Where You Stand Depends Upon Where Your Grandparents Sat: The Inheritability of Generalized Trust*
    
    Eric M. Uslaner Department of Government and Politics University of Maryland–College Park College Park, MD 20742 euslaner@gvpt.umd.edu
    
    Forthcoming, Public Opinion Quarterly
    
    Where You Stand Depends Upon Where Your Grandparents Sat: The Inheritability of Generalized Trust
    
    Generalized trust is a stable value that is transmitted from parents to children. Do its roots go back further in time? Using a person’s ethnic heritage (where their grandparents came from) and the proportion of people of different ethnic backgrounds in a state, I ask whether your own ethnic background matters more than whom you live among. People whose grandparents came to the United States from countries that have high levels of trust (Nordics, and the British) tend to have higher levels of generalized trust (using the General Social Survey from 1972 to 1996). People living in states with high German or British populations (but not Nordic populations) are also more trusting (using state-level census data). Italians, Latinos, and AfricanAmericans also tend to have lower levels of trust, but it is not clear that country of origin can account for these negative results. Overall, there are effects for both culture (where your grandparents came from) and experience (which groups you live among), but the impact of ethnic heritage seem stronger.
    
    Uslaner, “Where You Stand Depends Upon Where Your Grandparents Sat” (1)
    
    Political culture is enduring over many generations (Almond and Verba, 1963; Putnam, 1993). A key part of political culture is social capital and especially generalized trust. There are at least two views of trust, an experiential and a cultural. One sees trust as reflecting others’ trustworthiness. Hardin (2002:13) argues: “...my trust of you must be grounded in expectations that are particular to you, not merely in generalized expectations.” On this account, trust is fragile, since new experiences can change one’s view of another’s trustworthiness (Bok 1978: 26). Trust might not be so stable over time, on this view. If we do see continuity in trust, it is because some societies have more trustworthy people than others–and there are fewer situations where people exploit each other for private gain. The alternative view of trust is that generalized trust, the belief that “most people can be trusted,” is learned early in life from your parents and school. It is largely stable throughout one’s life (Stolle and Hooghe, 2004; Uslaner, 2002, chs. 2, 4).1 Generalized trust is not shaped by immediate experiences and does not refer to faith in specific persons, in contrast to Hardin’s (2002) claim that trust reflects the belief that you will act in my interest. Instead, it reflects a more general notion that people, especially those who may be different from yourself, have a shared fate. Survey respondents interpret the question as a general predisposition toward others, especially people you don’t know, strangers (people you meet on the streets, people who work where you shop), rather than a reflection of past experiences (Uslaner, 2002, 52-54, 72-75). This view of trust is more of a cultural approach, since one can trace parental trust back to grandparents’ trust, and even further (Putnam, 1993). When immigrants from a trusting country
    
    Uslaner, “Where You Stand Depends Upon Where Your Grandparents Sat” (2) come to their new homes, they will carry on their cultural traditions of trust rather than simply “adapt” to the new realities of their adopted environment. The experiential view of trust holds that trust should be higher where there are lots of trustworthy people. The alternative (cultural) view sees trust as a more enduring value that is not so dependent upon others’ behavior. I shall test these alternative accounts here, using the General Social Survey from 1972 to 1998 to investigate how trust “travels” across geographic boundaries.2 Data on trust levels in other countries from the 1990 and 1995-96 World Values Survey permit comparisons with ethnic groups’ trust in the United States to the trust levels of their families’ country of origin. The cultural account would predict that the most trusting people in the United States would be of Nordic background, regardless of where they live. People from Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden are the most trusting in the world (Delhy and Newton, 2005), so we would expect that people of Nordic background in the United States would also be the most trusting. In addition to the Nordic countries, we find high levels of trust in countries with mostly Protestant populations (Great Britain) or a large Protestant share of the population (Germany) while strongly Catholic countries such as Italy, France, and Latin American nations have much lower levels of trust (Uslaner, 2002, ch. 8). Protestant countries generally have higher levels of social trust than Catholic countries. There is a strong in-group identity in most Catholic countries–and this depresses trust in strangers (Delhy and Newton, 2005; LaPorta et al., 1997, 336-337). Communism made trust in others a very risky gamble; formerly Communist countries such as Russia or the states in Central and Eastern Europe are substantially less trusting. Many of these countries have long histories of either authoritarian rule or ethnic conflict, both of which reduce trust (Gibson, 2001; Sztompka, 1999; Uslaner, 2003).
    
