2. 1
Introduction
In a recent study by Morris Berman (2006), it has been found that distrust is largely
increasing at a great cost to American society. Trust exists in all social interactions and social
systems and can be defined as “a generalized expectancy held by an individual that the word,
promise, oral or written statement of another individual or group can be relied on” (Smith,
2010; 455). As trust can be seen as positive expectations in regards to others actions, words
and decisions, distrust is seen as negative expectations. Both trust and mistrust involve
expectations; however, distrust is the expectation of things feared as opposed to trust as the
hope of things hoped for (Lewicki et al, 1998). Although a general culture of trust is more
likely to occur in democratic political systems like that of the United States, as our
democracy is corrupted with inequality, political and social distrust is continuing to increase
in American society (Sztompka, 1998; Lenard, 2010). This general culture of distrust is
affecting the country’s overall social capital. As social capital decreases, society becomes less
equipped to deal with important societal concerns such as crime, poverty and unemployment
because social capital is a key instrument in dealing with these issues (Smith, 2010; Berman,
2006). As distrust continues to become more prevalent in society, it leads one to wonder
what the causes of individuals and groups being distrustful are. The purpose of this study is
to explore what causes people to become distrustful of other people and institutions in
American society.
3. 2
Literature Review
Studying trust within groups has revealed that variables such as race, gender,
education, socioeconomic status, political affiliation and income, determine degrees of trust
allocated by individuals (Simpson et al, 2007; Binning, 2007). Individuals who experience
inequality based on their identities, such as racial, class, and educational privilege, are more
likely to be distrusting because they experience the negative sides of inequality, as opposed to
the positive side of equality (Simpson et all, 2007).
There is strong evidence that the lack of trust understood by minority groups in the
United States, particularly African-Americans, is greater than that of white identified people
(Smith, 2010). This distrust and lack of confidence African Americans feel towards
institutions, such as the health care system, are deeply rooted in the historical health issues
such as the Tuskegee Syphilis experiments and the AIDS outbreak, which have exploited
and endangered the African American community (Schoff and Yang, 2012; Simmonds,
2008). In a survey conducted in 2006, 767 African Americans and 1267 White Americans
were asked about discrimination and access to health care, as well as sociodemographic
features and racial segregation in their residential areas. The results showed that more
discrimination is experienced among African Americans than White Americans, resulting in
higher amounts of distrust of the health care system (Armstrong et all, 2013). According to
Schoff and Yang (2012), because African-Americans tend to distrust the health care system
so much due to past experiences, it is also more common for them to distrust and lack
confidence in other institutions in society as well. Several studies argue that the only way to
increase the trust and confidence of minority groups toward institutions such as health care,
4. 3
and government in general, is to eradicate racial discrimination, and work to create a culture
of trust by continuing to create and maintain democratic institutions (Armstrong et all, 2013;
Simmonds, 2008; Schoff and Yang, 2012; Sztompka, 1998).
Though out-group trust needs to be repaired, according to Alberto Voci (2006),
people are more likely to trust people who share similar group identities with them. Due to
in-group trust being consistently stronger than out-group trust, it is likely that people are
more likely to trust others who identify within the same racial group as them (Simpson et al,
2007). When examining African-Americans’ distrust of institutions in the United States such
as the police force, it has been concluded that distrust stems from not only negative past
interactions with the police, but also a race-gap within police force. Whites are much less
likely to say that they distrust the police, and they do not share the same racial history with
the police force, or the same racial disparities as African Americans do with the police (Sharp
and Johnson, 2009).
Due to the intersectionalities of inequality, race is not the only factor that causes
distrust. When looking at the differences between racial groups, there are many intersections
to take into account, such as differences in gender, income and education levels. These
variances also impact individuals’ willingness to trust (Austin and Dodge, 1992; Simpson et
all, 2007; Smith, 2010). White Americans largely attain higher levels of education and higher
socioeconomic status than African Americans, and they report higher levels of general trust
(Smith, 2010). Additionally, African-American women struggle with feelings of distrust and
discontentment due to discrimination, expressing the highest amount of discontentment
among Black and White woman and men, while Black men express the second highest
5. 4
amount; Black men experiencing more discrimination and distrust than White women shows
that gender is a less important factor of discrimination than race (Austin and Dodge, 1992).
According to Lewicki et al (1998), to begin to reestablish trust among American
citizens, particularly African Americans, social and political trust must begin to be restored
for all people. Individuals and institutions must recognize the intersectionalities of identities
that cause individuals to be more cautious and less trusting. As discrimination and
marginalized identities are explored in the context of distrust, the following four hypotheses
will be tested:
H1: As individuals express more characteristics of marginalized identities, confidence
in institutions will decrease;
H2: As individuals express more characteristics of marginalized identities, trust will
decrease;
H3: As individuals share membership to a particular racial group, closeness to that
racial group will be greater than closeness to racial groups the individual is not apart
of;
H4: As individuals share membership to a particular racial group, racial in-group
closeness will not be affected by sex.
6. 5
Methods
This study used data from General Social Survey (GSS) from 2012 with the program
Statistical Program for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Distrust was measured by using several
variables in this study; and an index was created with the following indicators: race, sex and
class. Race is an element that impacts marginalized groups, as non-whites, specifically
African-Americans and Latinos, experience racial discrimination, which leads to distrust
(Smith, 2012). Sex will be understood as a factor that marginalizes the non-dominant sex
(Austin and Dodge, 1992). Class is another variable, as historically it has impacted the
accessibility to resources such as education, that continues to impact socioeconomic status
of marginalized people today (Austin and Dodge, 1992). Together, these three variables will
create a Marginalized Identity Index. The most marginalized identity within the index is
poor, Black women while the least marginalized identity within the index is upper class,
white men.
For H1, I used the following GSS questions to create an index of confidence in
American institutions:
“I am going to name some institutions in this country. As far as the people running these
institutions are concerned, would you say you have a great deal of confidence, only some
confidence, or hardly any confidence at all in them? a. Banks and financial institutions
(CONFINAN); b. Major companies (CONBUS); c. Organized religion (CONCLERG); d.
Education (CONEDUC); e. Executive branch of the federal government (CONFED); g.
Press (CONPRESS); h. Medicine (CONMEDIC).”
7. 6
I created an Institution Confidence Index, using a-h of the above GSS question as
indicators. The values of a-h are: A Great Deal, Only Some, Hardly Any. Scores ranging
from 7-12 on the index will indicate a great deal of confidence in these institutions and are
recoded as 1, scores ranging from 13-16 will indicate some confidence in institutions and are
recoded as 2, and lastly, scores ranging from 17-21 will indicate hardly any confidence in
these institutions and are recoded as 3. The listed values for the Institution Confidence
Index are: Highly Confident, Somewhat Confident, Not At All Confident. This index was
along with the marginalized identity index to test the relationship of marginalized identities
and confidence in institutions.
For H2, the following GSS questions was used to understand the impact of peoples’
own identities and the relationship these identities have with their aptitude to trust others:
“Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted or that you can't be too
careful in life? (TRUST)” and “Do you think most people would try to take advantage of
you if they got a chance, or would they try to be fair? (FAIR).” The values for TRUST are:
Can Trust, Cannot Trust, Depends. The values for FAIR are: Take Advantage, Fair,
Depends. The marginalized identity index was used with this question to determine how
marginalized identities impact individuals’ general trust in others. The index was also used to
understand the relationship between marginalized identities and the belief that others are
more likely to take advantage of them. Trust and the belief of fairness are inherently related
because in a culture of trust, people would be less inclined to believe that others would take
advantage of them. This data is crucial in understanding the relationship of personal
identities and general trust.
8. 7
For H3, instead of using the marginality index, race was used as the independent
variable with the following GSS questions about closeness to particular racial groups: “In
general, how close do you feel to blacks? (CLOSEBLK)” and “And in general, how close do
you feel to whites? (CLOSEWHT).” These two questions are important to gauge the general
sense of comfort, which is inherently linked to trust, among white and black racial groups.
The values of CLOSEBLK and CLOSEWHT are: Very Close, Somewhat Close, Not Close
At All. The relationship among in-group and out-group comfort can be understood by using
race as the independent variable to see how the relationship of ones own racial identity
impacts their closeness to their in and out racial group.
The data from H3 was used as the original table. H4 was tested using race as the
independent variable and CLOSEBLK and CLOSEWHT as the dependent variable with sex
as the control variable. The purpose of this table was to determine whether or not sex
impacts in-group and out-group closeness.
Analysis
Analyses of data were completed using cross tabulations, in addition to calculating the
Chi-Square values and statistical significance of each table. Table 1 refers to testing for H1:
As individuals express more characteristics of marginalized identities, confidence in
institutions will decrease. There is no statistically significant relationship (P=0.622) between
marginalized identities and confidence in institutions. The marginality index is a
measurement of racial, gender and class inequality, which impacts how people view
institutions. As race has served as a large influence of inequality, which is linked to distrust;
Simpson et al also found that factors such as gender and education also have an influence
9. 8
inequality (2007). While the marginality index measures race, sex and class, rather than
education level, these are all indicators of degrees of inequality. Smith found that class is
positively correlated with trust, as it impacts education. On average, minority groups are less
wealthy and educated than whites; this inequality could account for a gap in trust (2010).
Though the most marginalized group was the least confident within the “highly confident”
category with a nearly 6% difference between the most and least marginalized identified
people. However, overall the table is not a statistically significant. In short, this table did not
show a significant relationship between marginalized identities and confidence in
institutions, so H1 cannot be supported.
Table 1: Institution Confidence by Marginalized Identity Index, Year 2012
Chi-Square=2.629, P=0.622
Table 2 tests H2: As individuals express more characteristics of marginalized
identities, trust will decrease. This data is statistically significant (P=0.000) and shows a
correlation between marginality and distrust. One interesting point about this question is its
phrasing. Respondents are asked about their general trust in “most people,” and it has been
found that regardless of the respondent’s race, the phrase “most people” is synonymous to
“white people” (Simpson et all, 2007). Perhaps this has an influence on the results, as
10. 9
respondents among least marginalized (48.8%) and somewhat marginalized (40.4%) group
are significantly more trusting than those who are the most marginalized (18.5%). There is a
30% difference among belief in trusting most people between the most and least
marginalized people. Another interesting aspect of this table is the relationship between the
most marginalized people and distrust, as over 75% of the most marginalized people believe
people cannot be trusted and over half of somewhat marginalized (56.7%) and most
marginalized (76.7%) people believe people cannot be trusted, and only 45.5% of the least
marginalized group believes most people cannot be trusted. Overall, as people identify as
more marginalized, their sense of trust decreases; therefore, table 2 supports H2.
Table 2: Trust Level by Marginality Index, Year 2012
Chi-Square=86.715, P=0.000
Table 3 also tests H2: As individuals express more characteristics of marginalized
identities, trust will decrease. However, this table uses FAIR instead of trust. This
relationship is also statistically significant (P=0.000) and shows a correlation between
marginality and a belief of most people being fair or taking advantage of you. This question
can be examined in terms of trust by understanding that a general belief in people taking
advantage or being fair is linked to a culture of trust. As individuals believe that people are
11. 10
fair, there is ‘a confident positive expectation in other’s conduct;’ while people who believe
that others will take advantage of them, there is ‘a confident negative expectation in other’s
conduct’ (Lewicki et all, 1998). This table shows that as people identify as being more
marginalized, they have a higher belief that most people will take advantage and a lower
belief that most people are fair. Over 59% of the least and somewhat marginalized groups
believe that most people are fair, while only 39% of the most marginalized group believes
the same. This question, like the previous, asks respondents again to answer if “most
people” are fair or take advantage of. Again, it is important to be aware that “most people”
usually leads people to think of white people, regardless of their own race (Smith et all,
2007). This conceivable dual meaning of “most people” for “white people” could
potentially influence marginalized peoples’ belief of fairness, as the question could be
interpreted in terms of how fair respondents believe white people to be. Like table 2, there is
neither a huge difference nor a trend among those who chose “depends” across the
marginality index. However, perhaps one could infer that the reason for the most
marginalized people being the highest value of “depends” could attribute to their belief of
fairness depending on what their definition of “most people.” In short, this table supports
12. 11
H2; because there is a relationship between the most marginalized groups and a low belief in
fairness and a high belief being taken advantage of.
Table 3: Belief in Fairness by Marginality Index, Year 2012
Chi-Square=49.976, P=0.000
Table 4 tests H3: As individuals share membership to a particular racial group,
closeness to that racial group will be greater than closeness to racial groups the individual is
not apart of. This relationship is statistically significant (P=0.000) and there is a strong
correlation between race and closeness to white people. 67.1% of white people are identified
with being “very close” to other white people, this being the highest value in that row.
Simpson et all found that trust is fundamentally stronger within racial groups, rather than
among out-groups (2007). Trust is inherently related to closeness, as trust cannot be
established among people without a general sense of closeness or comfort (Sztompka, 1998).
