Abascal Maria, Baldassarri Delia
AJS. 2015 Nov;121(3):722-82. doi: 10.1086/683144.
According to recent research, ethnoracial diversity negatively affects trust and social capital. This article challenges the current conception and measurement of "diversity" and invites scholars to rethink "so-cial capital" in complex societies. It reproduces the analysis of Putnam and shows that the association between diversity and self-reported trust is a compositional artifact attributable to residential sorting: non-whites report lower trust and are overrepresented in heterogeneous communities. The association between diversity and trust is better explained by differences between communities and their residents in terms of race/ethnicity, residential stability, and economic conditions; these classic indicators of inequality, not diversity, strongly and consistently predict self-reported trust. Diversity indexes also obscure the distinction between in-group and out-group contact. For whites, heterogeneity means more out-group neighbors; for nonwhites, heterogeneity means more in-group neighbors. Therefore, separate analyses were conducted by ethnoracial groups. Only for whites does living among out-group members--not in diverse communities per se--negatively predict trust.
根据最近的研究,种族多样性对信任和社会资本有负面影响。本文对当前“多样性”的概念和衡量方法提出了挑战,并邀请学者们在复杂社会中重新思考“社会资本”。它重现了普特南的分析,并表明多样性与自我报告的信任之间的关联是一种由居住隔离导致的构成性假象:非白人报告的信任度较低,且在异质社区中占比过高。社区及其居民在种族/民族、居住稳定性和经济状况方面的差异,能更好地解释多样性与信任之间的关联;这些不平等的经典指标,而非多样性,能强有力且持续地预测自我报告的信任度。多样性指数也模糊了内群体和外群体接触之间的区别。对于白人来说,异质性意味着有更多外群体邻居;对于非白人来说,异质性意味着有更多内群体邻居。因此,按种族群体进行了单独分析。只有对于白人来说,生活在外群体成员中间——而不是生活在本身就多样化的社区——才会对信任产生负面预测作用。