[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-detail-128567-en":3,"doc-seo-128567-105":30,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":92},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",{"doc_id":7,"user_id":8,"nickname":9,"user_avatar":10,"doc_module":4,"category_id":11,"category_name":12,"doc_title":13,"doc_description":14,"doc_content":15,"file_id":16,"file_url":17,"file_type":18,"file_size":19,"view_count":20,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":20,"is_downloadable":20,"audit_status":20,"page_count":21,"language":22,"language_code":23,"site_id":24,"html_lang":23,"table_of_contents":25,"faqs":26,"seo_title":27,"seo_description":14,"update_tm":28,"read_time":29},128567,549768064778,"Finn","https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_6f874abed73319feea01a86fa6f0fab8",8,"Research & Report","How Valid Are Trust Survey Measures - New Insights From Open-Ended Probing Data and Supervised Machine Learning","Trust is a foundational concept in contemporary sociological theory, yet empirical studies often rely on a limited set of survey measures whose validity is increasingly questioned. This study combines open-ended probing data, supervised machine learning, and a U.S. representative quota sample to compare classic generalized trust measures with more situation-specific alternatives. Results show that question wording referencing “strangers” aligns best with generalized trust, while situation-specific measures can increase associations with known others and may evoke negative associations.","Original Article  \nHow Valid Are Trust Survey Measures? New Insights From Open-Ended Probing Data and Supervised Machine Learning  \nSociological Methods & Research 1–31  \n© The Author(s) 2024  \nArticle reuse guidelines:  \n[sagepub.com/journals-permissions](sagepub.com/journals-permissions)[ ](sagepub.com/journals-permissions)[DOI: 10.1177/00491241241234871](DOI: 10.1177/00491241241234871)[ ](DOI: 10.1177/00491241241234871)[journals.sagepub.com/home/smr](journals.sagepub.com/home/smr)  \nCamille Landesvatter 1  and Paul C . Bauer2,3   \nAbstract  \nTrust is a foundational concept of contemporary sociological theory. Still, empirical research on trust relies on a relatively small set of measures. These are increasingly debated, potentially undermining large swathes of empirical evidence. Drawing on a combination of open-ended probing data, supervised machine learning, and a U.S. representative quota sample, our study compares the validity of standard measures of generalized social trust with more recent, situation-specific measures of trust. We find that survey measures that refer to “strangers” in their question wording best reflect the concept of generalized trust, also known as trust in unknown others. While  \n1 Mannheim Centre for European Social Research, University of Mannheim, Mannheim, BadenWürttemberg, Germany  \n2 Department of Politics, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany  \n3 Department of Statistics, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany  \nCorresponding Authors:  \nCamille Landesvatter, Mannheim Centre for European Social Research, University of Mannheim, A5, 6, Mannheim, Baden-Wuerttemberg 68159, Germany.  \nEmail: camille.landesvatter@uni-mannheim.de  \nPaul C. Bauer, Department of Politics, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany; Department of Statistics, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany. [Email: mail@paulcbauer.de](Email: mail@paulcbauer.de)  \nData Availability Statement included at the end of the article  \nsituation-specific measures should have the desirable property of further reducing variation in associations, that is, producing more similar frames of reference across respondents, they also seem to increase associations with known others, which is undesirable. In addition, we explore to what extent trust survey questions may evoke negative associations. We find that thereis indeed variation across measures, which calls for more research.  \nKeywords  \nsocial trust, generalized trust, survey experiment, open-ended survey questions, text analysis, sentiment analysis, bidirectional encoder representations from transformers  \nIntroduction  \nGeneralized social trust is one of the fundamental concepts in contemporary social theory (Coleman 1994; Herreros 2004; Putnam, Leonardi, and Nanetti 1994; Schilke, Reimann, and Cook 2021; Smith 2010; Sztompka 1999; Uslaner 2002) and scholarly interest in this concept has grown alongside the increasing number of studies on social capital and social cohesion, as trust is considered a main indicator of these concepts (Larsen 2013; Portesand Vickstrom 2011; Van Deth 2003) . Consequently, empirical research investigating the causes and consequences of trust has multiplied (Buskensand Weesie 2000; Cook and Cooper 2003; Dinesen 2012; Dinesen, Sonne Nørgaard, and Klemmensen 2013; Dinesen and Sønderskov 2015; Sønderskov 2011) . At the same time, the underlying empirical research program relies on a relatively small set of established survey measures, some of which date back to the 1940s. In recent years, we have seen a growing debate about the validity of these measures, particularly regarding their ability to capture the same concept across all individuals (Bauer and Freitag 2018; Delhey and Newton 2005; Delhey, Newton, and Welzel 2011; Ermisch et al. 2009; Nannestad 2008; Robbins 2019; Sturgis and Smith 2010; Torpe and Lolle 2011) .  \nOur study aims to address this debate by investigating the validity of survey measures of gen","cbCaiqunL7UQ02m5","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiqunL7UQ02m5","pdf",1007113,1,31,"English","en",105,"# Abstract\n# Introduction\n## Measurement debate in generalized social trust\n## Classic trust measures and their limitations\n## Survey experiment and open-ended associations\n# Main findings and implications","[{\"question\":\"Why does the study focus on the validity of trust survey measures?\",\"answer\":\"Empirical research on trust often uses a small set of established measures, and debates question whether these measures capture the same concept across individuals.\"},{\"question\":\"How do the three classic generalized trust measures differ in wording?\",\"answer\":\"The “most people question” asks about trusting most people, the “people first time” question targets people met for the first time, and the “stranger question” asks about meeting an unknown stranger and assessing trust.\"},{\"question\":\"What do the findings suggest about the best wording for generalized trust?\",\"answer\":\"Measures that refer to “strangers” most accurately reflect generalized trust (trust in unknown others), while situation-specific measures may reduce reference variation but increase associations with known others.\"}]","How Valid Are Trust Survey Measures - New Insights From Open-Ended Probing Data and Supervised Machine Learning | PDF",1786001788,78,{"code":4,"msg":31,"data":32},"ok",{"site_id":24,"language":23,"slug":33,"title":13,"keywords":34,"description":14,"schema_data":35,"social_meta":87,"head_meta":89,"extra_data":91,"updated_unix":28},"how-valid-are-trust-survey-measures-new-insights-from-open-ended-probing-data-and-supervised-machine-learning","",{"@graph":36,"@context":86},[37,54,69],{"@type":38,"itemListElement":39},"BreadcrumbList",[40,44,48,51],{"item":41,"name":42,"@type":43,"position":20},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":45,"name":46,"@type":43,"position":47},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":49,"name":12,"@type":43,"position":50},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":52,"name":13,"@type":43,"position":53},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/how-valid-are-trust-survey-measures-new-insights-from-open-ended-probing-data-and-supervised-machine-learning/128567/",4,{"url":52,"name":13,"@type":55,"author":56,"headline":13,"publisher":58,"fileFormat":61,"inLanguage":23,"description":14,"dateModified":62,"datePublished":63,"encodingFormat":61,"isAccessibleForFree":64,"interactionStatistic":65},"DigitalDocument",{"name":9,"@type":57},"Person",{"url":41,"name":59,"@type":60},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-08-23","2026-08-06",true,{"@type":66,"interactionType":67,"userInteractionCount":20},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":68},"ViewAction",{"@type":70,"mainEntity":71},"FAQPage",[72,78,82],{"name":73,"@type":74,"acceptedAnswer":75},"Why does the study focus on the validity of trust survey measures?","Question",{"text":76,"@type":77},"Empirical research on trust often uses a small set of established measures, and debates question whether these measures capture the same concept across individuals.","Answer",{"name":79,"@type":74,"acceptedAnswer":80},"How do the three classic generalized trust measures differ in wording?",{"text":81,"@type":77},"The “most people question” asks about trusting most people, the “people first time” question targets people met for the first time, and the “stranger question” asks about meeting an unknown stranger and assessing trust.",{"name":83,"@type":74,"acceptedAnswer":84},"What do the findings suggest about the best wording for generalized trust?",{"text":85,"@type":77},"Measures that refer to “strangers” most accurately reflect generalized trust (trust in unknown others), while situation-specific measures may reduce reference variation but increase associations with known others.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":52,"og:type":88,"og:title":13,"og:site_name":59,"og:description":14},"article",{"robots":90,"canonical":52},"index,follow",{"doc_id":7,"site_id":24},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":93},[94,98,102,106,111,116,121,124,129,132,136],{"id":20,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":95,"show_sort_weight":96,"slug":97},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":47,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":99,"show_sort_weight":100,"slug":101},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":53,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":107,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":108,"show_sort_weight":109,"slug":110},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":112,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":113,"show_sort_weight":114,"slug":115},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":118,"show_sort_weight":119,"slug":120},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":11,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":12,"show_sort_weight":122,"slug":123},30,"research-report",{"id":125,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":126,"show_sort_weight":127,"slug":128},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":130,"show_sort_weight":127,"slug":131},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":133,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":134,"show_sort_weight":133,"slug":135},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":137,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":138,"show_sort_weight":107,"slug":139},19,"General","general"]