Conversely, 41.9% of Black respondents identified as “somewhat close” to white people,
meaning that there is about an 11% difference between Black and White people identifying
as somewhat close to white people. One might infer that the high number of Black
respondents identifying with being “somewhat close” to white people could be attributed to
assimilating to the white majority. There is a very low percentage of white people who
13. 12
identify as “not close at all” to other white people (2.2%), while there is a higher percent of
Black respondents (8.1%) who identify as “not close at all” to white people.
Table 4: Closeness to White People by Race, Year 2012
Chi-Square=31.791, P=0.000
Table 5 tests H3: As individuals share membership to a particular racial group,
closeness to that racial group will be greater than closeness to racial groups the individual is
not apart of. This relationship is statistically significant (P=0.000) and like the previous
table, shows a positive correlation between race and closeness to black people. 76.6% of
Black respondents identify as “very close” to other Black people. This is significantly higher
than the 67.1% of white people who identify as “very close” to other white people in table 4.
Black respondents high percentage of in-group closeness (“very close”) and low percentage
of in-group alienation (“not close at all”) could be attributed to “historical and contemporary
experiences of discrimination, neighborhood and community context, and ethnoracial
socialization” (Smith, 2011; 457). Less than half of white respondents (47%) identify as
“somewhat close” to Black people, while 10.3% identify as “not close at all,” which is higher
than the percent of Black respondents who identified as not close at all to white people. This
could potentially be attributed to white people being the majority; therefore, they are less
14. 13
likely to be put into social situations with black people unless they choose to be in said
spaces, whereas black folks find themselves interacting with white people more regularly due
to being a minority racial group in majority white society. In conclusion, both table 4 and
table 5 supports H3, because they show that in-group closeness is stronger than in-group
alienation or out-group closeness.
Table 5: Closeness to Black People by Race, Year 2012
Chi-Square=76.053, P=0.000
Table 6 tests H4: As individuals share membership to a particular racial group, racial
in-group closeness will not be affected by sex. This table displays the relationship between
closeness to white people by race and is controlled for gender, and the data is statistically
significant (male P=0.005, female P=0.000) as well. Both white males (66.7%) and white
females (67.3%) feel nearly equally close to other white people, while black males (8.3%) and
black females (7.9%) feel almost equally “not close at all” to white people. This leads one to
infer that sex is less of a factor of closeness than race. This is true because racial socialization
is stronger and harder to disassociate from than gender socialization (Simpson et all, 2007).
Another interesting aspect of this data is that it can be seen that black males feel generally
closer to white people (58.3%) than black females do (43.9%). This could potentially be
15. 14
attributed to living a patriarchal society, giving black men more privilege than black women,
allowing for black men to connect with white people on the basis on male privilege in a
patriarchal society. Though the out-group closeness to white people from black men and
women change according to sex, the in-group closeness of white people is not affected by
sex; therefore, H4 is supported.
Table 6: Closeness White People by Race Controlled for Sex, Year 2012
MALE: Chi-Square=10.712, P=0.005, FEMALE: Chi-Square=25.823, P=0.000
Table 7 tests H4: As individuals share membership to a particular racial group, racial
in-group closeness will not be affected by sex. The data is statistically significant (male
P=0.000, female P=0.000) and shows the relationship between closeness to black people by
race and is controlled for gender. Like table 6, there the closeness among men and women
within their racial group does not change significantly because of gender. Fascinatingly, over
75% of black males and females feel very close to their racial group, which is higher than the
percent of white people who felt “very” close to their racial group in table 6. As stated in
the original table, a higher percent of white people feel “not close at all” to black people,
16. 15
than black people who feel not close at all to white people. Conversely, less than 1% of black
women identify as “not close at all” to other black folks, as opposed to 4.8% of black men
identifying as “not close at all” to black people. As previously stated, this could potentially
be due to the patriarchic society we live in, which gives men privilege and power over
women, potentially making it easier for black men to branch out from their racial group.
When looking at closeness between black and white people to black people, there is a less
than 1% difference among closeness by race for each sex. In conclusion, table 7 supports H4
because there is no statistically significant difference between the sexes and their closeness
within and outside their racial category.
Table 7: Closeness Black People by Race Controlled for Sex, Year 2012
MALE: Chi-Square=30.903, P=0.000, FEMALE: Chi-Square=46.246, P=0.000
Conclusion
In short, all hypotheses were supported with the exception of H1. There was not a
statistically significant relationship between marginalized identities and confidence in
17. 16
institutions; however, this could be due to measuring too many institutions in the institution
confidence index. Perhaps if confidence in an institution known for being discriminatory,
such as medical and police institution(s) were measured alone, a relationship between
marginalized identities could be found. From previous research, it has been found that past
experiences of discrimination cause higher levels of distrust; therefore, there must be effort
to eliminate the discrimination experienced by groups who are marginalized due to their
race, sex, class, education, and so on (Armstrong et all, 2013; Smith, 2010). Further research
should be completed to find out the relationship of intersecting marginalized identities and
confidence in particular institutions in America.
