title: Measuring Generalized Trust: An Examination of Question Wording and the Number of Scale Points.
abstract: Survey institutes recently have changed their measurement of generalized trust from the standard dichotomous scale to an 11-point scale. Additionally, numerous survey institutes use different question wordings: where most rely on the standard, fully balanced question (asking if "most people can be trusted or that you need to be very careful in dealing with people"), some use minimally balanced questions, asking only if it is "possible to trust people." By using two survey-embedded experiments, one with 12,009 self-selected respondents and the other with a probability sample of 2,947 respondents, this study evaluates the generalized trust question in terms of question wording and number of scale points used. Results show that, contrary to the more commonly used standard question format (used, for example, by the American National Election Studies and the General Social Survey), generalized trust is best measured with a minimally balanced question wording accompanied with either a seven- or an 11-point scale.
authors.affiliation: S ebastian L undmark is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Political Science, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. Mikael Gilljam is a professor in the Department of Political Science, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. Stefan Dahlberg is an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. A previous version of this paper was presented at the 66th Annual Conference of the World Association for Public Opinion Research, Boston, MA, USA. The authors thank Peter Esaiasson, Mikael Persson, and the anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on earlier versions of this article. They also thank the Laboratory of Opinion Research at the University of Gothenburg for conducting their surveys. They especially thank Johan Martinsson, who helped coordinate the different data collections.
authors.forename: Sebastian
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Lundmark
authors.affiliation: S ebastian L undmark is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Political Science, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. Mikael Gilljam is a professor in the Department of Political Science, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. Stefan Dahlberg is an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. A previous version of this paper was presented at the 66th Annual Conference of the World Association for Public Opinion Research, Boston, MA, USA. The authors thank Peter Esaiasson, Mikael Persson, and the anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on earlier versions of this article. They also thank the Laboratory of Opinion Research at the University of Gothenburg for conducting their surveys. They especially thank Johan Martinsson, who helped coordinate the different data collections.
authors.forename: Mikael
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Gilljam
authors.affiliation: S ebastian L undmark is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Political Science, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. Mikael Gilljam is a professor in the Department of Political Science, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. Stefan Dahlberg is an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. A previous version of this paper was presented at the 66th Annual Conference of the World Association for Public Opinion Research, Boston, MA, USA. The authors thank Peter Esaiasson, Mikael Persson, and the anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on earlier versions of this article. They also thank the Laboratory of Opinion Research at the University of Gothenburg for conducting their surveys. They especially thank Johan Martinsson, who helped coordinate the different data collections.
authors.forename: Stefan
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Dahlberg