CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 66Communication and COVID-19 ImpactCOVID-19 Prevention and ImpactCOVID-19 epidemiological studies

How political and social trust can impact social distancing practices during COVID-19 in unexpected ways

Open access
Woelfert, Frederike S., Kunst, Jonas R.·2020·Frontiers in Psychology
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.572966PMC PMC7767922
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In times of the coronavirus, complying with public health policies is essential to save lives. Understanding the factors that influence compliance with social distancing measures is therefore an urgent issue. The present research investigated the role of political and social trust for social distancing using a variety of methods. In Study 1 (N = 301), conducted with a sample from the United Kingdom in the midst of the virus outbreak (i.e., the first wave), neither political nor social trust had main associations with self-reported social distancing tendencies. However, both factors interacted such that social trust was associated with lower social distancing tendencies among participants with low levels of political trust. In Study 2, using an experimental longitudinal design and again conducted with a sample collected from the UK (N = 268) during the first wave of the pandemic, social distancing practices increased over time, independent of an experimental manipulation of political trust. Moreover, while the interaction between political and social trust from the first study could not be conceptually replicated, social trust was positively related to social distancing intentions. Moving from the individual to the country level and assessing actual behavior at both the first and second wave of the pandemic, in Study 3 (N = 65 countries), country-level political trust was related to less social distancing during the first wave. Social trust was related to a higher growth rate of infections. Against the background of these inconsistent findings, we discuss the potential positive and unexpected negative effects of social trust for social distancing.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.572966

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Negative public health events such as epidemics often pose a huge challenge to social trust.

    “Negative public health events such as epidemics often pose a huge challenge to social trust (Kye and Hwang, 2020; Woelfert and Kunst, 2020; Aassve et al., 2021).”

    From COVID-19 pandemic and adolescent mental health in China: Micro evidence and socioeconomic mechanisms (2022) · cites this paper as Woelfert and Kunst, 2020

    In General Discussion > Limitations and Future Research (page unavailable), the paper says recent research suggests the COVID-19 crisis led to more social and institutional trust, rather than undermining social trust. Its own studies examine how trust relates to distancing, not whether epidemics generally erode trust. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 52 · Cited by 66

Research works printed but not linked: 47

  1. Alm J. Martinez-Vazquez J. Torgler B. (2006). Russian attitudes toward paying taxes ‐ before, during, and after the transition. Int. J. Soc. Econ. 33, 832– 857. 10.1108/03068290610714670 · DOI
  2. Bierwiaczonek K. Kunst J. R. Pich O. (2020). Belief in COVID‐19 conspiracy theories reduces social distancing over time. Appl. Psychol. Health Well-Being. 10.1111/aphw.12223 [Epub ahead of print] 32864837 · DOI
  3. Blair R. A. Morse B. S. Tsai L. L. (2017). Public health and public trust: survey evidence from the ebola virus disease epidemic in Liberia. Soc. Sci. Med. 172, 89– 97. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.11.016, PMID: 27914936 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Carothers T. (2020). The global rise of anti-lockdown protests—and what to do about it World Politics Review, Benjamin Press. Available at: https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/29137/amid-the-covid-19-pandemic-protest-movements-challenge-lockdowns-worldwide (Accessed November 6, 2020).
  5. Chan H. F. Brumpton M. Macintyre A. Arapoc J. Savage D. A. Skali A. (2020a). How confidence in health care systems affects mobility and compliance during the COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS One 15: e0240644. 10.1371/journal.pone.0240644 33057450 PMC7561184 · DOI
  6. Chan H. F. Moon J. W. Savage D. A. Skali A. Torgler B. Whyte S. (2020b). Can psychological traits explain mobility behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic? Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 1– 12. 10.1177/1948550620952572 · DOI
  7. Chan H. F. Skali A. Savage D. Stadelmann D. Torgler B. (2020c). Risk attitudes and human mobility during the COVID-19 pandemic. CREMA Working Paper Series 2020-06. PMC7669857 33199737
  8. Chan H. F. Supriyadi M. W. Torgler B. (2018). “ Trust and tax morale” in The Oxford handbook of social and political trust. ed. Uslaner E. M. (New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press), 497– 534.
  9. Chuang Y. -C. Huang Y. -L. Tseng K. -C. Yen C. -H. Yang L. -H. (2015). Social capital and health-protective behavior intentions in an influenza pandemic. PLoS One 10: e0122970. 10.1371/journal.pone.0122970, PMID: 25874625 PMC4398366 · DOI
  10. Cohen J. Cohen P. West S. G. Aiken L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ, USA: Routledge.
  11. d’Alessandro E. Hubert D. Launay O. Bassinet L. Lortholary O. Jaffre Y.. (2012). Determinants of refusal of A/H1N1 pandemic vaccination in a high risk population: a qualitative approach. PLoS One 7: e34054. 10.1371/journal.pone.0034054, PMID: 22506011 PMC3323624 · DOI
  12. Delhey J. (2014). “ Trust” in Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research. ed. Michalos A. C. (Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer), 6743– 6747.
  13. Delhey J. Newton K. (2003). Who trusts? The origins of social trust in seven societies. Eur. Soc. 5, 93– 137. 10.1080/1461669032000072256 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Douglas M. Katikireddi S. V. Taulbut M. McKee M. McCartney G. (2020). Mitigating the wider health effects of covid-19 pandemic response. BMJ 369: m1557. 10.1136/bmj.m1557, PMID: 32341002 PMC7184317 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Esaiasson P. Sohlberg J. Ghersetti M. Johansson B. (2020). How the coronavirus crisis affects citizen trust in institutions and in unknown others: evidence from ‘the Swedish experiment’. Eur. J. Polit. Res. 10.1111/1475-6765.12419 [Epub ahead of print] · DOI
  16. Fancourt D. Steptoe A. Wright L. (2020). The Cummings effect: politics, trust, and behaviours during the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet 396, 464– 465. 10.1016/s0140-6736(20)31690-1 32771083 PMC7613216 · DOI
  17. Faulkner N. Martin A. Peyton K. (2015). Priming political trust: evidence from an experiment. Aust. J. Polit. Sci. 50, 164– 173. 10.1080/10361146.2014.979759 · DOI
  18. Field A. Miles J. Field Z. (2012). Discovering statistics using R. London, UK: SAGE Publications.
  19. Freitag M. Bauer P. C. (2016). Personality traits and the propensity to trust friends and strangers. Soc. Sci. J. 53, 467– 476. 10.1016/j.soscij.2015.12.002 · DOI
  20. Gigerenzer G. Selten R. (eds.) (2002). Bounded rationality: The adaptive toolbox. Cambridge, MA, USA; London, England: MIT press.
  21. Kawachi I. (2018). “ Trust and population health” in The Oxford handbook of social and political trust. ed. Uslaner E. M. (New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press), 447– 470.
  22. Lalot F. Heering M. S. Rullo M. Travaglino G. A. Abrams D. (2020). The dangers of distrustful complacency: low concern and low political trust combine to undermine compliance with governmental restrictions in the emerging Covid-19 pandemic. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 1– 16. 10.1177/1368430220967986 · DOI
  23. Lindström M. (2005). Social capital, the miniaturization of community and high alcohol consumption: a population-based study. Alcohol Alcohol. 40, 556– 562. 10.1093/alcalc/agh190, PMID: 16087659 · DOI
  24. Lindström M. (2008). “ Social capital and health-related behaviors” in Social capital and health. eds. Kawachi I. Subramanian S. Kim D. (New York, NY, USA: Springer), 215– 238.
  25. Mayer R. C. Davis J. H. Schoorman F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad. Manag. Rev. 20, 709– 734. 10.2307/258792 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Newton K. Stolle D. Zmerli S. (2018). “ Social and political trust” in The Oxford handbook of social and political trust. ed. Uslaner E. M. (New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press), 37– 56.
