Simon Chapple & Kate Prickett - Victoria University of ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
trust
Who do we
in New Zealand?
2016 to 2019
Simon Chapple & Kate Prickett
trust
Who do we
in New Zealand?
2016 to 2019
Simon Chapple & Kate Prickett
CONTENTS
4 Foreword
5 Methodology
6 Summary
8 Interpersonal trust: We asked about
overall trust in people
9 Group trust: We asked about trust in groups
10 Institutional trust: We asked about levels of
trust in various formal and informal institutions
11 Did the Christchurch shootings influence trust?
12 We asked about trust between ethnic groups
13 We asked about trust in different
religious groups
14 We asked about trust and guns
16 How big are interpersonal and government trust
differences between sociodemographic groups?
18 What have we learned about trust in
New Zealand since 2016?Foreword
In 2016, 2018 and 2019, in main aim was to answer the question of whether
the event had changed trust. In this second 2019
association with Colmar Brunton,
survey we added further questions on trust in
the Institute for Governance and ethnic and religious groups, and questions on gun
Policy Studies (IGPS) surveyed ownership and trust related to guns, since very little
1000 New Zealanders to obtain information was available on these dimensions in
information on their interpersonal New Zealand and they are pertinent in the aftermath
and institutional trust. of the shootings.
This report takes an overview of all four of
When the then IGPS Director Michael Macaulay
our surveys so far – 2016, 2018 and the two 2019
made the decision to first collect the survey in
surveys.
2016, he envisaged regular data collection every
We are very grateful for the work that Colmar
two years. When the survey was run again in 2018,
Brunton has done. I also wish to acknowledge
we found unanticipated rises in trust in various
Michael Macaulay for initiating this survey. I am
dimensions of government. As Director, these
deeply grateful to my colleague Conal Smith and
changes led me to decide to run the survey at higher
my co-author Kate Prickett for their ongoing and
frequency, in part to be able to say more about the
extensive help with this publication. Finally, our
drivers of trust changes.
thanks go to all of those who participated in our
Our 2019 survey was conducted between 25
surveys.
February and 10 March. On 15 March the mosque
shootings in Christchurch occurred. Because of Dr Simon Chapple
the shootings, the IGPS made the decision to Director, Institute for Governance and Policy Studies
commission an immediate follow-up survey. The
4 – Institute for Governance and Policy StudiesMethodology
The surveys are intended to Quotas were applied at the sampling and
selection stage for this survey. Results were also
provide a representative picture
weighted to be representative of New Zealand by
of the New Zealand population. age, gender, ethnicity and region.
The questions for the survey were Not all New Zealand households have internet
designed by the IGPS and were access. 77 percent of households had internet
adapted from trust surveys run in access in the most recent 2013 Census, meaning the
various countries overseas. survey cannot be said to be truly representative of all
Data was collected by Colmar Brunton. A total of groups. Having said this, we believe that the results
1000 New Zealanders aged 18 years or over were provide a reasonably good picture of the population
interviewed online, randomly selected from Colmar and will allow us to identify trends and changes over
Brunton’s online panel. time.
In terms of the panel, Colmar Brunton has an When comparing trust data, following standard
agreement with the Fly Buys Loyalty programme practice we convert ordinal data (e.g. first, second,
to recruit their members. Fly Buys is one of the etc) into cardinal data (one, two, etc) by assuming
biggest loyalty programmes in New Zealand with equal intervals between ordinal response categories.
around 2.5 million members, about two thirds of Additionally, we use several measures to
the New Zealand population over age 18. When assess importance of differences in time and
Colmar Brunton started their panel in 2006-07, between groups. The first and most important is a
they went to programme members with an offer standardised effect size - the difference between
to join. From there on every year Colmar Brunton two mean cardinal trust values divided by the
run a recruitment campaign approaching random relevant standard deviation, the latter a measure
selection of members who are not on it to join the of spread in trust outcomes. We illustrate the
panel. The number of people approached depends scale of differences we find in our data through
on how many are needed in each of the age/gender/ the qualitative terminology of very small (0.01),
ethnicity or other demographic segments. In small (0.20), medium (0.50) and large (0.80)
addition, every new member joining the programme effect sizes.1 The second is statistical significance,
gets a welcome email which also has a link to join the which measures whether the observed difference
Colmar Brunton Panel. Further, any person can join is probably systematic, or whether it is simply
the panel through Colmar Brunton’s website. Once statistical noise. We use five percent as our cut-
they show an interest, Colmar Brunton ask them off level of significance. If we were to redraw our
to register with the programme and return with a sample, at least 95 times out of 100 we would find a
membership number to enter the panel. substantively similar finding.
The size of impacts on trust: Terminology used
Qualitative term: “Very small” “Small” “Medium” “Large”
Quantitative 0.01 of a trust 0.20 of a trust 0.50 of a trust 0.80 of a trust
definition standard deviation standard deviation standard deviation standard deviation
1 The qualitative lexicon also includes very large – 1.2 and huge – 2.0, but we
do not find any such effects in our data. See Shlomo Sawilowsky. 2009. New
effect size rules of thumb. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods,
8(2), 597-599.
Who do we trust in New Zealand? 2016 to 2019 – Simon Chapple & Kate Prickett – 5SUMMARY
Interpersonal trust Which institutions
in New Zealand are most trusted?
is modestly on In 2019 New Zealanders trust their
the rise neighbours most, equal with their
Between 2018 and 2019 the trust trust in government to do right for
that New Zealanders express in New Zealand. Trust in government
others rose by a very small to small -related institutions has risen between
amount. Compared to other countries, 2016 and 2019. New Zealanders are
New Zealand’s interpersonal trust is at least trusting of the way political
the higher end of the OECD. parties are funded.
Which groups are Did the Christchurch
most trusted? shootings influence trust?
New Zealanders trust Police and There is no evidence of any systematic
Medical practitioners the most, and influence of the Christchurch
Bloggers the least. There has been a shootings on trust. If the goal of the
rise in trust in Government ministers shootings was to lower trust in New
and Members of Parliament between Zealand, it has failed.
2016 and 2018. High trust groups are
gaining in trust. The picture is more
mixed for low trust groups. Does trust in ethnic
groups differ?
Out-group trust for all ethnic groups is
the same. However, New Zealand
Europeans and Māori have higher
in-group trust.
6 – Institute for Governance and Policy StudiesDoes trust in
religious groups differ?
The most trusted religious group in
New Zealand is Buddhists. The least
trusted is Evangelical Christians. In the
middle, trust in Muslims, Jews, Hindus
How big are
and Protestants and Catholics is very
differences between
similar.
sociodemographic
groups?
Trust and guns In most cases, sociodemographic
Between one in six and one in seven differences in trust are small or non-
households have a gun. Gun owners existent. Together, they only explain a
are only moderately different in their modest amount of variation in trust.
sociodemographic profile from other There is no male trust advantage. Age
New Zealanders – more likely to be seems to matter more. The ethnic
New Zealand European and have lower picture is mixed and shows no
levels of education – but trust systematic picture of advantage for the
government less. majority group over minorities. Income,
region, and education play a small to
medium sized role.
Who do we trust in New Zealand? 2016 to 2019 – Simon Chapple & Kate Prickett – 7Interpersonal trust: We asked about overall
trust in people
We asked: On a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 is not at all
and 10 is completely, in general how much do you
trust most people?
The average value on the 11-point scale was 6.1 in these two numbers differ. In both cases however,
2018, when this data was first collected, and is 6.3 interpersonal trust is considerably higher than the
in 2019. The 0.2-point trust rise between 2018 and OECD-wide population-weighted average of 5.7,
2019 is statistically significant. However, the effect published in their 2017 How’s Life? publication.2 The
size is between very small and small. GSS measure ranked New Zealand 7th and the IGPS
For 2019, our measure gave a somewhat measure 12th out of the 27 OECD countries where
lower level of interpersonal trust than Statistics data is available. Internationally, our interpersonal
New Zealand’s General Social Survey (GSS) value trust levels are on the higher side, but also at some
of 6.8 for 2018/9. More work is intended on why distance from the highest in the OECD.
