Political Trust by Individuals of low Socioeconomic Status: The Key Role of Anomie

被引:5
|
作者
Bornand, Thierry [1 ,2 ]
Klein, Olivier [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Libre Bruxelles, Fac Sci Psychol & Educ, Brussels, Belgium
[2] Inst Wallon Evaluat Prospect & Stat, Namur, Belgium
关键词
political trust; socioeconomic status; anomie; representative survey; SEM; CRISIS;
D O I
10.32872/spb.6897
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
The socioeconomic status (SES) of individuals is related to their political trust. The higher their status, the more they trust the political system. This well-known relation is generally explained in terms of socialisation. The higher the SES, the more people are exposed to democratic values or interact with trustworthy institutions. This increases political interest, which increases political trust. In this study, we propose a complementary explanation: lower SES enhances the perception that the social fabric is breaking down (anomie), and this reduces political trust. We test this hypothesis by using structural equation modeling (SEM) on a representative survey (n = 1203) conducted in the Wallonia region of Belgium. That region appeared suited to explore our hypothesis because of its long-term economic difficulties. The results reveal that those of low SES have less political trust because they perceive more anomie in society. These results are consistent even when the alternative explanation is taken into account (the socialisation hypothesis). Moreover, the results also showed that a higher level of anomie reduced interpersonal trust which reduced political trust (serial mediation). These results highlight the key role of anomie when considering the relation of SES with political trust.
引用
收藏
页数:22
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Reducing Medication Problems among Minority Individuals with Low Socioeconomic Status through Pharmacist Home Visits
    Liang, Ya-hui
    Wang, Kai-Hsun
    Huang, Hung-Meng
    Shia, Ben-Chang
    Chan, Shang-Yih
    Ho, Chieh-Wen
    Liu, Chih-Kuang
    Chen, Mingchih
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH, 2022, 19 (07)
  • [42] Socioeconomic Status and Psychological Well-Being: Revisiting the Role of Subjective Socioeconomic Status
    Navarro-Carrillo, Gines
    Alonso-Ferres, Maria
    Moya, Miguel
    Valor-Segura, Inmaculada
    FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY, 2020, 11
  • [43] The Effect of Inequality on the Relation Between Socioeconomic Stratification and Political Trust in Europe
    Silke Goubin
    Marc Hooghe
    Social Justice Research, 2020, 33 : 219 - 247
  • [44] The Effect of Inequality on the Relation Between Socioeconomic Stratification and Political Trust in Europe
    Goubin, Silke
    Hooghe, Marc
    SOCIAL JUSTICE RESEARCH, 2020, 33 (02) : 219 - 247
  • [45] Seeking help from Dark Triad individuals: The role of socioeconomic status and trait self-control
    Tasaki, Yuri
    Nakashima, Ken'ichiro
    Morinaga, Yasuko
    Ura, Mitsuhiro
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY, 2016, 51 : 1098 - 1099
  • [46] Socioeconomic Status and COVID-19-Related Psychological Panic in China: The Role of Trust in Government and Authoritarian Personality
    Xie, Xiaona
    Wu, Tingting
    Zhang, Yue
    Guo, Yongyu
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH, 2021, 18 (20)
  • [47] The social context of trust: The role of status
    Lount, Robert B., Jr.
    Pettit, Nathan C.
    ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND HUMAN DECISION PROCESSES, 2012, 117 (01) : 15 - 23
  • [48] Future Orientation and Political Participation: The Moderating Role of Political Trust
    Knudsen, Mikkel Stein
    Christensen, Henrik Serup
    FRONTIERS IN POLITICAL SCIENCE, 2021, 3
  • [49] Does Political Trust Matter? Examining Some of the Implications of Low Levels of Political Trust in Australia
    Martin, Aaron
    AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, 2010, 45 (04) : 705 - 712
  • [50] Examining the Role of Socioeconomic Status, Formal and Informal Education on Political Interest Levels among University Students
    Shala, Arif
    Grajcevci, Albulene
    POLITICS & POLICY, 2018, 46 (06) : 1050 - 1070