http://ctx.sagepub.com/Contexts http://ctx.sagepub.com/content/4/1/40The online version of this article can be found at: DOI: 10.1525/ctx.2005.4.1.40 2005 4: 40ContextsPamela PaxtonTrust in Decline? Published by: http://www.sagepublications.comOn behalf of: American Sociological Association can be found at:ContextsAdditional services and information for http://ctx.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts: http://ctx.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions: http://ctx.sagepub.com/content/4/1/40.refs.htmlCitations: What is This? - Feb 1, 2005Version of Record >> at Texas A&M University - Medical Sciences Library on January 14, 2014ctx.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Texas A&M University - Medical Sciences Library on January 14, 2014ctx.sagepub.comDownloaded fromcontexts winter 200540Contexts, Vol. 4, Issue 1, pp.40-46, ISSN 1536-5042, electronic ISSN 1537-6052. © 2005 by the American Sociological Association. All rights reserved. Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press's Rights and Permissions website, at www.ucpress.edu/journals/rights.htm.trust in decline?feature article pamela paxtonAmericans’ trust in other Americans has been on the decline for decades. Their trust in American institutions such as businessand religion is, although sometimes wavering, more resilient. Can our trust in institutions help repair our trust in each other?Trust makes social life possible. People trust other peoplewhen they hire a babysitter, drive their cars, or leave the houseunarmed. They also must trust “institutions,” large organiza-tions like schools and businesses that are integral to modernsociety. People trust institutions when they dial 911, take pre-scription medicines, and deposit money in the bank. Withoutboth kinds of trust, we would be paralyzed, and social lifewould grind to a halt. Unfortunately, over the last half of the 20th century,Americans lost trust in their fellows. In contrast, though theirtrust in institutions has sometimes declined, it has alsorebounded—declining, for example, after major scandals, andthen slowly recovering. Since institutional trust is more robustover time, it may provide the way to stop, and perhaps reverse,declining trust in individuals. the nature of trustWe trust others when we take a chance, yielding themsome control over our money, secrets, safety, or other thingswe value. We may trust another specific person, an abstract“average” person, or a collection of people in a social groupor institution. Our decision to trust people depends on ourestimate of how trustworthy they are, which is in turn basedon what we know about them and whether we can damagetheir reputation if they prove untrustworthy. For example, onthe basis of my knowledge of my sister’s motivation and com-petence, I trust her to watch my children while I am on vaca-tion. I will also hand those same children to someone I do notknow during church services based on my ability to raise aruckus with other members should anything happen. Asidefrom friends or acquaintances, we can estimate how trust-worthy an average person is. Toshio and Midori Yamagishi callthis “general trust”; it reflects “a belief in the benevolence ofhuman nature in general.” We also trust groups of people working in institutions.While I may not know the person who manages my mutualPerhaps eating increases trust. It is not uncommon in theUnited States to put substantial cash on a restaurant table,then walk out.Photo illustration by Adam Henerey at Texas A&M University - Medical Sciences Library on January 14, 2014ctx.sagepub.comDownloaded fromwinter 2005 contexts 41fund, I trust the system of accreditation, regulation, and mon-itoring in which that person is embedded. With many institu-tions, we have no choice but to trust them. Expressing distrustof the U.S. government by not paying taxes, for example, isillegal. Even when compelled to act in a trusting way, howev-er, we can judge the trustworthiness of our institutions.More trust is generally better. Trust reduces the costs ofbusiness, replacing complex legal negotiations; trust con-strains immoral behavior; and, when honored, trust promotesfeelings of goodwill between individuals. Trust benefits com-munity. Robert Sampson, Steve Raudenbush, and Felton Earls,having interviewed thousands of people across hundreds ofChicago neighborhoods, find that—other things beingequal—neighborhoods where residents trust one anotherhave less violence than those where neighbors are suspiciousof one another. Trust also benefits the economy. StephenKnack and Philip Keefer have shown that countries whose cit-izens trust each other experience stronger economic growth.Experiments show that people are trusting, even whenthere is no rational reason to be so. In one experimentalmeasuring whether people trust peoplefigure 1: percent of americans who believe people try to be fair, 1964–2002Surveys typically ask about respondents’ trust in abstract others. For example, the General Social Survey asks three relat-ed questions: “Would you say that most of the time people try to be helpful, or that they are mostly just looking out forthemselves?”; “Do you think most people would try to take advantage of you if they got a chance, or would they try to befair?”; and “Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted or that you can’t be too careful in deal-ing with people?” Although only one question uses the word trust, all three reflect assessments of the average person’strustworthiness. At least among Americans, the same general patterns appear with the different questions. I use the ques-tion about “taking advantage” in the chart below, although the historical patterns of the other two are very similar. One concern is whether survey respondents’ trust has actually changed over time, or whether people are interpret-ing the question differently over time. For example, if Americans have become more critical of authority, they may takethe question in that light and answer more negatively, even though their basic trust of “most people” has remained thesame. I have tested this possibility and found that Americans’ interpretation of the trust questions has not changed.75%65%55%45%percent who say