ABSTRACT

Empirical results regarding the role of interpersonal trust in the pandemic setting have been inconsistent. We argue that one explanation may be an inherent weakness in the standard measure of generalised trust, requesting respondents to choose between the options ‘most people can be trusted' and ‘you can't be careful enough in dealing with people'. The item measures two inter-related yet separate dimensions - trust and caution. A sense of caution is likely to be activated within the pandemic; some respondents may interpret ‘being careful’ as avoiding infection or spreading the virus. This may lead to 1) exaggerated negative trends in trust after the pandemic outbreak and 2) misrepresentation of the relationship between trust and compliance with guidelines. This is more likely to occur if respondents are primed to think about the pandemic. Analyses of several survey data sets from Norway confirmed that the standard question showed a decline in trust levels after the pandemic outbreak and a weakly negative correlation with social distancing. Alternative operationalisations without reference to caution suggested a small increase in trust and neutral or a weakly positive correlation with social distancing. Our results imply that the standard question should be used with caution in pandemic research.

摘要

关于人际信任在大流行环境中的作用的经验结果并不一致。我们认为，一种解释可能是普遍信任标准衡量标准的固有弱点，要求受访者在“大多数人可以信任”和“你在与人打交道时不够小心”之间做出选择。该项目衡量两个相互关联但又相互独立的维度——信任和谨慎。在大流行中可能会激发一种谨慎的感觉；一些受访者可能将“小心”解释为避免感染或传播病毒。这可能导致 1) 大流行爆发后信任的负面趋势被夸大，以及 2) 对信任与遵守准则之间的关系的错误陈述。如果受访者准备好考虑大流行，这种情况更有可能发生。对来自挪威的几个调查数据集的分析证实，标准问题显示大流行爆发后信任水平下降，与社会距离呈弱负相关。不考虑谨慎的替代操作表明信任度略有增加，并且与社会距离保持中立或弱正相关。我们的结果表明，在流行病研究中应谨慎使用标准问题。不考虑谨慎的替代操作表明信任度略有增加，并且与社会距离保持中立或弱正相关。我们的结果表明，在流行病研究中应谨慎使用标准问题。不考虑谨慎的替代操作表明信任度略有增加，并且与社会距离保持中立或弱正相关。我们的结果表明，在流行病研究中应谨慎使用标准问题。