    Uslaner, “Where You Stand Depends Upon Where Your Grandparents Sat” (3) African-Americans and people of Spanish background have high in-group trust, but low generalized trust. African and Latino ethnicities have long faced discrimination: “[t]he history of the black experience in America is not one which would naturally inspire confidence in the benign intentions of one’s fellow man" (Campbell, Converse, and Rodgers, 1976, 456; cf. Uslaner, 2002, ch. 4). When groups face discrimination, they are likely to conclude that others do not see a shared fate with them–and thus they are likely to look inward to their own group rather than outward to people who are different. Contemporaneous trust in African nations is lower than in other nations3 and the history of exploitation of black Africa by white colonizers does not provide a rationale for trusting (at least many) strangers. The experiential approach would agree that Nordic folk are trusting. Yet, it is not simple Nordic identity that promotes trust, but living among trustworthy people, who may happen to be Nordic. The Nordic population may serve as a surrogate for the proportion of a state’s population that is trustworthy. The Nordic share of a state’s population, rather than simple ethnic identity, ought to be a stronger prediction of trust. So living in an area with mistrusting people, who happen to be Italians, French, or Latinos, might make you more wary of strangers. I test for the effects of ethnicity on trust in this paper. The cultural view would expect that ethnicity shapes trust through socialization: People whose families came from high (low) trusting countries will continue to be trusters (mistrusters) generations later. Trust becomes a cultural heritage, much as we “inherit” our religion and ethnic traditions from our families. The experiential view of trust leads us to expect that your family background should not be as important in shaping your trust as your day to day experiences. So living among people who behave honestly and are trusting is more likely to shape your own level of faith in other people
    
    Uslaner, “Where You Stand Depends Upon Where Your Grandparents Sat” (4) than is your ethnicity. Your own ethnicity reflects the cultural foundation of trust; the ethnicity of people living near you (in your state) reflects the experiential foundation of trust. Which matters more: Whether your ancestors came from a trusting society or whether you live among people who are likely to be trusting? Are you better off being a Nordic or living among them? I estimate models of trust and include both ethnicity and statewide ethnic populations based upon Census Bureau data.4 There are substantial effects for several ethnicities: Nordic,
    
    German, and British heritage lead to greater trust, African and Spanish/Latino background to less trust. These effects are often powerful. The impact of state ethnic population proportions is more uneven. Most ethnic proportions have little impact on trust. Nordic population is an exception. Living among descendants of Nordic immigrants does seem to boost trust. For Nordics and Germans there is a surprising effect from the standpoint of the experiential thesis: The boost in trust from surrounding yourself with Nordics (Germans) is much greater for fellow ethnics (Nordics or Germans) than for out-groups, while the opposite seems to hold for living among people of British heritage. The boost in trust that comes when you surround yourself with fellow ethnics might make sense if the issue were trusting people like yourself. Close ties with people very much like yourself might reinforce in-group ties and make you less likely to trust people who are different from yourself (Levi, 1996). Using data on corruption and crime rates in the states, there is little evidence that living among honest people creates more trust among others in the society–or that states with higher levels of crime and corruption are associated with low-trusting ethnic groups. Overall, it seems that where your ancestors came from matters more for trust than who your neighbors are now.
    
    Uslaner, “Where You Stand Depends Upon Where Your Grandparents Sat” (5) Trust over Time It would be nice if we could match the levels of trust in the home countries when grandparents immigrated to the United States with contemporary estimates of how trusting people are in Sweden, Italy, Germany, or Latin America. But we can’t. There were no public opinion surveys in the 1890s or 1920s, so there is no firm way to establish a direct link between grandparents’ homeland experiences and their successors’ beliefs in the United States. In some cases there are contradictory indicators of how we might characterize grandparents’ trust levels. Sweden in the 1920s was marked by a world record for days lost in labor disputes and strong class conflict, suggesting a low level of generalized trust. But the leaders who ultimately brokered a historic conflict that ended the labor strife and led to the creation of the famed Swedish welfare state was built on a “spirit of trust” and honest, uncorrupt institutions (Elvander, 1980; Rothstein, 2005). Since low corruption is strongly connected with high trust (Uslaner, 2005, 2006), Sweden may have been a far more trusting society than the labor conflicts suggest. Without clear evidence on what happened long ago, the most plausible foundation for the inheritability of trust is the continuing importance of ethnic identity in the United States. In the 1996 General Social Survey, 78 percent of respondents said that they felt “close’ or “very close” to their ethnic group; in the 2002 survey, 58 percent indicated that their ethnic identity was “important” or “very important” to them–and in the same year 83 percent agreed or strongly agreed that “society should recognize the right to ethnic traditions.” Americans have high rates of attendance at religious services–and religious identification often follows ethnicity: Germans and Nordics are Lutherans, the English Episcopalians, the East Europeans and Russians Orthodox. The large Catholic population–from Latin countries, Italy,
    
    Uslaner, “Where You Stand Depends Upon Where Your Grandparents Sat” (6) France, among others–prays in churches dominated by others from their home country. And churches are strongly segregated by race, so African-Americans are not likely to encounter Germans or English people in the pews. The socialization in religious life undoubtedly plays a large role in shaping world views such as trust. Other forms of cultural heritage, such as neighborhood associations and the approach of each community’s dominant faith toward outsiders may shape the trust levels of American ethnic groups. Two of the most trusting ethnic groups are Nordics and those of English background. Nordics are overwhelmingly Lutheran and in these countries the Lutheran Church’s charities gave their bounty directly to the state, which distributed these resources without respect to religion and with no evangelical message. The Anglican Church in the United Kingdom has
    
    also stressed the importance of working with, and giving to, people of different backgrounds and faiths.5 Continuing identification with the home country may lead to the absorption of current levels of trust as well as the historical legacy of one’s cultural heritage. If trust is in some way “inherited” from your ancestors, then it must not vary dramatically over time. If trust is fragile, easily broken, then there would be less reason to believe that ethnic heritage, rather than immediate experiences, should shape current levels of trust. The belief that “most people can be trusted” is stable over time. The aggregate levels of trust across countries from 1981 to 1990 are strongly correlated ( r2 = .81, N = 22). From 1981 to 2001, despite some suspiciously low values of trust for English-speaking countries, there is still remarkable stability (r2 = .726, N = 18; r2 = .711, N = 36 between 1990 and 2001). For the 1972-74-76 American National Election Study (ANES) panel, there is strong support for trust in people as a stable predisposition. Of 17 questions considered, social trust ranks fourth in overall
    
    Uslaner, “Where You Stand Depends Upon Where Your Grandparents Sat” (7) stability. Across the three waves of the panel, about 75 percent of the respondents take the same position. Elizabeth Smith (1999) reports a “stability coefficient” of .82 for trust among 389 tenth grade students in the fall and spring of 1996, higher than for most civic values. In the 19982000 ANES panel, 79.2 percent gave consistent answers on trust.6 There is also evidence that trust is stable over extended periods of time and across generations. High school students’ levels of trust shapes their faith in others as adults 17 years later, from the Niemi-Jennings parent-child socialization panels. The 1965 level of trust was one of the strongest predictors of 1982 faith in others. Even controlling for one’s own trust in 1965, parental trust in 1973 remained a powerful predictor of faith in others for these young adults (Uslaner, 2002, 164, 102). If trust is stable across a generation, it should not be surprising to find that it has an even longer lineage. Rice and Feldman (1997) and Putnam (2000) have argued, similar to my claim here, that a cultural account of trust has a longer time horizon–and it is reflected in one’s ethnic heritage. Putnam (2000, 294) has noted that social capital is higher in states with large shares of Nordic immigrants (Minnesota and the Dakotas). Rice and Feldman (1997, 1154, 1159) have made the most explicit argument about the inheritability of social capital–using the General Social Survey (GSS) to track linkages across cultures and family background in the United States. There is clear evidence that trust/social capital “follows the flag” in the American melting pot, even more so than in multicultural Canada.7 The GSS makes such a study possible for two reasons: It has asked the generalized trust question continuously since 1972, permitting a large sample; and it asks respondents their ethnic heritage (country of immigration of ancestors).8 Ethnicity is tough to measure. Many Americans
    
    Uslaner, “Where You Stand Depends Upon Where Your Grandparents Sat” (8) have a mixed ethnic heritage and, especially among them, there is much ambiguity in identification. The ancestry measure seems less troublesome, but it may overestimate the share of respondents with no identification and cannot measure the strength of ethnic identification (Smith, 1985, 123-125). State-level estimates of ethnic populations are crude surrogates for our patterns of interaction. However, only the GSS has good measures of ethnic heritage but data on the community of residence are not available. Putnam and Rice and Feldman examine indices of social capital including a wide range of participation measures as well as perceptions of government responsiveness, postmaterial values, honesty, and fairness. However, it is far from clear that all of these indicators of social capital constitute a unified “syndrome.” Most of the benefits of social capital–tolerance, good deeds, support for programs that benefit those who are less well off, and openness to people of different backgrounds–stem from trust rather than from civic engagement or other forms of participation (Uslaner, 2002, chs. 4, 5, 7). States with high levels of trust also have less corruption and better functioning governments more generally (Uslaner, 2006). High levels of generalized trust are also associated with less political polarization–and with legislative productivity (Uslaner, 2002, ch. 7; 2005). Trust matters for many things we believe to be important in a society and some of these valued goals such as volunteering and giving to charity and political compromise seem to be in shorter supply than they were when faith in other people was stronger (Uslaner, 2002, ch. 7). In the early 1960s, almost 60 percent of Americans believed that “most people can be trusted,” while barely a third do so now. The issue of how trust develops and whether it changes readily with new experiences–or with experiences with different people– or is largely stable over
    
    Uslaner, “Where You Stand Depends Upon Where Your Grandparents Sat” (9) generations is critical. I shall show that “inherited trust” matters for a wide range of ethnic groups–and what your background is matters more than who are your neighbors. Trust reflects your background and does not seem to “rub off” on others in your environment. But why should trust inhere in immigrants whose grandparents may have come from a very different world than their contemporary countrymen? Does Trust Travel Well? I use the GSS data to examine how well trust travels across generations. But ethnicity may shape trust in two ways. First, being Nordic (or German or British) may make you more trusting. Second, living among Nordics may make you more trusting, even if you have a different background. Assume that people from Scandinavia and Finland come from cultures stressing trust and honesty–and that they themselves are more trusting and honest. Then, we might expect a “contagion effect”: If you live in an area where most people are trustworthy and honest, it makes more sense to trust others. The ethnic populations of the states are surrogates for trustworthiness. The generalized trust question is a dichtomomy: “Generally speaking, do you believe that most people can be trusted, or can’t you be too careful in dealing with people?” It is often combined with other measures of “misanthropy,” such as helpfulness and fairness to form a scale. However, survey respondents do not interpret the questions in the same way and the time trends for these questions are very different (Uslaner, 2002, 70-75).9 In Figure 1, I present levels of trust among people of several nationalities in the 19721998 General Social Survey and the mean levels of trust in their “home countries” in the World
    
    Uslaner, “Where You Stand Depends Upon Where Your Grandparents Sat” (10) Values Survey (as well as the home countries I used for each aggregation). The most trusting groups are the Nordics, the British, and the Germans, all above the national mean of .434 over the almost three decade period. Immigrants from France, Eastern Europe, and Russia are more trusting than people from their homelands. Immediate alternative accounts–these immigrants are more highly educated or otherwise of higher status (or Jewish in the case of Russian or Eastern European immigrants)–do not help in explaining these higher levels of trust since measures of both high school and college education are included in the model I estimate. There is some evidence that context matters: Most groups are at least slightly more trusting in the United States than we would “expect” if trust were perfectly inheritable. However, there does generally seem to be a connection between trust levels of your ethnic heritage and your ancestors’ homelands. The r2 between “ethnic” trust (based upon one’s ancestry) and the aggregate level of trust in the home country is .726 across the nine groups. _________________ Figure 1 about here My model for trust (see the estimates in Table 1) is based upon Uslaner (2002, ch. 4), who argues that generalized trust rests upon the beliefs that the world is a benevolent place with good people, that things are going to get better, and that you are the master of your own fate. When people are optimistic and believe that they can control their own lives, trusting strangers seems less risky. The best measures of optimism/pessimism are believing that the lot of the average person is getting worse and that it is unfair to bring a child into the world.. My measures of a sense of control are: confidence in science, which reflects a conviction that we can control
    
    Uslaner, “Where You Stand Depends Upon Where Your Grandparents Sat” (11) the world (Uslaner, 2002, 100-101); and the belief that leaders pay attention to you. Other factors that should lead to higher levels of trust are satisfaction with friends, religious fundamentalism (especially for people who are active in their churches), education, and age.10 Since income generally drops out when measures of optimism and control are included, I do not add income to the equations. Nor do I include inequality in the estimates shown here–it was also consistently insignificant in the models I estimated–but the reason is likely different. Inequality is an aggregate level indicator and it tracks levels of trust very well at the state, national, and cross-national levels as well as over time in the United States (Putnam, 1995, 6578; Uslaner, 2002, chs. 2, 4, 6, 8; Uslaner and Brown, 2005).11 I include nine measures of ethnicity (in italics) in the equation. I expect that AfricanAmericans, Spanish/Latinos, Italians, French, and Eastern Europeans, and Russians to have lower levels of trust, based upon their countries of origin or histories in the United States. People of Nordic, German, or British ancestry should have higher levels of trust. The GSS codes for ethnicity are broader, but I used only these nine groups since there were very few respondents for some other nationalities (such as Dutch and Japanese). The varied group of nationalities with too few responses constitute a “reference” group, reflected in the constant. I include aggregate measures for Nordic, German, British, and Italian populations in the state of residence for the respondent (in bold). While there is considerable collinearity with the German and Nordic measures ( r = .727), it was important to include them both since they are two of the highest trusting groups in both the United States and in their home countries. Including other indicators led to severe collinearity, so I dropped Irish, French, Spanish/Latino, Italian, Eastern European, and African. There are basically three clusters of ethnic concentration
    
    Uslaner, “Where You Stand Depends Upon Where Your Grandparents Sat” (12) in the American states: German/Nordic, Italian/Irish, English/French, and Latino (with AfricanAmericans scattered throughout each). So it is difficult to include too many measures without having all of them fall to insignificance. I later estimate the impacts of other groups on their fellow ethnics and others and here include measures for the relevant group in expanded regressions. ________________ Table 1 about here I estimate the trust model by a hierarchical linear model (see Table 1). I also estimated a probit model, with virtually identical results (not shown) to obtain “effects” (Rosenstone and Hansen, 1993) for each variable, which are the changes in probability from the minimum to maximum values of the independent variable, letting all of the other variables take their “natural” values.12 I also report the effects from the probit model in Table 1. The model in Table 1 shows that all of the core variables are significant, mostly at p < .0001. This is not surprising given the large sample, but it is reassuring. The largest effects come from satisfaction with friendships, age, college education, believing that it is not fair to bring a child into the world (negative), and confidence in science (the measure of control). Latinos are 5.5 percent less likely to have faith in others (p < .05). Blacks are almost 17 percent less trusting (p < .0001)–an effect greater than any single measure of optimism or control and approaching that of age. People of Nordic ancestry, on the other hand, are more likely to be trusting. If your heritage is Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, or Finnish, you will be almost 10 percent more likely to believe that “most people can be trusted” (p < .0001). British heritage makes you almost five
    
