Generalized Trust Through Civic Engagement? Evidence from Five National Panel Studies

1. Generalized Trust Through Civic Engagement?Evidence from Five National Panel Studies René Bekkers Philanthropic Studies VU University Amsterdam Erik van Ingen Sociology Tilburg University MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim

2. Our question • What is the influence of civic engagement on generalized trust? • Not: particularized trust, or risky investments in social dilemma situations; • But: the belief that most people can be trusted • Does the level of trust change after people change their involvement in voluntary associations? MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim

3. Additional questions How long does it take the participation effect to emerge? Is it robust across countries? What types of civic engagement make the largest contribution to trust? MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim

4. Why Trust Matters More trusting societies have lower corruption and crime, and higher participation in elections and economic growth. More trusting individuals are more satisfied with their lives, have more positive social relations, do better in education and are in better health. MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim

5. Virtuous circles in social capital • “Civic engagement and trust are mutually reinforcing” • “The causal arrows among civic involvement, [..] and social trust are as tangled as well-tossed spaghetti” Robert D. Putnam (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster, page 137 MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim

6. How it might work Socialization: Engagement in voluntary associations produces positive social experiences, reinforcing the belief that most people can be trusted. Contact, peer influence: Engagement in voluntary associations exposes participants to the beliefs of others, ‘risking infection’ with the belief that most people can be trusted. MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim

7. An alternative perspective Eric Uslaner (2002). The Moral Foundations of Trust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Volunteering requires trust. If you don’t trust fellow citizens to be honest and keep their promises, contributions are wasted easily. Free riders are distrustors. Trustors are optimists by nature, and trust doesn’t change much over time. MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim

8. MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim

9. Data and methods of previous studies • Most studies use cross-sectional data, including a limited set of controls. • Selection and omitted variables are a huge problem here. • Studies using longitudinal panel data have almost all used inadequate regression models. • Selection and omitted variables are still a problem here. MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim

10. The evidence thus far • Delhey & Newton (2003): trust and membership are only weakly correlated in most countries – due to low reliability • Brehm & Rahn (1997): reciprocal influences between trust and membership in US using 2SLS • Uslaner (2002): results obtained from 2SLS not robust in different specifications MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim

11. Collecting better data D.H. Smith (1966) and Stolle (2003): we need panel data Claibourn & Martin (2000): no effect of changes in memberships on changes in trust in US panel study of political socialization Giving in the Netherlands Panel Study includes trust + volunteering questions since 2002 MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim

12. A theory on selection for trust • ‘Interactionism’ in personality and social psychology • Individual differences in trust shape perceptions of contributions to collective goods • Failures to contribute by others are ‘noise’ to trustors; ‘evidence’ for misanthropists • Justification-effects reinforce prior differences in trust MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim

13. As a result… • Trustors are more likely to (be asked to) start volunteering, and less likely to quit • Misanthropists are less likely to (be asked to) start volunteering, and more likely to quit • Trustors may become more trusting and misanthropists may become less trusting as a result of changes in volunteering MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim

14. It’s all about selection! • BTW, note also: • Individuals with larger networks are more likely to be asked to start and continue volunteering • Individuals in better (mental) health are more able to continue volunteering • More happy/satisfied individuals are more likely to help others (and be helped in return) MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim

15. Development of generalized social trust (‘most people can be trusted’) Source: GINPS Bekkers, R. (2012). ‘Trust and Volunteering: Selection or Causation? Evidence From a 4 Year Panel Study’. Political Behaviour, 32 (2): 225-247. DOI 10.1007/s11109-011-9165-x. (open access) MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim

16. How to get this published… • At APSR, you can suggest reviewers. I suggested a protagonist and an antagonist. • The protagonist googled me, and sent me a (very positive) review by email. • The antagonist said the English language required editing work, asked *basic* questions about the fixed effects model results, and complained that concepts were used inconsistently. MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim

17. Reminder MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim

18. MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim

19. MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim

20. Further evidence: volunteering and charitable confidence in 2006 Bekkers, R. & Bowman, W. (2009). The Relationship Between Confidence and Charitable Organizations and Volunteering Revisited. Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38: 884-897. Source: GINPS MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim

21. Selection based on… Bekkers, R. & Bowman, W. (2009). The Relationship Between Confidence and Charitable Organizations and Volunteering Revisited. Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38: 884-897. Source: GINPS MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim

22. The importance of replication Could the result be particular to the Netherlands? Or to a selective sample of online panel survey respondents? Perhaps volunteering doen’t produce trust, but other forms of participation do? Let’s examine other countries, other forms of participation, other survey modes. MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim

23. New data & additional models • Main source: Swiss Household Panel • Additionally: BHPS, LISS, SHARE, GINPS Hilda • Fixed effects regression • Change score models • Two-wave transitions • Enter / start ( 0 1 ) vs. Stay uninvolved ( 0 0 ) • Exit / quit ( 1 0 ) vs. Stay involved (1 1) MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim

24. MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim

25. MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim

26. MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim

27. Adequate Testing, Please! • Cross-sectional data are useless here • We need longitudinal data to disentangle causes and consequences of voluntary participation • We should look at how people change over time when they have started and quit volunteering • Halaby (2004, Annual Review of Sociology): controlling for Yt-1 is not enough • Use fixed effects regression models, eliminating variance between individuals • XT in STATA MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim

28. Changes in Trust - Switzerland MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim

29. Changes in Trust – UK (BHPS) MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim

30. Changes in Trust – AU & NL MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim

31. MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim

32. Conclusions • The relationship between participation and trust mainly reflects between-person variance. • Within-person changes in trust are small and not systematically related to changes in participation. • Prolonged participation seems to encourage trust but that change disappears over time. MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim

33. Remaining questions What makes people trusting of others? We still don’t know. There is a genetic basis for trust. As social scientists we should ask: which environmental influences change trust? Experiences with strangers or friends? Life events such as completing education, marriage, victimization, divorce? MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim

34. How to get this published… • At AJPS, you cannot suggest reviewers. • Editors and reviewers dislike replications: ‘there is nothing new here’. • Social Networks ‘liked the paper’ but did not want to publish because ‘it is not about social networks’. • Political Psychology accepted the paper with minimal revisions. MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim

35. Reminder MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim

36. Implications The methods and data used here can be used to test other ‘benefits’ of civic engagement, such as higher subjective well being, better health, lower depression and mortality. These ‘benefits’ will be quantified in a new FP7 project called ‘ITSSOIN’. Does volunteering make you happy, bring you a job, increase networks? MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim

37. Further lessons Learn. Be fair. Replicate. Don’t give up. Test adequately. Spread the word. MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim

38. Thanks, says René Bekkers, r.bekkers@vu.nl Blog: renebekkers.wordpress.com Twitter: @renebekkers ‘Giving in the Netherlands’, Center for Philanthropic Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences, VU University Amsterdam: www.geveninnederland.nl MZES-A Colloquium, Mannheim