La confianza en los actores institucionales en 22 países. Análisis de la confianza en la política, la ciencia y los medios de comunicación en el mundo

  1. Homero Gil de Zúñiga Navajas
  2. Alberto Isaac Ardèvol Abreu
  3. Trevor Diehl
  4. María Gómez Patiño
  5. James H. Liu
Revista Latina de Comunicación Social

ISSN: 1138-5820

Year of publication: 2019

Issue: 74

Pages: 237-262

Type: Article

DOI: 10.4185/RLCS-2019-1329 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

More publications in: Revista Latina de Comunicación Social


Cited by

  • Scopus Cited by: 24 (18-09-2023)
  • Web of Science Cited by: 21 (28-08-2023)

SCImago Journal Rank

  • Year 2019
  • SJR Journal Impact: 0.423
  • Best Quartile: Q2
  • Area: Communication Quartile: Q2 Rank in area: 141/498

Índice Dialnet de Revistas

  • Year 2019
  • Journal Impact: 1.210
  • Field: COMUNICACIÓN Quartile: C1 Rank in field: 4/66


  • Social Sciences: A

Scopus CiteScore

  • Year 2019
  • CiteScore of the Journal : 1.5
  • Area: Communication Percentile: 65

Journal Citation Indicator (JCI)

  • Year 2019
  • Journal Citation Indicator (JCI): 0.77
  • Best Quartile: Q2
  • Area: COMMUNICATION Quartile: Q2 Rank in area: 80/206


Social trust has long attracted the interest of researchers across different disciplines. Most of previous studies rely on single-country data and consider only one dimension of social trust at a time (e.g., trust in science, the media or political institutions). This research extends a framework developed by the Global Trust Inventory (GTI) by discussing several dimensions of social trust, while simultaneously analyzing how trust in institutions varies across societies. Drawing on an online panel survey collected in 22 countries (N = 22,033), we examine cross-country differences in social trust—including government trust, trust in governing bodies, security, and knowledge producers. Additionally, this paper fills a gap in current literature by including a measure of trust in the media. Findings are discussed in the context of comparing emerging and developed countries based on the Human Development Index

Bibliographic References

  • Achterberg, P., de Koster, W. y van der Waal, J. (2015). A science confidence gap: Education, trust in scientific methods, and trust in scientific institutions in the United States, 2014. Public Understanding of Science, 26(6), 704-720.
  • Allum, N., Sturgis, P., Tabourazi, D. y Brunton-Smith, I. (2008). Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: a meta-analysis. Public Understanding of Science, 17(1), 35-54.
  • American Association of Public Opinion Research. (2011). Standard definitions: Final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys. Recuperado de:
  • Ardèvol-Abreu, A. y Gil de Zúñiga, H. (2016). Effects of editorial media bias perception and media trust on the use of traditional, citizen, and social media news. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 94(3), 703-724.
  • Aupers, S. (2012). ‘Trust no one’: Modernization, paranoia and conspiracy culture. European Journal of Communication 27(1): 22-34.
  • Bauer, M., Durant, J. y Evans, G. (1994). European public perceptions of science. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 6(2), 163-186.
  • Behling, O. y Law, K. S. (2000). Translating questionnaires and other research instruments: problems and solutions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
  • Bennett, S. E., Rhine, S. L., Flickinger, R. S. y Bennett, L. M. (1999). ‘Video malaise’ revisited: Public trust in the media and government. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 1999, 4(4), 8-23.
  • Boix, C. y Svolik, M. W. (2013). The foundations of limited authoritarian government: Institutions, commitment, and power-sharing in dictatorships. The Journal of Politics, 75(2), 300-316.
  • Bosnjak, M., Das, M. y Lynn, P. (2016). Methods for probability-based online and mixed-mode panels selected: recent trends and future perspectives. Social Science Computer Review, 34(1), 3-7.
  • Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In Harry C. Triandis & John W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Vol. 2. Methodology (pp. 389-444). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Callegaro, M., Baker, R. P., Bethlehem, J., Göritz, A. S., Krosnick, J. A. y Lavrakas, P. J. (Eds.) (2014). Online panel research: a data quality perspective. Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Catterberg, G. y Moreno, A. (2006). The individual bases of political trust: Trends in new and established democracies. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 18(1), 31-48
  • Citrin, J. (1974). Comment: the political relevance of trust in government. American Political Science Review, 68(3), 973-988.
  • Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social choice theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Cook, T. E. y Gronke, P. (2005). The skeptical American: Revisiting the meanings of trust in government and confidence in institutions. Journal of Politics, 67(3), 784-803.
  • Dautrich, K. y Hartley, T. H. (1999). How the news media fail American voters. Causes, consequences, and remedies. New York: Columbia University Press.
  • Directorate General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (Executive Yuan, Taiwan) (2016). Composite index and related indicators. Recuperado de
  • Druckman, J. N. (2001). On the limits of framing: Who can frame? Journal of Politics, 63, 1041-1066.
  • Durant, J. R., Evans, G. A. y Thomas, G. P. (1989). The public understanding of science. Nature, 340, 11-14.
  • Dyck, A. y Zingales, L. (2002). The Corporate Governance Role of the Media, in The Right to Tell-The Role of Mass Media in Economic Development, (pp. 101-137). Washington, DC: The World Bank Institute.
  • Easton, D. (1965). A systems analysis of political life. New York: Wiley.
  • Evans, G. A. y Durant, J. R. (1989). Understanding of science in Britain and the USA. In R. Jowell, S. Witherspoon, & L. Brook (Eds.), British Social Attitudes, 6th report (pp. 105-129). Aldershot (Hampshire): Gover.
  • Farnsworth, S. J. y Lichter, S. R. (2007). The nightly news nightmare: Television’s coverage of US presidential elections, 1988-2004. Plymouth (UK): Rowman & Littlefield.
  • Furusten, S. (2013). Institutional Theory and Organizational Change: Edward Elgar Publishing, Incorporated.
  • Gamson, W. A. (1968). Power and disconnect. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
  • George, D. y Mallery, M. (2003). Using SPSS for Windows step by step: a simple guide and reference. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
  • Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere. Cambridge: Polity Press
  • Hardin, R. (1999). Do we want trust in government? In M. E. Warren (Ed.), Democracy and trust, (pp. 22-41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Harris, V. W., Skogrand, L. y Hatch, D. (2008). Role of friendship, trust, and love in strong latino marriages. Marriage and Family Review, 44(4): 455-488.
  • Hetherington, M. J. (1998). The political relevance of political trust. American Political Science Review, 92(4), 791-808.
  • Hetherington, M. J. (1999). The effect of political trust on the presidential vote, 1968-96. American Political Science Review, 93(2), 311-326.
  • Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic, and political change in 43 societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Jackob, N. G. E. (2010). No alternatives? The relationship between perceived media dependency, use of alternative information sources, and general trust in mass media. International Journal of Communication, 4, 18, 589-606.
  • Jones, D. A. (2004). Why Americans don’t trust the media. A preliminary analysis. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 9(2), 60-75.
  • Kohring, M. y Matthes, J. (2007). Trust in news media development and validation of a multidimensional scale. Communication Research, 34(2), 231-252.
  • Levi, M. (1998). A state of trust. In V. Braithwaite & M. Levi (Eds.), Trust and governance (pp. 77-101). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
  • Liu, J., Milojev, P., Gil de Zúñiga, H. y Zhang Jiqi, R. (2018). The Global Trust Inventory as a ‘Proxy Measure’ for Social Capital: Measurement and Impact in 11 Democratic Societies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology.
  • Lorenz, E. (1999). Trust, contract and economic cooperation. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 23(3): 301-315.
  • Luhmann, N. (2000). Familiarity, confidence, trust: problems and alternatives. In D. Gambetta (Ed.), Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations (pp. 94-107). Oxford: Basil Blackwell
  • Miller, A. H. (1974).Rejoinder to ‘Comment’ by Jack Citrin: political discontent or ritualism? American Political Science Review, 68, 989-1001.
  • Miller, J. D. (1983): Scientific literacy: a conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus, 112(2), 29-48.
  • Miller, J. M. y Krosnick, J. A. (2000). News media impact on the ingredients of presidential evaluations: Politically knowledgeable citizens are guided by a trusted source. American Journal of Political Science, 44(2), 301-315.
  • Millstone, E. y van Zwanenberg, P. (2000). A crisis of trust: for science, scientists or for institutions? Nature Medicine, 6(12), 1307-1308.
  • Mohorko, A., Leeuw, E. D. y Hox, J. (2013). Internet coverage and coverage bias in Europe: Developments across countries and over time. Journal of Official Statistics, 29(4), 609-622.
  • Moy, P., McCluskey, M. R., McCoy, K. y Spratt, M. A. (2004). Political correlates of local news media use. Journal of Communication, 54(3), 532-546.
  • Pardo, R. y Calvo, F. (2002). Attitudes toward science among the European public: a methodological analysis. Public Understanding of Science, 11(2), 155-195.
  • Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
  • Putnam, R. (Ed.) (2002). Democracies in flux. The evolution of social capital in contemporary society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Schudson, M. (1978). Discovering the news. New York: Basic Books.
  • Sibley, C. G. y Liu, J. H. (2013). Relocating attitudes as components of representational profiles: Mapping the epidemiology of bicultural policy attitudes using Latent Class Analysis. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 160-174.
  • Thato, S., Hanna, K. M. y Rodcumdee, B. (2005). Translation and validation of the condom self-efficacy scale with Thai adolescents and young adults. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 37(1), 36-40.
  • Tsfati, Y. (2003). Does audience skepticism of the media matter in agenda setting? Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 47(2), 157-176.
  • Tsfati, Y. (2010). Online news exposure and trust in the mainstream media: Exploring possible associations. American Behavioral Scientist, 54(1), 22-42.
  • Tsfati, Y. y Ariely, G. (2014). Individual and Contextual Correlates of Trust in Media Across 44 Countries. Communication Research, 41(6), 760-782.
  • Tsfati, Y. y Cappella, J. N. (2003). Do people watch what they do not trust? Exploring the association between news media skepticism and exposure. Communication Research, 30(5), 504-529.
  • Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo (PNUD) (2015). Human development report. Work for human development. Recuperado de
  • Ziman, J. (1991). Public understanding of science. Science, Technology and Human Values, 16,(1), 99-105.
  • Ziman, J. (1992). Not knowing, needing to know, and wanting to know. In B. V. Lewenstein (Ed.), When science meets the public (pp. 13-20). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.