcomes at both
time points. Relative differences for vertical trust, in contrast to horizontal and employer
trust, were not significant. It is striking that, for horizontal trust, that is trust in
neighbours, friends and family, the gendered (relative) gap widened appreciably.
We also examined whether there are gendered differences in respect of this picture within
the employment category boundaries (models 1b & 1c). There are two results of
(statistically significant) note. The first is that over the study period, men expressed a
relative decline in horizontal trust compared with women, but that seems to be
independent of employment status. In relation to employer trust, the gap between
workless women and workless men widens, but the gap between employed women and
employed men narrows. For workless people the relative decline seems particularly steep
13
suggesting that enduring worklessness may have a particularly corrosive effect on trust in
employers.
Thus, having adjusted for a range of demographic factors, the initial picture in which trust
and empowerment levels are appreciably informed by employment and gender effects is
one that persists.
Trust and Empowerment
In this section we use the construct of empowerment, as considered above, to begin to try
explain the effects we have observed. We look to confirm the persistence of the
relationship between empowerment, vertical trust and horizontal trust (suggested by table
2) and, for the first time, we examine the relationship of empowerment to employer trust.
The empowerment score was computed by summing the (Lickert scale) responses in
respect of: well-informedness, personal control and influence and therefore scores range
from 3 to 14. In the light of the distribution of scores, and to facilitate logistic modelling,
these were grouped into three categories: High (11-14), Moderate (9-10) and Low (3-8).
Multinomial logistic modelling was then applied to the three trust outcomes adding this
three category empowerment explanatory factor to those used in models 1a – 1c. The
resultant adjusted odds ratios are given in Table 5 for both wave 1 and wave 2 working
age samples (model 2a) and separately for employment status (models 2b, 2c).
The odds ratios suggest that empowerment is, broadly speaking, positively related to the
likelihood of the expression of high relative to low vertical trust, horizontal trust and
employer trust. Low empowerment implies a reduced likelihood of high trust relative to
low trust; high empowerment implies an elevated likelihood of high trust relative to low
trust.
Between 2000 and 2004 the proportion of people expressing elevated levels of
empowerment increased and this accounts, in part at least, for the “steepening gradient”
of the relation between empowerment and the three forms of trust considered. Relative to
14
those with high empowerment, people with moderate (and low) empowerment were
much less likely to express high vertical, horizontal or employer trust in 2004 than in
2000 and this was especially pronounced for workless compared with employed people
(model 2a). Within employment status sub-groups, however, this “steepening” applies to
the workless rather than the employed (models 2b & 2c) and this is particularly the case
with employer trust.
Table 5 Relation of Empowerment to Relative Trust Levels 2000-2004 (main effects multinomial model).
This complex relationship between empowerment and trust, particularly employer trust,
and the ways it has changed over the four years, leads us to seek a deeper explanation by
exploring the relationships between employment status and gender and the basis
dimensions of empowerment: the three experiential factors.
In tables 6 and 7 are given the relevant odds ratios for multinomial logistic models using
the binary forms of the explanatory variables: “well informed” (no, yes), “satisfied with
control” (no, yes) and “can influence” (no, yes). The “yes” response is taken as the
reference category in all cases. The workless and employed are considered in models 3a
and 3b (Table 6) and males and females are separately analysed in models 4a and 4b
(Table 7).
Table 6 Relation of components of Empowerment to Relative Trust Levels 2000-2004 by employment
status (main effects multinomial model).
The picture that emerges in Table 6 is that, in general, the workless are showing
relatively more negative responses across the three experiential factors over the two time
points compared with the employed. This is most marked, perhaps, with employer trust
where there was a particularly large relative decline in the sense of influence. For those in
employment the dominant experiential component of employer trust is a sense of wellinformedness but this also applies to the workless. For workless people, there is evidence
that they come to experience a diminishing sense of influence. All these effects, however,
appear to be gendered.
15
Table 7 indicates that, across the study period, for men the dominant component or driver
of trust, particularly employer trust, was the sense of well-informedness. Whilst wellinformedness was also important for women, a sense of personal control was persistent
and possibly dominant in this respect.
Table 7 Relation of components of Empowerment to Relative Trust Levels 2000-2004 by gender (main
effects multinomial model).
At the conclusion of the survey analysis for the two whole samples we observe that
worklessness appears to be a barrier to increasing vertical and employer trust but that the
corrosiveness of worklessness on horizontal trust was attenuated, possibly through a
‘horizontal accommodation’ to its effects. Empowerment is positively related to levels of
all trust forms but there are significant gender differences in respect to the components of
empowerment that relate to trust, especially trust in employers.
Longitudinal Subset Analysis
As indicated earlier, the two surveys (waves 1 and 2 respectively) feature a set of
common respondents of whom 586 were still of working age in 2004. Of these, 54 had
become workless, 229 had remained workless, 226 had remained in employment, and 77
had become employed (see Table 8). We choose to order these in this way to suggest a
scale going from least positive experience to most positive experience (this ordering does
not introduce any assumptions into the models constructed). The small numbers of people
in the first and last categories lead us to be appropriately tentative on our findings.
Table 8 Changing employment between 2000 and 2004 by gender
Wave 1\wave 2
Employed
Workless
Employed
Total (women)
226 (158)
77 (63)
Workless
Total (women)
54 (38)
229 (150)
Figures 2-4 illustrate the relationship between employment status and employer trust,
vertical trust and horizontal trust respectively. Figure 2 shows an apparently significant
16
enhancement of employer trust for those moving into employment and a small diminution
of employer trust for those losing employment; allowing for the modest secular rise
across respondents whose status did not change, this diminution of trust would be
marginally greater but still not statistically significant.
4.0
3.8
3.6
3.4
w1 Trust
3.2
3.0
w2 Trust
2.8
CI
95% CI
employers
N=
employers
54
54
Employed to
workless
229
229
226
226
77
77
Employed
Workless
Workless to
employed
Figure 2 Employment status and Employer Trust
Figure 3 is suggestive (no more) of enhanced vertical trust for those gaining work and
this is consistent with the contribution of employer trust to vertical trust.
17
10.5
10.0
9.5
9.0
8.5
w1 Vert trust
7.5
CI
95% CI
8.0
7.0
w2 Vert trust
N=
54
54
229
Employed to
workless
229
226
226
77
77
Employed
Workless
Workless to
employed
Figure 3 Employment status and Vertical Trust
There are no statistically significant effects on horizontal trust discernable in Figure 4.
15.0
14.8
14.6
14.4
14.2
14.0
w1 Hor trust
13.6
CI
95% CI
13.8
13.4
N=
w2 Hor trust
54
54
Employed to
workless
229
229
226
226
Employed
Workless
77
77
Workless to
employed
Figure 4 Employment status and Horizontal Trust
18
No discernable gender effect is suggested in respect of vertical trust and horizontal trust
(not shown). However, for employer trust there is a marked gender effect. The average
change in employer trust (together with 95% confidence intervals) for men and women
across the four employment change categories is given in Figure 5.
.
95% CI Change wave 1 to 2 Trust local employers
Gender
male
female
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
employed to
workless
[M:16; F:38]
workless
[M:79; F:150]
employed
[M:68; F:158]
workless to
employed
[M:14; F:63]
Wave 1 to wave 2: Employment status
Figure 5. Employment Status and Employer Trust change by gender
For women who lose employment there is a marked loss of employer trust and for those
gaining employment a very marked increase in trust. There is, in effect, a linear trend in
employer trust levels for women across the employment status categories. For men, no
pattern is apparent (though sub-sample numbers are very small).
We explore this, perhaps surprising, observation in the following general linear
(regression) models.
19
The dynamics of employment status and employer trust change
To confirm the interpretation of (changing) employment status and employer trust by
gender suggested above we produce a general linear model (GLM) of change in employer
trust against changing employment status by gender (Table 8). The outcome here is the
difference in recorded trust levels between wave 1 and wave 2. A positive score indicates
an increase in trust and these trust change outcomes follow approximately Normal
distributions. The estimates show the average difference between the relevant category
and the base or reference category. (Estimates have been adjusted for gender and age of
respondents but not area of residence because of small sub-sample size. Respondent
education level and household tenure were not statistically significant.)
Table 8 GLM of employer trust against (changed) employment status, by gender.
For men, no coefficients of the model are statistically significantly different from the
reference change category: workless to employed. By contrast, the coefficients in the
model for women are at least marginally significant or highly significant. Losing or
gaining work is much more significant for women than men in respect of employer trust.
Given the relationship of employer trust to vertical trust, the picture presented here is
reproduced when considering change of employment status and vertical trust (Table 9);
though as would be expected the relationship is less pronounced.
Table 9 GLM of VT against (changed) employment status, by gender.
Consideration of figure 6 suggests that it is the experience of losing or gaining
employment that has the most appreciable effect on trust and so we combine the
categories for people who are enduringly employed or workless. This gives a “no
change” group and is used as the reference category when further exploring the gendered
effects of employment status change. Table 10 looks at the contribution of the three
empowerment dimensions to changed employer trust by gender.
Table 10. GLM for changed employer trust related to change in experiential factors by gender.
20
Adjusting for base model explanatory variables, it is clear that the only statistically
significant contribution is the changed satisfaction with level of personal control when
experienced by women.
Finally in Table 11, for women only, parameter estimates are given for employer trust
change using employment status change and experiential factor change as explanatory
variables
Table 11 GLM for changed employer trust related to change in experiential factors and employment status
(women only)
.
Thus, even allowing for status change, change in feelings of control is a positive driver of
change in employer trust levels for women. In addition, gaining employment gives a
significant boost to trust in employers; whilst “losing” a job appears corrosive of such
trust levels.
Employment status and employer trust change: evidence of community “spillover”
effects
Because of small sub-sample numbers it is not realistic to attempt to link explicitly
change in employment status with wider changes in community cohesion levels.
However, at least for women, it appears that gaining or losing a job does positively or
negatively affects employer trust levels. It is therefore feasible to explore, indirectly, the
pathway from employment change to community trust change via the intermediary
dimension of employer trust change.
The results of analyses, again using multinomial logistic models, are given in Table 12.
The eight outcome variables reflect three category change measures (decrease, no
change, increase) for the longitudinal sample of 586 working age respondents. These
outcomes have been modelled on employer trust change and gender. The odds ratios are
given for the “decrease” category using “increase” as reference and have been adjusted
for respondent age, educational attainment and household tenure.
Table 12 Main effects multinomial models: Adjusted Odds Ratios*- trust change: local employers
21
In terms of trust change outcomes, employer trust change appears to be consistently
positively linked with other community trust change measures. In other words, decreases
in employer trust are associated with decreases in other trust measures – and increases
with increases. Thus those expressing a decrease in employer trust are, on average, 80
percent more likely to report a decrease in horizontal trust than those who express an
increase in employer trust. Though only two odds ratios are statistically significant (for
the first four outcomes), all are in the “right” direction to be consistent with positive
“spillover”. The most striking result here is, perhaps, the significant odds ratio for trust in
neighbours. Those reporting a decrease in employer trust are, on average, more than
twice as likely as those reporting an increase in employer trust, to record a decrease in
neighbour trust (compared with an increase). Putting this in a more positive way, those
recording an increase in employer trust are, on average, half as likely as those recording
an employer trust decrease, to report a decrease in neighbour trust.
The second part of the table employer trust change appears to be significantly and
positively associated with empowerment change overall, and particularly with two
components of empowerment change: satisfaction with control and well-informedness.
Summary and Some Points of Discussion
In the results presented above we have demonstrated that crossing the socio-economic
boundary of employment versus workless and the socio-demographic boundary of gender
impacts on levels of trust and its production based on lived-experience. We have shown
persistent evidence for at least two relational arenas of community trust: horizontal and
vertical, and have seen that these are linked such that an increase in one is associated with
an increase in the other, and a fall in one with a fall in the other. We have shown that trust
in employers contributes positively to each arena but that the level of the contribution
may change. We have shown that changes in trust relations may be explained, in part, by
change in a sense of empowerment (and its basis experiential dimensions of wellinformedness, personal control in one’s life, and a sense of influence). In relation to trust
and empowerment, we have compared trust levels and experience of people who are
workless and people who are employed. We have examined the effects of changing or
22
maintaining employment status on trust and empowerment and have seen that it is
changed experience rather than enduring experience that has the most perceptible effect.
Having noted from the beginning that there were significant gender effects in evidence,
we established that the impact of changed employment status on trust was much more
pronounced for women than for men and we related this to a gender-based difference in
respect of specific components of empowerment. Specifically, we have demonstrated that
in relation to trust, and trust in employers particularly, gaining or losing work is
predominantly experienced as impacting on a woman’s sense of personal control in life
but on a man’s sense of influence in the community. We have shown how changes in one
form of trust ‘spills over’ to effect change in other forms of trust.
Generalisability
We have highlighted some distinctive socio-economic features of the study area,
particularly the significant changes in traditional employment with the close of the coalmining, steel and related heavy industries, the high levels of unemployment and of
worklessness, which meant that some of the individual communities within the area were
amongst the most deprived in the EU for a period of time, and the regenerative
investment that produced new but different forms of work. Given this profile, any attempt
to generalise the results reported must be appropriately qualified. This said, there are
many sub-regions of the EU, and indeed beyond, where the profile of the study areas is
readily recognised. A comparative study across such regions would be a natural next step
in affirming the validity of the results presented.
The workplace as trust producing environment
One of the observations to emerge was the extent to which trust in employers came to
feature more prominently within horizontal trust over the four years of the study. The
nature of the SYCS survey instrument does not allow us to ground our understanding of
this issue on the basis of the data available. We can consider at least two possible sources
of explanation, which are not mutually exclusive. The first is to observe that the
diminution of the gap in horizontal trust between workless and employed, possible as a
23
result of a community ‘accommodation’ to worklessness, has eliminated once source of
variance in horizontal trust so that the relative explanatory contribution of employer trust
has increased. A second source would lie in an examination of the role of the workplace
in the production of trust in employers and both horizontal and vertical trust.
Employment may be seen as a ‘vertical’ relation with an employer, characterised by
power, control, regulation (and some measure of negotiation in relation to the application
of these). Equally, the workplace may be experienced as providing a milieu which
extends the scope for friendship and neighbourly solidarity (Cattell, 2001) facilitating
production of horizontal trust. An interesting question therefore is how, if at all, the new
forms of work and the conditions of employment that are available serve the production
of different forms of trust? It certainly seems that research to answer this question must
take account of the evidence presented here that trust production, via the experience of
empowerment, differs for women and men.
Gender
Employment and unemployment are often seen through a masculine prism, ‘what is the
male unemployment rate and what types of jobs are men doing?’, for example, the area
where the survey was conducted continues to be ‘defined’ as an ex-coalfield. We do not
underestimate the importance of work for men and the returns this has for families and
communities, but a male-focused perspective may obscure the importance of jobs for
women. The above analysis would suggest that if governments want to turn around
failing areas (however failing is defined) through policies designed to increase trust in
those areas, then ‘jobs for the girls’ are at very least as just as important as ‘jobs for the
boys’.
We perceive there to be a relative lack of research on women’s attitudes to employment
and what they seek in it. Previous work on women’s preferences to employment has
often asked on whether women are more likely to be home-centred or have adaptive
preferences (Hakim 2000) - do women want jobs or to stay at home and mind their
children – not of the effects of these choices on community trust. However, there may
have been clues to our findings in a different set of research which looked at the gendered
24
difference in fear of job loss and gendered affect in employment generally (Collins 2005;
Collins and Wickham 2004). This latter work stresses that it is women, rather than men,
who particularly fear unemployment, which accords with our findings that it is women
whose trust is most affected by the move into or out of employment. It also accords with
the observation that it is control in one’s life is the dominant empowerment dimension for
women; such control flows self-evidently from a personal wage, but the form of work
and the conditions of work may also contribute to the ability to juggle the demands of
care for children, dependent relatives, a personal social life and other aspects of the nonwork arena.
Responsiveness and hysteresis
At a number of points in our analysis we saw that changes in trust levels over time
differed for one category in relation to another, and especially in women relative to men.
We would like to explain this variation in response by reference to trust and its
production (rather than rely upon an appeal to some ‘innate’ difference in responsiveness
between women and men). We have pointed to a partial answer by demonstrating that
women and men appear to respond differently to different components of empowerment.
Thus it is not simply the change in, for example, employment status, that matters, but the
way that change is experienced in relation to well-informedness, personal control and
influence. That is, for a man or woman obtaining employment, the character of the work
and the workplace matters too in the production of trust.
A second element of an answer is suggested by the observation that variation in
‘responsiveness’ is suggestive of the hysteresis effect in trust relations. It is generally
more difficult to repair a once high but then broken trust than it to establish initial trust.
Thus it may be that the recent economic history and (work-related) social/domestic
change in the study area have impacted men and women differently in respect of trust
once held but now lost.
Figure 7 seeks to illustrate the scenario - if the negative experience in respect of employer
trust were more pronounced for workless men than for workless women then a more
25
sustained positive going experience would be needed before trust levels began to be
restored. It seems plausible, though no more, to suggest men in the study area may have
indeed been at a different point on the trust hysteresis curve than women because of the
effects of the significant and acute loss of traditional forms of employment (under
conditions of significant national industrial conflict) in the late 20th Century. However,
we do not want to in any way underestimate the significance of the change and the
conflict for the communities taken as a whole.
.
Trust
-ve experience
+ve experience
workless
men
workless
women
Figure 7 Hysteresis of trust
Managing trust-led development
In the final point of discussion in this paper we address the issue of trust-led regenerative
economic development. Trust is an ill-defined, ethereal, fuzzy concept and, echoing
many others, Li et al. (2005) have highlighted the problem of identifying mechanisms
underpinning trust. Such mechanisms are needed if policies to promote trust are to be
successfully operationalised and managed. In this paper, we have established that
empowerment partially explains variation in trust levels. We suggest that relative to trust,
empowerment its basis dimensions of well-informedness, personal control and
community influence, are more tangible and more tractable and thus provide
development policy makers, legislators and managers with a more direct means by which
to engineer the desired end.
26
In the context trust, attracting employment to an area without considering the way in
which the variety, nature and organisation of that work will differentially impact women
and men may mean that the socio-economic outcome is less than optimal. In
demonstrating the ‘spillover’ of trust in employers into other trust arenas, we have made
clear that a ‘good’ employer can improve community trust for employees and nonemployees alike. And in answer to the question ‘what is a good employer?’ we are able to
point to empowerment and its component dimensions.
Acknowledgement
We would like to thank colleagues at the Centre for Regional Economic Social Research
at Sheffield Hallam University for enabling us to undertake elements of this work.
References
Agresti A. (1990) Categorical Data Analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons
Bacharach. S., Lawler E. (1980) Power and Politics in Organisations. San Francisco:
Josey-Bass.
Braithwaite, V., Levi, M. (eds) (1998) Trust and Governance. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation, 1998
Cattell V. (2001) Poor people, poor places, and poor health: the mediating role of social
networks and social capital. Soc Sci Me; 52: 1501-16.
Coleman, J. (1990) Foundations of Social Theory. Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
MA.
Collins, G. (2005) ‘Seven Reasons Why Mergers Are Gendered. Employment Research
Centre, Dublin: Trinity College Dublin’. Gender, Work and Organization 12(3): 270-289.
Collins, G., Wickham, J. (2004) ‘Inclusion or Exploitation? Irish Women Enter The
Labour Force’. Gender, Work and Organization 11(1): 26-46.
Fukuyama, F. (1995): The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. London, Free
Press.
Giddens, A. (1991) Modernity and Self-identity, Cambridge: Polity Press.
27
Gilbertson, J., Green, G., Grimsley, M., Manning, J. (2005). The Dynamics of Social
Capital, Health and Economy. CRESR, Sheffield Hallam University.
Green, G., Grimsley, M., Suokas, A (2000) Social capital, health and economy in South
Yorkshire coalfield communities. CRESR, Sheffield Hallam University.
Green, G., Grimsley, M., Stafford, B. (2001) Capital accounting for neighbourhood
sustainability. CRESR, Sheffield Hallam University.
Green, G., Grimsley, M., Stafford, B. (2005) The Dynamics of Neighbourhood
Sustainability. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York Publishing Services Ltd.
Grimsley, M., Meehan, A., Green, G., Stafford, B. (2003) 'Social Capital and Community
Trust and e-Government Services'. In P. Nixon and S. Terzis (eds.): Trust Management
2003, First International Conference on Trust Management, Hiraklion, Crete, Greece,
May 2003. LNCS 2692, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 2003, p165-178
Grimsley, M., Meehan, A., Tan, A. (2004a) 'Promoting social inclusion: managing trustbased relations between users and providers of public services'. European Academy of
Management, St. Andrews, UK, 5-8 May, 2004.
(http://www.st-Andrews.ac.uk/~euram04/proceedings/contents.shtml#tracktr also
accessible at http://mcs.open.ac.uk/am4469/ or http://aces.shu.ac.uk/cmsmg/)
Grimsley M, Meehan A. and Tan A. (2004b) Designing for Social Inclusion: Computer
Mediation of Trust Relations Between Citizens and Public Service Providers. In Fincher
S, Markopoulos P, Moore D, Ruddle R. (Eds). People and Computers XVIII - Design for
Life: Proceedings of HCI 2004 London:.Springer-Verlag, 197-210
Grootaert, G. (1998). 'Social Capital: The Missing Link'. SCI Working Paper No.3, April
1998, World Bank.
Hakim, C. (1995) Five feminist myths about women's employment. British Journal of
Sociology, 46, 3, 429-455.
Hakim, C. (2000) Work-Lifestyle Choices in the 21st Century: Preference Theory.
Oxford: Oxford UP'.
Halford, S. and Leonard, P. (2001) Gender, Power and Organizations, Basingstoke:
Palgrave.
Hirschman, A. O. (1970) Exit, Voice, and Loyalty, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard
University Press.
28
Lewicki, R. J. and Bunker, B.B. (1996). Developing and maintaining trust in work
relationships. In Kramer. R.M. and Tyler, T.R. Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of
Theory and Research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 114–139.
Li, Y. J., Pickles, A. and Savage, M. (2005) 'Social capital and social trust in Britain',
European Sociological Review 21(2): 109-123.
Lin, N. (2001): Social Capital: a Theory of Social Structure and Action. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Luhmann, N. (2000) ‘Familiarity, Confidence, Trust: Problems and Alternatives’, in
Gambetta, Diego (ed.) Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations, electronic
edition, Department of Sociology, University of Oxford, chapter 6, pp. 94-107,
<http://www.sociology.ox.ac.uk/papers/luhmann94-107.pdf>
Putnam, R. (1993) Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, Princeton
University Press, Princeton.
Putnam R. (2000) Bowling Alone - The Collapse and Revival of American Community.
New York: Simon & Schuster.
Putnam R. (2001) Social capital: Measurement and consequences. . ISUMA Canadian
Journal of Policy Research; 2 (1) 42 – 51.
Rodin, J. (1996) Control by any other name: Definitions concepts and processes. In
Rodin, J., Schooler, C., and Schaie, K, (eds.), Selfdirectedness: Cause and effects
throughout the life course. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 131-148.
Skinner E. (1996) A Guide to Constructs of Control. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 71, 549-570.
Warren, M.E. (2001) ‘Social Capital and Corruption’. In: Dario Castiglione: Social
Capital: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. EURESCO conference on Social Capital, Exeter,
UK, 15-20 September 2001, http://www.ex.ac.uk/shipss/politics/research/socialcapital/
29
TABLES
Table 1. Economic (Employment) Status: Working age Study Area and UK
Women (%)
Study Area
UK
1999
2003
1999
2003
Men (%)
Study Area
UK
1999
2003
1999
2003
Economically
Active
Full-time Work
17
21
36
44
62*
Part-time Work
27
26
27
5
Self-employed
1
0
4
5
4
Unemployed
5
6
4
3
11
50
47
28
27
36
Economically
Inactive
* UK 2003 figures combine F/T and P/T
Source: Gilbertson et al (2005) p 35; NOMIS: http://www.nomisweb.co.uk/
47
4
2
13
33
61
5
12
6
16
64*
14
5
17
Table 2. Components of Community Trust 2000-2004: vertical (1) and horizontal (2) trust dimensions in
the two waves (working age only)
Trusted Party
Local
Politicians
Local Council
Employers
Neighbours
Friends
Family
2000
Trust
Trust
Component 1
Component 2
0.88
-0.06
0.88
0.52
0.15
-0.01
-0.11
-0.07
0.11
0.58
0.81
0.73
N = 2984
Correlation(1,2) = 0.18
Variance explained = 56%
2004
Trust
Trust
Component 1
Component 2
0.94
-0.07
0.94
0.39
0.21
0.00
-0.19
-0.03
0.36
0.65
0.82
0.75
N = 2431
Correlation(1,2) = 0.24
Variance explained = 64%
30
Table 3 Trust and empowerment: mean scores by gender & employment status
Employment
status
Vertical trust
score [3 – 15]
Horizontal trust
score [3 – 15]
Employer trust
[1 – 5]
Empowerment
score [3 – 14]
Gender
Vertical trust
score [3 – 15]
Horizontal trust
score [3 – 15]
Employer trust
score [1 – 5]
Empowerment
score [3 – 14]
Arithmetic mean score [standard error]
Wave 1 (2000)
Wave 2 (2004)
Workless
Employed
M-W*
Workless
Employed
M-W*
[N = 1553]
[N = 1431]
probability [N = 1225]
[N = 1206]
probability
8.17
[0.07]
13.81
[0.04]
3.09
[0.02]
9.54
[0.05]
8.54
[0.07]
14.22
[0.03]
3.35
[0.03]
9.72
[0.05]
<0.01
8.21
[0.08]
13.48
[0.05]
3.12
[0.03]
9.68
[0.06]
8.97
[0.07]
13.82
[0.04]
3.57
[0.02]
10.16
[0.06]
<0.01
Males
[N = 1184]
Females
[N = 1800]
M-W*
probability
Males
[934]
Females
[1497]
M-W*
probability
8.13
[0.08]
13.99
[0.04]
3.14
[0.03]
9.57
[0.06]
8.50
[0.06]
14.02
[0.03]
3.27
[0.02]
9.67
[0.05]
<0.01
8.45
[0.09]
13.54
[0.05]
3.30
[0.03]
9.71
[0.07]
8.67
[0.07]
13.72
[0.04]
3.37
[0.02]
10.04
[0.05]
0.06
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.96
<0.01
0.26
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.09
<0.01
*Significance probabilities: Mann-Whitney nonparametric two sample test
31
Table 4. Relative changes in trust levels between 2000 and 2004 by employment status and gender (main
effects multinomial models).
Adjusted* Odds Ratios [Lower 95% CI, Upper 95% CI]
(bold indicates statistically significant difference)
Wave 1 (2000)
Wave 2 (2004)
VT:
HT:
ET:
N in
VT:
HT:
High
High
High
model
High
High
[N:611]
[N:1477]
[N:981]
[N:670]
[N:943]
base:
base:
base:
base:
base:
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
[N:1110]
[N:715]
[N: 380]
[N:900]
[N:859]
ET:
High
[N:970]
base:
Low
[N:242]
0.85
[0.68 to
1.06]
1.00
0.66
[0.54 to
0.82]
1.00
0.64
[0.49 to
0.84]
1.00
1219
0.86
[0.70 to
1.06]
1.00
0.76
[0.62 to
0.92]
1.00
0.57
[0.44 to
0.73]
1.00
929
Separately by Employment status
model 1b
Workless only
Males
567
1.02
[0.75 to
1.37]
Females
986
1.00
0.76
[0.58 to
1.00]
1.00
0.65
[0.45 to
0.94]
1.00
428
0.75
[0.56 to
1.00]
1.00
0.53
[0.38 to
0.75]
1.00
501
Explanatory
variables
N in
model
model 1a
Employment
Status
Workless
1553
Employed
1431
Gender
Males
1184
Females
1800
model 1c
Employed only
Males
617
Females
814
0.74
[0.55 to
0.99]
1.00
1203
1493
791
702
0.66
[0.53 to
0.83]
1.00
0.80
[0.65 to
1.00]
1.00
0.34
[0.25 to
0.48]
1.00
0.86
[0.69 to
1.06]
1.00
0.62
[0.51 to
0.76]
1.00
0.58
[0.43 to
0.78]
1.00
0.95
[0.69 to
1.30]
1.00
0.63
[0.47 to
0.85]
1.00
0.48
[0.32 to
0.72]
1.00
0.78
[0.58 to
1.05]
1.00
0.61
[0.46 to
0.82]
1.00
0.76
[0.48 to
1.22]
1.00
* Adjusted for respondent age, education, housing tenure and area of residence.
(VT) vertical trust, (HT) horizontal trust and (ET) employer trust.
32
Table 5 Relation of Empowerment to Relative Trust Levels 2000-2004 (main effects multinomial model).
N
model 2a
Empowerment
Low (3-8)
787
Adjusted* Odds Ratios [Lower 95% CI, Upper 95% CI]
(bold indicates statistically significant difference)
Wave 1 (2000)
Wave 2 (2004)
VT
HT
ET
N
VT
HT
0.19
[0.14 to
0.25]
0.47
[0.38 to
0.60]
1.00
0.39
[0.30 to
0.49]
0.62
[0.49, to
0.77]
1.00
0.32
[0.23 to
0.44]
0.59
[0.44 to
0.78]
1.00
497
Moderate
(9-10)
1087
High (11-14)
1110
Males
1184
0.89
[0.72 to
1.10]
0.77
[0.63 to
0.94]
0.58
[0.45 to
0.75]
886
Females
1800
1.00
1.00
1.00
1462
Workless
1553
0.88
[0.70 to
1.10]
0.68
[0.55 to
0.84]
0.65
[0.50 to
0.85]
1180
Employed
1431
1.00
1.00
1.00
1168
Separately by Employment status
model 2b
Workless only
Empowerment
435
0.22
Low (3 – 8)
[0.15 to
0.33]
0.37
[0.27 to
0.51]
0.30
[0.19 to
0.48]
287
Empowerment
Moderate
(9 – 10)
565
0.57
[0.41 to
0.78]
0.60
[0.45 to
0.82]
0.64
[0.42 to
0.98]
435
Empowerment
High (11 – 14)
Males
553
1.00
1.00
1.00
458
567
1.02
[0.75 to
1.38]
0.77
[0.58 to
1.01]
0.64
[0.44 to
0.93]
407
Females
986
1.00
1.00
1.00
773
352
0.16
[0.10 to
0.24]
0.39
[0.27 to
0.57]
0.34
[0.22 to
0.54]
210
Empowerment
Moderate
(9 – 10)
522
0.38
[0.27 to
0.54]
0.61
[0.43 to
0.87]
0.53
[0.35 to
0.79]
422
Empowerment
High (11 – 14)
Males
557
1.00
1.00
1.00
536
617
0.80
[0.59 to
1.09]
0.79
[0.59 to
1.06]
0.56
[0.40 to
0.80]
479
model 2c
Employed only
Empowerment
Low (3 – 8)
857
994
Females
814
1.00
1.00
1.00
689
model 2a * Adjusted for age, education, housing tenure, area of residence.
ET
0.21
[0.15 to
0.28]
0.27
[0.21 to
0.35]
1.00
0.27
[0.20 to
0.36]
0.35
[0.28 to
0.45]
1.00
0.21
[0.14 to
0.32]
0.37
[0.25 to
0.53]
1.00
0.95
[0.75 to
1.19]
1.00
0.69
[0.55 to
0.85]
1.00
0.65
[0.47 to
0.89]
1.00
0.72
[0.57 to
0.92]
1.00
0.85
[0.68 to
1.07]
1.00
0.34
[0.25 to
0.48]
1.00
0.16
[0.10 to
0.25]
0.28
[0.20 to
0.41]
1.00
0.25
[0.17 to
0.36]
0.43
[0.31 to
0.60]
1.00
0.10
[0.05 to
0.18]
0.27
[0.16 to
0.46]
1.00
1.14
[0.81 to
1.59]
1.00
0.71
[0.52 to
0.98]
1.00
0.57
[0.37 to
0.88]
1.00
0.29
[0.19 to
0.45]
0.26
[0.18 to
0.37]
1.00
0.33
[0.22 to
0.51]
0.29
[0.21 to
0.41]
1.00
0.48
[0.25 to
0.92]
0.51
[0.29 to
0.89]
1.00
0.81
[0.59 to
1.11]
1.00
0.66
[0.49 to
0.90]
1.00
0.81
[0.50 to
1.32]
1.00
33
Table 6 Relation of components of Empowerment to Relative Trust Levels 2000-2004 by employment
status (main effects multinomial model).
Empowerment
components
Workless
model 3a
Not informed
N
817
Dissatisfied
with control
472
No influence
532
Males
567
Females
986
Employed
model 3b
Not informed
721
Dissatisfied
with control
378
No influence
452
Males
617
Females
814
Adjusted* Odds Ratios [Lower 95% CI, Upper 95% CI]
(bold indicates statistically significant difference)
Wave 1 (2000)
Wave 2 (2004)
VT
HT
ET
N
VT
HT
0.39
[0.29 to
0.53]
0.49
[0.35 to
0.68]
0.68
[0.50 to
0.94]
0.49
[0.38 to
0.64]
0.80
[0.61 to
1.05]
0.59
[0.45 to
0.78]
0.48
[0.33 to
0.69]
0.34
[0.23 to
0.51]
0.96
[0.65 to
1.43]
593
1.00
[0.74 to
1.36]
1.00
0.75
[0.57 to
1.00]
1.00
0.63
[0.43 to
0.92]
1.00
428
0.35
[0.25 to
0.47]
0.56
[0.39 to
0.81]
0.49
[0.35 to
0.69]
0.57
[0.42 to
0.76]
0.73
[0.53 to
1.01]
0.75
[0.55 to
1.02]
0.64
[0.45 to
0.90]
0.68
[0.46 to
1.01]
0.68
[0.47 to
0.99]
516
0.78
[0.57 to
1.05]
1.00
0.77
[0.58 to
1.04]
1.00
0.55
[0.39 to
0.78]
1.00
501
381
491
791
273
390
702
ET
0.28
[0.20 to
0.39]
0.57
[0.39 to
0.83]
0.78
[0.55 to
1.11]
0.30
[0.22 to
0.41]
0.57
[0.40 to
0.81]
0.84
[0.61 to
1.16]
0.31
[0.20 to
0.49]
0.34
[0.20 to
0.56]
0.53
[0.33 to
0.84]
1.12
[0.80 to
1.56]
1.00
0.71
[0.51 to
0.97]
1.00
0.58
[0.38 to
0.90]
1.00
0.34
[0.25 to
0.47]
0.56
[0.38 to
0.83]
0.98
[0.70 to
1.38]
0.37
[0.27 to
0.50]
0.63
[0.43 to
0.91]
0.85
[0.61 to
1.18]
0.45
[0.27 to
0.75]
0.72
[0.40 to
1.30]
1.05
[0.62 to
1.80]
0.88
[0.65 to
1.20]
1.00
0.67
[0.50 to
0.90]
1.00
0.82
[0.51 to
1.33]
1.00
*Adjusted for age, education, tenure, area of residence.
34
Table 7 Relation of components of Empowerment to Relative Trust Levels 2000-2004 by gender (main
effects multinomial model).
Empowerment
components
Males model 4a
Not informed
N
591
Dissatisfied
with control
360
No influence
396
Workless
567
Employed
617
Females
model 4b
Not informed
947
Dissatisfied
with control
490
No influence
588
Workless
986
Employed
814
Adjusted* Odds Ratios [Lower 95% CI, Upper 95% CI]
(bold indicates statistically significant difference)
Wave 1 (2000)
Wave 2 (2004)
VT
HT
ET
N
VT
HT
0.38
[0.27 to
0.53]
0.47
[0.32 to
0.70]
0.38
[0.26 to
0.57]
0.44
[0.32 to
0.59]
0.93
[0.67 to
1.30]
0.56
[0.41 to
0.77]
0.62
[0.43 to
0.89]
0.64
[0.42 to
0.97]
0.64
[0.43 to
0.96]
451
0.94
[0.66 to
1.36]
1.00
0.62
[0.44 to
0.87]
1.00
0.72
[0.48 to
1.07]
1.00
428
0.36
[0.27 to
0.48]
0.55
[0.39 to
0.76]
0.76
[0.56 to
1.03]
0.59
[0.46 to
0.76]
0.69
[0.53 to
0.91]
0.72
[0.56 to
0.94]
0.50
[0.35 to
0.72]
0.40
[0.28 to
0.58]
0.88
[0.61 to
1.28]
658
0.77
[0.57 to
1.03]
1.00
0.69
[0.52 to
0.90]
1.00
0.59
[0.41 to
0.86]
1.00
791
300
366
501
354
515
702
ET
0.33
[0.23 to
0.48]
0.60
[0.40 to
0.90]
0.79
[0.54 to
1.17]
0.31
[0.22 to
0.44]
0.58
[0.40 to
0.86]
0.80
[0.55 to
1.17]
0.21
[0.12 to
0.37]
0.89
[0.51 to
1.55]
0.60
[0.35 to
1.03]
0.67
[0.46 to
0.98]
1.00
0.89
[0.62 to
1.29]
1.00
0.22
[0.13 to
0.38]
1.00
0.30
[0.22 to
0.40]
0.50
[0.35 to
0.72]
0.95
[0.70 to
1.31]
0.34
[0.26 to
0.44]
0.63
[0.45 to
0.88]
0.82
[0.61 to
1.10]
0.57
[0.38 to
0.88]
0.30
[0.19 to
0.48]
0.81
[0.52 to
1.26]
0.70
[0.52 to
0.95]
1.00
0.84
[0.63 to
1.12]
1.00
0.44
[0.28 to
0.69]
1.00
*Adjusted for age, education, tenure, area of residence.
35
Table 8 GLM of employer trust against (changed) employment status, by gender.
Working age at
wave 1(2000) &
wave 2 (2004)
[N = 586]
Employer Trust Change
Men [N]
Adjusted*
estimate
0.456 [16]
significance
Women [N]
Adjusted*
significance
estimate
-0.880 [38]
<0.001
Employed to
0.216
workless
Workless
0.204 [79]
0.504
-0.542 [150]
Employed
-0.186 [68]
0.531
-0.320 [158]
Workless to
0 [14]
NA
0
[63]
employed (base)
*Adjusted for respondent age. Sub-sample sizes are given in square brackets.
0.001
0.051
NA
Table 9 GLM of VT against (changed) employment status, by gender.
Working age at
wave 1(2000) &
wave 2 (2004)
[N = 586]
Vertical Trust Change
Men [N]
Adjusted*
estimate
0.687 [16]
significance
Women [N]
Adjusted*
significance
estimate
-1.224 [38]
0.029
Employed to
0.541
workless
Workless
1.275 [79]
0.172
-1.029 [150]
Employed
-0.039 [68]
0.966
-0.643 [158]
Workless to
0 [14]
NA
0 [63]
employed (base)
*Adjusted for respondent age. Sub-sample sizes are given in square brackets.
0.012
0.112
NA
Table 10. GLM for changed employer trust related to change in experiential factors by gender.
Explanatory variables
(working age)
Outcome: change Employer trust scale
(wave 2 – wave 1)
Men
Women
Adjusted*
Significance
Adjusted*
Significance
estimate
estimate
Change: level of
0.081
0.222
0.044
0.354
“informedness”
Change: satisfaction with level
0.021
0.700
0.105
0.025
of control
Change: degree of influence
-0.033
0.581
-0.020
0.638
*Adjusted for base model explanatory variables: age, (gender). Note that tenure, NVQ level: both
consistently not significant.
36
Table 11 GLM for changed employer trust related to change in experiential factors and employment status
(women only)
.
Working age at
wave 1 & wave 2
[N = 406] women
Employment (FT, PT, self): change from wave 1 to wave 2,
experiential change & employer trust change
Frequency
Employed to
workless
Workless to
employed
No change (base)
38
Adjusted* estimate
-0.467
Significance
0.014
61
0.461
0.003
307
0
NA
0.040
0.118
0.396
0.011
-0.013
0.748
Change: level of “informedness”
Change: satisfaction with level of
control
Change: degree of influence
Table 12 Main effects multinomial models: Adjusted Odds Ratios*- trust change: local employers
Working age
N = 586
Variables
Trust in local
employers:
2000 & 2004
Gender
Categories
N in
model
Decreased
129
Unchanged
276
Increased
181
Males
177
Females
409
Adjusted Odds ratios with lower & upper 95% CI
Trust change: 2000 & 2004 [N]
Local
Local council
Neighbours
Horizontal
politicians
Decrease [165]
base:
Increase [199]
Decrease [146]
base:
Increase [212]
Decrease [112]
base:
Increase [160]
Decrease [125]
base:
Increase [174]
1.43
[0.80 to 2.56]
1.41
[0.85 to 2.31]
1.00
1.54
[0.84 to 2.81]
2.23
[1.33 to 3.75]
1.00
2.07
[1.02 to 4.23]
1.47
[0.83 to 2.60]
1.00
1.81
[0.91 to 3.57]
1.12
[0.66 to 1.92]
1.00
0.87
[0.54 to 1.40]
1.00
0.70
[0.42 to 1.17]
1.00
0.93
[0.51 to 1.68]
1.00
1.08
[0.62 to 1.88]
1.00
Empowerment factors change: 2000 & 2004 [N]
Informed
Control
Influence
Overall
Trust in local
employers:
2000 & 2004
Gender
Decreased
129
Unchanged
276
Increased
181
Males
177
Females
409
Decrease [129]
base:
Increase [181]
Decrease [113]
base:
Increase [228]
Decrease [168]
base:
Increase [176]
Decrease [155]
base: large
increase [127]
2.00
[1.11 to 3.63]
0.89
[0.53 to 1.50]
1.00
2.51
[1.28 to 4.91]
2.35
[1.31 to 4.23]
1.00
1.08
[0.60 to 1.93]
1.12
[0.68 to 1.84]
1.00
2.76
[1.42 to 5.35]
2.30
[1.31 to 4.05]
1.00
0.84
[0.49 to 1.42]
1.00
1.81
[1.08 to 3.03]
1.00
1.00
[0.61 to 1.65]
1.00
1.00
[0.58 to 1.73]
1.00
*Adjusted for age, education, tenure.
37