Background Generalized trust is a central component of social cohesion and development, yet its determinants remain diverse and contested. While much of the literature examines trust as a driver of growth, this study explores the structural, institutional, and behavioral conditions that enable trust to emerge. Methods This study examines three domains of generalized trust—trust in most people (TMP), trust in people met for the first time (TFT), and trust in neighbors (TN)—using an integrative framework that combines macro- and micro-level variables from the World Values Survey (2018–2022). The analysis covers 97,200 respondents across a diverse set of countries. Applying probit and ordered probit models, we incorporate structural factors such as national wealth, inequality, and institutional stability, alongside individual characteristics related to income, education, religiosity, and tolerance. Results Findings show that higher GDP per capita, national educational development, and personal income consistently increase trust across all domains. Conversely, income inequality and urbanization tend to erode trust. Tolerance emerges as a consistently positive predictor. A nuanced “religiosity paradox” is observed: higher religious importance shifts trust toward closer social circles (TN) while reducing openness to strangers (TFT). Furthermore, while national educational development fosters trust, individual schooling often fosters more cautious attitudes. Conclusions Trust is a multicausal construct shaped by the intersection of economic security, institutional legitimacy, and inclusive social norms. Strengthening generalized trust requires public policies that foster inclusive growth, equitable education, and civic values of openness and tolerance. These results offer one of the most comprehensive cross-national examinations of generalized trust to date, highlighting the importance of extending trust beyond familiar networks.
Ruiz-Ogarrioa et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: