IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/somere/v54y2025i2p534-564.html

How Valid Are Trust Survey Measures? New Insights From Open-Ended Probing Data and Supervised Machine Learning

Author

Listed:
  • Camille Landesvatter
  • Paul C. Bauer

Abstract

Trust is a foundational concept of contemporary sociological theory. Still, empirical research on trust relies on a relatively small set of measures. These are increasingly debated, potentially undermining large swathes of empirical evidence. Drawing on a combination of open-ended probing data, supervised machine learning, and a U.S. representative quota sample, our study compares the validity of standard measures of generalized social trust with more recent, situation-specific measures of trust. We find that survey measures that refer to “strangers†in their question wording best reflect the concept of generalized trust, also known as trust in unknown others. While situation-specific measures should have the desirable property of further reducing variation in associations, that is, producing more similar frames of reference across respondents, they also seem to increase associations with known others, which is undesirable. In addition, we explore to what extent trust survey questions may evoke negative associations. We find that there is indeed variation across measures, which calls for more research.

Suggested Citation

  • Camille Landesvatter & Paul C. Bauer, 2025. "How Valid Are Trust Survey Measures? New Insights From Open-Ended Probing Data and Supervised Machine Learning," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 54(2), pages 534-564, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:54:y:2025:i:2:p:534-564
    DOI: 10.1177/00491241241234871
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00491241241234871
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/00491241241234871?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. Ernst Fehr & Urs Fischbacher & Bernhard von Rosenbladt & J�rgen Schupp & Gert G. Wagner, "undated". "A Nation-Wide Laboratory: Examining trust and trustworthiness by integrating behavioral experiments into representative surveys," IEW - Working Papers 141, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    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. Johannes Abeler & Armin Falk & Fabian Kosse, 2025. "Malleability of Preferences for Honesty," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 135(667), pages 982-998.
    2. Diego Marino Fages, 2023. "Migration and trust: Evidence on assimilation from internal migrants," Discussion Papers 2023-08, Nottingham Interdisciplinary Centre for Economic and Political Research (NICEP).
    3. Alpaslan Akay & Amelie Constant & Corrado Giulietti & Martin Guzi, 2017. "Ethnic diversity and well-being," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 30(1), pages 265-306, January.
    4. Sun-Ki Chai & Dolgorsuren Dorj & Katerina Sherstyuk, 2018. "Cultural Values and Behavior in Dictator, Ultimatum, and Trust Games: An Experimental Study," Research in Experimental Economics, in: Experimental Economics and Culture, volume 20, pages 89-166, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    5. Bohdan Kukharskyy & Michael Pflüger, 2011. "Relational Contracts and the Economic Well-Being of Nations," Working Papers 095, Bavarian Graduate Program in Economics (BGPE).
    6. Stefan Kohler & European University Institute, 2006. "Inequality Aversion and Stochastic Decision-making: Experimental Evidence from Zimbabwean Villages after Land Reform," Economics Series Working Papers GPRG-WPS-061, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    7. Bettinger, Eric & Slonim, Robert, 2006. "Using experimental economics to measure the effects of a natural educational experiment on altruism," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(8-9), pages 1625-1648, September.
    8. Maite D. Laméris & Richard Jong-A-Pin & Rasmus Wiese, 2018. "An Experimental Test of the Validity of Survey-Measured Political Ideology," CESifo Working Paper Series 7139, CESifo.
    9. Jeffrey V. Butler & Paola Giuliano & Luigi Guiso, 2015. "Trust, Values, And False Consensus," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 56(3), pages 889-915, August.
    10. Paul C Bauer & Florian Keusch & Frauke Kreuter, 2019. "Trust and cooperative behavior: Evidence from the realm of data-sharing," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-18, August.
    11. Daniel McFadden, 2009. "The human side of mechanism design: a tribute to Leo Hurwicz and Jean-Jacque Laffont," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 13(1), pages 77-100, April.
    12. Gereke, Johanna & Schaub, Max & Baldassarri, Delia, 2018. "Ethnic diversity, poverty and social trust in Germany: Evidence from a behavioral measure of trust," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 13(7), pages 1-15.
    13. Casari, Marco & Cason, Timothy N., 2009. "The strategy method lowers measured trustworthy behavior," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 103(3), pages 157-159, June.
    14. Naef, Michael & Schupp, Jürgen, 2009. "Measuring Trust: Experiments and Surveys in Contrast and Combination," IZA Discussion Papers 4087, IZA Network @ LISER.
    15. Joachim Wilde, 2022. "What drives trust of the long‐term unemployed in their caseworkers?," LABOUR, CEIS, vol. 36(2), pages 231-250, June.
    16. Ara Jo, 2019. "The Effect of Migration on Trust in Communities of Origin," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 39(2), pages 1571-1585.
    17. Dong, Bin & Dulleck, Uwe & Torgler, Benno, 2012. "Conditional corruption," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 609-627.
    18. Matteo M. Galizzi & Daniel Navarro-Martinez, 2019. "On the External Validity of Social Preference Games: A Systematic Lab-Field Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(3), pages 976-1002, March.
    19. Lisa Anderson & Jennifer Mellor & Jeffrey Milyo, 2006. "Induced heterogeneity in trust experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 9(3), pages 223-235, September.
    20. Zhang, Zhe & Zhang, Xu & Putterman, Louis, 2019. "Trust and cooperation at a confluence of worlds: An experiment in Xinjiang, China," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 128-144.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:sae:somere:v:54:y:2025:i:2:p:534-564. 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.