12080
C 2016 Nordic Political Science Association
V
The belief that people are generally fair and trustworthy has generated plenty of scholarly
attention in recent decades, particularly in the Scandinavian countries, which are often known
for high levels of social trust. This article draws attention to the current discussion in the liter-
ature on whether social trust is a stable cultural trait marked by persistence or is based on
experiences and subject to change throughout life. Based on unique longitudinal data from
five different cohorts of young people in Sweden, ranging in age from 13 to 28 years, this arti-
cle provides an empirical contribution on how social trust develops over time. The results
show that there is a greater degree of instability in social trust between 13 and 15 years of age
than in other age groups, and that social trust appears to stabilize with age. Findings also indi-
cate that there are substantial inter-individual differences in social trust among young people
within the same age group, both in initial levels and in the rates of change over time. The arti-
cle concludes that although social trust is relatively stable it tends to crystallize in early adult-
hood, highlighting the relevance of the impressionable-years hypothesis.
Introduction
Over the last two decades, scholars have been increasingly interested in
social capital research, especially after Robert Putnam’s (1993) study of
regional government in Italy. In particular, recent research has empha-
sized the role of social trust, which is one of the components of the con-
cept of ‘social capital’. The confidence and belief that strangers (i.e.,
fellow citizens about whom we do not have any specific information) will
not take advantage of us (Uslaner 2002) is presumed to be an invaluable
resource and asset for individuals as well as for society at large. Research
shows that trust is positively related to confidence in political institutions,
democratic satisfaction and political participation (Cigler & Joslyn 2002;
Delhey & Newton 2003; Rothstein & Uslaner 2005). Thus, research on
social trust is of direct relevance for the study of political science.
In work focusing on social trust, a fundamental query in the literature
has to do with the extent to which social trust is either amenable or
€
* Ali Abdelzadeh, School of Humanities, Education and Social Sciences, Orebro Univer-
€
sity, SE-701 82, Orebro, Sweden. E-mail: abdelzadeh.ali@gmail.com
†
Ersta Sk€
ondal University College Stockholm, Sweden.
resistant to change (e.g., Glanville & Paxton 2007; Uslaner 2008; Bauer
2014; Sønderskov & Dinesen 2014; Freitag & Bauer 2016). Two perspec-
tives in the literature have attracted particular attention. The cultural per-
spective stipulates that social trust is a stable and ‘sticky’ phenomenon
learned in early childhood and stable over time. The experiential perspec-
tive suggests that social trust is a product of experience, and that we con-
stantly modify it in response to changing circumstances. Existing empirical
studies lend support to both perspectives (Glanville & Paxton 2007; Uslaner
2008; Dinesen 2011).
However, although these studies have increased our knowledge, our
understanding of the malleability of social trust is still unclear. In addition,
most previous studies have been conducted with adults. Our knowledge is
particularly lacking for young people (see, however, Flanagan & Stout
2010), which is unfortunate, because youth is considered a formative and
critical period for the emergence and formation of social trust and politi-
cal orientations (Hooghe & Wilkenfeld 2008; Hatemi et al. 2009). As
regards adolescence, the ‘impressionable-years hypothesis’ represents a
variety of the cultural and experiential perspective (Osborne et al. 2011;
Dinas 2013; Sears & Brown 2013). According to this hypothesis there is a
critical period in early adulthood when political orientations and attitudes
are open to influence and when political and social attitudes and orienta-
tions are formed. Although there is evidence to support this hypothesis,
few studies have analyzed its relevance with respect to social trust (see,
however, Flanagan & Stout 2010).
This article contributes to this ongoing theoretical discussion by empiri-
cally analyzing how social trust develops among five cohorts of young peo-
ple, ranging from early adolescence to adulthood, in a longitudinal
manner. More specifically, we will answer the following research question:
How does social trust develop among young people and when, if at all,
does it stabilize? To answer this question, we draw from a two-wave longi-
tudinal dataset of five different cohorts of adolescents and young adults
(13, 16, 20, 22 and 26 years old). The target sample comprised approxi-
mately 1,000 individuals in each age group and participants came from a
medium-sized Swedish city with a total population of about 135,000, thus
filling several criteria of national representativeness.
The article is relevant for political science in various ways. First, it adds
to the understanding of the development of orientations among younger
generations of citizens, which has been proven to be politically consequen-
tial for society at large and for intergroup relations. Second, by answering
the question of when trust is most unstable and changeable, the article is
of relevance for the ongoing discussion on how social trust is produced
and reproduced (e.g., Sønderskov & Dinesen 2014). Third, information on
how social trust develops and (if at all) stabilizes is needed to understand
when social trust can be enhanced. Such knowledge has particular rele-
vance for countries where trust tends to be declining (cf. Twenge et al.
2014).
The article is structured as follows. We present our theoretical points of
departure by drawing on three perspectives on the nature and character
of social trust. This is followed by an explanation of the research design,
including descriptions of our methods and research strategy. We then
present our results, describing the stability and changeability of social trust
and its direction of change. The concluding section summarizes the results
and discusses their further implications for research on social trust.
In line with these findings, recent twin studies have argued and provided
some support for the idea that social trust may have a genetic component
(e.g., Shikishima et al. 2006; Hiraishi et al. 2008; Oskarsson et al. 2016).
For example, Hatemi et al. (2009), using longitudinal data on twins, have
shown that political attitudes accumulate markedly between the ages of 9
and 17. Recently, Oskarsson et al. (2016) in a study on monozygotic twin
pairs, concluded that the relationship between education and social trust
largely is driven by common genetic factors. Thus, this provides more evi-
dence in line with the cultural perspective.
In contrast, the experiential perspective states that social trust is not so
much a social fact or personality trait as a product of our environment
and experience, and that we modify it in response to changing circumstan-
ces (Putnam 2000). According to Hardin (1992), individuals constantly
modify and update their trustful and distrustful attitudes and feelings due
to changes in society. Research in political psychology refers to this as the
‘lifelong openness model’, which stipulates that attitudes remain open to
influence during one’s life and that individuals constantly modify attitudes
in response to new information and experience. Dinesen (2012) lends sup-
port to this perspective when analyzing how first-generation immigrants
from low-trust countries such as Turkey and Poland are affected by
migrating to high-trust countries in Northern Europe. He concludes that
the destination country context has clear effects on levels of trust of immi-
grants and that immigrants adjust their levels of trust in line with those of
the natives in the new country. Likewise, Glanville and Paxton (2007) con-
clude that trust among adults can be affected by changes in the social
environment and is not wholly determined by past socialization or innate
characteristics. In addition, studies have found that external factors in the
environment influence social trust. Laurence (2015) found that job dis-
placement between the ages of 33 and 50 appears to significantly influence
individuals’ generalized trust negatively, even several years after the event
occurred. Likewise, ethnic fractionalization correlates negatively with
social trust but this effect appears to depend on the quality of government
institution (e.g., Alesina & La Ferrara 2002; Dinesen & Sønderskov 2015).
Moreover, political institutions that are fair, trustful and efficient have a
positive influence on social trust (e.g., Rothstein & Stolle 2003;
Sønderskov & Dinesen 2014; 2016).
The experiential perspective has been criticized for being too extreme,
as certain discontinuities, such as the crystallization of one’s identity and
critical events in life or work, can influence one’s attitudes (Sigel 1989). In
this regard, a growing body of studies shows that political orientations and
behaviour are shaped early in life (Jennings & Niemi 1981; Flanagan &
Sherrod 1998; Torney-Purta et al. 2001). As a challenge to the cultural and
experiential perspective, the impressionable-years hypothesis claims that
Method
Data and Measurement
Participants in the study came from a medium-sized Swedish city with a
total population of about 135,000. We have a two-wave longitudinal data-
set from five different cohorts of adolescents and young adults (13, 16, 20,
22 and 26 years old; see Table 1). The first wave of data collection took
place in the spring of 2010/11, and the second approximately two years
later. Data from the two younger cohorts (13 and 16 years old) comes
from 13 schools within the city: ten of the city’s 14 junior high schools
(Grundskolan, in Swedish), and three of its seven senior high schools
(Gymnasieskolan, in Swedish). All seventh graders in the junior high
schools and first year students in the senior high schools were targeted in
the study. The 13 schools were strategically selected in order to represent
both public and private schools and the students’ diverse socioeconomic
and ethnic backgrounds. The students filled out the questionnaires during
regular school hours in their classrooms. To meet the possible objection
that the presence of teachers might influence the responses of the stu-
dents, we ensured that no teachers were in the classrooms during data col-
lection. Trained research assistants distributed the questionnaires and
informed the students that participation in the study was voluntary; the
students were assured of the confidentiality of their responses. No student
was paid for participating in the study, but each class received a contribu-
tion to its class fund.
For the older cohorts (20, 22 and 26 years old), the target sample (i.e.,
all respondents who were supposed to take part in the study) comprised
approximately 1,000 individuals in each age group, who were randomly
selected from a list of all 20–26 year olds living in the city, provided by
the county. In both waves, all participants in the older cohorts were given
the option to fill in the questionnaire in paper form or in an equivalent
online version. The questionnaire was posted to the target sample along
with information about the study and a personalized web link to the
online version of the questionnaire. The participants were informed that
their involvement in the study was voluntary, and they were assured of
the confidentiality of their responses. Participants received a gift certificate
worth 250 SEK (about e27) for taking part in the study.
The motive for choosing the city was related to its national representa-
tiveness with regard to demographic characteristics. According to national
statistics for 2010, the city was similar to the Swedish average in terms of,
for instance, annual income (225,242 SEK per person, compared with
229,056 SEK per person for the whole country), rate of unemployment
(9.5 percent, compared with 8.4 percent for the whole country) and
Number of respondents
(target sample in Response
Year of parentheses) rates (%) Number of Nationality
the first respondents Gender (born outside
Cohort Year of birth survey T1 T2 T1 T2 to both waves (female) Sweden)
V
13 years 1997/98 2010 904 (960) 843 (954) 94.2 88.4 789 50.7% 9.4%
213
C 2016 Nordic Political Science Association
C 2016 Nordic Political Science Association
V
percentage of immigrants (5.7 percent, compared with 6.7 percent for the
whole country). For both younger and older cohorts, the time interval
between the two measurement points was approximately two years. Fur-
ther information about the samples is presented in Table 1. As can be
seen, the response rates ranged from 57 to 94 percent, and the samples
are representative in relation to gender in the sense that they reflect the
overall population of interest.
There are of course both advantages and disadvantages with the chosen
data and sampling technique. The non-random sample used in the analysis
is quite common in these types of longitudinal studies (cf. Lazarsfeld et al.
1944; Kiousis & McDevitt 2008; Gastil & Xenos 2010; Mattila et al. 2011;
Persson 2012). However, this sampling strategy does have some potential
limitations. Perhaps most importantly, we have to be careful when gener-
alizing our findings to young people living in other contexts. On the other
hand, the longitudinal design, the excellent participation rates (see Table
1), on-site administration and monitoring of questionnaire completion, the
five different cohorts of young people and the similarity of the sociodemo-
graphic indicators to the national averages are obvious strengths.
Moving on to measurements, to indicate their levels of social trust the
respondents were asked: ‘If you think about people in general, to what
extent do you think that the following statements apply to you?’ The two
statements were: (a) ‘Most people can be trusted’, and (b) ‘Most people
are fair and do not take advantage of you’ (Flanagan et al. 2007; Flanagan
& Stout 2010). The correlation between the two statements ranged from
r 5 0.64 to r 5 0.78, indicating high internal consistency. Participants
responded to the two statements on a five-point scale, ranging from 1
(‘Doesn’t apply at all’) to 5 (‘Applies perfectly’). These two items of social
trust are similar to measures used in many studies, such as the World Val-
ues Survey, Eurobarometer and the European Social Survey.2 As the
overall purpose of the research programme from which the data comes
has been to understand social and political socialization processes among
young people, the dataset employed includes a number of other constructs
focusing on young people in different everyday life contexts, such as fam-
ily and school. Here, however, we only make use of those constructs that
are most relevant to the aim and objectives of this study.
Research Strategy
To examine the stability and change of social trust longitudinally, we per-
formed a number of statistical analyses. First, to examine the stability
coefficients – that is, the correlation between social trust at time-point 1
(T1) and time-point 2 (T2) – we conducted four types of correlations for
each cohort: Kendall’s tau-b, Spearman’s rho rank correlations, Pearson’s
Results
Stability and Change in Social Trust
In this first part of the results section, we present the findings on stability
and change in social trust over time and cohorts. As shown in Figure 1,
the mean level of social trust is already relatively high (3.29, on a 1–5
scale) at age 13, but has decreased significantly at age 15 to 2.92 (Cohen’s
d 5 0.44). The aggregate level of social trust remains comparatively stable
and low between ages 15 and 18 (Cohen’s d 5 0.03) The low level of social
trust during this life stage might not be so surprising given the fact it co-
occurs with constant social, political, biological and psychological develop-
ments shaping adolescents’ perceptions of themselves and other people
(Elliott & Feldman 1990; Niemi & Hepburn 1995; Hooghe & Wilkenfeld
2008). Social trust increases, however, from 2.89 at age 18 to 3.32 at age
28, which is a statistically significant difference (Cohen’s d 5 0.48). By con-
trast, the mean level of social trust remained quite stable from the ages of
24 and 28 years (Cohen’s d 5 0.12). Overall, the mean level of social trust
seems to be relatively stable across different cohorts and times.
To further examine the stability of social trust, we analyzed the correla-
tions for each cohort between two time points (T1 and T2), which repre-
sent the stability coefficients. As can be seen in Table 2, social trust seems
5.00
4.50
4.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
13 14 15 16 17 18 20 22 24 26 28
Age
Note: Mean levels of social trust are computed using all the information available; thus they also include
young people who participated only in the second wave.
Table 2. Correlations of Social Trust over Time and Percentages of Youth Providing the
Identical Answers or Moving No More Than One Category Two Years Later
Age 13–15 Age 16–18 Age 20–22 Age 22–24 Age 26–28
results when taking into consideration the effect of education on the cor-
relations between social trust at two measurement points. Thus, the pat-
terns of results remained intact. All in all, regardless of which type of
measure was used to examine the stability pattern of social trust across
cohorts, the results showed a greater degree of instability between 13 and
15 years of age and an increase in stability after late adolescence (ages
16–18).
In a second step, we analyzed each item of social trust separately to see
if there were any differences between the two in terms of stability. As the
lower part of Table 2 shows, the overall correlation coefficients for
the first item (‘Most people can be trusted’) are stronger than those of the
second item of social trust (‘Most people are fair and do not take advant-
age of you’). For example, when comparing the coefficients (i.e., r 5 0.396
and r 5 0.283) for the two items in the youngest cohort, we found a statis-
tically significant difference (z 5 2.43, p < 0.05), indicating that the second
item of trust is less stable. For the three youngest cohorts, these differen-
ces were also reflected in the percentages of identical scores. On the
whole, there seemed to be some differences between the two items of
social trust with respect to stability and change.
(1) 13–15 years 3.344 (0.031)** 20.418 (0.037)** 0.722 (0.038)** 0.984 (0.052)**
(2) 16–18 years 3.024 (0.034)** 20.111 (0.037)* 0.724 (0.041)** 0.824 (0.047)**
(3) 20–22 years 3.173 (0.043)** 20.005 (0.039)ns 0.860 (0.056)** 0.706 (0.046)**
(4) 22–24 years 3.105 (0.045)** 0.163 (0.041)** 0.824 (0.058)** 0.691 (0.049)**
(5) 26–28 years 3.308 (0.040)** 0.045 (0.035)ns 0.780 (0.051)** 0.600 (0.039)**
Note: Entries are unstandardized coefficients (standard errors in parentheses). *p < 0.01;
**p < 0.001.
(ages 13–16 and 16–18), indicating a decrease in social trust across the two
years. Moreover, the variance estimates pointed to considerable inter-
individual differences in both cohorts, as reflected in both initial levels
(variance intercept) and rates of change (variance slope). With regard to
the three older cohorts, only in cohort four was there a significant and
positive mean slope change, indicating an increase in social trust over the
two years. However, variance estimates of both intercept and slope
revealed substantial inter-individual differences within each cohort. In
sum, there is an overall decrease in social trust among adolescents aged 13
to 18. The decrease is much stronger for the youngest cohort (aged
13–15). There is no significant change in social trust for the older cohorts,
except in cohort four, where we see an increase.
220
Table 4. Turnover Tables for the First Item of Social Trust and Goodness-of-fit Statistic Likelihood Ratio G2
‘Most people
can be trusted’ Age 13–15 Age 16–18 Age 20–22 Age 22–24 Age 26–28
T2
T1 High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low
C 2016 Nordic Political Science Association
High 19.8 17.3 7.7 17.9 9.4 3.4 30.6 8.0 2.6 27.9 11.2 1.2 36.2 10.3 1.7
[44.1] [38.6] [17.3] [58.3] [30.5] [11.2] [74.3) [19.4] [6.3] [69.1] [27.8] [3.1] [75.1] [10.3] [3.5]
Medium 8.3 17.0 12.8 10.7 17.6 14.3 10.3 17.7 7.3 14.4 13.2 5.7 10.3 16.2 4.8
[21.7] [44.6] [12.8] [25.1] [41.3] [33.6] [29.3] [50.0] [20.7] [43.3] [39.6] [17.2] [32.9] [51.7] [15.4]
Low 1.1 5.5 10.5 3.3 8.4 15.1 2.4 9.1 12.1 4.5 9.2 12.7 3.8 6.9 9.7
[6.5] [32.3] [61.3] [12.3] [31.3) [56.4] [10.1] [38.5] [51.4] [17.0] [34.9] [48.1] [18.6] [34.0] [47.4]
G2 Quasi-symmetry 0.70 (1) ns 0.77 (1) ns 1.14 (1) ns 0.87 (1) ns 0.70 (1) ns
Notes: Numbers in the upper half of the table are percentages. Row percentages in brackets. Degrees of freedom in parentheses. *p < 0.05;
**p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
T2
T1 High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low
High 19.4 19.1 9.1 18.8 9.2 4.3 26.0 11.0 3.9 26.6 11.0 1.3 37.9 11.5 2.5
[40.7] [40.1] [19.2] [58.2] [28.6] [13.3] [63.5] [27.0] [9.5] [68.4) [28.4] [3.2] [73.0] [22.2] [4.8]
V
Medium 9.4 17.3 11.5 8.9 21.6 12.9 10.0 17.3 8.2 13.3 17.8 5.8 10.7 13.8 5.0
Notes: Numbers in the upper half of the table are percentages. Row percentages in brackets. Degrees of freedom in parentheses. *p < 0.05;
**p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
221
C 2016 Nordic Political Science Association
C 2016 Nordic Political Science Association
V
Discussion
The aim of the study was to contribute to a better understanding of how
social trust develops and when (if at all) social trust stabilizes between ado-
lescence and young adulthood. Using unique longitudinal data from five
different cohorts, ranging in age from 13 to 28 years, our study contributes
in several ways to increasing the knowledge on social trust in general, and
its malleability in particular. The results show that social trust appears to
stabilize as individuals mature. Regardless of type of measure, the results
showed a greater degree of instability between 13 and 15 years of age and
an increase in stability after late adolescence (ages 16–18). However, we
also showed that there are indeed substantial inter-individual differences in
social trust among young people within the same age group, both in initial
levels and in the rates of change over biannual time points. In addition,
the results indicated that the proportion of youth whose trust decreases is
equal to that of youth whose trust increases over time.
The finding that social trust appears to stabilize as individuals mature
and shows an increase in stability after late adolescence tallies well with
the impressionable-years hypothesis that political orientations tend to be
incomplete during early adulthood and crystallize when individuals enter
late adulthood (Sears & Brown 2013, 75). In addition, it supports
Flanagan and Stout and other scholars who found that social trust was
more stable by late adolescence than in early and middle adolescence
(cf. Jennings & Stoker 2002; 2004; Flanagan & Stout 2010) and a growing
number of studies showing that various political behaviours and attitudes,
such as political trust, political interest and tolerance, are shaped early
in life (e.g., Flanagan & Sherrod 1998; Torney-Purta et al. 2001; Hooghe
& Wilkenfeld 2008; Miklikowska 2016; Russo & Stattin 2016).
However, it is important to note that the findings do not wholly elimi-
nate the relevance of a cultural perspective. It could be argued that the
changes in trust during adolescence reported above are relatively modest,
supporting the view that social trust is a relatively stable and ‘sticky’ atti-
tude (Uslaner 2002). We have also shown that although social trust
appears to develop in line with the impressionable-years hypothesis, it is
not entirely fixed for the cohorts of interest for the current study, lending
support to the experiential perspective. Indeed, more research is needed
to explore what can be regarded as stable in relation to social trust and
how much impact respondents’ ambivalence has on the changes taking
place. That being said, our findings point to the significance of the
impressionable-years hypothesis for understanding the development of
adolescents’ social trust.
Finally, the results also revealed differences between the two measures
of social trust with regard to their malleability. As became apparent from
the results, the second measure, asking whether most people are fair and
do not take advantage, seemed to be more amenable to change than the
first measure (i.e., ‘most people can be trusted’). These systematic changes
occurring between two measurement occasions have not been captured in
earlier studies, probably due to the use of correlation coefficients in esti-
mating continuity and stability. It is possible that the response distribu-
tions shift upward or downward, while stability coefficients nonetheless
remain high (Madsen 2004). This finding implies that in order to better
understand stability in social trust, correlations alone are not a sufficient
means for estimating stability; rather they should be complemented with
other statistical tools, such as contingency tables.
This study has some limitations and strengths that warrant attention.
One potential limitation concerns the use of only two waves of data for
each cohort, meaning that we were not able to examine how social trust
develops over a longer period of time. However, the information about
stability and change across a wide age range offers some indication of
how and when social trust might develop as young people grow older. A
second limitation concerns the use of only two items to measure social
trust. Ideally, a construct with multiple measures of the same phenomenon
is preferable to single-item scales. However, it should be added that the
items used in the current study are similar to those used in numerous
studies and international surveys. A final potential limitation concerns
whether findings from our sample can be generalized to a wider popula-
tion (Wallman Lundåsen & Wollebæk 2013). The data used in this study
come from a community-based sample in a medium-sized Swedish city. It
might therefore be argued that findings cannot be generalized from this
particular context. Ideally, randomly selected samples drawn from the gen-
eral population are to be preferred. Nonetheless, the population of the
city from which the samples were drawn is, on average, very similar to the
national population on most basic demographic characteristics (e.g.,
income, parents’ immigrant status and unemployment). At the same time,
the research project from which the data in the current study were
obtained employs a community-based approach, since it is more suitable
and practically feasible given the longitudinal design of the project. Bear-
ing this in mind, the data used in the study seem to be representative of
the general population on several relevant characteristics for the relevant
age group, and have adequate validity. Related to that, it might be argued
that because of the different institutional arrangements and contextual set-
tings in democratic societies, the findings from the specific Swedish case
cannot be generalized to other countries. Ideally, of course, the findings
should be replicable in other democratic societies. At the same time, while
the purely empirical findings in the current study may differ from those in
other countries, it is reasonable to assume that the theoretical
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was made possible by access to data from the Political Socialization Programme, a
longitudinal research programme at YeS (Youth & Society) at Orebro€ University, Sweden.
Responsible for the planning, implementation and financing of the collection of data in this pro-
ject were Professors Erik Amnå, Mats Ekstr€ om, Margaret Kerr and Håkan Stattin. The data
collection was supported by grants from the Bank of Sweden Tercentenary Foundation. The
authors of this article would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for valuable comments on
earlier drafts. Note that the authors’ names are in alphabetical order and they share equal
responsibility for the article.
NOTES
1. A closely related argument as to why social trust is stable notes that trust is affected and
reinforced by our interactions with other people. First, people who trust others are more
likely to be trusted in turn. Second, while people who trust others perceive lots of evi-
dence to support their view that people can be trusted in general, distrusters are less
likely to become more trusting in their interactions since they suspect that others have
self-serving strategic or selfish motives behind their interactions with others (Rotter
1967; Bekkers 2012).
2. In some cases the stem question is the same, while the items may have different response
scale formats.
REFERENCES
Abramson, P. R. 1972. ‘Political Efficacy and Political Trust among Black Schoolchildren: Two
Explanations’, Journal of Politics, 34, 1243–69.
Agresti, A. 2013. Categorical Data Analysis. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Alesina, A. & La Ferrara, E. 2002. ‘Who Trusts Others?’, Journal of Public Economics, 85,
207–34.
Allport, G. W. 1961. Pattern and Growth in Personality. Oxford: Holt, Reinhart & Winston.
Ashton, M. C. & Lee, K. 2001. ‘A Theoretical Basis for the Major Dimensions of Personality’,
European Journal of Personality, 15, 327–53.
Bauer, P. C. 2014. ‘Negative Experiences and Trust: A Causal Analysis of the Effects of Vic-
timization on Generalized Trust’, European Sociological Review, DOI: 10.1093/esr/jcu096.
Bekkers, R. 2012. ‘Trust and Volunteering: Selection or Causation? Evidence from a 4 Year
Panel Study’, Political Behavior, 34, 225–47.
Bijleveld, C. C. J. H., Van der Kamp, L. J. T., Mooijaart, A., Van der Kloot, W. A., Van der
Leeden, R. & Van der Burg, E. 1998. Longitudinal Data Analysis: Designs, Models and
Methods. London: Sage.
Cigler, A. & Joslyn, M. R. 2002. ‘The Extensiveness of Group Membership and Social Capital:
The Impact on Political Tolerance Attitudes’, Political Research Quarterly, 55, 7–25.
Claibourn, M. P. & Martin, P. S. 2000. ‘Trusting and Joining? An Empirical Test of the Recip-
rocal Nature of Social Capital’, Political Behavior, 22, 267–91.
Cohen, J. & Cohen, P. 1983. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behav-
ioral Sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Delhey, J. & Newton, K. 2003. ‘Who Trusts? The Origins of Social Trust in Seven Societies’,
European Societies, 5, 93–137.
Dinas, E. 2013. ‘Opening “Openness to Change” Political Events and the Increased Sensitivity
of Young Adults’, Political Research Quarterly, 66, 868–82.
Dinesen, P. T. 2011. ‘A Note on the Measurement of Generalized Trust of Immigrants and
Natives’, Social Indicators Research, 103, 169–77.
Dinesen, P. T. 2012. ‘Does Generalized (Dis)Trust Travel? Examining the Impact of Cultural
Heritage and Destination-country Environment on Trust of Immigrants’, Political Psychol-
ogy, 33, 495–511.
Dinesen, P. T. & Sønderskov, K. M. 2015. ‘Ethnic Diversity and Social Trust Evidence from
the Micro-context’, American Sociological Review. DOI: 10.1177/0003122415577989.
Dinesen, P. T., Nørgaard, A. S. & Klemmensen, R. 2014. ‘The Civic Personality: Personality
and Democratic Citizenship’, Political Studies, 62, 134–52.
Elliott, G. R. & Feldman, S. S. 1990. ‘Capturing the Adolescent Experience’, in Feldman, S. S.
& Elliott, G. R., eds, At the Threshold: The Developing Adolescent. Cambridge, MA: Har-
vard University Press.
Engel, U. & Reinecke, J. 1996. Analysis of Change: Advanced Techniques in Panel Data Anal-
ysis. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Erikson, E. H. 1950. Childhood and Society. New York: Norton.
Flanagan, C. A. & Sherrod, L. R. 1998. ‘Youth Political Development: An Introduction’, Jour-
nal of Social Issues, 54, 447–56.
Flanagan, C. A. & Stout, M. 2010. ‘Developmental Patterns of Social Trust between Early and
Late Adolescence: Age and School Climate Effects’, Journal of Research on Adolescence,
20, 748–73.
Flanagan, C. A., Syvertsen, A. K. & Stout, M. 2007. Civic Measurement Models: Tapping Ado-
lescents’ Civic Engagement. College Park, MD: Center for Information and Research on
Civic Learning and Engagement.
Freitag, M. & Bauer, P. C. 2016. ‘Personality Traits and the Propensity to Trust Friends and
Strangers’, Social Science Journal. DOI: 10.1016/jsoscij201512002.
Gastil, J. & Xenos, M. 2010. ‘Of Attitudes and Engagement: Clarifying the Reciprocal Rela-
tionship between Civic Attitudes and Political Participation’, Journal of Communication, 60,
318–43.
Glanville, J. L. & Paxton, P. 2007. ‘How Do We Learn to Trust? A Confirmatory Tetrad Anal-
ysis of the Sources of Generalized Trust’, Social Psychology Quarterly, 70, 230–42.
Hardin, R. 1992. ‘The Street-level Epistemology of Trust’, Analyse & Kritik, 14, 152–76.
Hatemi, P. K., Funk, C. L., Medland, S. E., Maes, H. M., Silberg, J. L., Martin, N. G. & Eaves,
L. J. 2009. ‘Genetic and Environmental Transmission of Political Attitudes over a Life
Time’, Journal of Politics, 71, 1141–56.
Hiraishi, K., Yamagata, S., Shikishima, C. & Ando, J. 2008. ‘Maintenance of Genetic Variation
in Personality through Control of Mental Mechanisms: A Test of Trust, Extraversion and
Agreeableness’, Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 79–85.
Hooghe, M. & Wilkenfeld, B. 2008. ‘The Stability of Political Attitudes and Behaviors across
Adolescence and Early Adulthood: A Comparison of Survey Data on Adolescents and
Young Adults in Eight Countries’, Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 155–67.
Jennings, M. K. & Niemi, R. G. 1981. Generations and Politics: A Panel Study of Youth Adults
and Their Parents. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Jennings, M. K. & Stoker, L. 2002. ‘Generational Change, Life Cycle Processes and Social
Capital’. Paper presented at the workshop ‘Citizenship on Trial: Interdisciplinary Perspec-
tives on the Political Socialisation of Adolescents’, McGill University.
Jennings, M. K. & Stoker, L. 2004. ‘Social Trust and Civic Engagement across Time and Gen-
erations’, Acta Politica, 39, 342–79.
Kiousis, S. & McDevitt, M. 2008. ‘Agenda Setting in Civic Development Effects of Curricula
and Issue Importance on Youth Voter Turnout’, Communication Research, 35, 481–502.
Krosnick, J. A. & Alwin, D. F. 1989. ‘Aging and Susceptibility to Attitude Change’. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 416–25.
Laurence, J. 2015. ‘(Dis)Placing Trust: The Long-term Effects of Job Displacement on Gener-
alised Trust over the Adult Lifecourse’, Social Science Research, 50, 46–59.
Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B. & Gaudet, H. 1944. The People’s Choice: How the Voter Makes
Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign. New York: Duell, Sloan & Pearce.
Madsen, D. 2004. ‘Stability Coefficient’, in Lewis-Beck, M. S., Bryman, A. & Liao, T. F., eds,
The Sage Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mattila, M., Wass, H., S€ oderlund, P., Fredriksson, S., Fadjukoff, P. & Kokko, K. 2011. ‘Person-
ality and Turnout: Results from the Finnish Longitudinal Studies’, Scandinavian Political
Studies, 34, 287–306.
McArdle, J. J. & Nesselroade, J. R. 1994. ‘Using Multivariate Data to Structure Developmen-
tal Change’, in Cohen, S. H. & Reese, H. W., eds, Life-span Developmental Psychology:
Methodological Contributions. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Meiser, T., Von Eye, A. & Spiel, C. 1997. ‘Loglinear Symmetry and Quasi-symmetry Models
for the Analysis of Change’. Biometrical Journal, 39, 351–368.
Miklikowska, M. 2016. ‘Like Parent, Like Child? Development of Prejudice and Tolerance
towards Immigrants’, British Journal of Psychology, 107, 95–116.
Muthen, L. K. & Muthen, B. O. 199822010. Mplus User’s Guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muth en
& Muthen.
Niemi, R. G. & Hepburn, M. A. 1995. ‘The Rebirth of Political Socialization’. Perspectives on
Political Science, 24, 7–16.
Osborne, D., Sears, D. O. & Valentino, N. A. 2011. ‘The End of the Solidly Democratic South:
The Impressionable-years Hypothesis’. Political Psychology, 32, 81–108.
Oskarsson, S., Dinesen, P. T., Dawes, C. T., Johannesson, M. & Magnusson, P. 2016. ‘Educa-
tion and Social Trust: Testing a Causal Hypothesis Using the Discordant Twin Design’.
Political Psychology. DOI: 10.1111/pops.12343.
Persson, M. 2012. ‘Does Type of Education Affect Political Participation?
Results from a Panel Survey of Swedish Adolescents’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 35,
198–221.
Prior, M. 2010. ‘You’ve Either Got It or You Don’t? The Stability of Political Interest over
the Life Cycle’, Journal of Politics, 72, 747–66.
Putnam, R. D. 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Putnam, R. D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New
York: Simon & Schuster.
Rosenberg, M. 1956. ‘Misanthropy and Political Ideology’, American Sociological Review, 21,
690–5.