实证研究

控制异质性之后：“社会上大多数人”作为置信对象的结构效度检验——基于高校学生调查的实证分析

作者：张网成¹，任德靖²

¹北京师范大学社会学院北京

²中共宁夏区委党校（宁夏行政学院）科研处宁夏

提交：2026-03-01录用：2026-06-10出版：2026-06-30

社会工作与志愿服务 2026, 3(1), 72-91; https://doi.org/10.58244/jswv.260007

摘要：

在关于社会信任的实证研究中，“社会上大多数人”是一个常用的置信对象。然而，调查对象对“大多数人包括谁”的理解可能因年龄、教育程度、社会地位等个体异质性因素而显著不同，这使得直接使用该指标进行群体比较或跨国比较存在方法论风险。为检验这一测量工具本身的结构效度，本研究选择在相对同质的高校学生群体中进行调查，以最大程度地控制上述混杂因素的干扰。借鉴Barney & Hansen（1994）的“强式—半强式—弱式”信任三分法框架，本文通过因子分析和回归分析，考察了“社会上大多数人”与其他12个具体置信对象之间的关系。结果表明：（1）“社会上大多数人”与“自己人”（家人、亲密朋友、亲戚）的信任水平无显著相关，但与“外人”（生产商、销售商、一般熟人、网友）的信任水平存在显著正相关，说明它属于“外人”范畴；（2）“社会上大多数人”与同属“外人”的具体置信对象之间存在较高的信息重叠。由此得出两点结论：第一，“社会上大多数人”可作为单一指标用于测量与特殊信任相对的普遍信任水平，但由于不同文化和社会背景下调查对象对其理解存在差异，直接进行国际比较需谨慎；第二，在采用多元指标测量社会信任时，不宜将“社会上大多数人”与其他“外人”类具体置信对象并列纳入同一分析模型，否则会因概念重叠而产生信息冗余和方法论混淆。本研究为理解“社会上大多数人”这一指标的理论定位提供了经验证据，并对未来社会信任调查的问卷设计及数据分析提出了具体建议。

关键词：社会上大多数人；置信对象；结构效度；信任三分法；高校学生调查

Abstract:

In empirical research on social trust, “most people in society” is a commonly used trustee. However, respondents’understanding of “whom most people include”may vary significantly due to individual heterogeneity factors such as age, educational level, and social status, which poses methodological risks when using this indicator directly for group comparisons or cross-national comparisons. To examine the construct validity of this measurement tool, this study deliberately selected a relatively homogeneous sample of college students to maximize control over the confounding factors mentioned above. Drawing on the“weak trust – semi-strong trust – strong trust” trichotomy framework proposed by Barney & Hansen (1994), this paper investigates the relationships between“most people in society” and 12 other specific trustees through factor analysis and regression analysis. The results show that: (1) “Most people in society”has no significant correlation with the trust levels of “insiders” (family members, close friends, relatives), but has a significant positive correlation with the trust levels of“outsiders”(acquaintances, manufacturers, retailers, netizens), indicating that it belongs to the category of “outsiders”; (2) There is considerable information overlap between “most people in society”and other specific trustees that also belong to the“outsider”category. Two conclusions can be drawn from these findings. First, “most people in society” can be used as a single indicator to measure generalized trust as opposed to particularistic trust; however, due to cross-cultural and cross-social variations in respondents’ understanding of this category, direct international comparisons should be made with caution. Second, when using multiple indicators to measure social trust, it is inappropriate to include“most people in society” together with other“outsider” trustees in the same analytical model, as conceptual overlap would lead to information redundancy and methodological confusion. This study provides empirical evidence for understanding the theoretical positioning of the indicator“most people in society” and offers concrete suggestions for questionnaire design and data analysis in future social trust surveys. In the questionnaires on social trust level, “most people in society” is often used as a trustee. The analysis of this paper shows that, for the respondents in Chinese context, “most people in society” belongs to their“outsiders”, in opposition to their “own siders”. Therefore, “most people in society” can be used as a single trustee to measure generalized trust, which results yet can’t be compared to the international. If multivariate trustees are applied to measure social trust, this paper claims that“most people in society”is not suitable as a parallel trustee.

Keywords: Most people in society; Trustee; Construct validity; Trichotomy of trust; College student survey

正文内容 / Content：

可下载并阅读全文PDF，请按照本文版权许可使用。

Download the full text PDF for viewing and using it according to the license of this paper.

参考文献 / References：

费孝通. (2012). 乡土中国. 北京大学出版社.
弗朗西斯·福山. (2001). 信任: 社会美德与创造经济繁荣 (彭志华译). 海南出版社.
戈登·雷丁. (2009). 华人资本主义精神 (谢婉莹译). 上海人民出版社.
尼克拉斯·卢曼. (2005). 信任 (瞿铁鹏, 李强译). 上海世纪出版集团.
马克·A·缪其克 & 约翰·威尔逊. (2013). 志愿者 (魏娜译). 人民大学出版社.
乔治·西美尔. (2002). 货币哲学 (陈戎女等译). 华夏出版社.
马克斯·韦伯. (1997). 儒教与道教 (王容芬译). 商务印书馆.
胡安宁. (2014). 社会参与、信任类型与精神健康：基于CGSS2005的考察. 社会科学, (4), 64-72.
胡荣, 李静雅. (2006). 城市居民社会信任的构成及影响因素. 社会, (6), 45–61.
胡荣, 胡康. (2008). 城乡居民社会资本构成的差异. 厦门大学学报（社会科学版）, (6), 64–70.
李涛, 黄纯纯, 何兴强, 周开国. (2008). 什么影响了居民的社会信任水平. 经济研究, (1), 137–152.
李伟民, 梁玉成. (2002). 特殊信任与普遍信任：中国人信任的结构与特征. 社会学研究, (3), 11–22.
林聚任, 刘翠霞. (2005). 山东农村社会资本调查. 开放时代, (4), 119–138.
马得勇. (2008). 信任, 信任的起源和信任的变迁. 开放时代, (4), 72–86.
文建东 , 何立华. (2010). 中国“信任之谜”及其解释. 经济科学, (3), 73–83.
汪汇, 陈钊, 陆铭. (2009). 户籍、社会分割与信任：来自上海的经验. 世界经济, (10), 81–96.
王飞雪, 山岸俊男. (1999). 信任的中、日、美比较研究. 社会学研究, (2), 69–84.
王绍光, 刘欣. (2002). 信任的基础：一种理性的解释. 社会学研究, (3), 23–39.
文建东, 何立华. (2010). 中国“信任之谜”及其解释. 经济科学, (3), 73–83.
杨明, 孟天广, 方然. (2011). 变迁社会中的社会信任：存量与变化——1990-2010. 北京大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, (6), 100–109.
杨宜音. (1999). 自己人: 信任建构过程的个案研究. 社会学研究, (2), 38–52.
夏纪军. (2005). 中国的信任结构及其决定——基于一组实验的分析. 财经研究, (6), 39–51.
张网成. (2016). 大学生志愿服务及其对社会信任的作用. 青年研究, (3), 21–30.
Glaser, E. L., Laibson, D. I., Scheinkman, J. A., & Soutter, C. L. (2000). Measuring trust. Quarterly Journal of Economics, (3), 811–846.
Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203
Barney, J. B., & Hansen, M. H. (1994). Trustworthiness as a source of competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 175–190.
Newton, K. (2001). Trust, social capital, civil society and democracy. International Political Science Review, (2), 203.
Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65–78.