Interpersonal trust has risen modestly between 2018 and 2019
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Do not trust people at all Completely trust people
2018 2019 Note: Represents percent of annual sample in each category.
2 See OECD. 2017. How’s Life? 2017, OECD, Paris.
8 – Institute for Governance and Policy StudiesGroup trust: We asked about
trust in groups
We asked: How much trust do you have in the following groups
to do the right thing?
trust in our first 2016 survey, including for Medical
Respondents were given a five-point scale –
No trust, Little trust, Some trust, Lots of trust, practitioners, Police and Schools. The changes
Complete trust – and asked about trust in 14 have, however, been modest, with small effect sizes.
institutions: Medical practitioners, Police, Members Patterns of changes through time are more mixed
of Parliament (MPs), Judges/courts, Corporations/ for those institutions with lower than average trust.
large businesses, TV/Print media, Schools and There are downwards trust trends observed – more
colleges, Government ministers, Universities, modest however even than the small upwards
Charities, Local government, Bloggers/online trends for high trust institutions – for Churches
commentators, Churches, and Small businesses. and Bloggers. Other lower trust institutions have
The ordinal scale is converted to a cardinal stable trust – like Corporations and the Media. The
measure, with a maximum value of five. government-associated institutions – Government
Medical practitioners and the Police are ministers and MPs – show something of a saw tooth,
consistently the most trusted groups in our society. with small to medium effect sizes for trust rises
On the other hand, our consistently least trusted between 2016 and 2018 following the election in 2017,
group is Bloggers. Trust has typically increased for and a modest dropping off in 2019.
those groups which had the highest initial levels of
Trust increased for higher trust groups
5
Complete trust
4
3
2
No trust at all
1
ical Poli
ce ool
s
sitie
s
Sma es
ll tice
/
ritie
s
rch
es tion
s al
Loc nt Med
ia MPs men
t
ger
s/
Med ners Sch ver s Jus urts Cha Chu ora e ern ers Blogtators
t i o Uni n e s co Cor
p n m Gov minist
pra
cti busi gover men
Com
2016 2018 2019 Note: Mean score on a 1-5 scale, ranked high to low in 2016.
Who do we trust in New Zealand? 2016 to 2019 – Simon Chapple & Kate Prickett – 9Institutional trust: We asked about levels of
trust in various formal
and informal institutions
We asked nine questions, on a four-point scale (Very little/none,
Not much, A reasonable amount, A great deal) on trust in
various formal and informal institutions.
In 2016, New Zealanders placed the greatest trust as to successfully deal with international problems,
in their neighbours to make informed choices have both also risen significantly with the effect size
about their local area. This trust has fallen by a for both lying between small and medium. Increases
statistically significant amount, although the effect in trust for government-like institutions to a large
size is between small and very small. Trust in the extent mirror rises in trust over the same period for
government to do what is right for New Zealand has MPs and Government Ministers and are presumably
risen between 2016 and 2018 and 2019 to a level the consequence of the election and change in
equal to trust in neighbours. The effect is medium government in late 2017.
sized and is statistically significant. Trust in the Compared to other institutions, trust is lowest in
government to deal with national problems has the way political parties are funded, by an effect size
significantly risen too. Here, however, the effect between medium to large. Trust in funding of political
size is small. Trust in government to consider New parties has significantly risen over the period, but the
Zealand citizens’ interest fairly and equally, as well effect size is very small to small.
Trust in government rose
4
A great deal of trust
3
2
Very little or no trust
1
s to s to P to ent eal l to eal zen
s
itca
l
b ourmed N Zerrmed a l M right e rnmlocal e nt dtiona m entr NZ e nt dional citifairly polding
h
ig o es r w o es o c o v
o l s m a s er fn o m
n at s Z i
N ed ally st fun n
Neke inf hoic Felloke inf hoic L d al g deaoblem overnter-noblemGov right ver n em er u Tru
ma
c
ma
c Loc pr G h in pr d o Go withprobl n sid nd eq
wi t c o a
2016 2018 2019 Note: Mean score on a 1-4 scale, ranked high to low in 2016.
10 – Institute for Governance and Policy StudiesDid the
Christchurch shootings influence trust?
Our first 2019 survey was collected
between 25 February to 10 March.
The Christchurch shootings occurred on 15 March.
statistically significant, one positive shift (for MPs)
and the other a negative shift (for Bloggers).
Despite the scale and shock of the event,
We decided to run the survey again to ascertain any the clear conclusion is that trust was rock-like in
changes in trust. It was run between 12 and 18 April, response to the shootings. If the goal of the shootings
approximately one month following the shootings. was to lower trust and sow suspicion in New
The data show no change in interpersonal trust Zealand, there is no evidence that it has succeeded.
following the shootings, in terms of either size or Conversely, in the sense of greater trust following
significance. Interpersonal trust was 6.3 before and the shootings, the data provide no evidence for any
after the shootings. Effect sizes for change in group national “coming together” either.
trust measures are all below small, and only two are
The Christchurch shootings did not affect group trust
5
Complete trust
4
3
2
No trust at all
1
to s/
ne al
ts
e
ls
s
s
s
s
en l
ns
te t
ia
Ps
m ca
is en
tie
se
ie
he
lic
ta er
oo
io ic
ur
ed
tio
M
rs
t
rs
rit
Lo
m rnm
rs
tit ed
Po
i
es
en gg
rc
co
rs
h
M
ha
ra
Sc
hu
ve
ac M
in
m Blo
e/
po
e
C
us
rn
ic
C
in
ni
ov
or
st
ve
U
lb
G
C
Ju
go
al
pr
om
Sm
C
Pre-ChCh Post-ChCh Note: Mean score on a 1-5 scale, ranked high to low in Pre-ChCh survey.
Who do we trust in New Zealand? 2016 to 2019 – Simon Chapple & Kate Prickett – 11We asked about
trust between ethnic groups
In the post-Christchurch shootings survey,
we asked: How much trust do you have in
the following people, or groups of people living
considered. No ethnic group experiences a different
degree of out-group trust or distrust from any other.
There is evidence of higher in- than out-group trust
in New Zealand? The question was asked, on the for both New Zealand Europeans and Māori. They
same five-point scale used for institutional trust, with trusted themselves significantly more than others
reference to four groups: New Zealand Europeans, trusted them. In size, the in-group advantage is
Māori, Asians and Pacific peoples. Because we could small to medium for New Zealand Europeans, and
allocate respondents into these categories, we could medium to large for Māori. That there is no in-
distinguish between in- and out-group trust. Out- group advantage in trust for either Pacific people or
group trust is defined as trust by non-New Zealand Asians may reflect ethnic heterogeneity within the
Europeans in New Zealand Europeans, non-Māori in category. For example, for Pacific peoples the actual
Māori and so on. In-group trust is defined as trust by reference in-group may be Samoans, Tongans or
New Zealand Europeans in New Zealand Europeans, Cook Islanders, not Pacific peoples, and for the
Māori in Māori and so on. Asian group, it may be Koreans, Filipinos or Chinese.
The most striking result is that out-group
trust is very similar across all four ethnic groups
Out-group ethnic trust no different across ethnic groups
Out-group Trust
8.6 10.6 49.0 23.2 8.6 Pacific peoples
New Zealand
15.6 5.8 45.7 27.1 5.8
Europeans
17.7 5.2 50.5 21.7 4.9 Asians
14.7 5.8 51.7 23.0 4.9 Māori
In-group trust
New Zealand
4.3 52.4 36.6 6.1 Europeans
7.2 41.4 32.2 18.1 Māori
3.0 12.3 45.8 34.3 4.8 Asians
14.7 3.7 52.4 24.5 4.8 Pacific peoples
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
No trust at all Little trust Some trust Lots of trust Complete trust
Note: Percent in each trust scale category, ranked by ethnic group size.
12 – Institute for Governance and Policy StudiesWe asked about
trust in different religious groups
In the post-Christchurch shootings survey, for
the first time we asked: How much trust
do you have in the following people, or groups
is no evidence of either local anti-Semitism or
Islamophobia in the post-shootings’ responses,
in the form of any unusual trust deficit displayed
of people living in New Zealand? The question towards Jews or Muslims.
was asked with reference to Catholics, Protestants, For the very small religious groups in New
Evangelical Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Zealand, like Jews and Muslims, our measure is a
Atheists or agnostics, and Jews and using the five- very good proxy for out-group trust, since there are
point scale. so few in the minority group. For the larger groups,
Near identical in terms of trust are the two like Protestants and Catholics, our measure does
largest religious groupings in New Zealand – not detect out-group trust well, as it is likely to
Protestants and Catholics. In a very similar space contain a substantial number of in-group members.
are Atheists and agnostics, Hindus, Jews and If there is an in-group religious bias in trust, out-
Muslims. Evangelical Christians are especially group trust of Protestants and Catholics will be
distrusted, and Buddhists particularly trusted. lower than that observed here and lowered relative
The trust difference between these top and to out-group trust of very small groups like Jews and
bottom religious groups is of medium size. There Muslims.
Buddhists most trustworthy, Evangelicals least
Buddhists 4.3 11.0 49.7 28.1 6.9
Jews 5.5 11.8 53.0 23.8 6.0
Hindus 6.0 13.9 51.7 22.5 5.8
Atheists/
agnostics 7.3 16.5 45.7 24.3 6.1
Protestants 9.8 14.2 47.2 23.2 5.5
Muslims 6.3 16.5 49.9 22.2 5.1
Catholics 7.7 18.5 48.2 21.2 4.5
Evangelicals 13.7 23.8 42.1 15.5 4.8
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
No trust at all Little trust Some trust Lots of trust Complete Trust
Note: Percent in each trust scale category, ranked by high-low mean trust score.
Who do we trust in New Zealand? 2016 to 2019 – Simon Chapple & Kate Prickett – 13We asked about
trust and guns
In the post-Christchurch shootings survey,
we asked if people had a gun, either
personally or in their household, and about trust
percent). There is no difference in the proportion in
those who did and did not own guns who consider
themselves Centre left, Centre, or Right.
in gun-owners and in the pro-gun lobby. We There are no differences in interpersonal trust
found that a not-insignificant minority of New between gun owners and those who do not own
Zealanders live in a home with a gun. Fifteen guns. Gun owners, however, have lower levels of
percent of respondents say they either own a gun trust in the government to do the right thing. The
(hereafter “gun owners”), evenly split between effect is between small and medium in size.
those who personally own a gun (7.7 percent) or Speculatively, taken in their entirety, these
live in a household with someone who owned a results may indicate the greater rurality of gun
gun (7.5 percent). Gun owners report moderately ownership in New Zealand and the frequent rural
lower levels of education (38 percent completed use of guns as a farm tool or as a recreational
secondary school or less, versus 29 percent of non- hunting device.
gun owners), are somewhat more likely to own their We use a multivariate framework that adjusts
home (79 percent versus 68 percent), are more for sociodemographic differences between gun
likely to be New Zealand European (84 percent owners and non-gun owners. The derived results,
versus 74 percent) and are more likely to be New shown in the charts below, demonstrate that both
Zealand born (84 percent versus 75 percent). They gun owners and those identifying on the political
are also less likely to live in Auckland (15 percent right have generally higher levels of trust in both
versus 34 percent) or Wellington (6 percent versus gun owners and in the pro-gun lobby . The positive
12 percent), but more likely to live places outside trust gap of gun owners over non-gun owners in
those cities in the North Island (50 percent versus both gun-related trust measures grows markedly
29 percent). as we move from left to right across the political
Gun owners are less likely to identify as being spectrum. People to the right who own guns are
at the Left of the political spectrum (8 percent more divided on gun-trust from those who don’t
versus 16 percent). They are more likely to consider than are those to their left.
themselves Centre right (32 percent versus 23
14 – Institute for Governance and Policy StudiesGun owners to the political right more trusting of gun owners
5
Complete Trust
4
3
2
No trust at all
1
Left Centre left Centre Centre right Right
No gun in the household Gun in the household
Note: Mean score on a 1-5 scale by political identification.
