IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0215835.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding the psychological nature and mechanisms of political trust

Author

Listed:
  • Joseph A Hamm
  • Corwin Smidt
  • Roger C Mayer

Abstract

Political trust is a perennially important concern and the events of the last few years have, in many ways, heightened this importance. The relevant scholarship has done much to meet this challenge but continues to struggle with definitional unclarities and an inability to provide accounts that consistently operate as expected. The current research seeks to test the potential of a classic model of trust from the organizational sciences that makes specific arguments regarding the psychological nature and mechanisms of the construct in helping to address these concerns. Using data from a national convenience sample, we provide preliminary evidence which suggests that measures and models addressing this theoretical account of psychological trust form unidimensional and reliable measures that may more precisely explain the process of political trust and outperform current measures in predicting relevant correlates. We conclude by discussing the implications and limitations of our work and, in so doing, lay a foundation for a new research agenda for political trust.

Suggested Citation

  • Joseph A Hamm & Corwin Smidt & Roger C Mayer, 2019. "Understanding the psychological nature and mechanisms of political trust," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-20, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0215835
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0215835
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0215835
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0215835&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0215835?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Charles S. Taber & Milton Lodge, 2006. "Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(3), pages 755-769, July.
    2. Guido M�llering, 2014. "Trust, calculativeness, and relationships: A special issue 20 years after Williamson's warning," Journal of Trust Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(1), pages 1-21, April.
    3. Luke Keele, 2007. "Social Capital and the Dynamics of Trust in Government," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(2), pages 241-254, April.
    4. Rima Wilkes, 2014. "Trust in government: A micro-macro approach," Journal of Trust Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(2), pages 113-131, October.
    5. Dmitriy Poznyak & Bart Meuleman & Koen Abts & George Bishop, 2014. "Trust in American Government: Longitudinal Measurement Equivalence in the ANES, 1964–2008," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 118(2), pages 741-758, September.
    6. Darren W. Davis & Brian D. Silver, 2004. "Civil Liberties vs. Security: Public Opinion in the Context of the Terrorist Attacks on America," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(1), pages 28-46, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kim-Lee Tuxhorn & John W. D'Attoma & Sven Steinmo, 2019. "Trust in institutions: Narrowing the ideological gap over the federal budget," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 2(1).
    2. Tetsuro Kobayashi & Fumiaki Taka & Takahisa Suzuki, 2021. "Can “Googling” correct misbelief? Cognitive and affective consequences of online search," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(9), pages 1-16, September.
    3. Kenneth D. Nguyen & Heather Rosoff & Richard S. John, 2017. "Valuing Equal Protection in Aviation Security Screening," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(12), pages 2405-2419, December.
    4. Paschalis Arvanitidis & Athina Economou & Christos Kollias, 2016. "Terrorism’s effects on social capital in European countries," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 169(3), pages 231-250, December.
    5. Michael Carolan, 2020. "Filtering perceptions of climate change and biotechnology: values and views among Colorado farmers and ranchers," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 159(1), pages 121-139, March.
    6. Barrera, Oscar & Guriev, Sergei & Henry, Emeric & Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina, 2020. "Facts, alternative facts, and fact checking in times of post-truth politics," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    7. Massimo Finocchiaro Castro & Calogero Guccio, 2020. "Birds of a feather flock together: trust in government, political selection and electoral punishment," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 184(3), pages 263-287, September.
    8. Faia, Ester & Fuster, Andreas & Pezone, Vincenzo & Zafar, Basit, 2021. "Biases in information selection and processing: Survey evidence from the pandemic," SAFE Working Paper Series 307, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE.
    9. Jae Young Lim & Kuk-Kyoung Moon, 2020. "Perceived Environmental Threats and Pro-Environmental Behaviors: Investigating the Role of Political Participation Using a South Korean Survey," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-16, May.
    10. April K. Clark & Michael Clark & Marie A. Eisenstein, 2014. "Stability and Change," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(1), pages 21582440145, March.
    11. Mark K. McBeth & Donna L. Lybecker & James W. Stoutenborough, 2016. "Do stakeholders analyze their audience? The communication switch and stakeholder personal versus public communication choices," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 49(4), pages 421-444, December.
    12. Luis Guirola & Gonzalo Rivero, 2022. "Polarization contaminates the link with partisan and independent institutions: evidence from 138 cabinet shifts," Working Papers 2237, Banco de España.
    13. Peter Ping Li, 2017. "The time for transition: Future trust research," Journal of Trust Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(1), pages 1-14, January.
    14. Sambuddha Ghatak & Aaron Gold & Brandon C. Prins, 2019. "Domestic Terrorism in Democratic States: Understanding and Addressing Minority Grievances," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 63(2), pages 439-467, February.
    15. Erik C. Nisbet & Kathryn E. Cooper & R. Kelly Garrett, 2015. "The Partisan Brain," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 658(1), pages 36-66, March.
    16. Ligthart, Jenny E. & van Oudheusden, Peter, 2015. "In government we trust: The role of fiscal decentralization," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 116-128.
    17. Dickinson, David L., 2020. "Deliberation Enhances the Confirmation Bias: An Examination of Politics and Religion," IZA Discussion Papers 13241, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    18. Ronja Sczepanski, 2023. "European by action: How voting reshapes nested identities," European Union Politics, , vol. 24(4), pages 751-770, December.
    19. Tomi Rajala, 2019. "Mind the Information Expectation Gap," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 10(1), pages 104-125, March.
    20. Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth, 2023. "Beliefs about Racial Discrimination and Support for Pro-Black Policies," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 105(1), pages 40-53, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0215835. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.