    Uslaner, “Where You Stand Depends Upon Where Your Grandparents Sat” (13) percent more likely to trust others (p < .001). There are no significant effects (even with such a huge sample) for people with Eastern European, Russian, French, Italian, or even German ethnicity. The aggregate measures tell a somewhat different story and here I focus on the hierarchical model. Living among people of British, German, or Italian heritage has no effect on trust. However, there is a significant effect of state-level Nordic population and it rivals the impact of being Nordic. Both the probit and hierarchical models suggest that being Nordic makes a person 10 percent more likely to trust others–and living among Nordics leads to a similar boost in faith in others. This model suggests that both culture (ethnicity) and experience (living among the most trusting ethnic group) matter for trust. However, state-level effects matter only for one ethnic group, Nordics, while ethnicity affects trust for most groups in this analysis. How Does Trust Spread? Context cannot be dismissed. Do highly trusting ethnicities become even more favorably disposed to others when surrounded by people like themselves? Do people in states with large numbers of people with German, British, and Nordic ancestries become more trusting because they emulate the law-abidingness of these cultures? Is there evidence that living among Italians lowers levels of honesty? I present evidence in Table 2 that tries to answer these questions more directly.13 I estimated probit equations based upon the model in Table 1, first for each ethnic group and then for people who are not group members. Does living among Nordics promote trust among other Nordics and among people who do not have Scandinavian (and Finnish) ancestry? For
    
    Uslaner, “Where You Stand Depends Upon Where Your Grandparents Sat” (14) ethnicities where aggregate scores were not included in the model in Table 2, I added the statewide group shares for the models. The entries in Table 2 are the probit effects for the ethnic group in question, first for group members and then for non-members, as well as the N’s and the probit R2 values. _______________ Table 2 about here Living among the Irish, Spanish/Latinos, or Eastern Europeans has no significant effects on the level of trust of either in-groups or out-groups. The effects of living among Nordics are substantial, but only for Nordics themselves. The high levels of trust for people from Scandinavia and Finland does not seem to “rub off” to their neighbors. However, Germans’ high levels of trust do seem to influence others who live in their states. If you live in a state with a large German population, you will be eight percent more likely to have faith in others if you are not German and 15 percent more likely to trust others if you are German. Living among lots of Nordics and Germans matters a lot more if you are a member of the high trusting ethnic group than if you are part of the out-group. On the other hand, living among British matters more for out-groups than for in-groups. And there is some evidence that living among people of French heritage leads to increased trust even though the French are somewhat lower trusting than average. Outside of Louisiana, the
    
    states with large French populations are in New England (Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire in increasing order). These states also have lower levels of economic inequality. When I add economic inequality to the model, French heritage becomes insignificant.14 While African-Americans have low levels of trust, when whites live in areas with
    
    Uslaner, “Where You Stand Depends Upon Where Your Grandparents Sat” (15) high concentrations of blacks, they are more trusting by almost 10 percent. This effect is significant only at p < .10 and it vanishes when controls for region (Midatlantic and Pacific states) are added. The greater impacts of ethnicity for in-groups for people of Nordic and German heritage seems is puzzling, because the “Nordic” case was presumably the most clear-cut test of the impact of how experiences with honesty might lead to greater trust. What sorts of experience lead to greater trust? To the extent that trust does reflect experience, the foundation of trust seems to reflect honesty (Dasgupta, 1988; Rothstein, 2001, 492). Indeed, Putnam (2000, 135136) uses honesty as a surrogate measure for trust. The Nordic countries and (West) Germany rank among the highest of any countries on trust, confidence in the legal system, and the impartiality of the legal system.15 States with high proportions of each group have lower levels of political corruption and lower rates of assault (high Nordic shares also lead to lower rates of robbery).16 So larger Nordic and German populations do lead to more honesty and fewer crimes. But there is only minimal evidence that living in an honest state with honest people leads to greater trust. Larger English populations lead to more trust by out-groups. States with more British people have lower robbery rates, but not less corruption or fewer assaults or less larceny. There is little reason to expect that people living in states with high Italian populations are less trusting because these states are “more crooked.” The correlations of the share of ItalianAmericans in a state with corruption, honesty, larceny, robbery, or assault rates are small. There are similar minuscule correlations for states with high shares of people of French heritage (where there seems to be a spillover effect) or with many Eastern Europeans (no effects at all). African-
    
    Uslaner, “Where You Stand Depends Upon Where Your Grandparents Sat” (16) Americans live in states with higher crime rates (assault and robbery), as do Spanish/Latinos (assault, larceny, and robbery). Yet, in one case, there is a positive spillover to other groups on trust (for blacks) and in another no effect. Whatever is driving these aggregate effects, it does not appear to be levels of honesty. Reprise There is evidence, though perhaps not as strong as Rice and Feldman (1997) or Putnam (2000) found, that trust is inherited across space and time, but through cultures. People of Nordic, German, and British background are more trusting than other Americans. AfricanAmericans and Spanish/Latinos have less faith in their fellow citizens. Since each of these more trusting groups also is more optimistic for the future and believes that people have greater levels of control over their lives, the effects of cultural history are probably greater than I have reported here. There is less evidence that all cultures carry over so clearly. French, Eastern Europeans, Russians, Irish, and Italians do not appear to be less trusting in the United States even though people in their native lands rank lower on faith in others. The tests I have applied are rather strong, since they test for ethnicity effects over and beyond other factors that shape trust. There seems to be only modest support for the argument that living among people from high trusting cultures with low levels of crime and corruption leads you to emulate their values. It is unclear whether demographic change has contributed–and if so by how much–to the decline in trust since the 1960s. It is unlikely to be anywhere nearly as important as other factors such as growing economic inequality. The persistence of the ethnic roots of trust means that it will be more difficult to rebuild faith in our fellow citizens. Fostering faith in others may be a major
    
