Ideological Biases Weaken the Impact of Social Trust on Ethnic Outgroup Threat
| DOI | 10.1177/0032321719862751 |
| Published date | 01 May 2020 |
| Author | Jens Peter Frølund Thomsen,Arzoo Rafiqi |
| Date | 01 May 2020 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2019
Article
Political Studies
2020, Vol. 68(2) 523 –540
Ideological Biases Weaken
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
the Impact of Social Trust
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321719862751
DOI: 10.1177/0032321719862751
journals.sagepub.com/home/psx
on Ethnic Outgroup Threat
Jens Peter Frølund Thomsen
and Arzoo Rafiqi
Abstract
Previous studies have not examined whether (personal) political ideology influences how trusters
perceive of immigrants and refugees as a threat. Our contribution to the literature builds on
theories of motivated reasoning and hypothesizes that political ideology weakens the ability of social
trust to reduce perceived (ethnic) outgroup threat. Indeed, analyses show that the relationship
between social trust and perceived outgroup threat is considerably weaker among rightists than
among leftists. Although social trust does relate negatively to perceived outgroup threat across
the ideological divide, political ideology has a constraining influence that cannot be ignored. Social
trust is also a political phenomenon. We apply a fixed-effects regression, and analyses are based on
the 2014-European Social Survey, including 21 countries and 32,175 individuals. In the concluding
section, we discuss the full implications of our findings for theories of social trust in an era of
increasing flows of immigrants and refugees that go beyond the usual gateway nations.
Keywords
social trust, ethnic outgroup threat, political ideology, motivated reasoning, fixed-effects
regression
Accepted: 20 June 2019
Introduction
Incoming flows of immigrants or refugees cause social, cultural, and economic changes
in numerous contemporary nations. Among wealthier nations, these changes stimulate
political responses, referring to negative threat-based reactions among right-wing
segments, and the opposite reactions among left-wing persons. In particular, the success
of so-called right-wing populism reflects the transitions toward more ethnically diverse
societies (Semyonov et al., 2006). In view of these social changes and concomitant ideo-
logical strife, the harmonious consequences of social trust appear to be increasingly
Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
Corresponding author:
Jens Peter Frølund Thomsen, Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Email: froelund@ps.au.dk
524
Political Studies 68(2)
important (also Herreros and Criado, 2009). It is the purpose of this study to understand
how these political pressures related to increasing globalization influence the positive
outcomes of social trust.
To be sure, many studies conclude that social trust is a vital source of positive out-
comes for a society, as it means a readiness to think well of the so-called “generalized
unknown other” (e.g. Bjørnskov, 2015; Brehm and Rahn, 1997; Nguyen and Bernauer,
2018; Uslaner, 2011; Welch et al., 2005). Social trust is a moral belief, ordering friendli-
ness and generally pro-social behavior (Uslaner, 2004, 2011). Consistent with this con-
ception, several studies have found an association between social trust and positive
reactions toward ethnic outgroup members, including reduced perceived outgroup threat
(e.g. Citrin and Sides, 2008; Ekici and Yucel, 2015; Herreros and Criado, 2009; Rochelle
and Erickson, 2009; Rustenbach, 2010; Sides and Citrin, 2007). This specific type of
reaction refers to the fear of harmful social, economic, or cultural consequences of immi-
gration/flows of refugees (González et al., 2008; McLaren, 2003; Stephan et al., 1998).
Most importantly for our purposes, however, the theoretical understanding of social
trust in the academic community is remarkably apolitical. With the notable exception of
Rosenberg’s (1956) classic contribution, contemporary scholars tend to approach social
trust as a belief that operates independently of ideological orientations (Barceló, 2016;
Berning and Ziller, 2017; Chang and Kang, 2018; Ekici and Yucel, 2015; Herreros and
Criado, 2009; Jung et al., 2017; Justwan, 2015; for a literature review, see Nannestad,
2008; Newton et al., 2017; Uslaner, 2002, 2017; Welch et al., 2005). Is this approach
adequate? While arguing that social trust generates positive outcomes across the ideologi-
cal divide is one thing (and ample empirical evidence supports this claim), it is quite
another to claim (or assume) that the capacity of social trust to reduce perceived outgroup
threat is equally powerful among leftists and rightists. We believe this claim to be
implausible.
Accordingly, we contribute to the relatively sparse amount of research on the positive
consequences of social trust. To advance knowledge, we claim that the capacity of social
trust to reduce perceived outgroup threat varies across the ideological divide due to the
occurrence of motivated reasoning at the mass level. We are the first to bring the theory
of motivated reasoning into research on social trust. This theory is relevant because it
emphasizes the role of a strong psychological propensity, triggering highly selective
information processing meant to defend one’s key ideological values (Kunda, 1990). The
average citizen is a biased (rather than neutral) judge of social developments. Applied to
the case of immigration and inflows of non-Western refugees, social trusters likely
respond differently to these social developments in contemporary nations. While all
social trusters are more positive than distrusters, rightist trusters may feel more threatened
by immigration and refugees because they value tradition and conformity more than left-
ists. The latter category typically values change and pluralism. Building on these theoreti-
cal considerations, we hypothesize that the ability of social trust to reduce perceived
outgroup threat is considerably weaker among rightists than among leftists. Along these
lines, (right-wing) political ideology may serve as a key condition capable of constraining
the inclusionary implications of social trust.
We examine our hypothesis in a comprehensive fixed-effects regression analysis of
32,175 individuals nested in 21 different nations. The data are from the European Social
Survey fielded in 2014, as this provides theoretically adequate measures. The empirical
analysis supports our ideological constraint hypothesis. We discuss the full implications
of our findings for theories of social trust in the concluding section.
Thomsen and Rafiqi
525
Social Trust
The object of social trust is the generalized and unknown other (Delhey and Newton,
2005; Dinesen and Sønderskov, 2012; Rothstein and Uslaner, 2005). Specifying its sub-
stance, some scholars emphasize that social trust is a positive (and unprejudiced) belief
about other people that is not based on personal experiences or interactions with them
(Ahn and Ostrom, 2003: 20). Consistent with this claim, numerous studies have con-
cluded that social trust fosters positive reactions toward (unknown) ethnic outgroup
members (e.g. Bahry et al., 2005; Berning and Ziller, 2017; Côté and Erickson, 2009;
Herreros and Criado, 2009; Sides and Citrin, 2007; Uslaner, 2010).
But does social trust always foster positive reactions toward ethnic outgroup members
irrespective of other values and attitudes? This question has received surprisingly little
attention in the social trust literature; in fact, there would appear to be two different per-
spectives on the efficiency of social trust across political and ideological values. We will
distinguish between the inclusionary and exclusionary perspectives (Bahry et al., 2005).
We expand on both below.
The Inclusionary Perspective
The essence of this perspective originates from an oft-quoted definition of generalized
social trust as a positive view of other people who remain unknown and are most likely
different from oneself (Uslaner, 2010). Trusters will be most friendly toward their own
group members, but they will also be positive toward unknown ethnic outgroup members
(Bahry et al., 2005; also Herring et al., 2005). To explain this “generous” inclusiveness,
Uslaner (2002: 2) argues that social trust is an inherently optimistic belief that others are
honorable (also Ahn and Ostrom, 2003: 19–20). Indeed, Uslaner (2000) relates social
trust to the notion of a moral foundation (“moralistic trust”). In turn, this foundation
implies that trusters are convinced that other (unknown) people have high moral integ-
rity—they are generally honest and caring rather than dishonest and ruthless (Uslaner,
2002: 2–3). It follows from this that serious conflicts between majority and ethnic out-
group members are much rarer in nations with high levels of social trust (Uslaner, 2010).
The Exclusionary Perspective
A number of studies emphasize that the positive implications of social trust may be lim-
ited (Alesina and La Ferrara, 2002: 231; Dinesen and Sønderskov, 2012; Glaeser et al.,
2000; Hooghe et al., 2007; Putnam, 2007). According to this perspective, most people
instinctively see members of their own group as more trustworthy than others. Such in-
group favoritism relates to the important role that closeness and confidence plays in
human interaction as “… most individuals are less inclined to trust those who are differ-
ent from themselves, because familiarity breeds trust …” (Alesina and La Ferrara, 2002:
8). Alesina and La...
To continue reading
Request your trial