Political Behavior

, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp 267–291

Trusting and Joining? An Empirical Test of the Reciprocal Nature of Social Capital

  • Michele P. Claibourn
  • Paul S. Martin


This article tests a key hypothesis of the social capital literature: voluntary memberships and generalized trust reproduce one another. Panel data from the Michigan Socialization Studies from 1965 to 1982 are used to test the contemporaneous and lagged effects of interpersonal trust on joining groups and the contemporaneous and lagged effects of joining groups on interpersonal trust. We find no evidence supporting the hypothesis that interpersonal trust encourages group memberships and only limited evidence suggesting that belonging to groups makes individuals more trusting.

social capital voluntary associations interpersonal trust 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Achen, C. H. (2000, July 20–22). Why lagged dependent variables can suppress the explanatory power ofother independent variables. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Political Methodology Section of the APSA, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  2. Almond, G. A., and Verba, S. (1989). The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations ([New ]. ed.). Newbury Park, CA.: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  3. Altemeyer, B. (1996). The Authoritarian Specter. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Alvarez, M., and Glasgow, G. (2000). Two-stage estimation of non-recursive choice models. Political Analysis 8: 147–166.Google Scholar
  5. Amemiya, T. (1978). The estimation of a simultaneous equation generalized probit model. Econometrica, 46: 1193–1205.Google Scholar
  6. Axelrod, R. (1984). The Evolution ofCooperation. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  7. Brehm, J., and Rahn, W. (1997). Individual level evidence for the causes and consequences of social capital. American Journal of Political Science, 41: 999–1023.Google Scholar
  8. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital and the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94: S95–S120.Google Scholar
  9. Eckstein, H. (1975). Case study and theory in political science. In F. I. Greenstein and N. W. Polsby (eds.), Handbook ofPolitical Science, pp. 79–137. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  10. Edwards, B., and Foley, M. W. (1998). Civil society and social capital beyond Putnam. The American Behavioral Scientist, 42: 124–139.Google Scholar
  11. Finkel, S. E. (1995). Causal Analysis with Panel Data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  12. Gerbner, G., and Gross, L. (1976). Living with television: the violence profile. Journal of Communication, 26: 173–201.Google Scholar
  13. Jennings, M. K., Markus, G. B., and Neimi, R. G. (1991). Youth-parent socialization panel study, 1965–1982: Three waves combined. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies/Survey Research Center [producers], 1983. Ann Arbor: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor].Google Scholar
  14. Jennings, M. K., and Neimi, R. G. (1981). Generations and Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Marcus, G., Sullivan, J. L., Theiss-Morse, E., and Wood, S. L. (1995). With Malice Toward Some: How People Make Civil Liberties Judgments. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Markus, G. B. (1979). Analyzing Panel Data. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  17. Mutz, D. C., and Martin, P. S. (1998). Exposure to conflicting views: causes and consequences. Paper presented at the American Political Science Association, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  18. Mutz, D. C., and Mondak, J. J. (1998). What's so great about league bowling? Paper presented at the American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  19. Nelson, F., and Olsen, L. (1978). Specification and estimation of a simultaneous-equation model with limited dependent variables. International Economic Review, 19: 695–709.Google Scholar
  20. Norris, P. (1996). Does television erode social capital? A reply to Putnam. PS: Political Science and Politics 29: 474–80.Google Scholar
  21. Putnam, R. (1993). Making Democracy Work. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Putnam, R. (1995). Tuning in, tuning out: the strange disappearance of social capital in America. PS: Politics & Society 28: 664–683.Google Scholar
  23. Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival ofAmerican Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  24. Rahn, W., Brehm, J., and Carlson, N. (1999). National elections as institutions for generating social capital. In T. Skocpol & M. Fiorina (eds.), Civic Engagement in American Democracy, pp. 111–160. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  25. Rivers, D., and Vuong, Q. H. (1988). Limited information estimators and exogeneity tests for simultaneous probit models. Journal ofEconometrics 39: 347–366.Google Scholar
  26. Schudson, M. (1996). What if civic life didn't die? The American Prospect 25: 17.Google Scholar
  27. Schwartz, N., and Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments of wellbeing: informative and directive functions of affective states. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology 45: 513–23.Google Scholar
  28. Stolle, D., and Rochon, T. R. (1998). Are all associations alike? The American Behavioral Scientist 42: 47–65.Google Scholar
  29. Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., and Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michele P. Claibourn
    • 1
  • Paul S. Martin
    • 2
  1. 1.University of WisconsinMadison
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of OklahomaNorman

Personalised recommendations