    Uslaner, “Where You Stand Depends Upon Where Your Grandparents Sat” (17) challenge, especially if the “inherited” trust of the most high trusting groups (Nordic and German-Americans) spreads more strongly within rather than across groups. If trust is culturally transmitted, then suggestions that we can boost it by joining more clubs or watching less television (Putnam, 2000) may be, in Samuel Johnson’s characterization of second marriages, “the triumph of hope over experience.” Generalized trust is rather stable over time because it has deep social roots and does not shift with each new experience. Other factors that may be seem more malleable–such as economic inequality–also do not change so readily (the correlation of state-level Gini indices from 1970 to 1990 is .737). Building trust is not so easy, especially if it follows people from their family’s “old country.” Trust has been declining in the United States as economic inequality has been rising–and also as immigrants from historically disadvantaged (and lower trusting) groups make up a larger share of the population. If we worry about the decline in trust, we might pay less heed to the waning of league bowling and dinner parties–and more to understanding why people from some cultures are less trusting than others. And this is likely to lead back to economic inequality in the home country (Uslaner, 2002, ch. 8) and discrimination in the new homeland. Overall, there is evidence for both culture and context. Where you live shapes your level of trust. But the evidence is far stronger that where your grandparents came from shapes your values. Who you are seems to matter more than who your neighbors are.
    
    Uslaner, “Where You Stand Depends Upon Where Your Grandparents Sat” (18) FIGURE 1
    
    Nordic home countries and ancestry: Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark German home country: West Germany; ancestry: Germany, Austria British home country: England, Scotland, Canada (Anglophone), Australia; ancestry: Great Britain, Scotland, Wales. French home country: France, French Canadian; ancestry: France Spanish home country: Spain; ancestry: Spain, Latin America Eastern European home country: Czech Republic, Hungary, Lithuania, Romania, Yugoslavia; ancestry: Armenia, Czech, Croatia, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Ukraine. Data sources: General Social Survey, 1972-1998; World Values Survey, 1990, 1995.
    
    Uslaner, “Where You Stand Depends Upon Where Your Grandparents Sat” (19) TABLE 1 Trust by Ethnicity and State Ethnic Populations: Hierarchical Linear Model
    Variable Lot of the average person getting worse Not fair to bring child into the world Officials not interested in average person Confidence in science Satisfied with friendships Service attendance*fundamentalist High school education College education Age African ethnicity Spanish/Latino ethnicity Italian ethnicity French ethnicity British ethnicity Nordic ethnicity German ethnicity Eastern European ethnicity Russian ethnicity Constant Random Effects Parameters Nordic population in state German population in state British population in state Italian population in state Constant (aggregate level) .003** .00001 .00005 .003 .004 .001 .001 .004 .002 .064 2.16 .21 .01 1.33 .63 .049 .100 .070 -.031 Coefficient -.107**** -.133**** -.320**** -.067**** .035**** -.006**** .006**** .010**** .004**** -.158**** -.059** -.031 -.004 .059*** .107**** .027* -.014 -.037 .585**** Standard Error .013 .013 .038 .009 .005 .001 .003 .001 .0004 .023 .028 .027 .033 .018 .028 .018 .026 .050 .034 z ratio -8.26 -10.04 -8.46 -6.98 7.16 -4.64 4.46 9.32 10.21 -7.02 -2.13 -1.18 -.12 3.31 3.82 1.55 -.55 -.73 17.35 Effect -.103 -.132 -.111 -.131 .216 -.088 .071 .195 .208 -.169 -.055 -.033 -.006 .048 .096 .014 -.022 -.028
    
    Number of states: 42, Number of observations: 6309 W ald Chi Square: 1380.71, Log restricted likelihood = -3991.410 * p < .10 ** p < .05 *** p < .01 **** p < .0001 (all tests one tailed except for constants) Data sources: General Social Survey, 1972-1998 and sources in n. 4
    
    Uslaner, “Where You Stand Depends Upon Where Your Grandparents Sat” (20) TABLE 2 Impact of Ethnic Density on Trust by Ethnic Status Ethnicity Nordic German British Irish French Spanish/Latino Italian Eastern European African Effect on InGroup .185* .149** .109 .173 -.057 -.065 -.052 -.149 -.045 N 341 1230 1198 781 226 335 376 510 580 R2 + .360 .220 .268 .247 .335 .353 .263 .285 .542 Effect on Out-Groups .019 .080** .112** .017 .090* -.007 -.045** .049 .099* N 5968 5079 5111 5528 6083 5570 5933 5759 5729 R2 + .261 .274 .266 .271 .261 .275 .265 .262 .246
    
    * p < .10
    
    ** p < .05
    
    + McKelvey-Zavoina estimated R2
    
    Effects are from probit analyses with the same predictors as the probits in Table 3 except for the ethnic identity variables. Each ethnic identity variable served as a filter for the “own group” and “other group” equations in this table. The equations all include the aggregate shares of Italians, British, Germans, and Nordics and the specific group for each equation. Data sources: General Social Survey, 1972-1998 and sources in n. 4
    
    Uslaner, “Where You Stand Depends Upon Where Your Grandparents Sat” (21) REFERENCES Almond, Gabriel and Sidney Verba. 1963. The Civic Culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Boylan, Richard T. And Cheryl X. Long. 2001. “A Survey of State House Reporters’ Perception of Public Corruption.” Unpublished manuscript, Department of Economics, Washington University in St. Louis. Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse, and Willard L. Rodgers. 1976. The Quality of American Life. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Dasgupta, Partha. 1988. “Trust as a Commodity.” In Diego Gambetta, ed., Trust Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Delhy, Jan and Kenneth Newton. 2005. “Predicting Cross-National Levels of Social Trust: Global Patterns or Nordic Exceptionalism?” European Sociological Review, 21:311-327. Elvander, Nils. 1980. Skandinavisk arbetarrörelse. Stockholm: LiberFörlag, 1980. Gibson, James L. 2001. “Social Networks, Civil Society, and the Prospects for Consolidating Russia’s Democratic Transition.” American Journal of Political Science, 45:51-69. Hardin, Russell. 2002. Trust and Trustworthiness. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. LaPorta, Rafael, Florencio Lopez-Silanes, Andrei Schleifer, and Robert W. Vishney. 1997. “Trust in Large Organizations,” American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings, 87: 333-338. Levi, Margaret. 1996. “Social and Unsocial Capital.” Politics and Society, 24:45-55. Putnam, Robert D. 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
    
    Uslaner, “Where You Stand Depends Upon Where Your Grandparents Sat” (22) ______________. 1995. "Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital." Journal of Democracy, 6:65-78. ________________. 2000. Bowling Alone. New York: Simon and Schuster. Rice, Tom W. and Jan Feldman. 1997. “Civic Culture and Democracy from Europe to America,” Journal of Politics, 59:1143-1172. Rosenstone, Steven J. and John Mark Hansen. 1992. Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America. New York: Macmillan. Rothstein, Bo. 2001. “Trust, Social Dilemmas, and Collective Memories: On the Rise and Decline of the Swedish Model,” Journal of Theoretical Politics, 12:477-499. ___________. 2005. Social Traps and the Problem of Trust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Smith, Elizabeth S. 1999. 1999. “The Effects of Investments in the Social Capital of Youth on Political and Civic Behavior in Young Adulthood: A Longitudinal Analysis.” Political Psychology 20:553-580. Smith, Tom W. 1985. "The Subjectivity of Ethnicity." In Charles F. Turner and Elizabeth Martin, eds., Surveying Subjective Phenomena, New York: Russell Sage. Soroka, Stuart N., John F. Helliwell, and Richard Johnston. 2006. “Modeling and Measuring Trust,” in Fiona Kay and Richard Johnston, eds., Diversity, Social Capital, and the Welfare State (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press), available at http://upload.mcgill.ca/politicalscience/MeasureModelTrust.pdf . Stolle, Dietlind and Marc Hooghe. 2004. “The Roots of Social Capital: Attitudinal and Network Mechanisms in the Relation between Youth and Adult Indicators of Social
    
    Uslaner, “Where You Stand Depends Upon Where Your Grandparents Sat” (23) Capital,” Acta Politica, 39:422-441. Sztompka, Piotr. 1999. Trust: A Sociological Inquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Uslaner, Eric M. 2000. “Is the Senate More Civil Than the House?” In Burdett Loomis, ed., Esteemed Colleagues: Civility and Deliberation in the Senate. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2000. ____________. 2002. The Moral Foundations of Trust. New York: Cambridge University Press. ___________. 2003. “Trust and Civic Engagement in East and West.” In Gabriel Badescu and Eric M. Uslaner, eds., Social Capital and the Transition to Democracy. London: Routledge. ____________. 2005. “Trust and Corruption.” In Johann Graf Lambsdorf, Markus Taube, and Matthias Schramm, eds., Corruption and the New Institutional Economics. London: Routledge. ___________. 2006. “The Civil State: Trust, Polarization, and the Quality of State Government.” In Jeffrey E. Cohen, ed., Public Opinion in State Politics. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Uslaner, Eric M. and M. Mitchell Brown. 2005. “Inequality, Trust, and Civic Engagement,” American Politics Research,, 33:868-894.
    
    Uslaner, “Where You Stand Depends Upon Where Your Grandparents Sat” (24) NOTES * This research was supported by a grant from the Russell Sage Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation under the Social Dimensions of Inequality Project. Some of the data come from the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research, which is not responsible for any of our interpretations. I am also grateful to the General Research Board, University of Maryland—College Park, for support on related projects, to M. Mitchell Brown for research assistance, and to Karen Kaufmann, Dietlind Stolle, and the editor and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments. 1. There are differing positions on how stable trust is. Stolle and Hooghe (2004) believe that later experiences also shape trust much more than Uslaner (2002) does. But both hold that the roots of trust begin early in life. 2. The years included here are 1972 through 1978, 1980, 1982 through 1991, 1993, 1994, and 1996. Years not listed had no General Social Survey: After 1996, many of the key determinants of trust were not included in the survey. 3. 4. The mean for trust in black African nations is .20, compared to .28 for other countries. The web site with most of the data is http://www.euroamericans.net. For ItalianAmericans, I obtained data from http://www.niaf.org/research/2000_census_4.asp; for Latinos and African-Americans, from http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/News-Research/NewVoters/Ethnicity.html. The ethnicity data are only available for the 2000 census. However, there is little reason to believe that there would be much variation in any ethnic group’s share of a state population from 1980 or 1990, except for Latinos. And, even here, the states with the
    
    Uslaner, “Where You Stand Depends Upon Where Your Grandparents Sat” (25) largest Latino populations in 1980 and 1990 would also be those with the greatest share of Latinos (including new immigrants) in 2000. I am grateful to Robert D. Putnam for providing the state-level codes for the GSS, with the kind assistance of Tom W. Smith of the National Opinion Research Center. 5. On optimism and control, see Uslaner (2002, chs. 2, 4). I owe the interpretation of Lutheran charitable giving to Marja Liisa Swantz of the University of Helsinki (private conversation, June 18, 2005). On the Anglican outlook, see http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/lambeth/lc015.html. Even the stories that parents tell their children, reflect tales of optimism and trust (or, perhaps, pessimism and struggle). African-American stories reflect this struggle and mistrust. The Swedish story of Pippi Longstocking, on the other hand, reflects sunny optimism, as do most English fairy tales. Russian tales, on the other hand, may have happy endings, but they often reflect good luck rather than the optimism and sense of control that underlies trust. The message of the Russian stories comes from discussions with students at Novosibirsk State Technical University in Russia in May, 2005. A group not considered here is the Jewish population, which in the United States (and elsewhere other than Israel) are far more trusting than the average. Jewish tradition teaches treating the stranger as oneself (“We were strangers in the land of Egypt so we should welcome the stranger into our midst”) and optimism even in the face of danger (a Chanukah song gives the optimistic message that “in every age a hero or sage arose to our aid”) 6. For 1972-74, 73.1 percent gave the same responses to the trust question (tau-b = .426, gamma = .762); for 1974-76, 76.1 gave the same response (tau-b = .521, gamma = .826);
    
    Uslaner, “Where You Stand Depends Upon Where Your Grandparents Sat” (26) for 1972-76, 73.4 percent gave the same response (tau-b = .473, gamma = .784). For 1998-2000, tau-b = .590, gamma = .882, N = 26. 7. Soroka, Helliwell, and Johnston (2006) report that “parental trust” for immigrants is a strong predictor of generalized trust, but the effect “wears off” more quickly than in the United States. 8. The variable ETHNIC asks “From what countries or part of the world did your ancestors come?” Clearly, many people come from mixed heritages. However, the answer to this question indicates the ethnicity with which people identify. 9. Sometimes the question is asked on an eleven-point scale (as in the European Social Survey and the Citizenship, Involvement, Democracy surveys). Responses on this broader scale tend to clump toward the middle on a wide range of trust questions–and it becomes difficult to distinguish different types of trust. See www.europeansocialsurvey.org and http://www.uscidsurvey.org/ for the surveys. 10. Satisfaction with friendships, indicating a comfort level that makes trusting more rational. Fundamentalists, especially people who regularly interact with others of their faith (by attending services), tend to view strangers as outside their moral community–and they are less likely to trust them (Uslaner, 2002, 98-100). I include two measures of education: a measure of high school education set at zero for respondents who had more or less than a high school education and the number of years of education for people who had been through high school and the other is a measure of college education, set at zero for below 13 years of education and the number of years of education for the college educated since college education is consistently the strongest demographic correlate of trust (Putnam,
    
    Uslaner, “Where You Stand Depends Upon Where Your Grandparents Sat” (27) 1995). Younger people are less trusting (Putnam, 1995; Uslaner, 2002, ch. 4), so I include age. 11. On the level of analysis problem as it relates to inequality and trust, see Uslaner and Brown (2005). 12. For age, I restrict the range of the computed effects from 18 to 75 since very few respondents are above that age. For the individual-level variables, the significance levels (and t- and z-ratios) are virtually identical in the two estimations. They differ somewhat in the aggregate level variables, and the hierarchical model (estimated with Stata’s xtmixed module) are more reliable. 13. I also estimated a model to test for joint contextual and individual effects. This model is similar to that in Table 4 but replacing the aggregate shares of ethnic groups in a state with an interaction between ethnic shares and ethnic identities (results not shown). These results show that Nordics living in states with high Nordic populations, Germans living in states with large German populations, and people of English background living among many of their fellow Anglos are all more trusting than when each group is surrounded by fewer of their fellow ethnics. These impacts control for trust by ethnic heritage (also in the model)–and are greater for Nordics (18 percent) than for Germans (six percent), or the English (ten percent). Italians living surrounded by paisans are no less trusting. 14. 15. I am grateful to an anonymous reviewer for suggesting this. Aggregated scores for trust and confidence in the legal system are modestly correlated (r2 = .165, N = 41), while trust and the impartiality of the courts are more strongly related (r2 = .346, N = 63). Confidence in the legal system is aggregated from the World Values
    
    Uslaner, “Where You Stand Depends Upon Where Your Grandparents Sat” (28) Surveys, while court impartiality comes from http://www.freetheworld.com . 16. The corruption measure comes from Boylan and King (2001). The crime measures come from data on the State Politics and Policy web site (I aggregated the data by decade) at http://www.unl.edu/SPPQ/datasets/crime.xls .

Add Comment

To add a comment, you need to login or signup (you can signup without leaving this page)