4.0 Article

Generalized Trust Rather than Perception of Relational Mobility Correlates with Nominating Close Friends in a Social Network1

Journal

JAPANESE PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH
Volume -, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jpr.12451

Keywords

trust; social network; relational mobility; friendship

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The social environment has an impact on individuals' psychology and social networks. Generalized trust is associated with an individual's social ties, while perception of relational mobility has no significant association with trust or social network measures.
A social environment, such as relational mobility, which represents the availability of opportunities to develop new relationships in society, cultivates an individual's psychology and social network. Generalized trust, which represents trust among people in general, is a tendency to expand individuals' social ties in a fluid society. Using the data of 170 students, we analyzed whether an individual's belief of generalized trust and perception of relational mobility are related to the social network. We conducted a survey to assess psychological measures and social networks under the COVID-19 pandemic for first-year university students. The analyses revealed that generalized trust was significantly associated with the presence of outdegrees (i.e., the nomination of close friends) and the absence of indegrees (i.e., being nominated by others). In contrast, perception of relational mobility was not significantly associated with generalized trust and any social network measures. Behavioral trust, measured using a Trust Game approximately 6 months later, was not significantly associated with network characteristics. The results support the argument that the belief of generalized trust functions as a psychological mechanism to expand individuals' relationships in their social networks.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available