Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Experiential Basis of Social Trust Towards Ethnic Outgroup Members

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

Abstract

This study contributes to social trust research by examining the extent to which cross-group interaction provokes exclusionary reactions among trusters. Specifically, we examine whether unpleasant contact with ethnic outgroup members constrains the relationship between social trust and ethnic exclusionism among majority members. The analysis shows that: (a) social trust relates negatively to ethnic exclusionism, (b) unpleasant contact experiences relate positively to ethnic exclusionism, and (c) social trust is almost unrelated to ethnic exclusionism when contact experiences have been unpleasant. Inconsistent with “moralistic” perspectives, social trusters’ views of ethnic outgroup members are remarkably experience-based. To understand the “experiential effect”, we develop a tentative interpretation emphasizing the joint capacity of negative emotions and group membership salience to enhance the implications of unpleasant encounters among contacted trusters. The analysis is based on the 2014-European Social Survey, including 27,796 individuals and 21 countries. The concluding section discusses how our affect-salience interpretation adds to the experiential understanding of social trust and interethnic relations in contemporary nations.

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

Source: 2014–European Social Survey (round 7)

Fig. 2

Source: 2014–European Social Survey (round 7)

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The data set can be downloaded free of charge at: www.europeansocialsurvey.org.

  2. There are different ways to exclude ethnic outgroup members. We have applied the self-identification measure in the ESS (Item wording: “Do you belong to a minority ethnic group in [country]” Yes/No). The ESS also offers place of birth (Item wording. “Were you born in [country]” Yes/No). However, the issue is to what extent different coding procedures affect the substantial conclusions. Accordingly, we reran all analyses according to different exclusion criteria. The results are reported in Table 1A-C in the online appendix. They show that the key coefficients vary very little across different models applying different exclusion criteria. The interaction coefficient is weakest when all ethnic outgroup members are included (Table 1C), which is unsurprising. In essence, the self-identification criterion we have chosen, does not affect the substantial conclusions (compared to the place of birth criterion, Table 1A; or when compared with Table 1B where both self-identification and place of birth are applied).

  3. Non-contacted respondents were not offered the item about their contact experiences. By implication, non-contacted respondents were excluded from our analyses (inclusion would imply an entirely arbitrary “imputation”).

  4. Some scholars are concerned about what the expression “most people” means (e.g., Nannestad 2008). Obviously, if majority members do not think of ethnic outgroup members at all when responding to the item, the measure may be inadequate for our purposes (where the dependent measure taps attitudes towards ethnic outgroup members). Even so, comprehensive cross-national studies conclude that European trusters are significantly more inclined to include ethnic outgroup members than most other nationalities (see Delhey, Newton and Welzel 2011; Reeskens 2013).

  5. The interaction effect did not occur in the following countries: Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, Spain, Sweden and Hungary. It may be considered a quality of our analysis that these countries differ on numerous social, economic, political and cultural characteristics.

  6. This is consistent with the coefficients in Table 3, Model II. Social trust also conditions the effect of negative contact experiences on ethnic exclusionism (interactions are strictly symmetric, as emphasized by Berry, Golder and Milton, 2012). Table 3 (Model II) shows that the effect of negative contact experiences is positive among distrusters (0.066) while this effect becomes even stronger among trusters, as indicated by the interaction coefficient (0.105). In other words, negative contact experiences are more conducive to exclusionary reactions among trusters (than among distrusters).

References

  • Ahn, T. K., & Ostrom, E. (2003). Foundations of social capital. London: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alesina, A., & La Ferrara, E. (2002). Who trusts others? Journal of Public Economics, 85(2), 207–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allison, P. D. (2009). Fixed effects regression models. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bahry, D., Kosolapov, M., Kozyreva, P., & Wilson, R. K. (2005). Ethnicity and trust: evidence from Russia. American Political Science Review, 99(4), 521–532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barlow, F. K., Paolini, S., Pedersen, A., Hornsey, M. J., Radke, H. R. M., Harwood, J., et al. (2012). The contact caveat: negative contact predicts increased prejudice more than positive contact predicts reduced prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(12), 1629–1643.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, P. C. (2015). Negative experiences and trust: a causal analysis of the effects of victimization on generalized trust. European Sociological Review, 31(4), 397–417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry, W. D., Golder, M., & Milton, D. (2012). Improving tests of theories positing interaction. Journal of Politics, 74(3), 653–671.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjørnskov, C. (2015). Social trust fosters an ability to help those in need: Jewish refugees in the Nazi era. Political Studies, 63(4), 951–974.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brehm, J., & Rahn, W. (1997). Individual-level evidence for the causes and consequences of social capital. American Journal of Political Science, 41(3), 999–1023.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, R., Vivian, J., & Hewstone, M. (1999). Changing attitudes through intergroup contact: The effects of group membership salience. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29(5–6), 741–764.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cappelen, C., & Dahlberg, S. (2018). The Law of Jante and generalized trust. Acta Sociologica, 61(4), 419–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Citrin, J., & Sides, J. (2008). Immigration and the imagined community in Europe and the United States. Political Studies, 56(1), 33–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coenders, M., & Scheepers, P. (2003). The effect of education on nationalism and ethnic exclusionism: An international comparison. Political Psychology, 24(2), 313–343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Côté, R. R., & Erickson, B. H. (2009). Untangling the roots of tolerance: how forms of social capital shape attitudes toward ethnic minorities and immigrants. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(12), 1664–1689.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delhey, J., & Newton, K. (2005). Predicting cross-national levels of social trust: global pattern or Nordic exceptionalism? European Sociological Review, 21(4), 311–327.

    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 

  • Dinesen, P. T. (2011). A note on the measurement of generalized trust of immigrants and natives. Social Indicators Research, 103(1), 169–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinesen, P. T., & Sønderskov, K. M. (2012). Trust in a time of increasing diversity: on the relationship between ethnic heterogeneity and social trust in Denmark from 1979 until today. Scandinavian Political Studies, 35(4), 273–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinesen, P. T., & Sønderskov, K. M. (2017). Ethnic diversity and social trust: A critical review of the literature and suggestions for a research agenda. In E. M. Uslaner (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of social and political trust (pp. 1–32). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekici, T., & Yucel, D. (2015). What determines religious and racial prejudice in Europe? The effects of religiosity and trust. Social Indicators Research, 122(1), 105–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • ESS. (2014). ESS7–2014 Documentation report. The ESS Data Archive. Edition 2.0.

  • Ford, B. Q., Tamir, M., Brunyé, T. T., Shirer, W. R., Mahoney, C. R., & Taylor, H. A. (2010). Keeping your eyes on the prize: anger and visual attention to threats and rewards. Psychological Science, 21(8), 1098–1105.

    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 

  • Glaeser, E. L., Laibson, D. I., Scheinkman, J. A., & Soutter, C. L. (2000). Measuring trust. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(3), 811–846.

    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 

  • Glanville, J. L., & Shi, Q. (2020). The Extension of particularized trust to generalized and out-group trust: The constraining role of collectivism. Social Forces, 98(4), 1801–1828.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graf, S., Paolini, S., & Rubin, M. (2014). Negative intergroup contact is more influential, but positive intergroup contact is more common: Assessing contact prominence and contact prevalence in five central European countries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(6), 536–547.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardin, R. (1993). The street-level epistemology of trust. Politics and Society, 21(4), 505–529.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardin, R. (2002). Trust and trustworthiness. New York: Russell Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayward, L. E., Tropp, L. R., Hornsey, M. J., & Barlow, K. (2017). Toward a comprehensive understanding of intergroup contact: descriptions and mediators among majority and minority groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(3), 347–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herreros, F., & Criado, H. (2009). Social trust, social capital and perceptions of immigration. Political Studies, 57(2), 337–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herring, M., Jankowski, T. B., & Brown, R. E. (2005). Pro-black doesn’t mean anti-white: The structure of African-American group identity. The Journal of Politics, 61(2), 363–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooghe, M. (2007). Social capital and diversity, generalized trust, social cohesion and regimes of diversity. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 40(3), 709–732.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooghe, M., Reeskens, T., & Stolle, D. (2007). Diversity, multiculturalism and social cohesion: trust and ethnocentrism in European societies. In K. G. Banting, T. J. Courchene, & F. L. Seidle (Eds.), Belonging? Diversity, recognition and shared citizenship in Canada (Volume III) (pp. 387–410). Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kam, C. D., & Franzese, R. (2007). Modeling and interpreting interactive hypotheses in regression analysis. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kauff, M., Asbrock, F., Wagner, U., Pettigrew, T. F., Hewstone, M., Schafer, S. J., & Christ, O. (2017). (Bad) feelings about meeting them? Episodic and chronic intergroup emotions associated with positive and negative intergroup contact as predictors of intergroup behavior. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khan, S., & Pedersen, A. (2010). Black African immigrants to Australia: Prejudice and the function of attitudes. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 4(2), 116–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, R. M. (2017). Ingroup-outgroup trust: barriers, benefits, and bridges. In E. M. Uslaner (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of social and political trust (pp. 1–24). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leigh, A. (2006). Trust, inequality and ethnic heterogeneity. The Economic Record, 82(258), 268–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loxbo, K. (2018). Ethnic diversity, out-group contacts and social trust in a high-trust society. Acta Sociologica, 61(2), 182–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, G. E., Neuman, W. R., & Mackuen, M. (2000). Affective intelligence and political judgment. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nannestad, P. (2008). What have we learned about generalized trust, if anything? Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 413–436.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen, Q., & Bernauer, T. (2019). Does social trust affect public support for international trade? Insights from an experiment in Vietnam. Political Studies, 67(2), 440–458

    Google Scholar 

  • Paolini, S., Harwood, J., & Rubin, M. (2010). Negative intergroup contact makes group memberships salient: Explaining why intergroup conflict endures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(12), 1723–1738.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, M. B., & Aarøe, L. (2015). Birth weight and social trust in adulthood: Evidence for early calibration of social cognition. Psychological Science, 26(11), 1681–1692.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew, T., & Tropp, L. (2011). When groups meet. New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. D. (2007). E pluribus unum: diversity and community in the twenty-first century. The 2006 johan skytte prize lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(2), 137–174.

    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 

  • Rochelle, R. C., & Erickson, B. H. (2009). Untangling the roots of tolerance: How forms of social capital shape attitudes toward ethnic minorities and immigrants. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(12), 1664–1689.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothstein, B., & Uslaner, E. M. (2005). All for all: Equality, corruption, and social trust. World Politics, 58(1), 41–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rustenbach, E. (2010). Sources of negative attitudes toward immigrants in Europe: A multi-level analysis. International Migration Review, 44(1), 53–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sides, J., & Citrin, J. (2007). European opinion about immigration: The role of identities, interests and information. British Journal of Political Science, 37(3), 477–504.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sønderskov, K. M. (2011). Does generalized social trust lead to associational membership? Unravelling a bowl of well-tossed spaghetti. European Sociological Review, 27(4), 419–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sønderskov, K. M., & Thomsen, J. P. F. (2015). Contextualizing intergroup contact: Do political party cues enhance contact effects? Social Psychology Quarterly, 78(1), 49–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stolle, D., & Hooghe, M. (2004). The roots of social capital: attitudinal and network mechanisms in the relation between youth and adult indicators of social capital. Acta Politica, 39(4), 422–441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomsen, J. P. F., & Olsen, M. (2017). Re-examining socialization theory: How does democracy influence the impact of education on anti-foreigner sentiment? British Journal of Political Science, 47(4), 915–938.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uslaner, E. M. (2000). Producing and consuming trust. Political Science Quarterly, 115(4), 569–590.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Uslaner, E. M. (2010). Segregation, mistrust and minorities. Ethnicities, 10(4), 415–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uslaner, E. M. (2011). Trust, diversity, and segregation in the United States and the United Kingdom. Comparative Sociology, 10(2), 221–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uslaner, E. M. (2017). The study of trust. In E. M. Uslaner (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of social and political trust (pp. 1–12). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welch, M., Rivera, R. E., Conway, B. P., Yonkoski, J., Lupton, P. M., & Giancola, R. (2005). Determinants and consequences of social trust. Sociological Inquiry, 75(4), 453–473.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yamagishi, T. (2001). Trust as a form of social intelligence. In K. S. Cook (Ed.), Trust in society (pp. 121–147). New York: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yamagishi, T., Foddy, M., & Platow, M. J. (2009). Group-based trust in strangers: The role of stereotypes and expectations. Psychological Science, 20(4), 419–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yamagishi, T., Suzuki, N., & Konno, Y. (2007). In-group bias in trusting behavior: A choice of allocator experiment with minimal groups. The Japanese Journal of Psychology, 78(1), 17–24.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark

    Jens Peter Frølund Thomsen, Jannik Fenger & Nathalie Rüger Jepsen

Authors
  1. Jens Peter Frølund Thomsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jannik Fenger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nathalie Rüger Jepsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jens Peter Frølund Thomsen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Data Availability and Materials

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the official website: https://www.europeansocialsurvey.org. Stata codes are available upon request.

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.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 475 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Thomsen, J.P.F., Fenger, J. & Jepsen, N.R. The Experiential Basis of Social Trust Towards Ethnic Outgroup Members. Soc Indic Res 154, 191–209 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-020-02526-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-020-02526-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation