IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/ratsoc/v23y2011i1p51-74.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Explaining large-N cooperation: Generalized social trust and the social exchange heuristic

Author

Listed:
  • Kim Mannemar Sønderskov

    (Aarhus University, Denmark, ks@ps.au.dk)

Abstract

This paper presents a new argument that links generalized social trust and collective action in situations with a large number of actors who do not have specific information on each other. Generalized social trust enhances large -N cooperation through the social exchange heuristic, which stimulates conditional cooperation in social dilemmas. Using data from a survey in four countries and recycling behavior as an indicator of collective action, this explanation is tested with individual-level data. While the relationship between generalized social trust and large -N collective action is often hypothesized, there is scant micro-level evidence as it has mainly been tested at the macro level. The results show that people holding generalized social trust cooperate more readily in large -N dilemmas, and that they most likely do so because of the social exchange heuristic.

Suggested Citation

  • Kim Mannemar Sønderskov, 2011. "Explaining large-N cooperation: Generalized social trust and the social exchange heuristic," Rationality and Society, , vol. 23(1), pages 51-74, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:ratsoc:v:23:y:2011:i:1:p:51-74
    DOI: 10.1177/1043463110396058
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1043463110396058
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1043463110396058?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. Bo Rothstein & Daniel Eek, 2009. "Political Corruption and Social Trust," Rationality and Society, , vol. 21(1), pages 81-112, February.
    2. La Porta, Rafael, et al, 1997. "Trust in Large Organizations," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 87(2), pages 333-338, May.
    3. Stephen Knack & Philip Keefer, 1997. "Does Social Capital Have an Economic Payoff? A Cross-Country Investigation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(4), pages 1251-1288.
    4. Toshio Yamagishi & Shigeru Terai & Toko Kiyonari & Nobuhiro Mifune & Satoshi Kanazawa, 2007. "The Social Exchange Heuristic: Managing Errors in Social Exchange," Rationality and Society, , vol. 19(3), pages 259-291, August.
    5. Fischbacher, Urs & Gachter, Simon & Fehr, Ernst, 2001. "Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experiment," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 71(3), pages 397-404, June.
    6. Gaute Torsvik, 2000. "Social Capital And Economic Development," Rationality and Society, , vol. 12(4), pages 451-476, November.
    7. Christian Bjørnskov, 2007. "Determinants of generalized trust: A cross-country comparison," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 130(1), pages 1-21, January.
    8. Beugelsdijk, Sjoerd & van Schaik, Ton, 2005. "Social capital and growth in European regions: an empirical test," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 301-324, June.
    9. Håkan J. Holm & Anders Danielson, 2005. "Tropic Trust Versus Nordic Trust: Experimental Evidence From Tanzania And Sweden," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 115(503), pages 505-532, April.
    10. Dawes, Robyn M. & Orbell, John M. & Simmons, Randy T. & Van De Kragt, Alphons J. C., 1986. "Organizing Groups for Collective Action," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 80(4), pages 1171-1185, December.
    11. Kim Mannemar Sønderskov, 2009. "Different goods, different effects: exploring the effects of generalized social trust in large-N collective action," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 140(1), pages 145-160, July.
    12. Cummings, Ronald G & Harrison, Glenn W & Rutstrom, E Elisabet, 1995. "Homegrown Values and Hypothetical Surveys: Is the Dichotomous Choice Approach Incentive-Compatible?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(1), pages 260-266, March.
    13. Iris Bohnet & Yael Baytelman, 2007. "Institutions and Trust," Rationality and Society, , vol. 19(1), pages 99-135, February.
    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. Edward L. Glaeser & David I. Laibson & José A. Scheinkman & Christine L. Soutter, 2000. "Measuring Trust," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 115(3), pages 811-846.
      • Glaeser, Edward Ludwig & Laibson, David I. & Scheinkman, Jose A. & Soutter, Christine L., 2000. "Measuring Trust," Scholarly Articles 4481497, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    2. Peiró-Palomino, Jesús & Tortosa-Ausina, Emili, 2013. "Can trust effects on development be generalized? A response by quantile," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 377-390.
    3. Forte, Anabel & Peiró-Palomino, Jesús & Tortosa-Ausina, Emili, 2015. "Does social capital matter for European regional growth?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 47-64.
    4. Ali Recayi Ogcem & Ruth Tacneng & Amine Tarazi, 2021. "Trust and Financial Development: Forms of Trust and Ethnic Fractionalization Matter," Working Papers hal-03322592, HAL.
    5. Pierre Courtois & Tarik Tazdaït, 2012. "Learning to trust strangers: an evolutionary perspective," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 367-383, April.
    6. In Do Hwang, 2017. "Which Type of Trust Matters?:Interpersonal vs. Institutional vs. Political Trust," Working Papers 2017-15, Economic Research Institute, Bank of Korea.
    7. Bergh, Andreas & Bjørnskov, Christian, 2014. "Trust, welfare states and income equality: Sorting out the causality," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 183-199.
    8. Dincer, Oguzhan C. & Fredriksson, Per G., 2018. "Corruption and environmental regulatory policy in the United States: Does trust matter?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 212-225.
    9. Thöni, Christian & Tyran, Jean-Robert & Wengström, Erik, 2012. "Microfoundations of social capital," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(7-8), pages 635-643.
    10. Christoph Hauser & Gottfried Tappeiner & Janette Walde, 2015. "The Roots of Regional Trust," Working Papers 2015-13, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    11. Blaine Robbins, 2012. "Institutional Quality and Generalized Trust: A Nonrecursive Causal Model," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 107(2), pages 235-258, June.
    12. M. Niaz Asadullah, 2017. "Who Trusts Others? Community and Individual Determinants of Social Capital in a Low-Income Country," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 41(2), pages 515-544.
    13. Gachter, Simon & Herrmann, Benedikt & Thoni, Christian, 2004. "Trust, voluntary cooperation, and socio-economic background: survey and experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 55(4), pages 505-531, December.
    14. Bergh, Andreas & Bjørnskov, Christian, 2013. "Trust, Welfare States and Income Equality: What Causes What?," Working Paper Series 994, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    15. Stephany, Fabian, 2019. "Whose Realm, His Trust - Regional Disparities of Generalized Trust in Europe," SocArXiv 7f5pk, Center for Open Science.
    16. Yamamura, Eiji, 2008. "The role of social capital in homogeneous society: Review of recent researches in Japan," MPRA Paper 11385, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. 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.
    18. Antoci Angelo & Sabatini Fabio & Sodini Mauro, 2009. "Will growth and technology destroy social interaction? The inverted U-shape hypothesis," wp.comunite 0057, Department of Communication, University of Teramo.
    19. Kouvavas, Omiros, 2013. "Political Budget Cycles Revisited, the Case for Social Capital," MPRA Paper 57504, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 15 Sep 2013.
    20. Ernst Fehr, 2009. "On The Economics and Biology of Trust," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 7(2-3), pages 235-266, 04-05.

    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:sae:ratsoc:v:23:y:2011:i:1:p:51-74. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.