  27. Nieminen T. Prättälä R. Martelin T. Härkänen T. Hyyppä M. T. Alanen E. (2013). Social capital, health behaviours and health: a population-based associational study. BMC Public Health 13: 613. 10.1186/1471-2458-13-613 23805881 PMC3722011 · DOI
  28. Poortinga W. (2006). Do health behaviors mediate the association between social capital and health? Prev. Med. 43, 488– 493. 10.1016/j.ypmed.2006.06.004 16860857 · DOI
  29. Poppo L. Zhou K. Z. Li J. J. (2016). When can you trust “trust”? Calculative trust, relational trust, and supplier performance. Strateg. Manag. J. 37, 724– 741. 10.1002/smj.2374 · DOI
  30. Prati G. Pietrantoni L. Zani B. (2011). Compliance with recommendations for pandemic influenza H1N1 2009: the role of trust and personal beliefs. Health Educ. Res. 26, 761– 769. 10.1093/her/cyr035, PMID: 21613380 · DOI
  31. Putnam R. D. Leonardi R. Nanetti R. Y. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  32. Quinn S. C. Kumar S. Freimuth V. S. Kidwell K. Musa D. Quinn S. C. (2009). Public willingness to take a vaccine or drug under emergency use authorization during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. Biosecur. Bioterror. 7, 275– 290. 10.1089/bsp.2009.0041, PMID: 19775200 PMC2998968 · DOI
  33. Rönnerstrand B. (2013). Social capital and immunisation against the 2009 A(H1N1) pandemic in Sweden. Scand. J. Public Health 41, 853– 859. 10.1177/1403494813494975, PMID: 23843025 · DOI
  34. Rousseau D. Sitkin S. Burt R. Camerer C. (1998). Not so different after all: a cross-discipline view of trust. Acad. Manag. Rev. 23, 393– 404. 10.5465/AMR.1998.926617 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Salvador C. E. Berg M. K. Yu Q. San Martin A. Kitayama S. (2020). Relational mobility predicts faster spread of COVID-19: a 39-country study. Psychol. Sci. 31, 1236– 1244. 10.1177/0956797620958118, PMID: 32915703 · DOI
  36. Sibley C. G. Greaves L. M. Satherley N. Wilson M. S. Overall N. C. Lee C. H. J.. (2020). Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and nationwide lockdown on trust, attitudes toward government, and well-being. Am. Psychol. 75, 618– 630. 10.1037/amp0000662, PMID: 32496074 · DOI
  37. Siegrist M. Zingg A. (2014). The role of public trust during pandemics: implications for crisis communication. Eur. Psychol. 19, 23– 32. 10.1027/1016-9040/a000169 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Simon H. A. (1990). “ Bounded rationality” in Utility and probability. eds. Milgate M. Eatwell J. Newman P. (London: Palgrave Macmillan).
  39. Stadelmann D. Torgler B. (2014). Bounded rationality and voting decisions over 160 years: voter behavior and increasing complexity in decision-making. PLoS One 8: e84078. 10.1371/journal.pone.0084078 PMC3877213 24391888 · DOI
  40. Tomlinson E. C. Schnackenberg A. K. Dawley D. Ash S. R. (2020). Revisiting the trustworthiness–trust relationship: exploring the differential predictors of cognition‐and affect‐based trust. J. Organ. Behav. 41, 535– 550. 10.1002/job.2448 · DOI
  41. Torgler B. (2003). To evade taxes or not to evade: that is the question. J. Soc. Econ. 32, 283– 302. 10.1016/S1053-5357(03)00040-4 · DOI
  42. Uslaner E. M. (2002). The moral foundations of trust. Cambrige, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  43. Uz I. (2014). The index of cultural tightness and looseness among 68 countries. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 46, 319– 335. 10.1177/0022022114563611 · DOI
  44. van der Weerd W. Timmermans D. R. M. Beaujean D. J. M. A. Oudhoff J. van Steenbergen J. E. (2011). Monitoring the level of government trust, risk perception and intention of the general public to adopt protective measures during the influenza A (H1N1) pandemic in the Netherlands. BMC Public Health 11: 575. 10.1186/1471-2458-11-575 21771296 PMC3152536 · DOI
  45. Vaughan E. Tinker T. (2009). Effective health risk communication about pandemic influenza for vulnerable populations. Am. J. Public Health 99, S324– S332. 10.2105/AJPH.2009.162537, PMID: 19797744 PMC4504362 · DOI
  46. Wong C. M. L. Jensen O. (2020). The paradox of trust: perceived risk and public compliance during the COVID-19 pandemic in Singapore. J. Risk Res. 1– 10. 10.1080/13669877.2020.1756386 · DOI
  47. Zmerli S. (2014). “ Political trust” in Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research. ed. Michalos A. C. (Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer), 4887– 4889.

Authors
Woelfert, F. S., & Kunst, J. R.
Affiliations
  • Osnabrück University (DE)
  • University of Oslo (NO)
Corresponding author
Woelfert, Frederike S.
ORCID
Kunst, Jonas R.
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2020-12-14
Volume
11
Pages
572966-572966
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fpsyg.2020.572966
PMC
PMC7767922
OpenAlex
W3112082531
Cited by
66
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 17
FWCI
14.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Communication and COVID-19 Impact
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › COVID-19 Prevention and Impact
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Modeling and Simulation › COVID-19 epidemiological studies
Keywords
social distancing, COVID-19 pandemic, public trust in government, social trust, public health compliance, pandemic behavior

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