Low trust in the pro-gun lobby, but higher trust on the political right
5
Complete Trust
4
3
2
No trust at all
1
Left Centre left Centre Centre right Right
No gun in the household Gun in the household
Note: Mean score on a 1-5 scale by political identification.
Who do we trust in New Zealand? 2016 to 2019 – Simon Chapple & Kate Prickett – 15How big are interpersonal and government
trust differences between
sociodemographic groups?
Pooling the two 2019 data
sets, we looked
at the relationship of membership of various
as both Māori and another ethnic group are
statistically identical in trust to New Zealand
Europeans. Other minority ethnic groups are
sociodemographic groups and two representative also indistinguishable from the majority. Trust in
trust measures – interpersonal trust and trust in government does not vary across most ethnic
government to do what is right for New Zealand. groups, with significantly higher trust found for
Since the various sociodemographic dimensions the Indian and Other groups compared to New
can be related – for example, Māori are more Zealand Europeans.
likely to be young – we undertook this exercise in
Education: Post-graduates have higher
a multi-variate context. So, for example, a multi-
interpersonal trust levels than others, but the
variate approach means that we can examine
effect, while statistically significant, is between
the association between being (say) Māori
very small and small. There are no differences in
and interpersonal trust after stripping out the
government trust by educational level.
independent impact of being younger. To visually
illustrate some of the larger differences, predicted Income: People in higher income households
interpersonal trust for selected variables are shown have significantly higher interpersonal and
in the chart. The main conclusions from considering government trust. The effect is small to
the sociodemographics in terms of the two trust medium, and lower for government trust than
measures are as follows: for interpersonal trust.
Gender: Men and women have very similar Political leaning: Compared to being on the
interpersonal trust. While men are significantly Left, being on the Centre left, Centre, Centre
less trusting of government to do what is right right and Right end of the political spectrum
than women, the difference is between very has a small to medium sized positive impact
small and small. on interpersonal trust. Patterns for trust
in government are lower on the right than
Age: The relationship between age and the left, and larger in size, suggesting these
interpersonal trust falls somewhat until people
patterns may be sensitive to the ideology of the
are in their early forties, and thereafter rises
government in power.
strongly in a “U” shape. In terms of size, some of
these effects are large. A “U” shape in age is also Region: Living in Wellington and Canterbury has
found for government trust, but age differences a small positive effect on interpersonal trust
are less pronounced in size. compared to Auckland. Regional patterns are
similar for government trust.
Ethnicity: Those who identify only as Māori
have lower interpersonal trust than New Birthplace: Those born in New Zealand and
Zealand Europeans. The effect is of small to those born overseas have the same trust levels,
medium size. In contrast, those who identify for both measures.
16 – Institute for Governance and Policy StudiesOur multivariate modelling accounts for 11 sociodemographic measures, there is a much larger
percent of variation between people in interpersonal amount of social variation in trust for which we
trust and 14 percent of variation in government cannot account.
trust. Hence, even using all our observed
Socio-demographic differences in interpersonal trust
Gender
Female
Male
Age
18-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75+
Education
Secondary school or less
Diploma
Undergraduate degree
Post-graduate degree
Income
Top
Bottom
Home
Ownership Owns home
Renter
Ethnicity
NZ European only
Māori only
Māori and other ethnic group
Pacific people
Asian
Indian
Other
Nativity
New Zealand born
Foreign born
Region
Auckland
Wellington
Canterbury
Rest of North Island
Rest of South Island
Political
Ideology Left
Centre left
Centre
Centre right
Right
0 2 4 6 8 10
Note: Predicted trust score on 0-10 scale based on multivariate regression models.
Who do we trust in New Zealand? 2016 to 2019 – Simon Chapple & Kate Prickett – 17What have we learned about
Trust in New Zealand
since 2016?
In his report on the first
2016 survey, then director
Michael Macaulay speculated
government question internationally because of the
lack of readily comparable data.
There are no male advantages in interpersonal
trust or government trust. Equally, there appears
that New Zealand is not a high to be no shortfall in either interpersonal trust
trust country, at least in terms of and government trust for most minority ethnic
political trust. He also suggested groups, except for interpersonal trust for those
that New Zealand might be a who ethnically identify only as Maori. The effect
here is between small and medium in size. Equally,
country divided over public trust: systematic trust differences across income groups,
“Relatively well-off white men are while they exist, are small to medium in size for
more trusting of government than both interpersonal and government trust. A further
those with lower incomes, the shift in our knowledge is that there appears to be a
Māori and Pasifika communities, larger trust division in our society between young,
middle-aged and old. But this conclusion needs
and also women”. The patterns in
further independent confirmation. We also now
the data accumulated since then know that there are some significant interpersonal
suggest a more complex and less trust differences across some regions, but again,
deterministic picture than these differences are small.
first tentative suggestions. In addition to further informing our
The trust survey gives lower levels of overall understanding of sociodemographic differences,
interpersonal trust than the official Statistics New our data suggests that who is in political power
Zealand General Social Survey. The two surveys matters. A change in government in 2017 coincides
use different sampling frames and collection with a small to medium-sized rise in trust in various
windows. Different forms of non-response bias may dimensions of government between 2016 and 2019.
be a further factor in the lower level of measured There is an additional suggestion that this effect
interpersonal trust in our survey. Nevertheless, may wear off over the duration of a government, but
in both surveys, New Zealand interpersonal trust this hypothesis, while tantalising, requires stronger
levels are above the 27 country OECD average. Our evidence.
updated conclusion is that New Zealand is a higher- We also find that, following the Christchurch
end trust country for interpersonal trust. However, shootings, New Zealand is not a society where
we are not at the top of the OECD on this trust distrust in minority non-Christian groups is relatively
measure. We cannot directly compare our trust in high. Indeed, the least trusted religious group in
8 – –Institute
18 Institutefor
forGovernance
Governanceand
andPolicy
PolicyStudies
StudiesNew Zealand is a Christian group – Evangelicals – harbour more extreme views towards these groups
and the most trusted group – Buddhists – is not than those who report similarly low trust towards
Christian. There is little evidence in New Zealand other groups. These more extreme views may,
society of either high anti-Semitism or Islamophobia in turn, result in more instances of prejudiced
in terms of any unusually low trust in Jewish or or violent behaviours towards religious or ethnic
Muslim minority groups. Also, New Zealand does minorities. It is also possible that, after the
not appear to be a society where out-group trust outpouring of support for the Muslim community
varies systematically by ethnic group – all ethnic and national discussion about the place of hate
groupings trust each other equally, around the level and racism in our society following the shootings,
of trust in Charities or Protestants. some respondents who might have harboured less
Despite findings which indicate New Zealanders’ trust for ethnic and religious minorities have either
trust in religious and ethnic groups do not appear changed their views or become more reluctant to
particularly unusual or different, we should report those feelings.
emphasise this finding does not show that hate Lastly, the large-scale event of the Christchurch
based on religion and ethnicity does not exist. It shootings, aimed at reducing trust, polarising the
clearly does. Additionally, it is possible those who community and creating religious division, has not
report low trust in religious and ethnic minorities succeeded in its intended goal.
Who do we trust in New Zealand? 2016 to 2019 – Simon Chapple & Kate Prickett – 19A public trust survey
undertaken for the
Institute for Governance
and Policy Studies by
Colmar Brunton
For further information
please contact
Simon Chapple
Director, IGPS
School of Government
Victoria University of Wellington
Phone (04) 463 5307
simon.chapple@vuw.ac.nz
Colmar Brunton,
Level 9, Legal House,
101 Lambton Quay, Wellington
PO Box 3622, Wellington 6140
Phone (04) 913 3000
www.colmarbrunton.co.nz
20 – Institute for Governance and Policy StudiesYou can also read
