Recent Immigrants, Earlier Immigrants and the Canadian-Born: Personal and Social Trust
2. Literature Review
Researchers and theorists in the field of social capital [Note 3] argue that trust is a key element of social life, stating, for example, that it “is fundamental to the functioning of our interdependent society” (Schellenberg 2004a, 19) and that the “social fabric depends heavily on social trust” (Breton et al. 2004, 48). Breton et al. (2004) explain that “without trust, it would be difficult to function effectively in the extensive networks of interdependence in which we are involved” (47). As Schellenberg (2004a) states, “trust in others is vital for cooperation, communication and positive relationships” (16). For Newton (2001), “social life without trust would be intolerable and, most likely, quite impossible” (202).
Low or declining levels of trust are said to have negative effects on civic engagement and democracy (Putnam 2000), as well as the economy (Fukuyama 1995a, 1995b). Moreover, as explained by Schellenberg (2004a), trust is related to a sense of belonging: “interaction builds trust between strangers, which may lead to shared values and expectations, thereby broadening the individual’s identity and feelings of solidarity with others” (17). Based on this view, trust – and social trust in particular – can therefore be used as one indicator of social integration.
In the literature, trust is conceptualized in a variety of ways: as a psychological state (Yang 2006), as a resource (Breton et al. 2004), as a process (Khodyakov 2007) and as a willing dependency (Hupcey et al. 2001). It involves the notions of expectation (Breton et al. 2004; Yang 2006), of risk and vulnerability (Hupcey et al. 2001; Newton 2001; Kazemipur 2006; Yang 2006) and of reciprocity or mutuality (Kazemipur 2006). As Yang (2006) explains, “trust means a psychological state that enables individuals to accept vulnerability and place their welfare in the hands of other parties, expecting positive intentions or behaviours from other parties” (574). For Newton (2001), trust is defined as “the actor’s belief that, at worst, others will not knowingly or willingly do harm, and at best, that they will act in his interests” (202).
Breton et al. (2004) argue that “trust is not a given of nature. It is something that is achieved over time” (47). The authors add that it “is an important resource for individuals. It helps them to cope with complexity, ambiguity, and uncertainty. It increases predictability” (48). For Khodyakov (2007), trust is a temporal process which has an agentic nature: “Trust is a process of constant imaginative anticipation of the reliability of the other party’s actions based on (1) the reputation of the partner and the actor, (2) the evaluation of current circumstances of action, (3) assumptions about the partner’s actions, and (4) the belief in the honesty and morality of the other side” (126).
A basic distinction is made between personal and social trust in the literature. Personal trust is also referred to as strategic trust (Soroka et al. 2007) or thick trust (Kavanaugh et al. 2003; Khodyakov 2007). Personal/strategic/thick trust is “usually taken to exist among friends and family and is said to be based on intimate knowledge, familiarity, and direct connection to others” (Eisenberg 2007, 85). It is associated with strong ties between individuals (Khodyakov 2007), and is “based on individuals’ experiences” (Soroka et al. 2007, 96).
Personal trust is understood to be distinct from social trust, which is also referred to as moralistic trust (Eisenberg 2007; Soroka et al. 2007), generalised trust (Eisenberg 2007; Soroka et al. 2007) and thin trust (Kavanaugh et al. 2003; Khodyakov 2007). Social/moralistic/ generalised/thin trust is said to be “rooted in our beliefs about others” and “is about whether one should trust others regardless of their behaviour” (Soroka et al. 2007, 96).
Social trust relates to weak ties between individuals (Khodyakov 2007, 116), to those unfamiliar, to strangers, and to larger, more amorphous collectivities. Eisenberg (2007) explains, it “leads us to expose ourselves as vulnerable to others we have never met” (86). The concept captures “trust beyond an interpersonal reference which is solely based on dyadic and personal relationships, [and] is formulated to reflect trust in a broader social context” (Lin & Fu 2003, 6).
However, some authors, such as Newton (2001), caution against the “psychological theory that trust is a basic and unified personality trait”, stating that trust is rather “a response of individuals to the changing external world around them” (203-204). He continues, indicating that when survey respondents answer questions of generalised trust, their responses “tell us not about the disposition of people to be trusters or distrusters but about how they evaluate the trustworthiness of the world they live in” (Newton 2001, 203).
In terms of the relationship between personal and social trust, it should be noted that some authors, such as Granovetter (1973; 1983) argue that strong personal trust networks can act as barriers to the creation of social trust and links with the wider community.
According to Hooghe et al. (2008) “in recent years, the impact of migration and increasing ethnic diversity on social cohesion and particularly generalized trust has become a hotly debated topic among scholars, policy makers, and in society in general” (198). The literature on trust, diversity and immigration has traditionally been focused on the impact of migration on social cohesion and levels of trust and the difficulties that arise as a result of diversity (see Putnam 2007; Hooghe et al. 2008; Cheong et al. 2007; Stolle et al. 2008).
According to Kazemipur (2006), “the overwhelming majority of the studies done so far [primarily in the United States] argue in favour of a negative relationship between the two [trust and diversity], that is, the more diverse a population becomes, the lower its overall trust level will go” (6). Stolle et al. (2008) state, “a growing body of evidence suggest that localities, neighbourhoods, regions or states and even countries with more ethnic, racial and socio-economic diversity experience substantially more problems with the creation of various kinds of social capital, cooperation, trust and support” (57).
Many researchers including sociologists and social psychologists have argued that “people find it easier to trust one another and cooperate when the social distance between them is less” (Putnam 2007, 159). Putnam (2007) argues that “when social distance is small, there is a feeling of common identity, closeness, and shared experiences. But when social distance is great, people perceive and treat the other as belonging to a different category” (159).
However, as Hooghe et al. (2008) explain, it is important to take into account the timing (e.g., recent or long-term existence) of diversity in the community or country before making any assumptions about its impact on trust levels. The authors argue that “diversity must be understood as a dynamic phenomenon. The theoretical relevance is that we should not expect that a long-standing presence of ethnic minorities has the same effect on generalized trust as, for example, the rapid inflow of new immigrant groups into society” (203). The authors go on to state that “the different causal mechanisms of the threat hypothesis anchored in cultural distance and economic and political competition vis-à-vis majority groups are intensified with rapid changes of experienced diversity. Thus, the timing of diversity and its recent increase therefore should be of particular importance for generalized trust” (Hooghe et al. 2008, 203).
Stolle et al. (2008) use the Equality, Security and Community Survey (ESC) in Canada as well as the Citizenship, Involvement, Democracy (CID) in the U.S. to look at the effect of diversity on trust levels. The authors findings confirmed that “those reporting several or more neighbors of a different racial group are indeed less trusting” (68). However, the findings also showed that “not everyone is equally sensitive to context. Individuals who regularly talk with neighbours are less influenced by the racial and ethnic character of their surroundings than people who lack such social interaction” (57). The authors state that “this finding challenges claims about the negative effects of diversity on trust – at least, it suggests that the negative effects so prevalent in existing research can be mediated by social ties” (Stolle et al. 2008, 57).
Findings from Stolle et al. (2008) support the contact hypothesis, which argues that as diverse groups participate in meaningful interactions based on equal status relationships, trust is able to develop over time. “Social psychological research has shown that with the increased contacts between people of different backgrounds, the existing stereotypes start to shatter and a more trustful relationship begins to appear” (Kazemipur 2006, 20). “In other words … face-to-face social interactions among heterogeneous groups or individuals may under certain conditions be more conducive to the development of generalized trust that expands to include both members of the in-and out-group” (Stolle et al. 2008, 59).
Several Canadian studies have looked at issues surrounding immigration, social cohesion and trust (see Kaziemipur 2006; Reitz and Banerjee 2007; Soroka et al. 2007).
Kazemipur (2006) compared Canadian communities using the General Social Survey (GSS) Cycle 17 which contained a total sample of approximately 25,000 Canadians. The author found that “cities with more ethnically diverse populations tend also to demonstrate a higher level of trust” (13). He states that this likely demonstrates “a unique Canadian trend, different from those observed in other countries” (16). He found that “a higher immigrant population is associated with higher trust, a relationship also reflected in the barely significant but positive value of the correlation coefficient for the two variables” (16). This finding is particularly significant because not only does it suggest that in Canadian society diversity does not undermine trust, but also indicates that diversity actually has the potentiality to enhance trust. Kazemipur (2006) argues that:
explanatory factors can be found …both in the larger ethnic diversity in Canadian society and in the positive emphasis put on this diversity by celebrating a multicultural Canada… A larger exposure of Canadians to people of different ethnic backgrounds could have the potential to create a lower level of fear of ‘strangers’ and a higher level of trust among them (20).
Using the Ethnic Diversity Survey (EDS), Reitz and Banerjee (2007) analyzed the impact of visible minority status on the trust levels of recent immigrant, earlier immigrant as well as the second generation population. The authors found that “in the case of trust, the effect of visible minority status is negative for recent immigrants, and then more strongly negative for earlier immigrants. However, among the second generation, the effect of visible minority status on trust is less negative than it is among the earlier immigrants, though still more negative than it is for the most recent arrivals” (31). Reitz and Banerjee (2007) results also indicated that when looking at differences in trust levels “the racial effects are not explained by income levels, but they are partly (or, in the case of recent immigrants, entirely) explained by perceived discrimination and vulnerability” (33).
Drawing on data from the Equality, Security, and Community Survey, Soroka et al. (2007) found a statistically significant difference between the levels of trust of immigrants to Canada and the Canadian-born population. While the authors note that immigrants appear to be less trusting than the Canadian-born, they qualify that this “is a difference that glosses over ethnic differences among both immigrants and natives” (106). Interestingly, Soroka et al. (2007) propose that “the explanation for [lower] generalized trust does not lie in the Canadian experience but in the country of origin” (106). The authors find that the lower trust levels of immigrants are no longer significant when the national trust levels of countries of origin are considered, and in fact: “controlling imported trust turns the immigrant effect from negative to positive” (107). Moreover, they find that this ‘footprint effect’ does not persist past the first generation.
Notes
- [Note 3] According to Bryant and Norris (2002) “the term social capital generally encompasses dimensions such as trust, social participation, informal and formal networks, civic engagement and voluntary activities. Social capital generally refers to the resources or support stocks available within communities that emerge from interactions between neighbours and group members” (3).