Social Indicators Research

, Volume 115, Issue 3, pp 963–982 | Cite as

Does Trust Mean the Same for Migrants and Natives? Testing Measurement Models of Political Trust with Multi-group Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Article

Abstract

Political trust is seen as an important attribute in contemporary representative democracy. Political trust can cause social trust, foster associational life and make the efficient implementation of policy easier. Political trust can also be seen as a measure of political integration of migrants in Europe. However, if we want to measure this, we need to know for sure that we measure the same concept in all countries and among all cultural groups under research. This paper describes and tests four (existing) models of political trust. We find that there are multiple dimensions of political trust that can be modeled in a structural equation model. Furthermore, we research the cross-cultural equivalence of this measurement model in 22 European Union countries among natives, EU-migrants and non-EU migrants in these countries. Our results indicate that we can compare levels of political trust within countries pretty well, however, we should be careful comparing levels of political trust between EU countries since full scalar equivalence could not be reached. On a substantive note, we find quite some differences between the EU countries concerning the political trust natives have and we find diverging results concerning the migrants. In most countries we did not find a significant difference between migrants and natives. However, when the difference was significant, migrants showed higher levels of political trust in most instances.

Keywords

Political trust Measurement Cross-cultural equivalence Confidence in government Migrants 

References

  1. Abrajano, M. A., & Alvarez, R. M. (2010). Assessing the causes and effects of political trust among U.S. Latinos. American Politics Research, 38(1), 110–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allum, N. S. R., & Sturgis, P. (Eds.). (2011). Evaluating change in social and political trust in Europe (Cross-cultural analysis: methods and applications). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Billiet, J. (2003). Cross-cultural equivalence with structural equation modeling. In J. A. Harkness, F. J. R. Van de Vijver, & P. P. Mohler (Eds.), Cross-cultural survey methods (pp. 247–264). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthén, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105(3), 456–466. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chanley, V. A. (2002). Trust in government in the aftermath of 9/11: Determinants and consequences. Political psychology, 23(3), 469–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Citrin, J. (1974). The political relevance of trust in government. The American Politican Science Review, 68(3), 973–988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Damico, A. J., Conway, M. M., & Bowman, S. D. (2000). Patterns of political trust and mistrust: three moments in the lives of democratic citizens. Polity, 32(3), 377–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davidov, E. (2009). Measurement equivalence of nationalism and constructive patriotism in the ISSP: 34 countries in a comparative perspective. Political Analysis, 17(1), 64–82. doi:10.1093/pan/mpn014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dronkers, J., & Fleischmann, F. (Eds.). (2010). The educational attainment of second generation immigrants from different countries of origin in the EU-member-states (Quality and inequality of education. Cross-national perspectives). Dordrecht/Heidelberg/London/New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Dronkers, J., & Vink, M. (2012). Explaining access to citizenship in Europe: How citizenship policies affect naturalisation rates. European Union Politics, 13(3), 390–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ehin, P. (2007). Political support in the baltic states, 1993–2004. Journal of Baltic Studies, 38(1), 1–20. doi:10.1080/01629770701223486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. ESS Round 4 data file edition 4.0. (2008). Norwegian social science data services, Norway—Data archive and distributor of ESS data.Google Scholar
  14. European Social Survey, E. R. (2011). ESS-4 2008 documentation report. Edition 4.0. Bergen, European social survey data archive, Norwegian social science data services.Google Scholar
  15. European Social Survey Round 4, E. R. (2007). European social survey round 4: Specification for participating countries.Google Scholar
  16. Eurostat. (2013). Eurostat data explorer. http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.doVisited. Jan 5th 2013.
  17. Gallagher, M., & Mitchell, P. (2008). The politics of electoral systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Gormley-Heenan, C., & Devine, P. (2010). The ‘us’ in trust: Who trusts Northern Ireland’s political institutions and actors? Government and opposition, 45(2), 143–165. doi:10.1111/j.1477-7053.2009.01308.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Guillen, L., Coromina, L., & Saris, W. E. (2011). Measurement of social participation and its place in social capital theory. Social Indicators Research, 100(2), 331–350. doi:10.1007/s11205-010-9631-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hetherington, M. J. (1998). The political relevance of political trust. The American Politican Science Review, 92(4), 791–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hox, J., De Leeuw, E. D., & Brinkhuis, M. J. S. (Eds.). (2010). Analysis models for comparative surveys (Survey methods in multicultural, multinational and multiregional contexts). Hoboken (NJ): Wiley.Google Scholar
  22. Hu, Lt., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. IDEA. (2013). Institute for democracy and electoral assistence. http://www.idea.int/vt/viewdata.cfm.Visited January 5th 2013.
  24. Kesler, C., & Bloemraad, I. (2010). Does immigration erode social capital?. The conditional effects of immigration-generated diversity on trust, membership and participation across 19 countries, 1981–2000. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 43(2), 319–347. doi:10.1017/s0008423910000077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kim, J. (2005). “Bowling togehter” isn’t a cure-all: The relationship between social capital and political trust in South Korea. International Political Science Review, 26(2), 193–213. doi:10.1177/0192512105050381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford press.Google Scholar
  27. Kohler, U. (2007). Surveys from inside: An assessment of unit nonresponse bias with internal criteria. Survey Research Methods, 1(2), 55–67.Google Scholar
  28. Lenard, P. T. (2009). Trust your compatriots, but count your change: the roles of trust, mistrust and distrust in democracy. Political Studies, 56(2), 312–332. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.2007.00693.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Locke, J. (1632 [1956]). The second treatise of government: An essay concerning the true original, extent end fo civil government and: a letter concerning toleration. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  30. Lühiste, K. (2006). Explaining trust in political institutions: Some illustrations from the Baltic states. Communist and post-communist studies, 39(4), 475–496. doi:10.1016/j.postcomstud.2006.09.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Maxwell, R. (2010). Trust in government among British Muslims: the importance of migration status. Political Behavior, 38(1), 89–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58(4), 525–543. doi:10.1007/bf02294825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Meuleman, B., Davidov, E., & Billiet, J. (2009). Changing atittudes toward immigration in Europe, 2002–2007: a dynamic group conflict theory approach. Social Science Research, 38(2), 352–365. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2008.09.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Miller, A. H. (1974a). Political issues and trust in government: 1964–1970. The American Politican Science Review, 68(3), 951–972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Miller, A. H. (1974b). Rejoinder to “comment” by Jack Citrin: political discontent or ritualism? The American Politican Science Review, 68(3), 989–1001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mishler, W., & Rose, R. (2001). What are the origins of political trust? Testing institutional and cultural theories in post-communist societies. Comparative Political Studies, 34(1), 30–62. doi:10.1177/0010414001034001002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2010). Mplus user’s guide: (6th ed.). Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  38. Myrberg, G. (2011). Political integration through associational affiliation? Immigrants and native Swedes in Greater Stockholm. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 37(1), 99–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Oskarsson, S. (2010). Generalized trust and political support: A cross-national investigation. Acta Politica, 45(4), 423–443. doi:10.1057/ap.2010.3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Papadakis, E. (1999). Constituents of confidence and mistrust in Australian institutions. Australian Journal of Political Science, 34(1), 75–93. doi:10.1080/10361149950470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Putnam, R. D. (2001). Bowling alone. The collapse and revival of American community. (New edition ed.): Fireside Books.Google Scholar
  42. 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. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Reeskens, T., & Hooghe, M. (2002). Cross-cultural measurement equivalence of generalized trust. Evidence from the European Social Survey. Social Indicators Research, 85(3), 515–532. doi:10.1007/s11205-007-9100-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rothstein, B., & Stolle, D. (2008). The state and social capital. An instituional theory of generalized trust. Comparative Politics, 40(4), 441–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rudolph, T. J., & Evans, J. (2005). Political trust, ideology and public support for government spending. American Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 660–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schildkraut, D. J. (2005). The rise and fall of political engagement among Latinos: the role of identiy and preceptions of discrimination. Political Behavior, 27(3), 285–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schyns, P., & Koop, C. (2010). Political distrust and social capital in Europe and the USA. Social Indicators Research, 96(1), 145–167. doi:10.1007/s11205-009-9471-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Steenkamp, J. E., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assesing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of consumer research, 25(1), 78–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Strömblad, P., & Adman, P. (2010). Political Integration through ethnic or nonethnic voluntary associations. Political Research Quarterly, 63(4), 721–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tillie, J. (2004). Social capital of organisations and their members: Explaining the political integration of immigrants in Amsterdam. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 30(3), 529–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tocqueville, A. d. (1835 [1969]). Democracy in America. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  52. Van der Brug, W., & Van Praag, P. (2007). Erosion of political trust in the Netherlands: Structural or temporarily? A research note. Acta Politica, 42(4), 443–458. doi:10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wong, T. K., Hsiao, H. M., & Wan, P. (2009). Comparing political trust in Hong Kong and Taiwan: Levels, determinants and implications. Japanese Journal of Political Science, 10(2), 147–174. doi:10.1017/S146810990900351X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zmerli, S., & Newton, K. (2008). Social trust and attitudes towards democracy. Public opinion quarterly, 72(4), 706–724. doi:10.1093/poq/nfn054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyTilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations