Generalized Trust Through Civic Engagement?
Evidence from Five National Panel Studies
René BekkersPhilanthropic Studies
VU University Amsterdam
September 17, 2013 1MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim
Erik van IngenSociologyTilburg
University
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”
September 17, 2013 5MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim
Robert D. Putnam (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster, page 137
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.
September 17, 2013 MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim 7
Eric Uslaner (2002). The Moral Foundations of Trust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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 9MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim
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 10MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim
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 12MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim
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 13MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim
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 14MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim
Development of generalized social trust (‘most people can
be trusted’)
Source: GINPS
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 15MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim
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 16MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim
Further evidence: volunteering and charitable confidence in
2006
September 17, 2013 MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim 20
Bekkers, R. & Bowman, W. (2009). The Relationship Between Confidence and Charitable Organizations and Volunteering Revisited. Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38: 884-897. Source:
GINPS
Selection based on…
September 17, 2013 MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim 21
Bekkers, R. & Bowman, W. (2009). The Relationship Between Confidence and Charitable Organizations and Volunteering Revisited. Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38: 884-897. Source:
GINPS
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 23MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim
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 STATASeptember 17, 2013 27MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim
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 32MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim
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 34MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim
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, [email protected]• 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 38MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim