Race and Trust
Abstract
This review considers that aspect of the voluminous trust literature that deals with race. After discussing the social conditions within which trust becomes relevant and outlining the distinctive contours of the three most common conceptualizations of trust—generalized, particularized, and strategic—I elaborate on the extent and nature of ethnoracial trust differences and provide an overview of the explanations for these differences. Ethnoracial differences in generalized trust are attributed to historical and contemporary discrimination, neighborhood context, and ethnoracial socialization. The consequences for the radius-of-trust problem are discussed with regard to particularized trust. And ethnoracial differences in strategic trust are located in structures of trustworthiness—such as social closure—and reputational concerns. I end the review with a brief discussion of social and economic consequences for trust gaps.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In general, immigrants tend to trust others less than nonimmigrants.
“The literature suggests that, in general, immigrants tend to trust others less than nonimmigrants (e.g., Smith 2010).”
From Prejudice and Discrimination Toward Immigrants (2021) · cites this paper as Smith 2010
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 160 · Cited by 254
- Authors
- Smith, S. S.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- Corresponding author
- Smith, Sandra Susan
- Venue
- Annual Review of Sociology
- Publisher
- Annual Reviews
- Published
- 2010-06-01
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 453-475
- ISSN
- 0360-0572 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-2115
- OpenAlex
- W2171944011
- Cited by
- 254
- References
- 160
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 5.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Annual Review of Sociology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Capital and Networks
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Racial and Ethnic Identity Research
- Keywords
- generalized trust, particularized trust, strategic trust, social closure, reputational concerns, discrimination, neighborhood context, trustworthiness
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review