Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Revisiting the “Trust Radius” Question: Individualism, Collectivism, and Trust Radius in South Korea

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Social Indicators Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Building on recent studies on the “trust radius” problem in generalized trust, this study proposes a new measure of trust radius, which is conceptually straightforward and flexible, and examines its relationship with the individualist–collectivist value orientations. Our proposed measure is based on widely available survey questions, can be applied to individual-level analysis, and has stronger predictive validity compared with the “most people” question or a measure of radius used in previous studies. Applying this measure to a new, nationally representative survey data from South Korea, we find that Koreans have a narrow trust radius that is limited to the most intimate social circles. Our regression analysis shows that respondents with strong collectivist orientations have a wider trust radius, whereas those with strong individualist orientations have a narrower radius. Our finding on individualist–collectivist orientations contradicts previous studies based on mostly European cross-national data, which found the opposite, and suggests that we cannot generalize the relationship between cultural values and trust found in cross-national studies to the individual-level relationship within a nation. We conclude with a discussion of our findings’ implications for future research on social trust.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. While many variations in exact wording exist, the most common version is: “Generally speaking, do you believe that most people can be trusted, or can’t you be too careful in dealing with people?”.

  2. However, Tocqueville also states that, in democratic ages when individualism is a dominant cultural force, “the bonds of human affection are wider but more relaxed,” which anticipates some of the more optimistic views on the relationship between individualism and social solidarity.

  3. Based on the results from both the EFA and CFA, we treated one item— “It is important to me that I respect the decisions made by my groups”—as a multidimensional indicator that represents and loads on both HC and VC. This decision is informed by the size of factor loading (EFA) and improvement of model fits (CFA) (see Kuvonich 2009).

  4. The full results of the IRT analysis, along with the program file to replicate all our analysis, are available in the online supplement.

  5. Indeed, we find that trust in inner groups is always higher than or at least as high as trust in outer groups among two thirds of the respondents. For the rest of the respondents, the relationship between the social distance and trust is mostly monotonic, except for some variations in the level of trust in the outermost groups (e.g., stranger vs. foreigners/immigrant workers). For example, less than 0.5% of the respondents reported higher levels of trust in friends or relatives than in family, and only about 10% reported higher levels of trust in relatives than in friends. This monotonic relationship between social distance and trust simplifies the estimation of trust radius as the slope of social distance on trust in the multilevel regression.

  6. The correlation coefficient between the two slope-based measures was 0.74. The “most people” measure was correlated with the intercept-constrained measure at 0.61 and with the random-intercept model at 0.39.

  7. As a robustness check, we used the 2010 World Values Survey in Korea to replicate our analysis with the measures of IC using the questions from the Schwartz’s Portrait Values Questionnaire. The results were consistent with what we reported in this paper. The full results are available from the authors upon request.

References

  • Bauer, P. C., & Freitag, M. (2018). Measuring trust. In E. M. Uslaner (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of social and political trust. NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beilmann, M., Kööts-Ausmees, L., & Realo, A. (2018). The relationship between social capital and individualism–collectivism in Europe. Social Indicators Research, 137(2), 641–664.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellah, R. N., Richard Madsen, W. M., Sullivan, A. S., & Tipton, S. M. (1985). Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life (p. 1985). Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chirkov, V., Ryan, R. M., Kim, Y., & Kaplan, U. (2003). Differentiating autonomy from individualism and independence: A self-determination theory perspective on internalization of cultural orientations and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 97–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, K. S. (2014). Individualization without individualism: Compressed modernity and obfuscated family crisis in East Asia. In E. Ochiai & L. A. Hosoya (Eds.), Transformation of the Intimate and the Public in Asian Modernity. Brill: Leiden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, K. S., & Song, M. Y. (2010). The stranded individualizer under compressed modernity: South Korean women in individualization without individualism. The British Journal of Sociology, 61(3), 539–564.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, F. F., & West, S. G. (2008). Measuring individualism and collectivism: The importance of considering differential components, reference groups, and measurement invariance. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(2), 259–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiou, J. S. (2001). Horizontal and Vertical Individualism and Collectivism Among College Students in the United States, Taiwan, and Argentina. Journal of Social Psychology, 141(5), 667–678.

    Google Scholar 

  • David, J., & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social Forces, 63(4), 967–985.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delhey, J., & Welzel, C. (2012). Generalizing trust: How outgroup-trust grows beyond ingroup-trust. World Values Research, 5(3), 46–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delhey, J., Newton, K., & Welzel, C. (2011). How general is trust in “most people”? Solving the radius of trust problem. American Sociological Review, 76(5), 786–807.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzioni, A. (1993). The spirit of community: rights, responsibilities, and communitarian agenda. NY: Crown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freitag, M., & Bauer, P. C. (2013). Testing for measurement equivalence in surveys: Dimensions of social trust across cultural contexts. Public opinion quarterly, 77(S1), 24–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freitag, M., & Traunmüller, R. (2009). Spheres of trust: An empirical analysis of the foundations of particularised and generalised trust. European Journal of Political Research, 48(6), 782–803.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • F Fukuyama 1999 Social Capital and Civil Society. The Institute of Public Policy, George Mason University. 1 99

  • Gheorghiu, M. A., Vignoles, V. L., & Smith, P. B. (2009). Beyond the United States and Japan: Testing Yamagishi's emancipation theory of trust across 31 nations. Social Psychology Quarterly, 72(4), 365–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glanville, J. L., & Paxton, P. (2007). How do we learn to trust? A confirmatory tetrad analysis of the sources of generalized trust. Social Psychology Quarterly, 70(3), 230–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (2003). A very brief measure of the big-five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(6), 504–528.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ha, S. E., Kim, S., & Jo, S. H. (2013). Personality traits and political participation: Evidence from South Korea. Political Psychology, 34(4), 511–532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, A. (2017). Radius of trust: Gradient-based conceptualization and measurement. Social Science Research, 68, 147–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, H., Kim, E., Suh, E. M., & Callan, M. J. (2018). Development and preliminary validation of a Korean version of the personal relative deprivation scale. PLoS ONE, 13(5), e0197279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuvonich, R. M. (2009). The sources and consequences of national identification. American Sociological Review, 74(4), 573–593.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lukes, S. (1971). The meanings of “individualism”. Journal of the History of Ideas, 32(1), 45–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oishi, S., Schimmack, U., Diener, E., & Suh, E. M. (1998). The measurement of values and individualism-collectivism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(11), 1177–1189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paxton, P., & Glanville, J. L. (2015). Is trust rigid or malleable? A laboratory experiment. Social Psychology Quarterly, 78(2), 194–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. New York: Simon&Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapp, C. (2016). Moral opinion polarization and the erosion of trust. Social Science Research, 58, 34–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Realo, A., & Allik, J. (2009). On the relationship between social capital and individualism–collectivism. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3(6), 871–886.

    Google Scholar 

  • Realo, A., Allik, J., & Greenfield, B. (2008). Radius of trust: Social capital in relation to familism and institutional collectivism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39(4), 447–462.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reeskens, T. (2013). But who are those “most people” that can be trusted? Evaluating the radius of trust across 29 European societies. Social Indicators Research, 114(2), 703–722.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reeskens, T., & Hooghe, M. (2008). Cross-cultural measurement equivalence of generalized trust. Evidence from the European Social Survey (2002 and 2004). Social Indicators Research, 85(3), 515–532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothstein, B. (2002). Sweden: Social capital in the social democratic state. In R. Putnam (Ed.), Democracies in flux: The evolution of social capital in contemporary society. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25(1), 1–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmel, G. (1950). The Sociology of Georg Simmel ( K. H. Wolff, Trans.) Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

  • Singelis, T. M., Triandis, H. C., Bhawuk, D. P. S., & Gelfand, M. J. (1995). Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and measurement refinement. Cross-Cultural Research, 29(3), 240–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soh, S., & Leong, F. T. (2002). Validity of vertical and horizontal individualism and collectivism in Singapore: Relationships with values and interests. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(1), 3–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sturgis, P., & Smith, P. (2010). Assessing the validity of generalized trust questions: what kind of trust are we measuring? International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 22(1), 74–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tocqueville, A. D. (2000). Democracy in America (H. C. Mansfield & D. Winthrop, Translated and edited). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

  • Torpe, L., & Lolle, H. (2011). Identifying social trust in cross-country analysis: Do we really measure the same? Social Indicators Research, 103(3), 481–500.

    Google Scholar 

  • Triandis, H. C., & Gelfand, M. J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 118–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Triandis, H. C., & Suh, E. M. (2002). Cultural influences on personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 133–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uslaner, E. M. (2002). The moral foundations of trust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Hoorn, A. (2014). Trust Radius versus Trust Level: Radius of Trust as a Distinct Trust Construct. American Sociological Review, 79(6), 1256–1259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Hoorn, A. (2015). Individualist–collectivist culture and trust radius: A multilevel approach. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46(2), 269–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yamagishi, T., & Yamagishi, M. (1994). Trust and commitment in the United States and Japan. Motivation and Emotion, 18(2), 129–166.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

This study was supported by the Academy of Korean Studies. We thank the Academy and Prof. Do-hyun Han for their generous supports.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1180 Observatory Drive, Madison, WI, USA

    Chaeyoon Lim

  2. Department of Sociology, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea

    Dong-Kyun Im

  3. Department of Sociology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, United States of America

    Sumin Lee

Authors
  1. Chaeyoon Lim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dong-Kyun Im
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sumin Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chaeyoon Lim.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Online supplement (pdf 205 kb)

Appendices

Appendix A: Survey Questions for Key Variables

1.1 Trust in Ingroups and Outgroups

“Generally speaking, how much do you trust the following people? Trust a lot; trust somewhat; neither trust nor distrust; do not trust much; do not trust at all.

  1. a)

    family

  2. b)

    friends

  3. c)

    relatives

  4. d)

    neighbors

  5. e)

    people from the same region

  6. f)

    strangers

  7. g)

    foreign migrants.”

1.2 Generalized Trust

“Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted? Agree strong; agree somewhat; neither agree nor disagree; disagree somewhat; disagree strongly”.

1.3 Unpleasant Experiences

In the past month, how often did you have unpleasant or discomforting experiences due to other people; (very often, often, sometimes, rarely, never).

  1. 1)

    while using public transportation

  2. 2)

    in restaurants, cafes, or shopping malls,

  3. 3)

    on the street,

  4. 4)

    in the neighborhood,

  5. 5)

    due to noises from neighbors,

  6. 6)

    at workplace or school,

  7. 7)

    in other public spaces. The scale (5-point) is reversed so that the higher value of the variable indicates lower frequency of having unpleasant experiences.

1.4 Experience of Kindness

In the past month, how often did you receive help or experienced kindness from strangers? Very often, often, sometimes, rarely, never.

1.5 Fair Society

Generally speaking, would you say that our society is very fair; fair; neither fair nor unfair; unfair; very unfair?

1.6 Big-Five Personality

Below are the statements describing personalities. Please indicate how well each statement describes you. Each statement includes two personality traits. Even if one of them describes you better than the other, please consider both traits and indicate how well they apply to you. (1 = not at all; 7 = very well).

  1. 1.

    Extraverted, enthusiastic (extraversion).

  2. 2.

    Critical, quarrelsome (agreeableness, reversed).

  3. 3.

    Dependable, self-disciplined (conscientiousness).

  4. 4.

    Anxious, easily upset (emotional stability, reversed).

  5. 5.

    Open to new experiences, complex (openness).

  6. 6.

    Reserved, quiet (extraversion, reversed).

  7. 7.

    Sympathetic, warm (agreeableness).

  8. 8.

    Disorganized, careless (conscientiousness, reversed).

  9. 9.

    Calm, emotionally stable (emotional stability).

  10. 10.

    Conventional, uncreative (openness, reversed).

1.7 Individualism/Collectivism

How well does each of the following statements apply to you? 1 = Not at all; 7 = Very well.

(HI: horizontal individualism, VI: vertical individualism, HC: horizontal collectivism, VC: vertical collectivism).

  1. 1.

    I’d rather depend on myself than others (HI)

  2. 2.

    My personal identity, independent of others, is very important to me (HI)

  3. 3.

    Competition is the law of nature (VI)

  4. 4.

    When another person does better than I do, I get tense and aroused (VI)

  5. 5.

    It is important that I do my job better than others (VI)

  6. 6.

    The well-being of my coworkers is important to me (HC)

  7. 7.

    I feel good when I cooperate with others (HC)

  8. 8.

    To me, pleasure is spending time with others (HC)

  9. 9.

    It is my duty to take care of my family, even when I have to sacrifice what I want (VC)

  10. 10.

    Family members should stick together, no matter what sacrifices are required (VC)

  11. 11.

    It is important to me that I respect the decisions made by my groups (VC, HC*)

*See footnote 4 for why this item is loaded on both factors.

Appendix B: Descriptive Statistics

Variable

N

Percent

Variable

Min

Max

Mean

SD

Sex

  

Economic background

    

Male

813

49.6%

ln(Household income)

4.32

7.31

6.07

0.651

Female

825

50.4%

Subjective class

1

10

5.25

1.723

Age

  

Individualism-Collectivism

    

20 s

286

17.5%

Horizontal individualism

− 3.07

1.41

0.00

0.748

30 s

287

17.5%

Vertical individualism

− 3.10

1.93

0.00

0.823

40 s

327

20.0%

Horizontal collectivism

− 3.72

2.07

0.00

0.865

50 s

331

20.2%

Vertical collectivism

− 3.21

1.50

0.00

0.878

Over 60 s

407

24.8%

Interaction & social perception

    

Education

  

Unpleasant experience (reversed)

1.21

6.90

4.39

0.948

Equivalent to high school degree or less

377

23.0%

Fair society

1

5

2.24

0.775

Vocational college

226

13.8%

Experience of kindness

1

5

2.26

1.015

4 year college

837

51.2%

Personality

    

Graduate school

196

12.0%

Openness

0

1

0.51

0,163

Marital Status

  

conscientiousness

0

1

0.63

0.170

Never married

529

32.3%

Extraversion

0

1

0.58

0.140

Married

1026

52.6%

Agreeableness

0

1

0.46

0.197

Separated/Divorced/Widowed

83

5.1%

Emotional stability

0

1

0.52

0.175

   

Mobility

    

Total

1638

100.0%

# of times moved

0

3

1.08

1.074

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lim, C., Im, DK. & Lee, S. Revisiting the “Trust Radius” Question: Individualism, Collectivism, and Trust Radius in South Korea. Soc Indic Res 153, 149–171 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-020-02496-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-020-02496-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation