Download Factors Relating to Misanthropy in and more Exams History in PDF only on Docsity! Factors Relating to Misanthropy in Contemporary American Society Tom W. Smith National Opinion Research Center University of Chicago June, 1996 GSS Topical Report No. 29 This research was done for the General Social directed by James A. Davis and Tom W. Smith. supported by the National Science Foundation, 9122462. Survey project The project is Grant No. SES- Trends in Misanthropy The social capital school argues that social capital in general and inter-personal trust. in particular has been declining. As Putnam (1995a) has written, "Americans are also less trusting. the proportion of Americans saying that most people can be trusted fell by more than a third between 1960, when 59 percent chose that alternative, and 1993, when only 37 percent did." But trends in misanthropy in general and trust in particular are difficult to reliably ascertain. 3 First, responses are very sensitive to both wording and context. Regarding question wording, a 1983 GSS experiment found that 57% thought that "most people can be trusted" (Table 2A), but only 36.5% believed that "most people can be trusted" vs "you can't be too careful in dealing with people" (Table 3). Also, a non-experimental comparison of the variant wording used in 1960 and 1978 (Table 2B) suggests that it gathers 4-8 percentage points more trust than the standard GSS .. wording (Tables 3 and 4). In addition, No Opinion levels on the three measures on the self-administered Monitoring the Future (MTF) surveys .of high school seniors are much higher than for the same items on the interviewer administered GSS (23-35% in the former vs. 3-7% in the latter,· see Tables 4 and 5). While these differences could result from the different populations being sampled, it is likely that the much higher non-response on MTF results from the fact that "Don't Know, undecided" is a pre-coded, middle option on MTF, but that "Depends" and "Don't Know" are unread responses on the GSS. 4 Regarding question order, both the trust and helpful items have experienced large context effects of respectively 7.7 and 9.4 percentage points (Table 3) (Smith, 1983; 1990; 1991a). These items are probably especially prone to context effects because they call for global assessments of people in general based presumably on one's entire life experience. Making judgments based on such massive, cognitive retrievals are difficult and open to variability. Sampling of ones own memories on such broad topics tend to be biased rather than complete or random. Questionnaire context is one factor that biases the cognitive processing and in turn influences the summary judgments (Smith, 1991a; 1991b) . The Trust1 series (See Table 5, Adujusted) is preceded by an item on whether ones life is exciting and a ranking of five work values in all years and then by an item on getting ahead in life and two sexual morality questions in 1976-1994. The Trust2 series 3We discuss both trends in the individual components of the scale as well of the scale itself because a) there is considerable data that relates to the individual items rather than the scale and b) there are differences in trends across the components. 4Looking at people 18-24 on the GSS doesn't indicate that Don't Know responses are higher among young adults. Thus age is not likely to be a major factor in explaining the differences. 3 is preceded by three or four crime attitude items and then in 1978 to 1994 by items on political ideology, equalizing wealth, divorce laws, and legalizing marijuana. The focusing on crime and victimization may account for the lower trust expressed in the latter context. The Helpful1 series is preceded by three items on personal finances and a measure of subjective social class. Three anomia items come next in 1973 and 1976 and two batteries on the use of violence in 1980-1994. In 1976 the hit items come immediately before the anomia items. The Helpful2 series is preceded by media use items: viewing TV and reading newspaper in 1975 and 1986 to 1994 and radio listening, viewing TV, and reading the newspaper in 1978 and 1983. From 1978 to 1994 these are preceded by items of smoking, drinking, and socializing. The anomia and violence items in the former series may be causing the lower ratings of helpfulness in that context. Because of these context effects on the GSS the times series are reported separately for each context (Table 5, Adjusted). In sum, the sensitivity of the misanthropy items to variations in wordings and context means that comparisons across different wordings (as Putnam. did) 5 are unwise and that even inter-survey comparisons of identical wordings are suspect because of possible context effects. In part undoubtedly due to these measurement factors, trends in misanthropy are complex and somewhat contradictory. Looking at the individual components first, we see considerable variation, but no clear trend, in trust for the oldest series from 1948 to 1983 (Table 6). The series from the mid-1960s on (NORC 1960-78; non-NORC 1964-1995; and GSS 1973-94 and 1975-94) do point to a decline in trust of about 0.3 to 0.4 percentage points per annum, but when the non-NORC series are broken down into sub-series by program (NES, QOL, Gallup, and PSRA) the pattern is much less consistent. Next, for being helpful there are either constant fits (GSS 1973-94) or non-directional change (GSS 1975-94 and non-NORC 1964-95) for the main, adult times series with only the student MTF series showing a decline. Finally, for being fair the series agree that a decline is occurring, but differ a great deal on its magnitude from -0.16 percentage points per annum on the 1972-94 GSS to -0.66 percentage points on the 1975-1992 MTF. Thus, with the· exception of the reasonably consist MTF student series (Easterlin and Crimmins, 1991), the trends for the individual misanthropy items are complex and only partly consistent. Looking at the composite scale on the GSS shows a modest increase in misanthropy. It is significantly related to year, but 5Putnam compared the 1960 point in Table 2b with the 1993 GSS point in Table 4a. 6Despite the context effects on two of the three items on the GSS, it is possible to combine them together into a relatively unbiased, across-time measure. First, the trust and helpful context 4 the correlation is only 0.033 and the mean rose from a low of 5.6 in 1978 to a high of 6.1 in 1994 (Table 7) . Furthermore, close inspection of the data indicates the even this modest trend became established only since 1991. 7 Thus, at most one can talk about only a modest and fairly recent decline in misanthropy. 8 Predictors of Misanthropy Based on a review of the literature on misanthropy and related concepts, we formulated a number of hypotheses about the factors that influence misanthropy. First, we expect that misanthropy will decrease with socio economic status (Bahr and Martin, 1983; Brehm and Rahn, 1995; DeMaris and Yang, 1994 Grabb, 1980; Huang and Anderson, 1991; Robinson, Shaver, and Wrightsman, 1991; Smith, 1985). The better off people are materially and the higher their social standing, the more likely they will view the world and other people in a favorable light. Specifically, misanthropy should decline as household income and respondent's education increase. Second, misanthropy should decrease with upward social mobility. Improvements in social standing, both inter- and intra generationally, should reduce negative evaluations. Third, misanthropy should increase as negative life events or traumas occur (Brehm and Rahn, 1995; House and Wolf, 1978; Norris and Kaniasty, 1991; Smith, 1976). Negative experiences, especially those caused by other people, should lead to unfavorable evaluations of people. Specifically, pessimism should increase with experiences of a) criminal victimization (having been robbed or burglarized in the last year) , b) inter-personal violence (having been hit or shot at) , c) illness and hospitalization, d) unemployment, and e) deaths in the family. Fourth, misanthropy should increase with disruptive family situations especially those involving divorce (Brehm and Rahn, 1995; Southworth and Schwarz, 1987; Yoder and Nichols, 1980). It should be higher among those who a) were children of divorced parents, b) have been divorced themselves, c) are currently divorced or separated, and d) have never been married. While it is possible to see divorce as just another miscellaneous negative life effects are largely off-setting with trust high in surveys (and years) that helpful is low and vise versa. Second, because of this, there is no statistically significant context effect for the scale (means in 1988-94 are 5.91 for context1 and 6.01 for context2; prob.=.056). 7That is, the correlation for 1972-1991 is only . 010 and prob.=.191. Only with the addition of the 1993 data point does the relationship become statistically significant. 8See also Yamagishi's (1995) analysis of the joint trends of trust and helpfulness. 5 Furthermore, these relationships were explored by using a more extensive measure of traumas available in 1991 that measured the occurrence of 64 negative life events during the last year (Smith, 1992). In various variations of the basic regression equation number of negative life events was a significant predictor of misanthropy. The coefficient was typically between . 09 and .10 which placed it about seventh among all predictors.· However, adding negative life events to the model only marginally altered the other relationships. The fairly modest impact of negative life events may reflect the fact that we are measuring such occurrences only over the last 12 months. The cumulative impact of such experiences over a lifetime maybe much greater. Also, while many of the negative life events were linked to the actions of others (e ~g. marital discord, mistreatment by an employer, criminal victimization) and therefore might be seen as evidence for pessimism towards people in general, other events were probably unrelated to the actions of others (e.g. illnesses and personal substance abuse) and in many cases people may have received positive assistance from others (e.g. friends, families, doctors, police officers, etc.) Fourth, having come from a broken home, having been divorced oneself, or not being married are related to negative judgments. Fifth, those living in a large· central city are more misanthropic. Sixth, in general minorities have more pessimistic outlooks than do majority groups. Elaborating on the groups used in Table 8, · ethno-racial differences were examined for more than 40 groups. This showed that misanthropy was lowest among early European immigrant groups (British) and Scandinavians and higher for· more recent European immigrant groups and non-European groups (Africans, Asians, Amerindians, and Hispanics). To simplify the pattern and come up with enough observations for reasonably stable estimates seven groups were distinguished in the final analysis (1-early immigrants from Scandinavia and Great Britain, 2-middle immigrants from France, French Canada, Belgium, Ireland, Germany, Austria, Holland, 3-late immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe, Jewish, and miscellaneous, 4-Hispanics from Spanish-speaking countries, 5-Amerindians, 6-Asians, and 7-Blacks (Table 9). This breakdown shows that the difference between Blacks and Whites is especially pronounced. Blacks are much more misanthropic than Whites: 51.2% of Whites and 80.9% of Blacks consider people untrustworthy (+ 25.4 percentage points), 31.5% of Whites and 60.6% of Blacks judge people as unfair (+25.0), and 40.9% of Whites and 62.7% of Blacks think people are unhelpful (+21.8%). These single item differences convert into a mean difference of +1.58 on the misanthropy scale (5.65 for Whites vs. 7.23 for Blacks). The racial difference is probably a joint reflection of the position of Blacks as a social and numerical minority. Two of the misanthropy items are framed in terms of whether the majority of people are trustworthy or fair. In America of course the majority of people are White. So from a strictly demographic point of view the questions essentially ask Blacks whether most Whites are trustworthy or fair. For the trust dimension we know how Blacks 8 explicitly evaluate the trustworthiness of Whites. In the 1982 GSS Blacks were asked "Do you feel you can trust most white people, some white people, or no white people?" Only 7. 3% thought most Whites could be trusted, 81.4% that some Whites could be trusted, and 11.3% that no Whites could be trusted. This is even more negative than the judgment about people in general since in 1980-83 17.5% of Blacks thought most people could be trusted, 4.7% said it depends, and 77. 8% thought most people were untrustworthy. 12 The connection between race and trust is also shown by the fact that Blacks have more trust in local governments where a Black is the mayor than they do in governments with White mayors (Bobo and Gilliam, 1990; Howell and Fagan, 1988). Thus, the lower ratings of people by Blacks is consistent with and probably largely a reflection of how Blacks view Whites . 13 Among Blacks those who are the most isolated (i.e. having less contact with non-Blacks) are the most negative. As expected, among non-Blacks there is no association between inter-racial contacts &n.d evaluations of human nature (Pearson's r =-.001/NS). Second, the relationship between immigration status and misanth;r:opy is complex. Negative perspectives decline from immigrants (6.15) to the third generation (5.4) (native born of native born parents), but then rise again for those in the 4+ generation (grandparents + ·native born) (6. 0). As a result, the overall relationship is weakly positive (r=.036/.000) with higher immigrant generation associating with more misanthropy, opposite the hypothesis. This is probably due to the concentrations of Blacks and Southerners in the latter category. Finally, the lower misanthropic level among Jews is also counter to our hypothesis: Some earlier research (Schoenfeld, 1978) reported that Jews were more misanthropic than non-Jews and hypothesized that this was due to the negative impact of the Holocaust on the world view of Jews. However, the 1972-1994 GSSs ·find that Jews have the least negative view of people of adherents of major religions (Jews=5.45; Catholics=5.73; Protestants~5.88; No Religion=6. 09; and Other Religion=6 .11) . We searched for the proposed Holocaust connection by looking at misanthropy by immigrant status, birth cohort, and period. We assumed that a Holocaust effect would be greater among Jews in greater proximity to the Holocaust: the foreign-born vs. those born ih America, those who were adults in the 1940s vs. those in later cohorts, and those interviewed in the 1970s vs. those in later surveys. 12This negative assessment on inter-racial trust is also shared by the general population. In response to the question "Do you think most blacks trust whites, or do you think most blacks don't trust whites?" 17% said Trust, 67% Don't Trust, and 17% Don't Know and Other (New York Times poll, 2/1994, n=1193). 130n Black mistrust of Whites in general see Biafora, Taylor, Warheit, Zimmerman, and Vega, 1993; Jeanquart-Barone, 1993; and Kuran, 1993; Taylor, Biafora, and Warheit 1994. 9 First, we found that foreign-born Jews (most of whom would have come from Europe) were somewhat more misanthropic than American-born Jews (5.44 vs. 5.26), but the difference was not statistically significant and foreign-born Jews were not more pessimistic than immigrants of other faiths (Protestants=5.46; No Religion=6.12; Other=6.24; Catholics=6.38). Second, Jews born in earlier cohorts were generally less misanthropic than Jews from more recent cohorts and this was similar to the pattern shown by the other faiths. Finally, Jews did show · a slight decrease in pessimism (Pearson's r with year=-.076), but the trend was not statistically significant. However, since non-Jews had a even more modest but statistically significant increase in misanthropy (r=+.035), the relative negativism of Jews decreased over time. In 1972-1978 Jews were marginally more pessimistic than non-Jews (5.99 - 5.60=+0.39; prob.=;88), while by 1989-1994 they were less misanthropic (5.41 - 5.97=-0.56; prob.=.02). Overall, there is limited support for the idea that the Holocaust increased misanthropy among Jews. Misanthropy is marginally higher among immigrants than the native born and at least compared to non-Jews it has declined as time from the Hol6caust has increased.~ However, Jews born in cohorts closer to the Holocaust are not more misanthropic than Jews from more recent cohorts, nor are Jews more misanthropic than non-Jews. Seventh, having no religion is weakly (but significantly) related to more misanthropy as is attending church less frequently. However, being a member of a Fundamentalist denomination is associated with more negative views. Eighth, misanthropy-declines with age. Ninth, men are slightly more misanthropic than women. Tenth, misanthropy is higher in the South than in other _regions. Eleventh, geographic mobility is associated with lower misanthropy . 15 Finally, non-membership in voluntary associations, personal and marital unhappiness, and excessive drtnking are related to 140f course the relative gain in trust among Jews in recent years may not be tied to distance from the Holocaust. Perhaps the Jewish edge in education increased or possibly optimism about Israel improved. We do know that anti-Semitism in the United States declined during the post-World War period (Smith, 1994) . 15However, three other measures of geographic mobility asked in single years showed a mixed pattern. In the 1987 GSS having recently changed residences was associated with more misanthropy. In the 1986 and 1987 GSSs two measures of how long one had lived in the local community were not significantly related to misanthropy. 10 greater the misanthropy. Third, it is greater among those with recent or on-going, non economic problems - victims of crime and violence and those in poor health. Fourth, it is higher among those who do not attend church and among Fundamentalists. These effects are counter to each other since Fundamentalists tend to be more frequent church attenders than non-Fundamentalists. Church attendance probably diminishes misanthropy both because attendees tend to be people with faith (in God, their church, and, perhaps by extension, their fellow citizens) and because of the positive inter-personal ties that congregations further. Fundamentalists however are taught a theology that both stresses the sinful nature of people and tends to divide people into the few devout and the many fallen away. Finally, misanthropy is greater among younger adults/members of more recent cohorts. The relationship between age/cohort and misanthropy may help to explain the trends over time. At least over the last two decades the evidence points to some decline. The MTF series start to tip downwards in the early to mid-1980s and the GSS scale shows a modest, cumulative decline after the 1993/94 points are added to the 1972-1991 time series. Other series also mostly point in a negative direction, but the pattern and magnitude of the change is complicated and not very clear. If the MTF youths are undergoing an Mannheimian socialization process and if some substantial part of the current age differential among adults represents a cohort effect, then misanthropy should grow in the near-term future due to cohort replacement. Davis' work (1995) suggests that this is at least partially the case with cohort replacement accounting for just over 40% of the total change in trust from the 1970s to the 1990s. It is also instructive what does not explain misanthropy. _First, urbanness has no direct impact on negativism and the one distinctly misanthropic region, the South, is not highly urbanized. Thus, the notion that closely-knit, small-town communities engender faith in people is not supported. Second, having gone through a divorce as a child or as a spouse does not increase misanthropy. Whatever the long-term impacts of divorce maybe, misanthropy does not appear to be one of them. This is particularly noteworthy since it- had been hypothesized that the "intimate betrayal" of parental or spousal divorce was would have a strong impact on faith in people. Third, never having been married does not lead to more pessimism. Thus, while isolation has an impact in other circumstances (e.g. minority status), being without a spouse does not exert a similar effect . 19 Fourth, geographic mobility has no 19In 1986, 1987, and 1988 different measures friends (or similar) were included on the GSS. misanthropy was lower when people had more friends, 1987 variable based on a listing of people with discussed important personal matters recently was related when added to Model3 in- Table 10. 13 of number of In general, but only the whom one had significantly clear relationship. Its impact may pull in opposite directions as the competing hypotheses had suggested. Fifth, gender is unrelated. Finally, while some traumas (e.g. victimization) are associated with more misanthropy, others .(e.g. deaths, unemployments, and hospitalizations) are not. Combined with the null divorce findings, this indicates that some, but not all, negative ·life events influence misanthropy. 14 Table 1 Attitudinal Associates of Misanthropy (Pearson's r) A. Anomia Lot of average man (ANOMIA5) Unfair to bring child into the world (ANOMIA6) Public officials not interested in average man (ANOMIA?) B. World View World Evil (WORLD1) Human nature perverse (WORLD4) C. Confidence in Institutions Banks and Financial Institutions (CONFINAN) Major Companies (CONBUS) Organized Religion (CONCLERG) Education (CONEDUC) Executive Branch of the Federal Government (CONFED) Organized Labor (CONLABOR) The Press (CONPRESS) Medicine (CONMEDIC) TV (CONTV) U.S. Supreme Court (CONJUDGE) Scientific Community (CONSCI) Congress (CONLEGIS) Military (CONARMY) Source: GSS, 1972-1994 -.28q -.260 -.261 .273 .105 .164 .098 .067 .142 -.042 .041 .091 -.024 .147 .176 .081 .014 aAll correlations are statistically significant at least at the .. 01 level except with confidence in the military which is not significant at the .05 level. Anomia: Now I'm going to read you several more statements. Some people agree with a statement, others disagree. As I read each one, tell me whether you more or less agree with it, or more or less disagree. A. In spite of what some people say, the lot (situation/condition) if the average man is getting worse, not better. (ANOMIA5) B. It's hardly fair to bring a child into the world with the way things look for the future. (ANOMIA6) C. Most public officials (people in public office) are not really 15 Table 3 Non-NORC Trends in Misanthropy Year Trust Not Trust DK/Other N 1964 53.4 44.7 1.9 . 1446 1966 52.9 45.6 1.5 1284 1968 55.2 43.2 1.6 1343 1971 48.5 50.0 1.5 2164 1972 45.8 52.4 1.8 2179 1974 46.6 52.1 1.3 2486 1976 51.3 45.9 2.8 2400 1978 47.9 51.9 0.2 3630 1979 43 56 2 1635 1981 43 54 3 2325 1981 47 50 3 1729 1983 40 55 5 1207 1990 49 49 3 1839 1991 34 63 3 600 1992 44.7 54.5 0.8 2244 1995 35 63 2 1514 Year Helpful Not Helpful DK/Other N 1964 54.3 41.3 4.4 1445 1966 51.9 45.7 2.4 1285 1968 58.2 45.7· 3.2 1344 1971 54.8 41.7 3.5 2164 1972 46.9 50.7 4.2 2174 .1974 50.7 46.5 2.8 2450 1976 51.9 43.8 4.3 2394 1978 57.9 41.5 0.6 3605 1979 41 56 2 1635 1983 49 45 6 1207 1991 43 48 9 600 1992 58.7 39.2 2.1 2229 1994 37 58 6 600 1995 49 48 3 1514 18 Year 1964 1968 1971 1972 1974 1976 1977 1978 1979 1983 1995 Fair 67.3 66.8 65.9 58.9 57.6 59.9 58 67.0 56 56 50 Table 3 Not Fair 28.6 30.1 31.5 36.8 39.5 35.5 35 32.0 41 36 48 (continued) DK/Other N 4.2 1443 3.1 1342 2.6 2164 4.3 2179 2.8 2473 4.6 2390 7 1447 1.0 3604 3 1207 ·8 1207 2 1514 Source: NES/SRC - 1964, 1966, 1972, 1974, 1976, 1992 QOL/SRC - 1971, 1978 Gallup - 1981, 1981, 1990, 1994 Audits and Surveys - 1983 Princeton Survey Research Associates - 1991, 1995 Wordings: Trust: Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted or that you can't be too careful in dealing with people? Helpful: Would you say that most of the time people try to be helpful, or that they are mostly just looking out for themselves? "Generally speaking" precedes question in 1979. "Just" omitted in· 1991. Fair: Do you think most people would try to take advantage of you if they got a/the chance, or would they try to be fair? 19 Table 4 GSS Trends in Misanthropy A. Unadjusted Year Trust Not Trust DK/Other N 1972 46.3 50.0 3.8 1598 1973 46.8 50.4 2.8 1499 1975 39.7 56.1 4.2 1479 1976 44.0 52.6 3.4 1494 1978 39.9 55.7 4.4 1528 1980 44.3 51.9 3.7 1463 1983 36.5 59.2 4.3 801 1984 48.9 48.7 2.4 1462 1986 37.7 59.5 2.7 1466 1987 43.6 52.8 3.6 1460 1988 39.5 56.1 4.4 990 1989 41.1 55.5 3.3 1018 1990 38.4 57.4 4.2 892 1991 38.9 56.0 5.1 1019 1993 35.3 60.6 4.1 1061 1994 34.4 61.3 4.3 1976 Year Helpful Not Helpful DK/Other N 1972 45.9 47.9 6.2 1586 1973 46.7 49.6 3.7 1496 1975 56.7 36.9 6.3 1477 1976 42.0 51.9 6.1 1493 1978 59.4 35.5 5.1 1523 1980 48.8 46.8 4.5 1459 1983 57.4 38.5 4.1 1586 1984 52.2 44.1 3.7 1466 1986 56.3 38.4 5.2 1458 1987 47.6 47.8 4.6 1456 1988 49.6 46.1 4.3 987 1989 50.9 44.2 4.9 1014 1990 51.6 43.0 5.5 884 1991 49.3 44.5 6.2 1012 1993 52.2 41.9 5.6 1052 1994 46.9 46.6 6.4 1977 20 Table 5 Trends in Misanthropy among High School Seniors A. Trust 1975 34.5 39.8 25.7 3013 1976 31.5 37.8 30.7 2953 1977 32.7 38.9 28.4 3117 1978 31.3 40.6 28.2 3683 1979 31.2 42.6 26.3 3285 1980 31.0 41.6 27.3 3219 1981 32.0 40.2 27.8 3534 1982 28.3 44.1 27.6 3584 1983 27.7 43.7 28.6 3344 1984 27.5 46.6 25.9 3223 1985 28.6 45.5 25.9 3222 1986 25.1 46.8 28.1 3088 . 1987 24.4 49.6 26.0 3309 1988 23.3 50.6 26.1 3316 1989 20.3 55.5 24.2 2785 1990 19.7 54.2 26.1 2583 1991 20.2 55.0 24.9 2544 1992 18.3 58.9 22.8 2657 B. Helpful Year Helpful Looks Out Don't Know N for Self 1975 32.5 37.5 30.0 3008 1976 31.7 37.3 31.0 3010 1977 33.9 34.7 31.4 3177 1978 33.0 36.0 31.0 3754' 1979 31.6 39.1 29.3 3345 1980 32.9 35.9 31.2 3285 1981 33.2 36.6 30.1 3591 1982 32.4 38.0 29.7 3651 1983 34.0 34.9 31.1 3414 1984 34.0 35.0 31.1 3274 1985 34.4 36.1 29.6 3275 1986 29.8 37.4 32.8 3155 1987 30.0 38.5 31.5 3340 1988 28.2 40.2 31.6 3363 1989 27.0 40.6 32.4 2858 1990 25.6 40.4 34.0 2616 1991 26.7 41.9 31.4 2563 1992 24.5 42.2 33.3 2674 23 Table 5 (continued) c. Fair Year Fair Take Advantage Don't N Know 1975 28.2 39.1 32. 7' 3011 1976 27.9 38.1 34.0 3004 1977 30.4 35.2 34.4 3170 1978 30.1 36.7 33.1 3755 1979 28.8 39.0 32.2 3343 1980 27.8 38.7 33.5 3276 1981 29.2 36.5 34.3 3588 1982 26.7 39.7 33.6 3651 1983 26.6 37.9 35.5 3409 1984 26.3 40.9 32.8 3278 1985 27.6 39.6 32.8 3277' 1986 27.0 40.5 32.6 3150 1987 25.0 41.3 33.7 3338 1988 22.1 44.4 33.5 3360 1989 20.5 45.8 33.6 2842 1990 19.8 45.8 34.4 2612 1991 20.3 46.1 33.6 2557 1992 17.5 52.0 30.5 2672 Source: Monitoring the Future Wording: Trust: Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted or that you can't be too careful in dealing with people? Helpful: Would you $ay that most of the time people try to be helpful or that they are mostly just looking out for themselves? Fair: Do you think most people would try to take advan'tage of you if they got a chance or would they try to be fair? "Don't know, undecided" is a precode, middle option for all.three items. 24 Table 6 Models of Trendsa Time Model Per Annum rz A. TRUST 1948-83 NCNL (+.0007) .03 1960-78 SLT -. 0041 ;1..0 1964-95 SLC -.0041 .59 1964-92(NES) SLC -.0031 .54 1971-78{QOL) c (-.0009) 1.0 ·1981- 90 (Gal.) SLC +.0048 .57 1991-95(PSRA) c (+.0025) 1.0 1972-94(GSS) SLC -.0039 .40 1973-94(GSS) SLC -.0028 .33 1975-94(GSS) SLC -.0041 .89 1975-92(MTF) SLC -.0092 .93 B. HELPFUL 1964-95 NCNL (-.0013) .19 1964-92(NES) SLC +.0019 .11 1971-78(QOL) SLT +. 00.44 1.0 1991-95(PSRA) SLT +.0015 1.0 1973-94(GSS) NCNL (-.0002) .00 1975-94(GSS) c (-.0023) .45 1975-92(MTF) SLC -.0046 .60 c. FAIR 1964-95 SLC -.0052 .66 1964-76(NES) SLC -.0082 .78 1971-78(QOL) c (+.0016) 1.0 1972-94(GSS) SLC -.0019 .21 1975-92(MTF) SLC -.0066 .79 Sources: Data from Tables 2-6 aTo categorize each trends a series of models are fitted to the data points. First, the constant model is tried that assumes that all data points are random variations around a stable level. An estimate of the pooled or average level is made and a test is made 25 Table 8 Bivariate Correlates of Misanthropy A. Socio-Economic Status r/prob. Fit' Most Misanthropic Category Household income -.191/.000 LC Less than $10,000 ( 19823) (REALINC) Education (EDUC) -.233/.000 LC LT High Schoolb (20871) B. Social Mobility Inter-generational' -.060/.000 L Downwardly Mobile (19906) Recent Financial .114/.000 L Got Worse (20766) Changes (FINALTER) c. Life Events Robbed/Burglarizecf .100/.000 L 2 Victimizations ( 9927) Hit/Threatened' .137/.000 LC 2 Occurrences ( 15737) Hospitalized/Dis- abled (HOSDIS5)1 .058/.000 L 2 Occurrences ( 13307) Health (HEALTH) .144/.000 LC Poor Health ( 13720) No job (UNEMPS)' .144/.000 L 2 Occurrences (13383) Family Deaths (DEATHS)h -.056/.000 LC None (13370) Traumas in Last Year .088/.000 L 4 Occurrences (12892) (TRAUMA1) Traumas Last 5 Years .082/.000 LC 4 Occurrences (12892) (TRAUMAS) D. Family Status/Divorce Marital Status; .110/.000 s Separated (20912) Parents Divorced -.102/.000 L Parents Djvorced (20903) Ever Divorced; .079/.000 L Been Divorced (20913) Recent Divorce (DIVORCE5)1 .059/.000 LC 2 Divorces ( 13208) -E. Conmunity Typem -.090/.000 LC Big Cen. Cities (20913) F. Minorities Race (RACE)" -.225/.000 L Black (20913) Jewish (RELIG)' .025/.000 L Non-Jewish (20862) Contacts (Blacks Only) Same Neighborhood .067/.014 L Segregated 1633) (RACLIVE) Same Church .081/.003 L Segregated 1483) (RACCHURH) Dinner Guest .082/.029 L No Non-Black 869) (RACHOME) Guests Segregated' .128/.000 L No Non-Black 749) Contact Inmigrant Status' .028/.000 LC Inmigrants (13974) G. Religion Has Religion .032/.000 L None (20862) (RELIG)' Attends Church -.101/.000 LC Never (20756) (ATTEND) Theology (FUND) -.139/.000 LC Fundamentalist (20315) 28 Table 8 (continued) Most Misanthropic r/prob. Fit Category H. Age CAGE) -.130/.000 LC Younger Adults (20855) I. Gender (SEX) -.031/.000 L Men (20913) J. Geographic Location Region (REGION) .125/.000 s South (20913) Mobility CMOBILE16) -.069/.000 LC Same City (20624) K. Work Situation Supervision' -.093/.000 L Bottom ( 6979) L. Other Group membership -.182/.000 LC No Meni>erships (14889) CMEMNUM) Drinking' -.026/.000 LC Drinks to Excess (13362) General Happiness .182/.000 LC Not too Happy (20765) (HAPPY) Marital Happiness .095/.000 LC Not .too Happy (12618) CHAPMAR)' 'One way analysis of variance. L=l inear - a .statistically significant difference between groups and no statistically significant deviation from linearity. Note that all dichotomies that statistically differ are necessarily linear. LC=linear component - a statistically significant linear component and a statistically significant deviation from linearity. S=a statistically significant difference between groups, but a nominal variable for which the linearity test is not appropriate. bEDUC was used for the Pearson's r and DEGREE for the breakdown. 'Respondent's occupational prestige minus father's occupational prestige. dRobbed CROBBRY) and/or burglarized (BURGLR) in the last year. 'Hit (HIT) or shot at/threatened with a gun (GUN) as an adult. 1Times hospftalized/disabled during last five years. 'Times unemployed during last five years. bRecoded into O, 1, 2+ deaths of relatives during last five years. ;For the Pearson's r marital status (MARITAL)·was receded married vs. never married . . ;Coded as family intact=1, not intact, but not divorced=2; and'not intact because of divorce=3 (FAMILY16 and FAMDIF16) 'Either currently or ever divorced (MARITAL and DIVORCE) 1Recoded no divorce in last five years, one divorce, two divorces. mcombination of SRCBELT and XNORCSIZ 1=exurbia, 2=small town, suburbs, etc., 3=central cities, 4=top 12 central cities. 'Recede Black vs. not Black 'Receded Jewish vs. not Jewish. 'Scale of RACLIVE, RACCHURH, and RACEHOME ranging from 0 contacts to 3 contacts. 'Scale of immigrant generation (BORN, PARBORN, and GRANBORN) ranging from 0 (first generation - born outside country) to 3 (all four grandparents born in country) 'Receded has region vs. no religion. 'Supervision over others - supervision by others. 2=supervises those who supervise others and no one supervises respondent to -2=supervises no one is supervised by someone who is supervised by someone else (WKSUP WKSUPS WKSUB WKSUBS) Uoesn't drink=1, drinks, but not to excess=2, sometimes drinks to excess=3 (DRINK and DRUNK) ~ords in capitals are GSS mnemonics (Davis and Smith, 1994). 29 Table 9 Ethno-Racial Differences in Misanthropy A. Ethno-Racial Groups Blacks Late Inmigrants Hispanics Amerindians Middle Inmigrants Asians Beta .308 .142 .125 .086 .069 .035 .078 (21243) Prob. .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 Early Inmigrants=from Scandinavia and Great Britain (omitted category) Middle Inmigrants=France, French Canada, Belgium, Ireland, Germany, Austria, Holland Late Inmigrants=from Eastern and Southern Europe, Jewish, Misc. Hispanics=from Spanish-speaking country on ETHNIC Amerindians=American Indian on ETHNIC Asians=from Asian country on ETHNIC Blacks=Black on RACE B. Race (Black/Non-Black) Beta· Prob. Race .237 .000 .056 (21243) Race=Non-Black=O vs. Black=1 on RACE 30 Table 11 (continued) B. Blacks Variables Model1 Model2 Model3 Household Income -.063/.013 -.048/.280 -.044/.375 Education -.143/.000 -.168/.000 -.148/.003 Inter-generational Mobility -.000/.985 -.003/.948 -.012/.785 Recent Financial Changes .069/.003 .000/.996 -.019/.651 Marital Status .061/.028 .068/.185 -.088/.109 Parents Divorced .005/.822 -.078/.043 -.062/.134 Ever Divorced .006/.814 .043/.323 .007/.889 Conmuni ty Type -.019/.430 -.003/.948 -.037/.426 Has Religion -.063/.013 .047/.301 .045/.359 Attends Church -.059/.020 -.068/.113 -.043/.352 Theology -.023/.386 -.004/.938 .013/.794 Age -.116/.000 -.125/.015 -.130/.030 Gender -.030/.187 -.012/.755 -.005/.915 Region .012/.649 .015/.756 -.008/.870 Mobility -.008/.740 -.029/.477 -.029/.499 Robber/Burglarized .056/.183 Hit/Threatened .086/.058 Hospitalized/Disabled .056/.226 Health Status .003/.955 Unemployment .010/.830 Family Deaths .023/.602 Segregated .103/.014 .105/.018 r2 .052 .053 .055 N 1,999 667 588 33 References Bahr, Howard M. and Mart in, Thomas K. , " 'And Thy Neighbor as Thyself': Self-Esteem and Faith in People as Correlates of Religiosity and Family Solidarity among Middletown High School Students," Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 22 (1983) 1 132-144. Barber, Bernard, The Logic and Limits of Trust. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1983. Biafora, Frank A.; Taylor, Dorthy L.; Warheit, George J.; Zimmerman, RickS.; and Vega, William A., "Cultural Mistrust and Racial .Awareness Among Ethically Diverse Black ~dolescent Boys," Journal of Black Psychology, 19 (August, 1993), 266- 281. Bobo, Lawrence and Gilliam, Franklin D. , Jr., "Race, Sociopolitical Participation, and Black Empowerment," American Political Science Review, 84 (June, 1990), 377-393. Brehm, John and Rahn, Wendy, "An Audit of the Deficit in Social Capital," Unpublished report, July, 1995. Calhoun, Lawrence G. and Cann, Arnie, "Differences in Assumptions about a Just World: Ethnicity and Point of View," Journal of Social Psychology, 134 (1994), 765-770. Campbell, Bruce A., "The Interaction of Race and Socioeconomic Status in the Development of Political Attitudes," Social Science Quarterly, 60 (1980), 651-658. Davis, James A., "Patterns of Attitudes Change in the USA: 1972- 1994," Paper presented to the Conference on "A Decade of Change in Social Attitudes," London, November, 1995. Davis, James A. and Smith, Tom W., General Social Surveys, 1972- 1994: Cumulative Codebook. Chicago: NORC, 1994. DeMaris, A. and Yang, R., "Race, Alienation, and Interpersonal Mistrust," Sociological Spectrum, 14 (1994), 327-349 Easterlin, Richard A. and Crimmins, Eillen M., "Private Materialism, Personal Self-fulfillment, Family Life, and Public Interest: The Nature, Effects, and Causes of Recent Changes in the Values of American Youth, " Public Opinion Quarterly, 55 (Winter, 1991), 499-533. Ellison, Christopher G., "An Eye for an Eye: A note of the Southern Subculture of Violence Thesis," Social Forces, 69 (June, 1991) 1 1223-1239. 34 Sigelman, Lee and Welch, Susan, "The Contact Hypothesis Revisited: Black-White Interaction and Positive Racial Attitudes," Social Forces, 71 (March, 1993), 781-795. Schoenfeld, Eugen, "Image of Man: The Effect of Religion on Trust, " Review of Religious Research, 20 (Fall, 1978), 61-67. Smith, A. Wade, "Social Class and Racial Cleavages on Major Social Indicators, " in Research in Race and Ethnic Relations, 4 (1985) 1 33-65 .. Smith, David Lewis, "The Aftermath of . Victimization: Fear and Suspicion," in Victims and Society, edited by Emilio C. Viano. Washington, DC: Visage Press, 1976. Smith, Tom W., Anti-Semitism in Contemporary America. New York: American Jewish Committee, 1994. Smith, Tom W., "Can We Have Confidence in Confidence? Revisited," in The Measurement of Subjective Phenomena, Denis D. Johnston (ed.), Washington, DC: GPO, 1981. Smith, Tom W., "Context Effects in the General Social Survey," in Measurement Errors in Surveys, edited by Paul E. Biemer, et al. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1991a Smith, Tom W., "An Experimental Comparison of Clustered and Scattered Scale Items," Social Psychology Quarterly, 46 (June, 1983) 1 163-168. Smith, Tom W., "Is There Real Opinion Change?" International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 6 (1994), 187-203. Smith, Tom W., "A Life Events Approach to Developing an Index of Societal Well-Being," Social Science Review, 21 (1992), 353- 379. Smith, Tom W., "Thoughts on the Nature of Context Effects," in Context Effects in Social and Psychological Research, edited by Norbert Schwarz and Seymour Sudman. New York: Springer Verlag, 1991b. Smith, Tom W., "Timely Artifacts: A Review of Measurement Variation in the 1972-1989 GSS," GSS Methodological Report No. 56. Chicago: NORC, 1990. Southworth, Suzanne and Schwarz, J. Conrad, "Post-Divorce Contact, Relationship with Father, and Heterosexual Trust in Female College Students, " American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57 (1987) 1 371-382 • Stengel, Richard, "Bowling Together: Civic Engagement in America 37 Isn't Disappearing But Reinventing Itself," Time, July 22, 1996, p. 35-36. Taylor, Dorothy L. ; Biafora, Frank A. ; and Warhei t, George J. , "Racial Mistrust and Disposition to Deviance among African American, Haitian, and Other Caribbean Island Adolescent Boys," Law and Human Behavior, 18 (June, 1994), 291-303. Terrell, Francis and Barrett, Ronald K., "Interpersonal Trust among College Students as a Function of Race, Sex, and Socioeconomic Class," Perceptual and Motor Skills, 48 (June, 1979), 1194. Thomas, Melvin E. and Hughes, Michael, "The Continuing Significance of Race: A Study of Race, Class, and Quality of Life in America: 1972-1985," American Sociological Review, 51 (December, 1986), 830-841. Uslaner, Eric M., The Decline of Comitv in Congress. ·Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1993. Uslaner, Eric M., "Faith, Hope, and Charity: Social Capital, Trust, and Collective Action," Paper presented to the American Political Science Association, Chicago, September, 1995. Wilson, Thomas C., "Urbanism, Misanthropy, and Subcultural Processes," Social Science Journal, 22 (July, 1985), 90-101. Wright, Robert, "The Evolution of Despair," Time, August 28, 1995, 50-57. Yamagishi, Toshio, "Have Americans Really Become Distrustful?" Paper presented to the American Sociological Association, Washington, DC, August, 1995. Yamagishi, Toshio and Yamagishi, Midori, "Trust and Commitment in the United States and Japan," Motivation and Emotio'n, 18 (1994) f 129-166. Yoder, Jan D. and Nichols, Robert C., "A· Life Perspective Comparison of Married and Divorced Persons, " Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42 (May, 1980), 413-419. 38