Being a member of marginalized identity groups has a strong impact on both the
general sense of trust in most people and the belief that most people are fair. The more
marginalized ones identity is, the less trusting of most people they become. As a culture of
distrust is created, cultural capital sacrificed (Sztompka, 1998). This loss of cultural capital
manifests in the deterioration of relationships and trust among family, friends, and social
structures and is harmful for society (Berman, 2006). This sense of distrust alienates people,
as they learn to be skeptical of other groups within society. According to Simpson et all, the
United States is separated by race more than any other identity and this was supported
through the research (2007). Individuals identified as being closer to people within their
racial group than outside their racial group. It was found that that sex does not have a strong
influence on how close people feel to their racial group. Perhaps more research could be
done using age as a factor of in-group racial closeness.
18. 17
In closing, the marginalization of people in society, which is linked distrust, is causing
a decline in social capital. Further research is needed to understand how to prevent
discrimination and treat individuals of all identities equally in society. As long as the United
States continues to marginalize certain racial, sexual, class, educational and class, there will be
in and out-group separation. This alienation and distrust among groups within our society is
harmful to the country’s social capital as a whole. Without a sense of trust and high social
capital, the United States will continue to be ill equipped to deal with issues of inequality,
which perpetuates the marginalization of certain identities (Berman, 2006). This leaves one
with a question that needs extensive research, how can we begin to reverse this culture of
distrust, which perpetuates inequality through marginalizing particular identities?
19. 18
References
Armstrong et all. 2013. “Prior Experiences of Racial Discrimination and Racial Differences
in Health Care System Distrust.” Medical Care 51(2): 144-149.
doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e31827310a1.
Austin, Roy L. and Hiroko Hayama Dodge. 1992. “Despair, Distrust and Dissatisfaction
among Blacks and Women, 1973-1987.” The Sociological Quarterly 33(4): 579-598.
(http://jstor.org/stable/4121397).
Berman, Morris. 2006. Dark Ages America: The Final Phase of an Empire. New York,
NY: W.W. Norton & Company.
Binning, Kevin R. 2007. “It’s Us Against the World: How Distrust in Americans versus
People-In-General Shapes Competitive Foreign Policy Preferences.” 2007. Political Psychology
28(6): 777-799. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221
Lenard, Patti Tamara. 2010. “Rebuilding Trust in an Era of Widening Wealth Inequality.”
Journal of Social Philosophy 41(1): 73-91. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9833.2009.01479.
Lewicki et all. 1998. “Trust and Distrust: New Relationships and Realities.” The Academy of
Management Review 23(3): 438-458 (http://jstor.org/stable/259288).
Schoff, Carla and Tse-Chuan Yang. 2012. “Untangling the associations among distrust, race,
and neighborhood social environment: A social disorganization perspective.” Social Science
and Medicine 74: 1342-1352. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.01.012.
Sharp, Elaine B. and Paul E. Johnson. 2009. "Accounting for Variation in Distrust of Local
Police." Justice Quarterly 26(1):157-182
(http://search.proquest.com/docview/61782576?accountid=28109).
Simmonds, Gwenneth, M.S.N., C.N.M. 2008. "African American Participation in Public
Health Research." ABNF Journal 19(2):69-72
(http://search.proquest.com/docview/218900418?accountid=28109).
Simpson, Brent et all. 2007. “Are Blacks Really Less Trusting Than Whites? Revisiting the
Race and Trust Question.” Oxford University Press 86(2): 525-552.
(http://jstor.org/stable/20430752).
Smith, Sandra Susan. 2010. “Race and Trust.” Annual Review of Sociology 36:453-475. doi:
10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102526.
Sztompka, Piotr. 1998. “Trust, Distrust and Two Paradoxes of Democracy.” European Journal
of Social Theory 1(1): 19-32. doi: 10.1177/136843198001001003.
20. 19
Voci, Alberto. 2006. “The link between identification and in-group favouritism: Effects of
threat to social identity and trust-related emotions.” British Journal of Social Psychology 45:
265-284. doi:10.1348/014466605X52245.
