Sit and Get Vs Doing
edpapers
800Samplepaper1-Slayter.docxEducation and Trust 1
Running head: EDUCATION AND TRUST
Education and Trust 2
Education and Trust
by
Cajun Jane
The University of Louisiana at Lafayette
Abstract
The relationship between educational attainment and trust is examined using data from the National Opinion Research Center’s General Social Survey (GSS). The relationship between education and trust was found to be moderate to strong and statistically significant. In general, respondents with less than a high school education were found to be about 37 percentage points less likely to trust than respondents with graduate degrees. Moreover, the strength of the relationship was not substantively different when controlling for gender and religiousness. The findings provide an additional, non-economic argument for funding higher education. Education affects the trust levels of citizens, and as trust is an important ingredient for the maintenance of civil society and the democracy which depends on it. Funding higher education not only brings economic benefits but political stability as well.
Keywords: education, trust, social capital
Education and Trust
What is the relationship between educational attainment and trust? Trust involves our belief that others are reliable, and that we can be confident that they will do what they say they will do or what we expect them to do. Trust lends predictability and a measure of certainty to human interactions. The more people trust one another, they more they can depend on each other to coordinate their collective behavior along lines of mutual interests. The less they have to worry about betrayal, duplicity, treachery, or disloyalty—behaviors that undermine or preclude cooperative behavior. Trust enables us to plan. It allows us to enter into countless and varied economic transactions without having to worry about the quality of our cars, the reliability of our services, or the benefits of our medicines. Without trust, we are reluctant to work with others to solve common problems in our business organizations, our neighborhood associations, fraternal organizations and the like. Trust is important in our everyday lives and, accordingly, it is important to try to understand what promotes trust in others and what undermines it. Therefore, the general question of this study has to do with the impact of formal education on our willingness to trust others. What, in other words, is the relationship between education and trust? Is our willingness to trust others influenced by how much formal schooling we have had?
Significance of the Study
This question is important, in the first place, because trust is important. As Francis Fukyama put it: "…one of the most important lessons we can learn from an examination of economic life is that a nation's well-being, as well as its ability to compete, is conditioned by a single pervasive cultural characteristic: the level of trust inherent in society"(1995:5). High levels of trust are also politically important. They underpin civil society and, through it, contribute to the health of a democratic society (Putnam, 1995). For both economic and political reasons, then, trust is important.
If trust is important, so also is the question of its relationship with education. This is because education is a factor that can be influenced through local, state and federal policies. If it turns out that higher levels of education tend to induce people to be more trusting, and if higher trust levels have benefits for the polity as well as the economy, then public officials not only have more reason to increase spending on education, they also have more reasons to support their arguments for funding increases. It is important, then, to try to ascertain whether education has an impact on trust levels and, if there is a relationship, to determine its strength and direction.
Research Hypothesis
Accordingly, this study advances and tests the following directional hypothesis:
1. The higher the level of education that a person attains, the higher their trust levels will be.
Delimitations of the Study
No doubt many things influence trust levels—upbringing, past experience, economic factors and so on. These factors, however, will not be examined in this particular study which is focused only on the relationship between trust and education.
Limitations of the Study
A great deal of work has been done on trust in recent years, both theoretical and empirical. A number of public data sets might allow the exploration of the education-trust relationship. However, this study is limited to data available in the National Opinion Research Center’s General Social Survey.
Review of the Literature
Nineteen-ninety-five saw the publications of two important works on trust, Robert Putnam's "Bowling Alone" (1995) and Francis Fukyama's Trust (1995). Putnam's work was important in part because in it he claimed that trust levels in America were on the decline, a fact that did not bode well for "social capital", a term James Coleman (1988) used to refer to Americans' willingness and capacity to come together--especially outside of government-sponsored agencies--to solve common problems.
Social capital is itself important, Putnam pointed out, because it influences civil society--the matrix of informal relationships and systems of communication--that enable formal economic and political action to be carried on. Some of the data that Putnam used to make his point about declines in trust he took from the General Social Survey.
Fukuyama's book on trust was important because it developed more fully the link between trust and economies and polities, particularly those that happen to be democratic.
The link between trust and democracy has become especially important in recent years as the stability of modern democracies has grown increasingly problematic. Political democracy--the competitive and open election of public officials by a largely enfranchised population-- has declined in more countries than it has advanced (Freedom House, 2012). Further, the decline of political democracy in the 2000s marks a sharp reversal from the democratization trends of the 1990s when some democracy scholars were so optimistic they were writing that “The world …is in the grip of a democratic revolution. Throughout the developing world…nations are on the march toward democracy”(Diamond, 1990). Fukuyama (1992) himself picked up on an Hegelian theme, and wrote that we had finally arrived at the “End of History”, meaning that in democracy history had reached a phase of political development on which there could be no further progress.
Not all scholars were as caught up in the early 1990s democratic euphoria, however. Fareed Zakaria (1997), for example, had observed that while many of the newly democratic countries possessed the minimum criteria to be considered democratic, they still fell considerably short of the democratic ideal.
Now, in the wake of movements in Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia, as well as elsewhere in the world, the mood has turned more pessimistic. As Bruce Gilley (2010) has observed, “…the hottest books on democratization these days concern not democratic advance but authoritarian resurgence”.
The degree to which individuals trust one another, then, is not simply important for individual well-being but figures importantly into community and, ultimately, national well-being too. It would appear to be particularly important in education because schools provide our youth with some of their most intense and prolonged experiences, and among these experiences surly are included experience of trust, experiences they likely obtain from interacting with teachers whose levels of trust are higher than those of most other Americans (Slater, 2014).
Since Putnam and Fukuyama brought the issue of trust to the forefront of the American consciousness, a great deal of work has been done on the topic in education. The early work in this context often focused on the effects of teacher trust on students and parents. In much of this research trust has been viewed as one of the characteristics of schools that make a difference for the achievement of all students.
Interpretive Summary
A number of scholars have recognized the importance of trust for economic activity and political stability. They argue that high trust levels tend to increase people’s willingness to do business with each other, i.e., they enhance economic activity. High trust levels also tend to make democratic societies more stable as people are more willing to overcome their individualism and unite their efforts to confront common problems. Researchers in education have applied some of the general work on trust to the special case of schools and schooling. However, much of the empirical work has focused on measuring the levels of trust in American society as a whole (Putnam, 1995). Less effort has been focused on trying to identify and the factors that contribute to trust levels, factors such as education. The work that does exist on the education-trust relationship, tends not to use national data such as the GSS.
Research Methods
Research Design
This study utilizes an ex-post facto comparative-causal research design (Gall et al., 2007:306). The purpose of this design is to explain phenomena through the study of cause-and-effect relationships in naturally occurring phenomena. In this study, the independent variable (education) is not manipulated by the researcher but is naturally occurring in the population, as is the dependent variable (trust). This study’s results are subject to the disadvantage characteristic of this type of design, namely, inferences about causality are necessarily tentative.
Overview of Statistical Procedures
Causal-comparative research typically explores and tests alternative hypotheses by comparing groups of respondents. Contingency tables are suited to this kind of analysis particularly when nominal and ordinal measures are employed. Accordingly, the following analysis uses cross-tabulation and the extreme-groups technique of comparison (Gall, et al., 2007:312-313).
Sample Selection and Sampling
The explanation below of the sampling techniques used to collect the data for the GSS is quoted from the NORC site and documentation provided by NORC (National Opinion Research Center, 2014).
GSS surveys in the years 1972 to 1974 utilized a modified probability sample or a multi-stage “block quota” design. With this approach, the sample is a multi-stage area probability sample to the block or segment level. The Primary Sampling Units (PSUs) employed are Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) or non-metropolitan counties selected in NORC's Master Sample. These SMSAs and counties were stratified by region, age, and race before selection. At the block level, however, quota sampling is used with quotas based on sex, age, and employment status. The chance of sample biases mainly due to not-at-homes are reduced by giving the interviewers instructions to canvass and interview only after 3:00 p.m. on weekdays or during the weekend or holidays.
The units of selection of the second stage were block groups (BGs) and enumeration districts (EDs). These EDs and BGs were stratified according to race and income before selection. The third stage of selection was that of blocks. The blocks were selected with probabilities proportional to size. In places without block statistics, measures of size for the blocks were obtained by field counting. The average cluster size is five respondents per cluster. This provides a suitable balance of precision and economy.
At the block or segment level, the interviewer begins a travel pattern at the first DU (dwelling unit) from the northwest corner of the block and proceeds in a specified direction until the quotas have been filled. The quotas call for approximately equal numbers of men and women with the exact proportion in each segment determined by the 1970 Census tract data. For women, the additional requirement is imposed that there be the proper proportion of employed and unemployed women in the location. Again, these quotas are based on the 1970 Census tract data. For men, the added requirement is that there be the proper proportion of men over and under 35 in the location.
The General Social Survey switched to a full probability sample for the 1977, 1978, 1980, and 1982-2012 surveys. At this point the GSS became the only full-probability, personal-interview survey designed to monitor changes in both social characteristics and attitudes being conducted in the United States.
Procedures for Human Subjects Protection
The present study will be submitted for approval to the University of Louisiana at Lafayette’s Institutional Review Board (IRB). "IRB" is a generic term used by FDA (and HHS) to refer to a group whose function is to review research to assure the protection of the rights and welfare of the human subjects. As stated on the University of Louisiana at Lafayette’s website:
For undergraduate and graduate class research projects that are part of the required assessed work for class credit (this does not include capstone projects) and that involve human subjects, the instructor of record serves as a delegate of the IRB and may certify the project(s) as either exempt or of minimal risk and forego IRB review, unless the research is externally funded…(University of Louisiana, University Research, 2013)
Variables and Measures
The following variables and measures will be used in the study:
Dependent Variable
TRUST. The dependent variable in this study is trust or the belief that someone or something is reliable, good, honest or effective. The prompt for trust in the GSS is the following question (See Table 1): “Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted or that you can't be too careful in life?”
Independent Variable .
DEGREE. The independent variable in this study is the amount of formal schooling reported by respondents. The GSS prompt used for this variable is “degree” (See Table 2).
Control Variables
Two control variables are used: gender and religiousness. Gender is presumed to affect trust levels wherein women are expected to be less trusting than men. The GSS prompt in this case is “sex” (See Table 3). Religiousness is also presumed to have an effect on respondents’ trust levels. In this case, we measure religiousness by the frequency of church attendance. The GSS prompt on this instance is “attend” (See Table 4).
Data Analysis and Discussion
Is there a relationship between education and trust? Are respondents with high levels of education more likely to trust than those with low levels of education?
Using data from the total sample, 1972 to 2012, Table 5 shows the relationship between various levels of educational attainment of Americans and whether they trust others. From the table we can see that 24 percent of Americans with less than a high school diploma said that people could be trusted whereas, by contrast, 62 percent with a graduate degree reported that they believed people were trustworthy. The highest educated Americans were 38 percentage points more likely to be trusting than the least educated Americans, a difference that is statistically significant (p = .00).
Tables 6 and 7 show the education-trust relationship controlling for gender. In this case, the difference between the least educated and most educated males is 38 percentage points (27 vs 65), the same as it was for the total population. For females, the difference is 36 percentage points (22 vs 58). Both differences are statistically significant (p = .00).
Table 8 shows the education-trust relationship for American who report attending church frequently, “every week” or “more than once a week.” The percentage difference is 37 percent, an effect size that is no different from what was found in the earlier tables.
Discussion and Interpretation of Results
Education appears to have a substantial and significant effect on trust levels. The least educated Americans were 38 percentage points less likely than the most educated to say that people could be trusted (Table 5). Moreover, the effects of education on trust does not appear to be influenced by gender.. Highly educated men and women are equally likely to be more trusting than than their counterparts who have less than a high school education. Nor does education-trust relationship seem to be affected by religiousness. Even among Americans who reported going to church one or more times a week, there was a still a gap between the least educated and the most educated.
Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations
Findings and Limitations
The data indicate that a strong, positive relationship exists between education and trust. The more formal schooling people have, the more likely they are to trust. For example, the highest educated Americans were 38 percentage points more likely to be trusting than the least educated Americans, a difference that is statistically significant (p = .00).
However, while the data suggest a moderate to strong relationship exists between educational attainment and trust, the results should be taken as tentative, pending further analysis. In addition to the cautions typically associated with an ex-post facto, non-experimental design, there is the additional consideration that other variables that might influence trust were not controlled. For example, no effort was made to control for any experience respondents might have had with violence. Even highly educated persons who have encountered violence of one sort or another—robbery, assault, etc.-- may not be as likely to trust as those who have not. Nor was any control introduced for age. Perhaps older respondents are more likely to be trusting than younger participants, regardless of education.
Implications for Future Research
Future research on the education-trust relationship should explore the impact of other variables such as experience with violence, age, neighborhood environment, race and social class. Each of these factors stand to mitigate the relationship. One might expect, for example, that discriminatory practices associated with race may reduce trust levels in ways for which education is unable to compensate. Similarly, income may be positively associated with trust levels as respondents with high incomes may feel secure than those with low incomes, their security making them at the same time more trusting. Indeed, as education and income are correlated, it may be that what we have seen as the effects of education may really be the effects of income.
Implications for Education Policy
Higher education officials throughout the country have struggled in the wake of state budget cuts to maintain funding for their universities and colleges. Their main argument for funding education has been an economic one. The higher education citizens have, the more economic activity they generate. This research suggests an additional impact of higher education. It affects the trust levels of citizens, and as trust is an important ingredient for the maintenance of civil society and the democracy which depends on it, funding higher education not only brings economic benefits but political stability as well.
References
Coleman, J. (Supplement 1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. The American Journal of Sociology, 94: S95-S120.
Diamond, L. (1990). Three paradoxes of democracy. Journal of Democracy 1:48.
Freedom House (2012). Freedom in the world: 2012. Available online at http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2012
Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man, (New York: Free Press, 1992)
Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York: Free Press.
Gilley, B. (2010) Democratic triumph, scholarly pessimism. Journal of Democracy. 21 :160-167
Goddard, R. Tschannen-Moran, M. and Hoy, W. (2001). A multilevel examination of the distribution and effects of teacher trust in students and parents in urban elementary schools. Elementary School Journal, 102.
Hoy, W. (2012). School characteristics that make a difference for the achievement of all students: A 40-year odyssey," Journal of Educational Administration, 50:76-97.
National Opinion Research Center. (2014). General Social Survey Documentation, Appendix A: Sampling Design and Weighting. Retrieved from: http://gss.norc.org/documents/codebook/GSS_Codebook_AppendixA.pdf
Putnam, R. (1995). Bowling alone: America's declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6: 65-78
Smith, Tom W.; Marsden, Peter V; Michael Hout; Jibum Kim. General Social Surveys, 1972-2012. [machine-readable data file]. Principal Investigator, Tom W. Smith; Co-Principal Investigators, Peter V. Marsden and Michael Hout, NORC ed. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center, producer, 2005; Storrs, CT: The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut, distributor. 1 data file (57,061 logical records) and 1 codebook (3,422 pp).
Tschannen-Moran, M. (2001). Collaboration and the need for trust," Journal of Educational Administration, 39:308-331
Zakaria, F. (1997). The rise of illiberal democracy," Foreign Affairs 76:22-43
University of Louisiana at , University Research (2013). IRB guidelines. Available at http://vpresearch.louisiana.edu/node/396
Tables
|
Table 1 Descriptive Statistics for TRUST General Social Survey 1972-2018 Cumulative Datafile |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Feb 12, 2020 (Wed 10:05 AM PST) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Statistics exclude missing-data and out-of-range values. |
|
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for DEGREE General Social Survey 1972-2018 Cumulative Datafile |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Feb 12, 2020 (Wed 10:08 AM PST) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Statistics exclude missing-data and out-of-range values. |
|
Table 3. Descriptive Statistics for SEX General Social Survey 1972-2018 Cumulative Datafile |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Feb 12, 2020 (Wed 10:09 AM PST) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Table 4. Descriptive Statistics for ATTEND General Social Survey 1972-2018 Cumulative Datafile |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Feb 12, 2020 (Wed 10:12 AM PST) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Table 5. TRUST by DEGREE General Social Survey 1972-2018 Cumulative Datafile |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Feb 12, 2020 (Wed 10:17 AM PST) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Table 6. TRUST by DEGREE by SEX (male) General Social Survey 1972-2018 Cumulative Datafile |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Feb 12, 2020 (Wed 10:19 AM PST) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Chart for SEX = 2(FEMALE) |
|
Table 8. TRUST by DEGREE by ATTEND (Never) General Social Survey 1972-2018 Cumulative Datafile |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Feb 12, 2020 (Wed 10:22 AM PST) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
