Generalised Trust, the Radius of Trust, and Self-Rated Health: An International Comparison

Previous research shows that generalized trust, i.e. trust in ‘most other people’, is associated with better health and longevity. Yet, recent research links generalized trust to improved health outcomes in some countries but not in others. We posit that the ‘radius of trust’ is the missing link for explaining this globally unequal pattern. The radius of trust reflects the circle of people that respondents refer to when asked to rate the perceived trustworthiness of others. In countries with a wide radius of trust, generalized trust is linked to high trust in both in-groups and out-groups. A narrow radius of trust is, by contrast, indicative of contexts where high levels of generalized trust coincide with low levels of out-group trust but high levels of in-group trust. We hypothesize that the wider the radius of trust, the stronger the association between generalized trust and SRH. Drawing on a sample of cross-country survey data from 112 countries that participated in the 2004-2022 European Values/World Values Study, we use advanced multileveling techniques to disentangle individual and contextual associations between generalized trust, the radius of trust, and SRH. Our study will be the first to incorporate both area- and individual-level measures for the trust radius. The results of our project may help practitioners and social policy makers to identify the conditions under which interventions aimed at improving social cohesion can lead to gains in health expectancy.

Generalised trust, the belief that one can trust "most others", is considered a powerful moral resource against disease and mental illness. This is probably due to generalised trust's ability to act as a stress buffer. Imagine a society where most people only trust those whom they know personally. In such a society, any situation that includes contact between strangers will create tension and thus stress. From other research, it is well known that stress tends to make people sick, especially when the stress becomes chronic. But in a society where many people trust each other, new interactions between strangers should occur under much less stressful conditions.

In other words, generalised trust is a potentially powerful health resource. However, new research shows that in many countries, higher levels of generalised trust are not associated with better subjective health. However, very little is known about why trust 'works' to improve subjective health in some contexts but not in others. To understand and explain this research puzzle, we use a selection of pre-existing, publicly available survey data from the World Values Study and the European Values Study collected in over 100 countries in the years 2004 to 2022.

We argue that it is cultural factors that explain the globally unequal relationship between generalised trust and subjective health. We test the hypothesis that it is differences in the 'radius of trust' that determine how exclusive the circle of people is that the respondents include in their assessment of whether they trust "most other people". In countries where the radius of trust is narrow, general trust usually includes only well-known people such as relatives and neighbors, but not strangers. We hypothesize that in such a context, generalised trust does not add much health value, as it does not help reduce stress levels in new situations involving contact with strangers.